Category Archives: Drama

Cruise Tries His Best to Save ‘American Made’

Leave a reply

american_made_filmTom Cruise did some damage to his reputation this past summer with “The Mummy” so at least this earned him back a little bit of street cred…

 

“American Made” is the based-on-a-true-story tale of Barry Seal, a commercial airlines pilot who began smuggling guns for the CIA and cocaine for the Medellín Cartel in the 1980s. Cruise stars alongside Domhnall Gleeson, Sarah Wright and Jesse Plemons as Doug Liman directs.

 

The trailer for this film seemed pretty mundane, to put it nicely. It’s not that it looked bad but given Cruise’s recent slump, partnered with the typically bland September release date and a sense of “been there, done that” I just wasn’t really looking forward to this, even though I do tend to enjoy Cruise and love me a period piece. And “American Made” is essentially exactly what the trailers pitch it as, so how much the trailers gave you pleasure will likely equal your level of enjoyment from this film.

 

There is a lot going on in this film and a 117 minute runtime isn’t enough to do all the stories justice. Barry Seal lived an incredibly fascinating life and if Liman had just stuck to what Seal knew and saw then perhaps that would have been sufficient enough for the film. However, he crams upwards of 10 years of events and several threads into the runtime and it leads to some lulls and pacing issues, and a lack of identity.

 

There’s a little bit of “Narcos” with the involvement of Pablo Escobar and the Cartel, a little bit of “Goodfellas” because of the setting and the style the film is shot in and a dash of “Wolf of Wall Street” because a hard-working (good looking and charismatic) underachiever suddenly makes more money than he knows what to do with by illegal means. We’ve been down all these roads before and those roads led to much better mediums than “American Made.”

 

Tom Cruise’s star may be fading in the United States but he shows here he can still carry a movie. Unlike “The Mummy” Cruise is able to play a cocky jerk (his trademark) and for the most part is why this film works; he gets some good one-liners and seems to be having fun. Unfortunately there really isn’t much arch to his character, as we are introduced to him flying commercial planes then in the very next scene he is recruited by the CIA. We don’t really get too much of a look into his life before the smuggling began, and the struggles or lack of fulfillment in his life that would lead him to take on such a venture.

 

The aesthetics of the film are all mostly good, with a solid soundtrack and production value that places you in the world of 1980 Columbia and Arkansas, and the cinematography by César Charlone emphasizes use of handheld cameras, which adds to the dizzying and frantic nature of Seal’s story.

 

There are some things to like about “American Made” but they all feel like smaller parts ripped from better movies (or at least stories that each deserve their own better movie). Still, fans of Cruise should find enough to enjoy here and if you want to get out to the theater but killer clowns and spy sequels aren’t your thing then you can do worse at the movies right now. Unlike Barry Seal, however, just know what you’re getting into before making the call.

 

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘War for the Planet of the Apes’ Looks Great, but That’s About It

Leave a reply

War_for_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_poster

First Kevin Spacey in “Baby Driver” then Michael Keaton in “Spider-Man: Homecoming” and now Woody Harrelson: I keep forgetting how much I love certain actors until they show up on screen.

 

“War for the Planet of the Apes” is the third film in the reboot/prequel series and follows the final confrontation between the Apes, led by Caesar (Andy Serkis in motion capture), and the humans, led by a merciless Colonel (Harrelson). Steve Zahn, Amiah Miller and Gabriel Chavarria also star as Matt Reeves returns to directs.

 

I enjoyed the first “Planet of the Apes” reboot, “Rise,” as it was a fresh take on a worn franchise and featured a (to me, at least) always likable James Franco. Its sequel, “Dawn,” was a letdown as it was never as much fun as it should’ve been (an ape riding a horse wielding duel machine guns should be a blast) and despite its clear intentions, fell into standard blockbuster territory instead of an emotional drama. This follow-up is more of the same, as it’s visually striking but narratively weak, resulting in a middle-of-the-road, at times monotonous, experience.

 

As to be expected, Andy Serkis again shows why he is the king of motion capture as he plays the king of the apes. Every one of Serkis’ squints, lip quivers and growls are depicted on the face of Caesar the ape and there are scenes where you are transcended by it; I’m sure we’ll have to sit through another “give Andy Serkis his Oscar!” campaign this fall.

 

Woody Harrelson is the best part of the film, however, playing the iron-fisted military leader. Having lost his son to the same disease that wiped out most of humanity, Harrelson is determined to keep humans as the dominant species. He shares two fantastic scenes with Serkis where both men are at the top of their game, and makes you question what really are the traits that separate man from beast?

 

The film is visually constructed well, too, with Reeves again trying to use as many practical effects and sets as possible. Mostly set in a snowy military base in Northern California, there are plenty of moments of visual awe to behold. In what is basically Ape Auschwitz, Reeves sets up plenty of simple and subtle visual cues to concentration camps that I was impressed by.

 

However then he feared that the audience would be too stupid to understand a “Schindler’s List” reference, so he takes things one step further to ensure everyone gets that this prison is a bad place and the humans are evil. It’s this refusal to stay subtle that is one of my biggest faults with the film.

 

If there was a dedication to subtlety here then I would appreciate the film a whole lot more, but Reeves (who also co-wrote the script) doesn’t trust his audience to be able to understand imagery. Instead, he chooses to have Caesar have continuous hallucinations of his former ape rival to show the audience that eventually all apes (and people) fall victim to hate. Visual similarities to a Nazi concentration camp not clear enough? Let’s have the victims start getting whipped to liken things to slavery. And much like “Captain America: Civil War” there’s the overlying message that revenge is bad and won’t bring the people you love people back, no matter how much you try; children’s stuff.

 

The final conflict is impressive and surely where a lot of the $150 million budget went, but much like “Dawn” it’s just never as much fun as it should be.

 

“War for the Planet of the Apes” is going to be about as good as you thought “Dawn” was. If Serkis’ motion capture performance and the imagery of apes riding horses through a post-apocalyptic landscape is enough for you then you’ll enjoy it; but if you like films with engaging narratives and emotional payoffs, then this will be yet another disappointment.

 

Critics Rating: 5/10

war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes

Subtle Performances Elevate ‘The Exception’

The_Exception

Christopher Plummer’s lone Oscar was a career achievement award and I think the man has been criminally underrated in his career.

“The Exception” is a romantic drama set in the early years of World War II. The plot follows a young Nazi officer (Jai Courtney) who is sent to keep an eye on the exiled German Emperor Wilhelm II (Plummer), only to fall in love with one of his maids (Lily James). David Leveaux makes his feature film directorial debut after a career in stage work.

 

I love me a WWII-set drama. Even when the films themselves may be a bit underwhelming (“Allied”), the setting and production design usually sucks me into what is one of my favorite time periods in human history. Things are no different here, as while certain aspects of the film fail to deliver as much as they’d like, the setting, and a subtly brilliant performance by Christopher Plummer, make this one worth checking out.

 

Like I said up top, although he finally won an Oscar for “Beginners,” I feel Christopher Plummer doesn’t get the love he deserves. He quietly steals the show in films like “Inside Man” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and the 87-year-old is masterful again here. Plummer brings a sense of warmth to the Kaiser and I cherished every scene he was in. He makes you sympathize with him without feeling pity, relate without empathizing.

 

Following a surprisingly solid performance in “Suicide Squad,” Jai Courtney again shows that perhaps he can in fact act after all. There’s a running joke that Courtney is a bland and charismatic-less actor who Hollywood has tried to shove down our throats following top billing in big-budget blockbusters like “A Good Day to Die Hard” and “Terminator: Genisys,”  but I have to hand it to Courtney: he does a surprisingly nimble job here. Playing a Nazi with dark past and conflicting loyalties, Courtney never over-acts or makes you roll your eyes, which at this point in his career is a compliment.

 

Mostly taking place in Wilhelm’s mansion, the production design is a solid recreation of 1940 Netherlands. German cars and Nazi banners roam the grounds while chipped paint and rusted bedframes fill the bedrooms; much like the film’s performances the attention to detail is subtle but appreciated.

 

Where the film falters is its execution of its narrative. The film reveals that there is a British spy somewhere on the grounds and it is Courtney’s job to find them; however instead of building to some great twist, the culprit is revealed in the first 20 minutes. The romance between Courtney and James never fully feels fleshed out or earned, either, as they share just a few scenes together and we are to believe they fall in love over several days simply because they slept together.

 

“The Exception” is far from the best World War II film (it’s not even the best WWII romance to be released in the past year) and it is certainly forgettable. Normally a romantic thriller that struggles with both its romance and its thrills would turn out to be a disaster; however if you appreciate the time period and some fine performances, including a stunning Christopher Plummer, then I think this film may be an exception to the rule.

 

Critics Rating: 6/10

A24

A24

Tupac Biopic ‘All Eyez on Me’ Isn’t Very Well Made, but I Liked it Anyways

Leave a reply

AllEyez_posterYou know those movies that you’re aware aren’t that good but you can’t help but enjoy anyways? That’s this.

 

“All Eyez on Me” is the long delayed and long overdue biopic about the rapper Tupac Shakur. Demetrius Shipp Jr., whose father worked with Tupac on one of his albums, plays the late artist as Kat Graham, Dominic L. Santana, Hill Harper and Danai Gurira also star. Benny Boom directs.

 

The behind-the-scenes stories of what it took to get this film made are interesting enough to be a movie on their own. It went through several directors, including Antoine Fuqua and John Singleton, as well as a handful of legal trouble and lawsuits, including pushback from Shakur’s mother. However it is finally hitting the big screens and while it is no “Straight Outta Compton,” and one could argue it’s not even that good at all, there is something about “All Eyez on Me” that I just found enjoyable.

 

I loved “Straight Outta Compton” so when they announced that Tupac was getting a biopic it only seemed natural and I was intrigued. The trailers for this were a bit of a mixed bag, with half being intense and gripping while the other half felt like they were stitched together by a film student and the finished product is a lot like that, too. There are parts that are engaging, interesting and worthy of Tupac’s legacy; however just as often the film is a sloppy mess that doesn’t know how to get from scene to scene.

 

As the lead role Demetrius Shipp Jr. shines. He is a spitting image of Tupac, to the point it is almost eerie, and he does a good job (for the most part) of capturing that charismatic smile that Shakur had, as well as some of the more emotionally heavy scenes with his mother.

 

The rest of the cast do solid work, too, but Shipp is really the only one with enough screen time to be considered a main character. Others flow in-and-out of the film depending on what the current scene requires, with Tupac’s friends Jada Pinkett (Kat Graham) and The Notorious B.I.G. (Jamal Woolard, reprising his role from 2009’s “Notorious”) showing up here and there. Dominic L. Santana takes over the role of Suge Knight from “Compton’s” Ryan Marcos Taylor and he does alright. The man has the large frame, beard and scowl that Knight had, however he never captures the same intimidating sense that Taylor showed in 2015.

 

The scenes that work best in the film are when Tupac is on stage, which makes sense because director Benny Boom is best known for his music videos. I constantly found myself nodding my head and moving my feet in my seat, and I forgot just how many hits Tupac had that I was familiar with; even critics of the film as a whole won’t be able to deny the powerful pleasures of its musical moments.

 

But when the film isn’t focused on Tupac’s musical career is where the real faults lie. The first half is lazily told through flashbacks as Tupac talks to a reporter while in jail for sexual assault (a topic the film brushes over and almost villainizes his victim for) and things are really choppy. Boom wouldn’t know subtlety if it hit him in the back of the head and he makes sure you know exactly how every character is feeling at every moment and even puts location and date stamps at the start of near every scene, because he’s not a strong enough visual director to get either point across on his own.

 

The ending is also cheesy and over-the-top and knocked my enjoyment down a little bit, just because it doesn’t tug at you as much as it should and Boom and the screenwriters, again, take such a by-the-numbers and straightforward approach that it’s just indolent.

 

At two hours and 20 minutes, “All Eyez on Me” does not justify its runtime and had it been cut down to a solid 120 minutes then I think this could have been a genuinely good movie. That being said I still enjoyed a lot of it, almost like it is a TV movie spiritual sequel to “Straight Outta Compton,” and I think if you’re willing to overlook some of the lazier execution and excessive runtime then there’s enough here to like.

 

Critics Rating: 6/10

Summit Entertainment

Summit Entertainment

‘Alien: Covenant’ a Gory, at Times Laggy Adventure

Leave a reply

Alien_Covenant_Teaser_PosterRidley Scott is 79 years old and still competently directing major Hollywood movies and meanwhile I’m 23 and can barely make toast without burning it…

“Alien: Covenant” is the 6th canon film of the “Alien” franchise and acts as a sequel to 2012’s “Prometheus,” as well as the second of an intended three prequel films by original director Ridley Scott. Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride, Carmen Ejogo and Demián Bichir all star as members of a colony ship that land on an uncharted planet before discovering  a terrifying threat.

I’m not the biggest fan of the “Alien” franchise. I don’t love the first film (I just don’t think it aged well) and the handful of other ones I’ve seen are enjoyably forgettable at best. So I had little interest or anticipation for “Covenant,” although I will see anything with Michael Fassbender and summer blockbusters are my jam. And while “Covenant” may not convert anyone towards “Alien” fandom, it is a decent enough sci-fi adventure with just enough blood and production value to entertain.

I’ll start with the set design and effects, because they’re gorgeous. Ridley Scott has always made great looking films, and often on relatively limited budgets, compared to fellow big Hollywood blockbusters. Despite costing “just” $97 million “Covenant” looks as sleek and investing as anything, with practical location shoots in New Zealand dropping us in a distant world full of lush forests and vast bodies of water. When films like “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” cost $175 million to produce and end up not only being a bad film but looking ugly, Scott really deserves all the praise he gets for stretching every penny (my favorite quote from him: “when you’re spending $250 million on a movie, you should have been fired a year ago”).

The cast all do great work, even Danny McBride who ventures out of his normal R-rated comedy routine. But the real star is Michael Fassbender, who plays the team’s synthetic android. Fassbender is eerie and darkly amusing, and I won’t say why or how but just know he steals the show, and like Scott his dedication to this franchise is to be commended.

Fans of the “aliens bursting out of the humans in bloody fashion” of the original films will be pleased to know that Scott pulls no punches here; this is a very R-rated blood and gore fest. It’s never to the point of getting over-the-top or almost deprecating  like the “Saw” films, Scott knows where to draw the line, but those who are easily squeamish best stay at home; there are two dozen crew members and most are just here to die horrific deaths for our amusement.

The film’s biggest flaws are its pacing and purpose. The first act of the crew discovering and exploring the planet is fantastic and like I said, it all looks incredible. However then the group settles down and hides from the Neomorph aliens and that’s where things slow down and don’t really pick up until the climax; and then the climax suffers from its own issues in the form of faux endings and inconsistent flow. Things just never seem to go along at a steady pace or seem to be building towards anything, which brings me to my other point.

This film really only serves to answer a few leftover questions from “Prometheus” and set up the third prequel film. Most new bits of information we get could really be covered in a few lines of dialogue and not require a two hour, $100 million film to convey, but hey, at least we get an alien bursting out of a man’s chest again, right?

“Alien: Covenant” will please fans of the franchise a lot more than casual filmgoers, but as a non-fan of the franchise I still found enough to enjoy. The film looks great and features some fun, gory kills and for the popcorn crowd that will be enough. Those who like their sci-fi’s with a little more meat and purpose may leave wanting more, but for what it had to do and be, this is a solid late-period Ridley Scott flick.

Critics Rating: 6/10

20th Century Fox

20th Century Fox

It’s Perplexing How Bad ‘The Circle’ Is

Leave a reply

The_Circle_(2017_film)This may be the first ever movie where literally nothing happens.

“The Circle” stars Emma Watson as a young girl who joins a tech company that wants to put cameras everywhere in the world. I really wish I could give more of a plot summary than that, but as I said above: this movie isn’t really about anything. Tom Hanks and Patton Oswald star as the founders of the company and John Boyega is also in it for a minute. James Ponsoldt directs.

Once or twice a year, I randomly pick a movie that I am going to go in with no preconceived notions about; this means I don’t watch any trailers or read any reviews. I chose “The Circle” as one of these films and walked in not knowing much beyond “Emma Watson joins a tech company run by Tom Hanks.” Upon actually seeing “The Circle” I can’t tell you much more about it than it is Emma Watson joining a tech company run by Tom Hanks.

First things first, the script is awful. Based on a book by Dave Eggers, Eggers co-wrote the screenplay with director Ponsoldt. So you have the man who wrote the original work and the person in charge of translating it to the screen, yet somehow their screenplay lacks any vision or coherency. The basic rule of screenwriting is “show don’t tell,” meaning you should have actions explain motivations and feelings, not dialogue. The film abandons this basic principle and decides to have each “character” (I’m using that term liberally because no one is fleshed out) tell the audience what is happening and how they feel; every person a walking exposition machine and none act like real humans.

Emma Watson has never been accused of being a great actress but here she is extra stale and deprived of charismatic as our lead. She is unchanged from the opening shot of the film to the last scene, and it can be argued she actually isn’t even a protagonist worth rooting for. Tom Hanks is implied to be the film’s antagonist, but it is really just because he’s the CEO of a big social media conglomerate and that’s the stigma we hold upon people in those positions. He never does anything evil or make us hope Watson takes him down, and you can tell Hanks is trying his hardest to give his character *something* to do/be.

Ellar Coltrane, best known for starring over a decade in “Boyhood,” is Watson’s childhood friend (I think? It’s truly never fleshed out) and he is truly awful. His dialogue isn’t helping, but his delivery is atrocious and awkward, and had the audience in unintended laughter. The film also features Bill Paxton in his final career role (the only thing this film will ever be remembered for) and he is sympathetic as Watson’s sick father in his few scenes.

Even if we had interesting characters, they wouldn’t have anything to do. There isn’t anything resembling conflict or tension through the entire film, with only one scene in the entire film actually resulting in something resembling consequence, and even that feels unearned because of how ludicrous and unrealistic it is.

Even the editing is subpar. The film as a whole drags, with the runtime clocking in at less than two hours but you feel every second of it. Some of the way scenes are spliced together are also awkward, especially one where Watson and a friend are having a conversation in two different bathroom stalls but the camera is framed at the same angle for both women so every time is cuts back and forth it is jarring.

The one thing the film has going for it is its concept. Although the “Big Brother is always watching you” idea is about five years too late to be sci-fi and is now pretty much an accepted reality, the film does make a few good points about how willing people are to sacrifice privacy for convenience, and that maybe the tech companies don’t have our best interest at heart. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

“The Circle” is more boring than it is bad. Don’t get me wrong, this is not a good movie, but at least it seems the people involved were trying; this isn’t an Adam Sandler joint. Unfortunately, their efforts are nowhere near enough to make this watchable. Not as enjoyable as a Periscope feed and featuring less drama than your aunt getting in a political argument on Facebook, “The Circle” is a square.

Critics Rating: 2/10

the-circle

‘Beauty and the Beast’ a Colorful but Pointless Remake

Leave a reply

Beauty_and_the_Beast_2017_posterMaybe they should just let Jon Favreau direct all the live-action Disney remakes…

“Beauty and the Beast” is a remake of the 1991 animated film of the same name (first animated film ever nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, fun fact). Emma Watson and Dan Stevens star as the titular characters, with Luke Evans, Kevin Kline, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson filling out the rest of the ensemble cast. Bill Condon directs.

So far, Disney’s reimaginings of their classic animated films has been relatively successful, with each adaption being better than the last. “Maleficent” was met with mixed reviews, most people liked “Cinderella” and last year’s “The Jungle Book” was universally praised. Films like “Mulan” and “The Lion King” have already gotten the remake green light, but hopefully they do a better job bringing their stories to the real world than Condon does with “Beauty and the Beast,” which is a colorful and at times heart-warming, but also empty tale.

Emma Watson is our Belle, and while she’s no Paige O’Hara she is a solid leading lady. She can hold her own singing and is attractive but doesn’t stand out so much that it’s unbelievable, like someone with modern day Hollywood looks would in a mid-1700s French village may do. Dan Stevens is fine in a mostly motion-capture performance, although we never really feel any real reason to root for him other than we know the story. The Beast design is alright, but I can’t help but feel practical effects would have been better suited here (Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy compared to his “Hobbit” films forever showed us that practical > CGI).

The real stars of the show are Luke Evans as the dastardly Gaston and Josh Gad as the bumbling LeFou. Evans is pitch-perfect as the alpha-male villain and his chemistry with Gad is phenomenal; if the film did anything well it was its casting of these two in their respective roles. Gad, who can be annoying in some films but is undeniably talented, has some great one-liners and facial expressions and provides the film’s biggest laughs. Maybe you heard about censor-run countries like Russia and Malaysia threatening to boycott the film because Condon chose to make Gad’s character openly gay, but it’s a non-factor to the plot and you wouldn’t even notice if people made a big pout about it.

Quick sidenotes: there are two bits of irony with the casting of the film. Originally, Ryan Gosling was in talks to star as the Beast but he backed out to star in “La La Land,” which landed him an Oscar nod. Conversely, Emma Watson was set to star in “La La Land” but dropped out to star in this, and she ended up being a Disney princess and earning $15 million. Neither likely regrets their decision. Also, Gad’s LeFou marks the first gay character in a Disney film but ironically, the ultra-masculine red-blooded playboy Gaston is played by the openly gay Evans. All just things I found interesting.

Back to the review.

There are certain aspects and scenes that people are going to be interested to see, such as the “Be Our Guest” musical sequence. Most will find it charming, with the entire thing seemingly being shot-for-shot of the 1991 film, although it does get a little distracting by the end with so much getting thrown at the screen.

Almost all of the musical numbers have something wrong with them, to be honest. Each of the ensemble pieces get muddled together and it is hard to make out the lyrics, similar to the opening highway scene in “La La Land,” and Stevens has a solo which just comes off as awkward. Emma Thompson’s rendition of “Beauty and the Beast” is the most pitch-perfect and resonating of any of the songs, and the scene itself is sure to kick up the nostalgia feels. And the score by Alan Menken is as memorizing as anything.

The biggest problem with the film as a whole is Condon’s handling of the material, and not sure if he should be honoring, recreating or reimagining the original story. The animated film is 84 minutes long, this one is 129 and that extra 45 minutes of padding is felt. Belle is given a backstory about her mother we don’t care about and the film tries to be relevant to 2017 audiences but none of it seems important.

This whole film seems unimportant, in fact, it never gives us a reason for it to even exist outside pleasing die-hard fans of the original and having Disney make a few hundred million dollars. Remakes should have a purpose: “The Jungle Book” was revolutionary with its special effects and put a new spin on an old tale, and films like “The Departed” introduce a great story to American audiences. In 10 years, no one will be talking about the “Beauty and the Beast” remake, much less imploring anyone to watch it.

“Beauty and the Beast” has an A-list cast and pretty costumes, and at times they mesh well to create a fun, nostalgic trip. Josh Gad and Luke Evans are fantastic together (seriously, we need these two to star in a sitcom, “The Gaston and LeFou Show”) and Watson is solid in the leading role. However all-too-often Condon doesn’t know what he wants to do, and the pacing and delivery of the film suffer from it. “Beauty and the Beast” is not a bad movie, it’s just not particularly very good, and while Watson may be the belle of the ball, the film is the belle of the blah.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Walt Disney

Walt Disney

‘Logan’ a Depressing, Bloody Sendoff

Leave a reply

Logan_2017_posterI’m all for trying to shake up the typical superhero formula, but there has to be some sort of a means to an end…

 

“Logan” marks the ninth and final time of Hugh Jackman playing everyone’s favorite clawed X-Man, and this time he must escort Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and a young mutant (Dafne Keen) from Texas to the Canadian border. Richard E. Grant, Boyd Holbrook and Stephen Merchant also star as James Mangold returns to direct.

 

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” Jackman’s first solo outing as the character in 2009, was botched on almost every front (except for his performance) and is often cited as one of the worst superhero films ever made. His second attempt in 2013, “The Wolverine,” faired a better, with the Japanese and samurai mythos really carrying the film until it betrayed its tone with a cartoony climax. This time around, thanks to the success of R-rated “Deadpool” last February, Jackman got his R-rated swansong; it’s just a shame we aren’t ending things on better terms.

 

On a technical level, there isn’t much wrong with “Logan.” It looks good, with settings ranging from dusty, sun-soaked Texas to lush, green North Dakota, and for the most part the action is captured well by cinematographer John Mathieson. Mangold and company take advantage of the R rating and don’t shy away from Logan eviscerating henchmen left and right. There are some points where the action does get extra-bloody and they overcompensate, like showing a man get decapitated and having his bloody head roll around. It’s almost as if to make up for the past 17 years of us having to use our imaginations as to what happens when a man with claws impales a human.

 

Jackman portrays Logan at his most broken-down and vulnerable we’ve ever seen him, although at some points it is hard to see where Jackman’s take on the character ends and his own exhaustion of the role begins. No one is questioning his dedication to the character that he will forever be synonymous with, however there are times throughout the film it appears he is simply going through the motions, which may not even entirely be his fault, as stepping to the same shoes for almost two decades may make putting on that façade second nature.

 

There are some attempts at humor, and a lot of them do hit thanks to Patrick Stewart’s dry British wit, Jackman’s growling delivery or newcomer Dafne Keen’s nuanced actions, even if it is at the expense of creating a slightly-tonally confused narrative.

 

Which brings me to my biggest gripe about “Logan” and that is its tone and delivery of its story. Like I started off with, I have no problem with films trying to reinvent the wheel of their respective genre, so that “Logan” wants to be a gritty, grim and realistic take on one of the more tortured souls of the comic book world is fine with me. However the pacing of the story is equally as bleak, with the action all too often not coming across as fun and more so as numbing, and the character moments, as well-acted as they are, feel weary.

 

“Logan” is made with the best intentions and diehard fans of the character and comics will find more to love in here than the casual filmgoer, but otherwise the film is a letdown, and drags for many portions throughout. If this truly is Hugh Jackman’s final bow as the character of Wolverine then he deserved better, but just as the film strives to tell us: no matter how dark and unsatisfying the world is, you just have to keep on grinding along.

Critics Rating: 5/10

20th Century Fox

20th Century Fox

‘Split’ has Great Performances but Weak Execution

Leave a reply

Split_(2017_film)An ending can often make or break a film; a strong case can be made this film’s ending breaks it.

 

“Split” is the latest film from writer/director M. Night Shyamalan and follows a man with a multiple personality disorder (James McAvoy) who kidnaps three teenage girls (Anya Taylor-Joy, Haley Lu Richardson and Jessica Sula).

 

A lot of people have given up on M. Night Shyamalan as a filmmaker, writing him off as a two-hit wonder from 2000. However after his 2015 film “The Visit,” some people maintained hope that Shyamalan maybe had some magic left in him. And while “Split” isn’t a masterpiece, it offers a fantastic central performance from James McAvoy and some decent thrills and chills, although it can’t stick the landing in the climax.

 

Through most of the time I was watching this I kept getting a “10 Cloverfield Lane” vibe, and not just because both films focus on hostages trapped in a basement by a captive who treats them decently enough but has unclear motives. There is a sense of claustrophobia and tension around the whole film, not knowing character’s backstories and what is driving them creates a mystery within itself.

 

James McAvoy is the best part of the film and frankly why it works at all. He technically turns in six or seven different performances, with his Kevin having the personality of an eight-year-old child one second and a middle-age fashion designer the next. McAvoy does wardrobe changes to coincide with his personalities but what is brilliant about his performance are the subtle differences of his personalities. One may twitch, another has a gentler stare, and it really is great work that much like John Goodman in “Cloverfield Lane” would probably get award talk if it came out in the fall instead of the first quarter of the year.

 

Anya Taylor-Joy, praised for her work in “The Witch” and the only good thing about “Morgan,” does a fine job as the “leader” of the captive girls and harbors some secrets of her own. Like McAvoy she has to convey a range of emotions and wear emotional masks, and she continues to show why her stock is on the rise.

 

Characters and performances aside, however, the film has problems. It is a slow-burn narrative however that doesn’t excuse its 117 minute runtime for feeling like it is well over two hours long. By the time the film was approaching its climax I thought to myself, “ok, this ending has to be pretty amazing to be worth all this build up.” And it wasn’t.

 

Despite being Shyamalan there isn’t a real twist ending and anything that could have been considered surprising is either foreshadowed or flat-out explained halfway through the film. There are also flashback sequences that end up having near nothing to do with the actual plot itself, and a surprise at the very end of the film will be a joy for those who pick up on the reference but disaffecting for those who don’t.

 

“Split” has a decent setup and features a fantastic performance from James McAvoy and for some that may be enough. However those who want a truly thrilling hostage film with a classic Shyamalan twist and reveal may be left disappointed.

 

Critics Rating: 6/10

Universal Pictures

Universal Pictures

‘Allied’ a Slow-Burning Thriller Worth Watching

Leave a reply

Allied_(film)Part of me spent the entire runtime of this film hoping it would turn out to be an “Inglourious Basterds” spin-off…

 

“Allied” stars Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard as two spies in World War II who meet and fall in love during a mission to assassinate a German official. Jared Harris, Lizzy Caplan and Matthew Goode also star as Robert Zemeckis directs.

 

This is one of those films that on the surface screams awards season, if not Oscar-bait. Two Academy Award-winning stars and an acclaimed director teaming up to make a WWII period drama released in November? It’s clear what they want to sell this as. Well it turns out “Allied” isn’t really interested in awards (we’ll touch on that), nor is it really centered on the plot its trailers have been selling (again, more on that in a second) but is an old-fashioned adult spy thriller that, for the most part, is fine entertainment.

 

First things first, the performances are all solid here, but duh. Brad Pitt is never bad (as much as it’s near impossible to see him as a character and not just “Brad Pitt pretending to be [blank]”) and Marion Cotillard is hardly ever bad (we’ll give her a pass for “Dark Knight Rises,” there were way worse things about that film than her death scene). The two have good chemistry and sell their characters, making us buy into their romance but still question their motives.

 

The production value and costume design are both top notch and really put you into the 1942 settings of WWII North Africa and England. This is where my note about awards comes in, as this film will be what I pick for my Oscar ballot to win those two categories; the score is also mesmerizing.

 

The biggest problem with “Allied” is it isn’t fully sure what it wants to be, or at least refuses to commit to it. The trailers sell it like the whole film will revolve around Pitt trying to find out if Cotillard is a German spy, but in actuality that plot point doesn’t come into play until the halfway mark. The main plot of the film, at its core, is the love story between these two spies, with a war-torn city as its backdrop.

 

And I am fine with that, I dug the immersion into the world, but it creates some riffs and some slogs and the middle of the film, transitioning from their assassination mission to Pitt becoming aware of her possible spy-ness (a term?), does slow down and you just want something to happen that isn’t a picnic with their baby.

 

By the time the credits began to roll, I can say I enjoyed “Allied” enough to recommend it, but also issue a grain-of-salt warning that it is a slow-burner and there are some people who won’t be engrossed by love plot or distracted by the time period and will find the whole ordeal boring. But hey, this is my review and I’m saying if you like the stars, the setting or good ole fashioned spy thrillers, then this is a type of film seldom made anymore worth checking out.

 

Critics Rating: 7/10

Paramount Pictures

Paramount Pictures