I thought "White Boy Rick" was okay. McConaughey was excellent as always and the new kid on the block Richie Merritt was believable in his role, even if the character/person he is playing borderlines on "annoying punk" quite often. The film also does a great job establishing a poverty-stricken urban environment. (I can't really speak for the reality that is Detriot...but I never hear good things). From the dimly, orange-lit streets covered in faint layers of snow to some very unpleasant, ghetto housing, the feeling of being on the wrong side of the tracks is very apparent. Aside from that, the story is nothing special. Rick isn't really an interesting character, nor is his story as epic as the trailer made it out to be. He sells drugs and parties and then some bad things happen. If you have seen any period based true crime drama, then you have seen this all before. And like many films in this sub-genre, it often lacks any real focus, jumping from time to time and from event to event. This lack of focus makes the investment in Rick's story not as strong as it begs to be, especially in regards to supporting characters. They all just sorta fade into the background. The most emotional moment is actually at the end...the VERY end. That and perhaps a scene where Rick and his dad try to get Rick's sister out of the life of being a junkie...all while Rick sells drugs anyway. "White Boy Rick" is a well-made film, but not one I see sticking out from others in the genre. Worth one viewing down the line for those interested in its true story roots. Just don't expect to be blown away.
Reviews
17 Reviews
Bad Times at the El Royale
(2018)
Good Times with a Few Slow Waiting Periods
21 November 2018
This is definitely one of the most memorable crime thrillers I have seen in recent memory. A solid cast brings life to seven strangers who all converge on a hotel, all with there own agendas that end up intersecting both inevitably and by mere coincidence. You will see the film from one character's perspective and then film gives you a title card to cue you to another character where you will often see previous events from a different angle. If you were expecting everything to tie to together into some upspoken mystery or twist who will likely be disappointed. There isn't much of a central plot. It's multiple plots just crossing threads. Luckily, they are all pretty interesting. This is all aided by an excellent presentation. I am a sucker for a well edited and shot film and this is probably the best this year in regards to that. Best of all, it doesn't feel like a modern-day film. It kinda feels like something that would have come out 20 years ago. Some say this has a Tarantino or Coen Brothers vibe to it and while I can see that, the script isn't nearly as punchy as something they would write. Not that the film is badly written. And the retro musical choices were all spot on. The film's one weakness is its length and, at times, its pacing. Clocking in at 2 hours and 22 minutes...I think they could have cut 22 minutes out. This movie just felt long and I saw this on the same day as "First Man" which had the same length. That could be my issue. I shouldn't have seen two long movies in the same theater on the same day. I need time to process what I have just seen. I need to wait a day at least. But, I still think they could have trimmed the film. There are a couple of sit down dialogue scenes that could have been snappier in my opinion. Still, this was a very well made thriller and I will likely check it out again. I wouldn't be surprised if my issue with the length goes away upon rewatch.
Halloween
(I) (2018)
Halloween's Greatest Hits...and Not Much Else
21 November 2018
Halloween 2018 was...exactly what you would expect out of slasher movie sequel...more so in a series with too many to count. Overall...it's just okay. It's a one time deal for me. There was a lot of nice stuff in here. Jamie Lee Curtis gives a great performance, Michael is portrayed perfectly... probably the best since the original Halloween II, the rest of the cast does a fairly good job, the soundtrack done by John Carpenter himself was FANTASTIC (true Carpenter music at its best), there are some cool camera directions with some good long shots that give you the feel of the first two movies, the gore effects were top notch, and aspects of the Michael vs Laurie finale were pretty cool. All this makes for an entertaining time. BUT...all of this is equaled by many issues that keep this from being anything other than okay. First, every death in the film is completely predictable . Same old formula: character gets left alone, does something stupid, jump scare, and their dead. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. This formula needs to stop already. By the third act, I was literally rolling my eyes at every character being a complete idiot for the sake of having somebody die. But hey, if you enjoy that sorta predictability...Halloween 2018 has you covered for sure. Just don't plan on remembering the teen cast. Heck one character just disappeared from the movie completely. Speaking of stupid decisions, around the start of the third act...a character does something beyond idiotic. It is probably the stupidest thing I have seen this year...and I saw "The Predator" this year for crying out loud. And to make matters worse...it correlates with the elements that set the whole film's plot in motion. So the whole plot happens because of the lowest of low in stupidity. Then there is that fact that the film just can't stop knocking on the other films' doors. Too many forced references to the superior classic and heck even the whole Michael vs Laurie thing was ripped from Halloween H20! Only this time rather than her progression feeling logical, she is now basically Sarah Conner from "Terminator" mixed with Kevin McCallister from "Home Alone". It's a bit over the top but hey Curtis makes the most of it. Finally, the modern trend of forced comedy continues. Just because Marvel does it, doesn't mean everyone has too! Outside one little kid with a foul language problem...the humor just didn't work and distracted from the horror. Thus this movie is not remotely scary beyond those "good" old jump scares. (Sarcasm) Still, I was fairly entertained believe it or not and this is certainly better than 4-6 and Resurrection. But to me, Halloween II (1982) is still the proper sequel and I would probably put H20 above it too. This to me is just mildly entertaining fan fiction.
First Man
(2018)
Ignore the Politics, Watch the Movie. Period.
21 November 2018
👍👍
"First Man" is excellent on all accounts. A masterful film both dramatically and as a cinematic experience. It is easily a must see. And as for that flag controversy, could we all grow up? Yes, there is NO dedicated shot of the American flag being planted. There is merely a wide shot that shows both the lunar lander and the flag from a distance. The film doesn't rewrite history or try to be anti-American. The movie still goes out of its way to point out the event as an American achievement. Heck, it even had a French woman say something like "I knew America could do it, I had faith". If you choose to boycott this movie because of that one shot that wasn't in the movie...then that is honestly sad. And you if see it and then hate it for that reason, you completely missed the point of the film: Armstrong dealing with a personal family tragedy. In place of the flag planting, the film choose to focus on something more personal that many are lead to believe really happened. Honestly, I hope it did because it was beautiful. Much like the film itself. Go see it. Ignore the unwarranted hate. There are plenty of other movies that can be serve as the scapegoat of modern Hollywood bashing.
"First Man" is excellent on all accounts. A masterful film both dramatically and as a cinematic experience. It is easily a must see. And as for that flag controversy, could we all grow up? Yes, there is NO dedicated shot of the American flag being planted. There is merely a wide shot that shows both the lunar lander and the flag from a distance. The film doesn't rewrite history or try to be anti-American. The movie still goes out of its way to point out the event as an American achievement. Heck, it even had a French woman say something like "I knew America could do it, I had faith". If you choose to boycott this movie because of that one shot that wasn't in the movie...then that is honestly sad. And you if see it and then hate it for that reason, you completely missed the point of the film: Armstrong dealing with a personal family tragedy. In place of the flag planting, the film choose to focus on something more personal that many are lead to believe really happened. Honestly, I hope it did because it was beautiful. Much like the film itself. Go see it. Ignore the unwarranted hate. There are plenty of other movies that can be serve as the scapegoat of modern Hollywood bashing.
Bohemian Rhapsody
(2018)
Give Queen the Prize!
21 November 2018
👍👍
Gosh, what an entertaining film. I mean, not going to lie, any film featuring an extensive Queen soundtrack is usually already gonna get a bump up in my book. (ala "Flash Gordon" and "Highlander") So, a biopic about Freddie Mercury already has an advantage with me. But then go out of your way to add a great story with a fantastic cast and solid direction that is both slick and stylistic and you got a winner. Rami Malek deserves an Oscar nomination, period. The man literally transforms into Mercury. Go watch any retro behind the scenes clips of the real man and you can see for yourself. He managed to deliver Freddie's heightened personality and his more emotional behind the scenes moments, namely his fight with his sexual desires between the woman he loves and the men he also can't seem to stay away from either. The rest of the cast delivered as well. I particularly enjoyed Mike Myers as a music executive that isn't all that fond of Queen's efforts to break from traditional formulas. Bryan Singer and Dexter Fletcher both deliver a well directed movie that thankfully doesn't feel like the mess that "Justice League" was when it's original director had to jump ship. Not only is it sheer entertainment, but there are legit moments that had me tearing up a bit. If a movie can do that, then it is REALLY doing a good job. I think critics are just bunch of sour pusses with this one. 55% on Rotten Tomatoes? Tell that the 95% of the audience that loved it. The only way I could see someone not a least enjoying this movie is if they just don't like Queen in the first place. Which, if that is the case, you probably got other issues to worry about honestly. I do think the movie could have gone deeper into Freddie's life with his family. Actually, it could gone deeper with many things. But, nothing about the movie feels chopped out. Go see it! On the biggest screen if possible because the Live Aid concert is more than worth it the extra cost.
Mile 22
(2018)
The Bergs are Miles Off Course with their Latest Collaboration
21 August 2018
What a mess...and a major step down for the Mark Wahlberg/Peter Berg collaborations. This is easily the worst film I have seen in the year 2018. It is a testament to the worst qualities filmmakers can bring to the modern action film, ranked right next to such migraine inducing insults like "Tak3n" and "Resident Evil: The Final Chapter".
The story is very basic and B-grade: an elite team of off the book operatives have to escort a whistleblower 22 miles to an airstrip to escape his corrupt Southeast Asian nation. If they do so, he will provide the location of a deadly weapon the U.S. wants to desperately find. Trouble is that everyone is going to try to kill them along the way. Despite that painstakingly simple premise, they manage to make the expositional buildup overly complicated. You are thrown into a conflict you don't understand over an objective that you don't feel the magnitude of. This is complete with characters referring to things that already happened with a previous mission that failed which we didn't witness. The exposition being confusing is something the filmmakers must have noted themselves because right before the escort begins, John Malkovich's character literally breaks down the entire setup AGAIN to make sure you, in fact, get it. That is lazy writing and shows that the filmmakers think that the audience is either stupid or is a victim of their own storytelling incompetence. The story is also told in "flashback" I guess as it keeps randomly cutting to Wahlberg's character retelling the event (more exposition for those that can't follow this basic premise...again) and also monologuing about random..."philosophical" things about special ops missions. Nothing he says is actually important. I think he is supposed to be trying to give the film a message or something like a wise man. He is no wise man though, he is just the movie equivalent to fortune cookies drunk on Jack Daniels mixed with Gatorade. Actually, this whole movie feels like a "Call of Duty" wet dream... written by those very annoying COD players that are 12 years old and are far too young to be playing a game meant for adults. There is also this constant cutting to some Russian characters. Based on the opening, you know that they have a purpose. The actual outcome of that purpose, however, is sort of like...."oh that's what the deal is....wait why do I care again?"
Then there are the characters: all of them are either unlikeable, uninteresting, or an unholy combination of both. The most consistent example is the film's lead Jimmy Silva as played by the usually reliable Mark Wahlberg. His character is like this super hyper thinking soldier that is way off on the mental spectrum. He is super intelligent and obsessive about everything around him and has to use a rubber band on his arm which he pulls and slaps on his wrist to keep him calm. This is could be interesting, but instead, the character is an awkward embarrassment. He is a complete jerk to everyone around him, talks way too fast, and likes to just get right in everyone's faces to yell and complain like a whiny, little baby that lost his raddle. He is a complete a-hole and I honestly wished somebody would just punch him in the face. But his character seems to get off on violence so...perhaps that could just make things worse. He is a horrible character with an embarrassing performance by Marky Mark...right next to the "The Happening".
Finally, there is the critical sin: the editing and cinematography. This is some the poorest, most incomprehensible action I have seen in quite awhile. Every shootout and fight scene is compromised by ADHD cuts to so many shaky cam angles over and over again. Furthermore, most of the camera work is shot very tight in either close-ups or medium shots. You never get a sense of geography. You never can tell where the "heroes" are in context to the enemy. You get the general sense that people are shooting bullets and that people are getting hit by said bullets. They have the guy from the "The Raid' films in here and they completely waste his talents in his TWO fight scenes. This man can do a whole fight in one shot and they insist on cutting shots every 0.5 seconds as if they are trying to hide poor choreography. But you can tell it's not!! You can tell that in better hands this would be amazing!!! And do not defend this movie's editing and camerawork as being "realistic". There are many directors that can pull this style off well. Heck, Peter Berg is one of them! Go watch "Lone Survivor", "Deepwater Horizon", and "Patriot's Day" because those are great examples done right. "Patriot's Day" contains one the best "realistic" shootouts I can remember in recent years. This is straight up garbage. This is why I praise a movie like "John Wick" for getting the action right. That's why "John Wick' is a 5-star movie in my book. If you think that the way they do the action in this film is good, I am sorry but you might have something seriously wrong with you. Bad taste...very bad. Screw this shaky cam crap! And that makes up half the movie...if not more.
Horrible movie. Want something similar that is good, check the 2004 S.W.A.T. movie. It has a very similar plot with better characters, buildup, and action. Need something more recent? Try "Sicario".
The story is very basic and B-grade: an elite team of off the book operatives have to escort a whistleblower 22 miles to an airstrip to escape his corrupt Southeast Asian nation. If they do so, he will provide the location of a deadly weapon the U.S. wants to desperately find. Trouble is that everyone is going to try to kill them along the way. Despite that painstakingly simple premise, they manage to make the expositional buildup overly complicated. You are thrown into a conflict you don't understand over an objective that you don't feel the magnitude of. This is complete with characters referring to things that already happened with a previous mission that failed which we didn't witness. The exposition being confusing is something the filmmakers must have noted themselves because right before the escort begins, John Malkovich's character literally breaks down the entire setup AGAIN to make sure you, in fact, get it. That is lazy writing and shows that the filmmakers think that the audience is either stupid or is a victim of their own storytelling incompetence. The story is also told in "flashback" I guess as it keeps randomly cutting to Wahlberg's character retelling the event (more exposition for those that can't follow this basic premise...again) and also monologuing about random..."philosophical" things about special ops missions. Nothing he says is actually important. I think he is supposed to be trying to give the film a message or something like a wise man. He is no wise man though, he is just the movie equivalent to fortune cookies drunk on Jack Daniels mixed with Gatorade. Actually, this whole movie feels like a "Call of Duty" wet dream... written by those very annoying COD players that are 12 years old and are far too young to be playing a game meant for adults. There is also this constant cutting to some Russian characters. Based on the opening, you know that they have a purpose. The actual outcome of that purpose, however, is sort of like...."oh that's what the deal is....wait why do I care again?"
Then there are the characters: all of them are either unlikeable, uninteresting, or an unholy combination of both. The most consistent example is the film's lead Jimmy Silva as played by the usually reliable Mark Wahlberg. His character is like this super hyper thinking soldier that is way off on the mental spectrum. He is super intelligent and obsessive about everything around him and has to use a rubber band on his arm which he pulls and slaps on his wrist to keep him calm. This is could be interesting, but instead, the character is an awkward embarrassment. He is a complete jerk to everyone around him, talks way too fast, and likes to just get right in everyone's faces to yell and complain like a whiny, little baby that lost his raddle. He is a complete a-hole and I honestly wished somebody would just punch him in the face. But his character seems to get off on violence so...perhaps that could just make things worse. He is a horrible character with an embarrassing performance by Marky Mark...right next to the "The Happening".
Finally, there is the critical sin: the editing and cinematography. This is some the poorest, most incomprehensible action I have seen in quite awhile. Every shootout and fight scene is compromised by ADHD cuts to so many shaky cam angles over and over again. Furthermore, most of the camera work is shot very tight in either close-ups or medium shots. You never get a sense of geography. You never can tell where the "heroes" are in context to the enemy. You get the general sense that people are shooting bullets and that people are getting hit by said bullets. They have the guy from the "The Raid' films in here and they completely waste his talents in his TWO fight scenes. This man can do a whole fight in one shot and they insist on cutting shots every 0.5 seconds as if they are trying to hide poor choreography. But you can tell it's not!! You can tell that in better hands this would be amazing!!! And do not defend this movie's editing and camerawork as being "realistic". There are many directors that can pull this style off well. Heck, Peter Berg is one of them! Go watch "Lone Survivor", "Deepwater Horizon", and "Patriot's Day" because those are great examples done right. "Patriot's Day" contains one the best "realistic" shootouts I can remember in recent years. This is straight up garbage. This is why I praise a movie like "John Wick" for getting the action right. That's why "John Wick' is a 5-star movie in my book. If you think that the way they do the action in this film is good, I am sorry but you might have something seriously wrong with you. Bad taste...very bad. Screw this shaky cam crap! And that makes up half the movie...if not more.
Horrible movie. Want something similar that is good, check the 2004 S.W.A.T. movie. It has a very similar plot with better characters, buildup, and action. Need something more recent? Try "Sicario".
Christopher Robin
(2018)
Stunning display of heart and soul
5 August 2018
Wow, I am a simply stunned. Though, I am not completely surprised as from the trailer, I could already tell this was going to be pretty good. This has simple story with a great message for both kids and adults alike and honors the classic characters perfectly. Ewan McGregor proves more and more that he should have more leading roles in big movies as well. I also got to give props to the photography. This movie is beautiful to look at, even if it is trying to look more real and muted rather than fantastical. Between that, and some of the best visual/practical mixing of effects work I have seen, you fully believe these characters are alive in a believable live action manner. Pooh is just as lovable as ever. Though old Eeyore gets all the good lines. He is gonna have everyone cracking up. As one friend put it, this is probably one of the cutest movies one could see in theaters. That is certainly the case and a major step up for films directed towards kids. (The trailers that played before this were a sad display of modern "junk food" kids movies as I would call them. Poorly written and generically animated misfires that serve little purpose other than to distract children for an hour and a half. Small Foot...I am looking at you buddy...and that dumb Grinch movie.) It's also nice to see filmmakers skip the "origins film" path and go straight into a fresh "sequel" story. Sorta like the Tarzan movie that came out recently: "The Legend of Tarzan". We know the legend already, so let's get to the fresh stuff. This is film everyone should enjoy if not love. If you don't at least like this film...your heart might be plugged and you should likely visit a cardiologist ASAP.
Deadpool 2
(2018)
"Deadpool 2" Review: Pools in a Few Improvements
24 May 2018
"Deadpool 2" improves upon the previous film by providing a better narrative, a worthy villain, and well-staged action scenes to go along with all of the shock meta-humor from the first entry.
Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool, (Ryan Reynolds) is enjoying the life of being an immortal merc with the mouth until this lifestyle leads to the death of his girlfriend (Morena Baccarin). To redeem himself, he takes it upon himself to save a tortured mutant child named Russell, aka Firefist, (Julian Dennison) from the law and the vengeance of a time-traveling soldier named Cable (Josh Brolin).
I liked the first Deadpool film well enough, but I was far from a fan of it. Everything about the Deadpool character was well handled and Ryan Reynolds was perfect casting. Not all of the humor worked with me, but most of it did. All of those same points carry over into the sequel just as equally. My major issue with the first film was the fact that if you took away all the humor being pushed into your face, the superhero story being presented was just kind of by the numbers outside of the cancer aspect. A man gets superpowers at a cost, seeks revenge, and has his girlfriend kidnapped for the final. It was fun, but there was just something about it that didn't make me love it. Perhaps the humor was too much? I tend to prefer subtlety more. Outside of that, the film had a lame villain and little to no action scenes. Luckily, number two fixes those things.
The story here seems to find more serious ground than the first and made some effort to give the Deadpool character a little heart. All the humor is still there, but things do feel more balanced. That's not to say every joke landed, but most of them did. The film is still a lampoon, but that feels like an extension of the character's behavior and not at the expense of the narrative.
Josh Brolin's Cable is a big assist to this. Just in appearances alone, he crushes the first film's attempt at an antagonist. A half-human, half-robot super soldier with a metal arm and multifunction gun that makes the Winter Soldier look like a wimp, even with a burnt teddy bear strapped to his belt. His character is very similar to that of a Terminator, sent back to eliminate Firefist in the past before he becomes a threat later. Actually, the whole plot is like "Terminator 2", considering the use of child and a seemingly immortal protector.
An invincible hero can often be a problem since we as an audience know that there is no real danger. This can make action scenes rather pointless from a dramatic standpoint. Maybe that's why the first film didn't do much in the way of creative comic book fights (aside from the highway scene). In any case, "Deadpool 2" ups the ante by providing more superhero action this time around, and it's all done very well, thanks in large part to the new director, David Leitch. He is known best for his choreography involvement in some of the best fights in American film and co-director of "John Wick" (aka 'one of the men that killed John Wick's dog' as the credits say). The film sports some good set pieces, with the raid on a prison convey being the highlight.
Outside of those three points, everything is basically the same as the last film. If you really enjoyed that one, you are likely to enjoy this one around the same level. Personally, I still think some of the humor does fall flat and tries too hard to be funny. The Deadpool films like to throw in everything and the kitchen sink, as the saying goes. (Ironically, as one of the posters LITERALLY acknowledges a kitchen sink). Either way, there is just an odd feeling when a film is constantly trying to get you to laugh at everything. I say it works at least 75% of the time. For me, a better example of a humorous superhero film was "Thor: Ragnarok" from last year. Still, to each their own. I definitely felt "Deadpool 2" was an improvement.
There are plenty of post-credit scenes to wait for with great payoffs. I should note that there isn't one at the very end. So, you don't have to wait around.
Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool, (Ryan Reynolds) is enjoying the life of being an immortal merc with the mouth until this lifestyle leads to the death of his girlfriend (Morena Baccarin). To redeem himself, he takes it upon himself to save a tortured mutant child named Russell, aka Firefist, (Julian Dennison) from the law and the vengeance of a time-traveling soldier named Cable (Josh Brolin).
I liked the first Deadpool film well enough, but I was far from a fan of it. Everything about the Deadpool character was well handled and Ryan Reynolds was perfect casting. Not all of the humor worked with me, but most of it did. All of those same points carry over into the sequel just as equally. My major issue with the first film was the fact that if you took away all the humor being pushed into your face, the superhero story being presented was just kind of by the numbers outside of the cancer aspect. A man gets superpowers at a cost, seeks revenge, and has his girlfriend kidnapped for the final. It was fun, but there was just something about it that didn't make me love it. Perhaps the humor was too much? I tend to prefer subtlety more. Outside of that, the film had a lame villain and little to no action scenes. Luckily, number two fixes those things.
The story here seems to find more serious ground than the first and made some effort to give the Deadpool character a little heart. All the humor is still there, but things do feel more balanced. That's not to say every joke landed, but most of them did. The film is still a lampoon, but that feels like an extension of the character's behavior and not at the expense of the narrative.
Josh Brolin's Cable is a big assist to this. Just in appearances alone, he crushes the first film's attempt at an antagonist. A half-human, half-robot super soldier with a metal arm and multifunction gun that makes the Winter Soldier look like a wimp, even with a burnt teddy bear strapped to his belt. His character is very similar to that of a Terminator, sent back to eliminate Firefist in the past before he becomes a threat later. Actually, the whole plot is like "Terminator 2", considering the use of child and a seemingly immortal protector.
An invincible hero can often be a problem since we as an audience know that there is no real danger. This can make action scenes rather pointless from a dramatic standpoint. Maybe that's why the first film didn't do much in the way of creative comic book fights (aside from the highway scene). In any case, "Deadpool 2" ups the ante by providing more superhero action this time around, and it's all done very well, thanks in large part to the new director, David Leitch. He is known best for his choreography involvement in some of the best fights in American film and co-director of "John Wick" (aka 'one of the men that killed John Wick's dog' as the credits say). The film sports some good set pieces, with the raid on a prison convey being the highlight.
Outside of those three points, everything is basically the same as the last film. If you really enjoyed that one, you are likely to enjoy this one around the same level. Personally, I still think some of the humor does fall flat and tries too hard to be funny. The Deadpool films like to throw in everything and the kitchen sink, as the saying goes. (Ironically, as one of the posters LITERALLY acknowledges a kitchen sink). Either way, there is just an odd feeling when a film is constantly trying to get you to laugh at everything. I say it works at least 75% of the time. For me, a better example of a humorous superhero film was "Thor: Ragnarok" from last year. Still, to each their own. I definitely felt "Deadpool 2" was an improvement.
There are plenty of post-credit scenes to wait for with great payoffs. I should note that there isn't one at the very end. So, you don't have to wait around.
The Hurricane Heist
(2018)
'The Hurricane Heist' Review: More Like a Depression
19 May 2018
Oddly enough, the best way to start talking about "The Hurricane Heist" is to just describe the opening. Like "Twister", the film opens with the heroes as children who bear witness to the death of a loved one via the title disaster. In this case, our hero children and their father are running away from Hurricane Andrew in 1992. After a truck accident, Papa Redneck puts the boys inside a nearby abandoned house. Then Papa Redneck has to go back outside so he can die...oh I mean "fix the truck." Sorry. This doesn't work out very well when a water silo gets blown to the ground and rolls over him in an unintentionally comedic fashion as if he were playdough. Andrew then unleashes his poorly rendered CGI wrath on the equally poorly rendered CGI house by flipping it over. The roof lifts off and the boys look into the clouds of Andrew. Then the clouds...and I am not joking....form into a big, evil CGI skull that glares down at them and....roars. Cut to black. Cue title card: "The Hurricane Heist". From that point forward, I figured I knew what kind of movie I was going to get: a horrible, horrible...yet hilarious guilty pleasure. Sadly, not as often I hoped though.
"The Hurricane Heist" has a couple of moments that live up to the B-Grade "so bad it's good" tone it was advertised as, but mostly it's just a bad, straight-faced attempt at a legitimate thrill ride marred by God-awful visual effects, horrible storytelling, cringe-worthy writing, and a tone that unfortunately take itself too seriously.
The basic premise revolves around a group of robbers attempting to nonviolently steal 600 million dollars that is ready to be shredded at a federal facility in Gulfport, Alabama. The kicker is that robbers have chosen to do this during Hurricane Tammy as cover. Unfortunately, they need to get their hands on a federal agent with the access code that ends up being protected by a pair of Alabama rednecks, one a meteorologist and the other a repair man (the two brothers mentioned above grown up). It's a stupid premise, but it could be a lot of fun if handled the right way, which would be the wrong way ON PURPOSE.
Okay, the positives...this won't take too long. The lead cast is pretty good. Toby Kebbell is a talented actor who really needs a new agent. He is constantly being put in films that bomb and that he is a lot better than such as that awful "Warcraft" film. Here, even under the silly southern accent, he manages to produce a high degree of likeability. Maggie Grace (daughter from the Taken films) manages to play the part of a strong female lead well without resorting to making her annoying and grumpy like so many other films do. Ralph Ineson gives his best Liam Neeson impression as the film's villain to screen chewing delight. Ryan Kwanten is also pretty good, be it hammy, as Kebbell's redneck brother. All of them seem to be making the best of their situation...and I don't mean the hurricane.
What next? The jacked up hurricane-resistant car that Kebbell's redneck meteorologist drives is pretty cool and has one of the film's best action scenes. However, like most of the best moments, it was ruined in the trailer.
Hmmmm...the physical effects of creating the storm are pretty good. I mean this sort of thing has been done before...but they do it again here just fine! That's a positive right?
....The action scenes are shot well enough and have the occasional cool moment not ruined by stupidity or bad visual effects.
Okay, that's it. Everything else is horrid. The CGI visual effects are some of the worst I have ever seen in a theatrical movie. It's right up there with "The Legend of Hercules" from 2014. They rely on it for just about everything to create the hurricane that isn't wind or rain. Of course, they choose to "enhance" those practical effects with the CGI. Therefore it all looks like CGI. The visual quality is literally that of a Syfy Channel film like "Sharknado" or "Mega Super Duper Spectacular Storm 3000" or something. I am pretty sure this was meant to be a direct to DVD or Blu-ray release, but some fool thought that they could slip a good buck out of it in theaters.
Take out the hurricane, and the basic heist of the film is boring. The only noteworthy aspect was the fact that the villains start off with a no killing policy using tranquilizer guns. That aspect quickly goes out the window fast because we need those action scenes with gunfights. Really, it's just them mostly sitting around waiting for Maggie Grace to be "Taken" hostage and give them the pin number to the standard issue bank vault.
The characters are all one-dimensional stereotypes. There is no development of anything. The two brothers have one scene together before things get crazy and they don't reunite again until the climax. Therefore, we know nothing of their relationship and feel zero bonds between them. The movie even forgets about its own hurricane as a character. At one point it was just a Tropical Storm and then suddenly someone says it has Category 4 winds now. Then abruptly it surpasses Category 5 to "atomic levels" of destruction. Yes, that's the term the meteorologist uses.
Bad scripting, bad dialogue, and bad acting from several supporting players plague the film as well. Still, all of this could be entertaining in an ironic sense had the film not committed its biggest sin: taking itself seriously. Sure there are moments of comedy and the filmmakers likely knew in some way that they were making a dumb movie, but they seem intent on this film being a legit roller-coaster ride and not the goofy "Sharknado" self-parody film the trailer was implying, with "Rock You Like a Hurricane" by the Scorpions playing in the background. Often stupidity trying to be serious can lead to plenty of unintentional laughs. There were some moments like that, but "The Room" of action movies this is not (that's Samurai Cop anyway).
Yes, I am in fact criticizing this film for not being bad enough. I wanted to see rednecks drinking beer while shooting RPGs at foreign made cars loaded with cash in the middle of a superstorm with rock music playing the background. This movie should have had no shame. It should have gone for the title of "King of Suck". Nope, it just goes for forgettable bad. Honestly, the best way to cap this film off is just speaking about the better bad moments:
When the money is making its way into town, they are stopped by the all the traffic that is leaving. What do the federal agents do? They ram into the civilian cars with smiles on their faces and drive into a tobacco field.
The hero takes out some enemies by throwing hubcaps into the storm winds impaling baddies like they were blades to butter.
One of the villain hackers is a woman that is for some reason dressed in a cocktail dress and heels. Serves no purpose but to have some sex appeal in the film because Maggie Grace is rightfully better than that. Also, the actress is horrible. She may be an adult film star that walked on set. I don't know.
The heroes hook themselves to some basic harnesses below a skylight window. When bad guys arrive, they shoot the glass so the storm sucks all the bad guys out. The heroes get sucked out too but the harnesses keep them dangling 50 feet in the air. However, the power of being pulled out and then stopped suddenly doesn't seem to break either characters' back or other bones. Actually, they probably don't have bones at all as the CGI used to depict this makes them look like rubber dolls or Woody from "Toy Story". Also, no debris hits them until they land on the roof and they literally have to run from it.
The characters have a great moment of reflection while enjoying the marvels of PB and J sandwiches, which the meteorologist redneck just happened to have in his armored car of wonders. Made with Skippy brand peanut butter too, not Jiff as the film acknowledges.
Our male hero and female hero take a moment to pee which they BOTH do while standing up. They both stand by pillars, they both drop zippers, and they both stand. As I said, one is a woman. Despite all the physics being thrown out the door in this film, this is the moment that needs a MythBusters episode.
(Spoilers...sort of) The climax features the heroes trying to stop 18-wheelers loaded with cash which are using the calm eyewall of the hurricane to escape. The eyewall itself is poorly rendered with those good old Syfy visual effects that seem to wobble in some shots. It also just seems to not exist in other shots.
The filmmakers accidentally mistake a hurricane eyewall for a tornado that literally has to be outrun. That or the filmmakers are just dumb dumbs.
Despite being in the eyewall area that the front half of the storm has already passed over, the landscape is completely dry and there is no debris anywhere despite the destructive "atomic" powers. This was shot on a clear, sunny day and it is obvious.
The movie is bad. It's sort of so bad it's good, but not so bad it's good enough. And no, "Rock You Like a Hurricane" is not in the movie at all. Lame. If you want something like this that is better,heck out the 1998 film "Hard Rain" with Morgan Freeman, Christian Slater, and Randy Quaid. It basically has the same plot, only it's a big flood instead of a hurricane. It's nothing fantastic, but it is entertaining and has better special effects then this 2018 movie.
Skip this unless you happen to be intoxicated. You probably weren't going to see it anyway, if you have even heard of it. I think most agreed that it looked like garbage. Well, it's "confirmed" garbage.
"The Hurricane Heist" has a couple of moments that live up to the B-Grade "so bad it's good" tone it was advertised as, but mostly it's just a bad, straight-faced attempt at a legitimate thrill ride marred by God-awful visual effects, horrible storytelling, cringe-worthy writing, and a tone that unfortunately take itself too seriously.
The basic premise revolves around a group of robbers attempting to nonviolently steal 600 million dollars that is ready to be shredded at a federal facility in Gulfport, Alabama. The kicker is that robbers have chosen to do this during Hurricane Tammy as cover. Unfortunately, they need to get their hands on a federal agent with the access code that ends up being protected by a pair of Alabama rednecks, one a meteorologist and the other a repair man (the two brothers mentioned above grown up). It's a stupid premise, but it could be a lot of fun if handled the right way, which would be the wrong way ON PURPOSE.
Okay, the positives...this won't take too long. The lead cast is pretty good. Toby Kebbell is a talented actor who really needs a new agent. He is constantly being put in films that bomb and that he is a lot better than such as that awful "Warcraft" film. Here, even under the silly southern accent, he manages to produce a high degree of likeability. Maggie Grace (daughter from the Taken films) manages to play the part of a strong female lead well without resorting to making her annoying and grumpy like so many other films do. Ralph Ineson gives his best Liam Neeson impression as the film's villain to screen chewing delight. Ryan Kwanten is also pretty good, be it hammy, as Kebbell's redneck brother. All of them seem to be making the best of their situation...and I don't mean the hurricane.
What next? The jacked up hurricane-resistant car that Kebbell's redneck meteorologist drives is pretty cool and has one of the film's best action scenes. However, like most of the best moments, it was ruined in the trailer.
Hmmmm...the physical effects of creating the storm are pretty good. I mean this sort of thing has been done before...but they do it again here just fine! That's a positive right?
....The action scenes are shot well enough and have the occasional cool moment not ruined by stupidity or bad visual effects.
Okay, that's it. Everything else is horrid. The CGI visual effects are some of the worst I have ever seen in a theatrical movie. It's right up there with "The Legend of Hercules" from 2014. They rely on it for just about everything to create the hurricane that isn't wind or rain. Of course, they choose to "enhance" those practical effects with the CGI. Therefore it all looks like CGI. The visual quality is literally that of a Syfy Channel film like "Sharknado" or "Mega Super Duper Spectacular Storm 3000" or something. I am pretty sure this was meant to be a direct to DVD or Blu-ray release, but some fool thought that they could slip a good buck out of it in theaters.
Take out the hurricane, and the basic heist of the film is boring. The only noteworthy aspect was the fact that the villains start off with a no killing policy using tranquilizer guns. That aspect quickly goes out the window fast because we need those action scenes with gunfights. Really, it's just them mostly sitting around waiting for Maggie Grace to be "Taken" hostage and give them the pin number to the standard issue bank vault.
The characters are all one-dimensional stereotypes. There is no development of anything. The two brothers have one scene together before things get crazy and they don't reunite again until the climax. Therefore, we know nothing of their relationship and feel zero bonds between them. The movie even forgets about its own hurricane as a character. At one point it was just a Tropical Storm and then suddenly someone says it has Category 4 winds now. Then abruptly it surpasses Category 5 to "atomic levels" of destruction. Yes, that's the term the meteorologist uses.
Bad scripting, bad dialogue, and bad acting from several supporting players plague the film as well. Still, all of this could be entertaining in an ironic sense had the film not committed its biggest sin: taking itself seriously. Sure there are moments of comedy and the filmmakers likely knew in some way that they were making a dumb movie, but they seem intent on this film being a legit roller-coaster ride and not the goofy "Sharknado" self-parody film the trailer was implying, with "Rock You Like a Hurricane" by the Scorpions playing in the background. Often stupidity trying to be serious can lead to plenty of unintentional laughs. There were some moments like that, but "The Room" of action movies this is not (that's Samurai Cop anyway).
Yes, I am in fact criticizing this film for not being bad enough. I wanted to see rednecks drinking beer while shooting RPGs at foreign made cars loaded with cash in the middle of a superstorm with rock music playing the background. This movie should have had no shame. It should have gone for the title of "King of Suck". Nope, it just goes for forgettable bad. Honestly, the best way to cap this film off is just speaking about the better bad moments:
When the money is making its way into town, they are stopped by the all the traffic that is leaving. What do the federal agents do? They ram into the civilian cars with smiles on their faces and drive into a tobacco field.
The hero takes out some enemies by throwing hubcaps into the storm winds impaling baddies like they were blades to butter.
One of the villain hackers is a woman that is for some reason dressed in a cocktail dress and heels. Serves no purpose but to have some sex appeal in the film because Maggie Grace is rightfully better than that. Also, the actress is horrible. She may be an adult film star that walked on set. I don't know.
The heroes hook themselves to some basic harnesses below a skylight window. When bad guys arrive, they shoot the glass so the storm sucks all the bad guys out. The heroes get sucked out too but the harnesses keep them dangling 50 feet in the air. However, the power of being pulled out and then stopped suddenly doesn't seem to break either characters' back or other bones. Actually, they probably don't have bones at all as the CGI used to depict this makes them look like rubber dolls or Woody from "Toy Story". Also, no debris hits them until they land on the roof and they literally have to run from it.
The characters have a great moment of reflection while enjoying the marvels of PB and J sandwiches, which the meteorologist redneck just happened to have in his armored car of wonders. Made with Skippy brand peanut butter too, not Jiff as the film acknowledges.
Our male hero and female hero take a moment to pee which they BOTH do while standing up. They both stand by pillars, they both drop zippers, and they both stand. As I said, one is a woman. Despite all the physics being thrown out the door in this film, this is the moment that needs a MythBusters episode.
(Spoilers...sort of) The climax features the heroes trying to stop 18-wheelers loaded with cash which are using the calm eyewall of the hurricane to escape. The eyewall itself is poorly rendered with those good old Syfy visual effects that seem to wobble in some shots. It also just seems to not exist in other shots.
The filmmakers accidentally mistake a hurricane eyewall for a tornado that literally has to be outrun. That or the filmmakers are just dumb dumbs.
Despite being in the eyewall area that the front half of the storm has already passed over, the landscape is completely dry and there is no debris anywhere despite the destructive "atomic" powers. This was shot on a clear, sunny day and it is obvious.
The movie is bad. It's sort of so bad it's good, but not so bad it's good enough. And no, "Rock You Like a Hurricane" is not in the movie at all. Lame. If you want something like this that is better,heck out the 1998 film "Hard Rain" with Morgan Freeman, Christian Slater, and Randy Quaid. It basically has the same plot, only it's a big flood instead of a hurricane. It's nothing fantastic, but it is entertaining and has better special effects then this 2018 movie.
Skip this unless you happen to be intoxicated. You probably weren't going to see it anyway, if you have even heard of it. I think most agreed that it looked like garbage. Well, it's "confirmed" garbage.
Death Wish
(2018)
'Death Wish' Review: Times Change, Revenge Stays the Same
19 May 2018
The moment I saw a trailer drop for the "Death Wish" remake, my eyes were rolling before I even pushed play. Throw in the out of place AC/DC music and the directing credit of torture master Eli Roth, and I was completely disinterested in the film's existence, even if I was desperate for Bruce Willis to make a return to the big screen (last lead role was "Red 2" from 2013). Two big things bugged me plot-wise. On one hand, I was baffled at yet another remake of a classic film that still works today. Secondly, there really isn't anything impressive about the story of "Death Wish" in 2018. For 1974, the story of an everyday man having his family ripped away and resorting to fighting criminals with gun violence may have been game changing then. By now, that plot has been done time and time again and most of the time those films are just forgettable. Every once in a while you'll get a "John Wick" to restore some life to the genre. The previews for this remake didn't give me any high hopes for that. However, as someone who has seen all five of the original "Death Wish" films, I felt obligated to view it and hope that it would at least be serviceable. To my surprise, it was actually entertaining.
"Death Wish" 2018 provides serviceable action entertainment and a decent return for Bruce Willis to the big screen with some competent drama and well-staged and schlocky violence, even if the film doesn't really do anything to shake up its basic genre formula and revenge clichés.
The craft of the film is very straightforward. It follows the simple dealings of Dr. Paul Kersey, a surgeon who has his wife killed and his daughter put into a coma after they are attacked and robbed one night when he is at work. The family is given a brief setup of likability and the home invasion is effectively tense. It doesn't reach the harsh effect of the original's scene, which I doubt they would get away with today as it included rape. The film then proceeds down the usual path of coping, having a violent revelation, and finally vigilantism. The story does just enough to keep you invested in the narrative and never bores. It even throws in some good comedy along the way to keep the film from being too depressing. It works, though there are some tonal issues present.
Bruce Willis fills in for Charles Bronson this time around and finally gets to take on leading role in a theatrical picture since his career's "death" back in 2013. While Bronson will always be the king of this role, Willis does a commendable job overall, especially in regards to being a vigilante. Bruce just has a coolness about him that makes handling the role of a tough, gritty hero easy. Throw in a couple of smirk and wink moments and the man has most of his performance down. Though there are issues I will confront later.
The rest of the cast does a competent job. The standout of the bunch would be Vincent D'Onofrio as the Kersey's young brother. Nobody in the film pulls a performance of high praise, but nobody does a bad job either. Some actors, such as Dean Norris of "Breaking Bad" fame, just sort of fall into their usual typecast slots.
The film's direction is well handled. Roth thankfully favored filming the picture cleanly without all the shaky cam nonsense that plagues the average action flick. Everything is strung together well with some nicely done scene transitions with good editing tricks. The general style of the film is very gritty and realistic looking. The iconic outfit of choice for Kersey this time around is a hoodie, sort of making him look like he is a part of the modern "Assassin's Creed"....which could be cool come to think of it. I was worried this look would be laughable, but it actually works. It's especially funny the way Kersey always manages to find a "fresh" hoodie by digging in hospital binds containing clothes from, ironically enough, previous victims of violence.
Chicago serves as an easy choice for modern setting considering the amount of gun violence that apparently really infects that city. The film updates well for times with the use of social media and radio talk shows serving as means of commentary towards the film's argument: is it okay to take the law into your own hands...particularly by shooting criminals down in cold blood? The film pushes more towards the option of using any means necessary to protect yourself and those close to you. The film does throw in the occasional counter-argument to keep things from seeming too bias. Luckily, politics are kept to a minimum. It's there, but it doesn't distract from the overall plot.
The main thing that slightly sets this remake above the average revenge flick is the action scenes. Well, mostly just the level of violence. This very much an R-rated movie and the filmmakers clearly held no interest in holding back that fact. If you are super squeamish....perhaps pass on this one. This is directed by Eli Roth after all, the man known highly for his shock/gore horror films and he certainly brings that to the forefront. These gory moments are executed very well and provide the jolting effect they are going for. I for one will never trust a car jack again....ever. So, "Death Wish" currently fulfills the death wishes. Whether that is good or bad thing depends who you are. For, me it was plus. You be you movie. You be you.
Still, outside of the cool kills, there is nothing really special about this remake. While the plot is straightforward and easy to digest (gore aside), it offers no new twists or turns to formula. It does nothing wrong with the formula but doesn't shake it up either. It doesn't even rework the way the original film played out. In "Death Wish" 1974, Kersey never got the chance to actually find the gang that was responsible for the crimes against his family. He just goes after any criminal he happens to run into. That was a breath of fresh air against the norm where the anti-hero is expected to hunt down those directly responsible. The film starts off like it's going down the original's route, but pretty soon it does become that clichéd quest for those responsible.
Even though it was nice to see Bruce on the big screen again, his performance was not perfect. While he was good at being a tough guy or a happy guy that's starting to enjoy taking out the trash, he was rather wooden in the more emotional moments, which is pretty crucial to the character and the overall story. For the first act, he just wasn't giving the right reactions, as if he didn't want to break emotionally too much and look "weak" on screen. This kind of brings down the effect of his family's tragedy. The emotion he should be giving seems to be given completely to Vincent D'Onofrio. The best emotional reaction to the tragedy doesn't come until later in the film when Kersey's daughter learns of what happened. Bruce certainly gets better as the film goes on, but he was certainly bumpy.
There are also some odd tones to the film. On one hand, it is a gritty film about a nonviolent man forcing himself to be violent to achieve what he sees as justice. Then you will have scenes where he seems to enjoy his new "hobby", even joking and smiling when keeping this secret from his therapist. Then there is the AC/DC music. I really hoped that was just a trailer thing, but apparently not. They really used that music and yes it is still out of place...and very, very clichéd. "Back in Black" hit its high with "Iron Man". Please stop using it so much. At least, I remember that music though. The actual soundtrack literally escapes my mind.
"Death Wish" 2018 provides serviceable action entertainment. It delivers all it needs, does it well enough, and moves on. I do wish the film could have picked a tone: gritty or tongue in cheek. It mostly sticks to gritty, but the tongue hits the cheek every now in then. At times, the film is like a mix of the dark qualities of the first "Death Wish" with the one-liner dropping shlock of the sequels. This is a better film then 4 and 5 for sure. It's not as good as 1 and 2. Whether it is better than 3 is up for debate. It's technically better made, but anyone that has seen "Death Wish 3" can't deny its entertainment value. Bruce does need to work on some emotional acting chops as well. Still, this remake is entertaining in its own right and provides enough commentary to be a little thoughtful, but not too overbearing.
I have chosen to avoid really talking about the film's political debate in regards to guns. There is a lot of heat being thrown its way by critics for its time of release given the latest tragic gun violence in America. I'll simply say that I can't give the film negative points based on bad timing. The film had a release date and ZERO control of what a murderer in Florida decided to unfortunately do. I say just watch the film for the simple entertainment it is. I feel a lot of critics are choosing not to do that.
"Death Wish" 2018 provides serviceable action entertainment and a decent return for Bruce Willis to the big screen with some competent drama and well-staged and schlocky violence, even if the film doesn't really do anything to shake up its basic genre formula and revenge clichés.
The craft of the film is very straightforward. It follows the simple dealings of Dr. Paul Kersey, a surgeon who has his wife killed and his daughter put into a coma after they are attacked and robbed one night when he is at work. The family is given a brief setup of likability and the home invasion is effectively tense. It doesn't reach the harsh effect of the original's scene, which I doubt they would get away with today as it included rape. The film then proceeds down the usual path of coping, having a violent revelation, and finally vigilantism. The story does just enough to keep you invested in the narrative and never bores. It even throws in some good comedy along the way to keep the film from being too depressing. It works, though there are some tonal issues present.
Bruce Willis fills in for Charles Bronson this time around and finally gets to take on leading role in a theatrical picture since his career's "death" back in 2013. While Bronson will always be the king of this role, Willis does a commendable job overall, especially in regards to being a vigilante. Bruce just has a coolness about him that makes handling the role of a tough, gritty hero easy. Throw in a couple of smirk and wink moments and the man has most of his performance down. Though there are issues I will confront later.
The rest of the cast does a competent job. The standout of the bunch would be Vincent D'Onofrio as the Kersey's young brother. Nobody in the film pulls a performance of high praise, but nobody does a bad job either. Some actors, such as Dean Norris of "Breaking Bad" fame, just sort of fall into their usual typecast slots.
The film's direction is well handled. Roth thankfully favored filming the picture cleanly without all the shaky cam nonsense that plagues the average action flick. Everything is strung together well with some nicely done scene transitions with good editing tricks. The general style of the film is very gritty and realistic looking. The iconic outfit of choice for Kersey this time around is a hoodie, sort of making him look like he is a part of the modern "Assassin's Creed"....which could be cool come to think of it. I was worried this look would be laughable, but it actually works. It's especially funny the way Kersey always manages to find a "fresh" hoodie by digging in hospital binds containing clothes from, ironically enough, previous victims of violence.
Chicago serves as an easy choice for modern setting considering the amount of gun violence that apparently really infects that city. The film updates well for times with the use of social media and radio talk shows serving as means of commentary towards the film's argument: is it okay to take the law into your own hands...particularly by shooting criminals down in cold blood? The film pushes more towards the option of using any means necessary to protect yourself and those close to you. The film does throw in the occasional counter-argument to keep things from seeming too bias. Luckily, politics are kept to a minimum. It's there, but it doesn't distract from the overall plot.
The main thing that slightly sets this remake above the average revenge flick is the action scenes. Well, mostly just the level of violence. This very much an R-rated movie and the filmmakers clearly held no interest in holding back that fact. If you are super squeamish....perhaps pass on this one. This is directed by Eli Roth after all, the man known highly for his shock/gore horror films and he certainly brings that to the forefront. These gory moments are executed very well and provide the jolting effect they are going for. I for one will never trust a car jack again....ever. So, "Death Wish" currently fulfills the death wishes. Whether that is good or bad thing depends who you are. For, me it was plus. You be you movie. You be you.
Still, outside of the cool kills, there is nothing really special about this remake. While the plot is straightforward and easy to digest (gore aside), it offers no new twists or turns to formula. It does nothing wrong with the formula but doesn't shake it up either. It doesn't even rework the way the original film played out. In "Death Wish" 1974, Kersey never got the chance to actually find the gang that was responsible for the crimes against his family. He just goes after any criminal he happens to run into. That was a breath of fresh air against the norm where the anti-hero is expected to hunt down those directly responsible. The film starts off like it's going down the original's route, but pretty soon it does become that clichéd quest for those responsible.
Even though it was nice to see Bruce on the big screen again, his performance was not perfect. While he was good at being a tough guy or a happy guy that's starting to enjoy taking out the trash, he was rather wooden in the more emotional moments, which is pretty crucial to the character and the overall story. For the first act, he just wasn't giving the right reactions, as if he didn't want to break emotionally too much and look "weak" on screen. This kind of brings down the effect of his family's tragedy. The emotion he should be giving seems to be given completely to Vincent D'Onofrio. The best emotional reaction to the tragedy doesn't come until later in the film when Kersey's daughter learns of what happened. Bruce certainly gets better as the film goes on, but he was certainly bumpy.
There are also some odd tones to the film. On one hand, it is a gritty film about a nonviolent man forcing himself to be violent to achieve what he sees as justice. Then you will have scenes where he seems to enjoy his new "hobby", even joking and smiling when keeping this secret from his therapist. Then there is the AC/DC music. I really hoped that was just a trailer thing, but apparently not. They really used that music and yes it is still out of place...and very, very clichéd. "Back in Black" hit its high with "Iron Man". Please stop using it so much. At least, I remember that music though. The actual soundtrack literally escapes my mind.
"Death Wish" 2018 provides serviceable action entertainment. It delivers all it needs, does it well enough, and moves on. I do wish the film could have picked a tone: gritty or tongue in cheek. It mostly sticks to gritty, but the tongue hits the cheek every now in then. At times, the film is like a mix of the dark qualities of the first "Death Wish" with the one-liner dropping shlock of the sequels. This is a better film then 4 and 5 for sure. It's not as good as 1 and 2. Whether it is better than 3 is up for debate. It's technically better made, but anyone that has seen "Death Wish 3" can't deny its entertainment value. Bruce does need to work on some emotional acting chops as well. Still, this remake is entertaining in its own right and provides enough commentary to be a little thoughtful, but not too overbearing.
I have chosen to avoid really talking about the film's political debate in regards to guns. There is a lot of heat being thrown its way by critics for its time of release given the latest tragic gun violence in America. I'll simply say that I can't give the film negative points based on bad timing. The film had a release date and ZERO control of what a murderer in Florida decided to unfortunately do. I say just watch the film for the simple entertainment it is. I feel a lot of critics are choosing not to do that.
Black Panther
(2018)
'Black Panther' Review: Another solid Marvel film, but not a Masterpiece
19 May 2018
"Black Panther" serves as yet another solid entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, showcasing a wildly different world feel and a deeper story than previous entries, while still providing the staples that the devoted fan base enjoys. Many critics and audiences are proclaiming this as the best of the series and even saying that the film is a masterpiece. I feel that is stretch as there are some apparent issues with film's execution of action, effects, and actual focus of the story, regardless of depth. "Black Panther" is indeed a good film, but not a "masterpiece".
The story follows T'Challa aka the Black Panther, sometime after "Captain America: Civil War", finally taking the throne of his late father in the advanced hidden capital of Wakanda, an African country pretending to be a typical third world nation. When an old enemy pops up again, the new king finds himself face to face with a mysterious American mercenary with stirring obsession with Wakanda.
The story to "Blank Panther" is actually really good and goes a step above the usual in the MCU with plenty of emotional depth to its characters and not relying too much on previous films in the series. I will refrain from speaking on it to hold back spoilers. I will say that the story basically becomes the "Lion King". Nuff said.
Our hero is very likable and never does anything to break his status as a good role model. Chadwick Boseman created a fan favorite with Civil War and those qualities carry over here.
The villains are also above par, which for me has always been an issue with Marvel movies: a lot effort for the hero and the villain is just a one note baddy played by a high profile actor. Andy Serkis returns to replay his role of Klaue from "Age of Ultron", providing yet another over the top and energetic performance. His character isn't deep, but he knows how to chew the scenery. Yet again, this man proves he should have more roles, even outside motion capture. Then there is Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger. I won't spoil his character, but needless to say Jordan continues to show why he is one the new greats by providing an entertainingly defiant and yet emotionally involving villain. It's nice to actually have one that was an understandable reason for his behavior.
From the beauty of the advanced world of Wakanda to the superb soundtrack by Ludwig Goransson, the film provides a great blend of native African culture mixed with a futuristic cyberpunk style. The film is downright beautiful at times, especially during the spiritual ancestorial plain scenes. There is even a hint of James Bond through a scene where T'Challa is given a new suit and gadgets ala every Q scene ever. Boseman's charm helps with that vibe too.
As I said, the film is not a masterpiece. First off, while I do like the story over all, I do feel like there is was one story going on and the then another one just sorta starts halfway through. The film is pretty focused on Klaue until the halfway point where in which Killmonger suddenly just takes center stage. I found that little jarring. I guess Klaue was just a means to an end. I also found the fight scenes to be rather meh. The action itself is good with some great set-pieces such as cool chase scene in South Korea. I mainly mean the coverage of the one on one fights. They were just shot too close and cut too quick at times, making it hard to really appreciate the conflict. You just get the idea that people are beating down on each other. This is why I praise movies like "John Wick" or "The Foreigner" for actually covering visible fight scenes. I also found the final conflict at the end to be disappointing as it was ruined by some pretty meh CGI. It honestly looked like a 3D animated cartoon by the end. The CGI was actually iffy in some other areas too, and this late into the MCU that shouldn't be the case. It sorta looks like "Gods of Egypt" at times. (A guilty pleasure by the way) Also, some of the camera work as just headache inducing. One shot in particular where it starts upside down and spins around really just hurt my eyes. I get the idea: "the situation has been turned upside down so let's literally shoot this in an unnerving way". Ultimately, it just gave me a headache.
Despite these issues, I still think "Black Panther" is a solid entry in the Marvel cannon and I am excited to see more of Wakanda in the upcoming "Infinity War". I just feel some are making this sound better than it really is. It is really good movie, but not a great one. I feel perhaps it might be some the politics of the film that is raising it up to "masterpiece" level. I just don't care about that. I just care about whether it was a good movie or not. "Black Panther" was good.
Recommended.
The story follows T'Challa aka the Black Panther, sometime after "Captain America: Civil War", finally taking the throne of his late father in the advanced hidden capital of Wakanda, an African country pretending to be a typical third world nation. When an old enemy pops up again, the new king finds himself face to face with a mysterious American mercenary with stirring obsession with Wakanda.
The story to "Blank Panther" is actually really good and goes a step above the usual in the MCU with plenty of emotional depth to its characters and not relying too much on previous films in the series. I will refrain from speaking on it to hold back spoilers. I will say that the story basically becomes the "Lion King". Nuff said.
Our hero is very likable and never does anything to break his status as a good role model. Chadwick Boseman created a fan favorite with Civil War and those qualities carry over here.
The villains are also above par, which for me has always been an issue with Marvel movies: a lot effort for the hero and the villain is just a one note baddy played by a high profile actor. Andy Serkis returns to replay his role of Klaue from "Age of Ultron", providing yet another over the top and energetic performance. His character isn't deep, but he knows how to chew the scenery. Yet again, this man proves he should have more roles, even outside motion capture. Then there is Michael B. Jordan as Killmonger. I won't spoil his character, but needless to say Jordan continues to show why he is one the new greats by providing an entertainingly defiant and yet emotionally involving villain. It's nice to actually have one that was an understandable reason for his behavior.
From the beauty of the advanced world of Wakanda to the superb soundtrack by Ludwig Goransson, the film provides a great blend of native African culture mixed with a futuristic cyberpunk style. The film is downright beautiful at times, especially during the spiritual ancestorial plain scenes. There is even a hint of James Bond through a scene where T'Challa is given a new suit and gadgets ala every Q scene ever. Boseman's charm helps with that vibe too.
As I said, the film is not a masterpiece. First off, while I do like the story over all, I do feel like there is was one story going on and the then another one just sorta starts halfway through. The film is pretty focused on Klaue until the halfway point where in which Killmonger suddenly just takes center stage. I found that little jarring. I guess Klaue was just a means to an end. I also found the fight scenes to be rather meh. The action itself is good with some great set-pieces such as cool chase scene in South Korea. I mainly mean the coverage of the one on one fights. They were just shot too close and cut too quick at times, making it hard to really appreciate the conflict. You just get the idea that people are beating down on each other. This is why I praise movies like "John Wick" or "The Foreigner" for actually covering visible fight scenes. I also found the final conflict at the end to be disappointing as it was ruined by some pretty meh CGI. It honestly looked like a 3D animated cartoon by the end. The CGI was actually iffy in some other areas too, and this late into the MCU that shouldn't be the case. It sorta looks like "Gods of Egypt" at times. (A guilty pleasure by the way) Also, some of the camera work as just headache inducing. One shot in particular where it starts upside down and spins around really just hurt my eyes. I get the idea: "the situation has been turned upside down so let's literally shoot this in an unnerving way". Ultimately, it just gave me a headache.
Despite these issues, I still think "Black Panther" is a solid entry in the Marvel cannon and I am excited to see more of Wakanda in the upcoming "Infinity War". I just feel some are making this sound better than it really is. It is really good movie, but not a great one. I feel perhaps it might be some the politics of the film that is raising it up to "masterpiece" level. I just don't care about that. I just care about whether it was a good movie or not. "Black Panther" was good.
Recommended.
Tomb Raider
(2018)
'Tomb Raider' Review: A Surprising Find
19 May 2018
Movies based on video games are something that I'm surprised Hollywood continues to try. First attempts in the early 90s barely followed the source material. As time went on, they proceeded to try harder, but still, the films only followed the source maybe 50% or so and often failed to give characters much depth beyond their one-dimensional game counterparts. (I give some credit to the first Hitman and Max Payne though). In 2016, Hollywood tried again with two big releases: "Warcraft" and "Assassin's Creed." The former wasn't really good and the latter was merely decent, but yet again both failed to critics, audiences, and box office returns. They fully embraced their respective games' styles and source materials, but once again they didn't provide good characters and both basically alienated anyone not in tune with games already. Now, here comes "Tomb Raider" leaping into theaters based on the excellent 2013 reboot of the game series. A good source material like that should make for a good movie, but everyone is naturally skeptical of course. Luckily, I bare positive feedback. Quite positive.
"Tomb Raider" successful breaks the bad video game movie curse with a solid action thriller propelled by a well-crafted lead and a story backed by some real emotional connections, making for good entertainment for both video game fans and those looking for an adventure film that stands on its own. It may be the best video game film to date.
The plot revolves around Lara Croft, an orphan who desperately wants to know what happened to her father that disappeared 7 years prior on a mission to stop a terrorist group from locating a cursed tomb on an island hidden off Japan's coast. It manages to follow the game's plot close and the yet change much at the same time. Much of this change is for the better as a film. That change is the father/daughter dynamic between Lara and her missing father. This was absent from the game which relied more on the player's control for the character to create the relatability. The filmmakers wisely understood the need to change this since a film is a third person, observational experience. I was worried that this dynamic would hurt the film, however, since it has been done time and time before (even the first Tomb Raider attempt with Jolie back in 2001), but surprisingly it all worked better than expected and even went a route I didn't anticipate.
The character of Croft is expertly handled by Alicia Vikander. She manages to create a charming strong female lead that doesn't resort to making her aggressively unlikable (hello Katniss from "Hunger Games") or like some superhero that is good at everything (hello Rey from "Star Wars"). She is strong, but venerable. She is a little cocky, but not snobby. Plus, she realistically has no real knowledge of surviving a deserted island or an army of marooned, desperate mercenaries. She is a believable hero.
The action is well staged with some scenes are that manage to be just as thrilling as they are great to look at. The pacing is spot on, never making for a dull moment. The film's style is more realistic and grounded in nature than most video game translations, outside of the occasional backbreaking moment of anti-physics. However, those moments are true to the game so it's not a complaint. Tomb Raider games are known for their mythical elements and the film manages to find a clever way to balance mysticism and gritty reality very well.
There are still some hiccups I have. The villains are played out well for the most part, but they could have been fleshed out more. Walton Goggins does a good job as he usually does at playing the head baddie, who does have a realistic anchor to crimes (marooned on an island by a terrorist cell away from his family). However, his group "Trinity" doesn't really have much presence. They are just sort of necessary antagonists that could have had more development given to them. It doesn't help that we really never see the real leaders of this secret Illuminati-like group throughout the film. Another issue is the sequel bait ending. I am getting really tired of this occurring in everything. This is the first film, therefore you should just make a film with a clear-cut beginning, middle, and end. Setting up another film at the end doesn't justify you making another one. You earn that right if A) you make a good film and B) it makes bank. You succeeded on the first, but don't take bets on the latter. It's frustrating, but not because of the groan of more. It's actually the fear that we may not even get a sequel to this because of everyone still being crazy over "Black Panther" (it's seriously time to move on from that now).
I want another "Tomb Raider" film. Whether that will happen is unknown. What is known is that they have set up a good foundation with this one if they are able to. Alicia Vikander is Lara Croft through and through and it would be nice to see her character go further. The truly great thing about this film is that it works on its own. You don't need to play the game to like it. The fan service is there, but not in your face. Everything is explained well (as an adventure story, the film benefits from having exposition feel necessary to the plot). This awakens the possibility of many good video game films to come....hopefully that is. "Tomb Raider" is the first time I can truly say without hesitation that it is actually a really good movie that happens to be based on a video game. It's no masterpiece, but in the video game genre, it may as well be one compared to the competition.
Recommended.
"Tomb Raider" successful breaks the bad video game movie curse with a solid action thriller propelled by a well-crafted lead and a story backed by some real emotional connections, making for good entertainment for both video game fans and those looking for an adventure film that stands on its own. It may be the best video game film to date.
The plot revolves around Lara Croft, an orphan who desperately wants to know what happened to her father that disappeared 7 years prior on a mission to stop a terrorist group from locating a cursed tomb on an island hidden off Japan's coast. It manages to follow the game's plot close and the yet change much at the same time. Much of this change is for the better as a film. That change is the father/daughter dynamic between Lara and her missing father. This was absent from the game which relied more on the player's control for the character to create the relatability. The filmmakers wisely understood the need to change this since a film is a third person, observational experience. I was worried that this dynamic would hurt the film, however, since it has been done time and time before (even the first Tomb Raider attempt with Jolie back in 2001), but surprisingly it all worked better than expected and even went a route I didn't anticipate.
The character of Croft is expertly handled by Alicia Vikander. She manages to create a charming strong female lead that doesn't resort to making her aggressively unlikable (hello Katniss from "Hunger Games") or like some superhero that is good at everything (hello Rey from "Star Wars"). She is strong, but venerable. She is a little cocky, but not snobby. Plus, she realistically has no real knowledge of surviving a deserted island or an army of marooned, desperate mercenaries. She is a believable hero.
The action is well staged with some scenes are that manage to be just as thrilling as they are great to look at. The pacing is spot on, never making for a dull moment. The film's style is more realistic and grounded in nature than most video game translations, outside of the occasional backbreaking moment of anti-physics. However, those moments are true to the game so it's not a complaint. Tomb Raider games are known for their mythical elements and the film manages to find a clever way to balance mysticism and gritty reality very well.
There are still some hiccups I have. The villains are played out well for the most part, but they could have been fleshed out more. Walton Goggins does a good job as he usually does at playing the head baddie, who does have a realistic anchor to crimes (marooned on an island by a terrorist cell away from his family). However, his group "Trinity" doesn't really have much presence. They are just sort of necessary antagonists that could have had more development given to them. It doesn't help that we really never see the real leaders of this secret Illuminati-like group throughout the film. Another issue is the sequel bait ending. I am getting really tired of this occurring in everything. This is the first film, therefore you should just make a film with a clear-cut beginning, middle, and end. Setting up another film at the end doesn't justify you making another one. You earn that right if A) you make a good film and B) it makes bank. You succeeded on the first, but don't take bets on the latter. It's frustrating, but not because of the groan of more. It's actually the fear that we may not even get a sequel to this because of everyone still being crazy over "Black Panther" (it's seriously time to move on from that now).
I want another "Tomb Raider" film. Whether that will happen is unknown. What is known is that they have set up a good foundation with this one if they are able to. Alicia Vikander is Lara Croft through and through and it would be nice to see her character go further. The truly great thing about this film is that it works on its own. You don't need to play the game to like it. The fan service is there, but not in your face. Everything is explained well (as an adventure story, the film benefits from having exposition feel necessary to the plot). This awakens the possibility of many good video game films to come....hopefully that is. "Tomb Raider" is the first time I can truly say without hesitation that it is actually a really good movie that happens to be based on a video game. It's no masterpiece, but in the video game genre, it may as well be one compared to the competition.
Recommended.
Ready Player One
(2018)
'Ready Player One' Review: High score for Spielberg
19 May 2018
"Ready Player One" brings back the fun Steven Spielberg with an old-fashioned, effects-laden adventure where the world is often more important than its characters. Still, this world is guaranteed to entertain fans of nostalgia both young and old, even if the older crowd will find the basic plot formulaic and predictable.
The film is sort of like how "Tron" was back in 1982 if you replaced the made-up characters and environments with those of actual pop cultural icons. The future setting of the film is so displeasing that the majority of the population has chosen to enjoy their time inside the OASIS, a virtual reality video game where you can basically do anything or be anything. The socially awkward creator of this game James Halliday, now deceased, has left a three-step challenge that if completed, will grant the victor access to control the OASIS. The story follows Wade Watts and his friends on a quest to complete the challenge before an evil corporation that is bent on seizing control of the OASIS through the completion of the challenges and turning it into what would essentially be a pop-up ad heaven (or hell, depending on your perspective).
"Ready Player One" is a great visual experience first and foremost. The use of nostalgia feels more as a means to be realistic rather than a means to capitalize on one's childhood. There are plenty of moments that are just there to be pointed out as Easter eggs, but it never distracts from the core story. The adventure inside the OASIS is fun and immersive in the classic Spielberg sense with the balance of seriousness and humor being on point. The film also does manage to throw in good messages and satire about society being obsessed with trying to escape the real world, often at the consequence of losing touch with the things of true value in the real world. The best example of this is the idea of teenagers developing a "relationship" online despite never seeing each other face to face. As one character quotes, "You only see and hear what I want you to." The message is also pushed via Halliday who chose to devote so much time to his own pop culture safe space, that he lost a close friend and a chance for love in the process. So in a sense, pop culture does serve an actual purpose. Still, purpose or not, it is very gitty to see so much on screen at once. I particularly jumped onto the fanboy train once the heroes entered the second stage of the challenge, which involves navigating a certain popular horror film which I shall not reveal.
This is definitely a film for kids, who will likely walk away with this ironically becoming a nostalgic part of their own childhoods. Adults will also have a lot of fun, but as an adult, I can't help but notice some things. For one, there really isn't much to the core plot. Outside the OASIS, things are pretty basic. The human characters are mostly just base level and, oddly enough, are overshadowed by the colorful avatar counterparts. The plot of an evil corporation, an underground resistance, and the inevitable revolution of little people vs elites has been done time and time before and sadly the film does nothing to mix up that narrative. The story goes pretty much where you expect outside of the visual package that is unique to "Ready Player One's" style. The characters aren't bad and all the actors are great, but only two really walk away with memorable depth: Watts's love interest Art3mis and OASIS creator James Halliday. Also, the exposition was very heavy at the beginning of the film. While some was necessary, there did come a point where I felt the voiceover narration from Watts was going overboard.
Most of this is just nitpicking as none of that ruins the overall fun factor of the picture. The world of the OASIS is worth price of admission and some good, timely messages do manage to speak through without feeling preachy or political. The fact that the nostalgia feels like it has an artistic purpose really impressed me, but I can't deny I will likely indulge into more viewings just to find all the pop culture Easter eggs I likely missed...for fanboy satisfaction.
Recommended. (No post credit scene)
The film is sort of like how "Tron" was back in 1982 if you replaced the made-up characters and environments with those of actual pop cultural icons. The future setting of the film is so displeasing that the majority of the population has chosen to enjoy their time inside the OASIS, a virtual reality video game where you can basically do anything or be anything. The socially awkward creator of this game James Halliday, now deceased, has left a three-step challenge that if completed, will grant the victor access to control the OASIS. The story follows Wade Watts and his friends on a quest to complete the challenge before an evil corporation that is bent on seizing control of the OASIS through the completion of the challenges and turning it into what would essentially be a pop-up ad heaven (or hell, depending on your perspective).
"Ready Player One" is a great visual experience first and foremost. The use of nostalgia feels more as a means to be realistic rather than a means to capitalize on one's childhood. There are plenty of moments that are just there to be pointed out as Easter eggs, but it never distracts from the core story. The adventure inside the OASIS is fun and immersive in the classic Spielberg sense with the balance of seriousness and humor being on point. The film also does manage to throw in good messages and satire about society being obsessed with trying to escape the real world, often at the consequence of losing touch with the things of true value in the real world. The best example of this is the idea of teenagers developing a "relationship" online despite never seeing each other face to face. As one character quotes, "You only see and hear what I want you to." The message is also pushed via Halliday who chose to devote so much time to his own pop culture safe space, that he lost a close friend and a chance for love in the process. So in a sense, pop culture does serve an actual purpose. Still, purpose or not, it is very gitty to see so much on screen at once. I particularly jumped onto the fanboy train once the heroes entered the second stage of the challenge, which involves navigating a certain popular horror film which I shall not reveal.
This is definitely a film for kids, who will likely walk away with this ironically becoming a nostalgic part of their own childhoods. Adults will also have a lot of fun, but as an adult, I can't help but notice some things. For one, there really isn't much to the core plot. Outside the OASIS, things are pretty basic. The human characters are mostly just base level and, oddly enough, are overshadowed by the colorful avatar counterparts. The plot of an evil corporation, an underground resistance, and the inevitable revolution of little people vs elites has been done time and time before and sadly the film does nothing to mix up that narrative. The story goes pretty much where you expect outside of the visual package that is unique to "Ready Player One's" style. The characters aren't bad and all the actors are great, but only two really walk away with memorable depth: Watts's love interest Art3mis and OASIS creator James Halliday. Also, the exposition was very heavy at the beginning of the film. While some was necessary, there did come a point where I felt the voiceover narration from Watts was going overboard.
Most of this is just nitpicking as none of that ruins the overall fun factor of the picture. The world of the OASIS is worth price of admission and some good, timely messages do manage to speak through without feeling preachy or political. The fact that the nostalgia feels like it has an artistic purpose really impressed me, but I can't deny I will likely indulge into more viewings just to find all the pop culture Easter eggs I likely missed...for fanboy satisfaction.
Recommended. (No post credit scene)
Avengers: Infinity War
(2018)
"Avengers: Infinity War" Review: A War to Marvel Over
19 May 2018
Where is the "Infinity War" review? What is an "Infinity War" review? I got one better...WHY is "Infinity War" review?.....okay that was a stupid reference.
"Avengers: Infinity War" gives fans the quality battles and banter they were expecting out of Marvel's biggest comic hero mash-up yet, but also takes things to a new high with a bold ending and providing the best MCU villain to date.
Following the breakup of the Avengers, the Earth and the entire universe is finally the target in the crosshairs of an alien war lord named Thanos, who seeks to collect all six infinity stones so that he can gain the power to exterminate half the population of the universe at the snap of a finger...literally. To take on this threat, not only do the Avengers have to get along with each other again, but team up with the Guardians of the Galaxy to save the day. But can they?
This film is basically review-proof. You can barely talk about anything because just about anything would be considered a spoiler. Thanos plays an Easter egg hunt for 6 glowing power rocks and our heroes, broken into various parties, try to stop him from doing so. The film wastes no time getting to the point and never really has a moment where the film tones down its breakneck pace. Even in dramatic moments the film never drags on too long with any obstacle. Clocking in at 2 hours and 40 minutes, the film never feels its length.
Character interaction was arguably the highlight of the original "Avengers" from 2012 and that is, even more, the case with "Infinity War". The new characters added to the Marvel roster are now thrown into the mix and the filmmakers clearly did their homework to make the sure the right individuals were mixed together to maximize the comedic effect. The best example of this is the mix of Thor and the Guardians. If someone back in 2008 would have coined the idea of paring the God of Thunder with a smart mouthing space raccoon (or rabbit if you ask Thor), reasonably the almighty film judges would have thrown the screen booking right at them without hesitation. However, to no one in 2018's surprise the combo works better than one could have dreamed. Then there is the matching of Iron Man (power by science) with Doctor Strange (power by magic). The more Strange appears in films the more I want another Doctor Strange solo film. Except with a good villain next time.
Speaking of good villains, that has been a notorious issue with Marvel films. At best, the antagonists are just fine and get the job done, but rarely has there been a villain who steals the show or really proves to be much of a threat. Black Panther more or less yanked the chain along with Guardians 2 and Spiderman: Homecoming. Now comes "Infinity War" with Thanos to break the chain. Just in the opening scene alone, the film establishes Thanos as a legitimate threat to our heroes. Not only is he a well presented threat, but he is also a well-defined character. Josh Brolin, who is basically good in everything, provides such a good performance that you almost start to reason with his character's plight...even if genocide is a part of the equation of it all. This really is his film in the end.
On the matter of "ends", the climax of this film is a new definition of daring not only to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but superhero films in general. I can't say what occurs, but needless to say, it will be interesting to see how they go about following it up. Remember, even though "Part I" isn't in the title, this is a two-part story that ends in a cliffhanger.
There are no real negatives to speak of here. I personally still put "Civil War" as the best of the MCU. I felt that film handled complex social issues and political differences in an interesting way and for me, watching heroes go against each other is more tragic then fighting another common enemy. I also felt the action had more interesting choreography. The battles are well handled in "Infinity War"... it is a war film after all...kind of in the title. Still, there wasn't really an "airport scene" or "omg Cap and Iron Man are fighting" scene. The action is grand, but it's not necessarily one of "Infinity War's" highlights in my opinion.
Still, it is very impressive when the highlight of a superhero film is the dramatic moments and not the action. "Infinity War" provides a quality dosage of both and should be more than enough to keep the core audience healthy and hungry for the next chapter in the MCU.
"Avengers: Infinity War" gives fans the quality battles and banter they were expecting out of Marvel's biggest comic hero mash-up yet, but also takes things to a new high with a bold ending and providing the best MCU villain to date.
Following the breakup of the Avengers, the Earth and the entire universe is finally the target in the crosshairs of an alien war lord named Thanos, who seeks to collect all six infinity stones so that he can gain the power to exterminate half the population of the universe at the snap of a finger...literally. To take on this threat, not only do the Avengers have to get along with each other again, but team up with the Guardians of the Galaxy to save the day. But can they?
This film is basically review-proof. You can barely talk about anything because just about anything would be considered a spoiler. Thanos plays an Easter egg hunt for 6 glowing power rocks and our heroes, broken into various parties, try to stop him from doing so. The film wastes no time getting to the point and never really has a moment where the film tones down its breakneck pace. Even in dramatic moments the film never drags on too long with any obstacle. Clocking in at 2 hours and 40 minutes, the film never feels its length.
Character interaction was arguably the highlight of the original "Avengers" from 2012 and that is, even more, the case with "Infinity War". The new characters added to the Marvel roster are now thrown into the mix and the filmmakers clearly did their homework to make the sure the right individuals were mixed together to maximize the comedic effect. The best example of this is the mix of Thor and the Guardians. If someone back in 2008 would have coined the idea of paring the God of Thunder with a smart mouthing space raccoon (or rabbit if you ask Thor), reasonably the almighty film judges would have thrown the screen booking right at them without hesitation. However, to no one in 2018's surprise the combo works better than one could have dreamed. Then there is the matching of Iron Man (power by science) with Doctor Strange (power by magic). The more Strange appears in films the more I want another Doctor Strange solo film. Except with a good villain next time.
Speaking of good villains, that has been a notorious issue with Marvel films. At best, the antagonists are just fine and get the job done, but rarely has there been a villain who steals the show or really proves to be much of a threat. Black Panther more or less yanked the chain along with Guardians 2 and Spiderman: Homecoming. Now comes "Infinity War" with Thanos to break the chain. Just in the opening scene alone, the film establishes Thanos as a legitimate threat to our heroes. Not only is he a well presented threat, but he is also a well-defined character. Josh Brolin, who is basically good in everything, provides such a good performance that you almost start to reason with his character's plight...even if genocide is a part of the equation of it all. This really is his film in the end.
On the matter of "ends", the climax of this film is a new definition of daring not only to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but superhero films in general. I can't say what occurs, but needless to say, it will be interesting to see how they go about following it up. Remember, even though "Part I" isn't in the title, this is a two-part story that ends in a cliffhanger.
There are no real negatives to speak of here. I personally still put "Civil War" as the best of the MCU. I felt that film handled complex social issues and political differences in an interesting way and for me, watching heroes go against each other is more tragic then fighting another common enemy. I also felt the action had more interesting choreography. The battles are well handled in "Infinity War"... it is a war film after all...kind of in the title. Still, there wasn't really an "airport scene" or "omg Cap and Iron Man are fighting" scene. The action is grand, but it's not necessarily one of "Infinity War's" highlights in my opinion.
Still, it is very impressive when the highlight of a superhero film is the dramatic moments and not the action. "Infinity War" provides a quality dosage of both and should be more than enough to keep the core audience healthy and hungry for the next chapter in the MCU.
A Quiet Place
(2018)
Psssst.....'A Quiet Place' is a Good Place
19 May 2018
................................................oh sorry, I was trying to be quiet with the review. Oops.
Whispers: "A Quiet Place" serves as one of the freshest and most well-directed thriller/horror experiences to date by successfully reinventing the use of one of horror's biggest tropes: the silence before the scare.
Sometime before the present story, alien creatures arrived on earth that are blind as a bat but have a heightened sense of sound and speed to track their prey. These creatures appear to have wiped out the majority of the population (both human and animal alike) with only a few scattered families remaining, including the protagonist unit of the Abbot family. This family attempts to survive on limited resources and deal with each other's family drama all the while having to remain as silent as possible to hide from 3 creatures lurking in their woods.
The gimmick of the film is that characters have to refrain from all loud noises in order to survive. Even the simple sounds of walking on leaves or creaky floors and even moving plastic board game pieces could attract unwanted attention. If that can get you killed, image what knocking over a lantern could do. Or you could also try to give birth to a baby. The idea of using silence to heighten fear is nothing new to horror, but in "A Quiet Place" the technique is made even more effective as now ANY sound is deadly and scary. It practically makes the use of jump scares seem less lazy again.
Since the characters can't make even make heavy foot noises, the use of speech is rendered useless and characters must rely on American Sign Language as the main form of communication...translated to the audience via subtitles. This was first used efficiently on the big screen with Fox's new Planet of the Ape trilogy for the ape to ape dialogue. With a few exceptions where characters are near spots making natural noises louder than their voices, this is a dialogue-free film. One could compare the film to that of a foreign made one with subtitles or even the old silent pictures of the 1920s. "A Quiet Place" relies mostly on visuals and saves its moments of sound like it is a limited resource. I am sure some audiences will find this boring after some time...because lord forbid there be even an ounce of patience left in the general audience today. Still, I can safely say "A Quiet Place" handles these techniques to the highest level of quality.
This is made possible from director and lead star John Krasinski who proves that both behind the camera and in front of it, he is more than just "Jim from the Office". Krasinski helms the film in a very Hitchcockian manner or even that of Kubrick's "The Shining". It's deliberate and slow, allowing for the audience to take in the atmosphere and the rules of the world in a smart way. The audience is treated with the respect to put all the pieces together by delivering the exposition only in visual or implied means. In a sense, the lack of dialogue forces the film to use old-fashioned storytelling, which makes for good storytelling overall.
The only complaints are mostly nitpicks based around certain moments of character behavior. Some characters do things that you really would think they would be smart enough not to, such as keeping a toy that literally was just established as a noisemaker or running off into the woods by yourself to throw a private hissy fit (though to be fair, the whole "unrealistically foolish decisions" thing seems to be a common trope for horror movies in general).Then there was the plot point of the mom of the family being pregnant. In a world where noise is literally death, why would you risk getting pregnant (it is clear she got like this AFTER the world went into a mute hell)? Even more so...how did you manage to "procreate" without making noise? On second thought, perhaps the less we know the better...
Still, these are little nitpicks that are basically overshadowed by all the greatness around them. "A Quiet Place" takes a seat right next to last year's "It" as modern-day proof that horror can still be superb. But if you feel the need to give a standing ovation...remember: silent claps.
P.S. In reference to the people that sat behind me in the theater: If you saw the film prior to bringing your friends to see it again...perhaps don't say what's about to happen. That would be greatly appreciated, please.
Whispers: "A Quiet Place" serves as one of the freshest and most well-directed thriller/horror experiences to date by successfully reinventing the use of one of horror's biggest tropes: the silence before the scare.
Sometime before the present story, alien creatures arrived on earth that are blind as a bat but have a heightened sense of sound and speed to track their prey. These creatures appear to have wiped out the majority of the population (both human and animal alike) with only a few scattered families remaining, including the protagonist unit of the Abbot family. This family attempts to survive on limited resources and deal with each other's family drama all the while having to remain as silent as possible to hide from 3 creatures lurking in their woods.
The gimmick of the film is that characters have to refrain from all loud noises in order to survive. Even the simple sounds of walking on leaves or creaky floors and even moving plastic board game pieces could attract unwanted attention. If that can get you killed, image what knocking over a lantern could do. Or you could also try to give birth to a baby. The idea of using silence to heighten fear is nothing new to horror, but in "A Quiet Place" the technique is made even more effective as now ANY sound is deadly and scary. It practically makes the use of jump scares seem less lazy again.
Since the characters can't make even make heavy foot noises, the use of speech is rendered useless and characters must rely on American Sign Language as the main form of communication...translated to the audience via subtitles. This was first used efficiently on the big screen with Fox's new Planet of the Ape trilogy for the ape to ape dialogue. With a few exceptions where characters are near spots making natural noises louder than their voices, this is a dialogue-free film. One could compare the film to that of a foreign made one with subtitles or even the old silent pictures of the 1920s. "A Quiet Place" relies mostly on visuals and saves its moments of sound like it is a limited resource. I am sure some audiences will find this boring after some time...because lord forbid there be even an ounce of patience left in the general audience today. Still, I can safely say "A Quiet Place" handles these techniques to the highest level of quality.
This is made possible from director and lead star John Krasinski who proves that both behind the camera and in front of it, he is more than just "Jim from the Office". Krasinski helms the film in a very Hitchcockian manner or even that of Kubrick's "The Shining". It's deliberate and slow, allowing for the audience to take in the atmosphere and the rules of the world in a smart way. The audience is treated with the respect to put all the pieces together by delivering the exposition only in visual or implied means. In a sense, the lack of dialogue forces the film to use old-fashioned storytelling, which makes for good storytelling overall.
The only complaints are mostly nitpicks based around certain moments of character behavior. Some characters do things that you really would think they would be smart enough not to, such as keeping a toy that literally was just established as a noisemaker or running off into the woods by yourself to throw a private hissy fit (though to be fair, the whole "unrealistically foolish decisions" thing seems to be a common trope for horror movies in general).Then there was the plot point of the mom of the family being pregnant. In a world where noise is literally death, why would you risk getting pregnant (it is clear she got like this AFTER the world went into a mute hell)? Even more so...how did you manage to "procreate" without making noise? On second thought, perhaps the less we know the better...
Still, these are little nitpicks that are basically overshadowed by all the greatness around them. "A Quiet Place" takes a seat right next to last year's "It" as modern-day proof that horror can still be superb. But if you feel the need to give a standing ovation...remember: silent claps.
P.S. In reference to the people that sat behind me in the theater: If you saw the film prior to bringing your friends to see it again...perhaps don't say what's about to happen. That would be greatly appreciated, please.
Isle of Dogs
(2018)
Best of Man's Best Friend
19 May 2018
"Isle of Dogs" provides one of the most unique animated film experiences in recent memory, combining technical awe, subtle humor, and heartstring-pulling to create an immediate classic that will likely never age.
The story is set in future Japan where dogs have unfortunately come upon a disease that could threaten the human population. Seemingly to prevent this outcome, the mayor of Megasaki City bans all dogs to a trash dump island just off the coast to live out the remainder of their days. The son of the mayor takes it upon himself to go to the island to locate his lost dog (the first to be removed) and is helped by a small dog pack led by a stray street dog, who refuses to show any pity towards humans.
The most notable thing right off the bat about "Isle of Dogs" is its excellent stop-motion animation. This is such a unique form of animation and, despite its rough qualities, it always provides a charm and basically never really ages. The visuals of "Isle of Dog's will continue to appeal to viewers as long there is a copy of it in existence. There was a trailer before this film for Illumination's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" which featured the typical modern 3D animation complete with an alarm going off playing "Happy" by Pharrell Williams. Gee, I wonder what's going to be dated in less than a year? With competition like that, it's easy to see why "Isle of Dogs" steals the show in American animation.
Wes Anderson is easily one of the most unique directors out there. At first glance, all his stuff seems like a comedy, but this film is only that in a subtle manner. Jokes are blunt, dry, and fast. Honestly, there are very few "jokes", most are just based around the execution of the film. This is assisted by a perfect ensemble voice cast including Bryan Cranston, Jeff Goldblum, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, and Scarlett Johansson. Expect more chuckles rather than knee-slapping laughter. The film holds a great dramatic core around the concept of man's best friend. If you don't like dogs, this film may change that.
The use of Japan as a location gives the film a fresh cultural look both in regards to visual and sound design. The soundtrack is one of the most memorable I have heard in some time. Take note Hollywood: the world could use more taiko drumming (On second thought, you might screw it up so don't bother). Anderson's use of symmetry is so appealing to the eyes that you question why more filmmakers don't try to imitate this particular style. You can clearly see thought and effort was put into every shot. Or rather every frame, considering this is stop motion.
The only complaint I could find would that the 3rd act is arguably story-heavy or, in other words, there was a lot being dumped on the audience at once. I won't go into what happens, but the simple story of dogs helping a boy find his favorite pup does develop into something bigger. Most of this is caused by flashbacks, which the film does actually make enjoyable via stylistic choices. (The movie literally indications when it is a flashback with a text card and they tell you when it is over with the same effect). However, unlike many other films, I can forgive this little issue because the effort and overall style of the film just overshadow it.
Finally, I should indicate that while this is an animated film, that doesn't mean it is for little kids. There is nothing too graphic (there is a bloody ear) or profane (B-word used hilariously) in the film, but the storytelling isn't really designed for little kids. The film is rated PG-13 after all. When I saw the film, a family containing about 6 or so little kids entered the theater and they were clearly not interested in what was going on and thus started running around all over the place making noise. The family left halfway in and I am sure they likely wasted 50 plus dollars (probably closer to $100 if they bought snacks). This is not a film to distract and/or amuse children.
For those old enough to appreciate it though, you will enjoy one of the most unique films you will likely see in theaters this year. In many ways, films like this are best because they really make you think "how did they do that"?
The story is set in future Japan where dogs have unfortunately come upon a disease that could threaten the human population. Seemingly to prevent this outcome, the mayor of Megasaki City bans all dogs to a trash dump island just off the coast to live out the remainder of their days. The son of the mayor takes it upon himself to go to the island to locate his lost dog (the first to be removed) and is helped by a small dog pack led by a stray street dog, who refuses to show any pity towards humans.
The most notable thing right off the bat about "Isle of Dogs" is its excellent stop-motion animation. This is such a unique form of animation and, despite its rough qualities, it always provides a charm and basically never really ages. The visuals of "Isle of Dog's will continue to appeal to viewers as long there is a copy of it in existence. There was a trailer before this film for Illumination's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" which featured the typical modern 3D animation complete with an alarm going off playing "Happy" by Pharrell Williams. Gee, I wonder what's going to be dated in less than a year? With competition like that, it's easy to see why "Isle of Dogs" steals the show in American animation.
Wes Anderson is easily one of the most unique directors out there. At first glance, all his stuff seems like a comedy, but this film is only that in a subtle manner. Jokes are blunt, dry, and fast. Honestly, there are very few "jokes", most are just based around the execution of the film. This is assisted by a perfect ensemble voice cast including Bryan Cranston, Jeff Goldblum, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, and Scarlett Johansson. Expect more chuckles rather than knee-slapping laughter. The film holds a great dramatic core around the concept of man's best friend. If you don't like dogs, this film may change that.
The use of Japan as a location gives the film a fresh cultural look both in regards to visual and sound design. The soundtrack is one of the most memorable I have heard in some time. Take note Hollywood: the world could use more taiko drumming (On second thought, you might screw it up so don't bother). Anderson's use of symmetry is so appealing to the eyes that you question why more filmmakers don't try to imitate this particular style. You can clearly see thought and effort was put into every shot. Or rather every frame, considering this is stop motion.
The only complaint I could find would that the 3rd act is arguably story-heavy or, in other words, there was a lot being dumped on the audience at once. I won't go into what happens, but the simple story of dogs helping a boy find his favorite pup does develop into something bigger. Most of this is caused by flashbacks, which the film does actually make enjoyable via stylistic choices. (The movie literally indications when it is a flashback with a text card and they tell you when it is over with the same effect). However, unlike many other films, I can forgive this little issue because the effort and overall style of the film just overshadow it.
Finally, I should indicate that while this is an animated film, that doesn't mean it is for little kids. There is nothing too graphic (there is a bloody ear) or profane (B-word used hilariously) in the film, but the storytelling isn't really designed for little kids. The film is rated PG-13 after all. When I saw the film, a family containing about 6 or so little kids entered the theater and they were clearly not interested in what was going on and thus started running around all over the place making noise. The family left halfway in and I am sure they likely wasted 50 plus dollars (probably closer to $100 if they bought snacks). This is not a film to distract and/or amuse children.
For those old enough to appreciate it though, you will enjoy one of the most unique films you will likely see in theaters this year. In many ways, films like this are best because they really make you think "how did they do that"?
Class Rank
(2017)
High School Romance Made Quirky and Lovable Again
18 May 2018
"Class Rank" passionately tells the simple tale of a teen romance with a quirky style that harkens back to the heartfelt high school tales of old rather than resorting to the profane and edgy take often expressed in modern teen dramas.
The film follows two high school students in the small town of Livingston, New Jersey who are both seeking changes in their school system for their own personal benefits. Bernard (Skyler Gisondo) has a unique, progressive view on life and wishes to change all the ways of his small town. On the other end, Veronica (Olivia Holt) wishes to change their school's class ranking requirements so she can be moved up from her second place ranking to number one to better her chances of getting into Yale. Veronica pursues and convinces Bernard to try and run for a seat in the town's school board (as there are no age restrictions) to challenge the system. However, she just can't help but begin taking a more-than-friendly interest in Bernard, no matter how dorky he is.
The narrative of "Class Rank" is not fully original (Every film buff will likely reference "Election" but the comparison is honestly minimal), but it does succeed in telling the story in a manner that is more likable than the average film in the genre. The vision of the film is somewhere between that of Wes Anderson mixed with the John Hughes vibe of the 80s. Be that the PG-13 kind of course. There is indeed something old-fashioned about the film. It is set in modern times for sure, but it never draws a lot of attention to that. It never throws the latest trend in your face and characters rarely even use the almighty cell phone. Bernard relies on the mail service as the key means to send off and receive audiotapes to his long-distance girlfriend in China. Characters ride bicycles, they rely on homemade posters to campaign rather than social media, and there always seems to be somebody making out in the background of any public school scene. (This can't be normal today right? Like EVERY scene!)
What makes the film work above all else is the film's characters. They are all quite likable and full of personality (There is one mark against this point though I will speak on in a moment). The two young leads have great chemistry with each other that results in some "adorkable" moments. The best shout out goes to Skyler Gisondo. He is like a little Spock in many ways, complete dialogue that is written in a very proper fashion (When offered a car ride: "I appreciate the offer, however, I must decline as I have vowed to keep my carbon footprint to a minimum."). In the hands of the wrong actor, this sort of character could lean towards the position of being annoying as opposed to the adorkable quality the filmmakers shot for and luckily hit squarely in the bullseye. Bruce Dern is also a hoot as the boy's grandfather who also has his own romantic subplot that is acceptable, if mostly pointless to the overall story.
As I previously mentioned, there is one character motivation that did border on the unlikable side. Veronica's introduction is not the best. The character's entire motivation to move up from number 2 to number 1 is well...rather selfish. Admittedly, that is the point. The execution just sort of makes you feel like she is way too full of herself. It doesn't help that it is unlikely that being number 2 would really hurt her chances of getting into Yale or that the audience doesn't get a clear breakdown of class ranking. So, it sort of comes across that she just wants to be better than everyone because she feels she has to live up to that standard. It's not that this isn't a BELIEVABLE character as there are plenty of students that obsess with being the best of the best for no other reason than just because. Thankfully, the character quickly improves after the introduction and she grows to see more in life.
The only other flaw I see is that ultimately the actual campaign/election that Bernard and Veronica are fighting for doesn't really have any tension or steaks. The opposition never proves to be much of a threat and they don't even really seem to be doing anything oppressive to the school system beyond just not giving the two leads what they want. I could see this as a small satire on politics itself. Everyone is just jockeying for what they personally want all the while appealing to other people's interests merely to get their vote. Ultimately, the election just serves as the catalyst that draws two people together and allows them to "find" each other along the way. If you are expecting this to really serve as an outcry to teenage rebellion you will be left a little empty.
If you are looking for a sincere, little film that brings the old-school heart back to the teen drama, then you will find "Class Rank" quite satisfying. It's not deep or pretentious. It just tells a simple story in a lovable manner.
Oh yeah, this was shot near my hometown in Alexandria, Louisiana back in 2015 so I probably should speak on that aspect shouldn't I? Well, Alexandria is used well enough as a backdrop and it was fun to point out locations that I and many others may see as mundane being made interesting just because it is now on film. It also leads to some questions of location consistency. The film's opening is a montage of Bernard riding around town on his bike, but the order of locations seems...out of order. First, he is in what seems like the run-down areas west of downtown, then he is in downtown, back in the run-down spot, then on the Pineville side of the river with the big American flag, and then he is suddenly back in downtown. WHERE IS HE GOING?? Perhaps he is visiting different places throughout the day. Of course, I guess the geography doesn't really matter much as the film's setting is supposed to be New Jersey and not Louisiana. Thankfully, the extras in the film don't scream SOUUUUTTTTHHHH!...so everyone else will be none the wiser. All in all, the town is used well enough, but the location is merely a backdrop. Don't' expect an epic wide shot.
The film follows two high school students in the small town of Livingston, New Jersey who are both seeking changes in their school system for their own personal benefits. Bernard (Skyler Gisondo) has a unique, progressive view on life and wishes to change all the ways of his small town. On the other end, Veronica (Olivia Holt) wishes to change their school's class ranking requirements so she can be moved up from her second place ranking to number one to better her chances of getting into Yale. Veronica pursues and convinces Bernard to try and run for a seat in the town's school board (as there are no age restrictions) to challenge the system. However, she just can't help but begin taking a more-than-friendly interest in Bernard, no matter how dorky he is.
The narrative of "Class Rank" is not fully original (Every film buff will likely reference "Election" but the comparison is honestly minimal), but it does succeed in telling the story in a manner that is more likable than the average film in the genre. The vision of the film is somewhere between that of Wes Anderson mixed with the John Hughes vibe of the 80s. Be that the PG-13 kind of course. There is indeed something old-fashioned about the film. It is set in modern times for sure, but it never draws a lot of attention to that. It never throws the latest trend in your face and characters rarely even use the almighty cell phone. Bernard relies on the mail service as the key means to send off and receive audiotapes to his long-distance girlfriend in China. Characters ride bicycles, they rely on homemade posters to campaign rather than social media, and there always seems to be somebody making out in the background of any public school scene. (This can't be normal today right? Like EVERY scene!)
What makes the film work above all else is the film's characters. They are all quite likable and full of personality (There is one mark against this point though I will speak on in a moment). The two young leads have great chemistry with each other that results in some "adorkable" moments. The best shout out goes to Skyler Gisondo. He is like a little Spock in many ways, complete dialogue that is written in a very proper fashion (When offered a car ride: "I appreciate the offer, however, I must decline as I have vowed to keep my carbon footprint to a minimum."). In the hands of the wrong actor, this sort of character could lean towards the position of being annoying as opposed to the adorkable quality the filmmakers shot for and luckily hit squarely in the bullseye. Bruce Dern is also a hoot as the boy's grandfather who also has his own romantic subplot that is acceptable, if mostly pointless to the overall story.
As I previously mentioned, there is one character motivation that did border on the unlikable side. Veronica's introduction is not the best. The character's entire motivation to move up from number 2 to number 1 is well...rather selfish. Admittedly, that is the point. The execution just sort of makes you feel like she is way too full of herself. It doesn't help that it is unlikely that being number 2 would really hurt her chances of getting into Yale or that the audience doesn't get a clear breakdown of class ranking. So, it sort of comes across that she just wants to be better than everyone because she feels she has to live up to that standard. It's not that this isn't a BELIEVABLE character as there are plenty of students that obsess with being the best of the best for no other reason than just because. Thankfully, the character quickly improves after the introduction and she grows to see more in life.
The only other flaw I see is that ultimately the actual campaign/election that Bernard and Veronica are fighting for doesn't really have any tension or steaks. The opposition never proves to be much of a threat and they don't even really seem to be doing anything oppressive to the school system beyond just not giving the two leads what they want. I could see this as a small satire on politics itself. Everyone is just jockeying for what they personally want all the while appealing to other people's interests merely to get their vote. Ultimately, the election just serves as the catalyst that draws two people together and allows them to "find" each other along the way. If you are expecting this to really serve as an outcry to teenage rebellion you will be left a little empty.
If you are looking for a sincere, little film that brings the old-school heart back to the teen drama, then you will find "Class Rank" quite satisfying. It's not deep or pretentious. It just tells a simple story in a lovable manner.
Oh yeah, this was shot near my hometown in Alexandria, Louisiana back in 2015 so I probably should speak on that aspect shouldn't I? Well, Alexandria is used well enough as a backdrop and it was fun to point out locations that I and many others may see as mundane being made interesting just because it is now on film. It also leads to some questions of location consistency. The film's opening is a montage of Bernard riding around town on his bike, but the order of locations seems...out of order. First, he is in what seems like the run-down areas west of downtown, then he is in downtown, back in the run-down spot, then on the Pineville side of the river with the big American flag, and then he is suddenly back in downtown. WHERE IS HE GOING?? Perhaps he is visiting different places throughout the day. Of course, I guess the geography doesn't really matter much as the film's setting is supposed to be New Jersey and not Louisiana. Thankfully, the extras in the film don't scream SOUUUUTTTTHHHH!...so everyone else will be none the wiser. All in all, the town is used well enough, but the location is merely a backdrop. Don't' expect an epic wide shot.
Tell Your Friends