The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)

Summary:

A team of scientists, working with volatile material in a space station orbiting the Earth, performs an experiment that could potentially solve Earth’s energy crisis. But when the experiment goes awry, the scientists are put in a grave situation.

My Thoughts:

The original “Cloverfield” turns ten this year, and that film was fine. Not good. Not bad. Fine. Just fine.

There was nothing utterly remarkable about it, though it was a fun, albeit disorienting, found footage thriller. Perhaps the best thing about the first movie was probably it’s clandestine approach to marketing. Before “Cloverfield” was released, the only thing we knew about the movie was from the very vague teaser trailer and the poster featuring a headless Lady Liberty. When I first heard about the sequel, “10 Cloverfield Lane”, I believed it to be completely unnecessary, but upon seeing it, I was pleased to find it was superior to its predecessor. Ditching the found footage gimmick worked wonders for them, the script was tight and tense, and I thought John Goodman completely reinvented himself for his role in that film. The film had resuscitated a franchise that had lay cold and abandoned for the better part of a decade. So when I heard that they were doing a third Cloverfield movie, my ears perked up; I was intrigued. I wondered if they could top the second film, or if, perhaps, this film would be a sign that Hollywood should let this beast die in peace.

My verdict after watching: maybe let the franchise die. It deserves some dignity.

That is not to say that there isn’t some good here; there is. The special effects won’t win any awards, but they don’t look as bad as some things I’ve seen of late; the acting, done by an A- and B-list cast, is absolutely fine (there’s that word again: fine). Chris O'Dowd is the most likeable character, though his comic relief is frequently out of  place. That’s about the extent of the good, however. There are many, many problems with “Paradox”, but the biggest issues are the writing, which is repetitive and sophomoric, and the story, which is utterly ridiculous, and filled with plot and loopholes. I thought about tagging spoilers throughout, but really there are so many ludicrous twists that it’d be hard to write a review without spoiling some things. In lieu of spoiler tags, I’m just letting you know that spoilers follow. You’ve been warned.

Hamilton (Gugu Mbatha-Raw, “Beauty and the Beast (2017)”) and her husband Michael (Roger Davies) wait in a long line at a gas station. There is an energy crisis on earth, and several countries, specifically Russia and Germany, are on the brink of war. It’s revealed that Hamilton is going to head up into space to be part of a team that will experiment with the Sheppard Particle Accelerator, which, if successful, could provide energy for the world indefinitely. Flash forward two years, and Hamilton is up in the space station with other scientists, still trying to figure out how to make this particle accelerator work. Among the crew are Schmidt (Daniel Bruhl, “Captain America: Civil War”), Mundy (Chris O’Dowd, “Bridesmaids”), Kiel (David Oyelowo, “Gringo”), Volkov (Aksel Hennie, “The Martian”), and Monk (John Ortiz, “Kong: Skull Island”). Plenty of fodder for the slaughter to come…

Hamilton talks to her husband on Earth through a telecom channel, telling him they only have enough fuel for a few more tests. It’s a bittersweet predicament. Hamilton misses her husband, but knows the work they’re doing in space could be important. The crewmembers go about preparing the next experiment while the news plays in the background. A harbinger warns, in lengthy expositional dialogue, that the experiments could open portals to different dimensions. The man warns that aliens, monster, or demons could come through this portal, but it could also rupture the space-time continuum, meaning that what they’re doing could not only affect the present, but the past and future as well… Perhaps the greatest part of the Cloverfield franchise was that the origin of the creature was shrouded in secrecy. The beast was like Lovecraft’s Cthulhu and the Great Old Ones; terrifying because we could not truly grasp what they were. By explaining where the monster comes from, the creators of the monster have effectively killed that murky mythos, and they’ve done so in a way that makes the beast seem cheesy. This was also the first place I laughed out loud, but don’t worry, there are plenty of other far-fetched ideas to come.

They crew members start the experiment and the ship shudders as the particle accelerator actually begins to work, but then there is a surge of power and crew members have to rush around to put out fires. After this is done, the crewmembers try to get their bearings but are shocked to discover they are no longer orbiting Earth. They hear screaming coming from behind a wall, and without a logical explanation, they open the wall panel to reveal a woman (Elizabeth Debicki, “Widows”) trapped inside, skewered by the inner wires and metal workings. She looks directly at Hamilton and says her name; the delivery is dripping with melodrama, and instead of bringing tension it instead prompted more laughs from my roommates and myself.

Meanwhile, Hamilton’s husband Michael awakens back on Earth to an explosion. He checks his phone and realizes that something horrible has happened, but nobody has an explanation as to what it is specifically. He decides to go to help the victims. How is he going to help the victims? Why is he charging headfirst into a danger zone like a deranged Kenny Loggins? Who knows, but it progresses the plot, so who really cares, right? Michael’s subplot is crudely stitched in throughout the film; every time we break from the space station to rejoin him on Earth, the scenes feel completely unnecessary and out of place. His storyline added nothing, in my personal opinion; they could’ve cut twenty minutes from the film and saved us all some time.

Eventually we learn that the space station has been transported across the galaxy, and not only that, but they’re also, somehow, in an alternate dimension. Cool, thought I, drinking up this tiny bit of goodness like a forgotten houseplant that’s gotten its first taste of water in weeks. I wanted this movie to be good, or at least watchable, so I had retained a bit of hope throughout the first forty-five minutes. There haven’t been a ton of multiverse movies, and none of them have been very good. Maybe this could redeem the rest of the film. Nope. The way the writers approach multiverse theory is silly; even Adult Swim’s “Rick and Morty” provides a more compelling, comprehensive picture of the theory.

The characters in this story continuously make bad decisions for seemingly no reason throughout the film. Why? Because it puts the characters in peril and the producers seemed to want a body count. These people are supposed to be the best of the best; the scientists that all of Earth has put their trust in. Many of the choices they make don’t make any sense at all. It’s frustrating but also unintentionally hilarious. I can’t say I was bored during the movie, but I can also guarantee I’ll never watch it again.

Another major issue I had with the film was the unimaginative production design- particularly the interior of the ship. The set looked like it was a repurposed or forgotten “Alien” setpiece. The hallways were claustrophobic and cramped, the lighting, mostly florescent, made the characters look pale and gaunt. This film looked like any other space-travesty movie you’ve seen: “2001: A Space Odyssey”, “Sunshine”, “Solaris”, even “Event Horizon”… If you’ve seen any of those, then you know what to expect as far as design.

As real scientific theories are introduced and then wildly broken into mumbo-jumbo to fit the purpose film, people on the ship start to die or befall accidents in horrible, but (sometimes) funny ways; worms exploding from faces, arms disappearing through wormholes. During one scene, Chris O’Dowd’s character says that he “Doesn’t know the rules anymore.” Neither do we. There are no discernable rules. The writers seemed to enjoy making stuff up as they went in an attempt to keep the viewer off-guard. We’ll I was caught off-guard by what they had to offer, but it wasn’t in the way they’d have liked. I found myself laughing, rolling my eyes, and making jokes more and more frequently as the film went on. As the risible final shot came onscreen, I said that I prayed they wouldn’t make a fourth Cloverfield movie. But hey, there’s money to be made, and Netflix will apparently greenlight anything.

Verdict:

“10 Cloverfield Lane” is easily the best of the three Cloverfield movies, but the interesting thing about this franchise is that it is an anthology series; none of the characters from previous films appear in the others. Potentially, a fourth film could once again reinvigorate the franchise, but “Paradox” has created a multitude of problems for any future follow-ups in this universe. “Paradox” is not the worst movie I’ve seen this year, but it is a galaxy away from the best (at least it’s better than Netflix’s “Bright”). 2.5 stars out of 5 is the best rating that I can give it, and that’s being generous.

Edit: One day after posting this review I learned that Cloverfield 4 (AKA “Overlord”) is already in post production, and is expected to release later this year. This time, they're opting out of Netflix for a theatrical release. Apparently the film will be set during the WW2 era, so it will play off this film in that the spacetime continuum has been permanently ruptured. JJ Abrams, the producer, has apparently already seen the film, and been quoted saying that Overlord is a "Crazy movie." D-Day paratroopers will fight Nazi's allied with supernatural powers. Well... I can't say that doesn't pique my interest. Watch for my thoughts on that later this year. EDIT EDIT: The Cloverfield tie-in was scrapped, but “Overlord” was alright.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

MARY AND THE WITCH'S FLOWER (2018)

SUMMARY

Staying in the country with her Great Aunt in the country is boring little Mary to tears. With no one to play with really, she follows a couple of neighborhood cats into the woods and finds a blue flower and a broomstick. The rare flower Mary has found gives her magical powers and the broom whisks her off to a magical school with a magical and terrifying secret.

MY THOUGHTS

To be honest, I was i bit disappointed in this film. Maybe it's just that I have been spoiled by Studio Ghibli movies but this first offering from new Studio Ponoc felt like well trod territory to me. If you have never seen Studio Ghibli films like “Spirited Away,” then I suppose this movie would seem extremely innovative. However, I feel about this film the way I felt about Pixar’s “Good Dinosaur”. It’s alright. In fact for an extremely young child it would be preferable to “Spirited Away” since that film is more intense.

That is the problem though. This film seems like a movie a kid might outgrow and certainly I felt like an adult in a kid’s movie as I watched.

That being said, the animation is beautiful. On par with Studio Ghibli movies you can certainly see the roots of the director in that company. Some of the flying sequences are squeal worthy, they are so fun.

But that is really the extent of it. I felt it was too slow, especially when the characters are as simple as these are. Even the story seems very derivative of “Spirited Away,” Narnia, and Harry Potter. What a unique idea. A kid has magical powers and ends up going to a magic school where she finds out that she holds the secret to destroying some great darkness.

Yup. No big twists here guys.

VERDICT

The simplicity of this film is the simplicity of a children’s book. It isn’t bad and even, I think, has its place. If you have young kids and tire of the latest Dreamworks drek and cash grab, this film will be quite refreshing, but if you are just and adult fan of anime, you can probably skip this one.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

Ingrid Goes West (2017)

Summary:

A darkly comedic story revolving around Ingrid Thorburn, a young woman whom becomes obsessed with Instagram star Taylor Sloane, and moves to Los Angeles in order to become part of her life, no matter what the cost.

My Thoughts:

Ingrid (Aubrey Plaza, “Safety Not Guaranteed”) sits crying in her car, scrolling through Instagram, looking at the photos posted by a woman named Charlotte (Meredith Hanger). It’s Charlotte’s wedding day. “#perfect”, the photo is captioned, “#blessed.” Ingrid is furious. She gets out of her car, mascara streaming down her face. We realize she’s been sitting directly outside of the wedding she’s been social-media stalking. She charges at the bride and pepper sprays her for not inviting her to her wedding. Shortly after she’s tackled.

After getting out of a mental institution Ingrid runs into Charlotte at the grocery store. Charlotte, on the phone, speaks loudly, saying that she and Ingrid were never really friends. Ingrid leaves the store and keys Charlotte’s car. Shortly after, Ingrid is looking through a magazine and comes across an article detailing the life of Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen, “Captain America: Civil War”), an Insta-icon living in LA.

Intrigued, Ingrid investigates her Instagram, and comments on a photo. Taylor responds not long after and Ingrid lights up with joy. This little bit of recognition is all Ingrid needs- it’s a piece of floating driftwood for her to cling to after her ship has been battered to bits by a storm. Cling to it, she does. Ingrid withdraws $62,000, an inheritance from her mother, and immediately moves to Los Angeles.

Ingrid rents a house from a friendly landlord, Dan Pinto, (O’Shea Jackson, Jr., “Straight Outta Compton”) before scoping out all of Taylor's favorite spots. Eventually, Ingrid runs into Taylor at a bookstore, but after a brutally awkward attempt at conversation, she leaves unnoticed, feeling unimportant. She decides that more drastic measures need to taken, so she steals Taylor’s dog and holds it until she finds a flyer offering a reward. Ecstatic, Ingrid calls the number listed, and speaks to Taylor's husband (played by Wyatt Russell, “Cold in July”), saying that she found their dog. After bringing the dog to Taylor's home, Ingrid refuses the reward and is instead asked to stay for dinner. From there, Taylor and Ingrid form a tenuous relationship.

As the story goes on, Ingrid becomes closer to Taylor, but her jealous need for attention slowly eats away at her. Any attention Taylor gives to anyone else becomes poison to Ingrid. As the story progresses it’s darkly humorous tone shifts into something more sinister, but it still retains it’s fun disposition. This movie is first and foremost a comedy, but a very dark comedy at that; there are some tense moments, but it never takes itself too seriously. It’s this balance that makes the movie stand out; walking the fine line of creepy and funny is hard to do, but “Ingrid” succeeds admirably.

Plaza and Olsen do great jobs of bringing to light different views and takes on social media. Olsen’s character has an established Instagram following, and to an extent, she lets the following rule her life. She forces her husband, and sometimes even strangers, to retake pictures. She even makes Plaza pose in different ways to make her look better. And while Plaza has virtually no online audience, she still allows social media to dictate her every move- she drops everything at the slightest hint of acknowledgment. This film takes a very real look at what kind of power social media can have over people.

Both of them are incredibly talented actresses, but it’s Plaza who really steals the scene here; her creepy-but-still-likeable portrayal of Ingrid is probably one of the best roles I’ve personally seen her in. Olsen does a great job as well, but her character wasn’t given as much depth as Plaza; though it is interesting to watch Olsen carefully cultivate her public Instagram personality.

The film is extraordinarily entertaining, though at times, it's slightly predictable. For me, it was a fresh take on the tried and true ‘stalker’ story. We know Ingrid is unhinged from the beginning; it’s only a matter of time before something goes awry. The commentary on social media’s affect on modern society was well done, though this concept has become rather worn over the past couple of years. I feel like we’ve plenty of ‘social media = bad’ films popping up in genres across the board.

Verdict:

I think that perhaps the thing that makes this film stand out the most is its ability to walk the line of funny and creepy. Many dark comedies try to toe this line and either end up loosing their humor and becoming too serious, or loosing their bite and becoming rather bland. As a result, some dark comedies end up feeling like an awkward conglomerate of two movies messily shoved under one roof, rather than a beautifully blended marriage of two genres. This movie succeeds where other dark comedies don’t. It’s a movie well worth your time; it’ll make you laugh, it’ll make you feel for both Ingrid and Taylor, and it might even make you look at social media a little differently.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Darkest Hour (2017)

SUMMARY

Covering the first several weeks of Winston Churchill’s term as Prime Minister of England, this film meditates along with him, and England itself, as it is decided how they will respond the the Nazi sweep over Europe’s mainland; sue for peace or go to war.

My Thoughts

I think it’s wonderful that we get this film the same year as Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan). This movie covers some of the same time period but where Dunkirk seeks to put you on the beach, in the boat, and in the cockpit, Darkest Hour puts you in the seat of power. You get all the information, all the politics, all the personal stories that the leader of this country gets, and you get to live in the full weight of what decisions he will make.

You see the deliberation over sending men to their deaths, the self doubt that causes one to wonder whether the decisions that have been made were right, and the pain of being unsupported and even undermined by those who disagree.

The movie is a little slow. If you are expecting a war film with soldiers charging across the battlefield, you will be disappointed. This is a very deliberate character study. There is really only one large decision that gets made in the film with a couple supporting smaller ones. This story is not about what happens but how and why and through whom it does.

That being said the most crucial thing in this sort of film is the acting, which is solid all around. Everyone is great, but let’s face it, this is Gary Oldman’s movie and he does not disappoint.

He disappears into the role seamlessly. The prosthetics are great, but we all know from other films, that is only a part of the transformation. The mannerisms, speech patterns, and gait, while I have no idea how accurate, cause you to forget that the person you are watching is an extremely recognizable actor. You forget that he isn’t an overweight foreign leader almost completely, and so the immersion that you as an audience member are able to achieve in this movie is the antithesis of our current ages fascination with blockbuster tent poles and celebrity.

If you watch a Tom Cruise movie you see Tom Cruise and I defy you to name Mark Wahlberg’s character name in the Transformers franchise.

But here, the man on screen is Churchill through and through. Listening to his speeches as he stirs a country to war, despite their trepidations you understand why he was EXACTLY the leader that England needed at that time. Even I, in my seat, a non-violent borderline pacifist, found myself gripping my armrest almost waving my ticket stub in the air, saying “Here here.”

A simply stunning performance.

VERDICT

I enjoyed this film immensely. It is perfectly primed for me to. I’m the target audience for this movie. I’m a film aficionado, history buff, and armchair student how what make people tick. If that is you, you’ll love this film.

It’s also a pleasure to be able to recommend a film about war that doesn’t glory in the carnage of battle. So many great films I could never recommend to certain audiences because of the violence but as most of this film takes place in committee meetings and war rooms it’s remarkable mild in its violence.

Same with language. While there are certainly swears in this film, they are not the sort of casually thrown out profanities that we are accustomed to in our culture of R-Rated Comedies. I would venture to say you will here far more swearing at a high school football game than in this film.

All in all, I would highly recommend this film to anyone with similar interests in history, or if you are just a mature enough person to handle the pacing and want to see a brilliant performance by a veteran actor.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

Dark City (1998)

Summary:

A man with no memory awakes in an apartment to find a murdered woman beside him. In an attempt to learn his identity and the truth about the city in which he resides, the man becomes caught up in a twisted game of cat and mouse, only to find things are not at all what they seem.

My Thoughts:

I wanted, so badly, to love this movie.

The first minutes of this film were tailor made for my tastes. From the incredibly bizarre opening scene featuring an Igor-esque scientist played by Kiefer Sutherland (“The Lost Boys”); to the creepy, pale, corpselike men going about the city in their peculiar ways; to the shadowy, noir-like cinematography- this movie had me- hook, line, and sinker. The film continues to inspire suspense and surprise as it goes on, but seems to really loose focus towards the third act. Still, while this movie is not perfect by any means, it’s unique aesthetic alone puts it miles ahead of your average, run-of-the-mill blockbuster.

Reader’s Note: Before I go too far, though, I want to say that this film is best seen without any prior knowledge. I went into this movie blind as Ray Charles; I knew only that it was a sci-fi mystery. There will inevitably be some (minor) spoilers peppered throughout this review, but I will shy away from any major plot twists.

A man without memory (Rufus Sewell, “A Knight’s Tale”) awakens in a dark apartment where he discovers a woman covered in blood; the blood, inexplicably patterned to look like inward spiraling swirls. Suddenly, pale strangers in long black trench coats appear at the door. The man, confused and frightened, flees the strangers, but as he does, he discovers that the white strangers in black cloaks have a sort of telekinetic power, and to his shock, he too seems to possess a small inkling of that same power. As the story progresses, the man discovers his name, John Murdoch, and that he is married to Emma Murdoch (Jennifer Connelly, “Phenomena”). John and Emma reunite. John is still without his memory, but he’s begun to piece together bits of his life; with Emma’s help, he hopes to find out what is happening on the streets of the mysterious city.

Meanwhile, Inspector Bumstead (William Hurt, “A.I. Artificial Intelligence”) makes an entrance at the apartment where Murdoch first awoke. (Side note: Hurt easily gives the best performance here- I’ve come to love Hurt for his characteristic subtlety and monotone mumbling; Bumstead’s character benefits immensely from Hurt’s portrayal.) He is charged with the investigation of the woman murdered. Bumstead, while searching the apartment, finds evidence of Murdoch at the scene of the crime. He goes to Emma, hoping to find John. Emma attempts to convince Bumstead that John is innocent, and that there is something much larger going on behind the scenes. For reasons he can’t quite understand himself, Bumstead believes her.

Meanwhile meanwhile, (a lot happens in this movie, which is surprisingly under two hours in length) Dr. Schreber (Sutherland), an enigmatic scientist, works on a secret project for the strange men in black cloaks. I won't go into what’s going on here; as to do so would be to give away some of the twists.

There’s so much going on in this movie. The three main storylines overlap and weave through each other, for the most part, seamlessly. There are problems, however, many of which come from the length of the film. Like Alice after ingesting the “Eat Me” cakes, the story was much too large for the room it was given. I think this movie could’ve been great- a true sci fi classic- if it had been allowed to breathe.

There are many things done very right in this story- first is the setting. In a good story, setting is just as much of a character as the actual humanoid characters; setting can be moody, murky and brooding or cheery, colorful and bubbly. Setting is the invisible character that provides mood, backstory and crisis by simply being there. In this story, the crepuscular city is a more interesting character than many that live within it.

The design of “Dark City” lends itself to the incredible- the buildings (minor spoilers) move and grow into themselves, morphing old brick and steel into new architecture. This, right here, gives the world of “Dark City” plenty of intrigue. Even from the beginning, we know something is amiss with this tenebrous town, and Murdoch seems to be the only one attuned to the amorphous nature of the city. The dated special effects, it must be noted, do take away from the film, and while they don’t look terrible, it is distracting. The effects crew had a hard job to pull off; in some scenes they succeeded admirably, and in other scenes, particularly the climax, they failed; but the effort is still quite admirable.

The Good:

Alex Proyas has created a nightmarish pseudo-bureaucratic dystopia that is even more interesting than the world in which he set “The Crow”, and that in it of itself, is rather impressive (“The Crow” is another movie that, even with its flaws, I still enjoy the heck out of). These worlds have depth, and they hint at even deeper backstories. But I wanted more from this world. I easily could’ve watched another twenty or thirty minutes and not have been bored. In Proyas’s 90’s films, setting seemed to be everything, and it paid off. Proyas was onto something in the 90’s; sadly his latest works- “Knowing” and “Gods of Egypt” - have left a lot to be desired.

The story, though at times convoluted, is an interesting adventure in storytelling. There are plenty of twists, but if the viewer is paying close attention, they should be able to piece together what is happening before the end, as I did. Strangely, though I was able to take a guess at what was happening, that doesn’t make the film overly predictable- there is so much going on that there are bound to be some surprises along the way.

The Bad:

This film was so close to great, but it missed the mark a few times, and as a result, I imagine it is only a pale shadow of what Proyas envisioned. As I mentioned before, the third act is where the story really loses its focus. Near the end, all of the storylines are whirring about in a chaotic fashion- the storylines are like atoms in a particle accelerator- and as they collide, the result, as can be imagined, is explosive.

Now, ‘explosive’ could be taken by many to mean a great compliment to the movie, but that is not my intent. When I say the movie’s climax is explosive, I don’t mean that I was at the edge of my seat and I thought my eyes might pop out of their sockets. No, what I mean is that the film devolves into deliriously hectic pandemonium. I won't give anything away because “Dark City” is still 100% worth watching. But know that near the end, viewers are bombarded with twist after twist after twist and then, on bated breath, they are catapulted into a less-than-stellar special effects extravaganza that sadly looks, after nigh twenty years, slightly silly. The streamlined ending leaves the viewer little time to react to any of what is happening until after the climax has happened, the denouement has been hastily rushed past, the film is over, and the credits are rolling.

Verdict:

What started as a truly remarkable film ended up being a decent movie; there is a skeleton of a great film beneath all the bits that didn’t work. This movie is truly one of a kind. Watch it for the unique craziness that it is; there aren’t many films that boast this much originality, and even if this one doesn’t work on every level, it absolutely succeeds in entertaining the viewer from start to finish.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)

Summary:

Bradley Thomas is a down on his luck ex-boxer forced to turn to drug running to make ends meet; through a series of misadventures he winds up in prison. But it gets worse- his pregnant wife is kidnapped by the cartel that Bradley used to work for, and unless Bradley can kill a high-profile inmate, who's being kept in the high security ward of the prison, the cartel’s surgeon will perform an experimental procedure to hew the limbs from his unborn child.

My Thoughts:

Last year, I checked out Zahler’s “Bone Tomahawk” at the recommendation of a friend. The violence in “Tomahawk” was absolutely brutal, and though the story was somewhat slow and probably could’ve been trimmed by a half hour, the movie was worth watching (provided you’ve got a strong stomach.) When I learned of “Brawl”, I was eager to see if Zahler could live up to “Tomahawk”, and I was not disappointed. “Brawl” is better than “Tomahawk” in many ways; it’s an epic tale of violence, revenge, and justice.

Bradley Thomas is a hulking ex-boxer with a large black cross tattoo on the back of his skull. In the first scene, Bradley is fired from his job, and upon arriving home and he finds his wife (Jennifer Carpenter, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose”) talking on the phone with another man. After a brief confrontation, she admits she’s been cheating. Bradley tells her to wait inside, and as soon as she closes the door to their house, he begins to beat his wife’s car with his bare fists. He breaks a window, pulls out the headlights, rips the hood off and throws it across the yard. The way Bradley does this is methodical, slow; he takes his time; makes every punch count. It’s the way he does everything. Bradley slowly tearing apart this car piece by piece becomes a metaphor for the whole film.

His anger abates, and Bradley goes inside to talk to his wife. He’s not angry with her, he knows things have been bad, and he promises he's going to do everything in his power to make things better. He goes to an old acquaintance (Marc Blucas of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) who helps him get into the drug running business. Time passes, and Bradley is at the top of his game again; his wife is happy, pregnant- their lives are going the way they want.

But alas, good things are not meant to last.

(Mild Spoilers)

During a drop, two new runners accompany Bradley. Bradley senses something is wrong and suggests they walk away, but the new runners refuse. Cops descend on the smugglers as Bradley watches from afar. One of the cops takes a bullet, and Bradley knows he can’t stand idly by. He approaches the drug runners from behind and kills them. The cops then arrest Bradley and he’s sent to jail (the judge gives him a light sentence for helping the cops.) As Bradley arrives in jail, he receives a message from the cartel: you killed our men, we’re going to cut the limbs from your unborn child unless you can kill someone for us- an ex-cartel member who’d ratted them out, who is being kept in the most secure location of the prison Bradley is being held. Bradley agrees to kill the man to save his wife.

(End of Spoilers)

Vince Vaughn deserves far more credit than he gets. In the underwhelming second season of “True Detective” he gave a standout performance, and in “Hacksaw Ridge” he did the same, but this movie is a milestone for him. Vaughn absolutely kills it (no pun intended) as the stoic, straightforward, no-nonsense, anti-hero Bradley; he dominates every frame of the screen, he has more presence than any of the other actors, by far. Even veteran actor Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”, “Django Unchained”), whom plays Warden Tuggs, pales in comparison to Vaughn.

The deliberate pacing in this movie allows for the characters to breathe and adjust to their environments before making rational decisions on what to do next. Though the word ‘Brawl’ is in the title, none of the violence is unwarranted; all of it is necessary to the story. The style of violence, too, is deliberate. The meticulous way that Bradley destroys the car at the beginning of the film is how he fights the entire movie. Bradley is an ex-boxer; he defends himself when he knows he’s going to take a hit, then packs a wallop when finds his opening. The violence is slow, but so brutal. There are broken limbs, bashed faces, beatings with barbells, headshots and much more. The camera likes to linger on each hit, making you feel the impact of every blow Bradley takes or deals out. The taught thriller builds towards the end, gathering speed as Bradley works his way through different cellblocks towards his mark.

The characters in this film are all believable, and though they commit crimes and horrible acts of violence the writing makes us sympathetic towards them. Vince Vaughn’s character in particular stays on a straight and narrow path- he knows what he has to do, and he never strays from that path, even if it means a lot of pain for him. He wants to do right by his wife, and nothing will stand in his way; he is a very commendable character in that regard. The tattoo of the cross, featured prominently throughout the film, seemed to be a symbol of a kind of sainthood achieved by the martyrdom Bradley goes through.

There’s no way to beat around the bush here; some of the effects look really bad. Really, this is the only issue I had with this film. There are some scenes where the victims of Bradley’s beatings are clearly mannequins. It is quite distracting, and honestly takes the viewer out of the movie a bit. Strangely, I said the same thing about some of the special effects in “Bone Tomahawk”. Zahler needs to find someone else to do his practical effects.

Verdict:

The movie is entertaining as all get out; intense, thrilling, satisfying, and even a little emotional at times. This is one thriller that has, sadly, flown under the radar, but it is well worth checking out if you get the chance. If you like this, keep your eyes on the horizon; Zahler has reteamed with Vaughn, Carpenter, and Johnson (and added Mel Gibson) for his next film, “Dragged Across Concrete”, which, if the title is any indication of content, could provide another bloody thrilling ride.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele