Tag Archives: review

‘The Invisible Man’ Review

Well, Blumhouse Productions saved the “Halloween” franchise when it appeared DOA, so guess they’re here to resuscitate the Universal monsters, too.

“The Invisible Man” is a modern telling of the classic H.G. Wells novel, as well as the 1933 film. The reboot stars Elisabeth Moss as a woman who escapes from an abusive relationship, only to begin to believe her former partner (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) has found a way to make himself invisible and is stalking her. Aldis Hodge, Storm Reid and Harriet Dyer also star, as Leigh Whannell writes and directs.

Blumhouse is a fascinating beast because for every stinker they put out like “Black Christmas” they’ll create a gem like “Get Out.” However, I’ve written before how I admire and appreciate Blumhouse, as in a world of films becoming products and studios obsessing over creating shared universes they offer filmmakers complete creative control over $5 million budgets. “The Invisible Man” originally was going to be rebooted with Johnny Depp in the title role as part of Universal’s planned “Dark Universe,” however after “The Mummy” was terrible and bombed, that rendition was scrapped. In stepped Blumhouse, who gave the job to Leigh Whannell, who was fresh off the fantastically fun “Upgrade.” And honestly, for Universal, “The Mummy” bombing was the best thing that could have ever happened to their monsters.

Elisabeth Moss has always been one of those actors you know will turn in a solid performance no matter what she’s in (she was one the bright spots of last summer’s perfectly fine “The Kitchen”). Here she plays a woman trying to recover from a broken and abused past, and she portrays the character in such a way that even though we have just been dropped into her word we feel as if we’ve been mistreated, too. Whether it is struggling to step outside simply to get the mail in fear her ex will somehow find her to feeling she is being watched in an empty house, Moss’ facial expressions speak volumes here, and it really is a solid performance that if released later in the year could’ve gotten darkhorse award chatter.

The script by Whannell is basic at some aspects (not too much of the dialogue pops) but in structure I thought it was great. The film opens with Moss’ escape from the abusive home, and from there we get a slowburn of her slow decent into (apparent) madness. Whannell allows the string to tighten before he snaps it, sometimes having his camera linger on a corner or have large spaces on the side of the frame to make our minds wonder if the Invisible Man is watching the characters or not. There are also a handful of great twists, even if some require some more explanation than the film wants to give us, including one that had the woman next to me cover her mouth and gasp. Whannell is quickly making a name for himself as a director to reckoned with, and just like Jordan Peele I can’t wait to see what he does next.

“The Invisible Man” may not be as thought-provoking as other Blumhouse pics like “Get Out” or even “BlacKkKlansman” but it does offer an insight to the struggles of abusive relationships, and how much control one person can have over another. But perhaps more importantly, it is a horror-thriller film that remembers to be unnerving and thrilling, as well as creative, and that is something that Hollywood seems to forget we like to see in our scary movies. The year wasn’t looking great for the genre early on (both “The Turning” and “The Grudge” earned F CinemaScores from audiences), but here is a film that we didn’t see coming to save the day (you didn’t think I’d go this entire review without an invisible pun, did you?). And with “Candyman,” “A Quiet Place: Part II” and the latest “Halloween” sequel on the horizon, the sun seems to be shining down on us horror fans once again.

Critic’s Rating: 8/10

‘Birds of Prey’ Review

When your film franchise continues to be “that one good one and everything else,” maybe it’s time to call it quits while you’re behind.

“Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)” (the only time I will be typing that entire title) is the eighth installment of the DCEU and a spin-off to 2016’s “Suicide Squad.” Focusing on the titular Harley Quinn (played again by Margot Robbie), the film follows her as she goes on the run from a crime boss (Ewan McGregor) in search of a diamond stolen by a young pick-pocketer (Ella Jay Basco). Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Rosie Perez, Chris Messina and Ali Wong also star as Cathy Yan directs.

I have had a lukewarm-at-best reaction to the DC Extended Universe. I will defend “Batman v Superman” and think 90% of “Wonder Woman” is fantastic, but that’s about it. “Man of Steel” is a slog and “Aquaman,” “Suicide Squad” and “Justice League” are all ugly messes (“Shazam!” is fine, but the fact its climax lasts two hours is too much to bear). When “Birds of Prey” was announced I was mildly intrigued, mostly because it would be rated R and I am big fan of Black Mask, the villain that McGregor plays. I should have known this would just be another DCEU mess, and one that doesn’t even have big special effects or well-known heroes to distract us.

Margot Robbie’s rise to stardom was solidified in 2016 with her portrayal of Harley Quinn in “Suicide Squad,” and even those who did not much enjoy the film praised her performance. So naturally, just like with Rebel Wilson in the first “Pitch Perfect” or the Minions in “Despicable Me,” the studio saw a little side character that audiences enjoyed and thought it would be smart to give them their own two-hour movie. Robbie is so annoying and dumb in this film that it hurts. Her character is a former psychiatrist (meaning she went to school and has an MD) but she just speaks and makes decisions like trailer trash. I know that the character of Harley Quinn is that she became deranged and is unpredictable because the Joker brainwashed her, but you don’t lose IQ points when you give into your inhibitions (the script even has her ramble off a sentence full of big words at one point to demonstrate that she is in-fact still smart in an attempt to have its cake and eat it, too). Her voice is also very grating at points, mixing Robbie’s Bronx-ish accent with a high-pitched cartoon twist, so the fact she narrates the entire film gets old quick.

The rest of the cast is, fine, although I don’t think any of them have any sort of characteristics outside the one trait the film needs from them. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is Deadpan Assassin, Jurnee Smollett-Bell is Singing Fighter, Rosie Perez is a Cliché Cop; we get it. Ewan McGregor starts out fine as Black Mask, injecting some flamboyant life into his scenes, but then something switches and he becomes almost a completely different character from a separate film. He, too, really only has one characteristic (he’s the bad guy so he’s evil!) and has no real motivation. People knock the MCU for having cookie-cutter villains, but they also gave us Killmonger and Thanos, two bad guys who have plans the audience can relate to and see why they are doing what they do. Here, Black Mask (who wears his mask in just one scene, because god-forbid we cover the McGregor face for the trailers) wants a diamond to get rich and wants to kill Harley because… reasons.

The actions scenes are passable, there is one set piece in a police station where Harley rampages with a non-lethal grenade launcher that had me chuckle a few times. But the ending is just quick edits of punching masked disposable bad guys, and the stakes feel so low you just want to go home.

Also, and this is a personal complaint but I had the same issue with Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy: Gotham City has no distinctive (or consistent) feel. This film was shot around Los Angeles, while “Suicide Squad” was filmed in Canada and “Batman v. Superman” in Detroit (and, for what it’s worth, “Joker” in New York City). The color palette is bright and sunny, but the whole city feels like it’s just several blocks; the entire film essentially takes place in three locations.

I’ll quickly touch on the script, and if you haven’t guessed, I was not a fan. On top of thin characters and contradictory logic, the screenplay is just lazy. The film is rated-R but that is barely for the violence; it’s more because this is one of those movies that acts like a 13 year old who just discovered the f-word and awkwardly shoves it into every sentence it can (a grown man and professional business owner shouting “what the f*ckety-f*ck?!” is amusing maybe once, but then just looks foolish). Also, every single male character in the film is either a jerk, a rapist or an idiot, and pretty much every woman is a saint (despite Harley self-proclaiming herself as “a pretty terrible person”). This isn’t even me being a triggered straight white male, as I’m sure Twitter will label anyone who doesn’t like this film. We criticize Michael Bay for having exclusively one-dimensional female characters in his films, or Martin Scorsese and Christopher Nolan for having them only serve the plot, so I’m calling out the sheer laziness and one-sided nature of this film.

“Birds of Prey” is not a female-empowerment film like “Wonder Woman” or even simply a fun female-led one like “Captain Marvel.” It is an ugly-looking, thinly-written and overly-acted mess that offers only the occasional chuckle or moment of intrigue. Margot Robbie tries, and this was surely a passion project for her, but it is just nowhere near good enough. I continue to think the DCEU peaked in 2017 with “Wonder Woman” (let’s hope that sequel lives up to the hype) and Warner Bros. needs to go back to the drawing board. Say what you want about Zack Snyder’s Superman quasi-trilogy, at least those films had ambition and weight, and tried to be something different in the superhero genre. Here, we are left with a wannabe “Deadpool” dressed in “Suicide Squad” clothing, and it fails to clear even the basement-level bar set by its predecessors.

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker’ Review

Remember in 2015 when we were all excited about where a new Star Wars film by Disney could go? Oh, that was fun…

“Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” is the third film of the sequel trilogy and the ninth and final installment of the main Star Wars saga. J.J. Abrams, who directed and co-wrote “The Force Awakens,” returns to both jobs here, while Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Oscar Isaac reprise their roles from the first two installments of the trilogy. Among other returning players are Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Domhnall Gleeson, Lupita Nyong’o, Kelly Marie Tran, Ian McDiarmid and Billy Dee Williams, while Richard E. Grant and Keri Russell join the cast. In the film, the remainder of the Resistance as they prepare for the final face-off against the First Order and the return of Emperor Palpatine.

Overall I have enjoyed Disney’s Star Wars films, with “Rogue One” being one of the best films in the franchise to-date and “The Force Awakens” and “Solo” both being fun, if not familiar romps. I was mixed on “The Last Jedi” and have watched it at least three times in an attempt to see the universal praise that it received from people, but can’t fully get past all its plot holes and cringe moments (however it is hard to fault its ambition and better scenes). “The Rise of Skywalker” is more of the same from “The Last Jedi” in that it has a few good moments but also trips over itself too often for its own good.

One of the reliable things throughout this entire series (and there hasn’t been much consistency) has been the acting and again the cast does a solid job. Adam Driver (likely on his way to his second career Oscar nomination for his great work in “Marriage Story”) is a solid, emotionally conflicted villain as Kylo Ren, even if at this point it is hard to take him seriously as a super powerful bad guy after he lost to Daisy Ridley’s Rey on multiple occasions. Speaking of Ridley, she again conveys a lost girl desperate for answers, although she remains so overpowered that her arc isn’t so much of an arc as a continuously increasing line. John Boyega and Oscar Isaac share some amusing bromance moments and it’s also nice to see Billy Dee Williams return to his iconic Lando Calrissian.

Much like this year’s “Avengers: Endgame,” this film is the culmination of years of story-telling and world-building. However while that film worked its fan service into the plot (pretty much) seamlessly, “Skywalker” is a little more on-the-nose. Some of the appearances and Easter egg references are fun, others range from eye-rolling to cringe.

One of the complaints people had about “The Last Jedi” was that Kathleen Kennedy (the president of Lucasfilm and producer on the trilogy) gave Rian Johnson complete creative control of the sequel and he chose to throw out or ignore so much of what J.J. Abrams set up with “The Force Awakens.” With Abrams returning, he not only had to close out a trilogy and 42 years of a saga, but had to win back fans who felt betrayed by “The Last Jedi.” Abrams attempts to retcon much of the previous film but it only ends up making the whole thing feel disjointed. Palpatine is back despite appearing to die in “Return of the Jedi” and the way they introduce him into this trilogy is so forced it’s hilarious, just because they killed off Snoke unceremoniously. The introduction of Richard E. Grant’s bad guy general is because Domhnall Gleason’s character was made into a whiny cartoon and could no longer be taken seriously. And this isn’t bringing up the numerous bits of dialogue where the characters all but turn and wink to the camera about how they didn’t like the last film.

The first act of the film is full of a bit of exposition and forced catch-up (including that Palpatine intro) but the second act actually moves along at a quick pace and is quite enjoyable. The script by Chris Terrio and Abrams has some entertaining bits of dialogue (especially from the droid characters) and even though the plot is just hopping from place to place, it is fun. But the third act then hits a wall, mainly because it turns into a nonsensical CGI destruction festival that would have made George Lucas’ prequel films blush. It just keeps going and gets stupider and stupider before ending on a line that actually made the woman next to me laugh and shake her head.

“Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” may give enough fan service for diehards, but it will upset people who loved “The Last Jedi” because it doesn’t take many risks and turn off casual Star Wars fans because it’s an objectively sloppy film that doesn’t answer half the questions set up in 2015. I remember walking out of  “The Force Awakens” thinking that it had flaws but it had laid the groundwork for the best Star Wars trilogy to-date; little did I know that we had already peaked. Overall, I would lean more negatively than positive here because the final 40 minutes are a mess, but there are enough entertaining character interactions and “that was cool” visuals to make your obligatory viewing of this anticlimactic final chapter worth at least some of your dollars.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Disney

‘Charlie’s Angels’ Review

And so the “sequel that acts as a soft reboot” trend continues.

“Charlie’s Angels” is the latest installment in the titular spy franchise which began with the 1970s TV series followed by the two films in the early 2000s. This rendition stars Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska as the three new Angels, alongside Elizabeth Banks, Djimon Hounson, Sam Claflin, Noah Centineo and Patrick Stewart. Banks also directs and wrote the screenplay.

This is one of those films, one of those reviews, where it is just a light watch and there’s nothing wrong with that. The three main Angels, Stewart, Scott and Balinska, all have a nice energy about them, and Stewart, returning to studio tentpoles after a stint in the indie world, continues to show that she is capable of succeeding in any genre. Not all of her jokes land, and sometimes Banks’ script has her make these bad quips at the wrong time or on the wrong beat, but Stewart seems to be having a ball and manages to produce a few solid chuckles with her animated movement.

The action sequences are a bit of a mixed bag, as some of them are fun and seem like they were choreographed well, however the editing is so quick (like a cut a second) and the camera is held so close to the actors that it is hard to tell what is going on. I don’t get why movies do this, like why rehearse a fight scene if it’s just going to come across as random chaos, but that’s been a problem for a while so can’t expect this to be the last time we see it.

The plot is, serviceable. It is your classic “we have to find out who is trying to buy this new weapon before it’s too late” storyline, and the few twists that do come into play are pretty predictable. As I touched on with Stewart, Elizabeth Banks’ script (and she also produced, so all flaws on this project truly fall on her shoulders) feels lazy at times, many of the jokes are obvious or dialogue full of exposition (at one point a character explains a plot point we just learned to another, just to ensure the audience caught it).

“Charlie’s Angels” is perfectly sufficient entertainment, although the action is scattershot and the humor only lands every now and again. Based on the reactions from my audience I’m guessing there are Easter eggs sprinkled in for fans of the previous installments, and if you thought the trailers looked fun then I’m sure you’ll get exactly what you want out of this.

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘Us’ is a Mind-Bending Thrill Ride

Well Jordan Peele was able to beat the mediocre freshman directorial debut cliché, so if anyone can stump the sophomore slump it’s him.

“Us” is the second feature from writer-director Jordan Peele, following his Oscar-winning start with “Get Out” in 2017. It follows a family (Lupita Nyong’o, Winston Duke, Shahadi Wright Joseph and Evan Alex) as they are targeted by a group of doppelgänger assailants. Elisabeth Moss and Tim Heidecker also star.

When I first saw “Get Out” I found it to be a good-not-great horror film that maybe bit off more than it could chew. Upon six (!) rewatches, however, I have come to realize Peele had just created a multi-layered screenplay with hidden codes and verbal keys and one watch just wasn’t enough to see the actual brilliance. And I’m not saying “Us” is another award-worthy turn from Peele, but I already know I need another viewing to see if my hindsight theories are correct and for what it’s worth, I like it about as much as my first round of “Get Out.”

What people will surely praise here are the performances of Lupita Nyong’o and Winston Duke, who play not only their real human parents but also the doppelgängers. Nyong’o is often quiet and timid as a result of a past trauma but has moments of shouting when pushed to her limits, and as her double conveys suppressed pain. Duke has lots of chances to flex his charisma and almost dry humor, as well as some physical displays as the doppelgänger.

Peele’s script isn’t meant to hold a mirror to society about race like “Get Out” but instead hold a mirror to ourselves and see that our demons are our own worst enemy. The trailer for the film does give away a few early twists but overall Peele is able to keep the falling dominos coming. Much like “Get Out” (not to keep comparing the two) the ending of this film creates a lot of questions and requires more viewings. What time will have to tell is are there plot holes or just another layered craft.

This film is both more “jokey” and scarier than “Get Out,” and sometimes the humor comes at the expense of a tense sequence. A few of the jokes land and act as levity, but more than one scary scene was compromised by a dad joke at the wrong time. There is also one scene with distractingly bad effects; since Nyong’o can’t be in two places at once they seemingly green screened her in and the outline on her figure and the flat background draw the viewer’s attention away.

The more “Us” sits with me in the two hours since the credits rolled, the more I think I like it. It certainly is an original horror film yet again by Peele, who hopefully doesn’t get typecast as “the horror guy” (he spoke how he feared repeating himself in comedy), and I think that while it may be a tad divisive towards audiences it will age better than most horror films. I look forward to seeing it again and hope that Peele’s third film continues his streak of defeating tropes and clichés.

Critic’s Rating: 7/10

Universal Picture

‘Captive State’ Holds Audiences Hostage with its Boredom

Remember back in 2014 when Netflix was known for its cut-rate made-for-TV movies instead of helming Oscar contenders? Yeah, this film feels like it missed the queue by a few years…

“Captive State” takes place on Earth after an alien species has invaded and forced humanity’s surrender, and follows a small faction determined to start a revolution. John Goodman, Ashton Sanders, Jonathan Majors, Machine Gun Kelly and Vera Farmiga star as Rupert Wyatt directs and co-writes.

When the trailer for this dropped, the few people who saw it (I bet most people don’t even know this film exists) believed it was another “Cloverfield” joint and that John Goodman was playing his character from “10 Cloverfield Lane” who was right about aliens after all. Unfortunately, instead of that possibly interesting story we get a pretty standard rebellion movie with some less-than-convincing effects and way less-than-entertaining alien encounters.

I love John Goodman and was part of the group of people who really wanted award voters to take notice of him back in 2016 with “Cloverfield Lane” because it was arguably a career-best turn from him. Here he is reuniting with “The Gambler” director Rupert Wyatt (who is best known for helming the first and best film of the “Planet of the Apes” reboot trilogy) and he just seems bored. He has a frown on his face the entire time and often seems as lost as the audience. Wyatt intentionally (or maybe not) gives us little information about Goodman’s character in an attempt to murky the waters and not let us know whether or not we can trust him, but the problem is Goodman isn’t the only person running around 2027 Chicago without an arc.

Ashton Sanders, Vera Farmiga, Machine Gun Kelly, all these people are given a job title and name and that is where their character development begins and ends. No personal demons to combat, no past they’re trying to run from or future they’re trying to embrace, just “character #14 in a sci-fi thriller.” Sanders has shown after his “Moonlight” turn that he has some acting chops and can even hold his own alongside Denzel Washington, but here he seems lost and his character literally does get lost for a good chunk of the film.

The alien designs are laughable at best (and just plain ugly and dumb at worst) but Wyatt doesn’t waste any time letting us get a good chuckle in. The aliens are shown in the very first scene, ruining any and all sense of wonder or suspense, and also confusing us the entire film with why the aliens are here and how they actually operate. Some of the other effects would be cheesy by 1977 standards and the climax to the film makes about as much sense as Rami Malek winning Best Actor this past year.

“Captive State” has all the makings of the next classic alien invasion thriller, except for the layered characters, creative creature designs, engaging plot, nail-biting tension and revolutionary special effects. It is the kind of film you would flip on Netflix and have going in the background, and if you were to randomly start watching at any point you would still know about as much as someone who had been paying attention since the opening credit crawl. Skip it. If you’re really jonesing for a movie, go see “Captain Marvel,” save your money for “Us” or go find John Carpenter’s “The Thing.”

Critic’s Rating: 3/10

‘Captain Marvel’ is Pretty Fun Stuff

Ok. I’m a big enough man to admit when I’m wrong.

“Captain Marvel” is the 21st installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the first film to feature Brie Larson as the titular hero. Samuel L. Jackson also stars as a younger version of his Nick Fury character (thanks to the wonders of de-aging technology) while Ben Mendelsohn, Djimon Hounsou, Annette Bening, Clark Gregg and Jude Law also star; Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck direct.

So, there has been a lot of talk surrounding this film for the past year and because its 2019 and nothing makes sense anymore, most of the talk is dumb and holds no weight. Brie Larson and co-director Anna Boden have been on record multiple times stating that this is a feminist film, and that made large groups of Twitter trolls spam the comment sections online. Conversely, trolls on the opposite side attacked anyone who pointed out the objectively bland (and widely criticized) trailers for the film, which were all stale and didn’t do Larson any favors selling the character. I was very vocal with my distaste for the trailers and like many people was nervous about the film and the character’s place in the MCU, but am happy to report that most all my fears ended up being irrational.

One of the complaints about the trailers and worries towards the film was Brie Larson. She is an Oscar winning actress who has also shown her ability to be comedic (“21 Jump Street” and “Trainwreck”), however in the trailers she came off as cold, stoic and unwilling to smile. I’m not sure if this was an attempt by Marvel to troll fans or what, but Larson’s performance in the film is actually full of grins, deadpan one-liners and a range of emotion. She has some nice back-and-forths with Samuel L. Jackson and Jude Law, and on more than one occasion is given the chance to get choked up as a woman trying to figure out her mysterious past.

Speaking of Samuel L. Jackson, his 70-year-old self is playing a 45-year-old version of himself. Thanks to de-aging technology, similar to what has been done in previous Marvel films but never to this scale (and what we will see done to Robert de Niro and Al Pacino in “The Irishman”), Jackson appears like he did back in his “Jackie Brown” and “Pulp Fiction” days, and his performance (and the facial recreation) are both entertaining. It looks less convincing on Clark Gregg’s Agent Coulson (it looks like a CGI character wearing a human mask), but on Jackson you forget you’re not actually watching a 40-year-old man pretty quickly.

Aside from Jackson’s de-aging the effects are typical Marvel, with some designs and fights being really well-done and polished and others (namely, greenscreen) appearing clearly fake to the point of distraction. Also, someone needs to tell the people at Marvel how to light a film set. Nearly all their films (save for “Black Panther”) have no true creative camera angles or lighting aspects, with most scenes taking place in an evenly-lit space with a grey hue in a shot-reverse-shot. “Black Panther” took risks and took its time; at the end of the day “Captain Marvel” just feels like a cookie-cutter film out of the MCU oven.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It surprised me in ways I didn’t think it would, and while I hope she doesn’t suddenly become the face of Marvel and save everyone’s lives single-handily in “Avengers: Endgame” I enjoyed Brie Larson’s turn as a not-so-well-known superhero. Is it forgettable? Probably. Is it as good or inspirational as the likes of a “Wonder Woman?” Not for me, at least. But it’s fun, and in a cinematic world where half of life in the universe was just wiped out of existence, maybe a little fun is a good thing.

Critic’s Rating: 8/10

‘Widows’ Swings for the Fences, Comes up Short

It’s like “Ocean’s 8” just with none of the light-hearted jokes or Rihanna and Awkafina quipping.

“Widows” is based off the 1980s British TV series of the same name, and follows a group of women (Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki and Cynthia Erivo) who must complete a heist to pay back a crime boss after their criminal husbands are all killed in a botched job. Colin Farrell, Brian Tyree Henry, Daniel Kaluuya, Jacki Weaver, Carrie Coon, Robert Duvall and Liam Neeson also star as Steve McQueen directs.

This film had so much going for it that is almost wasn’t fair. It features an ensemble cast, with half of them sporting the words “Academy Award winner/nominee” in front of their name, and is co-written by  Gillian Flynn, the author of the “Gone Girl” novel and subsequent film. It also is helmed (and co-written) by Steve McQueen, who directed “12 Years a Slave” and won a Best Picture Oscar for producing it. The final product of “Widows” leaves a bit more to be desired, but there is still plenty to enjoy in this indie arthouse disguised as a blockbuster action piece.

I have seen “Gone Girl” a handful of times and with every viewing I fall more in love with Gillian Flynn’s script. Her dialogue is fantastic, probably the second-best next to Aaron Sorkin, and there are parts throughout “Widows” where it is clear the scene was written exclusively by her. Characters have lively interactions and quick retorts, and the film just feels “cool.” Then there are some (I wouldn’t say bland, but) sequences where the dialogue and exchanges feel almost contrived and less organic, and while I wouldn’t put all the blame on McQueen’s half of the pen…I’d just say “Gone Girl” had none of those types of scenes, take that as you will.

The performances across the board from the main cast are all phenomenal, with Michelle Rodriguez turning in a career-best performance, Brian Tyree Henry taking a nice dramatic break from his normal comedy work on Donald Glover’s “Atlanta” and Daniel Kaluuya giving probably the most silently badass performance of 2018. Kaluuya has had quite the past 20 months, being skyrocketed to fame and an Oscar nomination for “Get Out” and then taking part in “Black Panther” this past February. Here he is playing the brother and enforcer of Henry’s mob boss-turned-aspiring politician, and he says more with a silent stare or a hum than he does with his limited words.

No one plays cold and cunning nowadays better than Viola Davis and she is everything you’d expect her to be here, and Liam Neeson has some quietly affecting flashback sequences as her criminal husband.

The film’s problem is that it at times seems unsure what it wants to be, or at least doesn’t come across to the audience the way McQueen intends for it to. He tries to add some fancy camera work and just like “12 Years a Slave” he loves him some lingering shots. I enjoy a long take as much as the next guy but there has to be a reason for it; there is one fantastic sequence here but another (or two) that just comes off a bit show-offy. There is so much planning and running around for the heist that the film does slog and drag a bit, and despite only clocking in at a little over 120 minutes it feels like a longer journey.

I really wanted to like “Widows” more than I did, although I will campaign for Kaluuya and the screenplay to get Oscar nominations come February. The final heist sequence has a couple heart-pounding moments and it gives famed faces like Robert Duvall and Liam Neeson a chance to remind us that they can still hang with the best of them, but the points leading up to the climax are either slow, silly or a mixture of the two. Viola fans or those who wished “Ocean’s 8” had more headshots should be more willing to forgive the flaws, and as far as adult entertainment at the multiplex you can do worse, but given all this had going for it on paper this could have been a homerun.

Critic’s Grade: B-

20th Century Fox

‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ Likely Won’t Rock You

The behind-the-scenes drama of what it took to get this movie made is more interesting than the actual film itself…

“Bohemian Rhapsody” is the biopic of the band Queen, following frontman Freddie Mercury (played by Rami Malek). Lucy Boynton, Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, Joseph Mazzello, Aidan Gillen, Tom Hollander, Allen Leech and Mike Myers also star as Bryan Singer (“and Dexter Fletcher”) direct.

Originally in 2010 Sacha Baron Cohen was attached to this film to play Mercury, aiming to make an honest, R-rated telling of the singer’s life with David Fincher or Tom Hooper in the director’s chair. Eventually, due in large part of the involvement of Queen members Brian May and Roger Taylor and their desire to make a more family-friendly and band-centered film, Cohen left. Singer and Malek then joined on, only to have their relationship come to a boiling point during production after Singer (allegedly) had emotional breakdowns on set and would show up late to shoots (not completely unlike the real Mercury). Singer was fired and Fletcher, who was at one point slated to direct the film anyways, took over. There are more interesting nuggets but I’ll let you find them for yourself. Needless to say, this film had a lot going against it before it ever even hit theaters, but if it was great and the blood, sweat and tears put into it resulted in a musical masterpiece then no one would bat an eye. So how is the final product? Ehhh, I mean, it’s fine.

Long before the first trailer even dropped, Rami Malek was getting Oscar talk simply for his appearance as Mercury. Sporting the porno mustache and (at times comical) overbite, Malek certainly embodies Mercury, or at least a caricature of him. I wasn’t alive during Freddie Mercury’s time but I’ve seen interviews with him and while he certainly has an oozing of charisma and cattiness about him, he never came off as the overly-flamboyant queen that the film portrays him as. Adding “darling” to the end of every sentence, Malek’s performance is certainly not bad but it is almost like what an SNL skit about Mercury would be. He feels like a character, not *the* character.

The rest of the cast is solid, including an eerily similar doppelganger Gwilym Lee as Brian May, and Mike Myers (yep, that one, not the one chasing Jamie Lee Curtis around cinemas at the moment) makes a meta and almost unrecognizable appearance as a record executive.

The high points of the film are entertaining, like when the band is performing (using Mercury’s real voice, not Malek’s) and when they are recording the songs that would eventually go down in history. Every time they begin to get at each other’s throats and it seems like the end of the group is near, one of them will start humming a beat or riffing on a guitar and suddenly another hit is born. Much like with “Jersey Boys” and “Straight Outta Compton” you forget just how rooted Queen’s songs are into pop culture until you hear them back-to-back.

The problem is that we have seen everything, and I mean everything, that is done here done before and done better. Comparing this to “Straight Outta Compton” is a bit unfair since that film is great, but it also features a group of outsiders (or “misfits” as Mercury calls the band) just hanging out and creating songs that went against the normal rules, only to have the main face fall victim to AIDS. But not even bringing “Compton” into the picture, if you have seen a musician’s (or any) biopic then you know exactly what scene will follow the one you are watching. Anthony McCarten has written some pretty bland films (like “Theory of Everything” and “Darkest Hour”) and this really feels like a made-for-TV effort sometimes, it’s that by-the-numbers and safe.

Now I don’t expect every film to be completely historically accurate, Hollywood has every right to twist and omit if it means condensing a story or adding a little tension, but the entire time you’re watching this movie something just feels off and inauthentic about it. And a quick Wikipedia search would show the filmmakers straight-up rewrote history in the third act, for reasons I won’t say here (ya know, in case 25-year-old history can be deemed a spoiler).

And you may not care but I’m a fan of things like this so I’ll touch on the cinematography real quick. Shot by Newton Thomas Sigel, who (allegedly) needed to act as director on set when Singer wouldn’t show up, the film looks crisp and clear (I assume it was shot on digital) so nothing about it feels like the 1970s and 80s. Other films, like “Compton,” “Walk the Line” or last month’s “First Man,” try and add a color tint or graininess to the shot to immerse you but just like the script and direction, skating by is good enough here.

“Bohemian Rhapsody” isn’t necessarily a bad film; it is just a disappointingly safe one. Watching any three minute interview with Freddie Mercury, a musical genius struck down in his prime, will show you that there is so much this film chose to omit about him and Queen’s legacy (again, due in large part to May and Taylor not wanting to risk hurting his or their image and place in history) and this feels like it just left so much on the table. That being said, the normies will eat it up and if you’re wondering if you’ll be able to forgive the film’s flaws enough to enjoy it, I have a test for you: did you enjoy “The Greatest Showman”? You’re answer there likely will apply to “Bohemian Rhapsody.”

Critic’s Grade: C

20th Century Fox

‘First Man’ Struggles to Achieve Liftoff

“First Man” depicts the career of astronaut Neil Armstrong (portrayed by Ryan Gosling) leading up to the Apollo 11 mission to the moon in 1969. Claire Foy plays his wife while Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Corey Stoll, Ciarán Hinds and Lukas Haas also star and Damien Chazelle directs.

When you look up the checklist for Oscar films, this hits a lot of the boxes. Academy Award winning/nominated director and leading man? Check. Period piece? Check. Real life story? Check. Fall release? Check. And I’m sure at the end of the day this will rack up the nominations, at least in the technical department, but I’m just not so sure it’ll all be worth it…

Ryan Gosling is a very talented actor but his skills are best suited in the romantic-comedy genre, seeing as “Crazy, Stupid, Love” and “La La Land” are two of his best and most charismatic performances and the likes of “Blade Runner 2049” didn’t do him many favors. As Neil Armstrong, Gosling is timid and reserved, not too often showing his frustration or sadness about the growing tolls the space race is taking on him and his family. There are a few select instances where he drops the act and breaks down, allowing Gosling to demonstrate his emotional range as an actor, but most of the time it is the mousy Gosling we know from, say, “Gangster Squad.”

As Armstrong’s wife Janet, Claire Foy (best known for “The Crown” and will be seen next month in “The Girl in the Spider’s Web”) gets to show a wider and more constant range of emotions, yelling at Neil’s commanding officers at NASA headquarters (the “you’re a bunch of boys!” line from the trailer) and shouting at Neil to properly say goodbye to their sons.

The film looks and feels like the 1960s, due in large part to how Chazelle and cinematographer Linus Sandgren chose to shoot it. Much of the film is shot using (what I think) is 16 and 35mm film, giving scenes a grainy, almost “home movie” feel, as well as a warm or cold tint, depending. However when we get into space things shift to digital, becoming crisp and clear (and very big if you see it in IMAX like I did), showing the contrast of the bold new world Armstrong was embarking into. The sequence where they land on the moon and take the first step out is awe-inspiring, and it was one of the moments where every person in the theater dares not make a sound.

So the film looks great and is well acted, what is wrong with it? Well, only half of it really works. The parts where we see all the stresses and behind the scenes training that went into the moon mission are very well done and range from entertaining to intense. However the film spends a lot of time with Armstrong’s family and friends and the drama doesn’t always land as much as Chazelle clearly hoped. Some of it gets repetitive but mostly is just doesn’t grab you or give you a real reason to care outside some standard movie tropes.

One random thing of note that almost acts as a microcosm of the film: half the editing and sound mixing is masterful, with all the loose bolts and creaky walls of the rockets making Armstrong’s commands from Houston nearly impossible to make out, as I’m sure was the case. However in other scenes, like one inside at the kitchen table, the outside rain is given too much effect and drowns out some dialogue of characters sitting a mere two feet from each other.

“First Man” is an honorable and respectful film that pays tribute to the men who made one of the ultimate accomplishments in human history, and solidified America’s place as the world’s greatest nation. However when the film drifts away from the mission and tries to get more personal it just doesn’t work nearly as well, and makes everything as a whole feel a but underwhelming.

Critic’s Grade: C+

Universal