Category: Movie Reviews

The Verdict On “The New Mutants”: Is It Worth Watching??

Posted on by filmadmin

Rating: 3/5 Stars

It’s taken a long time for the much-troubled film “The New Mutants” to finally emerge into the spotlight. This film has had a multitude of major problems affecting every aspect of the film, from its script, tone, rating, release date to even where it was going to be released (either in theaters or on Disney+). When Disney bought Fox, they acquired the X-men cinematic universe rights, and “New Mutants” was still being made during the buyout. Disney executives were worried the horror aspect of the film wouldn’t fit their “House of Mouse” image, not to mention the fact Disney already had their doubts after seeing the disastrous response to Fox’s last X-men entry, “Dark Phoenix.” Still, for better or worse, Josh Boone’s film finally got released into theaters so let’s see if the wait was worth it for Fox’s true final film in their extinct X-men series.

The story follows a young girl named Danielle Moonstar (Blu Hunt), a mutant whose home is ravaged by a strange tornado. She wakes up after the disaster to find herself in a mental health facility run by Dr. Reyes (Alice Braga). The facility specializes in housing mutants and providing treatment and care until they have better control under their abilities. There’s Illyana Rasputin/Magik (Anya Taylor-Joy), Sam Guthrie/Cannonball (Sam Guthrie), Roberto da Costa/Hot Spot (Henry Zaga), and Rahne Sinclair/Wulfsbane (Maisie Williams). They all have troubled pasts and trauma dealing with their powers activation, but now, they’re experiencing vivid nightmares and realistic hallucinations that are pushing them to the edge of sanity. Now the teens suspect this facility isn’t a care center but a prison and they have to find a way out together.

With X-men films becoming a dying breed, it’s only natural they’d have to try something experimental if they wanted to keep the brand fresh and alive. One would expect with such a lengthy amount of work and extensive adjustments put into the film it would either be a colossal failure or a well-earned success. Unfortunately, “The New Mutants” never goes too far outside of just being a pretty decent, acceptable film; never pushing as far as it could have nor perfecting the good it already has established into anything greater. The horror spin on the superhero world is a slowly expanding trend that provides the amplest opportunities for a fresh reinvention. “New Mutants” never goes too scary or dark as one would hope but it still offers some genuinely creepy and disturbing visuals that prove there’s something here that could have been expanded upon.

The mental health facility provides some interesting interactions between our mutant stars; creating unique dynamics and problems that are clarified by the horrific but well-executed nightmare sequences. You always get the sense something is going on with everyone here but it’s teased enough to keep the mystery compelling and engaging so you want to see how it all plays out. Moonstar’s “problem” is easily the most unique out of all of them and while giving it away would be spoiling the finale, let’s just say when you find out the truth you’re either going to shake your head in irritated confusion or roll with the punches and applaud the creativity. The cast plays well together but most of them don’t really stand out as well as you’d hope. X-men films are packed with mutant stars all vying for the spotlight but in this smaller environment, very few draw much attention outside of an occasional good scene here or there.

Except for Anna-Taylor Joy, she truly shines as the most “head case” mutant cases. Her personality and stance exude confrontation and abrasiveness, but there is a wild vulnerability to her that makes her more aggressive traits come off as charming rather than intolerable. An additional round of applause should go to “Game of Thrones” star Maisie Williams for introducing an unexpectedly sweet romantic element that is a welcomed addition to the narrative if a bit weakly executed. Overall, “The New Mutants” is a decent, enjoyable film to watch here and there which is a lot more I can say for some other high profile movies that were supposed to “be a big deal,” but with all of its production troubles, I guess I was hoping for a better end result than this. It’s bizarre, it’s different, its dark and tries new things but it’s also clearly holding back and with X-men’s continuity being reorganized into Marvel’s much bigger sandbox universe, it’s a shame “The New Mutants” couldn’t do more or amount to more than just an acceptable film.

The Verdict On “Bill and Ted: Face the Music”: Is It Worth Watching??

Posted on by filmadmin

Rating: 4/5 Stars

Like many beloved film series, there are often talks of sequels and continuations that never get off the ground; even to films that came out over 30 years ago. “Bill and Ted” have been around since the late 80’s and talks of a third one have been circulating since “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey” came out in 1991. But due to an inability to nail down the right script and Keanu Reeves skyrocketing popularity and a busy schedule, it seemed like a third entry would never take off. Imagine everyone’s surprise that in a world cornered off by a deadly virus, the movie finally got made and ultimately ended up being the movie the world needs now more than ever. It may sound odd but “Bill and Ted: Face the music” is exactly the pick me up we needed.

Despite being told during their time-traveling adventures that their music would one day unite and save the world, Bill and Ted (Alex Frost and Keanu Reeves) have yet to write the song that would fulfill their prophesized destiny and it’s weighing heavily on them and on their marriages. When Kelly (Kristen Schaal), the daughter of their old friend Rufus (the late great George Carlin) visits Bill and Ted, she tells them they have to create the ultimate song tonight or all of reality will be destroyed. Bill and Ted head into the future to see if their future selves wrote the song they can bring back to the present. Meanwhile, the daughters of Bill and Ted, Billie and Thea (Brigette Lundy-Paine and Samara Weaving) wish to help their fathers and venture off on their own time-traveling journey; collecting famous musicians throughout history to aid in writing the song that will harmonize the world.

To be perfectly honest, I was never a big “Bill and Ted” fan when they first came out. I loved the sequel more than I did the first film and even then, this wasn’t a series I found myself being deeply drawn towards. “Face the music” is not just a cheaply crapped out sequel from a franchise past its time, no, this film is a clear love letter and a celebration of everything the actors, characters, writers, and fans adore about the series and best of all, it presents everything with universal appeal. If you’re a die-hard fan or a casual fan, this film is loaded with great callbacks, nods to the previous films, and the majority of the original cast from the past 2 films and it’s a true delight to see. But even if you’re new to the series or only decide to watch just this film, the humor works in a wonderfully weird way that you can still enjoy it without knowing its history.

Reeves and Frost settle back into their roles with absolutely no difficulty, it’s like putting on an old pair of shoes and remembering everything you loved about them at that moment. They truly feel like the Bill and Ted fans knew all grown up and struggling to adapt. As goofy as they can be and these movies are, the themes of failing to live up to expectations, not accepting change; they’re all very relatable themes that every generation can understand and I love that universal connection. One of the weirder aspects of this film (which is saying something in a film series about a time-traveling phone booth) is watching Reeves and Frost create newer and more unusual variations of their characters through the future timelines they visit. Most of their humor relies on this gimmick and while it can be hilarious at times, other times it feels overplayed.

But fortunately, there is so much more than just our titular heroes: their daughters Billie and Thea are the true secret stars and dual beating hearts of this film. They’re adorable, funny, have immaculate chemistry together, and prove to be more than just goofy female variants of our main band boys. It’s a true delight seeing William Sadler back as Death and new inclusions like Dennis the robot are worth the price of admission alone. There’s just a consistent sense of fun with this film and it’s infectious, you can feel it in the writing, the performances, and the humor and this is exactly the kind of palate cleanser we need in a year as disastrous and depressing as 2020. Never has there ever been a more relevant time for the words “be excellent to each other” than right here, right now.

Overall, “Bill and Ted: Face the Music” is just a blast from the past (literally and figuratively). It captures the heart and hilarity of the series and updates it for today’s era at a time when this kind of message and this kind of movie is needed most. “Face the music” delights fans both new and old with a message and charm to lift our spirits and remind us there are still fun and good times ahead and that it is okay to just have fun with the world again,

The Verdict On The Devil All The Time: Is It Worth Watching??

Posted on by filmadmin

Rating: 1/5 Stars

Netflix movies have something of a bad rap. While their TV shows are praised and frequently top people’s best TV series lists each year, their movies seemed to be hit or miss with stellar casts and viral marketing failing to make up for the poor and often forgettable quality of Netflix’s original films. Some have said in today’s pandemic panic-induced new world that streaming original films and films on video on demand are the way of the future beyond cinema chains and drive-in theater experiences. As someone who adores going to the movies and watching good movies, I truly hope streaming does not become the de-facto format of watching movies and I hope films like “The Devil all the time” do NOT become an indication of what all good movies will be like.

The film is an erratically structured narrative; twisting the lives of multiple characters from different families, couples, groups, and points in time between the end of World War 2 and the 1960s; set primarily in rural southern Ohio and West Virginia. There’s Willard Russell (Bill Skarsgård), a tormented veteran of the carnage in the South Pacific, there’s Carl and Sandy Henderson (Jason Clarke and Riley Keough), a husband-and-wife team of serial killers, there’s the spider-handling preacher Roy (Harry Melling) and his guitar-playing sidekick, Theodore (Pokey LaFarge), running from the law. And there’s also Arvin (Tom Holland), son of Willard who intersects several of these people and others as he struggles to deal with the violent, unstable, and suffocating twists and turns of life.

Trying to write down the details of this film’s plot proves just as challenging and problematic as it is verbally speaking it to another person. The film supposedly plays out as someone telling you a story (complete with narration from the author of the book this film is adapted from) but much like the characters, no part of the story being told makes much sense and instead, feels like an exhausting amount of brutality and misguided religious symbolism mixed up together in a heaping helping of ugliness that can’t stick a single thing together sensibly throughout its entire 2 and a half hour running time. “The Devil all the time” jumps around its timelines and events with no heads up or explanation, mudding the timeline and leaping through sections of people’s lives with little to no care or concern for the development of its cast.

The film basically plays out like this: we meet someone, something horrific happens, it’s related to God somehow, then ANOTHER horrific thing happens, more cryptic religious noise; then we meet someone new, rinse, wash and repeat. Every perception and use of God or religion spearheads someone doing something insanely sick and twisted and it gets more messed up; escalating the depravity or delusion with no sense or believability whatsoever. Like Roy for example, he’s so jacked up on God, he lets spiders bite his face in Church, then gets an infection that somehow makes him crazy, then he takes his wife out and kills her and believes he can resurrect her, only to run into serial killers who randomly want people to take photos with them before killing them, make sense? Don’t worry; it’s not going to anytime soon!

That’s the real tragedy here though, nothing makes sense. Brutality and twisted mentalities populate nearly every character’s mindset and the reason each time is the same: God made me do it. The tragedy hits especially hard because this film is beautifully shot and framed like a true work of art. It’s gorgeous to look at and it makes the most vacant fields of Southern land look 10 times more extravagant. Speaking of extravagant, this cast is clearly doing their best to work with the material and they are serving commendable performances; despite this story’s warped, wacked out narrative failing to make sense of its own purpose or point.

With the likes of Tom Holland, Jason Clarke, Sebastian Stan, Bill Skarsgård and Robert Pattinson, “The Devil all the time” should have been much more than what it actually is and that is a mangled, muddied, dark soaked story that drowns itself in its own misery that spreads to viewers like sickness with little hope, rhyme, reason or even common sense to balance it all out. “The Devil all the time” takes too long to tell a story and even longer to figure out when or what story it’s trying to tell. This film is difficult to watch and stomach outside of its cast and cinematography, but neither one is strong enough to make any sense of its own messy structure, purpose, or why I should endure another minute of this film ever again.

Sonic the Hedgehog Review: Warm And Surprisingly Spot-On Funny

Posted on by mike

Screenshot from Paramount Pictures

Rating: 4/5 stars

When it comes to movies, I always do my research before shelling out 10$ to go see it in the theaters. I like to know who’s in it, what’s involved and to get an idea of what I’m getting myself into. Trailers can sometimes make or break a film and determine right away if it’s going to earn their cash. When the first trailer for “Sonic” came out, people were instantly horrified at the bizarre (and frankly, flat out ugly) design for the titular SEGA mascot. The film was met with instant scorn and hatred from the internet and forced the studio to spend thousands of dollars to go back and fix Sonic’s design; making him look less “realistic” and more towards his traditional design. The change was greeted warmly by fans but…what about the rest of the movie?

The story leads our speedy blue hero, Sonic (Ben Schwartz) arriving on Earth to escape dangerous forces trying to steal his speed powers from his home dimension. After living in isolation Green Hill city and secretly watching local cop Tom (James Marsden), Sonic’s existence eventually alters the attention of the government. They dispatch Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey) to capture and study the otherworldly hedgehog. Now Sonic and Tom embark on a road trip to escape Robotnik, get Sonic back home and enjoy life on Earth one last time before his time runs out.

When I first heard this was a combo CGI/live-action blended film, I was deeply worried we were going to get another unwatchable heap of dumbed-down, brain dead garbage like the live-action “Alvin and Chipmunks” movies or the “Garfield” films. Thankfully, “Sonic” proved this film as more going for it than just a shiny, updated new design for the Blue blur. This story is about family and friendship; first and foremost. That may sound like a cheesy, sappy kinda message you’d expect to be beaten over the head within any typical kids film, but here, it treats Sonic more like someone longing to connect rather than relying on typical fish-out-of-water jokes. There is a connection being made here and it’s working on the cast as well as the audience.

Having Sonic be lonely and longing to connect with someone creates a warmth and a sense of purpose that feels very real and touching without playing it up for laughs or making it too serious to stomach. I’ve seen many incarnations of the iconic speedy hedgehog and this is by far the most likable and, more importantly, the least obnoxious. The humor goes hand in hand with the film’s values and morals and relies on the strength of the character’s bonds rather than overloading it with Easter eggs and in-game references. “Sonic” manages to strike the near-impossible perfect balance of quality storytelling and effective hat-tipping to please all audiences.

Schwartz is the perfect voice for Sonic. His youthful energy and quick-witted one-liners make him likable enough that, no matter how long he’s on-screen, he never wears out his welcome. I adored his relationship with Tom and felt Marsden was a great companion for Sonic’s juvenile antics to work off of. But as everyone has no doubt already announced on every media platform, Jim Carrey is the real core of the film as Dr. Robotnik. Carrey is back in top form; cranking out the zaniness and gold comedic timing he hasn’t whipped out since “Batman Forever.” He’s energetic, funny, fully commits to the eccentricities Sonic’s nemesis is known for and never EVER misses a beat. There’s never a dull moment or disappointing scene with him in it and I greatly look forward to seeing what he will do with Robotnik next when sequel time comes.

Overall, if I had any negative points with “Sonic” it’s that I feel there were missed opportunities with the government’s involvement in trying to catch Sonic. They vanished as quickly as they came and it felt like some more could have been done there. However, the warmth and surprisingly spot-on humor more than makes up for whatever the film lacks. Marsden and Schwartz make a top-notch duo, the fun and humor work with many ages on many levels and Jim Carrey is back in full force and he makes it impossible not to have fun when he’s around. “Sonic” is a prime example of how quality video game movies can be and here’s hoping that will continue into a franchise with many sequels to come.

The Invisible Man Review: A Fresh Take On An Old Classic

Posted on by mike

Screenshot from Universal Pictures 

Rating: 4 ½ stars out of 5 stars

At one point, sharing cinematic universes were all the rage thanks to the successful formula perfected by Marvel studios. Universal Studios wished to have their own “Dark Universe” with remaking classic Universal monsters and bringing them together in an “Avengers” like story. After the colossal failure of Tom Cruises’ “The Mummy,” the “Dark Universe” concept was scrapped and all other Universal monster films were either killed on the spot or morphed/reworked into something completely different/original, like with what Guillermo Del Toro did with his award-winning masterful piece of work, “The Shape of Water.”

“Saw” director Leigh Whannell also made a significant turnaround with his new take on “The Invisible Man.” This time, the focus is not on the titular monster but rather on one of his victims: Cecilia Kass (Elizabeth Moss) barely manages to escape her barbaric ex-boyfriend Adrian (Oliver-Jackson Cohen) and go into hiding. Two weeks later, she received word he’s committed suicide and left his entire billion-dollar estate to her provided she remains mentally competent. Things seem to be go better for her until she starts noticing odd events, strange instances leading her to one disturbing and horrifying conclusion: Adrian isn’t dead, and worst of all, he’s found a way to disappear completely and is back in her life with no one believing her.

While clearly being fueled and influenced by the “MeToo” movement in the narrative and structure of the film, “The Invisible Man” rarely skews off into implausible territory and keeps everything from the emotions, the relationships, and even the science to a fairly intense lens of reality. Cecilia’s story is entirely relatable and cleverly uses that victim perspective to make the story connect on levels no other take on the “Invisible Man” story has ever managed to accomplish. This is very much her story and that paranoid sense of being followed manages to be amplified brilliantly by simple camera shots of basic landscapes and environment. Every hallway, front lawn or parking lot becomes a potential death trap with a faceless enemy looming out there.

This is a fresh take on an old classic that anyone can sit down and understand through its excellent filmmaking and simple but effective story cues surrounding the concept. Elizabeth Moss truly exemplifies the longing for power sensation after feeling so powerless for so long and striving to conquer her fears and her enemy. You feel every shiver across her spine, every disturbing sound possibly signaling his presence, so much is said in the most silent of scenes. The family that takes Cecilia in contributes to the dangers and risks this unseen threat is presenting. Even when the titular character is making a move, it’s carefully planned and calculated and feels very natural and dangerously realistic to how someone with this power would act.

I think the best thing to commend this film is its unpredictability. While some of the supporting cast fall into predictable roles and lack any real growth in comparison to Cecilia, the movie has some “blink and you’ll miss it” shocker moments that will leave your jaws firmly planted on the floor; all without the use of jump scares I might add. The secret behind the “Invisible Man” is quite a clever one (no spoilers obviously) and is actually something I could see being a real possibility with today’s technological advancements. It seems the collapse of the “Dark Universe” project has ultimately been for the best. It’s given directors creative opportunities to recreate these monsters in new and exciting ways through top quality films.

Overall, “The Invisible Man” is a masterfully sculpted horror-thriller that invokes the essence of a supernatural threat but modernizes it for today’s day and age with relatable subtext, moral messaging and empathic motivations. The simplest pan shot creates incredible tension every time and Elizabeth Moss embodies everything flawlessly from start to finish. This is how you update a Universal monster character and THIS is how you make a great film.

The Verdict On In The Tall Grass: Is It Worth Watching??

Posted on by mike

Rating: 1 ½ out of 4 stars

One of the advantages of streaming services like “Netflix” and “Hulu” is they can provide smaller budget adaptations to certain films or stories big-budget Hollywood studios like Warner Bros. wouldn’t think twice about. Stephen King had great success with his story “Gerald’s Game” being adapted to a film on Netflix. Unfortunately, Netflix tried to strike gold again but ended up with a freshly polished turd that doesn’t work, doesn’t make sense and doesn’t do Stephen King, the director, the cast and Netflix any justice whatsoever. This is the creepy, winding, confusing Stephen King adaptation of his novella story, “In the Tall Grass.”

Siblings Becky and Cal DeMuth (Laysla De Oliveira and Avery Whitted) are on a road trip when they are stopped by a young boy calling out for help inside a field of tall grass. When they go inside to investigate, they can’t find the boy and also discover they can’t find their way out of the grass fields. A sinister force lurks in the seemingly endless grassy fields, warping reality, confusing the people inside and turning things around to the point people start losing their minds and turning on each other. Now they must escape this unavoidable prison and return to the outside world before they become a part of these grassy fields forever and ever.

I never heard of this story by King before, let alone read it so I can’t really say how accurate it is or isn’t. I will say though that if this film is an accurate adaptation of the novella, then the quality issues of this film clearly started with the ludicrously off-putting source material. “In the tall grass” has a simple yet eerie premise that (typical of King’s work) combines simplicity with supernatural themes seamlessly. While films landlocked in one central location for the duration of the story (Phone Booth, The Shallows) can be tense, engaging thrillers, “In the tall grass” feels like it’s already worn out its welcome about 15 minutes into the film. Even with all the twists and disturbing turns, the characters experience while in the fields, it all starts to look and feel the same and the horror and confusion end up becoming sluggish and even annoying.

Even once the story gets to the “supernatural setting is turning people against each other” angle, another common trope of King’s work, things only get even more confusing and poses more questions than it answers (and those they do answer are done quite poorly). There are some images and sequences that really crank up the absurdity and weirdness of the film’s mysterious threat, effective and unusual at times but don’t stay long enough to linger in your mind. The cast is a serviceable one, decent at times and dismal at others with only a very small window of talent being displayed. That window I spoke of gravitates almost exclusively around Patrick Wilson, who plays the father of the boy who called people into the grass. His talent is being wasted on this film. He’s clearly giving A+ effort in a D- film and it’s a commendable effort.

Harrison Gilbertson is the only other person who actually tries, he does a good enough job and I greatly enjoyed learning more about his character; though can’t say the same for anyone or anything else that happens. The content in the film borderlines mind-bending to outright uncomfortable, almost to the point of wanting to turn it off and re-watch “The Office” for the thousandth time. It’s creepy and eerie at times with its fairly decent camerawork and soundtrack, but it never lives up to its full frightening or even comprehensible potential. It’s a weird film that doesn’t know what it’s trying to present or if it does, it’s doing in the most asinine and mind-numbing way; just like the last act of “Arrival.”

“In the tall grass” could have been more chilling, more effective and more cerebral but it falls short every time on every front. Patrick Wilson is literally carrying the whole movie and the rest of the story can’t keep it together long enough for the movie to make sense or for you, the viewer, to care if it does or doesn’t. Just go watch “Gerald’s Game” or “The Mist” movie, Hell. Even “Silver Bullet” has more entertainment value than this film does.

Gentlemen Movie Review: Highly Entertaining But Borderlines Offensive

Posted on by mike

Rating: 4/5 Stars

Nothing is as mesmerizing as a Guy Ritchie movie.

His recipe consists of fast-paced dialogue, a spritz of the black comedy and marinated in metaphors and embellishments of cinematic genius. The movie “Gentlemen” has been marked as Ritchie’s return to his signature cockney crime genres such as Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barriers and it definitely did not disappoint.

Told from the perspective of Fletcher (Hugh Grant), a selfish and conniving private investigator who was hired by newspaper mogul to trail multi-millionaire British expatriate, Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConahey) who owns a marijuana empire, through sheer tyranny, violence, and coercion. Word got out that Pearson is going to retire from his criminal career and plans to liquidate his weed farm to potential buyers including; Jewish – American billionaire, Matthew Berger and British- Chinese mobster, Dry Eye (Henry Golding). However, instead of relaying the information to and cooperating with the newspaper, Fletcher goes to the belly of the beast and decides to blackmail Raymond (Charlie Hunnam), who is the resident’s right-hand man of Mickey Pearson.

With Fletcher being an unreliable narrator, he hopes to exploit Mickey Pearson’s empire and his criminal activities through writing a movie script, called BUSH, which he is planning to sell to Miramax studios if he does not get his money. A very meta-reference about the film within a film, distributed by the said studio.

The movie is entertaining nonetheless, with nonsensical dialogue that borderlines offensive which makes viewers laugh nervously to every unpredictable turn of events. Every actors’ performance in this movie is hilarious and over the top. Hugh Grant who usually is typecast as the polished English gentlemen has been subverted into a grimey, calculating and obnoxious private investigator who has ill-intentions. Hugh Grant completely disappears into the character and leaves slightly amused about the actor/character conceit. The same with Henry Golding, the actor who played Nick Young in Crazy Rich Asians – he turned into a two-faced, arrogant gangster who had the audacity to rip off Pearson.

 Much of the movie itself is a colossal conceit, which says a lot about the title of the film, “The Gentlemen,’ meant to be an ironic nod to the character’s unruly, destructive and violent personalities. Although with the black comedy, there were some distasteful jokes such as Raymond and Coach pronouncing an Asian name as a pseudo – swear word or Jewish billionaire speaking in a ‘stereotypically gay’ way- having a lisp.

After decades of directing films that are huge franchises such as Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur, and more significant projects, Ritchie finally gives his fans want they wanted in the Gentlemen. A chaotically organised, nonsensical movie filled with never-ending hypotheticals and lightning-fast dialogue for two straight hours that makes you want to watch it over and over again.

“Joker” Movie Review: Is It Worth Your Time And Money??

Posted on by filmadmin

Joker

Screenshot from Warner Bros. Pictures

Rating: 5/5 Stars

DC has been circling the cinematic port-o-john drain for some time now. While blockbuster success stories like “Shazam” and “Wonder Woman” have certainly raised some dollars and new fan bases, all the dark brooding and more intense edge they proclaimed was one of their strongest suits has yet to rear its gritty head…until now. Todd Phillips, director of “The Hangover” films decided to break the mold and attempt a new, daring, disturbing standalone take on one of the most classic and legendary supervillains in comic book history, The Joker. Having zero connections to any previous Joker or Batman incarnation, “Joker” is a wild take of a film that hits all too close to home for many people and finally gives me hope that DC could be good again.

Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a failed comedian and a failed human being; slumming through his broken life at a dead-end job as a party clown in Gotham City. As society mistreats and demeans him, along with his own mother (Frances Conroy) and TV hero (Robert De Niro), Arthur’s life spirals out of control and quickly descends to the madness that changes everything he knows and is as a person. Taking on the persona of “The Joker,” Fleck plans to make an impact on society, an impact so bloody and destructive that the people will never forget who he is, what he’s done and what he is about to inspire the people of Gotham to become.

It would be grossly unfair to call “Joker” an origin film. This is a film unlike any you’ve seen before, an alternative take on a comic book character that speaks to people on a level that is painfully all too real in all the best ways imaginable. This take on this iconic character puts people’s empathy and sympathy squarely on the clown prince of crime’s shoulders; something no other cinematic adaption has been able to come close to accomplishing. “Joker” reminds us of the people suffering not only under the discrimination of high society and perceived “norms” of the world, but also the insufficiently funded mental health treatment system that hit this reviewer a lot harder than I expected it would. It’s a depressing representation but accurate as well.

The violence displayed is never glorified or justified here, if anything, the brutality of it shows how heavy murder impacts a person, which is something most films gloss over when you have action sequences piling up off-screen body counts. In a lot of ways, “Joker” feels like a cautionary tale to the world; reminding us how discarded people feel like they have nothing and no one in their lives and are willing to do anything to get people to give a damn about them, even murder. Phoenix truly transforms into the character; physically and emotionally. He presents the Joker in a way that he is neither inherently evil nor is he a tragic hero. He’s written and portrayed not as a character but more as a whole, full living human being and it is truly remarkable.

The film cleverly blurs the line between reality and Arthur’s own personal fantasized reality, putting into question everything he does and everything that happens; constantly keeping you guessing about whose reality is a worse place to live in. Robert De Niro is perfectly cast as a Johnny Carson like talk show host, inspiring and infuriating Arthur throughout the film; leading to a climactic final act that will leave everyone (inside and outside of the film) horrifically shocked. Despite not being connected to any previous DC film or Batman film, I applaud the interwoven minor references to Bruce Wayne and feel they add a bit of framework to Arthur’s journey and feel more like necessary components than shoehorned Easter eggs.

“The Dark Knight” was egregiously ignored at just about every award show and category (save for a posthumous award for Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker), so if there was ever a chance at a comic book movie that deserves to win some golden recognition, it’s “Joker.” This is a film unlike any other film I can think of, a warped take into the human mind that makes you feel a plethora of emotions and perceptions on this highly divisive character. “Joker” is a must-see film, a truly visionary piece of filmmaking that will raise questions and spark conversations for years to come.

“Between Two Ferns” Movie Review: Is It Worth Your Money??

Posted on by filmadmin

Brie

Screenshot from Netflix

Rating: 2 and ½ out of 4 Stars

As “Saturday Night Live” will tell you, making movies out of skits is not a terribly smart business decision. With the exception of “Wayne’s World,” every film based off a skit like “Night at the Roxbury,” “The Ladies Man” and “Superstar” has been a disastrous failure with both audiences and box office grosses. Will Ferrell’s “Funny or Die” network has accumulated a great deal of talent, sketches, and recognition that they produce high-quality comedy in small, short video bursts that keep them relevant without becoming oversaturated or longwinded. Zach Galifianakis has a show called “Between two ferns,” a short comedic interview series where he awkwardly talks to and insults celebrity stars in this offbeat “Funny or Die” original series.

The film naturally follows Zach wanting more than his dinky little public access interview show currently offers. When a disaster demolishes the set and forces Will Ferrell to rethink Zach’s worth. Ferrell challenges Zack to complete 10 episodes with 10 different celebrities on the road to meet a deadline and if he pulls it off, he’ll receive his own network show. Now Zach is on the road meeting big name celebrities like Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Rudd, Brie Larson, Peter Dinklage and others trying to save his weird and awkward show.

It’s kind of hard to review a movie based on a show like this, truth be told, it’s even weirder to understand HOW someone can even MAKE a movie out of an interview talk show skit like this. Luckily, “Between two ferns: the movie” manages to keep what made it funny and great consistent, plentiful and it doesn’t try and make a weird story or emotional journey to the extent of previous skit based films have attempted. In a lot of ways, the movie plays like you’re watching a bunch of “Between two ferns” episodes back to back; watching one celebrity get awkwardly roasted and then immediately jumping right into the next one. It doesn’t sound like you could fill a movie out of that but it does and it helps that the writing and comedic timing of everyone involved is spot on and is some of the best the “Two ferns” show has ever produced.

The story involving Zach and his crew going around meeting random celebrities in unusual places even helps add to the humor of new, unpredictable situations like one involving John Legend and Chrissy Tiegen and a visit to Peter Dinklage’s house. There is a wraparound story involving a student documentary crew filming and following Zach and his staff around but it doesn’t go anywhere and the same can be said of Zach’s crew. Similar to “Borat,” there are small roles with characters to try to fill in supporting roles in-between the interviews. They don’t really develop the characters to any extent so they serve more like funny commercial breaks before Zack gets weird with the next guest.

It’s hard to cite this as a criticism as I didn’t want or expect anything more than just lots of hilarious interviews with big-name stars, and on that front, they definitely delivered. But as a film with an overall structure, it misses a golden opportunity to explore more humorous chances and scenes with Zach’s crew. Their introduction was hysterical, it felt like an R rated version of “The Office” and if they had more of that quality sprinkled throughout the rest of the crew’s scenes, this film would have been even funnier than it could have imagined.

All in all, “Between two ferns: the movie” actually DOES work as a movie. It’s got a great cast of stars with impeccable comedic delivery and writing; it keeps what works and sticks to its strong suits from start to finish. The cast could have been used a bit more creatively and doubled up the comedic potential but overall, whether your familiar with the skit series or not, this is a comedic gem you don’t want to miss.

“Frozen 2″ Movie Review: Is It Worth Your Money??

Posted on by filmadmin

Frozen2

Screenshot from Walt Disney Animation Studios

Rating: 4/5 Stars

I remember seeing “Frozen” for the first time when it first came to theaters. I knew next to nothing about it thanks to very few witnessed advertisements so I went in mostly blind and was very pleased to see how everything played out. It was a beautiful, wonderful, elegantly scored film that felt like a real return to Disney’s classic film quality levels. Imagine my surprise at how quickly the film evolved into a massive phenomenon and then, Disney taking a whopping 6-year gap before finally putting out the sequel. Needless to say, the hype surrounding “Frozen” was obscenely high and left a great deal to live up to for “Frozen 2” to match.

Our story takes us back to Arendelle where Elsa (Idina Menzel) enjoys a peaceful reign as queen until she starts hearing a strange voice calling her to the enchanted forest; outside of the kingdom. Desperate to find answers to the origins of her powers, Elsa ventures into the forest along with her sister Anna (Kristen Bell) and friends Kristoff (Jonathon Gruff) Olaf (Josh Gad) and Sven the reindeer. What the group discovers is a new side to the sister’s parents, the king, and queen, and how their ties to the magic world are far more complicated and dangerous than Ana or Elsa ever imagined.

Topping a juggernaut like the original “Frozen” is no easy task for any sequel, thankfully, “Frozen 2” doesn’t just try to merely copy its original formula and instead treats the film’s story just like it treats its characters: allowing them to age. “Frozen 2” has grown up in every aspect compared to its “sister” movie; everything from the themes, morals, drama, music, and conflicts have all escalated into much bigger and more mature elements that I don’t think anyone was expecting. Gone are the catchy, Disney pop-ish musical numbers that can be easily lip-synched on sing-along CD albums and are now deeper, more emotionally meaningful songs that resonate with personal growth and the changes that come with age. Even Olaf, the goofy lovable snowman, sings about how he hopes he will be wiser when he grows older.

This new approach certainly appeals to the older audience members and it helps that most of the story really focuses on the character’s core motivations and developments. This maybe Elsa’s journey but there are so many other pivotal moments and lives involved here, it feels like everyone’s invested in this and the dangers and environments they encounters measure up accordingly with each bigger moment. The new environment expands the world of “Frozen” with new creatures, new mythology, and lore and it’s gorgeously rendered with spellbindingly beautiful computer effects and graphics. The world has never looked so wondrous before.

Kristen Bell and Indina Menzel truly go above and beyond their emotional capacities. Their bond and ties are truly tested here, pushing them to the limits and still managing epic songs that elevate Bell and Menzel’s talents to new heights. Sadly though, the music never becomes memorable or catchy enough that you’d want to say buy the soundtrack and listen to it over and over again like the first film. The songs are beautiful and expertly scored but just doesn’t make it replay value, with the exception, of course, being Kristoff’s song; a hilarious 80’s power ballad tune that is hilarious to watch and even better to listen to. Its high time Kristoff got a real song this time around.

However, “Frozen 2” suffers from a few flaws; ones that are actually quite identical to the ones afflicting “Ralph Breaks the Internet.” Namely, “Frozen 2” delivers slim to zero new characters. The ones they do introduce are so paper thin and barely on screen, they feel more like cameos than proper roles. Another problem is nothing that new is brought to the table. Much like how “Ralph 2” just explored new levels of the same relationship we knew about before, “Frozen 2” gives us a few new neat tidbits about Elsa and her parents but it’s largely the same old story with just a few lessons about growing up. Kristoff’s relationship with Ana is one of the best new expanded storylines they’ve had but even that was handled fumblingly at times.

Overall, “Frozen 2” is a gorgeous, well-matured film that doesn’t try to be another kid’s movie and be something deeper and richer with heart and depth. The lack of new characters is disappointing and the rehashing of similar relationship problems/cues is unfortunate, but all in all, this is a beautiful movie that does take a few risks and tries something more adult-oriented and it works on many levels even if not all the way through every time.