roblesar99 Reviews

Welcome to Marwen (2018)

Makes You Want To Watch The Documentary It Was Based On Instead

[6/10 · 21 December 2018]

Before I saw WELCOME TO MARWEN, I saw a tweet calling it "Zemeckis' VERTIGO." Although I scoffed at the idea, after viewing it, I realized that it held some merit, with one of the female characters, played by Merritt Wever, eerily inhabiting a very similar role to that of Barbara Bel Geddes. There are some interesting ideas on display throughout the film that mirror themes found in VERTIGO, as both focus on men attempting to move past a traumatic experience. However, the men in both films elect to move past this trauma by shaping the females around them in their own desired image. It worked in VERTIGO, but 60 years removed from that film, such a premise seems tone-deaf to say the least. Furthermore, Zemeckis' latest film will no doubt serve as further evidence for the group of critics that peg him as a filmmaker primarily interested in the latest special effects rather than one primarily interested in telling a story. Zemeckis seems like an odd choice to helm this film, as he never opts for a subtle, tender approach to telling the story of Steve Carrell's Mark Hogancamp, who was assaulted by a group of white supremacists. Instead, Zemeckis opts to place the film's visual effects at the forefront, and electing to focus on shootouts and explosions rather than a more nuanced exploration of Hogancamp's fragile psychological state. That the film also revels in some more obvious instances of male "gaziness" when it shows some of the animated female doll figures topless is worthy of an eye-roll, to say the least.

That being said, I truly do think that Steve Carrell delivers a better performance here than most will give him credit for. When the script, written by Zemeckis and Caroline Thompson, isn't actively attempting to display the film's special effects (or having Carrell deliver some truly awful lines about the "essence of a woman"), Carrell does at least attempt to understand the struggles that his character's real-life counterpart underwent after the assault. The majority of the cast (even Leslie Mann, whose character unfortunately follows the manic pixie dream girl stereotype) also delivers some solid work, especially the aforementioned Wever. That being said, watching WELCOME TO MARWEN left me thinking that this was a story that didn't necessarily need to be made into a film, especially when a critically-acclaimed documentary about Hogancamp himself named MARWENCOL already exists.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)

The Best Spider-Man Film Since SPIDER-MAN 2

[8/10 · 10 December 2018]

The best Spider-Man film since SPIDER-MAN 2. An animated spectacle that not only invigorates, but transcends the superhero genre, resulting in not just the best superhero film of the year, but one of the best films of the year. This films understands the idea of Spider-Man better than any other Spider-Man film before it, recognizing the factors that have allowed this character to have become one of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's most beloved creations. At the end of the day, whether you're talking about Miles Morales or Peter Parker, Spider-Man's "just a kid," as a bystander once said during SPIDER-MAN 2's most emotionally resonant scene. He might be "just a kid", but he's a kid endowed with superhuman powers who endeavors to use them for good, who represents not only the best of what humanity should be, but what the best of humanity can be. The original SPIDER-MAN is the first film that I can remember seeing in a movie theater, and although there are a quite a few films that I would deem superior to any take on the famed webslinger, the character will nonetheless always hold a special place in my heart.

While I'm not very familiar with the story of Miles Morales, Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, and Rodney Rothman's film does an excellent job introducing the audience to a character every bit as compelling as Peter Parker, with Shameik Moore bringing Morales to life with oodles of heart and charm. However, what most surprised me about the film was Jake Johnson's take on Peter Parker. Tom Holland might have finally captured the essence of the character better than both Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield before him, but Johnson delivers my favorite take on the character thus far as a 40-year-old Parker stuck in a midlife crisis. Superheroes have a tendency to either not age or age very slowly, but Johnson's Parker is a man who has spent over half his life being a superhero, as who has thus seen the unavoidable toll such a life takes on the people around you. These ideas provide Parker with a fascinating character arc, but they thankfully don't overshadow that of Morales, as we watch him grow into New York's friendly neighborhood Spider-Man right before our very eyes.

This might be yet another origin story in a genre that has seen more than its fair share of them, but SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE feels different and fresh, which is a testament to Phil Lord and Rodney Rothman's script, which infuses Morales' journey with plenty of heart and wit. There are some poignant scenes in the film on par with anything in Raimi's original trilogy, from a death scene in the first act that sets the stage for Morales' story to a scene between Morales and his father (voiced to perfection by Brian Tyree Henry) at the end of the second act. Additionally the other "Spider-Men," including Nicolas Cage's 1930s Spider-Noir and John Mulaney's Spider-Ham, are an absolute riot. I definitely wouldn't have minded spending some more time with those characters. Watching INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE was a cinematic experience like few others, thanks in part to the absolutely dazzling and dynamic 3D animation, which descends into a mesmerizing explosion of color during the final act and is unlike anything I have ever seen. That the film contains one of Stan Lee's best cameos to date is simply the cherry on top.

And the post-credits scene is seriously an all-timer. Might be the best one of these since *checks notes* FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF.

Free Solo (2018)

Achieving The Impossible

[8/10 · 26 September 2018]

A rousing, crowd-pleasing documentary that showcases the extraordinary capacity of the human body to push itself to the extreme - or in the words of free solo climber Alex Honnold, "to reach perfection" - Jimmy Chin and Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi's FREE SOLO makes for one of the most tense viewing experiences I've had in a theater this year. We already know how this documentary will end (any other sort of ending and this would have never been released), but Chin and Vaserhelyi nonetheless manage to convey a palpable sense of fear and tension throughout, as Honnold repeatedly practices climbs in preparation for his free solo climb of Yosemite's famed El Capitan, a 3,000 foot wall of sheer granite. Honnold makes for a fascinating subject as the climber at the heart of the story. Unlike literally 99% of other climbers, however, Honnold specializes in free soloing - climbing without using ropes or any other sort of protection. What Honnold does is insane, and the film repeatedly stresses the fact that one wrong move would result in his death. But Honnold's passion for free soloing is his lifeblood, and despite the inherent (and obvious) dangers of his profession, it's the one thing that keeps him going. I can't imagine what would ever possess Honnold (and others like him) to do what they do, but what I can say is that FREE SOLO captures his feats in breathtaking glory that left the audience in the theater cheering at the end.

Points off for the Tim McGraw song during the end credits, though.

Dogman (2018)

Unlikable Characters and Bone-Headed Decisions Sink This Promising Italian Drama

[5/10 · 26 September 2018]

Matteo Garrone's DOGMAN starts off fairly strongly, but it unfortunately runs out of steam before the third act even begins... and then the third act has the gall to conclude with an unsatisfying final shot. I struggle to connect with films that focus on morally reprehensible characters, no matter how well-crafted the films themselves might be (ex. RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS), and DOGMAN fits right in that category. The film focuses on Marcello, a timid dog groomer regularly accosted by towering neighborhood bully Simone, who starts off as an interesting character thanks to Marcello Fonte's great performance, but by the end of the film I was disillusioned by the character's frustratingly idiotic decisions, as well as Garrone's attempts to make the audience sympathize with a character who wasn't worthy of sympathy. There's a very tricky tightrope that a director and performer must navigate when attempting to create a morally reprehensible character that an audience can still sympathize with. Garrone and Fonte fall off that tightrope about halfway through the film. Just because Marcello cares for his daughter and works as a dog groomer (the dogs are easily the best part of this film) doesn't make him any less of a detestable character, as exemplified by a resoundingly foolish decision he makes at the end of the second act that made my eyes roll so hard I saw the inside of my skull.

I know I've mainly expressed my dislike for DOGMAN so far, but the performances (especially from Fonte and Edoardo Pesce) are great, Nicolai Brüel's cinematography is a delight (I particularly enjoyed how much the takes here were longer than usual), and there's a satisfying streak of dark humor running through it all. That being said, there's just too many bone-headed decisions made throughout the course of the film for me to recommend it.

Girl (II) (2018)

An Emotionally Devastating Coming-of-Age Tale

[7/10 · 26 September 2018]

Emotionally devastating yet reassuringly empathetic, director Lukas Dhont's GIRL tells the story of transgender ballerina Lara as she seeks to complete her transition while struggling to achieve her dreams. Make no mistake, this is a tough film to watch (as exemplified by the cringing noises and gasps from the elderly women sitting in the row behind me), but it's also a rewarding one. Victor Polster delivers some of the best work of the year in his portrayal of the protagonist, and while some will rightly be bothered by the fact that Polster is a cisgender male actor who cannot ever known firsthand the difficulties that someone like Lara would have gone through her entire life, he nonetheless delivers an arresting, sensitive performance that adroitly examines these devastating struggles. And while the film does focus a fair amount on the struggles that Lara faces through her transition, it also highlights her resilience and courage, which define her more than anything else. I also have to point out that it's been a landmark year for movie dads, with Arieh Worthalter fitting right in with Michael Stuhlbarg's dad from CALL ME BY YOUR NAME, Josh Hamilton's dad from EIGHTH GRADE, and Tracy Letts' dad from LADY BIRD. Worthalter shines as a devoting father who desires nothing more than his daughter's happiness.

If there's one thing I disliked about GIRL, however, it's the slow pacing, which I really started to feel during the last fifteen minutes of the film or so. It's only 105 minutes long but each and every minute is certainly felt. I also wasn't the biggest fan of Dhont cutting the music off during certain scenes (let the scene play out, Dhont!). Despite my complaints and the fact that I might not have loved GIRL, I still certainly believe it's worth watching.

Border (2018)

Jarring Tonal Shifts Mar This Ambitious Directorial Debut

[6/10 · 26 September 2018]

Weird does not equal good. But it does equal very interesting. Director Ali Abbasi's BORDER is basically a modern-day fairy tale... with nudity, sex, illegal crime, and even a shocking act of violence. I'm not quite sure that this meshing of genres works, and indeed the film is at its best when it solely focuses on the main protagonist (played by Eva Melander) and her attempts to tap into her true nature. The film gets bogged down simply because Abbasi attempts to do too much (it's almost as if Abbasi and his co-writers Isabella Eklöf and John Ajvide Lindqvist had two very different ideas for a film and then tried their best to bring them together in a somewhat cohesive manner). This genre see-saw unfortunately leads to some glaring tonal shifts, with the film ultimately growing too dark for me in its final act. I don't mind dark films, but I do mind when a film has mostly presented itself in one way only to shift rather abruptly as it builds to its conclusion. I realize I'm being vague here, but this is truly a film that should be watched with as little knowledge of the plot as possible. I will give Abbasi credit for having a vision and sticking with it - from the first frame to the last he does not compromise what he wants this film to be. And also, the prosthetic and make-up work is truly outstanding.

The Favourite (2018)

Lanthimos Delivers... But The Ending Could Use Some Work

[8/10 · 22 September 2018]

Sumptuous and stunning. With THE FAVOURITE, director Yorgos Lanthimos delivers his best film yet - one that works as both a historical drama and a sex comedy that features beautiful cinematography courtesy of Robbie Ryan (Lanthimos really loves him some fisheye lenses) and gorgeous costume design courtesy of Sandy Powell (just give her the Oscar already because wow). Lanthimos, working for the first time with a screenplay that he didn't co-write, deals primarily with themes of power and the way it impacts the three women at the center of the film. Despite not having had a hand in writing the screenplay, Lanthimos seems to be in his wheelhouse, crafting a stirring yet (darkly) humorous rumination on humankind's innate desire to posses power, whether it be political, sexual, or anything in between. Granted, Lanthimos is also working with some of the most talented actresses working today and the big three (Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz, and Emma Stone) all deliver some of the best work of their career. As crazy as it might sound, however, and despite Colman's Best Actress win at Venice for her portrayal of Queen Anne, this is Stone's film. I'm already frustrated by the fact that she will be campaigned in the Best Supporting Actress field despite the fact that the film wholly follows her arc. That's not to take anything from Colman, whose performance is likely the most impressive of the three, but I do feel it's something to take note of.

However, the film isn't flawless, and it once again demonstrates that Lanthimos' greatest weakness as a director is his inability to deliver a satisfying conclusion. I loved THE LOBSTER, but the last ten minutes left a bitter taste in my mouth that I detested. I was a bit cooler on THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER, and the last ten minutes proved a bit too dark for me. This time, even a great final shot isn't enough to save the last fifteen minutes of the film from seeming necessary. The film simply (and suddenly) runs out of steam before it crosses the finish line - an unfortunate occurrence considering the fact that nearly everything before it proved wickedly entertaining. That being said, I'm excited to see what Lanthimos does next. I just hope he nails the ending.

The Front Runner (2018)

Jason Reitman's Second Film Of The Year Makes For Thought-Provoking Entertainment

[7/10 · 21 September 2018]

When I checked out the reviews for THE FRONT RUNNER after walking out of the theater, I was surprised to find that it was being met with a generally mixed critical reception. That's not to say that THE FRONT RUNNER is some sort of masterpiece, but I definitely thought it was an interesting film, and one that feels rather timely in this day and age (for reasons that are quite obvious). Perhaps the best thing I can say about the film is that it manages to avoid the on-the-nose writing that plagued BLACKKKLANSMAN in more than a few scenes. Reitman smartly lets the film speak for itself, letting the audience draw their own connection between the events that torpedoed Senator Gary Hart's campaign over thirty years ago and similar events that have plagued other politicians over the last few years. If there's one consequence to such an approach, it's that Reitman presents a lot of ideas without ever taking a firm stand on them, failing to elaborate on ideas that almost demand further analysis - an approach that will certainly rub some the wrong way. That being said, there's a lot to enjoy here, from Hugh Jackman's great performance to Jason Reitman's directing (I quite liked the way he utilized the camera here) to Rob Simonsen's low-key electronic score to the rest of the supporting cast (with an affecting Vera Farmiga being the obvious standout). It even reminded me of a bit of I, TONYA in its analysis of the press (how would American history have been affected if not for their obsession over Hart's love life?).

One more thing, though: it might have just been the theater I watched this in, but the sound mixing in this was atrocious. I want to watch this film again with subtitles just so that I can understand the other half of what the characters were saying.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018)

A Low-key Comic Drama That Showcases Melissa McCarthy's Talent

[6/10 · 21 September 2018]

Going into CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? I had rather low expectations. As I walked out of the theater, I was impressed by the fact that director Marielle Heller and actress Melissa McCarthy (who last starred in the disastrous THE HAPPYTIME MURDERS) had managed to make me care about a film focused on subject matter that I found rather uninteresting to begin with. The concept at the heart of this film will certainly appeal to some, but unfortunately for me, it was the one thing actively working against the film from the get-go. And indeed, during the film's rather dull first ten minutes, I feared that I would be bored for the next hour and a half. Thankfully, however, the introduction of Richard E. Grant's character immediately elevated the film, and his dynamic with McCarthy's Lee Israel (an author who forged hundreds of letters in the 1990s) is undoubtedly the highlight of the film, providing hearty laughs and emotional depth in equal measure. And McCarthy herself proves more than capable of handling a meaty dramatic role that aptly showcases her talent and makes one wish that she didn't star in such films as the aforementioned HAPPYTIME MURDERS. To all the filmmakers out there: McCarthy has talent. Use it.

I might not have been very invested in the film's story, but McCarthy and Grant (who should definitely be in the running for a Best Supporting Actor nomination next year) certainly make CAN YOU EVERY FORGIVE ME? worth watching.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

The Most Impossible Mission Yet

[9/10 · 4 August 2018]

97

Quite frankly, the only thing I thought to myself as I walked out of the theater after seeing MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - FALLOUT was "wow, I wish I could have seen that in IMAX." Unfortunately, I live in a small rural town in a pretty rural state, which means that the closest IMAX theater is about an hour and fifteen minutes away - and I don't have a car. Furthermore, having rewatched all the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films in the last few days, I just couldn't wait any longer. But I'm glad I finally saw FALLOUT because it truly is the best action film since MAD MAX: FURY ROAD. The film starts off with a bang - literally, and the first twenty minutes provide some of the darkest moments this series has had to offer. In these films, the world has been close to destruction time and time again, but writer-director Christopher McQuarrie establishes a much more genuine threat this time around, imbuing the film with a darker tone than any of its predecessors. And it works. The stakes are higher. The situations these characters find themselves are in much more intense. Their lives have never been in more danger.

That's not to say that the film becomes too dour for its own good (after all, the great Simon Pegg is still around), but McQuarrie understands what he needs to do to keep the audience invested in a franchise that is still going strong over 20 years after the original's release. The setpieces in this film are absolutely jaw-dropping, from the bathroom fight in Paris to the helicopter chase in Kashmir and everything in between. McQuarrie truly elevates action filmmaking to the next level, seamlessly weaving action and story to create an astonishing final product - one that leaves every other MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE film in the dust. To think that Tom Cruise is still 56 years old and doing his own stunts is remarkable - the HALO jump over Paris had me breathless. McQuarrie recognizes what worked in ROGUE NATION and what didn't, and he makes sure to not end the film on an anti-climactic note. This might be the first MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE to actually peak at the end, rather than somewhere in the middle (the Langley heist, the Burj Khalifa sequence, the Morocco chase, etc.) Granted, the film shifts a bit more into the Bond and Bourne territory, with the spy hijinks (masks and crazy gadgets) taking a bit of a back seat, but this only leads to McQuarrie more effectively keeping us on our toes (the unveiling of a certain masked figure halfway through proved quite the surprise).

Furthermore, everyone here gets a chance to shine, with Henry Cavill's Walker fitting right right in as the CIA agent tasked with keeping tabs on Ethan Hunt and Co. Rebecca Ferguson returns as well and for the better - Ilsa Faust remains the most dynamic female character in the series and it's not even close. Even Simon Pegg, who has mostly been relegated to providing tech support, gets his chance to put his fighting skills to the test in one of the film's many exhilarating action sequences. Sean Harris' Solomon Lane, the primary antagonist in ROGUE NATION, once again returns, and while I still think his plans are much more menacing than himself, Harris makes the most of his expanded role. It was a joy to see Michelle Monaghan back as Hunt's wife Julia as well, even if her screentime was less than I'd hoped it'd be. But as expected, the real star of the show here is Tom Cruise, who manages to ground the film with a clear moral compass. Cruise is clearly one of the best components of this series, pulling double-duty not only as an action star/stuntman, but as a dramatic actor (see: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III's opening sequence). A lot of praise goes towards Cruise's stunts and rightly so, but this franchise needs wouldn't be the same without his acting chops.

Additionally, not only did McQuarrie write and direct the most action-packed and tightly-plotted installment in this franchise thus far, he also assembled a stellar technical crew. Cinematographer Rob Hardy, whose work on Alex Garland's EX MACHINA and ANNIHILATION was one of best aspects of either film, truly makes FALLOUT a joy to watch, with crisp and texturally rich 35mm imagery that made me want to reach out and touch the screen. This is a stunning film, and the best-looking installment in the franchise by far (no small feat considering Oscar winner Robert Elswit shot both GHOST PROTOCOL and ROGUE NATION). Yes, Lorne Balfe score sounds a bit too much like Hans Zimmer's work on THE DARK KNIGHT trilogy, but that doesn't change the fact that it perfectly complements the film. In fact, I'm listening to it right now as I write this review. Editor Eddie Hamilton deserves praise as well - his clean and precise cutting infusing every chase and fistfight with a burst of adrenaline. Hamilton clearly understands the difficulty of the stunts required to make the action work and allows the audience to view them in all their glory.

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - FALLOUT is a astonishing picture that ranks not as the best in the franchise, but as one of the best action films ever. McQuarrie, Cruise, and the rest of the cast and crew poured their hearts and souls into this and it shows. This is heart-stopping, jaw-dropping entertainment. I can't wait it to see it again.

Blockers (2018)

A Hilarious, Heartfelt Surprise

[10/10 · 31 March 2018]

I managed to see this last night at an advance screening and I am so glad I did because this is pound for pound, one of the best American comedies to be released this decade. The problem with most comedies (if they're not already generic, overproduced, studio-mandated projects), is that the laughs taper off after the first hour or so as the film starts to bring its more dramatic elements to the forefront, usually (and unfortunately) to its own detriment. BLOCKERS doesn't have that problem. Not only is it one of the most consistently funny films I have ever watched, jam-packed with absolutely hilarious lines and situations, but it manages to deliver an emotionally fulfilling tale in the process. Director Kay Cannon and co-writers Brian and Jim Kehoe take a brilliant premise and run with it, delivering a welcome feminist spin on the teenage sex comedy that ultimately (and refreshingly) ends on a sex-positive note. Furthermore, for an ensemble comedy, I was relieved to see that there wasn't a single weak link across the entire cast. Everyone gets their moment in the spotlight. But for a film packed with consistently great performances across the board, BLOCKERS still features a MVP in Ike Barinholtz, who plays Hunter, one of the three main parents. Barinholtz is an absolute scene-stealer, armed with absolutely pitch-perfect delivery. It's not hyperbole to suggest Barinholtz be nominated for an Oscar next year. The man deserves it.

But for all its gross-out gags and frank discussion about teenage sex and losing one's virginity, the film never loses sight about what it's trying to say. This is as much a film about three teenage girls finding their place in the world (seriously, the way one of the teenage characters is handled is pitch-perfect) as it as about parenthood and learning to let your children grow up. And while some might take this to be a sign that the film is confused about its potential audience, I found it to be a sign that it has wide appeal across the spectrum, as everyone from parents to their teenage children can find something to enjoy about it. The film isn't perfect (the editing is a bit sloppy, and the conclusion between one of the teenage characters and her parent isn't handled all that well), but when it comes to comedies, I can't ask for more than to be entertained. And on that front, BLOCKERS delivered. I seriously haven't laughed that hard at a big studio comedy in a long, long time. I (and everyone else in the theater, it seemed) had an absolute blast. Between this and GAME NIGHT, 2018 is shaping up to a great year for comedies.

10/10

Game Night (I) (2018)

More Entertaining Than The Average Board Game

[7/10 · 19 February 2018]

7/10

GAME NIGHT may not be a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but it's definitely a genuine blast and an entertaining ride from beginning to the very end (seriously, stay for the post-credits scene!) The rare major studio comedy that actually feels like a film, rather than a soulless exercise in assembly-line filmmaking, thanks to such creative choices like Cliff Martinez's thumping score and Barry Peterson's cinematography, which not only introduces new locations as if zooming in on a board game piece, but also sports a surprisingly well-executed long take. Lamorne Morris and Billy Magnussen are some of the obvious standouts among the film's enjoyable cast of characters, but Jesse Plemons is the true MVP, stealing every single one of his scenes with ease. The film isn't without its problems, with the convoluted third act jumping the shark almost to the point of parody, and not all of the jokes land (although most do thanks to the cast's great comedic timing), but nonetheless GAME NIGHT makes for a perfectly fun time at the movies.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

The Boldest Blockbuster in Years

[9/10 · 17 December 2017]

9/10

Audacious and even somewhat bizarre, yet ultimately incredibly rewarding, THE LAST JEDI definitely feels like a film in which director Rian Johnson had complete directorial control and more often than not that is a very, very good thing. The film isn't perfect, and not by a long shot. After opening with a blisteringly thrilling forty-five minutes that features one of the series' best dogfights and the resolution of the infamous cliffhanger at the end of THE FORCE AWAKENS, the film begins to creak under the weight of multiple ongoing subplots, none so more than the unfocused casino storyline, which has received the brunt of fan criticism thus far, and rightly so. But before things get too out of hand, Johnson brings everything together with an unpredictable and astonishing final hour that delivers momentous sequence after momentous sequence, cementing Johnson as a master storyteller who could care less about fan expectations. While THE FORCE AWAKENS was criticized for being "too derivative" of A NEW HOPE, one of the main criticisms THE LAST JEDI has received thus far is that it skews too far from any previous STAR WARS film. To fans of the franchise: you can't have it both ways.

Did I enjoy it more than THE FORCE AWAKENS? It's hard to say, and I don't think I'll have the answer to that question even after a rewatch. Compared to its predecessor, THE LAST JEDI definitely has more than its fair share of flaws. It's overlong, although I admittedly have trouble finding what, if anything, should be cut, and the moment in which one of the characters briefly turns into Neo from THE MATRIX RELOADED left me scratching my head. But the stuff in here that works, works. The relationship between Rey and Luke (Mark Hamill's performance is easily the best in any STAR WARS film thus far), the further development of Kylo Ren, the revelations regarding the background of one the main characters, the thrilling action sequences (one of the film's lightsaber duels left me stunned), Steve Yedlin's series-best cinematography (those reds!), and as always, John Williams' magnificent score. Even the humor mostly works, thanks to Johnson's own idiosyncratic tendencies (would any other filmmaker have included that close-up shot of the iron?), and the fact that porgs are infinitely better than ewoks.

And simply put, there hasn't been any other film this year that I walked out of and immediately said "I want to see that again as soon as possible." And that one shot where the sound drops out is pure cinematic brilliance. Definitely the boldest blockbuster in years.

Up in the Air (I) (2009)

An Unexpectedly Moving Dramedy

[8/10 · 18 August 2017]

I wasn't expecting Up in the Air's last fifteen minutes to hit me like they did. But writer-director Jason Reitman's film packs a punch. The film follows Ryan Bingham, a corporate "downsizer" who spends the majority of his time traveling from city to city. Contrary to what one might think, Bingham enjoys the constant traveling. His Omaha apartment is bare and the 43 days that he had to spend there the year prior are described as "miserable." One night in Dallas, he meets Alex Goran, a traveling businesswoman, and the two immediately hit it off due to their similar lifestyles. George Clooney is in top form as the cynical Bingham, whose career has insulated him from human contact. His chemistry with Alex is palpable, exemplified by the twinkle in their eyes when they look at each other for the first time to the way that they interact when Bingham gives her a tour of his old high school.

Reitman's writing establishes the connection between these characters but Clooney and Vera Farmiga bring it to life. Farmiga herself delivers a performance that rivals Clooney's, magnificently capturing the sensuality and tenacity required to make her character work. And as a recent Cornell grad named Natalie Keener who has big plans for the future of the company that Bingham works for, Anna Kendrick delivers her best work to date. Keener accompanies Bingham on his travels in order to learn about the difficulties that he faces in telling workers that the company that they are working for has decided to unemploy them. In the process, Kendrick captures Keener's naivety remarkably, and we watch her wide-eyed enthusiasm fade away because of the draining task at hand.

Reitman succeeds brilliantly at transporting the audience right back to the late-2000s, bringing memories of the economic downturn back to the forefront. In a stroke of genius, Reitman interviewed dozens of recently laid-off workers and included segments of these interviews in the film. While they don't take up too much time, they do touch on the bitter realities of unemployment and the recession. However, the film is primarily a character study focused on Bingham, with existential undertones and moments of genuine hilarity. Because of his relationship with Alex (and to a lesser degree, his relationship with Keener), Bingham begins to let his cynical exterior fade away and falls in love, despite his aversion to marriage and lack of human connection. I suspect that it's this subtle shift in character that Reitman and Clooney so expertly portray that allowed for the last fifteen minutes of the film to land with such a brute emotional impact.

Up in the Air proved a more difficult watch than I was expecting. Not because it requires superior intellect to decode its jokes or anything of the like, but because it's deviously complex. The relationships between our three leads are one thing, but Reitman's willingness to comment on mass unemployment and human connection, all with an existential touch, is something else entirely. And all the way up to its unexpectedly moving (and somewhat devastating) conclusion, the film manages to delight and entertain.

Rating: 8/10 (Great)

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Goddard & Whedon Craft an Entertaining Yet Uneven Horror Satire

[7/10 · 16 August 2017]

It's hard to write about The Cabin in the Woods without spoiling parts of the narrative, but that's what the spoiler tag is for, right? The film knows exactly what it wants to be: a horror film focusing on the classic "college kids in a cabin" trope that simultaneously riffs on the genre as a whole with a biting satirical edge. But it doesn't quite reach its lofty aspirations. It's obvious that director and co- writer Drew Goddard, as well as his fellow co-writer Joss Whedon, are attempting to put a new spin on a genre that has become stale, inundated with cheap jump scares and cardboard characters. In that regard, the film succeeds masterfully by taking a well-trodden premise and turning the film into a refreshingly original genre exercise. Sure, the film begins like many other horror films, with a group of five college kids venturing out into the woods to stay in a cabin, but the story soon manifests itself into something entirely. Yet the inherent nature of the film's story causes some problems.

The film contains a secondary narrative parallel to that of the college students, in which a secret organization manipulates the environment around the cabin in an attempt to lead the kids to their eventual doom. Because of this, however, the film unavoidably telegraphs some of its scares. Perhaps this was Goddard and Whedon's intention, but it prevents the film's scares from reaching their full potential. Some good does come from this secondary storyline though. Goddard and Whedon give Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins quite a few of the film's best jokes and the seasoned actors take full advantage of the opportunity. Portraying the two technicians in charge of the operation, Whitford and Jenkins fully buy into the film's strange vision and play off each other wonderfully. However, the principal characters make for a decidedly more uneven bunch. Kristen Connolly delivers the best performance of the five as the classic female horror heroine while Chris Hemsworth makes for an amusing sight as the typical American jock. But while Goddard and Whedon acknowledge that these characters are purposefully stereotypes, that doesn't change the fact that they're still stereotypes. And let me tell you, Fran Kranz's stoner-shtick gets quite tiresome.

Ultimately, both story lines coalesce in a climactic (and bloody) final act that proves inventive and yet screams "look at everything we know about horror films!" I do enjoy the ultimate meta-idea that Goddard and Whedon present: that every slasher movie ever made functions as a way to appease The Ancient Ones, towering deities that can only be satisfied through annual ritual sacrifices around the world. However, it's a bit unfortunate that the tightly composed scares and eerie atmosphere of the film's first two acts give way to an uproarious bloodbath, even if it does pay homage to a multitude of horror classics. The last few minutes of the film lost me completely though. I'm fine with horror films having bleak endings (despite their weaknesses, this year's Life and Alien: Covenant both had satisfyingly bleak endings that fit the tone of their story), but Goddard and Whedon seriously put the fate of the entire planet into the hands of a perpetually baked stoner who ultimately decides that humanity isn't worth saving. Quite the selfish call, if you ask me.

While Goddard and Whedon don't quite pull off the tricky balancing act of dark humor and horror that The Cabin in the Woods requires, the film still makes for a deliriously entertaining time as it simultaneously pays homage to horror films while critiquing everything from their characters to their story lines. The film's biggest success, however, might be in how it implores horror filmmakers to take creative risks. If the failure of the other rituals around the world signifies anything, it's that we have become overly familiarized with the immutable horror tropes that have dominated the genre in the past several decades. It's time for a change. And when Goddard and Whedon can create something this original from age-old ideas, who's to argue?

Rating: 7/10 (Good)

M (1931)

Lang's Rich Mystery Contains a Fair Share of Flaws

[8/10 · 15 August 2017]

Considering the fact that I regard director Fritz Lang's Metropolis as one of the crowning achievements in sci-fi cinema, I expected M to be an early hallmark of the thriller genre. However, while there's plenty to admire about Lang's first "talkie," it doesn't live up to the high standard set by Metropolis. The film follows two distinct groups, one composed of criminals and the other composed of police investigators, as they search for a serial killer of children after he strikes for the ninth time. What's most interesting about the film from a storytelling standpoint is that Lang eschews having a principal protagonist. Instead, Lang presents a three-prong narrative that focuses on Otto Wernicke's Inspector Karl Lohmann, Gustaf Gründgens' The Safecracker, and Peter Lorre's child killer Hans Beckert. Lang's decision to weave three story lines into one coherent narrative is a bold move, especially for a film nearly ninety years old, but Lang struggles just a tad to harness them all, leading to some slack pacing. The structure of the film felt akin to that of L.A. Confidential, but whereas that film functioned as a fascinating three- pronged character study, the characters in M unfortunately aren't as complex.

However, it is refreshing to see Lorre receive plenty of screen time, considering his status as the film's antagonist. Most mystery films today spend their entire run time building up to the "big reveal," but Lang's decision to reveal the identity of the murderer halfway through allows for the film to benefit from Lorre's phenomenal acting. Carried mostly by a wide range of facial expressions, Lorre's performance elevates the film to a classic of German cinema. Despite his largely nonverbal performance, Lorre is also the beneficiary of one of the film's highlights: a powerful third act monologue in which Beckert reveals his motivations for the killings. The monologue itself proves magnificent, but I cannot help but feel that it's somewhat ill- conceived. I appreciate the fact that Lang devotes time to developing Beckert, crafting a more well-rounded character as a result, but I cannot sympathize with him. At his core, Beckert is still a child murderer, regardless of the contents of his speech. It almost feels like Lang uses the speech in an attempt to garner some last-minute sympathy for the character, but in that regard, he fails to hit the mark. Additionally, while the film's climax in and of itself is fantastic, the abrupt ending struck me as lazy and rushed. I can understand why Lang would want to leave Beckert's fate ambiguous, but another minute or two wouldn't have hurt.

However, the film finds success in a multitude of other areas. For one, the camera work feels remarkably fluid, with Lang and his cinematographer Fritz Arno Wagner pulling off an array of technically impressive crane and tracking shots. Wagner's harsh lighting lends itself perfectly to the film's tense atmosphere as well. Apart from Lorre, the rest of the cast also delivers fine performances. Gründgens has a particularly solid turn as a career criminal driven to capture Beckert for his own sake while Wernicke makes the most of his cunning, unlikable detective. Lang also makes it clear that his career as a filmmaker began in the silent era, experimenting with the presence or absence of noise in certain scenes. The scenes bereft of noise are the most notable, with Lang selectively using them to amplify the tension. Initially, it feels jarring to see dozens of people milling around on screen without the presence of background noise or an orchestral soundtrack, but Lang's directorial skill prevent these scenes from feeling disconnected from the main narrative. Perhaps the main achievement here is that these overtly experimental scenes do not feel overly so.

While I expected more from the director of one of sci-fi's most enduring cinematic masterpieces, I enjoyed most of what M had to offer. The cast, especially Lorre, delivers uniformly strong performances, while the film proves technically impressive in regards to its cinematography as well. And like any great thriller, there's also an underlying message that still resonates today, if even it is a bit too on the nose. However, while the film has certainly endured with age and still proves compelling from a mystery standpoint, it fails to reach the level of Metropolis because of Beckert's somewhat questionable characterization and storytelling flaws concerning the uneven pacing and overuse of exposition.

Rating: 8/10 (Great)

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

Yet Another Reminder of Just How Creepy Dolls Can Be

[7/10 · 9 August 2017]

The fourth entry in The Conjuring universe, Annabelle: Creation serves as a prequel to the 2014 spin-off titled Annabelle, which served as a prequel to the original Conjuring film. And considering the critical drubbing that Annabelle received, this film makes for a delightfully horrifying time. Twelve years after the death of their young daughter, a former dollmaker and his wife decide to let a group of six orphaned girls and a nun move into their home. The film primarily follows two of these girls, Janice and Linda. There, strange events begin to occur that eventually lead to the creation of the eponymous character. Director David F. Sandberg, who made his directorial debut last year with the micro-budget horror feature Lights Out, crafts an atmospheric thriller that genuinely surprised me. Despite the generally positive critical reception that Lights Out garnered, I was underwhelmed upon first viewing. Despite some inventive scares, the film failed to take full advantage of its premise. However, that isn't the case for Sandberg's latest.

Perhaps the film's most surprising attribute is the strong performances from the predominantly young cast, despite their relatively weak development. Lulu Wilson, who starred in another prequel-to-a-prequel (last year's Ouija: Origin of Evil) that received generally positive reviews, turns in a solid performance as the young Linda, who must contend with the haunting presence of the Annabelle doll manifesting itself into her best friend Janice. Wilson powers her way through any questionable character choices solely on the strength of her work. On the other hand, Talitha Bateman, playing the polio- afflicted Janice, handles her character's progression nicely, turning into a genuinely chilling presence as the film progresses. And despite being underutilized, Miranda Otto, who plays the Dollmaker's wife, gets some of the film's more shocking moments.

While Sandberg is a bit too content to play around with genre clichés (we get the requisite amount of scenes involving possession of inanimate objects, crucifixes, praying, and characters opening doors that they probably shouldn't have opened), the film's R-rating feels liberating. Considering that Lights Out was rated PG-13, a lot of its scares never reached full intensity as they were often obscured or otherwise cut short. Sandberg doesn't use the R-rating to deliver heapings of gore and blood, but instead to fashion the film into something that feels refreshingly more atmospheric and intense when compared to his previous work.

Indeed, Sandberg manages to (ahem) conjure up some shocking imagery as he uses some of these genre conventions in refreshing ways. In one particular scene, we painfully watch as an unseen entity breaks someone's fingers one-by-one as they clutch as a crucifix. This scene makes for one of the film's thrilling highlights, amplified by the atmosphere that Sandberg has established. Thankfully, Sandberg takes his time to establish these characters, refusing to rush into the scares without first making us care about who will be in the crosshairs. And we do care about these characters, especially Janice and Linda, whose friendship serves as the film's emotional core. While Sandberg unfortunately substitutes a bit of the build-up with a few cheap jump scares, by the end of the film the tension is palpable.

Additionally, one of the better aspects of Sandberg's film is that it just feels well-made. Obvious care went into making a believable period setting (the film is set sometime in the late '50s) and it shows through every frame of the film. Cinematographer Maxime Alexandre's camera work also surprised me. In particular, a long take early on in the film that shows the young girls running through the house upon arriving shows that Sandberg cares more about crafting a solid horror film than most of today's horror filmmakers. While Annabelle: Creation ultimately doesn't break any new ground or reach the high bar set by the film that inspired it, it still makes for a solid summer horror outing as the summer draws to a close. Featuring strong performances, a delightfully eerie atmosphere, and its fair share of scares, the film delivers on more of the potential that director David F. Sandberg exhibited on his debut feature. I will say, however, that I strongly dislike watching horror films with a big crowd. Keep the commentary to yourself, folks.

Rating: 7/10 (Good)

The Secret in Their Eyes (2009)

A Modern Classic of the Genre

[9/10 · 9 August 2017]

Only the second Argentinian film to win the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, The Secret in Their Eyes is equal parts a slow-burning crime thriller and a forbidden love story that affects everyone involved for over a quarter of a century, following two separate timelines. In 1974, Judiciary employee Benjamín Espósito begins investigating the rape and murder of a young woman named Liliana Coloto. Assisting him in the investigation are his assistant Pablo Sandoval and his superior Irene Menéndez Hastings. Twenty-five years later, Espósito decides to use the case as the basis for his first novel, leading to a reunion with Hastings and the revelations that arise from discovering events that were set in motion twenty-five years prior. Although the majority of the film's runtime is devoted to the 1970s timeline, director Juan José Campanella, who also served as the film's co-writer and editor, finds a masterful balance between the two, crafting a non-linear narrative that provides a satisfying resolution to both threads.

Admittedly, the film takes a while to get going, with the initial back- and-forth between the two timelines feeling a bit jarring. However, as the story begins to unfold and we delve deeper into the investigation, the film simply captivates, as Campanella delivers an engrossing crime drama with an ending that left me breathless. I will say, however, that I found it difficult at times to keep up with the film's rapid-fire dialogue. Even though I speak Spanish myself, some of the film's dialogue-heavy scenes demand the full attention of the viewer. While I don't know how this problem might play out for someone watching the film with the English subtitles as they might be simplified, but it is a problem that I found worth noting.

The film's engrossing nature rests on the strengths of its performers, which include Ricardo Darín as Espósito, Guillermo Francella as Sandoval, and Soledad Villamil as Hastings. Darín does magnificent work in the lead role, expertly capturing Espósito's growing obsession in regards to the case. Francella, in his after first dramatic film role after an established career as a comedic performer, turns the alcoholic Sandoval into a fascinating character. Sandoval, whose relationship problems and drinking habits often conflict with his occupation, could have easily been a one-note stereotype, but Francella (who bears an uncanny similarity to Steve Carrell) manages to make him a likable character. Sandoval's friendship with Espósito leads to one of the film's most emotionally charged scenes. Villamil also delivers a mesmerizing performance. Much like the film's title implies, the eyes of these characters play an important role, serving as a method of non- verbal communication. And none of the other performers use their eyes to their advantage as much as Villamil does. Through her beautiful gaze, we see the complex relationship she forms with Espósito, whose eyes convey a buried, unspoken love for her.

The film also benefits from more than just Campanella's storytelling abilities. This is a marvelously well-composed film, one that takes full advantage of the cinematic medium. Each frame feels tightly constructed, with Campanella sometimes telling two different stories in the same frame or obfuscating characters behind chairs or piles of documents and folders. In regards to the latter, by framing his characters in such a way, Campanella subtly communicates the growing obsession that they feel as the investigation begins to unravel. The film's technical prowess doesn't end there though. The film contains an enthralling five-minute long take set in a soccer stadium that ends with Espósito and Sandoval chasing their primary suspect, one Isidoro Gómez (acted to chilling perfection by Javier Godino), on foot. Campanella isn't just concerned with ideas of obsession, however. The film's conclusion allows for it become a meditation on justice and to what ends someone will go to punish a guilty individual. And Pablo Rago, who plays the deceased's husband, shines in these scenes as he delivers a haunting performance.

Campanella's The Secret in Their Eyes is a thoroughly compelling film that benefits from a well-executed screenplay, skillful direction, and a host of strong performances. It's a shame that Hollywood couldn't resist the urge to remake the film years later with Billy Ray's Secret in Their Eyes, which ended up being a decidedly inferior production. Campanella's original, however, stands on its own as a modern classic.

Rating: 9/10 (Amazing)

The Thin Blue Line (1988)

Riveting. Haunting. Necessary.

[8/10 · 8 August 2017]

There's no understating the importance of documentarian Errol Morris' The Thin Blue Line. The documentary focuses on the November 1976 shooting death of Dallas police officer Robert Wood and his accused murderer Randall Dale Adams, who maintained his innocence throughout the duration of his trial and jail sentence. The trial itself was plagued with inconsistent statements from witnesses, but ultimately Adams was sentenced to death. Were it not for the Supreme Court case Adams v. Texas, which resulted in Texas Governor Bill Clements commuting Adams' sentence to life in prison, Adams would have been executed on May 8, 1979. Morris' documentary, however, single-handedly resulted in a review of Adams' case and he was subsequently exonerated for the crime a year after the film's release.

Morris first came up with the idea for The Thin Blue Line while conducting research on Dr. James Grigson, known as Doctor Death, a psychologist whose testimony resulted in over 100 trials ending with a death sentence. But when Morris interviewed Adams in regards to Adams' experience with Grigson during his trial, Adams stated that he had been framed for Wood's murder. He told Morris that the murderer was actually David Harris, a sixteen-year-old drifter with whom Adams had spent the day with before heading back to his hotel a few hours before the shooting. Morris' dedication to bringing Adams' plight to the screen shows throughout the entirety of the feature. As the film presents the facts of the case, we listen to various interviewees, from detectives to lawyers to witnesses to Adams and Harris themselves, who all speak directly into the camera. The decision to have them face directly into the camera creates a disquieting feeling, forcing the audience to listen to their perspective and preventing them from becoming passive viewers.

Indeed, Morris further forces his audience to be an active participant through his repetitive use of re-enactments that depict the shooting. Each time a piece of information is introduced that happens to contradict previously stated information, we once again watch the re- enactment of the shooting, which has now been tweaked to fit the most recent info. Morris forces the audience into deciphering the increasingly blurred line between fact and fiction as he presents the changing evidence from different angles. The depiction of the shooting using differing information from an array of conflicting witnesses reminded me of Rashomon. And just like Kurosawa, Morris finds himself exploring the idea of justice and how a crime can warp the perception of the truth.

Morris' film also functions as an indictment of America's criminal justice system. It becomes painfully clear that the reason why Adams was ultimately convicted of the crime despite his innocence had to do with the fact that Harris could not be given the death penalty because he was underage. To hear that Doctor Death purposefully testified in over one hundred cases, including Adams', solely to recommend the death penalty serves as a stark, haunting reminder of the willingness of those in charge to favor death over rehabilitation. While I'm sure that some of the criminals that Adams deemed incurable sociopaths, who he was "one hundred percent certain" would kill again, would do so were they free, it's disturbing to think about how many of them fully deserved the death penalty rather than a lighter punishment.

As a hometown Dallas resident, I couldn't help but smile when the film began, showcasing the Dallas skyline shining in all its glory. But over the next hour and a half, I was utterly transfixed by the cases of Randall Adams and David Harris, and the murder of Robert Wood. To think about how many other innocent men and women might be wrongfully imprisoned definitely makes for an unnerving thought. Morris' The Thin Blue Line makes for haunting yet necessary viewing, challenging seemingly established facts in the murder of Wood on that fateful November night. Mixing Philip Glass' incredible score, re-enactments of the murder, and a captivating array of interviews, the film not only makes for a riveting deconstruction of a heinous crime, but an exploration of justice in an unjust system that resulted in the exoneration of an innocent man.

Rating: 8/10 (Great)

The Mist (2007)

Darabont Loses Some of The Film's Potential In the Titular Mist...

[7/10 · 8 August 2017]

Writer-director Frank Darabont's The Mist is a film I wanted to like a lot more than I ended up liking. This is, after all, another Stephen King adaptation from the same director who brought to the screen the greatest King adaptation of all, The Shawshank Redemption (it edges The Shining by a hair.) But instead, I was left with a certain feeling of dissatisfaction when the credits started rolling, a feeling that was likely compounded by the film's absolute sucker punch of an ending. The film follows a group of individuals taking refuge in a grocery store after an unnatural mist covers the town after a violent thunderstorm the night prior. Inside the mist, hide supernatural monsters that threaten the residents' existence. King used the original story to tell a story about human beings in the face of extreme odds, a concept that Darabont entertains to generally successful results. There's a lot to admire here, but there's also a handful of flaws that hold it back from reaching greatness.

For one, Thomas Jane feels miscast as the film's protagonist, David Drayton, a freelance artist. In fact, he almost single-handedly ruins the film's ending because he makes it nearly impossible to take him seriously. The misfire of his casting stands out both because of his somewhat wooden performance and for the simple reason that everyone else in the cast fits their role like a glove. Marcia Gay Harden delivers an excellent performance as Mrs. Carmody, a fanatical Christian who believes that the mist signifies the coming of the apocalypse. Playing the film's despicable antagonist, Harden delivers stellar work, demonstrating that sometimes the real monster isn't lurking around in the shadows, but rather standing right next to you. Toby Jones also turns in a solid performance as Ollie Weeks, the assistant manager of the store, gradually transforming from a seemingly meek individual to one of Drayton's essential allies as the rift between Drayton's group and Carmody's followers grows. Even Laurie Holden, who has often been slighted for her role as Andrea in AMC's The Walking Dead manages to deliver. Playing Amanda Dumfries, an elementary school teacher, Holden makes the most of her somewhat limited material. Apart from Drayton, the rest of these characters lack depth, but the performers make for a saving grace.

The film does tackle some thought-provoking ideas and themes, examining the way human beings react to extreme situations. Considering the film's release a decade ago, Darabont prominently focuses on the rift that forms between the aforementioned groups, which serves as an obvious parallel for the Bush-era conflict between Christian, right-wing thinking and more secular, left-wing ideology. While it wouldn't have hurt to portray the groups with a bit more nuance (the division between the two becomes entirely too clear), Darabont deserves credit for his willingness to make a horror film with more than just scares on its mind. But as for the horror, that's where Darabont's film excels. There are genuine moments of dread and terror throughout, as the groups in the supermarket deal with both the creatures of the mist and themselves. And Darabont accomplishes this by establishing a convincingly ominous atmosphere rather than relying on jump scares. The film feels like a monster movie from the '50s, and I really wish I could have been able to watch the B&W version.

However, Darabont's writing falters when compared to his directing. About halfway through the film, a romance scene occurred between two minor characters that felt incredibly jarring considering that the majority of the film had focused on Drayton up to that point. Furthermore, the next time we see these characters, one of them immediately dies at the hands of the creatures, as Darabont seems to believe that a shoehorned romance scene mere moments prior will be enough to raise the emotional stakes of their death. It just doesn't work though and feels more like lazy storytelling than anything else. Now I can't comment on how much development King's original novella offers for these two characters, but considering Darabont's willingness to tweak the ending, he could have fleshed out the relationships between these characters more. And as for that ending, I can't say that I necessarily agree with it. Darabont's conclusion delves into far darker territory than that of the novella's, creating a genuinely shocking moment. I do appreciate that he didn't deliver a forced happy ending. But his ending, one so ruthlessly bleak and nihilistic, probably should have been scrapped in favor of the ambiguity that the original ending provides.

I wish that I hadn't been left slightly disappointed by The Mist. While there's plenty to enjoy, from the taut scares to the retro '50s vibe and the generally solid performances, storytelling problems and the soul-crushing ending hold it back from entering the upper echelon of King adaptations.

Rating: 7/10 (Good)

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

One of the MCU's Better Sequels

[8/10 · 4 August 2017]

In 2014, Guardians of the Galaxy arrived in theaters as the biggest creative risk that Marvel Studios had undertaken at the time. A ragtag group of superheroes comprised of aliens, a talking tree, and a cybernetic raccoon surely couldn't have been the easiest sell at the office. But the film ended up being an absolute blast, a refreshing blast of fresh air that still holds its place as my favorite film in the MCU. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 isn't the blast of fresh air that its predecessor was, but it is an entertaining sequel that further develops the relationships between these characters while providing more of its predecessor's trademark humor and colorful action. Make no mistake, director James Gunn takes full advantage of the color spectrum here, crafting a film with loads of visual splendor. This is a gorgeous film to look at, the bleak gray color palettes of the DCEU be gone.

The film takes a place a few months after the events of its predecessor as we find the Guardians working for the egotistical Sovereign, a golden, space-faring race. However, when Rocket steals something he shouldn't have, the gang takes off on an adventure that leads them to Ego, Star-Lord's long-lost father, all while being pursued by Yondu's Ravagers, the Sovereign, Nebula, and having to once again save the galaxy. Sound like a lot? Well, it is. While Gunn does his best to handle the multiple plot threads, the film isn't as tightly-focused as the first, the story relegated to the background in favor of action, characters, and humor. The film doesn't suffer entirely because of its character-centric focus, however. The tense relationship between Gamora and Nebula receives some much-needed fleshing-out, while we also learn more about Rocket's struggle to come to terms with his own existence. These developments are welcome, but I can't help but think that they would have worked better had Gunn cut down on the sheer number of characters in his screenplay.

However, the ending provides a much-needed emotional punch that seems like a rarity in today's superhero films. While the climactic third act action bonanza doesn't do much more than provide an explosion of colors and sound, the film's final ten minutes are truly emotional. There are actual stakes in this film, which is something that cannot be said for a majority of the films in the MCU. It gets tiring watching the heroes just pack it up after the fight and call it a day, but that's not the case here.

If there's one area where Gunn succeeds in his screenplay, it comes in the humor. He cranks the humor dial up to eleven and the overwhelming majority land with flying colors. I was genuinely surprised with the number of raunchy jokes that Disney allowed. And not only is Drax's comedic timing impeccable, but so is his laugh. Dave Bautista can act (Drax's scene with Mantis on Ego's planet in which they both look out over the landscape is beautifully touching.) Three years after the Guardians' first adventure, I couldn't help but smile seeing them again on the big screen. Bradley Cooper remains a delight playing Rocket Raccoon, who's likely still my favorite member of the Guardians. Zoë Saldana continues her sci-fi domination with yet another strong performance as Gamora, who has some of the film's more emotional moments opposite Karen Gillan's wonderful Nebula. Chris Pratt remains as charismatic as ever as Star-Lord, but I did feel that a couple of his lines could have been delivered with a bit more nuance. And I will say that although I enjoyed Baby Groot's presence in the film, I did find myself feeling that Gunn was trying a bit too much at times to capture the magic of the first film.

The real stars of the show here, however, are Kurt Russell as Ego and Michael Rooker as Yondu. Ego makes for a complex individual and Russell handles his overall arc with skill. Rooker, who has long been an underrated character actor, actually delivers the best performance in the film. Unexpectedly winding up as the film's emotional core, Yondu makes for a fascinating character. Above all, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is a film about family. Sure, during a scene or two I thought to myself "Wow, when I did start watching a Fast and the Furious movie?" but Gunn does a bang-up job exploring his ideas by way of Star-Lord's two fathers: Yondu and Ego. Reflected against the Guardians, who have found a family amongst themselves, the film manages to explore some admittedly well-trodden territory, but in a way that feels somewhat fresh and allows for a majority of the questions that were posed in its predecessor to receive a satisfactory answer.

While Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 doesn't reinvent the wheel when it comes to superhero sequels, I couldn't help but leave the theater in a happy mood (and I'm pretty sure I was the last one to leave because I don't think anyone was expecting 5 whole mid-/post-credits scenes.) It doesn't quite match the freshness of its predecessor, but it does succeed at being more than your run-of-the-mill blockbuster thanks to Gunn's wildly imaginative mind. Armed with another fantastic soundtrack, vibrant action sequences, solid performances and quite a bit of wit, the film manages to make up for its somewhat uneven storyline. And if there's anything in this film that's an absolutely unquestionable improvement from its predecessor, it's the villain. Give us more villains like this one, Marvel.

Rating: 8/10 (Great)

Wakefield (2016)

A Character Study of a Thoroughly Repulsive Character

[5/10 · 1 August 2017]

Just watch the trailer instead. Set to Claude Debussy's timeless Clair de Lune, it's infinitely more beautiful and poetic than Wakefield itself. Robin Swicord obviously reveres the film's source material, a short story of the same name by Nathaniel Hawthorne, but the film's admittedly intriguing premise simply cannot sustain itself over its 106-minute runtime. The film follows suburbanite Howard Wakefield, a New York attorney who spontaneously decides to spend the night in the attic of his home's detached garage after an encounter with a raccoon. Upon waking up, he decides to stay there, essentially abandoning his wife and children and living in seclusion, foraging for food and keeping his location secret as he watches them move on with their lives.

The film's biggest asset is the performances, with Bryan Cranston delivering a powerhouse turn as Wakefield. Cranston, who appears in nearly all of the film's scenes, is perhaps the only thing that makes the film worth watching to the end. He single-handedly carries the film's weight on his shoulders, which also extensively uses narration from his character throughout. Meanwhile, Jennifer Garner also delivers a great performance in a role with relatively little dialogue as Wakefield's wife Diana. For the majority of the film, save for a few flashbacks, Diana remains distant from the viewer as we watch her solely from Wakefield's perspective. And yet Garner still makes the most of it, as we watch her struggle to come to terms with Wakefield's sudden disappearance.

The performances, however, aren't enough to save a film that feels woefully misguided. For one, Wakefield is an entirely unlikeable character who willingly abandons his responsibility as both a father and a spouse. And although Wakefield's sometimes fourth-wall breaking narration at least offers a cursory acknowledgment that Wakefield recognizes his transgressions, it also tries to somewhat justify his actions, a decision that misfires. Additionally, the film also reeks of toxic masculinity, with Wakefield sometimes commenting on the control he now has over his wife due to his disappearance. While I usually refrain from commenting on a film's portrayal of masculinity and/or femininity, I simply cannot glance over the toxic actions that Wakefield perpetuates. While the film could be seen as a commentary on white privilege, especially in regards to how Wakefield is able to abandon his family without worrying about their financial security, it isn't smart enough to develop these ideas. When watching Diana from afar, Wakefield often comments that he now loves her more than ever, but his actions fail to reconcile with his thoughts. Wakefield is among the most selfish, detestable characters in cinema. Even if he doesn't rape a woman to the tune of Singin' in the Rain à la Alex DeLarge, at least Kubrick's film proved a thoroughly engrossing character study of its violent central protagonist. On the other hand, Wakefield slowly runs out of reasons for being, lurching forwards to an outright cheat of an ending that proves wholly unsatisfying.

Wakefield has been on my radar ever since I saw the trailer. Unfortunately, the finished product fails to capture the poetic and thoughtful qualities that made the two-minute promo so fascinating. The combined talents of Cranston and Garner are squandered by an ill- conceived misfire of a story that makes the mistake of allowing a thoroughly loathsome character to be its focal point.

Dunkirk (2017)

Nolan's Latest is His Greatest

[10/10 · 22 July 2017]

Viewed in IMAX 70MM.

Dunkirk arrives with a bang, further solidifying writer-director Christopher Nolan as one of the best filmmakers working today. Nolan presents the tense World War II thriller as a triptych, detailing the evacuation of Dunkirk from the perspectives of land, sea, and air. Perhaps the film's most astounding achievement is that we never see the Germans. The film's focus remains entirely on the evacuating Allied soldiers and those sent to support their efforts. By never showing the Germans on screen, Nolan presents them as a looming specter over the Allied forces, an invisible presence that can surprise them at every turn. This only adds another level of tension to a film that manages to sustain a taut, uneasy atmosphere for nearly its entire runtime. Nolan's main concern lies with answering the question of whether or not these soldiers will manage to escape. As such, we never once are transported to a war room to watch military leaders quarrel about what the next move should be. Instead, we follow three distinct groups: soldiers that include newcomer Fionn Whitehead's Tommy, a couple of RAF pilots led by Tom Hardy's Farrier, and a small boat crew led by Mark Rylance's Mr. Dawson.

I got the opportunity to see Dunkirk in IMAX 70mm and I only wish more people could as well. The enormous screen and earth-rattling sound place you right in the center of the action to potent effect. Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema again teams up with Nolan after previously collaborating on Interstellar to awe-inspiring results. Around 90% of the film makes full usage of the towering screen, with only a few sequences presented in a more traditional letterboxed style. Nolan and Hoytema use the larger frame to their advantage, crafting spell- binding shots at every junction, whether it be a close-up shot of a pilot's face or the sweeping image of thousands of soldiers waiting on a beach. Dunkirk demands to be seen on the largest screen possible.

The film also marks the sixth collaboration between Nolan and composer Hans Zimmer. The explosive, ever-present score from Zimmer serves as the model accompaniment for the film, the stirring urgency of the music matched effortlessly with the harrowing images of war and escape. Another Oscar nomination for Zimmer would not be a surprise. But the way that the score mixes with the sounds of the battlefield is an achievement in its own right. Explosions boom and gunshots ring, fighter planes and bullets whizzing by. But through all the chaos, all the madness, Zimmer's score serves as a ticking stopwatch, counting down the minutes as the palpable threat from the Germans grows.

Despite the relative simplicity of its storyline, Dunkirk is perhaps Nolan's most experimental feature. His three stages of war all unfold over various time frames, which are interwoven by Lee Smith's masterful editing, creating a non-linear narrative that astounds with both its sweeping scope and intimate, poignant emotional beats. The sparse use of dialogue also stands out. Nolan revels in visual storytelling, employing dialogue only when necessary, with the soldiers communicating their fears through their actions rather than through conversation. Admittedly, the characters that populate the world of Dunkirk are not the most developed, but they are all defined by their desire to make it back home. They are all tethered by this longing, and we can feel their mutual trepidation and hope as they struggle to find a way out of Dunkirk.

Unconventionally, the majority of the soldiers of Nolan's film are not heroic figures, especially those on land. The event that Nolan uses as the basis for his film is historic not because it marked a major victory for Allied forces, but because the British suffered an ignominious rout. As such, some of these men are terrified for their lives, while others, knowing very well that any moment could be their last, subsist solely on their love of country. Every actor across the board, from established British stars like Kenneth Branagh to newcomers like Whitehead expertly bring their characters to life. Whitehead and Harry Styles both deliver great performances as two inexperienced soldiers determined to survive. Meanwhile, in the air, Hardy simply dominates the screen, his steely gaze working wonders as a substitute for conventional dialogue. The film's best performance belongs to the magnificently understated Rylance, who delivers a heroic performance as a sailor who navigates his yacht towards Dunkirk to save lives, despite the danger that awaits.

This danger manifests itself in a manifold of ways. A soldier stranded at sea remarks that he is the lone survivor of a U-boat attack. Farrier and his fellow pilots engage German fighters over the Channel. In a haunting opening sequence, Tommy runs desperately through the streets of Dunkirk, evading enemy fire. The film's action sequences benefit from Nolan's skillful direction, and the aerial dogfights, in particular, stand out amongst the rest. Hoytema's camera captures the proceedings with such precision that it puts the action in most Hollywood blockbusters to shame. While his camera hardly ever lingers on the carnage of war, Hoytema knows when to draw out the tension, creating sequences that left me breathless.

With his latest, Nolan delivers another masterpiece that might just be his best film yet. It works as a demonstration of bravery, a celebration of courage, and an acknowledgment of fear in the face of adversity. While not my favorite Nolan flick , Dunkirk delivers a cinematic experience unlike anything I've ever seen. The way Nolan so adeptly sustains the tension throughout is simply mesmerizing and a testament to his directorial prowess. Packed with stunning IMAX camera-work from Hoytema, some of Zimmer's best work to date, a talented cast giving it their all, and an underlying message that underscores the need for hope, Dunkirk is a rousing spectacle from a director at the top of his game, and the best film of 2017 thus far.

Rating: 10/10 (Masterpiece)

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

A Thrilling End to a Great Trilogy

[9/10 · 15 July 2017]

War for the Planet of the Apes certainly does not fit the mold of the traditional summer tentpole, something which audiences might not have anticipated despite the action-packed trailers. The third entry in the rebooted Planet of the Apes series, and the second one directed by Matt Reeves, War is a bleak, intense tale directed with precise skill and carried by Andy Serkis' commanding performance as Caesar. Reeves' film takes place two years after the events of Dawn, finding Caesar fighting off attacks from a squadron of soldiers known as Alpha-Omegas led by a ruthless colonel played by Woody Harrelson, while simultaneously attempting to move his tribe to greener pastures. Ultimately, the colonel and Caesar are put on a collision course that could determine the future of both races.

With War, Caesar completes his evolution from James Franco's pet project to full-blown military leader, and in a notable change from prior entries in the series, prefers speaking to signing as his method of communication. Reeves' film puts Caesar through the wringer, forcing him to face a gauntlet of challenges both physically and mentally. And Serkis responds by delivering a performance with such humanity, such raw primal emotion, that one completely forgets they're watching a creation borne out of a computer. Indeed, the power of the performance is magnified tenfold because Caesar isn't a human. If there were any justice in the world, Serkis would be up for a Best Actor Oscar next year. He's that good.

Opposite Caesar as the film's primary antagonist is Woody Harrelson's colonel, who chews the scenery masterfully. The events of the last fifteen years have not been kind to the world, the colonel included. He doesn't receive much development beyond what's required to establish him as a threat to Caesar and his tribe's way of life, but it's not a necessity. Unlike the previous two films, which sometimes suffered when humans took control of the screen (more so Rise than Dawn), War's focus remains almost entirely on the apes, from series mainstays like the orangutan Maurice to newcomers like Steve Zahn's Bad Ape. The one notable human character apart from Harrelson is Amiah Miller's unnamed orphan, a kind soul who Maurice adopts as his daughter. Miller serves as a beacon of hope shining through the darkness. And make no mistake, this film is dark.

The action, while breathtaking, does not shy away from death and destruction. Reeves stages his set pieces to show the bloody impact of this war and the carnage inflicted on both sides. As the tension mounts, the lives of characters always feel at risk. Michael Giacchino's thunderous score serves as the ideal complement, building on the musical cues and motifs of the previous entries to deliver one of the best blockbuster soundtracks in years. The themes that Reeves tackles also stray into dark territory, with the parallels to slavery made obvious as Harrelson's colonel and his captured apes represent the slave master and his slaves. While Reeves and his co-writer Mark Bomback don't make an aggressive effort to expand on said theme, they don't need to. The majority of the audience already grasps the evils of slavery and the imagery on display sufficiently serves its purpose - to further reinforce the immorality of the practice. War, for all of its biblical and film epic influences, very much feels like a film rooted in today's turbulent political climate. There's no shortage of moral dilemmas faced by both the humans and the apes.

Reeves makes the most of his second film with these characters, but if there's one flaw that War possesses, it lies in his screenplay. Reeves and Bomback, having taken over for entirely from Amanda Silver and Rick Jaffa, who wrote Rise and co-wrote Dawn with Bomback. While Reeves and Bomback do a mostly commendable job of wrapping up the so- called Caesar trilogy while still leaving room for a possible continuation of the story, the third act falters ever so slightly because of some minor plot conveniences. While they don't affect the quality of the story all that much, these elements feel just a bit too tidy, especially when compared to some of the bold storytelling choices in the film's opening act.

But even these minor flaws can be overlooked - in large part because of Weta Digital's jaw-dropping special effects. Having worked on the series since Rise, Weta has only elevated the bar with their work on this latest installment. Every ape feels genuine, far more than just a collection of pixels from a computer program. Of course, it helps that the apes are all portrayed by incredibly talented motion-capture performers, but it doesn't change the fact that very few digital creations have ever felt this lifelike. The Academy might as well give War the Best Visual Effects Oscar now. Cinematographer Michael Seresin should also be in consideration for at least a nomination. His sweeping camera-work magnificently captures the world that Reeves has crafted, from the bitter cold of an abandoned ski resort to the cavernous refuge that Caesar calls home.

Overall, War for the Planet of the Apes concludes one of the best science-fiction trilogies ever in stunning fashion. Featuring an Oscar-worthy performance by Serkis, incredible visual effects, and superb technical work, the film delivers the requisite ingredients for a strong film. But by expanding on the themes of its predecessors and concluding Caesar's story on an emotionally resonant and mature note, Reeves elevates the film to the next level. War proves that there are still plenty of stories left to tell in this world.

Rating: 9/10 (Amazing)

And Your Mother Too (2001)

A Beautifully Told Coming-of-Age Tale

[10/10 · 15 July 2017]

To describe director Alfonso Cuarón's Y Tu Mamá También as simply a road movie featuring two immature best friends and an older, attractive woman would do it a disservice. While that is the premise of Cuarón's film, one that at times proves utterly hilarious, there is a stunning complexity to behold. Underneath the surface level, where sex and drug use runs amok, lies both a character study of the three main protagonists, Tenoch, Julio, and Luisa, and an exploration of the bliss of youthful ignorance that doubles as a provider of insights into the state of Mexican society circa-1999.

Throughout the trip, Emmanuel Lubezki's camera often moves away from the trio, focusing on happenings outside the vehicle. The story is set against a backdrop of turbulent political change, made clear by the repeated mention of protests in the film's opening act. But as they travel to their destination, Tenoch and Julio remain unaware, immersed in their friendship and their blossoming relationship with Luisa. Yet Lubezki's beautiful camera-work shows everything from police brutality to the aftermath of a hit-and-run accident, displaying the style that he would later use in Cuarón's next feature Children of Men. His usage of long takes remains masterful as well, with some scenes carrying on for minutes with nary a cut to be found. These scenes make the film come alive, possessing a lively, fervent energy so rarely found in films today. His images gain further impact from an omniscient narrator voiced by Daniel Giménez Cacho, who provides intermittent commentary on everything from the protagonists' unvoiced thoughts to the history of an area. At its core, Y Tu Mamá También is a story about life, with the narrator's ruminations weaving a rich tapestry of the past, future, and present of not only these characters but Mexico itself.

The friendship between Tenoch and Julio, the primary driving force of the film, feels as authentic as anything that's ever been put on screen in the history of cinema. Diego Luna and Gael García Bernal capture a spirit of boyish exuberance so perfectly, delivering plenty of laughs as they trade blows over their shared life experiences. And yet a profound sense of melancholy permeates throughout the film, made perhaps more noticeable by the presence of Maribel Verdú's Luisa. As we watch these characters on the road, we can feel that their last days of adolescence are slowly fading away. Luisa serves as the film's emotional core, a pained woman who shares with Tenoch and Julio the life experiences that have led to their trip. Verdú simply nails her character, sensual and emotional in equal measure, a reminder of both the pain that comes with living so much as the unbridled joy. The voyage these characters takes feels so real, so genuine, no doubt due to the wonderful script from Cuarón and his brother Carlos. It all comes to a head in a climax that left me breathless, one so full of passion and longing, and yet in the most unexpected way.

With Y Tu Mamá También, Cuarón delivered one of the greatest coming- of-age films of all time. I was not only blown away by the performances from the main cast, but by the story that Cuarón tells. Despite the thematic complexity of the film and the potential to run into exploitative territory with such a premise, Cuarón instead masterfully directs a tale with poignant observations on sex, love, life, and the human condition. And the ending, meanwhile, is one for the ages. It left me in tears.

Rating: 10/10 (Masterpiece)