If you are a horror aficionado, chances are you may have already seen Ari Aster’s debut film, Hereditary. Hailed by many as one of the greatest horror movies in recent years, Hereditary is also a film about grief and how people process this emotion differently. In fact, this film is almost more interesting when it is delving into the how the different stages of grief exhibit themselves in unique ways (especially with Toni Collette’s character). At one point in the film, Collette's character is literally heaving while on all fours as she rocks back and forth, screaming "it hurts too much!" While this kind of display could easily come off as melodramatic if not executed properly, instead it stands out to me as one of the better portrayals of pure agonizing grief by an actor or actress in recent memory.
Otherwise, Hereditary contains many of the familiar horror tropes: strange-looking child, house out in the middle of nowhere with a spooky attic, creepy dollhouses, witches, the occult, seances (seriously people just say no to seances it never ends well), and evil books that can’t be destroyed. The movie doesn't rely on "jump scares" really at all, however, it does contain one of the most shocking scenes I've seen in a while that will probably leave you with your mouth hanging open for a second.
In my opinion, the acting truly carries this film, Toni Collette does a fantastic job of portraying a horribly grief-stricken mother and her facial expressions convey every emotion from apathetic depression, to burning anger, to sudden horror (during one screaming match at the dinner table I was convinced that her eyes were going to pop right out of their sockets). Alex Wolff also plays his part as the bewildered and terrified son, while Gabriel Byrne portrays the classic "dad who looks like he'd rather be anywhere else right now" role.
I won't delve too much into the plot, because it's hard to discuss too much without inadvertently spoiling things, but I will say that a majority of the film is "teasing" what is to come, however, once we get to then end, things move quickly. Although I found the ending to be fascinating, I was ultimately a little disappointed that we didn't get a more thorough explanation or more closure on what transpired. Admittedly, this is probably what Aster was going for in leaving some questions unanswered, however, I think one last scene would have really wrapped things up nicely. I wouldn't say Hereditary is one of my all time favorite horror films, but it is an enjoyable and intriguing ride.
When 28 Days Later first came out, it instantly became a cult hit that revolutionized the zombie genre. Before 28 Days Later, zombies were mostly slow, shambling creatures, who were terrifying because of their sheer numbers, not necessarily their athletic prowess; however, now with the release of 28 Years Later, the concept of “fast zombies” has been well established, so how will this new sequel keep things fresh? Or is it just another unnecessary sequel?
On the technical side of things, 28 Days Later was also known for its gritty and realistic visual style, which is due to Danny Boyle’s used digital home video cameras in shooting the film (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/28-days-later-pioneered-digital-120832684.html). This time, Boyle sets out to be a pioneer in cinematography once again by being the first blockbuster ever to use a specially-made rig of iPhones to shoot the third film in the 28 Units of Time series. The result is a series of frenetic and jarring sequences that actually work rather well in evoking the tone for this apocalyptic setting. Zombies practically seem to jump out from every side of the screen when things really hit the fan and the rig, which holds 14-20 iphones, allows for “killshots” to be shown from every angle. It is quite impressive to see how far the quality of digital video has come since 28 Days Later, as visually the film looks as high quality as any blockbuster.
The film quickly establishes that this zombie apocalypse is strictly a United Kingdom problem; the virus has been contained to the mainland and a strict quarantine is in effect meaning the remaining survivors are on their own. Without giving too much away, the film essentially begins as a coming of age story, with a young Spike (Alfie Wiliams) learning the ways of apocalyptic survival with his father (played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson). They live with a group of survivors on a small island that is barely even large enough for the small town. Naturally, to prove his worth and his manhood, Spike must venture out to “the mainland” with his father and get his first kill, despite the protests of his severely ill and bed-ridden mother. Without getting into any spoilery details, the majority of the film from there focuses on the mainland, where the zombies have been thriving, and are led by a series of super zombies called “Alphas,” (they film never explains how Alphas are created or what makes them special but a certain swinging appendage seems to play a part) In the midst of all of this, Spike makes a desperate attempt to save his dying mother. There is certainly more action in store than any of the characters bargained for and Spike must quickly put all that he has learned into use. Much like the action, the story is frenetic and fast-paced, but it still manages to take time to establish how much the world has changed since the original film and how life for the survivors of the “Rage virus” epidemic versus the rest of the world; they are not only stuck in survival mode, they are stuck in time. As the story comes to a conclusion we are suddenly met with an abrupt cliffhanger; surprise! There is another sequel coming, this one entitled 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. Overall, the plot is simple but effective, however I feel as though we are missing elements to the story that will be revealed in Bone Temple that will tie together a few loose ends and various questions.
On the acting side of things, Aaron Taylor-Johnson gives a solid performance, although he isn’t given as much screen time as one might expect coming into the film. Alfie Williams plays his role well, although there are a few times where his emotional reactions are somewhat questionable, it seemed to be more of a director’s choice than the actor’s. Jodie Comer as Spike's mother, Isla, shines brightest in this film, really committing to the role of the boys’ ill-stricken mother as she fights a disease that turns her own mind against her.
So is it a necessary sequel or another soulless cash grab? Personally, I enjoyed the film, even if I didn’t agree with all of the story choices that were made. The film still manages to make the zombie concept feel fresh and the cinematography gives us a different more immersive feeling as an audience than other zombie flicks. As much as I’d like to see more original films, of course, this sequel doesn’t borrow too much from its predecessors other than setting. If you are a fan of the original film or a zombie fan in general I would definitely recommend giving it a watch.
Here we go
again guys; Liam Neeson is back and once again he just can’t seem to keep tabs
on his poor family’s whereabouts. After Taken 2, I thought for sure this “series”
(it’s a trilogy now, imagine that) was dead and gone for sure; I mean, everyone
had their turn being Taken (first the daughter, then the mom, and finally
Neeson himself, everyone’s happy right?) not to mention the movie was one of
the worst movies I’d ever seen. Apparently, I was wrong and the obvious, clear
next step in the series was to make a Taken movie where no one actually gets
Taken (brilliant, right? This was the actual pitch for the movie), on the
contrary, this time there’s been a murder.
First of
all, the notion that no one gets “taken” in this Taken sequel is technically
false. Admittedly, it’s not the main focus of the plot, but Liam Neeson, Famke
Janssen, and Maggie Grace all get taken at one point or another (as well as the
evil businessman stepdad) sorry to be a stickler, but I just had to point it
out. Now that that’s out of the way, what the movie does focus on is a
completely unoriginal plot (Taken meets Fugitive! Right guys?) where Liam
Neeson attempts to prove his innocence in his wife’s murder the only way he
knows how, by using a very particular set of skills.
There’s so
much wrong with this movie as an action flick, it almost feels like a parody.
For example, the plot itself is a cheap rip off of an older, better Harrison
Ford vehicle, but it doesn’t stop there. The editing is atrocious and seems almost
intentionally messy to hide Liam Neeson’s actual lack of “skills” (forgive me
Mr. Neeson, you’re still the best); in one scene we see Neeson run up to the
fence, and then there’s a cut, and then he’s on top of the fence, and then
another cut and finally cut to him “landing” on the ground; I’m not sure Liam
Neeson actually descends a real full flight of stairs, let alone does any of
the stunts this movie would have you believe. The dialogue is cripplingly
expositional and bland, evil stepdad explains to Neeson and his spec ops friend
what the Spetsnaz is at one point, which is clearly just a line intended for
the audience; sloppy lines like this persist throughout the film.
I could go
into a lot more detail on how utterly ridiculous this movie is, but honestly I
don’t think it’s worth the time. Granted, it might be a bit better than Taken
2, however, that isn’t exactly glowing praise. It’s a real shame because the
original Taken was a solid action movie that shouldn’t have been developed into
sequels. Of course, Taken 3 is making good money at the moment, so I’m sure we
can all expect a Taken 4 coming soon worldwide in a couple of years, hey maybe
they’ll shake it up a bit and his grandson will get taken.
Selma may be
the greatest, most important film of 2014. That’s right, not Boyhood (which is
brilliant) or Birdman (which is equally brilliant) as many critics would have
you believe. Don’t get me wrong, both of those films are great and deserving of
praise, but neither of them is quite as meaningful as Selma. Selma, of course,
is the story of Martin Luther King Jr. but make no mistake this isn’t merely a
biopic; rather, this film is a very specific snapshot of King’s life, one that
focuses mainly on his fight for the African-American’s right to vote and his
march from Selma to the capitol of Alabama. The choice to make a Martin Luther
King film purely about this one part of his life is nothing short of brilliant
and if anything it makes the movie more impactful than a simple overall take on
the man himself.
One of the
more poignant films made about the civil rights movement (that I’ve seen),
Selma honestly couldn’t have come at a more perfect time. The parallels between
Selma and Ferguson are almost undeniable and the life and work of Dr. King
seems more relevant than ever now. Selma doesn’t dwell on the violence, but it
doesn’t shy away from it either. It’s hard to watch the Bloody Sunday scene on
the bridge without tearing up, but this movie isn’t about the oppression and violence,
or the white man; it’s about Dr. King and his fight for freedom and the dream
that he fought so hard to make come true and that’s what makes this film stand
out.
As for David
Oyelowo’s performance as Dr. King, it’s damn near perfect and he’s practically
indecipherable from the man himself; it’s really a crime that he wasn’t
nominated for his role and the Academy should feel ashamed that they missed an
opportunity to make a real statement here by giving him a very deserved nomination.
Everyone else is incredibly well cast, as well, especially Tom Wilkinson as President
Johnson, who absolutely nails the part. Also, shout out to Oprah Winfrey, who
blends perfectly into her role as well.
Now, much
has been made about the historical accuracy of this film. Some claim that it
paints the President in a poor light and dramatizes his opposition to Dr. King,
when in actuality he supported King. In my opinion this argument is petty and
ridiculous and is akin to those who argue that some slave owners were “really
nice” to their slaves and never whipped them, or whatever nonsense racist
people say. Bottom line, they owned slaves didn’t they? And the bottom line
here is that voting rights for African-Americans wasn’t a priority at all to
President Johnson and he definitely dragged his feet the whole way. In fact,
the only reason his hand was forced was to prevent more violence. In addition,
he was also privy to J. Edgar’s constant wire-tapping and threatening phone calls;
perhaps he wasn’t aware of the details, but he had to have known it was
happening. To his credit, Johnson does seem to empathize with Dr. King’s cause
and he does end up making the right decision, if only not to go down in history
as a bigoted racist like the governor of Alabama at the time. Also, so what if
the film has made a few historical tweaks to dramatize the film? Other
filmmakers do this sort of thing all the time and virtually no one complains;
you have to ask yourself why it’s such a big deal when Selma does it.
Finally, if
you’ve heard that Selma isn’t getting good reviews (something I’ve heard a few
people say) this is false. If you look at Rotten Tomatoes it currently sits at
ninety-nine percent with an average score of 8.7, and virtually every
legitimate critic has given it a positive review, and with good reason as Selma
is a damn good film (also the audience rating is at eighty-eight percent with
an average 4.2 out of 5). Ultimately, don’t let the media (or American Sniper)
distract you from seeing this one, it may be one of the more important films of
our generation and it’s sad that it hasn’t garnered more press and attention,
but then I guess it isn’t exactly surprising. Martin
Luther King has taken us a long way, but unfortunately, it seems we may still
have a long way to go.
Unbroken is
the undeniably incredible true story of Louis Zamperini and also simultaneously
the first directorial feature from mega-star Angelina Jolie; together these two
aspects have given the film a lot of hype and it’s not hard to see why; both
are commanding figures and together they have made for a rather compelling
film, but what exactly makes it so intriguing? Make no mistake, there’s an
over-abundance of World War 2 films in the film world (although I’m not exactly
complaining as it was one of the more interesting times in history), especially
here in America where we love to remember the last great ass-kicking we felt
good about, but Unbroken isn’t exactly like your average World War 2 film. What
sets this film apart, however, isn’t necessarily what is in the movie, but what
isn’t.
I won’t
waste time telling the story (that’s what watching the movie is for, after all)
but suffice it to say Zamperini is the perfect picture of an American and a
good Christian, or so he’s portrayed in the movie. He runs fast, he fights
hard, and he survives, but if I have one major complaint about Unbroken, it’s
that the film never really delves into what motivates the man. Why does
Zamperini power on when so many have given up? It’s hard to even fathom the
amount of determination that is required to survive what Zamperini went through,
and I’m still mystified by it; don’t expect the movie to explain his motives,
this is simply a show and tell story, but it is a fairly good one.
The most
interesting aspect of this movie by far is the relationship between Zamperini
and the POW camp leader, Watanabe; it almost seems as if Watanabe likes
Zamperini, as if something attracts him to the young Olympic athlete, but he
hates himself for it and he takes it out on Zamperini and the rest of the
prisoners. I almost wish the movie had focused more on this dynamic as it is
very intriguing, but it seems just a scene or two away from being complete.
As for the
performances, both Jack O’connell and Takamasa Ishihara are on top of their
game and they largely carry the film, albeit with some more than capable
directing from Angelina Jolie. For her first film, this is most certainly an
ambitious project and I have to say she mostly pulls it off. Does the film have
its faults? Of course, as I mentioned earlier it doesn’t develop the characters
as much as I would have liked and it didn’t necessarily excite me as much as it
seems to have with others; also, I would have appreciated more of a more
humanized look at the other Japanese guards and even some of the American
prisoners, but this movie is solely about Zamperini and it does a very
serviceable job of telling his story.
In the end,
that’s exactly what Unbroken is, very solid and serviceable, but does it really
make the audience feel something? I would say that would depend on your views
going into the film more than what the movie itself evokes as far as emotions
for the characters. Still, this is a great first effort and I’m excited to see
Jolie’s next effort. Ultimately, this seems to be a film that will be
remembered for launching the careers of Jack O’connel and Takamasa Ishihara
respectively as well as Angelina Jolie’s directing career. However, I’m sure
Zamperini would appreciate this biopic, it’s just a shame he wasn’t on this
Earth quite long enough to see its release.
What
happened, Ridley Scott? At one point in time I would have strongly considered
the mastermind behind Alien and Blade Runner one of my favorite directors; his
director’s cuts were stuff of legend (Blade Runner and Kingdom of Heaven to
name a couple) and even if Robin Hood was a bit of a misstep, he was the master
of swords and sandals flicks (Gladiator remains of the best examples of this
genre). However, with his most recent film, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Ridley
Scott has really made me question whether or not he might have lost the touch.
Exodus is of
course the movie that has become infamous for its mostly all-white cast (in
case you’re unaware this is a movie all about Egyptians, who almost certainly
don’t look very white), which has caused more than a few people to boycott the
film and the country of Egypt to ban it altogether. So just how bad is the
casting, really? Well, let’s put it this way, the cast in any film, shouldn’t
distract from the movie; in the case of Exodus, the casting is so off-putting,
it was hard for me to concentrate on anything else. First of all, Joel Edgerton
plays the role of Ramses, and for those who don’t know Joel Edgerton, he might
possibly be the least pharaoh-like person to ever grace the movie screen, and
the choice to cast Sigourney Weaver as his mother is even worse. These aren’t
the only bizarrely miscast roles, however, there’s also Christian Bale as Moses
(cue the “guy named Christian plays Moses” jokes) Aaron Paul as Joshua (who’s
not even supposed to be in this story) and finally the casting of God himself,
but more on that later. Remember, these people are supposed to be Egyptian (and
Jewish) characters, and not only are they not remotely Egyptian or Hebrew, but
they’re so far from it I can’t even take the film seriously. Literally, every
scene looks like white people dressed in poor imitation Egyptian makeup
shouting at each other with bizarre accents (are they supposed to be Egyptian
accents? Or Egyptian-like English accents? I’m so confused). All of this might
(but probably wouldn’t) be excusable, if the movie itself was actually entertaining,
but alas, it is not.
Normally,
I’m not one to be a stickler over changes from the original source material in
an adaptation, as long as these changes are at least somewhat creative and bring
new light to the story; I can safely say this is not the case with Exodus. I’m
sure “fans” of the original story won’t appreciate many of the changes here,
and I can’t say that I did either, mostly because they’re just plain
disappointing. For example, the oft-referenced burning bush scene is completely
ruined here; for whatever reason instead of god speaking to Moses through a
burning bush, he instead stands next to a burning bush, while Moses takes an
oddly timed mud spa bath (I know it doesn’t make sense, but this is what
happens). Not only that, but the god in question is played by a rather
unimpressive eight year-old boy with a bad haircut, which is far from inspired
casting but I wouldn’t expect much else at this point.
Of course,
one of the big moments of this story and thus the film is the ten plagues
(which I’m all but certain have been condensed down into nine for this movie).
Unfortunately, this is where the movie really stumbles. Instead of being the
highlight of the story as it should be, it comes off formulaic and boring.
Every plague is the same; show the plague; show the people reacting to the
plague; show the pharaoh’s reaction; show the aftermath and lather, rinse,
repeat. By the time the more visually impressive plagues come along I could
hardly be bothered to be interested anymore, and those familiar with the story
will most likely be disappointed in how little Moses has to do with any of it.
There’s
plenty wrong with Ridley Scott’s latest effort, but honestly, it’s not even
worth going into in any great detail. The red sea parting looks fine visually,
but it’s nothing new, and the ending is somewhat anti-climactic (actually, it’s
very anti-climactic, but I barely cared anymore at that point anyway). If
you’re looking for a faithful adaptation, look elsewhere; if you’re looking for
an exciting swords and sandals type epic, look elsewhere; seriously, just look
elsewhere, period. If you want to watch a good adaption of this story, I
suggest The Prince of Egypt, it’s on Netflix right now; or if you’re looking
for good Ridley Scott, The Gladiator is on there too; but, ultimately, just
anything besides Exodus: Gods and Kings.
#Onelasttime.
For those of you that haven’t seen it, that’s the hash tag promotion campaign
that’s being used for the final installment of the Hobbit series: The Battle of
the Five Armies. The reason I mention this is because this specific tag line,
the line they hope you’ll (subconsciously) read and become excited for the
film, is obviously important. What does that say exactly? Well, to me it says
the filmmakers are inviting us back for one last journey through Middle-Earth,
and it promises to be an epic tying-together of all the films before it, and
that includes the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The reason I wish to clarify this
to begin with is because (at least from my perspective) the makers of this film
(Peter Jackson chief among them) have seemingly promised us another film in the
line of the original Lord of the Rings, as if to say that the film they have
most recently created, should be held to the same standard of the original
trilogy. Not only that, but the whole series has been sold as being same
quality as the original Lord of the Rings, and this finale is being hailed as
every bit as epic and satisfying as The Return of the King. Given this, as I
watched the film I found myself comparing it to the original Lord of the Rings,
and as has been the case throughout this trilogy, I wasn’t impressed with the
comparison to say the least.
First of
all, the decision to make one book (which is shorter than any of the individual
Lord of the Rings books, I might add) into three movies was a poor one, and
almost certainly not a decision made on merit of art or creativity; as such,
this has created pacing problems throughout the series, none made more obvious
than in the beginning of the final chapter. Seemingly beginning in the middle
of a conflict (because it does) the beginning of the Battle of the Five Armies
seems more like the conclusion of the Desolation of Smaug, and maybe it
should’ve been. As a result, Smaug’s storyline climax feels rushed and fairly
tacked on. I can’t say exactly where the film should have started, but I’m
confident they chose the wrong spot. If you’re fuzzy on what happened in the
last film, I suggest you at least rewatch the end because this sequel doesn’t
bother with catching us up on the action, which is immediate.
Another
problem I have with this film (and to a degree the whole trilogy) is the odd,
misplaced attempts at humor throughout. One minute, we have severe devastation
and destruction, images Peter Jackson portrayed extremely well in the original
movies, however, in this last film (and in the previous two as well), he has
inexplicably inserted “comical” gags that not only disrupt the flow of the
film, but serve to make the following dramatic scenes all the more absurd. Not
that the drama needs to be made to look any sillier; the acting seems forced
and not entirely organic, almost as if the actors are trying too hard to make
their lines all sound incredibly epic.
The Battle
of the Five Armies is a complete exaggeration of any of the Middle-Earth to
come before it, and as such, the staples we’ve come to expect from Peter
Jackson, which once seemed more grounded, now seem overdone and comes off as
fan service, and not in a good way. For example, in one scene where Legolas is
of course supposed to do awesome elf-power things, he hops from one piece of
debri to the next, in mid-air while he and the debri are in a free fall all the
way to the top before he actually falls for real. Excuse the run-on sentence
(if anything it’s a run-on action scene, or something), but I’m pretty sure
this isn’t how science works. Walking on top of snow, I can take; Taking out an
Olyphant single-handedly is epic, but this just simply had my eyes rolling. There
are various more scenes like this in the film, which are obviously meant to be
mesmerizing like in the originals, but instead come off as absurd, such as with
Thorin and his “dragon sickness” (they use this term in the film about twenty
times) which seemed forced and underdeveloped.
A few other
random things, Fili and Kate from Lost’s romance was silly from the beginning
and it gets even more so in this sequel, not because it’s a dwarf and an elf,
but because of the way it’s done. They put in an unnecessary reference to
Aragorn here, which sets up events that will happen from the “appendices” (which,
basically, are Tolkien’s official notes on Lord of the Rings’ characters) but
regardless it feels completely unnecessary in the context of this series. Also,
Thorin’s cousin Dain (who’s introduced midway through) seems to almost be
animated or something to that effect, which was incredibly distracting. Ever
since the first Hobbit film Peter Jackson has attempted to weave teasers of
what’s to come in the Lord of the Rings into this trilogy, even though the
Hobbit doesn’t have much to do with this storyline. In my opinion, this
cheapens the action in the Hobbit (after all it’s not nearly as serious) and
also makes it really seem like Gandalf was just sitting on his hands for years
until The Fellowship of the Ring. Finally, I miss the look of the old films;
what’s with all the over-exposure and digital effects where there were would
have been practical ones in the Lord of the Rings?
Some
positive notes, the art design is top-notch as always and the dwarvish army
especially is impressive (minus the odd-looking Dain). The film is also very
faithful to the Tolkien universe and as such will definitely appeal to diehard
fans in that regard. Also, delivers well on many of the “death scenes” and you
know there’s a few of those. Martin Freeman has always made a strong Bilbo, and
despite being practically non-existent in the plot once the battle begins, he
still carries the scenes he’s in quite well. The battle itself is impressive
overall (even if it still can’t measure up to Helm’s Deep) and takes up a good
portion of the movie.
In the end,
the last Hobbit movie ends as awkwardly as it started and I must confess I
could never really get into it any point. Perhaps I shouldn’t compare it to the
original Lord of the Rings so much, but it seems as if that’s what the
filmmakers themselves are asking the audience to do, and it simply doesn’t hold
the comparison. All I can say is I now fully understand what older generations
of Star Wars fans felt when those prequels were released (I was too young to
really remember Star Wars before the prequels were a thing). Just as with those
prequels the story seems less compelling, and the action too exaggerated, and
the performances not as personable; overall it’s just not what I had come to
expect, and it’s why I can’t say I’m really a fan of the Hobbit series.
However, am I going to marathon these films when the extended versions are released?
Yeah, I probably will, and that’s why they call it a cash cow.
