2017: The Year in Film: "War for the Planet of the Apes" Review

So honestly, kind of out of nowhere the modern Planet of the Apes prequel series has become one of my favorite movie series. Featuring strong characterization, an incredible CGI performance from Andy Serkis, great effects, and unexpectedly thoughtful plotting, War for the Planet of the Apes quietly became maybe my single most anticipated film of the year, even before the reviews started to come out and it wound up with the highest Rotten Tomatoes score of the series.

So if you're out there thinking that these movies look dumb, I encourage you to give them a chance. Rise of the Planet of the Apes follows an exceptional young chimp named Caesar who is raised in secret by a scientist following an incident at his lab. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes shows us a burgeoning ape society as it buts up against the remnants of humanity following the devastating plague set off by the events of Rise. Enter: War. After the events of Dawn, co-existence between human and ape became all but impossible, and the future fate of the planet hangs in the balance.

The Good: this film is the largest in scope of the series, and that's absolutely a good thing. The framing and themes of the entire series to now become crystal clear as Caesar's struggle and arc come to their fateful conclusion. I won't go into too many spoilers but the epic biblical elements of the series really frame the whole endeavor in a brighter light. It's incredibly bold to frame your ape protagonist in messianic/biblical imagery, but it works, and the end result is the single best example of Judeo-Christian allegory in modern film. This flick and this series feels more like the epic films of old than it does its modern sci-fi brethren. None of this would work without the remarkable performance of Andy Serkis (most famously known, of course, as Golem in the Lord of the Rings films). He imbues Caesar with a fundamental humanity and sadness that rises above your typical CGI characters and makes Caesar, for me, one of the most memorable movie characters in any film of the last decade. With a title like War for the Planet of the Apes you know this film will be going to some dark places but writer/director Matt Reeves (his next film is crossfit Batman you guys) really takes this one in some surprising and unexpected directions. I think this film would potentially have been boring if it were nothing but battles and action sequences but its surprisingly subdued and rests on its fundamental "humanity" (insofar as CGI apes have humanity), as all of the films thus far have. Maurice remains the best non-Caesar character going, and Woody Harrelson's villain brings a larger than life menace, an epic foil to the proceedings. Despite the long runtime, this film feels like a great ending to a great series, and a potential jumping-off point to the classic Planet of the Apes scenario of film fame.




The Bad: honestly, I don't have very much to complain about here as I honestly thought this film was front to back great and want Andy Serkis to be nominated for best actor, but the Steve Zahn comic relief character is just... too much. These are dark proceedings, to be sure, with the film not shying away from slavery, war, genocide, bondage, civil rights, and SOME comic relief was surely needed, but his character is preposterous. The long runtime (2 hrs 20 mins) drags in parts as well.

Ultimately, for fans of the series, this is surely the best one. Caesar is simply an incredibly memorable character done in a genre-defying way. The scope, ambition, and execution of this flick make it rise above your typical blockbuster fare in a way that will (hopefully) have you thinking about some big, epic questions. Personally, I loved the allusions, allegory and references to human history done in a clever, compelling way. I don't believe it's hyperbole to state that this modern Apes series takes its place among all-time great film trilogies.

9/10.

2017: The Year in Film: "Spider-Man: Homecoming" Review

So not only am I a Marvel nerd from way back, but Spider-Man has always been my dude. He was probably (like most kids) my entry point to superheroes, and he remains one of the most compelling characters in the comic canon, regardless of era, company, universe, etc. The strength and appeal of Spider-Man has always been that he's ultimately just a regular dude with regular problems and some pretty cool powers. In a superhero landscape filled with billionaires, gods and aliens, that makes Spider-Man stand out.

He's also had quite the journey on-screen thus far, with three Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire films hitting from 2002-2007, and two Marc Webb/Andrew Garfield films hitting in 2012 and 2014.  This probably puts me in the minority of superhero movie fans, but I never liked Raimi's vision of the character or how those movies played out. I thought his version of Peter Parker was a dopey putz, that the love interest had zero chemistry, and that the vision of a 1950's #MAGA-esque New York was hokey at best and offensive at worst. (Don't even get me started on the whole web shooters thing) I actually vastly prefer Andrew Garfield's version of Peter Parker and the Amazing Spider-Man films, even if #2 was a total mess which absolutely necessitated scrapping the whole thing.. not least of which because Andrew Garfield was a 28 year old dude pretending to be a high school kid. In the midst of Spidey's various travails over at Sony (for those of you that don't know, Marvel declared bankruptcy in the 90's and sold the film rights for its most powerful properties - Spider-Man went to Sony, while the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil, and Punisher all went to Fox) Marvel Studios built a juggernaut that has become the home of churning out quality superhero flick after quality superhero flick. Sony and Marvel/Disney (somehow) successfully negotiated a deal for Spider-Man to join the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe, with Spider-Man appearing in Marvel films and Marvel co-producing Spider-Man films for Sony. The newest version of Spider-Man, played by Tom Holland, made his triumphant debut in last year's Captain America: Civil War, and honestly stole the show. This flick has been high on my anticipated movies list ever since.

So Spider-Man: Homecoming marks the debut of Tom Holland's Peter Parker in his own flick, with his own Aunt May (played memorably by Marissa Tomei), within the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe populated by the likes of Iron Man and Captain America.

The Good: In my estimation, this is the definitive vision of Spider-Man that we've had in movie form. There are enough changes to keep things fresh while simultaneously perfectly capturing the feel of what makes Spider-Man such a continually appealing character. Unknown director Jon Watts really knocks this one out of the park, as his Spider-Man flick transcends your ordinary superhero flick to become a memorable coming of age tale inside of a Marvel movie. Peter Parker can barely keep his life together while struggling to juggle the demands of crimefighting, high school. academic decathlon, and keeping his identity a secret from his friends and family. This version of Peter is equal parts nerd, brilliant, determined, motor-mouthed, and an epic screw up. It feels right. Wisely, this flick skips over Spider-Man's origin, as no one needs to see another Uncle Ben (or Thomas and Martha Wayne for that matter) get shot. We're thrown into a world where Spider-Man already exists and has been operating for months. The film brilliantly positions itself within the wider MCU by slipping in between the margins of existing stories, establishing a memorable and believable villain in Michael Keaton's Vulture, and positioning Spider-Man within the wider world of the Avengers. The plot is equal parts John Hughes and Iron Man, in a brilliant blending of genres that further demonstrates the flexibility and worth of the superhero film. The cast is charming top to bottom, with Holland bringing charm, wit, likability, and a ton of humor to his version of Peter Parker, and supporting characters Ned (Jacob Batalon), Liz (Laura Harrier), Flash (Tony Revolori/Lobby Boy), and Michelle (Zendaya) all perfectly rounding out the high school ensemble. Hannibal Burris and Martin Starr have memorable supporting roles, Marisa Tomei's Aunt May is warm and funny, and Robert Downey Jr. basically IS Tony Stark at this point. The star of the show, for me, is Michael Keaton. In a universe that's been populated by "meh" villains, Keaton's Vulture is a rich and fearsome villain who's equal parts Walter White and Obediah Stane. This flick is, top to bottom, an absolute blast, and also asks questions that seem to be fundamental to the "haves" and "have nots" of the larger MCU.



The Bad: my main complaint is that, for as great as Keaton's villain is, his plot ultimately doesn't make sense. The film WANTS him to be a sympathetic figure, but at the end of the day, he broke too far bad for him to feel like a TRULY worthwhile foil. There are a lot of scenes with Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan that just feel like too much given that even I don't care about Happy THAT much, and I'm the biggest Marvel nerd I know. All in all, though, it's tough to complain too much about what is ultimately one of the best times I've had at the movies in years.

Ultimately, this film is an absolute blast. Full of laughs, full of charm, you'll be grinning from ear-to-ear while (hopefully) appreciating some great performances, excellent action sequences, and a plot that seems to move much, much faster than the 2 hr 15 min runtime. For my money, this is one of the best Marvel movies yet (top 5 for sure), which makes it more than worth your time if you're a fan of Spider-Man, Marvel, or superheroes even a little.

9/10

2017: The Year in Film: "Baby Driver" Review

Edgar Wright is, without a doubt, one of the most unique and stylish directors working today. His films from Shaun of the Dead, to Hot Fuzz, to Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, are genre bending, smart, and just different from pretty much everything else that's out there today. Due to the controversy surrounding his involvement and exit from Ant-Man a few years ago, he hasn't made a film since 2013's The World's End (which I'm pretty "meh" on), but once the promotional material for this one came out, I knew I was instantly on board.

In Baby Driver we're introduced to Baby, a... driver for a mysterious criminal organization headed by Doc (Kevin Spacey), a fast talking mastermind who runs various heists with various crews. Baby is the best driver in the business, and Doc considers him something of a good luck charm. Baby is an outsider in this criminal underworld, but he's a hell of a driver.

The Good: this flick is slick, stylish, smart, and a hell of a good time. The mix of action, heist, romcom and a killer soundtrack makes this movie something that only Edgar Wright could have made. It's almost if Edgar Wright made a Tarantino screenplay and I mean that in only the best way possible. The cast from top to bottom sizzles, with Spacey, Jon Hamm, and Jamie Foxx all turning in memorable performances. Young actor Angel Elgort is the right kind of charming and he has great chemistry with love interest Lily "cousin Rose from Downton Abbey" James. The main draw here is the chase/action sequences. From the jump, the driving action here is as good as anything in the Fast and Furious franchise or the Bourne films, which I'd consider the gold standard for modern chase scenes. The action sequences are smartly crafted and so damn slick. Like all of Wright's films, this one borrows copiously from archetypes and genres across the board so that everything here feels familiar without feeling derivative. There's certainly an art to that, and long story short: this one sizzles from front to back.



The Bad: there isn't a whole lot that's bad here... but if I have a critique, it's that some of the characterization is weak and/or nonexistent for some of the supporting characters. They feel more like stock types than actual people and while that's fine it's also a little disappointing in a flick that does everything else so damn well. The plot goes 100% over the top at a certain point, but it sticks the landing which makes up for some of the excesses. I also can't shake the feeling that this one is just Drive for mainstream audiences and with a slicker veneer.

Ultimately, from the opening scene this one will suck you in and keep you glued to the screen. Full of memorable dialogue, slick action, over the top characters and enough sweet moments to make it memorably Edgar Wright, Baby Driver does not disappoint. All of the leads are great, and there are extended, eye-popping action scenes that I have no idea how they were even shot.

9/10.

2017: The Year in Film: "Wonder Woman" Review

DC's extended movie universe has to this point been.... kind of a disaster. Man of Steel was a perfectly decent flick but Batman V Superman was an overstuffed and nearly unwatchable disaster and Suicide Squad was... dumb. Warner Brothers/DC needs a success in the worst way possible, and honestly, the world is better with Marvel having competition from someone, somewhere, so there's a lot of pressure on Wonder Woman to rescue DC from its own horrible decisions. Then you have the fact that superhero movies thus far have not been overly kind to women. There's a noticeable lack of diversity both in front of and behind the camera, so the world (and DC) needs a successful woman superhero to get behind. The good news is that Wonder Woman was the best part (by a mile) of BvS, that they seem to have nailed the casting (Israeli actress Gal Gadot was amazing in the Fast and Furious franchise), that they brought in director Patty Jenkins (an unconventional choice most famous for the film Monster), and that they seem to have been taking the responsibility of launching a huge franchise anchored by a woman seriously.

So, as an unapologetic Marvel fanboy, I've never in my life read a Wonder Woman comic. I don't know a whole lot about the character except that she has ties to Greek mythology and she's a straight-up badass. In Wonder Woman, the creative powers that be decided a straight-up origin story was in order,  so we're taken to the mythical island of Themyscira during WW1.

The Good: Gadot is great, simultaneously lending the flick a heart, humor and gravitas that's been missing from DC's films since Chris Nolan departed. The rest of the cast is also strong, with Chris Pine and Gadot's chemistry being the best part of the whole endeavor. I'm not a HUGE fan of the constant slow motion in DC's films, but the action sequences are generally good, with the film generally building to a solid emotional climax, even if the villain is a little silly. Connie Nielson and Robin Wright are strong as Amazonians, and the film in general has a good-natured humor that really offsets the darkness of the WW1 setting. I think the best decision the film could have made was setting the film in the past as a true origin story, allowing the flick to exist completely separately from the mess that's been DC's films up to now.



The Bad: I think the flick just barely missed, with ultimately the villain and plot being a little nonsensical. Like I mentioned above, the slow-mo makes the action sequences seem a little overwrought and ties back in not necessarily a good way to the other DC films. It's also a little weird that there were SO MANY similarities to the first Captain America film... I think a little similarity was inevitable, but there are some very conscious choices here that make it even more reminiscent that the flick had any business being.

Ultimately, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine alone is worth the price of admission, and Wonder Woman's origin story is well worth watching. The WW1 setting makes the film truly unique and its done smartly and with enough humor to make this one an absolute blast. If you're a fan of superhero flicks, or any of the actors involved, you could do much, much worse than Wonder Woman. 

8/10.

2017: The Year in Film: "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" Review

2014's Guardians of the Galaxy was one of the most pleasant movie surprises in years. Readers of this blog will (or should) know that I'm something of an all-around Marvel enthusiast, and the original Guardians flick was one of the absolute best that Marvel has done. Equal parts fun, heartwarming, charming, and crazy, the 2014 original raised the bar for what a comic book movie could do, in that it was just so off the rails from your typical superhero fare. It had almost a sitcom feel while mixing sci fi with classic 70's pop songs, trippy visuals, and massive action sequences. So, expectations were high for the follow-up. Would it be more of the same or represent a regression for director James Gunn, Chris Pratt, and the rest of the cast?

Following the events of Guardians of the Galaxy, our titular heroes are out there taking jobs and basking in the glow of being renowned... galaxy guardians.  In between petty squabbles and rivalries between the crew, the larger mystery of Peter Quill's parentage is hanging out there as an unresolved mystery from the first installment.

The Good: the cast is incredibly likable and they all clearly have great chemistry. If anything, this flick is even funnier than the first installment and as the universe of the Guardians expands, familiar characters are brought into the fold in ways that make the whole film all the richer for it. It's irreverent, charming, funny, and occasionally touching, and ultimately the plot is a self-contained tale about family... what's not to like? All the first film's strengths are present here, and this is absolutely the most laugh-out-loud funny of any of the Marvel movies, including the original Guardians. The cast is solid, especially Pratt and Michael Rooker, with Kurt Russell continuing his tour through summer blockbusters as Starlord's mysterious father.



The Bad: Ultimately, I think the surprise of the original film was always going to be impossible to duplicate. In making efforts to top the original, this one occasionally comes off as trying TOO hard TOO often, with Baby Groot and Drax especially crossing the line into straight up crowd pleasing territory as opposed to actual characters as both were in the original film. There's a lot to like here, but ultimately the film's disparate plots don't all work and leave the film feeling at once overstuffed and also rushed, with some story lines and characters drawing the short straw because there's just so much going on all the time. Plus, I have to say it, the music just isn't as good here. The music is such a key part to these films and this time around it feels less inspired and more forced in. It's also very weird how expanded director James Gunn's brother's role was this time... I don't like nepotism, guys.

Ultimately, if you liked the original, you're going to like this one. It's not quite as good, but still an absolute blast, and the charming cast, great visuals, and rapid-fire dialogue won't leave you disappointed. Where the original Guardians is in the discussion for the best Marvel movie of all, this one is "merely" in the top half, but still well worth watching.

8/10.

2017: The Year in Film "Alien: Covenant" Review

The Alien franchise is, at this point, nearly as inexplicable in its survival as the Fast and Furious franchise. After 4 individual Alien films (only 2 of which are evem good - although those 2 are obviously great), 2 awful Alien v. Predator films and innumerable aborted starts, stops and would-be reboots, cinema master and director of the original Alien, Ridley Scott returned with an ambitious vision of the world that's home to the franchise with 2012's Prometheus.  While Prometheus is by no means a perfect film, it is incredibly ambitious, gorgeous, incredibly well-made, and gorgeous to look at. Michael Fassbender's performance alone is worth the cost of admission. Personally, I'm a fan of Prometheus, and even though several of the characters are inexplicably idiots, the film simply has a vision and an ambition that is sadly empty from most major studio releases, and especially sci fi.

Alien: Covenant is a direct sequel to Prometheus, and thus a prequel to the 1979 original. As Prometheus ended without revealing the classic xenomorph monster, Alien: Covenant has work to do.

It's 10 years after the exploration vessel Prometheus was lost, and humanity's first large-scale colonization mission to the stars has been undertaken to a distant world. After a fluke occurrence leads to the discovery of a mysterious distress beacon, the crew decides to investigate a seemingly hospitable world, with predictably dire consequences.

The Good: This film manages to ground the speculative ambition of Prometheus more firmly within the world of the first film, successfully bringing the story to a place where the origins of what will come to pass in the original films actually make sense within Scott's framework. Like every Ridley Scott film ever, this one is absolutely gorgeous, with top notch effects, cinematography, world-building and filmmaking across the board. Michael Fassbender is, as he was in Prometheus, far and away the best part of this film, this time playing two separate "brother" androids who drive much of the plot. English actress Katherine Waterston (I recognize her from Inherent Vice) channels her inner Ellen Ripley and Danny "Kenny Powers" McBride transitions to a serious role rather seamlessly. The plot is smarter and more sensible (if less ambitious..) than Prometheus' was, even if some of the characters yet again make inexplicable decisions. It IS a horror movie, after all.



The Bad: Billy Crudup's character (the acting captain) is a straight-up idiot. It's not even Crudup's fault, although his performance isn't going to win him any forgiveness here, as it's fine but not great, but the decisions of his character are throughout stupid at best. The film is occasionally clumsy and obtuse in its efforts to link it with the original film, with many, many explicit homages throughout. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think the film could have been more subtle about it, as "Alien" IS right there in the title after all. I think, even though it's absolutely a good thing that the series has become more grounded in the world of the original film, that abandoning a good chunk of Prometheus' ambition and speculative vision are a mistake, even if this film is ultimately satisfying, I think it could have potentially said even more than it ultimately did.

In all, if you're a fan of Alien, Aliens, Prometheus, or the franchise as a whole, you won't want to miss this one. A talented cast, gorgeous filmmaking, fun world-building and creepy space horror all combine to make a successful film that stands among the best sci fi films of recent years. I'm a little disappointed that it didn't build more on what Prometheus had suggested, albeit in a more sensible way, but ultimately Michael Fassbender and Ridley Scott make a pair that fans of the genre won't want to miss.

8/10.

2017: The Year in Film: "Free Fire" Review

First, I saw this MONTHS ago, but the most important part of getting current is catching up, guys. (Or something) So Ben Wheatley has been something of a cult success over in the U.K., with the flicks Kill List and Sightseers gaining some traction as underground successes. He also directed 2015's High-Rise, and now Free Fire, which sees him paired with executive producer Martin Scorsese and a top-notch cast including Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy, Armie Hammer and Sharlto Copley in the R-rated action crime genre popularized by the likes of Scorsese himself, Tarantino and Guy Ritchie.

It's 1978 in Boston and an illegal arms deal is taking place in an abandoned warehouse between a mysterious criminal element and elements of the IRA. Needless to say, things are about to go horribly wrong.

The Good: the flick is well-crafted, often funny and well-paced. The characters are charming and keep the events moving right along. Movie shootouts are just COOL, after all, there's a reason that they've been depicted so ubiquitously for decades, and the concept of a movie that is solely one giant shootout is an interesting and compelling one. Visually, the flick looks great, with splashes of color and excitement punctuating the gritty and grim events and surroundings.



The Bad: ultimately, the concept of a film that is one long shootout, at least as executed here, falls flat and rings hollow. Despite the strong cast, the lack of characterization lends the whole endeavor a general air of "who cares?", as we just aren't given any to care about these people and whether or not they get shot or shoot the people they're trying to shoot. Ultimately, the whole thing feels a lot like the finale of a prestige TV series where we aren't privy to the events of the rest of the story, and that's just not enough to sustain my interest or justify the existence of the film as a whole. It's basically a long version of the 2nd half of Reservoir Dogs without the first half, you know, where you meet everyone, are introduced to who they are, and given a reason to care about everything else that happens.

At the end of the day, this film is worth watching, but it's ultimately just an experiment that feels half-baked and underdeveloped. Often funny, with plenty of cool moments, there just isn't enough meat here to justify the flash and experience. It's a fun idea, but I guess we learned WHY shootouts are only a part of the film and not the entirety of it.

6/10

2017: The Year in Film: "The Fate of the Furious" Review

Yep. Late. So it wasn't so long ago at all that I wasn't on board with the F&F franchise, AT ALL. See: The Fast and the Curious for more. But guys, once the Rock comes on board, these movies took the next step into the single most insane action franchise currently on the market. From humble beginnings as a derivative action racing movie set squarely in the awful culture of the late 90's/early 2000's this franchise has turned into a global phenomenon, with the last few entrants raking in huge box office returns both domestically and overseas. I must say that the color-blind nature of the films and international feel of the 5th, 6th, 7th and now 8th F&F films has really made them into one of the more global film franchises I can think of. Obviously Paul Walker's (R2D2Soon) passing was going to have a profound effect on the franchise, so how would the F&F series survive the untimely departure of one of its key cogs? Enter new director F. Gary Gray (who most recently directed Straight Outta Compton) and let's see if the series can survive.

Following the events of Fast7, our team finds itself amidst a much needed vacation. Dom (Vin Diesel duh) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their long-awaited honeymoon and all seems well with the world. Right? Well... let's just say that high tech terrorists are NOT done with Dom Toretto and his motley crew.

The Good: No one does non-superpowered action as well or as preposterously as the F&F guys, and that's just as true in the 8th installment of the series as it ever has been. The ever-expanding cast and ever-increasing stakes may not have served the series all that well in the 7th installment, as I felt that film fell a little flat, but this film nicely draws on what's come before to build something bigger and better than we've seen thus far in the F&F series. Writer Chris Morgan has been with the series since Tokyo Drift, and that continuity has really served the series well during its transition from silly car racing dramatics to preposterous car action dramatics. The idea of motivating Dom to take on his increasingly-unstoppable team was executed well, and the events of 6 and 7 especially were tied-in nicely to create a neat little trilogy within the larger series. There are several action sequences that are insane even for this insane series, with Jason Statham especially bringing an even bigger and better element to what's already become just maybe the best action series out there today. Charlize Theron is always great, and she brings an effortless menace to the endeavor that makes me hope (and given what's happened in the series thus far I'm sure she will be) that she'll be back in future installments. After part 7 I wasn't sure if this series really needed to continue but this one was strong enough to set the series on a positive trajectory that absolutely justifies at least one more installment. And let's be honest, given just how much money this one has made both domestically and overseas, there will be future installments as long as Vin Diesel and the Rock feel like making them.





The Bad: things are just as preposterous as they've ever been, and the series misses Han, Gisele and Brian to be sure. The shrinking core group has required new additions to keep the ensemble intact, and while some of these additions (especially Statham) have been great, others have been misses, and the attempt to replace Paul Walker with Scott Eastwood in this one falls flat. The motivations of the characters are occasionally silly, and the omnipotence of the villains a little hard to swallow, but all in all this film is well worth watching for fans of the franchise, and a marked increase over part 7.

After 8, my ranking of the series goes as follows: 5, 6, 8. 7. 1, 3, 4, 2. For fans of the franchise, this one represents a return to form of the series since the Rock came in and turned things around. If you're a fan of the family, you won't be disappointed.

7.5/10.

2017: The Year in Film: Logan Review

So Fox's X-Men franchise - which is somehow still going relatively uninterrupted 17 years after the first film, which is totally cheesy in retrospect but also pretty much sparked the current superhero trend, has totally been a mixed bag. By my count there's Deadpool, which is awesome obviously, there are 3 very good films (X2, First Class and Days of Future Past), 3 mediocre to meh films (X-Men, The Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocalypse), and 2 straight up garbage toilet water films. (X-Men: The Last Stand, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) So just a bizarre series in that it's lasted forever, is still somehow going, and definitely ended at one point only to get completely rebooted and then folded into the pre-existing continuity because everyone at Fox is on bath salts. Hugh Jackman has played Wolverine 8 times over 17 years counting Logan! That's insane!  By all accounts, this is his final time playing Wolverine (and Patrick Stewart's final as Professor Xavier as well), and the now-classic characters are sent off with a bang.

Of all the ups and downs of the X-Men films - Hugh Jackman has consistently been one of the best parts. A lanky singing, dancing Australian dude shouldn't be able to pull off Wolverine - but he does, and he's done it with gusto for a long time now. Even though the films themselves may not be the best no one can doubt Jackman's commitment to the role and his appreciation for the character. Enter: Logan. It's 2029 and the X-Men are no more. An older and worse for wear Wolverine has hung up the claws so to speak and spends his days working menial jobs and trying to stay under the radar. When a mysterious woman and a young girl suddenly appear - Logan finds himself drawn back in to a world he thought he'd left behind.

The Good: Jackman, as always, kills it. This version of Wolverine is older, slower, sadder and more nihilistic and melancholy, and that makes for a more compelling character than the indestructible killing machine of the earlier films. After the success of Deadpool, the decision was made to make Logan an R-rated film, and that was the best decision anyone associated with this film could have made. As a longtime X-Men fan, let me assure you that Wolverine is an R-rated character. He straight up murders people constantly in a way that your more classic superhero characters do not. This R-rating allows for a darkness and gravitas to seep into the film that simply wouldn't have been present with a PG-13 rating. It allows Jackman to really delve into the character and allows writer/director Mangold, and the rest of the cast to really insert themselves into a violent, quasi-dystopian world filled with dangerous people and plenty of blood. The best way I can describe this film is Clint Eastwood meets superheroes. It almost has an Unforgiven feel, where a fading gunslinger has one last ride in him. Mangold's screenplay is dark, bitterly funny, and touching where it needs to be, as Logan finds himself tasked with protecting a young girl who he's more connected to than he ever could have thought. The film is set in the future, and does a great job of trusting the audience to catch up with what may have happened in the interim. The characters don't dwell on the past or fill in questions with clunky exposition any more than absolutely necessary, and I appreciate that the film trusted its viewers enough to let them fill in the blanks. Jackman really sends Logan out with a bang here, turning in a bitterly melancholy performance and elevating the film to a place where X-Men films have never been before. Wolverine is a much more compelling character in a reduced state, and Jackman revels in the character's limitations. Patrick Stewart is great as well as an elderly, much reduced Professor Xavier, and newcomer Dafne Keen rises to the occasion as the mysterious Laura.



The Bad: this is going to sound lame, but bear with me. I've ALWAYS had a problem with the fight choreography in the X-Men films and the way they use Wolverine in particular. When you juxtapose the way Wolverine moves and fights with the way that say... Captain America moves and fights in Winter Soldier or Civil War and it's cheesy, slow, clunky and too dependent on wires and the like. The action sequences, even though they are terrific, lack a certain pop.  Additionally - the villain was a little disappointing. In a roster of villains as deep as the X-Men's and Wolverine's I feel that the choice was uninspired. Ultimately, these are relatively minor gripes with an extremely strong film.

In all, Logan is dark, violent, bitterly funny, masculine as hell, and more than a little touching. Jackman and Stewart have great chemistry, and Dafne Keen turns in a great performance sharing so much screentime with such talented actors. The film has the sentimentality and spirit of a western with the action chops of a modern superhero flick - it's not a combo that I knew I ever wanted to see but damned if it isn't pretty great. Yet again superhero flicks demonstrate their versatility - as the best western I've seen in years turned out to be a Wolverine flick. If this really is the last time that Jackman will be playing Wolverine - he gave the character a hell of a send off.

This is the best X-Men film by a pretty sizable margin.

8.5/10

2017: the Year in Film: "Get Out" Review

So it's no mystery to anyone who's ever read this blog that I'm not exactly a big horror movie fan. I don't think I've loved a horror film since Cabin in the Woods. (So maybe I only like horror movies with Bradley Whitford/Josh Lyman in them?) I'll get down with a thriller any day of the week - but the trappings of the horror genre generally strike me as manipulative and cliche. But the word on the street about Get Out was such that I felt like I needed to give it a chance. Plus, I'm a Jordan Peele fan - so why not?

Get Out features Chris (Daniel Kaluuya - memorable to me as Emily Blunt's partner in Sicario and the Fifteen Million Credits episode of Black Mirror), a talented photographer living in New York City, and his girlfriend Rose (Allison Williams - also known as the 2nd most obnoxious character on Girls) as they are heading up her parents' home (played memorably by Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener) for the weekend. It's clear that something is amiss - but is it due to the awkwardness of a black guy meeting a white girl's parents in the country, or something more nefarious?

The Good: this film is incredibly smartly written. There's simply no wasted space here. Everything included is there for a reason, and the racial commentary is biting in the absolute best way. Somehow at once sending up race relations and attitudes and creating a smart, scary and effective horror/thriller film is a serious feat. Jordan Peele of Key and Peele fame wrote and directed this film - and it's quite the achievement. I'm not sure that I've seen something quite this smart and biting in a long time.  The best way I can think of to describe it is equal parts Chappelle's Show, Black Mirror, and horror film. Incredibly creative, smart and well done, this is a film well worth watching, even if you aren't a horror fan. I won't get into too many spoilers, but the most effective thing the film does is cast everyday awkward racial interactions as simultaneously cringeworthy awkwardness and signs of nefarious horror-style threats. Kaluuya is great. He gave one of the more memorable performances in all of Black Mirror's run, and he carries this film, bringing just the right mix of charm and skeptical humor to an absurd situation. Allison Williams is very good, as are Whitford and Keener, but the scene stealer is LilRel Howery, as Chris' best friend Rod/comic relief.



The Bad: above I described the film as equal parts Chappelle's Show, Black Mirror and horror film, and that's ultimately the worst thing about the film. Despite how creative and smart it is, it ultimately feels familiar and derivative. It seems to be missing a next level that could have potentially carried it over into GREAT status. Don't get me wrong, this film is an absolute blast and incredibly layered and memorable.

Honestly - maybe don't watch that trailer. It's a little spoiler-y, and maybe you're better off just watching the film. Trust me, you won't regret it. It's a brilliant recasting of race relations and one of the smartest pieces of media I've seen in quite some time. Congrats to Jordan Peele - I look forward to seeing what's next.

8/10

2017: The Year in Film: "Lion" Review

Since bursting onto the scene in Slumdog Millionaire, the darling of the 2009 Academy Awards, Dev Patel has 100% not had enough work. How much of this is due to a dearth of roles for actors of Indian descent (let's be real, probably almost all of it) and how much is due to his own choices is anyone's guess, but I was glad to see him have a lead role in an acclaimed film again.

Written and directed by a pair of relative unknowns (this is director Garth Davis' first feature film), Lion adapts the somehow actually true story of Saroo, a young child who after being separated from his family in India finds himself adopted by an Australian family and his subsequent journey to find his home as an adult.

The Good: full stop - I've never been in a movie theater before where every single person was crying. Every single person. Just wet cheeks. It's never happened. Is creating a powerful emotional response out of your entire audience a good thing? It seems like it. The narrative would be written off as too far fetched to possibly be true if it were a work of fiction - so the remarkable subject matter makes the filmmaker's jobs comparatively easy.  The film is structured in a way that helps it escape cliche and convention and really rise above what could have easily been a Lifetime movie. The cast is brilliant. Dev Patel rises to the challenge of the part, as much of his struggle is entirely inside his head, its up to him to express a lot of the film's emotional heft through his expressions alone. Sunny Pawar, the small boy who plays Saroo as a child, is a revelation. The film simply doesn't work without him, and he gives one of the best child performances that I've seen. Rooney Mara is strong as Saroo's love interest (even though I want to hate her because she's a billionaire's daughter she IS a talented actress), and Nicole Kidman is great as Saroo's adoptive mother. Faramir from Lord of the Rings plays his adoptive father, and it's great to see him again.  With a great cast and a powerful story all the filmmakers need to do is give them room to work and not screw it up, and gladly they deliver. It's easy, as a privileged American, to focus on our own struggles and issues and completely forget about the reality of life for the majority of humanity - Lion's themes - home, family, love, hope, are universal, and translate across culture, language and time as effortlessly as any myth or legend. Lion is a beautiful film.



The Bad: it's hard to criticize the plot because again, it's a true story, but it really does feel like a high budget Lifetime movie in parts. It avoids wholly falling into this trap, but there are moments of high melodrama that risk feeling exploitative - which is the worst thing that an emotionally powerful film can do.

Ultimately - this a powerful and deeply intimate film. The universality of its themes, its message, and its journey make this a deeply emotional film. Not unlike Slumdog Millionaire (is it bad to compare Indian-set films to Indian-set films? Maybe - but they both touch on impoverished children in desperate conditions so I think the comparison is apt) by showing us darkness, the light can shine through even brighter. While it risks Lifetime movie territory it never falls victims to the trappings of cliche. Sunny Panwar (he's so good!) and Dev Patel alone are worth the price of admission, and this ultimately uplifting film is one of the year's best.

8.5/10.

2016: The Year in Film: "Hidden Figures" Review

I talked about the genre of the "issue" film back in my review of Moonlight, and all films that deal with face, class, gender, sexuality, religion, or other issues of identity or political interest need, in my estimation, to avoid falling into the trap of existing ONLY for the issue. I feel that cheapens the message being sent by turning your work into an easily parodied message delivery system and makes your message more easily written off if its being delivered via transparent manipulation. So all films need to avoid this trap - message is important! crucial! more important than films by any possible measure! - BUT, if your film doesn't stand on its own merits as a film audiences will easily dismiss what you have to say and your message will suffer as a result.

So when I first heard about Hidden Figures my concern was that it would fall into the "bad" category of the "issue" film. The advertising looked cheesy and it appeared to risk falling trap to the temptation to let the message overwhelm the film itself. The good news - it didn't! But it's always something that comes to mind when I see a film like this.

Hidden Figures covers the - 100% true! - story of African-American women working for NASA in the early days of the American space program. These women are patriots, role models, brilliant figures who never got their due to the unfortunate realities of American society in the 1960's. The film focuses on three women among the many who worked in various roles, all of whom left their mark on the space program.

The Good: the performances across the board are solid. Taraji P. Henson (Katherine), Janelle Monae (Mary - making her transition to acting she was in 2 best picture nominees this year, also playing a supporting role in Moonlight) and Octavia Spencer (Dorothy) all rise to the challenge that the material presents and do it with aplomb. The always solid Kevin Costner and my man Mahershala Ali are solid as well. The best thing that this film did was making the plot revolve around the space program itself as NASA races against the Soviets as opposed to any of the personal struggles of the protagonists. This allows the film to be MORE than a message movie and roots its important message in a fundamental patriotism and commonality that is all too rare in the 21st century. It's Apollo 13 meets Selma and that is in no way a bad thing.



The Bad: some of the obstacles to the advancement and success of the protagonists and the space program itself are painted with an overbroad brush, as Kirsten Dunst and Jim Parsons seem more like mustache-twirling villains than real people. The line between "good" white people and "bad" white people in this film surely oversimplifies reality and ultimately detracts from the larger narrative. Additionally, as good as the performances and the story are - the film itself feels derivative (Apollo 13 meets Selma, remember?) and doesn't do anything to distinguish itself from films of a similar vein - which does a disservice to the remarkable story it's telling.

 Ultimately, this is an uplifting, deeply patriotic and hopeful story that needed to be told decades ago. We can only hope its style of patriotic optimism returns to the forefront of American culture and replaces the undercurrent of bitterness, antagonism, anger and ignorance that is seemingly underlying so much of our public life today. This film is well worth watching, both for the story itself (which takes some liberties with the real story as all "based on a true story" films do) and for the quality of the acting, pacing and plot therein. Log off of Twitter and watch Hidden Figures if you want to remind yourself of what the indomitable American spirit could be once again. It's certainly a family friendly and uplifting time at the movies. Probably the most hopeful of all of the acclaimed films released this year.

8/10. A well done and incredible story that ultimately doesn't do enough as a film to put it over the top into true greatness.

2016: The Year in Film: "La La Land" Review

Writer/Director Damien Chazelle (he was born in 1985. I LOATHE him) made his Hollywood debut with a bang back in 2014 with one of my favorite films of the last few years, Whiplash. I LOVE that film. So needless to say, despite my jealous loathing, I will be seeing every Chazelle film for the rest of forever. (Unless he starts making animated movies based on video games but I digress)

Enter: La La Land, a musical starring Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone! Are there more likable A-listers? Honest question because I'm not sure that there are in 2017. Gosling's Sebastian is a struggling jazz pianist with an eye towards the past and Stone's Mia is an aspiring actress who doesn't quite fit in with the typical Hollywood scene.

The Good: I WANT to not like Ryan Gosling, I really do. Especially in this movie. A white dude self-appointed as the guardian of all things jazz? Uhhh, what? He's smug and often seems insincere... but damn it if the guy isn't charming as hell, CONSTANTLY.  He won me over within 10 minutes of this film starting. Emma Stone is pretty much constantly and disarmingly sweet and funny and charming as well. She's come a long way since she was Jonah Hill's (what??) love interest in Superbad, guys. This film wasn't what I was expecting, and I mean that in the best possible way. I was expecting it to be an homage-filled throwback to the musicals of classic Hollywood, and while there are parts of that, it's ultimately a creation all its own. Part dissertation on the nature of creativity, part love story, part musical, it's at once heavy and melancholy and whimsical and saccharine. I'm convinced that in the hands of a lesser director this whole endeavor would have collapsed under the weight of its own pretension and ambition, but Chazelle makes it something memorable and all his own. This is the sort of film that Hollywood (and the Academy) absolutely LOVES, as it romanticizes L.A., the arts, movies and their value, but there's plenty here for anyone to love. I like both the fact that the plot is simple enough to sum up in a paragraph but that there's room to defy convention and that Chazelle borrowed from musicals without making his film a slave to the traditional musical structure. The use of flashbacks, dream sequences and musical numbers really lends the film a whimsy and an absurdist, even romantic angle that gives the whole thing a playful feel.



The Bad: ultimately, the film just isn't as smart or as meaningful as it would like you to think it is. There are some absolutely cringeworthy scenes involving a certain band and a certain John Legend that nearly collapse into self-parody. While these issues aren't enough to derail the film, they do ultimately detract from what is otherwise a smartly constructed love letter to the arts.

In the end, this film is absolutely well worth watching, and absolutely one of the year's best. It's a fun, well-crafted, well-acted ride. Gosling and Stone are simply impossible to dislike (well... apart from that one time Cameron Crowe tried to make Emma Stone Asian but that's not entirely her fault...) and their easy chemistry and comfort level with one another makes this film a sweet and often times innocent story of dreams and love and creativity and compromise. It's not the best film of the year (Moonlight or Arrival deserve Best Picture), but it's just the right combination of creative, sweet, smart, fun, whimsical and melancholy to place it firmly among the year's best.

8.5/10

2016: The Year in Film: "Manchester by the Sea" Review

I'm going to momentarily nerd out here. We're in the midst of a revolution of sorts (that briefly autocorrected to "shorts" and I considered leaving it just for the lulz) in the production and distribution of traditional media. The longstanding power players are seeing their ability to put a stranglehold on what's produced and released diminished by a combination of factors - new media players, a decreased market share of the traditional power brokers, increasing options for distribution and so on. All of that is a long way of saying that Manchester by the Sea is interesting not only because it's a very good movie, but also because Amazon Films produced it and the shaking up of the existent studio system can only be a good thing as far as filmgoers are concerned.

So writer/director Kenneth Lonergan has been around for a while now - he wrote Analyze This and Gangs of New York back in the day, but he's never really worked all that much.  This is only his third directed film since 2000. Casey Affleck has, for my money, long been the better acting Affleck. (Ben is a great director though guys!) So Casey getting some awards bait fare can only be a good thing as far as fans of quality acting are concerned.

In Manchester by the Sea Casey plays Lee Chandler, a hard drinking loner working as a janitor in Boston when he gets the call that his brother has passed away. He finds himself tasked with caring for his teenage nephew and trying to pick up the pieces.

The Good: the writing is great and the acting is tremendous, from all corners. Affleck, newcomer Lucas Hodges (who plays Patrick, the teenage nephew) and Michelle Williams (who plays Lee's ex wife) all earned much deserved acting nominations for their work here, and if any of all of them won it would in no way be an injustice. My man Kyle "Coach Taylor" Chandler plays... Joe Chandler (I'm not sure why if you're going to cast a dude already named Chandler you just change his first name but whatever) and is solid in all of his scenes. Affleck, whom I've always been a fan of, gives the performance of his career, with layers of grief and regret underlying an outward humor and bitterness. One of the things I appreciated most about this film was the subtle surprises and twists from the way that a traditional narrative of this type would unfold. I won't say more than that in order to avoid spoilers, but I'll just say that this film turns out to be much more than the trailer would have you expect. By mixing grief with flashbacks, humor, and scenes of real bonding and affection, this film is a very real, poignant, and human look at very ordinary people in an extraordinary situation.



The Bad: there are parts of this film that are just DEVASTATING. Like a nuclear weapon of grief. That's not necessarily a bad thing - but there are parts that are just too much. Egregious even. Plus, and I say this as someone who's obsessed with The Departed, I've had enough with Bahhhhstan accents, guys. I seriously laughed every single time someone said "gahhhdian" and I don't think that's what the film was going for.

In all, this is a tremendously acted, well crafted, well written story of very human grief and growth featuring two tremendous performances at its heart. Its well worth watching for the performances alone, and this one will stick with you. It deserves its Oscar love.

8/10.

2016: The Year in Film: "Rogue One" Review

So surely at this point we can all agree that Disney buying Star Wars from George "Jar Jar Binks" Lucas was the best thing that could've conceivably happen for the franchise, right? Who (other than alt-right Pepe Nazis who are upset that women and brown people are in them now of course) could possibly have any complaints about the direction that the greater Star Wars universe has taken over the last 2 years compared to the unmitigated disasters that were the prequels?

With that being said, Rogue One is something new. To this point, all of the Star Wars  films have been episodes or chapters within a single long narrative. (Ignore all of the contradictions and continuity errors therein, please) Rogue One represents an effort to create a standalone story within the larger cohesive universe not unlike the way that say Ant-Man is in Civil War but Civil War is not an Ant-Man movie.

We're introduced to Jyn Erso, a young lady who finds herself at the crosshairs of the brewing conflict between the Empire and Rebellion. Set before the events of the original Star Wars (1977), this flick shows us a side to the universe that we haven't yet seen. Jyn and her companions are faced with trying to stop a new and horrible weapon - the Death Star.

The Good: part Dirty Dozen - style commando movie, part Saving Private Ryan - style war epic, this flick fits squarely within the Star Wars universe with all of its epic glory and idiosyncratic weirdness. I'll admit that I had some concerns about director Gareth Edwards following the dumpster fire that was the 2014 Godzilla but he turned out to be exactly the choice needed. Rogue One manages to both be completely and utterly recognizable as Star Wars and yet totally different from anything that's been done in a Star Wars movie thus far. The cast does everything they're asked to do and adds a few memorable contributions to the Star Wars mythos along the way. Felicity Jones is great as Jyn. The criminally underworked Diego Luna is memorable as well, but the real showstoppers are Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang, whose buddy cop act really brings levity to what is ultimately a pretty dark affair. Alan Tudyk's K2S0 steals every scene he's in. Ben Mendelsohn, Forrest Whittacker and Mads Mikkelson are all memorable, if underused in spots. Ultimately, the real draw of this flick is the intense plotting and smartly choreographed action sequences.



The Bad: there are a few plot holes and shortcomings that honestly seem amateurish in comparison to how good the rest of the flick is. The decision was made to plug in CGI characters and honestly, that seems like a mistake. The rest of the flick looked SO great that the CGI characters looked cartoony and cheesy. I also feel that Mads Mikkelson and Forrest Whittacker were underused. It seems like a shame to bring them on board to a Star Wars movie and not make the most of them.

In all though, I really enjoyed this one. By fitting squarely within the Star Wars universe but making pains to rely on wholly new, diverse and different characters, the film enriches what Star Wars is and can be. Serious kudos to Disney too for not pulling punches. If you've seen it, you know what I mean.

8/10

2016: The Year in Film: "Moonlight" Review

 There's a certain genre of film that's emerged in the last decade or so... let's call it the "issue" flick. Think, Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" on screen. They seek to draw attention to their issue through often emotionally manipulative means - I'm thinking of the likes of Crash or Dallas Buyer's Club here. Now it's a very specific thing - as films that have a greater reason for existing than merely exposing the issue at hand don't quite fit - 12 Years a Slave doesn't fit here because of the beauty of the filmmaking and the depth of character development. So when I first heard of and saw the trailer for Moonlight, my concern was that we'd be looking at another proud entrant into the school of emotionally manipulating your audience on the silver screen. Thankfully, that's not what we got here. Though no doubt this film touches on multiple issues of social concern, endemic poverty, sexuality, race, crime and more, it's not ABOUT any one or even all of those things.

In Moonlight we meet Chiron, a quiet boy living in extremely hard conditions in urban Miami. His mother's a drug addict, he's poor, friendless and struggling to find his way. We follow Chiron through three separate phases in his life, as a young boy, as a teenager, and as an adult man, and follow what it means to BE through his eyes.

 The Good: this is Barry Jenkins' 2nd feature film (and I've never seen his first) so I wasn't sure what to expect, but this film is gorgeous. The use of color, the framing, the score and the lighting lend the film a fundamental artistry that mark Jenkins as a filmmaker to watch. The use of different actors and different times means that this film rises above any one time and place and becomes much more personal, much more intimate as a result. We don't need to know every detail of Chiron's life. We see it. On his face. In his voice. In his relationships. (or lack thereof) It reminded me of Boyhood in its intimate and often whimsical tableau of life events and attention to detail. Fundamentally, this is a film about self, about love, about struggle and injustice, but mostly it's about one boy and his struggle to become a man. It's incredibly intimate, and haunting. It doesn't offer answers - merely observations, and sometimes that's all we can expect. Mahershala Ali (this dude is everywhere nowadays, and his charisma, physicality and screen presence have never served him better than they do here) was rightfully nominated for an Academy Award for his performance here - and his performance is truly transcendent here. In all, this is a personal and humanizing look at individuals who are often overlooked or painted in broad strokes. That can be more powerful than any statement of political purpose.



The Bad: there isn't much here - if I am to criticize it's that maybe the three actors portraying Chiron don't resemble each other all that much, but ultimately the film didn't require it. If anything, the film could have been longer. The ending is maybe not as satisfying as it could have been, but I'd argue that the vagueness fits with the... poetry of the film.

In all, this is one of the best films of the year. It was nominated for all those Oscars for a reason. It's haunting, gorgeous, perfectly crafted, well-acted and powerful. It's not exactly an uplifting time at the movies - but it's an important one.

9/10