Review: Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children

Oh, Tim. Why do you do this to me...

Before I begin, sorry that I haven't maintained this blog in a while. Been deep in work lately and never got the time. Thankfully I found some movies that are worth of a least a small mention of this review. So with that said...

Magnificent Seven is every bit as lacking by comparison to the original(s) as we expect, but still a fun ride. Antoine Fuqua directs the hell out of it, the cast is a lot of fun, and even if it can't match the originals attempt at morality by making the most cartoonish bad guys, it still makes a good excuse for some cool gunfights. Now I may be all for westerns with more brains than an average shoot-em-up, but it's honestly too much of a good time to worry about it. Check it out. 

The Dressmaker is... something. One of those movies that pretty much does whatever it wants, but so committed and cartoonish about it that it's almost part of the charm. Adapting the old German play "The Visit" but for dressmaking, it's what you get when you mix a Jane Austen adaptation meets Fistful of Dollars and a pretty wacky one at that. Some affecting moments, occasional stumble in tone, but overall a fun ride with a demanding performance by Kate Winslet and a strange turn from Hugo Weaving. May or may not be a cult classic. 

Blair Witch could not duplicate the appeal nor the rawness of the original movie, but an oddly effective horror entry in its own right. It's one of those batshit horror thrillers Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett (You're Next and The Guest) are always known for, and watching them do the original all over again but "updated" could not be more admirable. I know a lot are disgusted by found footage movies now - trust me I'm one of them - but I say this is worth a try. It's body-splittin' good. 

Alright, time for Miss Peregrine...

MINOR SPOILERS AFOOT!!

The most frustrating thing about recent Tim Burton always lies in how I try to appease the ever-so-annoying discussion about the “style over substance” aspect of his movies. Not only because it seems pointless at first – let’s face it, with ol’ Tim, style IS substance – but it sounds like its missing the point of what he does best as an auteur. Building the whole foundation of zany, gothic aesthetic in many horror family movies, I always appreciate him as less than a grade-A storyteller and more of a character/atmosphere type of dude who pours every iconic horror/B-movie sensibility. After all, not every movie has to constrain itself to the mechanics of narrative. That’s why, given the right type of character focus, lean script, we get great movies like Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, and the original Batman.

            …Which is why it hurts so much when I see Burton failing at that too. Once he does start to “give a point” he farts out harsh misfires like Planet of the Apes, Alice in Wonderland, and Dark Shadows. Sure, he’s never been a good storyteller, but it sadly sacrifices all character and charm in result of trying to. And now he makes Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, a canvas that could not be more up on his alley, in which he doubles down on the classic imagery and fun quirkiness most reminiscent of his heyday, while also restraining himself to a really clumsy, uninspired YA story. Thankfully, because of said visuals, this mess almost transcends itself from being yet another disposable Harry Potter knockoff based on the well-praised novel of the same name, thus safely nest itself in “good enough” territory.

            As a tradition to these stories, it revolves around Asa Butterfield as Jake, an oddball child in suburban Florida living with a single father who was once told stories of “the Peculiars” by his grandpa when he was young. But after the grandpa suffered a mysterious and tragic death, Jake suggest that, in order to relieve the family from their loss, the family should seclude themselves in Wales. The dad obviously questions this decision, but it’s very clear that Jakes is following an ulterior motive; to track down said “Peculiars” and find answers to his grandpa’s death all while proving that both of them aren’t losing their marbles after all. Anyway, once they get themselves there, Jake finds a cave that somehow teleports him to an alternate timeline, where he meets (sorry in advance) Miss Peregrine and her peculiar children in a secluded mansion.

            Alright, now for the tragically complicated part; Apparently Jake got stuck in a time loop that always plays the same day before the WW2 bombing that takes their mansion out. Miss Peregrine is one of the few that controls this loop and tries to prevent their house from burning. Meanwhile, Barron leads a cult of “anti-Peculiars” pretty much that lives off children’s eyeballs (just go with it) that attempts to find the house to feast off the children there…even though it wouldn’t matter in the long run and could’ve gone literally anywhere else. Oh, and since they’re in a loop, they have to make sure that every little event happens as it happens because... reasons? Oh, and each child have their own peculiarity that proves barely useful unless it’s in a third act fight scene. Oh, and Jake realizes that he has a special power himself that, without any further spoiler, doesn’t really prove useful in any point of the film anyway.

            Yeah, this movie is a mess. Everything wrong with the movie strictly lies in the narrative; character traits prove little more than plot devices for later, the bad guy's plan makes no sense, and the whole apparatus just shoves whatever iconic YA material it wants without having it coherent at all. For example, there’s no reason why they couldn’t just find another place to hide after bombing their house or go back many years before then, or why the kids could just kill the bad guy (called the Barron) on the spot when he holds the mansion hostage. Another example comes from the third act that, while prove to be a fun ride regardless, crams way too much conflict and not enough explanation. First, it’s a fight with the bad guys (who to be fair look something out of Resident Evil, which is great), then it’s a giant elephant cardboard monster (???) and then it’s a bunch of Jason and the Argonauts skeletons and then Samuel Jackson as the final boss. It's nakedly aloof with its setup and nowhere near as coherent.

            Oh, it tries to be coherent, but that’s another problem: It’s all setup and barely any emotion. Every line of dialogue is little more than setup, exposition, or occasional off-putting humor. Setting aside that the film aspires too much from any other similar movies like X-Men or Harry Potter, the film is too concerned with its mechanics and all the boring stuff that it never takes a breath and focuses on the characters. No one peculiar ever has a single character moment – save for one played by Ella Purnell who secludes herself in a sunken ship, which is literally only useful to get the characters into the third act quickly – that isn’t setup for later in the movie. This sadly renders Jakes arc, about getting accustomed to his new friends and acting as their guardian angel, trickling down into little more than a guy disobeying his dad because he really has the hots for this one chick who he saves in the end because, yeah, that’s not done enough it seems. Too much going on and not enough to make it mean something is a common problem in many stories like this, but lack of coherency deepens this blemish.

            MASSIVE problems aside, this movie is a visual treat. To be quite honest, if you mute all the bullshit and add some Danny Elfman music, it probably would be great as a classic Tim Burton visual tour-de-force. Drawing himself back to the classic iconographies of his early work, he doubles down on gothic scenery and massive set designs most reminiscent of the old school German horror movies like Nosferatu and Dr. Caligari. It also makes sure that the contrast between the real world and the peculiar world blooms within the color pallets. This aesthetic is also the reason why the film dives headfirst into the scary stuff, as Samuel Jackson lingers on the screen like something that should’ve come out of a B-rated monster movie. As for the performances, Sam Jackson and Eva Green pretty much own this movie. With Jacksons hamming it up as the Barron and Eva Green playing as a nurturing yet dominant mother figure, they play their roles so well that you almost forget the rest of the casts’ otherwise competent deliveries.

            Though otherwise, Miss Peregrine is, while by no means a disaster, a sad near miss by Tim Burton. It’s admirable, beautiful, and strangely evocative like all of his other works, but it’s also sadly inconsistent, bloated, and lacking of emotion. Had the filmmakers patch up the script or take out some of the BS, it would’ve been consistent. Heck, had the film embrace its lack of focus with the likes of, say The Dressmaker and at least give some character, it would’ve been worthy as a classic in its own right. But as my perspective stands, I say it’s just okay. Fans of the original books would get all their wishes fulfilled in this movie, and I'm not going to deny that.  Fans of Burton would call this a return to form, and I say “let ‘em have it!” There’s no reason why anyone should demand a more narrative success, but if it means making the characters and the setting actually leaving an impact as a result, then it wouldn’t hurt. Take it for what it’s worth.

Rating: 6/10

Review: Sully

           

          It’s kind of depressing for me to witness a growing contempt in Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood. To be fair, its all for good reason. I personally don’t care for his political views, nor do I stomach his recent, unpleasant comments on “the pussy generation". His 2012 support for Mitt Romney hasn’t been more than an embarrassment. His recent films in the past decade (or two. It depends on who you ask) ranges from "pretty bad" or "meh". It’s a shame that a man who once started out as an out-of-nowhere classic icon and also a well-acclaimed director will now be remembered by the new generation for… shit like this!

            Not that I call that uncalled for, but it’s still a bummer considering that he’s still capable of making great work. He has a great eye for scene arrangements and an unrestrained style of storytelling. Unlike other filmmakers, he focuses on the everyday aspects of a historical figure rather than demonizing or glorifying them.  There’s no “what if” or “how come” or any other baggage in Clint’s stories. Just the basic “it is what it is” storytelling of his biopics. Some might complain that there isn’t much meat to chew on as a result, but what makes Eastwood great as a storyteller lies in the trust he bestows on subjects he feels has just enough resonance on its own. Sometimes that works great (Letters from Iwo Jima and Million Dollar Baby) and sometimes it doesn’t (American Sniper and J. Edgar). With Sully, which tells the story of a recent plane landing on the Hudson River by Chesley Sullenberger, he once again reaches that same template with great earnest to the now-retired hero. The result is a solid, well-intentioned, slightly clumsy, tribute to a historical figure that no man other than Eastwood can make.

            Now the life of Sullenberger is a fairly straightforward one. Once during a flight in Flight 1549, a major turbulence caused by out-of-nowhere birds forced Sullenberger to attempt a miraculous landing in the Hudson River. After saving everybody on the plane, he is held as an “All American Hero” even though he just did his job. However, the NTSB, after an investigation on the wreckage, finds evidence to suggest that he committed an irrational act and found evidence of an alternative and safer method to land the plane. But Sully, along with Aaron Eckhart as his co-pilot, suggest that his human instincts point to the contrary, even going as far as to deny the dozens of flight simulations against his claim. Is he right? Did he act rationally? Or does the big, bad, mean NTSB just trying to tarnish his reputation? Do you seriously need answers to all of these?

            Now I know a bunch of smarty pants is bound to compare this to another plane movie Flight since both films are about pilots who attempted miraculous landings and somehow gets shit for it. But while Flight was an overrated, unlikeable, overlong piece of crap where such a landing can only be achieved by an underappreciated drunk who shoots up blow and abuses his friends, Sully takes a simple, likable explanation. He is just a man with past experience with a plane who believes in doing what he can to save as many people as possible, even if it means not landing on a runway. He has a lovable relationship with his wife and kids who gets separated thanks to a swarm of media news people. He feels that the NTSB forgets the fundamentals of human instinct so much that they wouldn’t see the danger of not complying with it. The only piece of extra information we get is when Sully suffers from reasonable nightmares of the plane crashing which resulted from him not committing to the Hudson in the first place (in beautifully crafted CGI plane crashes, I might add). Though otherwise, Clint Eastwood adds little more to this story and instead focuses on a man who just simply did his job and gets the well-deserved hero status, which results to probably his first film to end on a more heartwarming note in a while.

            Sadly, that does lead to a lot of issues. The film's structure is a little all over the place for starters; Todd Komarnicki’s scattershot screenplay rearranges the events rather than in order, which honestly would’ve been the better route. It starts with Sully after the crash, then before, then even back to his younger days, then the events at the hearing. It’s a weird structure and it’s made worse by the film deliberately finding excuses to insert multiple flashbacks and nightmare sequences. Another issue lies in the film being too one-note in its short and sweet storytelling, in which Eastwood frames the NTSB as the bad guys who misunderstood Sully’s act of heroism. It gets reasonable at first, but then once the film shifts into the “man vs machine” court case, it gets distracting. I expected that to be the case all along, especially from a film made by an anti-government conservative, but it’s still unfortunate to see a huge sacrifice in complexity, both in narrative and in character.

            Huge issues aside, this is a fine surprise for me and a huge improvement for Clint after a decade-long string of disappointments. Tom Hanks is still great in his otherwise straightforward role. The way the film represents an everyday hero is admirable and sentimental. And yes, lo and behold, Eastwood amps up the production value in this for the first time in forever, with simple camera work and impressive CGI plane sequences. The runtime is deliberately shorter so it doesn’t ruin the pace or overstay it’s welcome. In a weekend when we’re supposed to be reminded of the harsh events of 9/11, Sully deliberately arrives in the right time to remind us about that little heroic event that’s bound to bring us hope in the near future. I doubt this would be Eastwood’s last movie, but it could be a solid closure to an admirable career. 

Rating: 7/10

Review: Kubo and the Two Strings

Okay, here’s the problem with writing about Kubo and the Two Strings: a lot – and I do mean A LOT – of what I need to point out might or might not resort me into spoiler territory. Sucks, I know, but not doing so would not give this movie justice. So what I’m about to do is explain the story, explain the surface level stuff, and leave the deeper material later on. Fair deal?

            In either case, yes, you’ve heard it right; Kubo and the Two Strings is a masterpiece. After almost a decade of major studios like DreamWorks, Disney, and Illumination trotting out safe, eye-appealing kid’s movies, the small Claymation studio Laika returns once again with yet another masterwork. It’s a film that exceeds more than just their use of performances and impressive visual style with their usual somber aesthetic and shockingly relatable fables. This time, they finally step out of their usual gothic horror design and focus more on a Miyazaki-inspired Eastern palette. The result might finally replace their previous film ParaNorman as their definitive peak of their abilities, and probably be the best stop-motion movie ever made since Nightmare Before Christmas.

             Borrowing wholesale from Asian folklore, the story takes place in Ancient Japan where a one-eyed child by the name Kubo lives in a desolate mountain with his grief-stricken mother. During his downtime, he travels to a nearby village to perform origami tricks with his magic guitar (which is so amazing you won't even question it) , which he uses to tell an ancient story about his father - a legendary samurai - who was the first to square up against the Moon King with the aid of three pieces of golden armor (sword, helmet, and breastplate) . But after disobeying his mother for not staying home after dark, he soon encounters the Evil Sister who are in cahoots with the Moon King and decides to fuck things up in the village and take Kubo away in the process. The mother, reawaken from her grief, defends Kubo with her last of her powers in an attempt to fend off her foes. In the aftermath, Kubo now must find the three pieces and make things right while fending off the Moon King and his cohorts. Along the journey, he encounters a stern, assertive Monkey (Charlize Theron) and a brave but dense warrior Beetle (Matthew McConaughey).

            So, no guesses for which this story will wrap up in the end, or even how the inevitable plot twist will turn up. However, like Laika always promises, there’s real depth and a fresh new take on this material amongst their visual flair.

MAJOR SPOILER BELOW!!!

You see, the whole film is pretty much a parable for a broken/dysfunctional family scenario integrated into an epic Zelda-esque fetch quest storyline. Kubo’s mother is scarred by the Moon King who happens to be Kubo’s grumpy grandfather (Ralph Fiennes). When she wouldn’t comply to join his world – the world free of mortal consequence and pain – he punishes her by killing her mate and damaging Kubo’s left eye. So really, the whole clichéd epic story where the hero fights a villain to save the kingdom actually has some resonance because they twisted it into a psychological trial of fixing a broken family. It’s even right down to having the two companions (You read the spoiler warning!!) be the reincarnated versions of Kubo’s parents guiding Kubo to find the right tools to fend off old Grandpas’ evildoings and bring him away from his evil. It’s the type of story that can also relate to both young kids and adults alike, which is a type of feat we seldom see these days.

Now granted, the twist with Beetle and Monkey seems fairly obvious right from the get-go, with them possessing typical mother-and-father traits. However, it seems like it’s the point like it almost comes with the supply of Kubo engaging in a trial for finding his courage and family connection up until the big boss fight.

Spoilers end!!!

           

            Even if any young mind wouldn’t capture all the subtext, they’re probably too busy gushing over the widely impressive stop-motion animation. Even for a guy who never really get all impressed with stop-motion, I was in awe with what Laika has done here. With subtle feats like face details and clothing/hair physics to grand moments like the varied and large-scale boss fights, I’m glad this type of animation came quite a long way. What also amazes me lies in the remarkably detailed Eastern setting bursting with color and homage. For an animation company coming from the origins of the classic Harryhausen days, it's simply astonishing for how far their hard work exceeds this medium.

            The performances are too good to dismiss. Mathew McConaughey shows his usual charming swagger in Beetle while also pulling off his shortsighted aspects. Charlize Theron once again gives her best as a stern Monkey. Ralph Fiennes almost disappears in his role as the intimidating yet entirely nuanced villain the Moon King. Rooney Mara also impresses as the Sinister Twins, who mostly sounds reminiscent of the Twins from The Shining. The standout, though, is Game of Thrones own Art Parkinson utilizes impressive range as Kubo, invoking both the vulnerable and the courageous aspects of his character.

            Emphasizing any more of how Kubo works would now sound redundant at this point. There’s virtually nothing hampering the movie nor any one element overwhelming another. As a kids film, it’s pretty much perfect. As a warm diversion for the adults, it still works considerably. The type of film that relates to kids without talking down to them. It’s the type of deceptively simple storytelling that captures adult themes without falling gratuitous territory. It’s the type of film that contains huge respect for Eastern folklore without wearing out its welcome. Filled with character dynamics and a variety of emotion, Kubo and the Two Strings is an instant winner and you need to see it!

Rating: 10/10

Review: Pete's Dragon

It'd be almost pointless to call Pete's Dragon a remake at all. Built on the core foundations of the original, the movie takes such a fresh the angle on it that I'm surprised that they kept the name. Rightfully so, since the original wasn't all that good and - however ironically fun - weirdly outdated even for its time; obviously trying to replicate the success of Mary Poppins, the movie squanders the otherwise interesting "Calvin and Hobbes" influences in favor of bizarre song numbers and old-timey camp. It takes a special talent (namely David Lowery coming off the shoes of the indie crowd with Ain't Them Bodies Saints) to rework this from the ground up and ultimately surpass the original by a country mile, and this movie succeeds. Pete's Dragon captures the childlike awe and the rustic setting like the original but with a much more meditative and gentle tone, resulting in the most honest and emotional family tale of 2016.

The movie starts with a very young Pete as the sole survivor of a tragic car crash (a sequence that defines messed up) in the isolated woods in the Pacific Northwest. Alone with no family left, he scours for refuge after being chased by wolves, until he encounters a gigantic but also a friendly green dragon, who is appropriately called back to Falkor from Neverending Story. The dragon takes pity for the lost boy and the two instantly form a bond. After a huge, yet delightful, piece of the first act focusing on the dragon (called Elliot) and Pete just playing around, they soon encounter a lumber company led by Karl Urban who wishes to cover more ground in the woods under the disapproval of Bryce Dallas Howard as his park-ranging stepsister. Alongside her is Oona Laurence as her daughter who soon greets Pete and soon makes a connection with the rest of the family. But when Urban grows suspicious of the woods after his confrontation with Pete, he soon develops a different motive for proceeding further in the woods.

Now before you say anything, yes, the story isn't all that new and you probably know where this is going. The lumberman might step into the bad guy role in the pursuit of the dragon. Pete winds up retreading the fish-out-of-water story beats. There's a subtle tension between Pete and Elliot in the beginning of the third act. Heck, there's an old man (played by an otherwise fantastic Robert Redford) who tells a story about the dragon who turns out wasn't crazy after all. However, this movie goes to show that how you approach these clichés is important, and the amount of patience and rawness Lowery approaches these should be given more credit.

From the very first scene to the last, David Lowery proves himself as an unexpected master of rural scene geography and cinematic language. It's big things like the setting and tone, which feels reminiscent of an old Terrence Malick piece. It's small things, like the way it shows certain plot points rather than telling us and the personal dynamics between Pete, Elliot, and the family. And it's the things with individual scenes, like the first act devoting itself to just Pete playing around in the woods with his amazingly rendered dragon friend, and a sequence where Pete interacts with the unfamiliar town in which might be the best version of such moments. The clichés themselves are given more honesty and complete lack of plot contrivances. It all culminates in a piece that largely feels fresh and accessible without being too twee or fluffy.

But the biggest accomplishment of this film truly lies in how it does wonder with its coming-of-age parable. Despite some effective adult development with Redford, Howard and the rest of the family - Urban himself isn't much of a bad guy in this as he is a man who's ambition goes too far - it's all kept just simple enough to let the child perspective truly sell. Referring back to the Calvin and Hobbes influences, Elliot himself embodies a child's struggle to cope with the loss of friends or family, even as far as resulting Elliot resembling more like a giant dog or teddy bear than an actual dragon. So the whole film structures itself as a trial for young Pete to fully embrace human connection again. In the end, Pete's Dragon implicitly tells the youngsters that it's okay to move on from your loneliness, and it does so without any stupid dance numbers or weirdly dated stereotypes. And believe me, guys, this results in probably one of the most heartbreaking endings I've ever seen in any kid’s movie.

This perspective almost comes with a crutch during the third act, as it does mute most of Elliot's grand presence while the human's reaction clearly states something greater. This issue is honestly almost all throughout the movie but only highlights itself more prominently during the end.

That minor issue aside, Pete's Dragon proves worthy of its own place of original works, let alone as a remake. It's the type we get seldom these days, where the remake redefines its own name by having a man with a unique vision builds a whole new creation out of the same blueprint much like David Cronenberg with The Fly or The Coen Brothers with True Grit. Everything from the true nostalgic charm to the rustic geography to Elliot's unique design to the introspective tone works wonders in a movie I've never thought I see in my life. I'm usually bad at spotting a classic, but this might be the one.

Rating: 8/10

Review: Suicide Squad

   

           Here is how I encapsulate Suicide Squad in one scene in a movie. Not in any of the plot elements, or the dialogue exchange, or the abundant gun-toting action scenes, but in the end credits. Yes, the end credits – where, after the world is saved by our “heroes”, we see them back to square one in their cells in Blackgate prison in the typical “gritty reboot” Warner Bros aesthetic. Then, out of nowhere, Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie, who is by far the best part of the movie) escapes from prison via a jarring raid led by her meth head puppy face Leto Joker. Then after that, the credits roll in a bombastic, colorful blend of purple and green vape gas while a rap song called “Sucker For Pain” plays with Lil Wayne, Wiz Khalifa, and Ty Dolla $ign. It's not a particularly good song and the credits look phony and obnoxious, but I'd be lying if I didn't hum the song after it's over. Lazy, generic, and sloppy are words that come to mind to this eye candy, but "fun" stands out the most, plus it does calls back to the taste of my short roster of friends that I sort of hang around with. That’s the whole summary of Suicide Squad in my viewpoint.

            Suicide Squad is - objectively and inescapably - garbage. On the writing part, the story makes no sense, plot points get repeated for no reason, backstories serve no purpose other than a cheap way to establish character, and the characters themselves aren’t well-written in the slightest. Aesthetically, the direction defines choppy, characters aren’t well established – one character looks straight out of a Grudge movie while another one looks like those S&M clowns that might fit in Spring Breakers – the tone has “schizophrenic” written all over its face, (no thanks to those reshoots, because that always works!) and the CGI looks distractingly bad. Taken as a whole, it’s the cinematic equivalent of the modern, lazy, pandering rap song made cynically by the intent of establishing a name rather than making good products. BUT…even considering how much I actually listen to those same bad rap songs, I still like it? Yes, the movie has no right to be overrated by anyone with the aforementioned problems in mind (even if the web is still somehow mad about “biased Rotten Tomatoes”), but I still find joy and guilty pleasure in the whole thing, even if any of it sucks.

            The story, for the record, is far too convoluted to summarize. After the events of Batman V Superman, Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) for some reason comes to the conclusion that the world needs the help of Gotham’s rowdiest criminals. So she recruits Killer Croc, Boomerang, Harley Quinn, El Diablo, Deadshot, and… some other guy, under the help of Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flagg and Katana to do some rescue mission. Oh, and Davis comes to terms with Enchantress – who looks like she was pulled straight out of a Troma-esque Grudge ripoff – in order to persuade the officials to use the Squad, only to eventually be held hostage for the film to set up a rather questionable twist. Oh, and Enchantress is controlling Flagg’s boring girlfriend as she controls the city via a sky wormhole and a strangely crappy-looking demon brother who serves nothing other than a mini-boss. Oh, and the Joker shows up for no reason for both a flashback and in act 2 and literally drives and/or flies by the screen without any point.

            So yeah, like Batman V Superman, the movie suffers greatly from numerous plot issues and bad design choices, but at least it makes more sense since its actually under one man’s helm this time. Now I may like David Ayer’s movies in his unapologetic, openly grimy movie catalog, (I personally think Fury is still his masterpiece) but there is no denying the amount of weight he struggles to carry here, doubly so thanks to the reshoots. Everything from the nonsensical plot (in which we're supposed to believe that the all-powerful witch gets defeated by the old Bugs Bunny trick) to the jarring lack of appeal with the whole thing seems to be under the sway of cynical committee rather than a single vision. Constant shifts in tone, the weak transition of plot elements, and stupid-looking design choices he makes with the purple and green color palette and supercharged cutting techniques make the film look occasionally phony, and that’s before you see the final boss in her crappy-looking silk-sheets-as-smoke-clouds getup. In design, it’s as if Ayer desperately panders to the new age of wannabe gangster Snapchat teens the way he panders to thugs in Harsh Times, as he also shoves on-the-nose pop songs in any scene possible.  

            However, as someone who objectively follows some people in that demographic, I can’t help but enjoy this broken apparatus. The songs are obnoxiously phoned in but I think it's catchy. The story beats make no sense, but how the film gets there - from action scenes to out-of-place flashbacks - are a joy to watch. Even among the catchy soundtrack and weirdly enjoyable aesthetic, there is quite a lot of genuine good that’s sadly squashed by the vape-stinking baggage. The backstory for both El Diablo and Deadshot are genuinely engaging, however short-shifted, there’s a small bar scene where they share fun, if shallow, banter, and I’d be lying if there aren’t some good payoffs in the action scenes. Plus, I cannot deny the effort by Margot Robbie as the best Harley Quinn ever (although a bit oversexualized) , Will Smith and Viola Davis. All the rest are on autopilot (Killer Croc does nothing in this movie surprisingly), but it's fun to see Jai Courtney hamming up as an Australian stereotype.

            Sadly, all the poor actors lose any goodwill by a terrible performance by one Jared Leto as the new Joker. Passing aside the way the film contrives a way to have him swing by in the movie, Leto tries too hard to put a name for himself in this role as he scavenges multiple impressions of both Caesar Romero and Heath Ledger. The result is quite the most embarrassing and the most obnoxious Joker I’ve seen forever. If this shows up in the new Batman movie, then DC/Warner Bros is screwed.

            However, with that all in mind, this movie is the ultimate guilty pleasure. Nothing is good about it AT ALL, but I can’t shake off the mindless, pandering, coked-up fun that is Suicide Squad. It's poorly paced, thinly written, awful-looking, and full of shoddy direction, but I appreciate David Ayer for his otherwise flawed commitment. The film is the cinematic equivalent of cherry-colored, vape smoke-engulfed Big Mac, a neat idea doomed to fail but somehow has me entranced by its poor design. To that end, I'm still not convinced to give this movie any higher than a 3. But for the first time, I'm inclined to establish a Guilty Pleasure Rating, which I'll be giving it a 7. Some will love this movie, others will hate it, but I'm treading on both paths for now. Take that for what its worth. 

Rating: 3/10

Guilty Pleasure Rating: 7/10

PS: Say hello to your new ringtone!!

Review: Jason Bourne

            

HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!

           I honestly wished I expected more from Jason Bourne. To be quite frank, the Bourne franchise is probably the least need of a rebootquel, since every other action franchise clearly aspires to it now. Therefore, I was not the least convinced that we needed to reunite Paul Greengrass or Matt Damon or anyone who has since moved on to better things, and after actually seeing it... I’m probably even less convinced. See, the original Bourne’s were great because they were great at their time and standards, and watching this latest installment constantly reminding me of that makes it look more blatantly dated than it ever was. While by no means Bourne Legacy level bad, this movie is just an airless action movie made less boring solely by the virtue of Greengrass being so passionate of this reunion to a huge fault.

For those living under a rock and has never seen a Jason Bourne movie before, well… neither did I, so don’t sweat it. But for what I can gather after a week of catching up, the Bourne franchise widely regards itself as a “thinking man's” action movie both in design and theme, as the series blends intricate, real-life spy thrillers with ass-kicking action movies. The movie revolves around Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, a super soldier in an effort to find out his true identity while under constant surveillance by a CIA company Treadstone, who manufactured his crime-fighting powers in the first place. He engages in car chases, hand-to-hand combat, tactile cat-and-mouse scenarios, more car chases, occasional and unravels twists and turns until in Ultimatum (of course it’s the best one. Get over it already) he cracks the biggest component of his identity, thus the whole franchises’ subtext in general. After which he fakes his own death and goes into hiding, realizing that all of his efforts aren’t worth putting more people in danger.

            So, of course, being allegedly a reboot, Jason Bourne opts to erase all that completely by dragging Bourne out of hiding in order to resolve some hidden agenda by his father. Yep, the new Bourne movie, out of a franchise that otherwise broke the barrier for storytelling in spy action movies in the last decade, now trots out the ever-so-tired “daddy’s research” storyline. In 2016. Matters worse, the girl who got Bourne out of hiding – Julia Styles, one of the returning cast who somehow looks less game for this series than grumpy face Damon – gets the duty of also serving extra motivation for the hero as she’s assassinated by a new Asset (Vincent Cassel) who, big shock, may or may not be involved in the dad’s murder. So once again Bourne goes through yet another cat-and-mouse game, this time against the new company Ironhand run by Tommy Lee Jones and Alicia Vikander, to solve yet another mystery about his past.

            Outside of that, the movie just retreads the series right down to remaking set piece moments. Bike/car chase: check! Needle in a haystack scenario with a gratuitous police riot: check! Lady Treadstone character teaming up with Bourne who may or may not betray him in the end: check! Bad guys looking at tracking monitors while Bourne kicks ass: check!

Even though I adore Paul Greengrass’ shaky-cam aesthetic more than anyone, and to be fair the action remains his films highlights by a country mile here, he can’t seem to find a better angle of which he could tackle that doesn’t sacrifice credibility. Even past the naked box-checking of the structure, the whole setup feels obligatory; There is absolutely no reason why Bourne should get out of hiding and even though the stupid father mystery is the driving force of the story, there’s no point for Bourne to care outside of giving extra motivation to beat the bad guys. It’s as if Styles should never have died to bring Bourne back in the first place. I’d see anything from Greengrass since he’s the one who perfected this series, but this feels like such a weak turn from him.

  

Weak also extends to the film’s treatment to its subtext that serves as their lasting weight. Referring back to the “theme” part of the series – having the Bourne movies stand as an anti-Bush allegory after 9/11 was herculean at the time – the payoff of the series was that Bourne signed up to be Bourne because he wanted to. He wished to serve his country and be part of an advance organization while risking his identity, only to realize that his new masters were the real bad guys. Not only was that a highly unique twist of its time, it was also a gut-punching deconstruction of post-9/11 soldiers during the Iraq war; “Who is the real enemy” and all that. In Jason Bourne, they try to go further into that twist and it ultimately falls apart, reverting Bourne’s motivation into a revenge story because the SAME guy who killed Styles also killed his dad. UGH!!

Despite all that, the film is just too stale and behind the times for me to warrant any more hatred. I appreciate Greengrass for implementing relevant issues like an otherwise gratuitous subplot with Jones trying to recruit a Snowden-esque hacker and then threatens to kill him if he spills the beans, but the rest of the movie feels so dated. They literally play the exact same old Moby song at the end for crying out loud! For a series that revolutionized the way we think of action spy movies, this is such a wasted effort even when everything else topped its game long before this even happened.

Jason Bourne is exactly what I expected: just another bland reboot. If you like the classic Bourne action/spy espionage stuff revised twofold in 2016 then go right ahead, because this is only what this film is concerned with. The action, the performances, and Greengrass’ classic action chops remain as big as ever, but everything else stumbles. See it and judge for yourselves, but I wouldn't bother. 

Rating: 5/10

Review: Star Trek Beyond

            Short version: AWESOME!! Instantly better than the last two, and easily the second best summer movie this year. Keep reading, but BE WARNED FOR SPOILERS.

The Star Trek reboot series was the most frustrating series out of a franchise I’ve ever got familiar with. Looking past the grand spectacles and brilliant casting, the series cannot help but fall short in capturing the true spirit of the original shows. The first one cripples its visual flourish and charismatic leads with a multitude of plot conveniences and the insistence of appealing to the average movie crowd. Doubly so with Into Darkness, which tries and fails to implement political infighting and the series original lore. With plenty respect to Abrams and no respect from his bumbling screenwriters, all their efforts of emulating the same intelligent charm of the original series taints this reboot series, making them what extents to bloated, stupid action movies.

So who would’ve guessed that the series saving grace amounts to just being an action movie, stripping all the convoluted pretense and tedious self-referencing in the process? That is probably the biggest secret to Star Trek Beyond’s greatest success: executing a straightforward, small-scale, surprisingly character-driven piece of action movie devoid of any extra weight. The result is not only the most action-packed movie of the summer but one that pays true to Gene Roddenberry’s original vision of space exploration and monster-fighting.

The story picks up after the Enterprise crew depart from Earth after the events of Into Darkness as Kirk, Spock and the gang set off to find new life in the outer world. During this mission, they come across a new species of aliens, led by Idris Elba as Krall (who is easily the best use of a great talent as a villain in this series EVER!) that threatens to attack if they don’t comply to give them what they want. So once they refuse, the Enterprise crashed and burned in a nearby remote planet – yeah, get used to seeing that shit happening all the time now – which separates the crew. So it’s up to the scattered crew to find themselves once again, save the rest of the crew, and stop Krall. Along the way, Scotty (played by Simon Pegg, who still rocks!) finds a new alien companion who just so happens to inhabit a working Starfleet called the USS Franklin, which may or may not hold deeper information about Krall’s past.

So if any of that sounds more or less like a filler episode rather than a grand scale third entry, that’s because it mostly is, but by no means to a fault. The hidden genius of this film lies in how much its invested in finding compelling ways to keep its small scale reminiscent of the classic pulp adventures of the show. Which means fist fights are more upfront and abundant, character drama gets more of a focus – which is a breather since we don’t have to be reminded constantly of how important Kirk is for a change – the science is utilized to the best of its abilities when it comes to encountering danger, and there is not a hint of the plot bending over backwards to heighten the stakes with bloated bullcrap. It’s the type of deceptively simple approach I thought I never get in a Star Trek movie in this decade, and I’m glad we get it now than not at all.

The actors are all terrific once again. Simon Pegg’s script strips out all of Kirks personal baggage and just have him be a full-fledged commander, which allows Chris Pine to finally shine. Zachary Quinto finally convinces me that he’s the OG new Spock, Pegg and Karl Urban are still the films comedic charmers, and Zoe Zaldana can still remind us that, even after the shitty Nina movie, she can have real screen presence. More impressive in this series is the more credible yet menacing villain in Krall, who sole motivation stems from his depleted faith in his commanding officers who failed to find him, thus descending him to physical madness.

All that is due to new director Justin Lin, who honestly deserves more credit than what he gets. Sure it seems sacrilege to have a guy from the Fast & Furious movies taking the helm of a smarter series (which is honestly not much the case. See the original series) but his love for the material, joint with Simon Pegg’s script, shines through more than Abrams in two movies. The leads finally get some well-deserved banter as they crack jokes and attempt to fix their issues rather than ponder on them while at the same time we can enjoy some inventive camera-swooping space combat. The type of character dynamics mixed with over-the-top action that defined the Fast series could not befit this series more than what we could expect.

Which ultimately comes with a crutch, although not as big as the last movies. There’s probably too much action and not enough downtime, most of the connective tissue - although still effective - feels undercooked, there is still familiar story beats (like another McGuffin) and some might not like the smaller scale. It’s not much of a deal breaker as this is a blockbuster, which pretty much comes with the territory, but credit where credit is due.

Still, this is probably the Star Trek movie I always expected would happen yet never thought we get. One that stays true to its simplicity and makes the most out of it rather than failing from doing too much. Who would’ve thought we needed three freaking movies to get to the good stuff. Overall, I recommend this!

PS: The tribute to Leonard Nimoy will make you cry!

Rating: 8/10

More Mini-Reviews

Sorry for being absent (again) but Pokemon Go became one hell of a drug! :)

Anyway, here's a bunch of mini-reviews of films that I forgot to see earlier.

Free State of Jones

A part of me really wants to give Free State of Jones a more positive review. Viewed only on a technical critique, the environment looks beautiful, the acting screams Oscar caliber, and the underrated Gary Ross offers his boldest and grittiest angle for a film to date without cowering to obnoxious shaky-cam like last time. Viewed on the subtext, Ross also tackles his noblest of ideas. Setting during the American Civil War, the film draws parallels in the real world, inasmuch as the Confederate army leeching off the poor countries in the false pretense of “winning the war” calls back to the modern paranoia about the rich leaders leeching off our benefits. Even though it’s been done before, doubly so with the added dose of racism, the film takes a fresh new angle, even if it boils down to Matthew McConaughey’s real-life character resorting to more like Robin Hood than a more complicated figure. Adding multiple other commentaries on racial suppression that spans to almost a century on top of that, and this film would almost take care of itself.

           

Viewed as a functioning story, however, it just doesn’t work. For all its willingness to go headfirst into these ideas, the movie struggles to find any focus or any coherence. You see, the film occasionally cuts back and forth between huge gaps of time in order to view many ways the corrupt “white Confederates” horribly harass the working class, but without any strong rhythm to do so. More troubling, the film gets too relaxed with itself and doesn’t supply enough enjoyment, issuing way too much downtime with only a few sprinkles of tension in order to advance the plot. And once said plot already resolves itself once the “Free State” has been obtained, we still have an extra half hour of meandering. I get that they want to transition to life after the war, (that court case, KKK burning houses, retrieving a lost son from outside of the state) but the way they arrange these events so haphazardly leaves very little investment.

This, in hindsight, would work if said connective tissue allows us to flesh out McConaughey’s character outside of a clearly glorified “steal from the rich” archetype, but there’s not much else to chew on with this character outside of a weirdly offensive speech that claims that his bankrupt status is on the same level of slaves dealing with lynching and whipping. I don’t know how unaware Ross is with that self-centered claim, but the way this character plays as a blank slate savior of the oppressed makes his ulterior motives so uncomfortable.

            Despite the film's noble intentions intertwined with ultra-real set piece battles, Free State of Jones is way too clumsy and inert for me to recommend. It takes the racial issues and the One Percent parallels without any consideration to adding anything connecting to all of it. It inspires itself as both a Confederate war epic and a Robin Hood tale but doesn’t have enough steam to go all the way with it. I appreciate this film and it’s by far the most original out of the summer schedule, but that is as far as this film offers.   

Rating: 5/10

The Purge: Election Year

            Here’s what I seem to get out of the Purge movies up at this point, on account of not being a fan of any of them. So far, the whole point of The Purge trilogy is to construct an alternate world that allows one night to commit any crime they want without penalty in order to commentate on real world tendency to go full anarchy mode at any moment. That’s fair enough, but here’s what I don’t get: these movies constantly make it clear how BAD it is – even go as far as to blame the Purge on the One Percent making money out of the working classes insurance – yet they have no problem glorifying it either? Seriously, for all its jabs aimed at the demonized right wing rich guys profiting off murder, it all feels like an excuse to show director James DeMonaco’s tendencies to film what should be classified as flashy montages of music videos saying basically “LOOK HOW AWESOME YET AWFUL THIS LOOKS!”

At that point, it's wise to explain how contradicting all that is, but this honestly seems like it’s the series lasting charm, however, odd it may be. In the case with The Purge: Election Year, it’s a film that clumsily tries to mix political allegories with gratuitous money shots of murders and carnage straight out of a Michael Bay-produced playbook, but with an extreme passion for doing so that it gradually sustains itself into being its own fascinating hybrid. This time around, it immediately draws parallels to the current presidential nomination, to which a blond woman runs for in order to discontinue the Purge. This doesn’t bode well for the rest for the rest of the city – after all the Purge proves to deplete crime – as they vote an unsubtly sketched Republican evil-doer with a hidden agenda with the Church (I forgot to say that this isn’t subtle, right?) that plans an assassination against his opponent. Thankfully, she is aided by Frank Grillo as the Punisher Who Could’ve Been, who teams up with her and an army of rebels in order to survive the Purge and ultimately end it soon.

            I utter this again, guys, this movie is not subtle! You could practically paint the face of the running mates as both Clinton and Trump and it would not make one bit of difference, the dialogue exchange offers more hammer-to-the-head allusions, and the aforementioned carnage porn the film keeps throwing at us is about as on the nose as anyone could expect. But it’s also oddly enjoyable, mainly because of how much action and over-the-top sequences the film keeps throwing at us. Sure anybody can point out the implausibility’s and roll their eyes in its aloofness, but I’d like to refrain from that on this movie alone. Bottom line, it's airless but screams guilty pleasure.

Rating: 6/10

The BFG

            At this point, I’m about as sick and tired of people shit-canning Spielberg simply by the fact that he never made the next E.T.  “What happened to Spielberg?!” on one side, “He’s gone soft!” on the other. It’s annoying, mostly because Spielberg, arguably the most influential of geek filmmakers, is doing just fine! But all these constant articles keep telling me that he’s in the “washed-out” phase like he’s freaking Metallica when all I can think of this argument is “well, what do you think? He can’t make Jurassic Park all the damn time!” And besides, since this is the same guy who made Close Encounters, Indiana Jones, Jaws, Schindler’s List, Lincoln, and Minority Report, and pretty much shaped the blockbuster landscape decades ago, I believe he has all the rights in the world to put out at least one middlebrow film like this for a change!

            All that venting aside, calling The BFG “middlebrow Spielberg” isn’t so much a criticism as much as it is a reminder that whatever this movie achieves may not bode well for those that either want more or less of it. In this case, the film strips most of Roald Dahl's classic tale into a lean and child-friendly adventure flick that lacks the complexities and or many adult undercurrents like his last films. But even as minor of an effort from the master of whimsy, the film is still a delightful, gorgeous, if a bit flawed, film that achieves much of what it wants to be to some extent.

           

            One of the said achievements is the major cog in this machine: Mark Rylance’s facial motion capture of The BFG himself. Even though a lot would dismiss this type of animation as some type of “uncanny valley” gimmick, I believe it’s used quite well, mostly due to the physical actor involved. Credit is due to the little girl playing Sophie (who is just adorable!) Rylance, in particular, breathes life into this character, while the filmmakers walk a fine line between too realistic and too cartoonish without tipping on either side. Speaking of the CG, this is one of those films that breaks free of Spielberg’s real-life limitations and just swoops the camera wherever it wants, issuing a new standard for CG photography. Say what you want about Spielberg, even most of his shortcomings are about as good as this.

            That isn’t to discredit what’s not working, though. For all the downtime the film offers to grow the friendship between the Giant and Sophie, it also has too much going on in the second act that it almost loses itself from the plot. And not to disrespect the late Melissa Mathison, but it’s not particularly her best-written effort, as it does skew too much for kids. Speaking about children, even though I don’t mind the details of explosive farts as it was in the books, I doubt people would find it appealing.

            Even those minor issues aside, this goes to show how much even the slightest of a genius’ efforts can still turn out better than anyone else. There is no denying the disappointed faces of those that expect the next E.T., but I believe that we can still appreciate the same level of heart and wonder that remains. Overall, recommended.

Rating: 7/10

Review: The Legend of Tarzan

UGH! Not one of these again

…

Okay, look. If you’re attempting to remake a more faithful Tarzan movie – notwithstanding the VAST abundance of other Tarzan movies – you better go all out with it. The original stories by Edgar Rice Burroughs may hold a huge influence of decades-old adventure stories, but one cannot help to notice its largely uncomfortable racial issues, especially in an age where our literary society grows more sensitive by the day. I mean if you think about it, it's inescapable: A white hero representing a total embodiment of powerful, Anglo-Saxon race fighting unusual enemies in uncharted territory. Yeah, I’m sure THAT won’t turn some heads, to say nothing of the unpleasant Colonizing that came with it. Yikes! But what made these stories hold their lasting weight lies in their fun, pulpy adventure style in wacky scenarios.

So call it compensation: “Sure this sounds racist, but it’s also about a guy fighting bad guys with his Jungle friends, and that’s awesome enough!”

So with that in mind, there are angles to get around this for a modern update on Tarzan. On my money, the best angle is the 1999 Disney version, where they keep the action and the human races simplified in order to develop a man-vs-nature story that actually develops the hero as a character. The other movies went for broke and just became silly action adventure romps. The Legend of Tarzan, on the other hand, decides to take this subtext into the main thrust of the movie, whereas Tarzan is tasked with stopping Colonialism in Africa. Sadly, since the Warner Bros company clearly comforts itself with the gritty reboot template, any speck of goodwill from this otherwise exciting premise gets sucked out in an utterly dull, bloated, occasionally phony, carcass of a movie.

The story takes place after the whole shenanigans in the Jungle and Tarzan has made a name for himself in Britain where he takes a new persona as John Clayton. After a meeting with George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), he persuades the former ape-man to aid him in his efforts to abolish King Leopold’s slave efforts in the Belgian Congo. Little did they know that he and Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) are in cahoots with each other in an uninteresting villain plot with diamonds and mines. Jane (Margot Robbie) eventually tags along because she misses her homeland and the movie really needs a good excuse to get captured for a third-act rescue. So yeah, it’s up to Tarzan and his reunited animal buddies to take down the interlopers, rescue Jane, and despite trying their best to reduce the materials racism, inexplicably take credit from Williams in abolishing black oppression in Africa. Really.

Apart from being overstuffed yet simplistic, the biggest problem with the movie lies on how much it blunders on its own intentions. The film constantly emphasizes the horror of colonizing Africa at this time period for little reason other than to address the race issue, yet couldn’t find ways to go further with it other than a “great white savior” story. Whether or not they couldn’t conjure another angle with the whole “Belgian Slavery but with Tarzan” or they just thought we would think it’s noble, but the result ultimately makes him the hero while Samuel Jackson's character gets stuck as a wacky sidekick. It’s like trying to fix a wine-stained tuxedo with splashing more wine onto it.

           Outside of this irony, the rest of the film befalls into boring and half-baked. The writing consists of lazy exposition and awkward comedy, the characters are paper-thin, and the few CGI action scenes – save for a third act animal stampede – lack so much punch and scope it's borderline bizarre. I know Warner Bros hired director David Yates to helm this because he banked a lot of money with the gloomier Harry Potter movies, but most of his blockbuster panache and overall dreary aesthetic falls limp here. (Or maybe he’s saving his energy for Fantastic Beasts) Most of the performances are all wasted but try to bring charisma, save for Skarsgard who couldn’t even hold the medal in appeal against Jai Courtney. Most damming, the movie tries to fill up Tarzans origin story via flashbacks, which serves little more than rush the character development and set up one needless plot points after another.

  Admittedly, the movie brings itself up a few notches during the aforementioned third act stampede. It all looks straight out of a pulp adventure romp detached from the rest of the movie, but rarely does a film benefit from that. I mean, why can’t a Tarzan movie stop refrain from gloomy pretense for once and actually becomes a Tarzan movie?

  However, in the end, this movie left me conflicted on who this movie is for. It fails to be a historical piece by adding fictional ape brawling. It fails at being aimed for old Tarzan fans by its “gritty reboot” style and the fans of said style would get zoned out by the rest of the tedium. Most damning, though, the movie admirably faces the racial implications but winds up biting its own ass. Credit is due for intentions despite the fact, but sometimes that just isn’t enough.

Rating: 4.5/10

Review: Swiss Army Man

Watching Swiss Army Man feels like watching a high-wire stunt performed by two clowns while juggling bowling pins and rubber chickens. Not only does this act look absurd and devoid of conventional, but looks dangerous. A bizarre mixture of Cast Away and a Looney Tunes episode couldn’t not stumble by the weight of its own ambition, either by being too obnoxious or too sappy. At any minute, this films could fall apart completely, and watching it succeed gracefully had me cheering after it’s over. And while I’m aware that calling movies stunt shows proves little more than banal and gratuitous bullcrap straight out of any pseudo-prestigious factory, the films real secret to greatness is how much it gets away with hidden meanings and poignant themes. That along with the gonzo lunacy of the films mechanics easily makes Swiss Army Man one of the boldest and the most meaningful movie of the year.

And yes, we’re still talking about the movie where Harry Potter plays a dead corpse farting across the ocean like a jet ski.

The story centers around Paul Dano as Hank, a depressed shell of a man who, after being shunned by society, is now stranded on a deserted island and attempts suicide. He then stumbles across dead body (Daniel Radcliffe) that somehow has super powered farts and decides to ride him across the ocean. Once they make it to another island, Hank befriends this corpse (named Manny) and realizes that the more he comes to realize every aspect of life – like making friends, being weird, masturbating (really.), and asking girls out – the more the corpse can perform an array of bodily functions; ones that range to basic like speaking, and other on the weird spectrum like vomiting fresh water out of your mouth and shooting bullets from your mouth. Realizing the potential of this mechanic, Hank grows accustomed to Hank so that he could have enough superpowers to get him home.

Now there is LOADS of things to cover on how ridiculous this sounds, but the way the film straight up goes with it is part of the charm. No matter how silly it gets with Hank using Manny as either a karate-chopping wood cutter or a pebble-shooting gun, the movie finds a lot of moments of introspection and emotion at the piece. We see both of these broken people both coping and ultimately aiding each other with their issues (Hank being a depressed dweeb with his whole life kicking him around and Manny being, well… dead) and finding ways to either work around their issues or embrace them to their advantage. It all culminates to of the films beautiful revelations, that everyone is either broken and weird and all we can do is either face, or live up to, these ailments, all while not having to drench itself with too much twee sensibilities to pull it off.

Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe are both amazing in their roles. Their chemistry feels real, not just considering their more “passionate” physical acting (though those shouldn’t be passed up either) but by sheer matter-of-fact friendship, as they both come to terms with both of their uncanny status. While it’s easy to pull out the “Nobody Does a Dweeb Better Than Dano” card, the real treat is watching him create this shallow, creepy character into something palpable. I’ve been watching this guy perform for years, and this is easily the best role he ever agreed on. Radcliffe, on the other hand, is nothing short of revelatory, instantly making a dead guy feel so full of life. From his head dangling on one side in every scene while he tries to form words with his barely-functioning mouth to the way he executes deadpan humor flawlessly, this proves that Radcliffe’s indie career trajectory after the Harry Potter movies finally pays off.

But it’s even more than that still, believe it or not. While merely any average Joe walking into this movie can enjoy the many nonsensical scenarios with human appendages straight out of the “Turn Down for What” music video playbook – which is what, coincidentally, is the directors of this movie was responsible – the more outside-the-box audience can think of many of the films subtexts and get a kick out of that too. It could be how a child comes to grips with the strange world we call Earth. It could be about how a man tries to explain what life really is about while also understanding the details that he didn’t realize. It could be about how two worlds of grounded cynicism and absurd optimism coalesce as one. It could be about how we accept our oddities in a world full of dreary conformity.

Heck, that last part could metaphorically be one of the main reasons why I love this movie so much. In the recent summer deluge of uninspired sequels, dull remakes, and manipulating adaptations, here’s Swiss Army Man coming straight out of the Film Festival scene walking in the rain with a bright raincoat and a clown face, begging for the world to get over their baggage and greet the unique creation with open arms. That is pretty much Swiss Army Man in a nutshell: a unique creation with everything opposing the predictable. Silly yet earnest, smart yet playful, meaningful yet consistently so, bold yet simple. Whether or not you believe me when I say this, but notwithstanding this gonzo mechanics, this is perfect in the way it wants to be. Definitely worth a watch.

Rating: 10/10

DVD Mini reviews

No, I'm not dead, and no I have not seen new movies. However, I managed to rent and watch some new movies that came out earlier this year and decided to compile a bunch of small reviews in one big page. Take that for what its worth, and enjoy. 

Everybody Wants Some!!

I have been arming myself to hate Everybody Wants Some the moment I saw the trailer. I mean, how can I not? A movie about an ensemble cast of coincidentally handsome bros in early 80’s college life that do nothing other than chase women, get wasted, and dick around? In 2016, where multiple douchebag comedies not only did this but did this horribly? And don’t get me started on how paranoid anyone can get with discussions about influences or feminism. Yet here I stand, knowing how otherwise profoundly troubling concept, Richard Linklater approach this and ultimately says “yeah, this is dumb and not safe, but it is also fun and small doses of fun is no crime.” And I would be damned if it doesn’t work! Everybody Wants Some is not only “good”, nor only “exceptional” but probably “perfect in what it wants to be”

            The secret to the film’s success, surprisingly, is its simplicity. There’s virtually no plot, no conflict (unless if you consider flirting with chicks is any sort of struggle), or any significant cultural iconography other than a classic rock soundtrack and retro production design. What the film does, however, is simply observe the multitudes of vignettes of males doing male things, like partying, playing home sports, drinking, dancing with girls, more partying, and then some. And yet, it all feels tangible; we feel that we’re with these boys and their shenanigans, mostly because it feel reminiscent of my similar experiences. Even though I never smoked weed, picked up girls, or got into fights with dudes in bars, somehow this film transport me in these scenarios in a way that I did, even though I never lived in the 80’s. All of this is due to the maestro of social observation Richard Linklater, who might just be making his spiritual successor of Dazed and Confused. The way he frames these trials of masculinity looks so ultra-real that it’s barely a movie anymore as much as it is a series of YouTube videos recording real life events.

            There are themes in this deceptively simple movie, to be sure. Being a movie about college kids, there are some jabs at “the government” among other life lessons like “don’t fool around too much”. But amidst all these series of masculine horseplay, great soundtrack, the specific direction, and a surprising amount of relatable characters, what stick to me about Everybody Wants Some is the notion of coming to your own and being who you want to be. And what more to support that notion than just to grab a beer and have fun for once in a while. Do not miss this one!

Rating: 9/10

Eye In The Sky

            Memo to would-be political filmmakers: if you wish to tackle this sort of concept, THIS is how far you need to go to make it work! Anybody, and I do mean fricking ANYBODY, can make this movie – a political piece about drone warfare and soldiers debating about casualties and “needs of the many” and whatnot – but without the balls to go far with its consequences. Yet here’s Gavin Hood, of all people, stepping in with the wherewithal to go bold and personal. Sure, you can supply a wide arrange of good performances and insightful political insights and moral ambiguity in your movie, but if you don’t take the obvious step further in your efforts, all you have left is futile. And thankfully, Eye In The Sky breaks this mold of monotony, all while instantly becoming a legit functional movie supplied with a great think piece.

            The whole nuts and bolts of this movie are all tightened and arrange adequately without any of it loose or tight. The performances show enough emotion within the plot without overdoing it (Aaron Paul, Helen Mirren, and Alan Rickman, in particular, do wonders in their roles). The politics about Iraqi bombings and drone warfare take front and center but there is no sense of overblown pretension. The dialogue strips most of the distracting connective tissue in favor of straightforward moral insight, even if it does drag on and mostly feels like we’re watching a college presentation. The few action scenes serve no gratuitous purpose other than to remind us about the stakes that these spies endure while deploying drones. It’s all arranged and choreographed exactly the way it needs to be and would be all worth it all its own.

            Thankfully, they don’t leave that there. The third act surprise takes a wholly unexpected turn that takes guts to execute. This plot turn takes its theme of “Drone Warfare is more costly in blood and we should be more cautious about how we use it” to “No matter how we try, there will be bloodshed and the best we can hope for is less of it.” All conveyed by instantly the best line delivery by the late Alan Rickman in his whole career. In the end, Eye In The Sky is as bold and complex as it needs to be and would’ve been a nice distraction without its ambitions. See this as well!

Rating: 8/10

Midnight Special

            Midnight Special proves to be the most frustrating movie to think about all year, let alone the most frustrating to enjoy. It’s clearly inspired by the Spielberg-inspired sci-fi drama with family dynamics and paranoia commentary, but either fails or chooses not to have us invested in any of it. Now I know I should appreciate Jeff Nichols attempt to utilize experimental sensibilities with the blockbuster scene, and for the most part, he does excel in most parts of this movie. But what we have here is an unfocused hybrid of both, with heartfelt moments pulled back for subtlety, and subtlety being absent with a few minutes of special effects.

            The premise: a child who shoots lasers out of his eyes is on the run with his father and uncle from the government who wish to experiment with him. Clearly inspired by E.T. or Close Encounters (with the family dynamics, the nifty special effects, and the sci-fi sensibilities within the fish out of water storyline) but it seriously feels it needs to pull out at the least appropriate time in some vain attempt to be different. Are the awkward pauses within the dialogue supposed to be elevated by the actors facial emoting or is Nichols unaware for how long and awkward they are? Is the paranoid religious community supposed to fill in the commentary, or is it just background noise? Is the ending intended to be interpreted or did they just run out of time?

            It’s a shame because everyone involved in this movie really tries to pull this off. Joel Egerton, Michael Shannon, Kirsten Dunst, and child actor Jaeden Lieberher express their abilities well enough to smooth out the complicated script (to say nothing of Adam Driver still proving to be quite a surprise) and Jeff Nichols does all he can to fulfill his vision, even though he doesn’t seem to know what that sort of vision is. However, as it stands, Midnight Special all amounts to a well-intentioned, mildly good-looking slog that either doesn’t feel the need or just can’t connect to the subtle experimental audience or the not-so-subtle Hollywood audience. I’m not going to pretend this movie doesn’t have its own audience, but it just didn’t work for me.

Rating: 6.5/10

Green Room

            Alright, here is the premise: a punk rock band signs up to a gig in the middle of nowhere that’s full of nasty, hate-filled Neo-Nazis and eventually gets held hostage after their performance goes awry. From then on, it’s a bloody, intense horror thriller with many lip service to the Romero-era zombie flicks with skinheads. The film is literally that simple, and yet somehow conjures up more than what we expect. Amidst all the violence and the effective horror sleight of hand, the true center of Green Room lies strictly on the surprisingly solid script and filmmaking.

            Under the helm of newcomer Jeremy Saulnier, the film delves into the struggle with these characters and their situation. Even though we like to see a bunch of teens killing off a bunch of skinheads Oldboy style, the band members never come close to being the heroes; some of them are poor, loathing bastards themselves and they strive for are no less different than their swastika-toting adversaries. What matters is what they react to their position they got themselves into, and what can reflect on to us in the slim chance we get into their situations. Even the final boss (a menacing Patrick Stewart) and his henchmen feel more grounded, as they feel as anxious as the band members and unwilling to cause any harm. In a Hollywood horror movie landscape as uninspired and lacking of any investment, here is one fresh out of a Film Festival playbook with more than just jump scares and gratuitous gore.

            Even the brilliance of the script out of the equation, Saulnier still manages to craft one hell of a tense movie. I cannot recall a horror movie in the last 10 years that has got me at the edge of my seat and shocked me out of it. Explaining how would be impossible, but just imagine The Conjuring if the camera lingered on that bed scene for a few seconds longer, and the payoff was… bloodier. If this is what Jeremy Saulnier can manage, then I am proud of keeping him in y radar. Overall, I recommend this slickly crafted horror movie if for no other reason than you won’t experience a more anxiety attack like this.

Rating: 8/10

More on the way!