Elle (2016)

Elle

Finally was able to watch the final of the Oscar buzz films that I needed to see prior to the ceremony. Just in time too. While the film was dropped from the Best Foreign Film category after gaining traction, Isabelle Huppert can very well walk away with an Oscar for her performance in this film. Its a strong, outstanding performance from her for sure.I thought the film was mostly good and a return to a bit of form for Paul Verhoeven. Despite this, I still the think the film could have been better.

I am going to start with the negatives since they aren't many. The film is quite long and not always focused. The main plot is about a video game company executive named Michele who gets raped in her home. She tries to go about her life as if nothing happened but then finds herself drawn to the rape and the future instances, which really blurs the line between rape, consent, and submission to sexual desire. The film doesn't always stay focused on what it is at heart. Its honestly hard to pinpoint what the film is really about since there's a few points of focus. I felt the film doesn't have many likeable characters. And why would it? Its littered with characters who fall into a theme of philandering. I think the film introduces ideas of religion and the psychopathic nature of Elle's father; all of which was unnecessary.

The film is long and clouded by things that didn't exactly meaningfully add to the story. I wasn't really sure what the film was going to be about. That said, there's definitely a strong erotic basis for the film which is Verhoeven at his best. The film flirts with the idea of cheating, rape, and consent throughout. Its a pervasive film but its exactly what you would expect from the filmmaker. People will find this film to be disturbing and at times quite vulgar but it remains alluring and pretty hypnotic. As I stated earlier its a return to form for Verhoeven because he plays to his strengths by tackling a sexually charged film once again.

I know Isabelle Huppert isn't exactly a household name but she should be after this film. Its a magnetic performance. Michele is a bitch at times but very assertive and strong. She explores her sexual desires and boundaries and can handle her life in a very stone faced manner. She has a very complicated past and even mentions she may be a psychopath. Michele is a complex character: honest and at times scathing but its a wonderful portrayal. The film isn't perfect but I think film lovers need to check it out and form their own opinion on this.

7/10

Collateral Beauty (2016)

Collateral Beauty

 

Collateral Garbage. Seriously. I'm going to break this down though. When I first saw the trailer for this film, my immediate thoughts were "wow this looks like a really emotionally manipulative film". And that is exactly what it is. But its even worse. This film was panned by most critics and I can see why. However, being the film lover that I am I decided to watch it to form my own opinion. Boy oh boy, I wonder why so many credible actors took the role for this film.

First things first, the trailer for this film is incredibly misleading. Talk about manipulating right off the bat. Love, Death, and Time are three actors hired by Edward Norton, Kate Winslet, and Michael Pena to follow Will Smith's character and prove that he is crazy so he can give up his position in a flailing company. Why is the company failing? Smith's character recently lost his daughter to a rare disease and has been depressed and unfocused since. While the film may sound like it has heart, it does not. Its so misguiding and you can't even forgive how ridiculous the premise of the film is.

I hate when trailers set you up for a certain film but then throw a bad curveball. This is the case with this film. I also feel bad for the acting talent (Knightley, Mirren, Winslet, Norton) who probably didn't look at the script before signing on for this film. I think Will Smith is a solid actor but he almost always picks bad films (especially recently). This film becomes downright infuriating at times. I can't get into it much because it would spoil the film but wow the end of this film is so, so stupid. There's multiple "twists" for the sake of being quirky but its really bad writing. 

This film is so misguided. The writings bad, I think someone should have checked it and edited it before putting it out there as the final product. If you are interested in the film based on watching the trailer be forewarned, that this film will pull a punch on you. Its an over-emotional, sappy, and at times incoherent but convenient mess. I am so glad that my number one BAE Rooney Mara did not follow through on this crap.

5/10

Passengers (2016)

Passengers

Two of Hollywood’s current top stars finally come together in this sci-fi adventure from Morten Tyldum. Its not a name that rolls right off the tongue or is too familiar but I have seen his previous effort, The Imitation Game. While it was  a technically well made biopic about an important man, it wasn’t all that interesting. I wasn’t too impressed with the trailers for Passengers as it looked like a cookie cutter sci-fi film coming in a time where these types of films are really popular.

The film is basically what I had feared that it would be. First, let me talk about the positives. I had no problems with the effects in the film. I thought the space scenes looked good and the set and production design was excellent. The spaceship looked sleek, modern, and alluring. The score was also nice. Both Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence work well together and put in good performances. I think Lawrence overacts in the really emotional moments but its fine because she’s good elsewhere here.

The film suffers from pauses and lagging for the first hour or so. Its repetitive at times ad just seems really inconsequential. Nothing goes on for a majority of the film and it drags a slight bit. I did not feel like the film really explored amazingly new ground. Films like Interstellar and Moon covered similar concepts and in a much better way. Its easy to question and scratch your head at some of the motivations of the characters (and androids). About an hour in I was really struggling to continue with the film but soldiered through.

If you are a fan of Pratt or J-Law you may want to check this out. If you are like me and an avid sci-fi/space film fan you may be sorely disappointed by the generic and familiar nature of a film that should have really dazzled with the stakes that the film seemed to offer. Still, I guess you could find some enjoyment out of this film despite it being pretty flawed. Not every film is going to be a masterpiece, I just expected this film to offer something better and more engaging.

6/10

A Cure for Wellness (2017)

A Cure for Wellness

 

Gore Verbinski is a bit of a hit or miss director. I think The Ring was a fantastic horror film but The Pirates of the Caribbean films aren’t that great (outside of the first one which is fun). He’s a visual filmmaker as you can tell from a work like Rango but can also  bomb miserably like he did with The Lone Ranger. I was so intrigued by this films posters and trailer. After experiencing this film I will say that this film is visually fantastic as the scenes are shot so beautifully even if most of it is dark and grim looking. This film will divide audiences, I can see many hating it and becoming impatient with it. I for one, thought it was very good and worth the time and money.

The film is about a man named Lockhart who travels to a wellness center in the Swiss Alps to find his boss who mysteriously just disappeared to that location. When he goes there he immediately notices that things aren’t what they seem and that the facility harbors a very dark secret and the film spends time exploring all the crazy stuff that occurs. I want to keep this as spoiler free as possible but I have to share a bunch of things I really liked about this film. First off, let me say that this film doesn’t feel wholly original. I kept thinking of Shutter Island when watching the film. That’s fine because the film has a lot more going for it. The cinematography of the film at times is just gorgeous. I believe most of the film was shot out in Germany. All the scenes that show the facility and the mountainous terrain in the foreground are just wonderful. Its a visually beautiful film even if it is confined to the ugly graying white walls of the sanitarium like facility.

I haven’t seen Dane DeHaan in much but he was very solid in this. It’ll probably be a breakout performance for him and Mia Goth. Mia I’ve seen in Nymphomaniac Vol. II but she’s a star in this. She’s naturally and innocently gorgeous in this film. She’s a simple yet extremely alluring figure. This film itself is very alluring. Its dark and disturbing and tries to maintain appearances (much like the staff in the facility). The film is slow and long but I think it builds up nicely towards dark secrets. While I’d say the twists and turns aren’t very surprising, I really enjoyed everything I saw. There’s a bunch of creepy imagery and the film doesn’t shy away from sudden violence. Its all lovely in the darkest way.

I think this is Verbinski’s best film to date because he captured complete institutional madness. Its visually symmetry is so enchanting, so many of these images are gorgeous. However, I felt like the third at of the film is a bit of a weak point. The story gets a bit muddled, predictable, and head scratching all at once. I think this is what holds it back from being a solid 8 out of 10, however I think this film will get an improved rating on a second watch. It’s one of those that needs time to sink in because there’s just something special lingering about it.

7.5/10

John Wick: Chapter 2

John Wick: Chapter 2

The highly anticipated sequel to a very popular action film has arrived. John Wick as sort of a sleeper hit that came out of nowhere and really blew a lot of peoples minds. I wasn’t the biggest fan of the film but it was a solid action film that was very sleek and really established Keanu Reeves as an action hero. If you have any doubts about his credibility as an action star, you should probably see John Wick: Chapter 2.

This time, no one kills John Wick’s dog. Thank god. Wick is visited by a gangster who wants Wick to serve him because of a blood oath taken years ago. When Wick refuses, his house gets blown up. Wick then goes out for revenge and must face bounty hunters and a bunch of trained assassins. I’d say the sequel has more going on storywise as it involves much more involving a crime lord and the underside of what it entails. The sequel does a good job of maintaining fantastic, frenetic action with a balanced story and dialogue (or lack of it in Ruby Rose’s characters instance).

The film doesn’t always flow strongly as characters sort of appear without question but this is an action film and you shouldn’t worry too much about what makes sense and what doesn’t. As you’d expect, the film is very sleek and has eye catching action. The scenes are shot with flashing neon lights and plenty of sick shooting with blood. If this is your sort of thing you will absolutely love it. The car chases and hand to hand combat scenes were fantastic. The whole exchange between Common and Reeves in the subway was just hilarious.

My main complaint is that the film is longer this time and sometimes feels its length. Its not such a bad thing. This film is a really solid sequel, I may just prefer the original but its close. The action, blood, and style is really turned up in this edition and you just know we have an action star and franchise in our hands. I don’t mind it, Keanu Reeves can rock the three piece suit and he’s even better kicking major ass in it.

7/10

Logans Run (1976)

 

Logan’s Run

Here’s a sci-fi film that I have been meaning to catch for a long time. Luckily TCM is doing the 31 days of Oscar films marathon so I can catch up on good stuff I’ve never seen. Sci-fi’s of the past decades are usually great because they are creative and high concept. I know this is based on a novel but I think the film was still pretty great regardless even though some of it was flawed. Logan’s Run is a sci fi film that takes place in a dystopian future and I’d have to say this film must have influenced many modern day films.

The film is set in a world where people only live until 30. Once they hit 30 they are exterminated.  A man known as Logan 5 goes on the run who becomes 30 after a medical procedure goes wrong. He goes on his run with a beautiful compatriot named Jessica 6. The film has futuristic gadgets and concepts and really felt slightly ahead of its time. I say slightly because we started getting a lot of the original sci-fi films around this time. Logan’s Run had a few themes I noticed and also a few similarities to some other sci-fi films of the time.

The film really reminded me of Soylent Green in the fact that it has a theme of population control through killing off human beings in a ritualistic/efficient way. The film also shared similarities with Planet of the Apes, mostly through the viewing of the desolate ruins of Washington DC. The effects are at times quite dated, which is understandable considering the time. The film does have a few memorable moments and enough romance going for it to keep you interesting.

I’d say the first half of the film has a lot going on but its quite interesting but its important to stay focused or get lost. The second half where Logan and Jessica go on the run doesn’t always engage but its mostly nice to see the connection between the two. Overall, its quite a fun film with some interesting viewpoints and issues addressed for its time. While effects are dated and the focus isn’t always perfect it’s a good experience.

7.5/10

Shut In (2016)

 

Shut In

I like Naomi Watts a lot but boy does she really need to pick and carefully choose what she wants to be in. I thought she was really fantastic in Mulholland Drive (probably my favorite film of all time). She's also been in a number of great memorable performances. i  fact, shes even been in good horror in the past. Years later she's in a really awful "horror" film that doesn't offer any thrills or chills but rather just insists on wasting your time.

This film is about a psychologist, played by Watts, following a car accident that killed her husband and left her son paralyzed (played by Stranger Things' Charlie Heaton). She starts to think that someone is inside her house trying to harm her. Who could it be though? Her son is paralyzed and immobile? The plot doesn't even sound interesting and there really isn't anything in the film that you could actually enjoy. The film is devoid of any actual chills, the scenes meant to make you jump are set up in a way that is so manufactured over the years, where you know exactly what to expect.

The film just kind of throws characters into the mix and you are left wondering what purpose they really serve? Poor Jacob Tremblay, going from a wonderful performance in Room, to being thrown into something like this. The twist ending is so awful. Its half expected but doesn't bother offering any consolation for wasting your time. There's honestly too much going on in this film, its too busy with people and trying too hard to deliver a substantial story but it comes off really uninspired, tired, and boring. The twist also offers some really weird awkward moments too.

Check this out if you want but there's really nothing to see here. Shut yourself out.

4/10

Funny Games (2007)

Funny Games

 

A film that I was supposed to watch back in 2007 but just never got around to. Oddly enough this is the American remake of the Austrian film of the same name directed by the same filmmaker. Apparently, this film is a shot for shot remake of the previous incarnation. While I can't judge how it holds up to the original, I can say this film is a rather elegant torture porn film.

The film is about two psychopaths (straight from the synopsis describing the characters) who invade a family's home and torture them, while playing sick and sadistic games with them. It's hard to say more about the film without really spoiling things, so I'll refrain from talking much more about the plot. The film is not for people who can't deal with ubcomfortability in film; there's a whole lot of it. Let's face it, the film is quote grim. This isn't really a hopeful film and you kind of have to expect that before going in.

The film is slow and prodding, often calculated. It's tense, and meant to be that way. There's a lack of things going on but it helps enhance the reality of the situation that the victims are in. This film has great performances from Naomi Watts and Michael Pitt. I bet this is what got Pitt his role on Boardwalk Empire. The filmmaker employs single takes which cover longer scenes. The camera is also quite personal to the characters plights. There's a lack of score for giant portions of the film, it's honestly a paced out horror film which isn't very scary but gets you to root for the survival of its protagonists. The antagonists and their backstory could have used some exploration but I guess it wasn't meant to be.

This film sort of fits in a sub genre of its own, and reminds me of more successful films like Vacancy and The Strangers. While there are aspects of the film which really work, I still thought the film feels very long and the lack of progression can hurt your attention to the film. At times the film is an arduous task. Off the bat, this film is a one time watch and probably not anything to rave about. It's not a poorly made film by any means, one could point to it as a better film of the survivalist horror family.

6.5/10

Rules Don't Apply (2016)

 

Rules Don't Apply

 

When I first saw the trailer for this film, I immediately felt like this would be something that I’d enjoy. A film about 50’s Hollywood revolving around a romance intertwined with the life of the very fascinating and enigmatic Howard Hughes. I can’t say I’m too happy with the final product; its a mixed bag all around. Well acted, nice set pieces, however with puzzling motivation, and poor execution.

The film is about a romance between an aspiring young actress and her driver. Both of whom are under the employ of the legendary Howard Hughes. The film does well to capture the essence of the era, which is not hard to do these days. Its got a great cast, some of the talent is heavily underutilized and minimized to glorified cameos. The lead cast are perfectly fine. I think this is the strongest Lily Collins performance to date. I was very critical when I saw her early work because she wasn’t very convincing. I also like seeing Warren Beatty on screen but maybe he should stick strictly to acting.

I’ve never seen any of Beatty’s directional efforts but if this is any indication of what his work is, then I’m in no rush to check out his filmography. The film is largely uneventful. It takes a witty and quirky humorous approach but its largely lost in the shuffle of a not so entertaining film. The actors do their part but the script fails them. Especially the later parts of the second and third act which drag. I admire Beatty as an acting talent, I will never forget his role as Clyde Barrow but I question his ability to bring forth a strong and entertaining film.

I’m still kind of enamored by the life of Howard Hughes, he was without a doubt a mysteriously entertaining figure. I think the film kind of uses his iconic character as a crutch to supplement a love story that’s not quite there. I’m disappointed because I really felt this film had the quality to genuinely entertain me. I may check out some of Beatty’s other work to see if something else can spark a fun time.

6/10

Fifty Shades Darker (2017)

Fifty Shades Darker

I might get a lot of hate for this but I actually liked it. Hear me out though. It’s still stupid and has incredibly dumb moments. However, the entertainment factor has been upped since the first film. The actors are more comfortable in their roles and it shows. There is also more of a charm to this film and the love scenes and cinematography are much more sleek. Its all around stronger than the first. I think your reaction to the first and the genre in general will effect your reaction to Fifty Shades Darker though.

This film picks up where the last one left off. Christian Grey tries to rekindle his romance with Anastasia Steele. Their bond becomes stronger but there are new variables and explorations of Christian’s past. But through all this the two endure and actually hit relationship milestones. This film is definitely more sweet amongst the darkness. The leads are in a happier place and they reach a place of certainty emotionally and sexually. The love scenes are more exquisite and are supplemented with great music. I love that song by Zayn and Taylor and loved hearing it during the boat ride. Some of the locality is amazing and it shows in the cinematography.

That said, the film still has narrative problems. The dialogue (while better) is still cliched and predictable. Motivations are still questionable, some side characters are still thrown into the mix and so underdeveloped. Where the fuck did Rita Ora come from? Shes is probably in the first but I can’t recall right now. None of the supporting cast is there for a long time and are not given enough say. Some plot progression just happens so suddenly that you are there just scratching your head like “wtf”? Two key events (if they can even be called that) are so incredibly stupid. The film isn’t that smart at times but lets face the truth. Its based on probably very awful books so something must be going right if the film is somehow enjoyable.

I know I’m in the complete minority with liking this film. I think the first is a guilty pleasure and kind of in the bad its good territory. Its more of the same with this film but its definitely a more unified and sleeker production. There’s not a lot of urgency in the film but I don’t know if that’s how the adapted material is supposed to be. The film somehow does set itself up for a third one though. Overall, the film is exactly what its marketed as: a popcorn date movie that ladies and some guys will enjoy as a mindless but nice looking film. Also big P.S. Dakota Johnson is a sexy, sexy goddess.

7/10

The Secret Garden (1993)

 

The Secret Garden

I finally got an HBO subscription so now have many films at my disposal (I’ve seen most anyways but still). I also had this film on DVD lying around somewhere but finally decided to watch it. I wasn’t very clear on what the film was about beforehand but the premise sounded like the family friendly fantastical tale that could be worth the watch.

The Secret Garden is about a spoiled girl who lives in India until her parents untimely death. She is then relocated to her uncles mansion where she discovers she has a recluse cousin (who is hidden away) who is sealed off because he is ill and can’t walk. They both travel out to a secret garden which seems to improve his health mysteriously. Along the way, the two form a connection despite initially butting heads. The film is based off the novel of the same name.

The verdict is that this film makes for an enjoyable time. Its an older film so the film could use some digital enhancing to make some of the scenes more vibrant (ahem Blu-Ray treatment). The film has the charm of 90s children fantasy films that movies of today cannot really recreate. While thee child acting is not great and the accents (especially of the child maid) are horrible its forgivable when you think of the films market. The film’s fantastical elements are undertold as it relies on the magic of the garden and placing faith in its spiritual abilities without actually seeing much on screen, which is fine.

The film isn’t an absolute must watch by any sense, nor is it something that many people will have heard of. It is however, a harmless film that captures a bit of the essence of children’s films of the past while establishing inspiration amongst curious kids as they journey into something fantastical together. There’s plenty of cute animals and naturalistic shots for those who would appreciate that sort of thing anymore. Its not a film that would be successful today because of its simplistic presentation and understated visuals, but its solid.
7/10

Gold (2017)

 

Gold

 

Well, The McConaissance had to end sometime. Its also not really surprising that it comes to a screeching halt with Gold. I didn’t really enjoy The Free State of Jones either but thought The Sea of Trees was interesting, even if it tried to tug on your emotions. With Gold you have a film that is too long, too uninteresting, and one that just fails to leave a lasting impression. its definitely a January dump film disguised as something that could be award worthy.

Gold is inspired by a true story of a down out of luck guy who thinks he strikes gold in the jungles of Indonesia, only to find out this is not really what it seems. Matthew McConaughey stars as Kenny Wells, a very awkwardly balding man who needs something big to happen and becomes optimistic when it seems like it does. This sounds a bit like a film I saw recently called The Founder, but with much less payoff. I cannot really blame McConaughey for his committed performance in the film, I just wish he would spend his time on better projects. He was on a hot streak early on in the decade and he was in great works. This is a completely forgettable film that becomes frustrating as it goes on .
There is an impressive cast, whose strengths are mostly underutilized because the film has to try to go forward with a narrative that tries to shock but is nowhere near gold. There’s nothing amazing about the cinematography, I would have at least expected gorgeous scenes of the Indonesian landscape. At times the dialogue is too subdued and slow for me, the film tries your patience. I think Bryce Dallas Howard is great but there wasn’t any real chemistry between her and McConaughey. Its just a film that everyone involved should move forward from.

Stephen Gaghan is an ordinary writer and filmmaker, I’m sorry but its true. His films subject matters do not offer enough engagement for a wide audience nor are his films really memorable. Yes, I’ve seen Syriana and stills and by that. I’m not overly offended. You got a real view of what the film would be like from the trailer, and if you thought otherwise you were chasing Fools Gold (I just had to try to pun another awful McConaughey film with a similar title here).

6/10

Let The Right One In (2008)

Let The Right One In

Vampires in film have been so saturated these days so its nice to see an effective film. I’ve been meaning to watch this for a while. I saw the American remake a few years back and thought it was solid but now I can see the source material was very good. There’s a few moments where the film is uneven but overall the imagery and relationship between the protagonists really make this film work.

The film is about a young boy who is bullied at school, who befriends a mysterious little girl who is actually a vampire. While its easy to grasp whats going on with her character there’s still a longing to know exactly what her past was. I think the connection with the characters are great and is probably the strongest point of the film. This is a vampire film that revolves on a young friendship, this is not something that we see very often.

There are some real evil characters in the film (namely the bullies). Its balanced real well with a vampire who feeds on and kills other but shes actually a hero at the end.  You feel connected to Eli and Oskar because the filmmaker but their relationship first and the film really builds itself on that. There are horrific moments in the film that occur so quickly and suddenly, that it leaves a lasting impression. The film doesn’t focus too much on gore but what we see is done very well.

I don’t always watch foreign films unless they get rave but here’s one I’m glad I saw. Its definitely better than the American counterpart and I feel like this film is probably one of the best foreign depictions of vampire culture. If I ever get a chance I may check out more of Swedish cinema because I already loved the original Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (Millennium) trilogy. Sweden knocks another one out of the park.

7.5/10

The Love Witch (2016)

 

The Love Witch

I still can’t believe this film was made in 2016. I only just heard about the film today but thought it was right down my alley. I love films that are innovative in style and films that pay tribute to an earlier decade. The Love Witch is about a femme fatale-esque woman who tries to find true love. She gives men potions that make them fall in love with her. Things usually take a turn and they end up dying somehow. It can be said this film offers more style over substance but sometimes it doesn’t act as much of a detriment to the film. I feel like that is something that applies here.

Anna Biller calls back to the 60’s with films of the Technicolor era. You won’t even realize that this film was made last year. Everything from the camera techniques, picture quality, costume design, background music, and even the acting make you feel like you are watching a B grade campy, erotic, horror film. If you pay close attention though, you will realize the film is actually set today. Its a fantastic presentation of an earlier era. The shots are full of color, almost Argento-esque and its an absolute joy to look at. All the technical aspects of the film are really a giant reason as to why this film should be seen.

Samantha Robinson is gorgeously convincing as a flirty modern day witch. She is alluring to look at all the way through. She’s a sexy character but in control of her own destiny. She controls the men she hooks up with. This is actually a strongly feminist piece, despite the film involving stripping, scantily clad appealing women. Sometimes the themes are a bit too overt and on the nose but it’s not really a problem (mostly because I’m obsessed with the visual beauty of the film and was distracted by it).

The film clocks in at 2 hours and the film feels like its length. The first hour is great. I’d say around the time Elaine meets the detective and goes to the renaissance fair we get a bit of fluff and padding story-wise. It’s not too big of a problem although the film is very aesthetic so I don’t think the film will be for everyone. However, if you are a film lover like me I think you will appreciate the sexy look of erotic B-movie madness on display.

7.5/10

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2017)

 

Resident Evil: The Final Chapter

Thank god that its finally over. I hope. Paul W.S. Anderson finally closes out the film series based on the very popular survival video game series. The video game series is actually excellent and tons of fun, the same cannot be said for the film series. I did enjoy Resident Evil and Resident Evil: Apocalypse as far as the films go, but I cannot say that I liked the rest at all. I wasn’t very keen on checking this film out but there was a curiosity to watch it be put out of its misery.

The film starts off with flashbacks to young Alicia Marcus and the creation of the T-Virus. I think this was necessary for people who may have forgotten how the outbreak and destruction even started. We then see Alice walking the streets of a desolate and ruined D.C. while fighting some monsters along the way. I immediately got annoyed by the headache inducing, rapid, editing. Its awful. It takes so much away from the action sequences as you can’t fixate on anything on the screen. You can’t even get a good look at the monster designs so its a real downer.

The situations are absolutely ridiculous. I know you have to suspend beliefs sometimes for action sequences but my god we get some really ridiculous fight scenes that are not only cliched to hell but ridiculously improbable. Alice maneuvering her way out of the moving laser beams had me rolling my eyes multiple times. The film introduces a side cast that nobody will ever care about. Ali Larter as Claire Redfield returns but she remains so underdeveloped that you won’t care to see her. There are multiple moments where Anderson tries to produce jump scares but they are so horribly predictable and out of place in this type of film. We’ve seen all of it a million times before and this film basically comes off as cheap. The editing will do your head in.

The films passages aren’t always interesting. The picture quality is mostly dark, dull and ugly. I don’t really rate Paul W.S. Anderson as a filmmaker but this was TV SyFy movie levels in terms of quality. Some questions are answered and I guess some loose ends are solved but its not anything amazing and remains cookie cutter. If you enjoy all the other films you will be satisfied with the film series’ conclusion. For me however, this film was the worst of the bunch but the silver lining is that the series has finally closed itself off.

5/10

The Founder (2017)

The Founder

This film is not really what you expect it to be. Upon first glance at the trailer you would think its the story of the founder of McDonalds who comes from nothing and works hard to start a global fast food chain. That’s really not what this was about. I would say this film is quite unique; I never expected  the roots of a popular fast food chain to get a film. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t intrigued to see the film though. Overall, I’d say its a mixed bag with a stronger first section than second.

Michael Keaton plays Ray Kroc, a down out of luck milk shake mixer salesman, who one day stumbles upon a restaurant owned by the McDonald brothers. This restaurant innovative service where orders are made in 30 seconds or less, through the technical setup of equipment, staff, and assembly line-like practices. Kroc becomes enamored with the idea of fast food chains and eventually sets into motion multiple stores around the country, much to the brothers behest. Kroc is not a loveable guy at all, if anything he is an extremely selfish, self-motivated snake who betrays his partners and family. Keaton is perfectly fine in this yet again continuing his acting resurgence.

There is betrayal and greed at every turn, thus the films marketing doesn’t prepare you for the type of greedy character seen in Kroc. It is what it is and this is probably how many business men get ahead in life. It was interesting to hear the McDonald brothers story and seeing just how the first store started up. As stated earlier, the film starts off very engaging but goes through lapses of being uninteresting despite being in an unfamiliar place from a storytelling perspective.

I wasn’t sure if this was going to be one of the Oscar season pictures but after seeing it I can see why it isn’t because it becomes too generic and doesn’t really offer much worth talking about besides a story that may be  shocking to people. I’m not really sure if its a film we needed but at the very least you may be interested to see the history of probably the most recognizable fast food chain in the world. They should rename this film The Thief.

6.5/10

Bleed for This (2016)

 

Bleed for This

 

The first thing that caught my attention in regards to this film was the promotion with Billy Squier's "The Stroke". I generally tend to enjoy boxing movies despite not really liking sports films. Boxing films can often be formulaic, cliched, or familiar but I really just enjoy a good underdog story with good boxing scenes. Even though I don't follow the sport at all anymore (the transition to UFC/MMA has been a blessing), I still think boxing movies can be a lot of fun.

Bleed For This is based on the true story of American Italian boxer Vinny Pazienza and his comeback from a near career ending spinal injury. I assume the film is pretty accurate as a biopic. Miles Teller as Paz starts off as an arrogant, brass, but dedicated boxer. At first he realizes the weight cut for his division was hard for him so he moves up two weight classes and takes on a champion (who also happens to be a favorite). Paz wins the title but shortly afterwards gets into a terrible car crash. From there the comeback story comes on.

In terms of treading familiar ground, Bleed for This is full of boxing cliches and tropes that we have seen in many films before. Not that its a bad thing, if you can stomach it. Its a decent boxing tale and a comeback story for a determined boxer. Its not really something you are going to think about after its done. In fact, the film may exit your mind entirely afterwards. What it does offer is a dedicated performance from Miles Teller, and transformative appearances from both Ciaran Hinds and Aaron Eckhart. I had a hard time recognizing either. I don't think I've really seen Christine Evangelista in much else but wow is she nice to look at. 

Overall, this film is exactly what you would expect. If you don't watch it you aren't missing anything. If you do watch it you will enjoy it for what it is even if the story has been told a million times. If you are like me (a film enthusiast who just has to watch everything) you will find a nice balance and really take the film for what it really is. And that is, a harmless sports film that looks to inspire and does enough to make a decent popcorn film.

7/10

Paterson (2016)

 

Paterson

 

I haven’t checked out many of Jim Jarmusch’s work but I liked what I have seen so far. Coffee and Cigarettes especially, was an entertaining series of memorable segments featuring an ensemble cast. I hadn’t researched much about Paterson outside of seeing the trailer in theaters. My preconception was that this film would be the perfect film for Adam Driver to showcase his acting talents and I think this prediction was proved right. Its another welcome addition to 2016 but I think it may be divisive among moviegoers.

The film is about a bus driver named Paterson, who also shares a name with Paterson, New Jersey. He is a very structured man who sticks to his daily routines. He also is a talented poet, much of his work in poetry is sprawled physically on screen. My first impression is that this film wouldn’t be for everyone and I stand by that thought. The film may feel slow inconsequential, and repetitive at many times. I’m certain that is exactly what Jarmusch was going for though. Paterson is a man who is set on a mundane, familiar schedule; a small change in routine or a small change in his world can through him off course. And it happens.

I think Adam Driver was great. He plays the role of Paterson with a silent conviction and you can tell he’s a different almost simple man. Paterson is observant and expressive. He’s attentive to many common and specific things such as the conversations on his bus route, or even a box of matches. His wife Laura is his driving force and really influences him to pursue his passion. The relationship is hardly chaotic and really works. One could argue that there isn’t much going on but I think there is in Paterson’s world around him. Its an absorbing watch to see his interactions with the world and how they fuel his poetry.

There aren’t many issues to resolve in the film. Jarmusch goes to a familiar place where he sacrifices plot progression for a character study. I think its an enjoyable film. Its subtlety in humor really works and nothing really feels overstated. Paterson is a daring independent film that is not afraid to express itself in an uncharacteristic way. Jarmusch is experimental yet again but has a story to tell no matter how commonplace it seems to be.

7.5/10

Doctor Strange (2016)

Doctor Strange

 

Its no secret that Marvel is a money making machine. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has grossed billions of dollars and remains a force every year. Overall, I think the franchise has been very successful in bringing comic book heroes to life through origin stories and combining the heroes for action epics. Marvel's latest installment was introducing the masses to Doctor Strange. I wasn't very familiar with the character so I was cautiously optimistic going into this one.

The films stars Benedict Cumberbatch in the titular role. Benedict is a great performer and I think he's always remarkable in what he is in. Doctor Strange is about a arrogant but precisely successful neurosurgeon who gets in a life changing car crash that messes up hi hands. Strange searches far and wide for a way to get his hands working again. he travels to Nepal and is introduced to a fantastically magical world of sorcery where he can do more with his mind and alter reality, time, and the world from harnessing the power within.

First off, the effects in this film are great. Its immensely psychedelic and extremely graphically busy. The skyline is constantly shifting and worlds are bending and all of it looks up to par. It was reminiscent of some of the sequences seen in Inception. The fight scenes in the film also do not disappoint. Its got what it needs to keep thrill seekers engaged. Marvel also gathers a very talented cast to add to its never ending list of A-listers involved in the MCU. Mads Mikkelsen is a brilliant performer, although he's a bit of a shallow villain in this.

The film has too much going on in concepts. A person's soul? can come out of their body, there is a giant demon thing that's trying to destroy the world, there are shortcuts that lead to major cities, buildings can be moved, there is a mirror reality, a moving cape, fireballs, time can be put on a loop... its insane how many things happen in this film. Its not that its hard to follow, its just that the film becomes conceptually ugly the longer it goes. It doesn't feel like other Marvel films as the world that is created isn't very interesting and feels bland despite all the visuals involved. 

Cumberbatch plays a great Doctor Strange. He's an egotistical guy who becomes humbled and is yet witty and remains flawed. He's a welcome addition to the Marvel Universe, I assume he will be a part of the next Avengers film. Its just that this origin film doesn't really stand out as you are just thrown into the world of sorcery and just have to accept what is going on. Its an admirable effort but pales in comparison to some of the other heroes in the MCU. There is still room for improvement and I'm curious to see where this goes.

6.5/10

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (2016)

 

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk

Ang Lee takes four years to bring forth his followup to Life of Pi. I thought Life of Pi was phenomenal. it was a stunning visual experience and through creative storytelling we got a really memorable film. When I saw the trailer for Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk I wasn't very impressed because I couldn't really discern what the film was about. The film just sort of got lost in the shuffle at the end of the year, and now having seen it I am glad it did just disappear from the awards mix.

The film is about a group of soldiers who are being honored at the halftime show at a Thanksgiving Dallas Cowboys football game. The film is portrayed through the perspective of one of those soldiers, Billy Lynn. The entire film takes place during this game and is littered with flashbacks of the war and events with family all seen through Billy's eyes. The film sounds decent on paper but the delivery was off and the film ended up being a long and uninteresting cliched film that is one of Ang Lee's weakest efforts in  recent memory.

The film set the record for having the highest frame rate and I was thinking why? Ang Lee is fairly innovative and his cinematography can be remarkable. However going for the high frame rate for a drama like this with little action made no sense. The characters pop out at you and look too lively and it just comes off really weird. It should have been saved for a different film. There are moments where characters dialogue right into the camera and it's just odd. Some scenes do pop out at you, especially the actual depiction of the halftime show but its not enough to be a saving grace for the film.

The film stereotypes American soldiers and some aren't portrayed favorably. The war time scenes and relating depiction of PTSD doesn't really break any new ground or ever really touch you emotionally. In fact, its disconnecting. The film tries to cram in a ridiculous love story with a cheerleader for the sake of having a relationship in the film. The dialogue is cheesy and feels artificial as its too sudden and unrealistic. The films flashback format really hurts the film as while some of the flashbacks are necessary and interesting, the return to the present reminds you of how dull and drab the present sequence is.

 I think this is a great debut for Joe Alwyn who portrays a stern-faced under pressure Billy Lynn very well. The film also has a solid Kristen Stewart and a rare appearance in film from Chris Tucker. Its a shame they are wasted in a film with nothing to really offer the talent that was gathered. Its just a disappointment that something as visionary and monumental as Life of Pi was followed up by a generic, flawed, undeserving disappointment of a film.

5/10

American Pastoral (2016)

American Pastoral

I really like the Fanning sisters so I’ll basically watch anything with them. I was also curious about this film because its the directional debut of Ewan McGregor. I went in blind not knowing what the film would bring but it seemed to have a strong cast, and for the little buzz it generated it remained something that I really wanted to check out. I think its a solid debut for McGregor as a filmmaker but can’t escape being too dull at times.

The film is based on a novel about a family with a daughter with a speech impediment. She witnesses a traumatic scene of the infamous monk setting himself on fire in television. After this childhood incident Merry (Fanning’s character) becomes a radical opponent of war. She starts out vehemently opposing Lyndon Johnson and the war efforts but eventually becomes the culprit in a murder after a bomb goes off. Swede (Ewan McGregor) spends most of the film trying to find his estranged daughter and find out why she is the way she is.

I think the film has strong performances as you would expect from the cast of this caliber. You immediately see the disenchantment of youth in Fanning’s character and understand how radical she is in her anti-war stance. Her pained relationship with her mother is stated quite well, and the uncomfortably in it drives her mother mad. I had no problems with the character interactions, however the film cannot escape feeling dull and prolonged. You don’t care enough to follow Swede as he tries to find his daughter, and when you finally find her, its just very underwhelming.

Its hard to care for Fanning’s character as she’s unlikable from the get go. The film doesn’t offer much else outside of a quest for a character you’d rather remain lost. The method of storytelling does not always prosper as it goes through periods of stalling and the payoff isn’t really entertaining. It gets very lost in an antiwar shuffle and remains shallow despite trying to go deep. I’d say its exciting to see McGregor get behind the camera but his first adaptation does not have enough life.

5.5/10

Allied (2016)

 

Allied

 

Robert Zemeckis is a good director who has been streaky as of late. He has some work that I really like but in recent years he's been forgettable. Judging by the trailers I wasn't very excited for this film. After viewing the film, I'll say that its better than I expected but could have been far better. Its still worth a watch and others may champion the picture more than I will.

Marion Cotillard. What more can I say? I am so glad this extremely talented French actress switched over to American cinema. She's fantastic and magnetic in this film (as she always is). Two Days, One Night is a stellar film in which she showcases her talents. She does everything right in this film as well. I think the film could have been written better, but her character is still full of a sexual mystique and you watch as her truth unfolds. Although mysterious, her character is fulfilled and her relationship with Pitt on screen is charming. Pitt is also great in the film, the acting wasn't ever going to be a let down with these two.

The plot progression is slow. I think once you get to the point where Marianne is accused of being a spy, the film picks up. Prior to that attention wanes, minds wander. There is action on the screen and the plot stays busy but feels lifeless at times. This is not a fault of the actors but seems like writing that doesn't provoke at large stages. This might have to do with the film focusing more on romance during wartime than being an espionage thriller. I think it could have used more of the latter to make for a more memorable experience. There are moments which are good but I felt like the film was uneven.

Characters come and go, outside of the two leads everyone else is fleeting, not memorable, or just there to advance the plot. There's talent there like Matthew Goode and Lizzy Caplan but you don't really care about them because they are not around for long enough. Stuff just happens and lots of the film just feels tame and not as gripping as you'd expect from a World War II spy film. The film needed more suspense to really captivate the viewers but goes off on some tangents. I'm not saying the actors were wasted as the film isn't bad, its just that with better writing everything would have thrived. This one doesn't stack up to Zemeckis' best but its stylish, well acted, and has costumes and set pieces that take your eyes into a setting from WWII, although your mind is left to wander.

6/10

Loving (2016)

 

Loving

I first saw the commercial for this film on Election Day and thought it looked excellent. I'm a bit of a history buff, but for some reason the case of the Loving's slipped my mind. This film is about a couple who endured rough times where interracial marriage was illegal. The story is based on the landmark Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case. While I don't find the film to be fantastic, I thought the performances all around and a few of Jeff Nichol's film techniques really made this film an enjoyable experience.

The opening  is extremely powerful. The film opens in silence as you see the couple sitting and deeply pondering. You see the pain in their face as they know what they must face in the world around them. I think this film has really powerful but subtle performances by Edgerton and Negga. Edgerton is damn near unrecognizable and a force as the soft spoken Richard Loving. An even bigger force was Ruth Negga. She doesn't have to do a whole lot because things come naturally to her. Every expression on her face conveys a statement and even in her silence you can see so much of her character coming to life. I haven't really seen Ruth Negga in anything else but I'm certain she will have a great future. Its a soft, understated performance but boy is it a really good one. She definitely deserves her Best Actress Oscar nomination.

The other aspect of the film that really contributed to its enjoyment, was the style of Jeff Nichols. Nichols usually focuses on families and the turmoil and how they endure life. This was the case in his previous efforts, Take Shelter and Midnight Special. Nichols' films also are set in a rural area. This film differs in subject matter to his previous sci-fi dominant efforts, however the slow burning technique and powerhouse performances are all there. The film even utilizes Michael Shannon, who has become a  veteran in Nichol's employ. There are also other moments where a powerful score just elevates the scene. 

While the film isn't perfect and is not making my top ten films list of the year, I'd say the endearing performances and characters full of dimension really make the film worthwhile. If you are a fan of Nichols' craft, you won't be disappointed. This is a vast improvement after Midnight Special couldn't really follow up a really good Take Shelter. This film may have started my love for all things Ruth Negga.

7/10

Moana (2016)

Moana

 

If you know me well enough you would know that I'm very critical of animated films. I think a lot of them miss the mark and can only remain interesting for children. A good animated feature is inclusive of a widespread audience and can remain smart and engaging will offering fun and crafty animation. Moana is not something I was looking forward to, as on paper it didn't look like it was going to leave much of an impression on me. It's safe to say that I'm surprised that this film was honestly pretty good.

The first thing that I think deserves praise is the music. Nearly every song is excellent, catchy, and just so full of life. It's hard not to sing along to the music. This isn't exactly something I can say for a lot of animated films. The more technical aspect of the film is great. The colors are very vibrant and the animation is vivid and expansive (just like the vast ocean the heroes sail). Some of the action is eye-popping and very striking, especially the battle with the lava demon, Te Ka. Auli'i Cravalho is a relative newcomer who does a very good job of bringing Moana to life. She will probably have many more voice acting roles in the future.

I also think the film is a good look into a culture that many people won't be familiar with. I've noticed that Disney is really trying to focus on some minority groups in the past few years and this is perfectly good for fresh inspiration. In the case of Moana, this provided for an interesting and unfamiliar setting and story, which adds to the films overall appeal. I'm well aware of the cultural criticisms this film received for the portrayal of Maui and the lack of heroine goddesses. However, its good to leave some criticisms at the door. If you look hard enough a criticism can be found for anything and its unnecessary for a film that means well.

The film has its typical Disney cliches. You have the "chosen" hero who is unsure of themselves. You have the relationship with a buddy that is at first strained but then leads to the characters liking each other. There is a falling out and reunion with the hero discovering their ability. The film treads familiar Disney ground. Its not a terrible thing and kids won't really give a damn about it. Its not a flawless film, at its core its a familiar formula but I think the cultural aspect and imaginative visuals put a good balance.

I think Kubo and the Two Strings was far and away the best animated film of the year and proved why Laika are ahead of the curve. I'd say Moana is better than some of its animated counterparts in the year, such as Zootopia and Finding Dory. I still long for the days of 90s Disney films but this effort shows that they are still trying at least. If for nothing else, sit back and enjoy the excellent music and visuals in the film.

7.5/10

Underworld: Blood Wars

Underworld: Blood Wars

My first experience of film from 2017 happens to be the latest installment in a series that I am extremely mixed on. I love the original Underworld. I loved the universe created and thought it was a well crafted action film with a good balance of both style and substance. Unfortunately, none of the sequels were close in quality to the original and a few of the films kind of just faded into the background. I wasn’t overly excited for Blood Wars but all I really wanted was a decent film that is at least better than some of the sequels.

The film starts off explaining some of the key events of the previous in the franchise (which I really needed as a refresher). It takes a while for the film to really get going. We see a few new characters, all with their own motivations. You really wonder who is doing what and it takes time to really frame the story. I felt uninterested through the first act. The film does get better once we see more of Tobias Menzies’ villainous character. I think with so many films in the franchise its easy to forget characters and all about the vampire/werewolf hybrids and what the Lycans are really after.

Kate Beckinsale is gorgeous as always in the film. Her Selene character always kicks ass and looks incredibly sexy in a black leather suit. I also dug remodeling her character with the blondish locks in her hair. The dark blue hue of the film is back once again but its cool because the film looks really stylish and the gothic feel of the Underworld universe is ever present. There’s more than enough action and bloody violence to keep the moviegoer entertained. Its important to remember that these films are gearing more towards popcorn entertainment than something that can be take seriously  as a cinematic work.

I think the introduction of Tobias Menzies’ is such a strong point. The man plays one of the most despicable villains I have ever seen on television in Outlander. Just channeling a fraction of the hate in that character is enough for you to get invested in the hate for his character. Some of the other characters kind of fade away and feel incomplete but there’s enough fun going on to allow you to forgive some of the film’s shortcomings.

I think with Blood Wars we get the film series’ most satisfying sequel despite being flawed. The film is still as stylish as ever and a stronger third act keeps the fuel in the machine. I wouldn’t mind if the series ended soon but I think we may have to go through a film or two before the series is at its conclusion. Overall, its nothing special but still better than what I had expected.

6.5/10

A Monster Calls (2016)

 

A Monster Calls

 Based on the novel of the same name, A Monster Calls is about a boy who gets visits from a monster at 12:07 am and pm. This tree like monster tells him three stories and demands that the fourth story be told by the boy and be the true confrontation of his nightmare.  Conor (the lead character) also has a dying mother and must not only deal with that and the monster but also deals with bullying and how to come face to face with his grief. The plot sounds very confusing I’m sure but its not once you get into the grove of the film.

First impressions is that this is not a film for kids, its too dark for children. The subject matter is serious and dark, and it could be scary for a young audience. There’s also a depiction of bullying on multiple counts, which could be too real for the young folks. Getting past that, I think the film is a bit of a mixed bag. Without getting into spoilers, the fourth story and reveal of Conor’s nightmare is done very well. The thing is you kind of have to sit and wait for it and the film spends periods just limping to the end.

The delivery of the film is intriguing. I wasn’t blown away by the CG monster but there is an air of familiarity hearing the voice of Liam Neeson beaming from the giant. The stories are entertaining and told from a graphic heavy perspective (which is fine), its the in-between the story moments that are really hit or miss. There are areas where the film is at a standstill which makes me wonder if the film would have worked better as an hour long special. Its a bit of an ambitious effort from a filmmaker who usually has an interesting story to tell but it comes down to the source and how it can be adapted.

I was thrown off a bit by Sigourney Weaver in the film but thought Felicity Jones was good. It was harrowing seeing her as the film went on and seeing her progression get worse. There are a few heavy moments in the film that could get a casual moviegoer to shed some tears, but for me I can’t escape how disengaged I felt at many points in the film. The way I see it, this was probably a very interesting novel but not one that could be adapted properly because its thin.

6.5/10

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

Mel Gibson is a director who comes back every few years or so and just blows me away. In 2006, I was amazed by Apocalypto. I still watch that film from time to time because its so riveting, damning, and beautiful. When Hacksaw Ridge was announced I was excited. I tend to get very drawn into well made war films. I knew with Mel, I'd likely see and experience something that would be very worth the watch.

The film is about the real life story of Desmond T. Doss, an army medic who refused to hold a gun or fight the opposition during World War II in the Battle of Okinawa. His bravery, resolve, and willpower to save his fellow comrades makes for such an inspiring story, if projected successfully onto the screen. Andrew Garfield has had one hell of a year. To go from the lead in the atrocious Amazing Spider-Man films to starring in a Scorsese and Mel Gibson epic; its one hell of a leap. He's faultless in this. Doss is a kind hearted simple man whose passion is to help those who are in dire need of help. 

We are first subjected to young Doss growing up in a rather abusive household. We get to see how Doss had become a pacifist and how he met the love of his life. There is nothing with what is seen here. Its arguably slow, however its sweet and takes you back to a love story from WWII. Its good stuff. The film just keeps getting better from here. We then see Doss during training and how his lifestyle causes his infantry to turn on him in hate and disgust. He overcomes adversity and finally gets to the Battle of Okinawa. 

Let me just tell you that Mel Gibson is an excellent visionary when it comes to depicting visceral action. Its completely necessary to show how a war truly is. Nothing is held back. Blood comes from everywhere, limbs fly off, guts are hanging out, heads are being blown off. Its intense but phenomenally shot. You are in the trenches experiencing the nightmare as it happens. Its the best show wartime action since Saving Private Ryan. I'm not going to lie, I came here for good war action sequences and was very impressed with what I saw. 

Here's a film with a few many characters and honestly they are developed decently. This is Doss' story through and through but you love the connections with the people in his unit and how they all come around on him. Doss is a hero in its finest form. Its wonderful to witness his bravery and courage through a wonderfully shot, gripping, war epic. Mel Gibson hits the mark yet again.

8/10

Moonlight (2016)

 

Moonlight

Oscar buzz is always something that garners excitement. I'm always enthralled to see a critically acclaimed award worthy film to see what the hype is about myself. Moonlight is a film about a man named Chiron. He is a gay black male growing up around bullying, hate, and an uncaring and unresponsive mother. Chiron's life is told in three phases: as a little boy, as a teenager in high school, and as an adult. Three actors portray Chiron and all of them are impressive. The subject matter is heavy and delivered with an unhinged feeling of reality.

Young Chiron has to deal with a mother who is inattentive and is addicted to drugs. He seeks help and comfort from a caring couple played by Mahershala Ali and Janelle Monae. The second segment is probably the toughest to watch as teenage Chiron in his quiet and withdrawn nature has to deal with his first experience of homosexuality and all that comes with it. What comes with it? Bullying, which is intense. He gets picked on and suffers emotional and physical abuse. This causes him to snap and violently attack his bully which leads to his arrest. The third segment, Chiron is an adult and a drug dealer, however this is the most satisfying segment as Chiron gets closure on a lot of relationships and problems that previously plagued his life.

The cinematography in the film is excellent. There are times where the camerawork is personal, such as in the school fight. The camera takes a first person view in this instance, which allows you to be in the fight and experience the blows firsthand. This also happens a few times when portraying Chiron's drug addicted mother. The score is also fantastic at points and becomes touching towards the end. The film looks crisp and refined behind the lens of the still relative newcomer, Barry Jenkins.

The films authenticity makes it so powerful. Chiron could be any real disadvantaged kid growing up in a shady area filled with fighting and drugs. Chiron can't help that he was born into this ugly life, and no matter how hard he tries to get away from it, something pulls him in. In spite of his disadvantaged circumstances Chiron tries to find solace and inner peace with the problems and relationships in his life. It does not always have to be bleak, the past is the past the future is what you make of it.

The performances from just about everyone is great. There are a few newcomer performances all of which work very well. I especially liked Naomie Harris as Chiron's drug addicted mother. The final scene with adult Chiron and older Harris is tense but relieving. Overall, its a strong film by Barry Jenkins, one that is loaded with very beautiful scenes and some really harrowing moments. Its a very solid effort one that you will think about long after seeing the film. We could have a strong award season contender here.

7.5/10

Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them (2016)

 

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

I’m a huge fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I read the books as a teenager and was enamored with the wizarding world that JK Rowling managed to create. The films aren’t without flaws but they were very enjoyable for the book lovers and casual movie fans alike. The films were enjoyable for adults and children alike. Initially, I didn’t care for a spinoff or prequel to the Harry Potter franchise; I didn’t need anything in that magical universe anymore. I was of the opinion that Rowling should have closed that chapter of her life and focus on a more unique project. However, I still decided to check it out as I heard many people enjoyed this film.

I’m sad to say that I did not like it anywhere near as much as the Harry Potter films. The first hour of this film seemed so inconsequential and bland. There’s an overabundance of CGI usage to depict some of the beasts. While some scenes with the beasts look great, others looked so reliant on CG that it was distracting and takes you out of the picture. The first hour of the film focuses on introducing the beasts that escaped Newt Scamander’s briefcase. I quit the film an hour in because I was sorely disappointed with what I saw.

After getting back to the film, I’d say the film gets stronger in the second phase. Once the severity of the Obscurus is revealed the film becomes a bit darker and engages the audience more. There are still questions to be asked and I expect them to be answered in the trilogy (I’m not very fond of the idea of sequels to an unnecessary film). While the film gets better,  it still carries none of the charm and fun that made the Harry Potter films so special. The HP films had a purpose and you knew that everything was well thought out, I can’t say the same for a very uneven FBAWTFT.

I’m not the biggest Eddie Redmayne fan. He can put in a tremendous performance but isn’t in many films that I really like. He was a considerably weak leading man. Its hard to get invested in his character who is just there and becomes second to whoever else he is on screen with. Katherine Waterston is committed to her role and was one of the best features of this film. There seems to be other characters who are kind of thrown into the film to serve the plot. There are also a few easy way outs in this film. Something big gets solved by a convenient circumstance that gets explained on the spot.

This film failed to make a good impression. It has prolonged action sequences and an introduction of many new types of beasts, however outside of a few references to the HP universe the film just feels like it doesn’t need to exist. I don’t have a lot of faith in the expected trilogy but its going to exist and I pray that it is better. Right now this film is what The Hobbit was to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. LOTR was great and we absolutely did not need The Hobbit trilogy. These beasts and this films concept do not need finding.

6/10