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

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

Super Dark Times (2017)

Summary

After a horrible accident and subsequent cover up, three high school students wander down a dark path of paranoia and violence.

My Thoughts

This film is all about awakenings. It is a coming of age story, but not one along the lines of “Superbad” or “Breakfast Club”. “Super Dark Times”. As the title suggests, “Super Dark Times” is a much grimmer coming of age story, but it is one that examines teenage years in a very true, honest light. Super Dark features a cast of relative unknowns, and it was also Kevin Phillips’s directorial debut, but the film is an incredibly polished, well-made thriller. While the film starts off slowly, it builds to an incredibly tense finale, one that will linger in the minds of the viewers days after the credits roll.

“Super Dark Times” takes place in the 1990’s upstate New York. Zach (Owen Campbell, “The Miseducation of Cameron Post”) and Josh (Charlie Tahan, “I Am Legend”) have been friends since childhood; they have inside jokes, they know each other’s parents, they like to play video games, and swear a little too much. They’re typical teenage boys, insecure in themselves, just trying to figure out who they are and how they fit into the world. After a brief, ominous prelude, the film begins with the two friends in a basement, looking over a yearbook, talking about the girls (and teachers) they fantasize about. They find they both have a thing for Allison (Elizabeth Cappuccino, “Jessica Jones”) a girl whose home they walk by later that afternoon. The boys tease each other about going up to the door to talk to her, but in the end, in true teenage boy fashion, they instead scream “Penis” at the top of their lungs and ride off on their bikes, guffawing maniacally.

Later, after bonding with Charlie (Sawyer Barth, “Bridge of Spies”) and Daryl (Max Talisman), two younger, eighth grade boys bond over eating freeze-dried squid from a gas station. Zack and Josh invite them back to Josh’s house where the boys wander unattended, as Josh’s mom works late. In Josh’s brother’s room they find a katana and marijuana. Daryl asks if they can smoke the pot; Josh refuses, but he offers something better- a chance to cut milk cartons in half with the sword.

(Some Spoilers Follow)

The boys venture into the woods to violently bifurcate their cardboard victims, and soon the katana glistens with the liquids of the cartons. The boys continue hacking and slashing the cartons, until they notice that Daryl has stolen the marijuana from Josh’s brothers room. He smokes it, angering the rest of the boys. Irritated, Daryl agrees to return the pot, but out of frustration he strikes Josh while his back is turned. The two boys fight and fall to the ground. In the process Daryl is impaled by the katana and killed.

The remaining boys- best friends, Zack and Josh, and eighth grader, Charlie- panic and hide the body and katana. They vow never to speak of this again, and they all go there separate ways. We follow Zack as he goes to return Daryl’s bike to his home, en route he stops to take out the frustrations on a cement wall, breaking his hand in the process. When Zack arrives home, to his complete and utter surprise, Allison is waiting on his couch. Too stunned to speak, Zack migrates to his room. Allison follows and mentions that she heard him screaming outside her home earlier. Zack is in shell shock; Allison takes a hint and asks if he wants her to leave. Zack says that he really just hurt his han.  He looks like he might cry. Allison sits beside him and Zack leans his head on her.

As the days go by, Zack becomes more and more paranoid about Daryl’s body in the woods. After the initial accident, we follow Zack’s character more than the others, taking an in depth look at him as he succumbs to his guilt-ridden conscious. He has vivid dreams with prophetic but muddled meanings. I wont reveal too much more of the plot, as to do so would be to spoil the whole movie, but know that the film becomes increasingly claustrophobic, and the characters, volatile and unstable.

The Good

Philips does a great job of easing us into the plot. The pacing is slow and methodical, and in the process it builds a great atmosphere. We get to know and like the characters before Daryl is killed off, and then we can immediately see the difference the incident has made in their lives. The violence is jarring when compared with the life the boys led before. He likes to hide symbols throughout the film, too, and one dream sequence in particular, while confusing during the initial viewing, should make an incredible amount of sense in retrospect.

As stated before, the film is about awakenings- and that is an evident theme throughout the film. Sexual awakening is a major theme as Zack becomes more and more interested in Allison, though the only sex scene is actually quite mild, and during a very trippy, but meaningful, dream sequence- (the same one mentioned above.) The theme is never far from our minds, and it’s established straight away; Phillips goes so far as to point out the phallic nature of a fence post in one of the opening scenes, and from there the theme is woven sporadically into the background. Another, darker awakening is hinted at throughout the film as well, one that is hard to pick up on, if you aren’t looking for it.

The Bad

I like movies with a slower pace, but some people find them boring. This film takes a while to get going, and then once it does get going, it takes a while to really hit the same level of intensity again. After the initial shocking accident, the pace wanes, before the paranoia begins to build again. For those who don’t mind wading through the middle, the finale will be well worth the wait.

Verdict

“Super Dark Times” is a good suburban thriller that looks at the nature of awakenings, accidents, and growing up and apart from friends we knew, or thought we knew. Though it may not be for everyone, “Super Dark” is a methodical journey into paranoia that pays off for those who wait.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

PHANTOM THREAD (2017)

SUMMARY

Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis, “There Will Be Blood”) is a dressmaker whose house is renowned in 1950’s London. An auteur, eccentric, and man of particularity, Reynolds is taken with young Alma (Vicky Krieps) whose admiration of his craft and person are inexhaustible. As their relationship is strained by eccentricity, artistic striving, and personal dissimilarities, the couple is pressed to make the most difficult decisions and commitments of their lives.

MY THOUGHTS

I am not of that school which believes that Paul Thomas Anderson (PTA) does no wrong. His oeuvre is full of movies I find sublime (a word I reserve for only the best films) and films which I find boring and inscrutable. I have seen approximately half of them, and while I am inclined to watch them all at some point, they are among those movies that get pushed further and further back into the queue by whatever pressing works are being currently released.

I regard “There Will Be Blood” among one of the truly great modern classics and am usually intrigued when his films appear, knowing they will be of a caliber only matched by the finest directors, telling stories the likes of which are seldom told.

As such, I was looking forward to “Phantom Thread” perhaps more that any other film of the year, save “Shape of Water.” In “Phantom Thread,” all of these expectations were met in such a pleasantly satisfying way.

Of course, the most notable thing about this film at first is the acting. Day-Lewis and Krieps give portrayals of characters whose complexities are intriguing and tantalizing. This is a film which mainly consists of conversations and glances held across rooms, breakfast tables, and sewing stations, and yet, never did I feel bored. Reynolds and Alma were people I did not so much feel endeared to as fascinated by. Watching them watch each other, work together, and grasp after each other’s affections was like parsing poetry for its secret subtext.

THEME

Saying this film has a plot is like saying a marriage has a plot. There are, of course, events that transpire but the thing you are watching here is the unfolding of a relationship. What matters in the world of this film is not the events attended, the dresses made, or the kisses given, but the feelings that attend every action, glance, or tea.

The theme which emerges over the course of the film is one seldom seen in movies today. In a media culture obsessed with hormonal passion firing bursts of excitement across every screen there is little time for the slow long sacrifice of a relationship built upon love, respect, and common ground. The expression it finds is peculiar to say the least, in this film, but ultimately each (Alma and Reynolds) find that they are willing to endure tremendous hardship for the other’s sake and thus, both, unwilling to abandon the other or succumb ultimately to self absorption.

SCORE

A relationship, strong to weather storms, is an ancient story told with such delicate ingenuity that one may easily miss either its ancient roots or its fresh vision of that theme. Similarly, “Phantom Thread’s” score is stunning in its classical overtones which obfuscate its thoroughly modern face. As I watched the film I found myself thinking I would have to look up what this piece of music was, convinced that it was some bit of classical music I had simply not heard before, or at the least, of which I had not learned the name. To find upon searching that it was a wholly original score and composed by lead guitarist of Radiohead, Jonny Greenwood, was surprising to say the least. It is a score which lives in and beyond the film. While many scores may transport me to a place as I watch, few seem to inhabit the film as this one does.

I am reasonably certain that I could visit Dunkirk and be moved by the sacrifice made there, or stand outside of Churchill’s chambers and reflect upon the words he would dictate and address a nation with, but if I were to spend an afternoon in the sitting room of Reynolds Woodcock, i think I would hear Jonny Greenwood’s score in my mind.

WEAKNESSES

I hesitate to call the pacing of this movie a weakness as I find its deliberation an essential aspect of the film and one of the things I enjoyed about it but I do at the same time understand why some would find it dull. I would say the same is true of the cinematography. Visually it is a quiet film of stillness, and so the camera seldom moves. This minimalism was a breath of fresh air in my opinion but again, might seem dull to some.

Rather than calling them true weaknesses, I would simply caution those who see it to prepare for a quiet evening rather than a boisterous one and hope that they are able to tune their expectations.

VERDICT

Can you tell I loved this film? I truly did. I’d watch it again this second. Though I do not think it will win many Academy Awards as so many of its principle players have won them before but when a movie won’t win much because it’s actor and director/writer have won so many, perhaps the film itself can be enough.

Review Written By:

Michael McDonald

The Post (2017)

Summary:

As Kay Graham preps the Washington Post to go public, a large government cover up story revolving around the outcome of the Vietnam War breaks, and she is forced to choose whether or not to publish material that Nixon is trying to conceal. Publishing could mean major backlash from investors and possible jail time, but not publishing could bring about the death of the First Amendment and possibly prolong the fighting in Vietnam.

My Thoughts

Seeing Streep and Hanks lead an all-star cast while Spielberg works his magic behind the camera should be enough to get any cinephile to the theatre. This movie, while slow and somewhat convoluted at the beginning, is one of the most important movies of the year. Why? The answer lies in the first scene Streep and Hanks have ever shared together. At a luncheon meeting, Hanks is justifiably upset that Nixon is refusing to let a reporter from the Post cover Nixon’s daughter’s wedding, because of the coverage they put out on another article a few years ago. He says: (I’m paraphrasing slightly here- the exact wording escapes me) “Just because the president doesn’t like the coverage we give him doesn’t mean he gets to dictate what we publish.”

In the dark corner of the small, sparsely populated theatre, I couldn’t help but smile.

The film starts in Vietnam with a brief but chaotic battle scene. Daniel Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys, “Burnt”), a military analyst, types up his thoughts on the progress made. On Air Force One, the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (Bruce Greenwood, “Star Trek (2009)”), asks Ellsberg for his opinion on the war, and disheartened, Ellsberg says that nothing has really changed. McNamara, frustrated, turns to H.R. Haldeman, Nixon’s chief of staff, and says that they’ve been deploying more soldiers to Vietnam, and the lack of progress despite more troops effectively means the war is getting worse. Immediately after landing however, McNamara smiles at the press and tells them the war is going well. Ellsberg wont stand for this, so he begins to covertly sneak classified documents from the Pentagon, making copies with his coconspirators. Upon reading the documents, he discovers the government’s lie stretches further than Nixon’s presidency; the cover-up was known by the four previous presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson.

While the film starts off with a (literal) bang, the next half hour of the film takes a noticeable loll as it tries to find its footing. Kay Graham (Meryl Streep, “The Iron Lady”) nervously discusses plans for the company to go public with Fritz Beebe (Tracy Letts, “Lady Bird”), a trusted friend and board member for the Post. He reassures her that everything will go fine, but she is determined to memorize her talking points. She meets with the Post’s Chief Editor, Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks, “Saving Private Ryan”) to discuss how to attract a wider demographic. Graham then goes to a board meeting, wearing a greyish suit but surrounded by a sea of men in black; she is a woman, desperately floundering to stay afloat and relevant in a business run predominantly by men. During a board meeting, when Arthur Parsons (Bradley Whitford, Get Out) asks a question regarding the budget, she answers, but the answer is ignored until a Beebe parrots her. Throughout the film, there are dozens of shots where Streep is literally surrounded by men that loom over her, almost claustrophobically so. The recurring theme of woman being forced to the back of the workplace is impressively subtle, but also incredibly important. Streep is looked on as a type of stoic, silent role model for women.

For a while we are a fly on the wall of the Post, watching as Bradlee scrambles around the office trying to put together the next paper with his reporters, while simultaneously keeping a close eye on his rival competitors: The Times. Bradlee sends an intern to the Times to try to find out what the Time’s best reporter, Neil Sheehan, is working on. The intern is unable to find out what the piece is on, but he does find out that Sheehan’s article will be on the front page the next day. Meanwhile, Graham receives a visit from McNamara, who is a lifelong friend, and he tells her that the Times will be printing something about him on the front page. The next day, the Times publish their first story on the Panama Papers and it takes the country by storm. During a dinner Graham the Times editor, Abe Rosenthal (Michael Stuhlbarg, “Call Me By Your Name”), Rosenthal receives word that Nixon intends to take the Times to court over the published documents.

Ben Bagdikian (Bob Odenkirk, “Incredibles 2”), a reporter with the Post, after hours of cold calling, finally makes contact with Ellsberg. Ellsberg meets Bagdikian in a motel; documents are spread round the cheap room in thick, incriminating piles. Ellsberg asks if Bagdikian would go to jail to stop the Vietnam War, and Bagdikian answers, “Hypothetically, yeah.” Ellsberg shakes his head. “You’re going to publish, right? Then this isn’t hypothetical.” As the story progresses, and the Post’s reporters diligently comb through the thousands of pages to find a story, the question of whether or not Graham will allow the story to go to press garners more and more implications. Should Graham publish, not only will the Post be going directly against an order of the courts, but she may also be putting her freedom, and the freedom of those she works with, at risk.

The Good:

Spielberg is in fine form here; though his subject matter isn’t as intense as some of his well-known Blockbusters, he still manages to build a surprising amount of tension throughout the film. There are plenty of long takes with expertly choreographed deep staging. He provides plenty of background humor with minor characters, and he conveys the hectic nature of a newsroom with beautiful precision. The writing of Liz Hannah and Josh Singer (“Spotlight”) brilliantly touches on many issues of the era and also succeeds in drawing many comparisons to modern times. I would honestly be surprised if this didn’t receive a nomination for writing.

Streep is fantastic as the meek-mannered but firm Graham; she does an amazing job making us feel her constant insecurity but desire to prove herself. The real scene-stealer was Hanks, whom I thought gave his best performance in years. “Captain Phillips” (2013) was the last time Hanks really generated Oscar buzz, but I would not be at all surprised if we see him on the docket this year. But though Hanks and Streep were the standouts, everyone else in the A-list cast provided commendable performances as well; particularly Odenkirk, who really shines as the nervous but tenacious Bagdikian.

The Bad:

As I said before, the beginning of this movie is a little convoluted and slow. There are so many characters wrapped up in all of this, all of which are important; but at the start, the viewer almost feels like a person on their first day at a new job, being introduced to everyone in the office and expected to remember names. It’s overwhelming. But soon, as the pacing picks up, you get caught up in the story and the drama, and the movie sweeps you right along with it.

Verdict:

(MINOR SPOILERS)

Towards the end of the film, a portion of Justice Hugo Black’s statement is read: “In the First Amendment the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” That quote drew some small applause from the people in my theatre. Whatever your stance on the whole Fake News hullabaloo that's permeating current daily news, this statement by Black is extremely important, and I believe the entire reason Spielberg made this film. As Americans, its our inalienable right to be informed and speak our minds; it’s why freedom of speech is our first amendment. No, the government might not always like what the media says, but tough luck. Grow a spine and take it. You asked for power; deal with the byproduct. The people in charge need to be okay with their power being questioned, because, in the words of Terry Pratchett: “Authority that cannot be questioned is tyranny. And I will not stand for tyranny.”

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

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

Heaven Knows What (2014)

Summary:

Harley is a homeless teenage heroine addict living in New York City  desperately trying to navigate the grim ghettos of dealers and users. She survives by panhandling and backstabbing friends for her drugs, all the while flirting with her on-again-off-again psychotic boyfriend, Ilya, and the idea of suicide.

My Thoughts:

This film is BLEAK.

Inspired by the unpublished memoirs of lead actress, Arielle Holmes, “Heaven Knows What” is the story of Harley, a homeless heroine addict living in New York City. One of the most interesting tidbits about this movie is the fact that the lead actress is portraying a fictionalized version of herself. Discovered while she was panhandling on the streets, Arielle Holmes was encouraged by directors Josh and Benny Safdie to write a memoir; “Heaven” is the product of her memoirs and some fictional happenings added by the Safdie brothers. “Heaven” was Arielle Holmes’s first credit as an actress.

The film starts with Harley (Arielle Holmes, “American Honey”) as she sits in a library, writing a suicide note to her boyfriend. She’s made a mistake, and Ilya (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out”) is angry with her. She believes the only way to redeem herself is through death. She writes a suicide note, telling Ilya that him she loves him, and he gives her reason for living. She delivers the letter to Ilya and he, without reading it, tears it to shreds and lets it fall to his feet. Ilya tells Harley to prove that she loves him, so she buys razors and, with his prompting, she slits her wrists in front of him.

From there, Harley is taken to a hospital. When she gets out, she goes to score drugs without a second thought. Despite the warning of her friend, Skulky (Ron Braunstein, “Good Time”), Harley meets up with her dealer, Mike (Buddy Duress, “Good Time”). After spending the night with Mike, Harley begins living with him, panhandling for money to buy food, drugs and alcohol.

This film is a remarkably harrowing character study. Most of the time, the plot takes a back seat- it doesn’t go much further than Harley trying to get money or drugs- but the plot is not the thing that drives this story; what drives the story is the tumultuous, destructive chemistry between characters. This film gives us a passenger car filled with characters to care about, and all of them are barreling blindly towards an inevitable train wreck, and honestly, it’s impossible to look away.

Arielle does an amazing job portraying Harley, which makes sense considering the character is based on her. As she wanders through the streets, bleary-eyed and dejected, continuously making decisions that will sink her further into her habit and further into trouble, we can’t help but feel sorry for her. She inspires so much sympathy, but at the same time so much frustration. You want to help her, you want her to help herself, but time after time she disappoints and fails.

But she keeps trying. She is determined. And though her determination is misplaced- directed towards finding enough drugs to keep her from getting sick- we still can't help but hope she does the right thing next time. She is such a beautifully broken, schismatic character. I found myself drawing many comparisons between Harley and Rodion Raskolnikov. She is a slave to her heroine as Rodya was a slave to liquor; both characters are poor but do nothing to rectify their situations, despite many opportunities to do so; both do things that cause themselves and others harm without thinking them through, turning to violence on impulse, lashing out at those who help them; both characters are reckless and put themselves at great risk for minimal gain.

I suppose many people could look at this movie and see only sadness, only darkness. It is a sad story, that much is true, but it’s important to look beyond the circumstances in which the character find themselves, to try and find some semblance of meaning, some light in all this. Harley is always looking for redemption no matter where she goes, she’s just always looking in the wrong places; but she is at heart, despite all her flaws, a good person.

This is one of the reasons why this movie is so good: because it convinces you to root for a character so deeply flawed, so horribly broken, that it gets you to want to believe in some sort of redemption for her. I found there is so much beauty in this film. Down among the broken hearts, slit wrists, needle-pierced veins, and drug-riddled minds- in the trash-filled gutters of our society, people can still find love; it might not be whole or perfect, but they can still find it.

The Good:

Arielle Holmes is amazing as Harley, Caleb Landry Jones is fantastic as Iyla, and Buddy Duress is great as Mike. None of the actors here (save Caleb) have big credits, but most of them really hold their own on screen.

But the real talent here is behind the camera, with the writing and directing. The Safdie brothers are incredible. Though the story draws on the almost meditative state in which Harley lives her life, the direction is anything but meditative. Colors are at times vibrant and rich, and other times dull and drab (much like the schismatic nature of Harley and the high and withdrawal of her drug). Some scenes linger, while others are quick and intense. The brothers show an incredible amount of range in such a short time frame, something they do again in “Good Time”. Their work will be something to watch for; though their next film, “Uncut Gems”, which has Jonah Hill attached to star, still has no release date.

The Bad:

The content matter is very disturbing; the whole story focuses on a teenage girl’s addiction and the addictions of those around her. You really have to look through the darkness to see the light in this film; but the light is there, if you search for it, and it is beautiful.

Verdict:

This is a great movie, but it is not for everyone. There are plenty of trigger warnings: drugs, violence, domestic abuse. But it's important to remember that this stuff really does happen, and there are teens that are going through what Harley went through right now. So often we get caught up in the comfortable bubbles of our own world and forget how much pain some people experience every day. I believe if you can look at this movie for what it is, not a picture of a good, noble person, but a portrait of a broken person searching for redemption, then this film is an incredible odyssey to experience.

Closing thought: I don’t know where Arielle is now, but I pray that wherever she is, she’s well. After completing her work on this film, Arielle asked the Safdie brothers to help her in recovery, and they brought her to a treatment facility in Florida. She has since has been in two other films: “American Honey”, and “2037: Winter’s Dream”, but her IMDb page shows no upcoming projects.

This film was dedicated to Ilya, Arielle’s real life boyfriend, who died of a heroin overdose in 2015.

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

Bright (2017)

Summary:

In a quasi-fantastical alternate universe, two LA cops- one an Orc, and the other, human- must navigate the underworld to obtain a magic wand, which, if in the wrong hands, could be used as a deadly weapon.

My Thoughts

As an avid fan of all things fantasy, I looked forward to this movie with warranted skepticism. We fantasy fans have been hurt before, and recently (looking at you, Hobbit trilogy, “Warcraft”, “The Dark Tower”, etc.). Fantasy stories are hard to do right, primarily because the worlds in which the stories take place need so much work in order for them to feel like they have depth. Good fantasy films have rules for their magic systems, there are consequences when magic goes awry, races or species have deep cultures and backstories. Good fantasy stories create entire worlds that we can escape to.

This is not a good fantasy film.

The world in this film seems like a Frankenstein’s monster created from the mismatched limbs of other fantasy worlds. Jim Butcher’s Dresden Files is obviously a rather large influence as far as feel and tone, but Ayer pulls creature designs from Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft, Harry Potter and plenty of other mainstream fantasy worlds. Vague backstories and even vaguer prophecies make for a poorly established setting. The elves are in an elevated status, better than humans and orcs, though there is no real reason given for this elevation. Humans are in the middle, and orcs are at the bottom of the heap because they worshipped a dark deity two thousand years ago (I want to make note that the film uses this scrap of backstory to take several thinly-veiled jabs at religion). Other than the looks of the characters, however they all behave relatively the same (the races have different languages, but don’t think they went full Tolkien and developed dialect. It’s all mumbled jargon). The orcs mention a coming of age blood ritual, and that’s about the most insight we get into any of the species cultures. This isn’t a thought out fantasy world, it’s as half baked as they come.

Enough about the underdeveloped world of Bright, what about the actual story- does it offer anything new and exciting? Does Will Smith knock it out of the park? Is this Ayer’s best movie since he wrote “Training Day”?

No.

Will Smith stars as Ward, a character whom has been cut from the same cloth as the other loudmouthed, brazen anti-heroes Smith has been known for playing his whole career. Have you seen “Independence Day”? “I, Robot”? “Men in Black”? “Wild Wild West”? “I Am Legend”? Okay, well, you know what you’re getting into. Alongside him, heavily caked in layers of grey-blue orc makeup, is Joel Edgerton (“Gringo”) as Jakoby, the first orc allowed on the LAPD. Ward is not happy about being assigned to Jakoby, as he thinks the orc will only cause trouble, and he’s not shy about voicing his views to his fellow officers. His ‘racist’ views towards Jakoby make Ward’s character even less likeable, but Ward is not wrong in thinking Jakoby’s presence will cause issues; within the first few minutes of the film Ward takes a point-blank shot to the chest from a large-gauge shotgun. Don’t worry- the wound has absolutely no effect on Ward because he was wearing a bulletproof vest, which, given the vest's divine durability, must have been made of mithril.

Plot holes, ridiculous twists, and cringe-worthy dialog string together the action scenes, none of which are remarkable. Screenwriter Max Landis (“Chronicle”), said he drew heavily from Ayer’s earlier works, particularly “Training Day” and “End of Watch”, and this is incredibly evident. There is a twist in “Training Day” that is repeated almost scene for scene in “Bright”; just replace Mexican drug runners with orcs. The writing is lazy; adding orcs and elves into a cliché storyline doesn’t make the storyline more original.

The story tries to poignantly touch on hot social issues like police brutality and racism, but the bullheaded way in which the film approaches these issues ends up totally negating anything it wants to say. Metaphors unravel if you pull at the slightest thread. Jabs at police brutality end up coming off as insensitive and slightly silly. There is a scene where Ward and Jakoby drive up on cops whom are mercilessly beating a few orcs with batons; instead of stopping the cops from beating the orcs or helping the cops arrest them, Ward gives Jakoby a lecture on the meaning of loyalty to the badge. Brutality unfolds behind them while they casually chat in their vehicle; they drive away without giving lending help or even giving a reason for their stop.

I’d be remised if I didn’t mention makeup and creature effects, which look to pull inspiration from the earlier episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (think Xander fighting the praying mantis teacher in S1 E4- Teacher's Pet); the makeup on every single humanoid character is distracting. It’s hard to see any sort of emotion on Jakoby’s face underneath the layers of makeup. “Is he crying?” My roommate asked during one scene. “I don’t know,” I responded. “He’s staring at the ground… so that must mean he’s sad, right?”

But, hey… let’s be real for a minute. Anyone who has intentions to watch a Will Smith fantasy/ buddy-cop/ action movie must know that the film will never win any Oscars (nor any other awards for that matter); the real reason you’d watch this movie is pure, simple, mind-numbing entertainment. So, does this film succeed in entertaining the viewer at least?

No.

I watched this film with my roommates, and after about a half hour, one of my roommates stood, stretched, and said dryly, “I think that’s about enough of that.” He was the smart one. Alas my other roommate and I were already committed. We were like Dante and Virgil in Inferno. We’d passed under the gates warning us to ‘Abandon all Hope,’ and the only way out was through Bright's seven circles of hell, where the end of the film and the credits lay waiting. We would finish the film, and suffer the consequences (mainly boredom).

The action in this film is dull; the gunfights are uninspired, and the magic used is wishy-washy, and the powers granted by this wand are very vague, so we don’t exactly know what could happen if the wand were to fall into the wrong hands. We’re told over and over again that the wand can be used to (yawn) resurrect the Dark Lord, but the implications of this are left for the viewer to decide. Will the realm of Hades bleed over the earth? Will this Dark Lord be worse than Hitler, Caligula, and Vlad the Impaler combined? Who knows, and who cares? The writer and director clearly didn’t, so why should you?

If you are looking for something dumb and (at times) fun, then you could watch this, but please know there are a million other movies out there that are more worthy of your time. Yes, this may be free with your Netflix subscription, but remember that watching this helps Netflix justify putting out subpar product.

If you keep watching crap, they’ll put out more crap.

The reason Hollywood doesn't invest in truly original concepts is because American viewers are okay with sub-par schlock. Critics are panning this movie, as they well should (as I’m writing this, “Bright” is sitting at a 28% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the audience score for this film is much higher, sitting at an 87%.) Lazy writing, unlikeable characters, poorly executed action scenes, and a sad attempted social commentary make for what I would call a very boring, generic movie, but apparently it’s just what the people of America are looking for (“Bright 2” was announced two days before “Bright” dropped on Netflix). Just because something has magic in it does not mean it is magical.

Verdict

Ultimately, the choice is yours- critics everywhere have voiced their criticisms, but that hasn’t stopped Netflix from pressing forward with the sequel. I personally believe that the time I wasted watching this would’ve been better spent trying to melt all the snow in my front yard with a bic lighter. There is a market for this type of movie- it panders to the lowest common denominator. If you’re fine with knowing that what you’re watching is dumber than bovine with brain damage, then by all means tune in.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

The Shape of Water (2017)

Summary:

A mute janitor, responsible for cleaning a government lab during the Cold War, develops a bond with the peculiar creature being housed there.

My Thoughts:

Guillermo Del Toro’s latest addition to the fantasy genre is reminiscent of Pan’s Labyrinth, but in all the right ways. Both “Pan” and “Water” rely heavily on tales from old folklore, myth and legend; and both are magical realism in settings of wartime. While “Pan” tells us a story about the fae, “Water” focuses on mermaids. Del Toro has built a career around his darker fantastical visions; his style is unique in that the magic in the worlds he creates is always secondary to the characters living in that world. He makes us care about the characters; we cry for them when they hurt and laugh with them when they feel happy. As we enter into the fringe of awards season, Shape of Water leads the Golden Globe race with seven nominations for Best Drama, Director, Screenplay, Score and three acting nominations for Hawkins, Jenkins, and Spencer.

Sally Hawkins (“Happy-go-Lucky”) plays the mute janitor, Eliza. Within the first few minutes of the movie, her character’s whimsy sets the tone. She goes about her daily routine in a dancelike fashion, flitting from here to there without a care in the world. It’s hard not to take a liking to Eliza immediately. She converses amiably with her neighbor, Giles, a closeted homosexual, played by Richard Jenkins (“The Cabin in the Woods”). She goes to her job where we are introduced to her effervescent friend and fellow janitor, Zelda (Octavia Spencer, “The Help”). They spend their time mopping the shadowy halls of the facility, Zelda chatting amiably away, until something is brought into a chamber; a large cylinder reminiscent of an isolation chamber, inside is one whom the credits have dubbed Amphibian Man (Doug Jones,“Hellboy”).

In the minutes after learning about the existence of this creature we are giving the foundations of the plot. Michael Shannon’s (“Fahrenheit 451”) tenacious, unflinching character, Richard Strickland, reveals that he’s dragged Amphibian Man out of the dark depths of the Amazon all the way to this tiny seaside town to find out what makes the creature tick, hoping that in studying the creature they might make a breakthrough in breathing without air- something he believes could be very useful in the Space Race against the Russians. Strickland is everything Eliza isn’t; where Eliza is a mute, Strickland is always barking commands; where Eliza is bubbly and mischievous, Strickland is always down to business, no nonsense. The two characters dance around each other creating perfect balance in celluloid. Michael Stuhlbarg (“Call Me By Your Name”) plays Dr. Robert Hoffstetler, a scientist first and foremost, but he’s also doubling as a spy for the Russians. With the characters set on the murky stage, the story begins.

Perhaps the best part of this movie is the believability of the actions taken by the characters and the changes they endure as a result. Every character, no matter how small, is dynamic; they all learn something, and different things drive them each of them towards their goals. Even Strickland, the villain of the film, has specific reasons for what he does, and though he isn’t a sympathetic character, he is one who’s actions are easy to understand when looking at it from his perspective. Giles, Zelda, and Hoffstetler, too, all have their own moral dilemmas they go up against, and each one handles it in a way that makes perfect sense for their characters.

The actors here are all veterans of their craft. Of the top billed cast only Doug Jones and Michael Stuhlbarg have yet to be nominated for an Oscar; the talent soaks through the screen without filter. Hawkins and Shannon steal the show for the majority of the movie, but Doug Jones manages to evoke a surprising amount of emotion and convey his curiosity even under all the makeup. Hawkins’s presence is something to behold, as she has next to no actual dialogue, she still manages to captivate the audience through her mannerisms and personality quirks. Her character’s happy-go-lucky nature shifts seamlessly into open defiance against Strickland, a change we are all too excited to witness. Shannon is phenomenal as always. While not nearly as subtle as he was in “Nocturnal Animals” or “Take Shelter”, he gives a chilling performance as a man driven to complete his work, even if it drives him to the brink of insanity.

Another fantastic element, one that rarely lacks in any of Del Toro’s films, is the production design. The film has a teal hue that permeates throughout, water spills, drips and pours over nearly every frame, much of the lighting is done from above and has shimmering elements to it- as if the whole movie were lit underwater. Many of patterns on the walls in the government facility look like ripples or waves. Water being in the title, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that water is featured prominently throughout the film, but Del Toro has found a way to make water flow through this film even when there’s none on screen. The design of Amphibian Man is flawless, and while it’s clearly paying homage to the “Creature from the Black Lagoon”, the design is far improved from the 1954 classic Universal Monster flick. Much like the Faun in Pan’s Labyrinth, the character relies on heavy prosthetic makeup instead of CGI, something that works to the advantage of the aesthetic- the creature feels far more tactile this way.

This is not necessarily a weakness, per say, but it is something that may turn off a number of viewers. The theme of this film revolves around love and the unconditional nature of truly unselfish love. There are brief, fragile glimpses of this type of love through the film; between Giles and the Diner owner, Zelda and the husband she complains about constantly but loves regardless. As the story progresses, a romantic interspecies relationship develops. While the story is meant to convey the idea that all love is valid, some viewers may find the relationship between Elisa and Amphibian Man a bit too strange for them. Indeed, during one of the more physical scenes of the movie I heard exclaimed from the darkened theatre a quiet uttering of the word “gross,” to which there arose a warbling of giggles. I have a hard time believing that those who can’t get past this will fully appreciate the movie; some suspension of disbelief is required for the full impact.

It is a fantasy film, after all.

Verdict

It’s rare that a fantasy film is made this well, and rarer still that the characters are so relatable and the themes are so relevant today. Del Toro has proven time and again that he knows how to create magical worlds with real emotional impact, and though this film doesn’t quite live up to “Pan’s Labyrinth” (a movie I consider to be very close to perfect), it does create a world that is unforgettable, beautiful, and, most importantly, magical. The ancient theme of love conquers all, while well-worn, still has a place in today’s world, and this film does a wonderful job of addressing the fragility and nature of misunderstood love. Fans of fantasy would be hard pressed to find a better genre film this year.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele

The Tenant (1976)

Summary:

Trelkovsky is a young bachelor renting an apartment in Paris which had previously belonged to a woman who’d committed suicide. The longer he stays at the apartment, the more paranoid he becomes about the intentions of his callous neighbors.

My Thoughts:

Reader’s Note: Before diving into the claustrophobic world of The Tenant I’d like to address the inevitable elephant in the room that unfortunately comes with every Polanski film. No, I do not approve of Polanski’s personal choices in life, but I do find his work compelling. It also does not escape me that this was the last film Polanski made before becoming a fugitive from the US following the Samantha Geimer incident. Now more than ever, as the #MeToo movement erupts across Hollywood, the question of whether or not we can judge art separately from the artist hangs in the air. I don’t have an answer for that question; you must make that choice yourself. If you’d like to hear more of my thoughts the Polanski /Geimer incident, I urge you to check out my review for “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”.

This film is the final and often forgotten about entry in Polanski’s Apartment Trilogy (following “Repulsion” and “Rosemary’s Baby”). The apartment trilogy is not being a conventional trilogy with a continuing storyline, instead the films center round similar themes of claustrophobia, sexual repression, paranoia and slow descent into madness. These are themes around which Polanski has built a career.

“Filthy little brat!”

When looking for an apartment to rent in Paris, Trelkovsky (Polanski, “The Fearless Vampire Killers”) wanders into a tall, narrow, gothic building where there is a room for rent on one of the upper floors. The vacancy is good news for Trelkovsky, but the reason for the opening, he soon learns, is because the previous tenant threw herself out the window (when touring the room he peers curiously out the window and sees the exact spot where she fell). Before moving in, Trelkovsky meets a curmudgeonly old neighbor (Melvyn Douglas, ”Being There” ) who complains about the woman who’d committed suicide, and all the racket she made. Trelkovsky reassures the man that he’s a quiet bachelor; the neighbor retorts, “Bachelors can be a problem, too.”

So begins the standoff.

One night, soon after moving in, Trelkovsky has a few friends over for a housewarming party, including a young woman named Stella (Isabelle Adjani, “Possession”). They drink, put on a few records, and talk quietly amongst themselves, but apparently, not quietly enough, for soon the neighbors are rapping on the door and calling for the music to be shut off and his friends to leave. Desperate to make a good impression, Trelkovsky decides he’ll keep to himself when he’s home, so as to make as little noise as possible, but in doing so he retreats into isolation. Paranoia sets in. Was there someone watching him from the dark apartment across the road? Is there someone waiting in the stairway outside his door? Who were the people wandering down in the shadows of the street? Is he being too loud as he walks about? Are his neighbors in on some malevolent plot together? What really happened to the woman who lived in the apartment before him?

Many horror films today shy away from the psychological reasons of why things scare us, instead opting for blood, gore and nudity (look at half the films included in 31 Nights of Thrills). Those films are fine if you’re looking to kill some time on a rainy afternoon. By the time you go to bed, you’ll have forgotten about the horrors you saw earlier that day. Not so with Polanski’s films. Polanski shies away from gore and guts, and instead he likes to linger on the terror of confusion. He likes to play with your emotions and make you wonder what’s gathering in the dark corners. Many times the viewer isn’t sure what is real and what isn’t. Even after the credits roll there are some questions left unanswered, or answered ambiguously. The confusion that Polanski creates for the character bleeds from the screen into the viewer’s mind, seeping deeper and lingering longer than any splatterfest today.

Fans of Polanski’s work will recognize the deliberate pacing associated with his other films (“Rosemary’s Baby” in particular); the film starts off slowly before building to its shocking, horrific climax. Polanski dazzles in taking the reins as director, lead actor, and co-writer of this brilliant piece of cinema. As his character sinks further into madness, his performance never slips. He lingers on the things that make us uncomfortable, and delights in shocking us with a disturbing ending. The viewer never really knows what is going to happen next, and even when we think we’ve figured it out, there always seems to be something else we hadn’t expected. As a horror film it succeeds in shocking, exhilarating and disturbing the audience.

Verdict

While I cannot recommend “The Tenant” to everyone, there are certainly people who will see it for the masterful work of art that it is. The film is slow but it is very rewarding for those who stick it out to the end. For fans of 70’s cinema, claustrophobic thrillers and twisty plots this film will be a delight… maybe not a delight- but certainly a thrill.

Review Written By:

Seth Steele