text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8298200516917595582018-05-31T02:03:16.355-07:00Movie Micah ★★★★Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-18133645340276812952018-01-25T16:51:00.003-08:002018-01-25T16:51:55.502-08:00Call Me By Your Name (2017) (R)

Is it better to speak or to die?

There's something almost smothering about watching "Call Me By Your Name". It's calmly emotional, even paced at times and frantic at others, playing like an academic trying to make sense of something far more urgent. As it is said by a character in the film's shining moment, it has "everything and nothing to do with intelligence".

Set it Italy in the 1980s, "Call Me By Your Name" might be a too obvious 'coming of age' story for its lead: Elio (Timothée Chalamet). For one summer Elio is removed from his bedroom because a visiting research assistant moves in. For the summer months, Oliver (Armie Hammer) assists Elio's father (Michael Stuhlbarg) as the camera soaks in the scenery of the Italian landscape.

Though it occurs in Italy and much of the conversation is nationalistic, this is not an Italian movie in the vein of Fellini or Antonioni. It has much more in common with a film like "A Room with a View". There is something so chaotic underneath Elio's face that it makes the viewer uneasy. This teenage angst and anxiety is compared fairy tales. The act of admitting one's feelings becomes heroic.

As the summer continues Elio is unsure of what to think of Oliver, the charismatic American. What Oliver lacks in finesse he makes up for with apparent confidence. He is, to a certain extent, intimidating; but there's something about his posturing that Elio finds fascinating.

A good portion of the movie concerns observation and with this it can often feel elusive. Pivotal moments aren't given much explanation other than cryptic facial expressions. It's difficult to read the characters at sometimes, which is, I think, what the film intends to do. Luca Guadagnino allows the camera to focus on Oliver and Elio without prying too deeply into their thoughts as they size each other up. This adds to the slight sense of unease that builds as they become more vulnerable.

Punctuated throughout by a very compelling and often revealing score, "Call Me By Your Name" is patient and its attention to detail pays off. There is no scene that feels unnecessary. Every long shot of the Italian landscape or close up, not quite focused, allows the audience to parse a little more until, at long last, the characters reveal themselves.

It's intimate and sometimes uncomfortable to watch; but it nevertheless feels genuine. The film's shining stars are Timothée Chalamet and Michael Stuhlbarg, whose underrated supporting role has gone sadly overlooked this year. As the lead, Chalamet never seems to part with Elio. There is no real glamour to the role and Guadagnino appears to attempt to make the character the least showy it can possibly be. What is left is a genuine chemistry between Chalamet and Armie Hammer.

By the end of the movie, the emotions have swelled and perhaps end on a note that reflects maybe a little immaturity on Guadagnino's part. He chooses to end a well-paced, thought out and very self-reflective movie almost bitterly raw, when I think it could have been more powerful to be a little distant. Regardless, the film is charming and evocative, even simplistic at times; but rife with scenes to consider. The film stays with you after you finish, as any good film will.

Score: ★★★½Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-45712207387823138922017-12-29T07:47:00.000-08:002017-12-29T07:47:18.880-08:00Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017) (PG-13)

I saw the newest "Star Wars" movie on opening weekend but I've resisted writing something about it until now. I'm not exactly sure why I wanted to wait, maybe the initial buzz about it has worn down slightly and I feel I can talk about it, even generally, without being at risk of spoiling and incurring the rage of the devotee. More than likely, I'm just lazy. Whatever the reason, I'm glad I waited because everything that was being written by critics and fans alike started to separate people based on their dedication to the series: die-hard fans and the casual viewer.

This distinction needs to be made, because a lot of the objections to the newest movie have been on the premise that it strays from true "Star Wars" territory in theme, narrative, and dogma (and I don't use that word lightly). Some ardent fans of the universe who have consumed all types of content across many mediums have voiced that this film lacks the je nais se quoi to call it a true "Star Wars" movie. Which begs the question: who was the movie really made for?

"The Force Awakens" was a safe movie. It had a safe plot and nothing too surreal or edgy to cause fans to abandon the newest trilogy. J. J. Abrams is just the kind of director to hire for this and "The Force Awakens" was a success because it played it safe. Having pacified fans and critics that the newest installments in the series were likely to be good, Rian Johnson steps in to take the reigns both directing and writing. If Abrams is safe, Johnson is experimental and it shows immediately.

"The Last Jedi" picks up shortly after "The Force Awakens" ends, as the First Order is attempting to finally eliminate the Resistance once and for all. The First Order has a trifecta of bad men in charge. There's Snoke (Andy Serkis), the Emperor Palpatine of his movies; then there's Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), our series' Darth Vader; and finally General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson)...and you get the idea.

As the First Order closes in on the Resistance, Rey (Daisy Ridley) attempts to convince Luke (Mark Hamill) to come back to the Resistance and fight. Her time with the old Jedi begins the thread that runs through the movie concerning past lives, regrets, and irreversible decisions. Much like the original trilogy, the audience is presented with flawed characters who may or may not be beyond redemption. Johnson seems keen to erase some of the sins of episodes I-III during these moments as his writing reinforces what The Force is and how it operates, and the dichotomy between the good and dark sides of the force.

With the return of the cast of characters, one rising star becomes clear: women. Women are generals, heroes, villains, strategists, and just as valuable as the men. This is a huge break in the Star Wars world, considering how Leia is the only lead woman in the original trilogy and practically the only woman who speaks in the movies. We can begin to see the beginning of something powerful with Rey in front as the Resistance relies on its female support.

One thing that stands out to me is how the movie treats time. It almost reminded me of Hitchcock's "Rope" (bear with me). The movie's narrative—without giving too much away—takes place in a finite amount of space and time, which loses some of the original 'magic' of the Star Wars world. While it does make for a more compelling action movie, the sense of grandeur the previous movies had, is kind of lost here. To combat this claustrophobic, pressurized sensation, Johnson creates an unnecessarily long diversion that ultimately isn't satisfying.

But, oh, the fight sequences. "The Last Jedi" knows how to handle action well and the almost intimate set pieces of the movie allow the tension to boil like a pressure cooker up to an explosive and very exciting third act, which in all fairness could have been twenty minutes shorter.

So let's return to the question of who the movie was made for. If it was made for the die-hard fans, there are some sequences that I can see being anticlimactic or even annoying; but as the casual viewer, these moments will just be part of the grander spectacle the movie presents. I would agree that this is the least "Star Wars" feeling movie of the new films. The "Star Wars" movies are arguably the biggest movies ever made and Johnson realizes that. His movie is, at times, unapologetically weird but it is made for mass consumption and I don't think I can fault him for that. "The Last Jedi" was made for as many people as possible. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Disney didn't own the rights; but that's another story.

Score: ★★★ Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-4712636321350647062017-10-23T18:50:00.001-07:002017-10-23T18:50:25.017-07:00Blade Runner: 2049 (2017) (R)

I make it no secret that I was not a fan of the original "Blade Runner" film. I have many grievances with it; but I won't waste time and spell them out here. Needless to say, I consider it nothing sacred in cinematic canon that demands its protection; and in an age of film where sequels and remakes keep disappointing, I was not anxious to see how the source material was treated.

All that being said, "Blade Runner: 2049" is an incredibly different movie than its predecessor in tone alone and I would say, for my taste, remarkably more successful. In its barest sense, it is a crime movie much like the original film was. The plot is very meticulous and structured fairly simply to the critical eye. One event leads to the next which leads to the next. The script doesn't try anything fancy simply because the film is a "science fiction" film.

At the movie's opening, K (Ryan Gosling) is announced as a blade runner. His job is to hunt down and "retire" old versions of the Nexus model replicants, bio-engineered drone like workers. Due to a malfunction of software, the previous versions aren't quite as obedient and must be eliminated.

One such mission leads to a few clues that K's superior, referred to for most of the movie as "Madam" (Robin Wright), feels are vitally important for preserving the nature of the status quo. She commands him to follow every lead and in doing so, naturally, the movie begins to unwind.

Like any dystopic science fiction, "Blade Runner: 2049" presents a series of events, impossible for our present yet possible for our future; but it is never patronizing or preachy. The movie's strength lies in the subtleties of its storytelling and its patience. This is a surprisingly long movie for a modern "blockbuster" and its pacing is always calculated. Although almost three hours long, the film never drags and every scene feels vital to the plot.

To recap the movie would be to not do it justice and to itemize the acting feels boring. The real star of the film is its look and Roger Deakins once again is victorious. The movie is beautiful to look at and burns slowly, all thanks to its lusciously bleak look of the future. What the original film attempted to do with its kitschy noir feeling, "Blade Runner: 2049" succeeds massively by stripping noir down to its to its baseline overwhelming depression.

Outlined as such, it seems hard to "enjoy" a movie like "Blade Runner: 2049" and I'm not sure I would use the word "enjoyable". For this, it defies the blockbuster genre. The movie is gorgeous but emotionally aloof, it's action without voyeurism, and it's important to itself without apology. In all this, the story and movie itself are still compelling and I think it's one of the reasons that makes Denis Villeneuve such an unconventionally great story teller. The same frustration that I experienced with "Blade Runner: 2049" is the same felt in "Sicario" and even "Prisoners". This time, it was even more tangible.

By the end of the movie, the slow, aching beauty of it all builds into a sensational crescendo that feels akin to the breathless moments in "Incendies" or the suspense of "Arrival". I felt pinned to my seat and unable to tear my eyes away.

Most surprising, however, is how the movie seems to resist cliche. In the background there are hints of commentary on humanity, servitude, and emotion; but it doesn't play out how I expected and I think this is, in part, due to its running time and the care it takes with the slower moments. Not only does it narrative seem impossible to predict; but so does the method of its storytelling.

I feel like it would be too easy to see this movie as somehow extravagantly biblical in its tones, due to its ideas of creation; but I think it's imperative to reject this idea. "Blade Runner: 2049" manages to succeed at being lost within its cohorts. This isolation of tone and style give the impressive impression to me that "Blade Runner: 2049" is somehow the very first true science fiction movie ever made. Of course, this isn't the case; but it does say something of its tonal impact.

The movie isn't made for mass consumption and is far less cheesy than the original; but this isn't a bad thing. "Blade Runner: 2049" deserves to be seen on the big screen for visuals alone; but ultimately the movie succeeds because it's the combination of a group of artists at the top of their game.

Score: ★★★★Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-27603110397118742562017-09-17T13:51:00.002-07:002017-09-17T13:51:37.063-07:00mother! (2017) (R)

This review contains SPOILERS!
If you have a sense of privacy, or any sort of personal space bubble, "mother!" will get under your skin. Frustrating, sometime grotesque, pretentious in a way that only Darren Aronofsky can manage, the film balances on the high wire between surreal and elusively intelligent. What causes such a visceral reaction is having a space where the audience feels safe continuously violated.

The obvious movie that "mother!" has to be compared to is "Antichrist" by Lars von Trier. That film was about an Edenic (in name also) parable with an unnamed man and woman probing the horrors of child loss and female hysteria. Like "Antichrist", there is obviously something going on here that rings true of the Christian tradition; but the surrealism of the film sometimes makes that hard to unlock. We see the lead, known as Mother played by Jennifer Lawrence, consistently in close up leaning up to the house and feeling the heartbeat through her fingers. As the movie progresses a bloody dot appears in the floorboard. These images are held in focus for much of the movie and become watermarks for the building insanity of the picture.

Shot in a remote house that looks like the farm from season 2 of "The Walking Dead", "mother!" is a perspective piece, meaning that we rarely get a point of view (literally) that is not Mother's. She is living in this isolated house with a poet known as Him (Javier Bardem) who spends most of the first half of the movie whining about his lack of inspiration.

When strangers come to visit, Man (Ed Harris) and Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer), things become unhinged as the house starts to fall apart under their havoc. This house is what Mother has spent most of her time repairing and attempting to refurbish. We understand that it was at one point, falling apart; but she rebuilt it for Him, since it is his house.

The idea of possession and ownership is crucial to understanding the movie, which, one unraveled is a clumsy retelling of the Bible from the Christian tradition. The not so subtle naming of "Mother" and "Him" leads us into Christian iconography. Let alone, the swift and ultimately premature retelling of the Cain and Able story which pans out in less than five minutes and sets off the events that let us know the "earth" has been tainted with blood.

Consider Aronofsky's oeuvre prior to "mother!". The last feature film he made was "Noah" which was very concerned with Biblical stories even though it ignored a lot of the doctrine that fundamentalists would be shocked by; but at the film's end the takeaway was the power of faith over evidence. Now look at "mother!" which appears to me to be Aronofsky's own commentary on his last film. If "Noah" was about faith, "mother!" is about God as the ultimate villain.

The intricacies of the plot are not worth spelling out; but as the movie enters its final scenes and the madness descends the facades drop and we see the same eco-friendly sentiment as present in "Noah". While this may be an honorable goal, it's carried out in the most cruelly naive way. Jennifer Lawrence's Mother is a woman with a meek voice who ultimately reclaims ownership of her house from the poet and demands that everyone leave. She kills them. And is left in the arms of the Poet (see: God) who steals her literal heart from her chest and the cycle begins again.

Although the movie could be seen as a testament to female power, I would again advise looking at its similarity to "Antichrist". These are movie that are in awe of the feminine power, almost fetishizing it; but both executed by men. And it's this male voice that overpowers any nuance that may be present in the bones of the story. Mother is shouted over, brutalized, and the film enjoys watching it and enjoys shocking its viewer.

At the final scene, we are left with an idiotic God and, perhaps, a plea for mercy on the planet. Which could have just been made in a press release rather than this movie. Lawrence as Mother is not a strong enough actress to carry the film by herself. The one performance of note here is Michelle Pfeiffer's Woman, who is callous, seductive, and arrogant. But once again we are reminded of Aronofsky's take on the Garden of Eden and her performance, although positively evil at times, leaves a sour taste in my mouth because we see her as the genesis of the destruction.

Perhaps the most enjoyable part is seeing how the Bible lines up with the story of "mother!' but by the end of it, the self-indulgence of Aronofky's "horror" is far too much and it isn't easily accessible to the viewer. His esoteric ramblings make for a sub-par movie. It's disappointing.

Score: ★½Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-53613158146670478592017-07-07T16:22:00.000-07:002017-07-07T16:22:19.418-07:0047 Meters Down (2017) (PG-13)

It feels almost fruitless to examine "47 Meters Down" with any severity or critical eye since it's obviously not a movie that was made with any regard to "art". This is a cheap blockbuster, hearkening back to the original summer hit "Jaws" but without the budget or any real compelling characters or story. Really, the only thing is has in common with "Jaws" is that both films were made on Earth.

Lisa and Kate (Mandy Moore and Claire Holt) are sisters taking a vacation in Mexico. The film drops us in on their first few nights where they lounge by the beach, check out guys, and cry over Lisa's ex. That's why they're in Mexico, as is explained by Lisa in the first five minutes by firelight as she cries. It's because Stuart (the ex) said she was boring and left her. So she decided to call her adventure-ready sister and off they go to Mexico.

This new revelation of Lisa's love life is exactly the juicy bit of emotional blackmail that Kate needs to hold over her head to make her do things out of her comfort zone for the sake of social media ("think of how the pictures will look" she often says to Lisa). This is how they end up going out at night and meeting two men who offer to take them out to cage dive with great white sharks. Of course, it's a little off the books and slightly illegal; but Kate is gung-ho about the prospect and drags Lisa along. So they pop onto a boat and not even twenty minutes into the film, we have the set up firmly in place.

Naturally, things start going wrong. They're chumming the water, Lisa starts freaking out (though you couldn't tell from Mandy Moore's acting), and the men seem to be a little too eager to get the ladies into the ocean. But Lisa is determined to get a better Instagram profile, so she gets in the cage and they go down a few meters and then *duh* the cable breaks and they go to the bottom which is, you guessed it, 47 meters down.

The movie would like to pat itself on the back here for making an "Alien" like answer to the haunted house paradox. If you are in an old house with ghosts you can always just walk out; but if you're in space in the sea trapped in a cage almost 50 meters down, you can't just walk out. Separating the girls from the surface are the sharks, as billed on the posted "the world's greatest predator". In reality, the cleverness of the film is non-existent. This is a poorly budgeted Shark Week special. Anyone could create this problem, but it takes someone smarter to make it interesting.

There are glimpses of intelligence in the film, notably the determination to make some characters bilingual and use Spanish as much as possible. You'll get more jokes if you're more familiar with the language. This is perhaps the only good thing the movie has going for it, that and the beauty of the ocean and beach that doesn't last long as our heroines plunge beneath the surface.

One thing remains: get to the surface in one piece. Naturally, Lisa freaks out and here we see that Mandy Moore is just a terrible actress. Her crying and emotional scenes regrettably sound like something more out of an adult film than a wide release thriller. She is annoying as a lead and clearly the largest problem with the film.

With over an hour left in the movie and only way to go but up, somehow the film's writers manage to sink it even further. Directed and co-written by Johannes Roberts, a name of no current consequence in the film world, "47 Meters Down" attempts to stretch the running time. But it shatters quickly and the result is a messy finale.

"47 Meters Down" once again gives sharks the unfortunate rap of being killing machines that just want to eat people. While I might want them to make an exception for Lisa and Kate, they really don't deserve this movie against them.

The film is a mess; but sometimes that's exactly what you need. I laughed my way through it in an empty theater with one of my friends. It was grand; but know what you're getting yourself into. "47 Meters Down" implies depth; but the film is only surface level.

Score: ★★Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-28075862735237211622017-07-06T16:47:00.001-07:002017-07-07T15:27:09.107-07:00Baby Driver (2017) (R)

This review contains SPOILERS!
To be in crime, we are told by hardened, trigger-happy robber Bats near the beginning of "Baby Driver", demands one be, in some part, a criminal.

"Baby Driver" is a movie about characters and choreography. It's a film composed around music, dedicated to rhythm, and centered around driving. The entire movie allows the audience to be a passenger of Edgar Wright's mammoth vehicle, whose calculated course is both unexpectedly deep and sensationally entertaining. Though "Baby Driver" features many set pieces and sequences that are spectacular and intense, its true strengths lie in its writing and its people.

Baby (Ansel Elgort) is the driver. He works for a crime boss named Doc (Kevin Spacey) who sets up heists and robberies with small teams of notable criminals. Each job gets a new group of faces...except for Baby. He's always the driver. The lucky charm of the operation. With each new iteration the hardened criminals size him up and question him and his antics. The sunglasses, the silence, the earbuds. Each of these have their reasons and for each explanation the audience is given the ambient noise of the film is fleshed out even more. This is a film deeply committed to its sound, its rhythm, and its heart.

I know it sounds cliche. But a movie without a little dollop of sentimentality is a cold magic show, something akin to "Birdman". Yet with its heart,"Baby Driver" proves that it is much more than a flashy puzzle box or a movie built around its chase sequences.

Baby wants out. He's been working off a debt to Doc for a long time; but his time is coming to an end. He is told that after one last job, he will be done. This is perfect for him because he meets a lovely waitress at a local diner named Debora (Lily James). She's quirky and confident and the two make an immediate connection over their love of music.

A few cold characters stand in the way. One of them is Bats (Jaime Foxx). This is a man obsessed with the idea of himself. He is flashy in a way that is both dangerous and annoying. He says exactly what he thinks, or what he thinks the toughest version of himself would say. But he does not lack the muscle to back up his threats. He is one of the many that is skeptical of Baby's ability, which is shown first to the audience in the opening scene.

These chase sequences are more dances than elaborate "Bourne" moments. These are orchestrated chaos and impeccably precise. Every crash, gunshot, and siren is on beat. Baby's encompassing songs fill not only the audience's ears, but every facet of the film itself.

For a movie so impossible to separate from its rhythm and sound, it catches the audience by surprise to see a deaf man, Baby's foster father (CJ Jones), so close to the center of the movie. It's unexpected writing and it exemplifies what makes Edgar Wright such a powerful director. Because, after the movie is finished, it makes perfect sense and the idea of removing such a character would leave "Baby Driver" incomplete.

"Baby Driver" is filled with near perfect performances. Jaime Foxx is wily and dangerous. Kevin Spacey is cool and commanding. A most surprising Jon Hamm delivers an incredible performance and Lily James is charming and likable. The movie, as it should, belongs to Ansel Elgort as Baby. He's the perfect choice for the role and leaves behind all his teenage heartthrob cliches from "The Fault in Our Stars". This is the emergence of a "credible" artist, at least in the critical sphere.

Edgar Wright owes a lot to Martin Scorsese and pays homage to many of the director's trademark surprises and more importantly, his soundtracks. Even the name "Baby Driver" seems too similar to "Taxi Driver" to ignore; yet if anything "Baby Driver" is Wright's answer to "Drive". Nicolas Winding Refn's film touches on the same subject matter in some of the same ways (notably the idea of crime and the criminal as delivered by Bats) yet here Wright is far more clever and far more controlled on his approach.

Previously Edgar Wright was only known for comedies; but here he shows that he is one of the directors to watch. "Baby Driver" is brilliantly crafted, nuanced, and just a hell of a good movie. You should watch this on the big screen.

Score: ★★★★Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-88605905502209281302017-06-03T10:13:00.003-07:002017-06-03T10:13:32.415-07:00Wonder Woman (2017) (PG-13)

This review contains SPOILERS!
I was a child of the 90s, was not raised on comic books, and have no extensive knowledge of the universes either Marvel or DC that are ever expanding into fully realized film franchises. I have no comparisons to earlier iterations of Wonder Woman as a character and cannot say whether the 2017 reboot of the hero does the character any justice whatsoever. This is perhaps regrettable considering all the potential for nuances and sly jokes to fans; but my view will be more of a casual viewer.

"Wonder Woman" had a lot riding on its shoulders even before its release. For such a large character in the DC universe, it seemed like a film everyone wasn't willing to make. But DC was behind. They are trying to catch up to Marvel's reign of summer flicks and super hero movies. But instead of "The Avengers" we got "Suicide Squad" and Netflix didn't back DC, so instead we have "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice". In short, DC was falling way behind. So, in order to get the Justice League in shape, we needed a movie about Wonder Woman.

This is one of very few movies with a lead female as the superhero. The last notable major motion picture endeavors were "Elektra" and "Cat Woman" and those were both well over a decade ago. So "Wonder Woman" was already under scrutiny for the survival of the female lead...and it does not disappoint.

Patty Jenkins hasn't done a lot in her career that has impressed me. I didn't care for "Monster", her only other major motion picture and then few episodes she has directed of TV shows didn't leave a large enough impression to remain memorable. Yet, with "Wonder Woman", it's clear that she isn't an immature director and that mass appeal movies aren't a boy's club only.

Diana (Gal Gadot) is one of the Amazons. They were created by Zeus and remain that last vestige of warriors that can defend the Earth and humanity should Aries, the god of war, reemerge and threaten the planet again. This much is told to Diana from a young age; and she spends most of her early days learning to fight with the rest of the Amazons, even against the will of her mother, Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), queen of the Amazons. Under the tutelage of Antiope (Robin Wright), she becomes a strong warrior.

But she cannot stay in her hidden kingdom forever.

World War I rages outside the Amazon's hidden island until one man accidentally flies right through the fog and crashes into the ocean. His name is Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) and he explains the predicament of humanity to the Amazons: the world is being destroyed.

Diana is set apart from other super heroes because she doesn't seem to draw her motivation or inspiration from the death of a parent or the need to be masculine and full of angst. Instead, she is driven by empathy. Her goal appears to be to eliminate the suffering of innocent people and many think of her as naive to do so; yet the movie challenges the callousness of the viewer and asks the audience to maybe reconsider the idea of what honor, justice, and empathy should look like. Honor, is not fighting for a war, honor is stopping a war so that innocents can stop suffering. The distinction is small. She helps others because she wants to, not because she feels like it's her duty.

The Germans once again feature as the villains, which is unsurprising and also a reminder of the patriotic history of early comic books. They are cooking up gasses ans potions that will kill thousands. With this power they could level cities in seconds and it reminds us in the 21st century, that not much has changed. Diana and Steve set out to destroy this super weapon before it's too late (and also try to find Aries along the way). They are accompanied by a slew of minor characters who don't have enough screen time to feel genuine; but are nonetheless very enjoyable.

The action sequences of "Wonder Woman" are well executed and exciting. Sometimes, they rely too heavily on the Zack Snyder method (who happened to get writing credit for the story) but as a whole the movie keeps them far enough apart and just epic enough to satiate all the desires for action an audience could have.

For me, the beginning of the film is weak and unnecessarily long; but once the story moves along, the film picks up speed and charges to the final scene. Some of the script tries to be funny and doesn't always succeed; but the humanity it gives to Diana is empowering for all.

"Wonder Woman" is a celebration of the female lead, the female director, and the hero as a loveable altruist. And on all three counts, I think it succeeds.

Score: ★★★Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-30300297985451463172017-05-21T15:33:00.000-07:002017-05-21T15:33:25.600-07:00Diner (1982) (R)

"Diner" attempts to provide of snapshot of the last moments of the 1950s within a certain circle of male friends. These guys were presumably close in highschool and now that they've move on to bigger things they find themselves unsure of the future, whether that's marriage, college, or traveling. Although not put together they always manage to have the resources to go to the local diner and have conversations about music, lovers, and sex.
Barry Levinson's directorial debut is the kind of movie that some might deem 'honest'. It presents several situations that many would find reflective of ordinary life. This is probably accurate, but the movie hasn't aged well and so as minor conversations and small wagers turn into larger narrative arcs, the "honesty" of the picture just consists of people being assholes and a timely soundtrack.
"Diner" owes a lot to Scorsese, particularly in how the movie sounds. The actors all speak in a very laid-back, important fashion about presumably nothing. And in "Seinfeld" fashion, this may be a movie about nothing...which is the point.
"Diner" thrives in the moments thought to be unworthy of film. This is a participation in what indie movies are doing. The more common narrative, by default, assumes that the movie will be exciting and noteworthy simply because of the nature of escapism. No one wants to watch a real time movie of a man filing taxes for three hours, drinking a cup of coffee, and taking a nap. In my mind, "Diner" tries for the moments that are between car chases and robberies, focusing on a group of pre-millennial millennials who are anxious about life, love, sex, women, and money...but most of all being men.
It's the holiday season in the twilight hours of the 1950s and five guy friends like to eat at a diner. If I was being cynical, that's the end of the movie. But we're supposed to push through and press on into the characters, finding them oddly charming and lovably ignorant. Which, for the first half of the movie, they are.
We see them roughhouse and argue about singers and drive around and eat and talk about girls and through their conversation the larger narrative arises: one of the guys is getting married soon and his betrothed has to answer a football quiz in order for them to get married.
Hilarious, right? Well, not exactly in a physical comedy sort of way and as the domestic abuse starts to emerge it becomes less pleasant and maybe more an attempt to mirror everyday life.
Money issues, the mob, women (who are so complicated, right?), music, etc—the movie juggles a lot of issues and a lot of minor arcs as friends come back into town, pregnancies happen, and the wedding gets even closer.
To me, "Diner" is a good movie and something I never want to touch again. Not because it's bad or harmful, I think it accurately represents an 80s mindset concerning the 60s. The reason I never want to see it again is twofold: 1.) it's really not that exciting and 2.) these characters aren't redeemable to me. Sure, it's the 80s so a little misogyny is expected; but "Diner's" treatment of female characters, particularly the Ellen Barkin figure, doesn't inspire warm fuzzy feelings inside me. The chivalry present is supposed to be when, upon manipulating a girl on the brink of a nervous breakdown, the truth emerges that this was all for a bet and everyone gets forgiven.
Maybe I'm too altruistic, or maybe I'm too critical—both are possible.
"Diner" is a good in the way "The Ice Storm" is a good movie. Both fantasize about the everyday life of suburbia, but "Diner" fails to make it compelling.

Score: ★★½Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-29167025297253460402017-05-21T15:32:00.001-07:002017-05-21T15:32:37.903-07:00The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

This review contains SPOILERS!
One of the monoliths of science fiction movies, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is keenly invested in the time period and nationalistic crises of a post-WWII America. In the opening credits, we see the western hemisphere as we travel with the protagonist "invaders" as the camera plummets towards Earth and immediately we see the nervous and perhaps violent way that Americans (or perhaps humanity at large) treats the unknown. We are hyper-aware of the time period, not only because the central drive of the movie is warning others that atomic energy is a power that could be too great to contain; but also because the radio dominates people's consumption of the news and the general bleakness of a post-war film.
Klaatu (Michael Rennie) is a humanoid alien whose physiology is no different than our own. He has landed with an eight-foot tall metal robot named Gort and he claims to have an urgent message for the people of the world. By sheer coincidence, or for the sake of ease of the story, his ship lands in the middle of the mall in Washington, D.C. You can see the fear of the people around him when he first emerges from the spaceship, offering up a gift which is misinterpreted as a weapon and he is shot through the shoulder and ends up in a hospital.
Escaping custody, he meanders around the streets trying to get a better sense of these earthlings and rents a room where he meets Helen Benson (Patricia Neal) and her son Bobby (Billy Gray). He introduces himself as Mr. Carpenter (a name he found on the inside of the jacket he was wearing) and lodges with the Bensons and a few other quirky characters who nicely sum up the political climate of the day.
But all this time, we are waiting to hear his message, which is teased and dangled in front of the viewer until the very last scene of the movie when Klaatu stands in front of the camera and speaks to the audience, warning against violence and most of all, against atomic warfare.
This warning does not necessarily mean that humanity will, of its own free nature, become more moral, because it's clear that Klaatu and his people do not care what humans do to other humans. The warning is mostly that, should their warfare stray to interstellar territories, there will be no hesitation to wipe Earth out.
For someone watching over half a century later, this sentiment loses some of its charm. "Be good to us or we'll kill you!" But still, it's nice to see a film aware of these issues even if it is under the umbrella of its own nationalistic identity. We can see this when Bobby takes Klaatu to the cemetery to look at the gravestone of Bobby's dad, who died in the war. Then they stop at the Lincoln Memorial where Klaatu panders to the target audience and comments on what a great individual this person was. While perhaps justified, looking upon the Gettysburg address, Klaatu and Bobby quickly go back to the less patriotic story-line which concerns only the alien and his doings.
"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is maybe deceptively simple with a very clear message and a very easy narrative; but the words are the most important part. Another key factor to consider when watching the movie is that the only "major" award that it won was at the Golden Globes where it took home the prize for "Best Film Promoting International Understanding" a category that has been retired for over fifty years now. The international understanding of the film is less about the empathy of victims who had survived the atomic bomb and more about self-preservation when you view the film in a callous light.
A more optimistic approach would perhaps deify this "Carpenter" and his words of wisdom and teach the viewer that this is the only life we have to live, so why not minimize human suffering along the way? And for that, it's hard to critique the film.

Score: ★★★Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-6383774179649034502017-03-19T15:08:00.001-07:002017-07-06T16:52:02.419-07:00Beauty and the Beast (2017) (PG)

There is an obvious reason for the remake of "Beauty and the Beast" which is far less idealistic than the sum of its parts: money. Of course, this is the most cynical way of approaching the movie, which is probably not the right mindset to frame the film by; but given its predecessors' place in cinematic history, Disney's newest remake feels a bit tired in comparison and almost devoid of magic.
Naturally, the newest iteration of "Beauty and the Beast" should probably be viewed in its own light; but I think it wasn't meant to be seen this way. Sometimes it's line-for-line with the original and sometimes slight changes make the viewer pause. Without these references, we wouldn't be seeing the small baby steps that make the film more current. You can see this when certain parts of the backstory fill in: the prince of the land is made to be a selfish man who taxes his kingdom cruelly so he can buy himself beautiful things. This material obsession which begins the narration as some of the first words spoken in the movie, is quickly forgotten for a broader selfishness and anger that the prince must overcome to break the curse placed upon him. But then the films fades back into the original Disney and these "complexities" get forgotten.
And so we open to Belle (Emma Watson), the daughter of an artist and herself an inventor of sorts. She lives in France with an English accent and doesn't care about what people think of her and she's certainly not going to marry Gaston (Luke Evans). He has just returned from war and has his sight set on Belle and plans on wedding Belle so that he can have the perfect life. A narcissist at best, Gaston is obviously the wrong person for Belle and so the story begins.
There's nothing in the new "Beauty and the Beast" that is remarkable in any fashion. Jean Cocteau's original film had to wait almost fifty years to be remade and in that remaking, it felt justified. The technology that Cocteau had in 1946 was not enough to capture the magic and wonder of the story which Disney managed to grab the first time around. Animation itself is the genre that lends itself to this story better. Because of simple narrative barriers, most of the characters in the film have to be animated in some fashion anyways and because of this, we are left with a lackluster "realistic" approach that somehow feels as some of the characters complain: rusty, overused, and slowly growing stiff.
But maybe asking "why" the remade was produced in the first place is an unfair question. When you look at the movie as a whole, it obviously draws mostly from Disney's 1991 with a few plot points borrowed from Cocteau's original film. And in this we see that the movie is less of a remake of more of a "threemake" if you will. Both of its ancestors are pioneer films in the canon of cinephiles. The Disney classic was the film animated movie to be nominated best picture and could be considered partly responsible for placing animation on the map as credible cinema.
In that light, "Beauty and the Beast" is just lackluster.
The film's lead, Emma Watson is charming but reminds us that not everyone can fills the shoes of Paige O'Hara's voice. In fact, this is true of the whole cast who have to physically and vocally challenge the icons that most of us grew up hearing. Watson is shaky, but cute. She doesn't really bring anything new to the role besides how the script deviates. Luke Evans is, likewise, very true to the 2D Gaston, except perhaps a little more overt with his inner flaws. Josh Gad plays Lefou which is perhaps the biggest contentious issue of the movie since he is gay and the marketing has exploded about this fact. While it doesn't bother me to include this, it doesn't really fit in the movie and seems kind of pandering...but that's a very personal opinion.
The real difference between the two films comes when Emma Thompson covers the title song and fails to hold a candle to Angela Lansbury; but besides that, the 2017 film feels like clunky recycled material. This is unlike "The Jungle Book" which told an entirely different story and reinvented the narrative itself. Clearly, Disney wanted to keep the magic alive for one of its most recognized films.
And sometimes, just sometimes, it's easy to get lost in the grandeur of the movie. When the music swells and the songs bring back waves of nostalgia, the spectacle is almost too much. But I was reminded that Ewan McGregor is no Jerry Orbach and soon I felt like all the characters and numbers I was watching were shadows of the originals.
Yet, all that is too critical perhaps, because the movie isn't that bad. It's a decent film, and it has decent acting. The biggest criticism of the film as a stand alone is that the set design looks oddly fake and constructed. Some of the animation is too quickly thrown together; but all-in-all, it's not a terrible film.
When placed back into conversation with its counterparts, I find it wholly inconsequential and almost uninspiring for the lack of effort they put into making something more potent out of a story that is at once troubling and romantic. The nuances are lost.

Score: ★★½ Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-44674222785226494132017-03-12T15:03:00.000-07:002017-03-12T15:03:07.993-07:00Black Narcissus (1947)

I don't think there's a universal and easy way to digest what happens in "Black Narcissus". It's not a film that lends itself easily to scrutiny or dissection; yet whose plot is so frustratingly simple it's almost like the film is teasing. My own personal like of directors Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger keeps me from seeing the film as it probably is. Is is anti-Catholic? Is it misogynistic? Is it racist? Probably yes, to all three; and yet so aware of what women, religion, and race are accomplishing in the picture that I can't help but think that it's not the case at all.
"Black Narcissus" is about a nunnery in India. Sister Clodagh (Deborah Kerr) has just been made Sister Superior of the newly founded St. Faith convent. Having been serving in Calcutta, Sister Clodagh moves past Darjeeling to the new St. Faith which balances on the edge of a mountain. The villagers at the bottom are under the command of a general who also owns the bit of land the new convent will be on. There is not understating the clash of culture and religion that happens at this moment. The building that becomes St. Faith was previously a harem for the old general's women. There's one woman left over (to use a more objectifying phrase) from the old general's rule and she tells the nuns that the house used to be called the "house of women". Sister Clodagh rolls her eyes at the old woman but we get the understanding that it has become that again, just with a stricter set of rules.
The convent is chilly and barren. Winds constantly blows through and the atmosphere is clean and clear. No crops seem to grow and the resident sage-figure sits next to the convent only a few hundred yards away. This is the difference in religions and cultures. Some of the old statutes from the harem are simply covered up with silk clothes which then get pulled off as the movie unravels and we begin to understand that there's something else going on here.
Mr. Dean (David Farrar) warns Sister Clodagh that this might be more than she can handle. The Sister is eager to prove her worth and isn't scared of hard work so doesn't take much of his advice. Mr. Dean lives in the village and serves as a liaison between the general and English speaking people like the nuns.
St. Faith is immediately overrun with too many people and Sister Clodagh struggles to keep her head up, particularly when she's dealing with unruly cohorts, specifically Sister Ruth (Kathleen Byron) who seems to be becoming enamored with Mr. Dean even though she never talks to him at great length.
The general's son (Sabu), joins the list of pupils. He wants to be a learned man, straying from the warrior path his ancestors have set down before him. It is this character, who is only present on-screen for fifteen minutes or less that gives the film its title. Black Narcissus is a perfume that he wear and he explains to one of the nuns that he should not be so common as to smell like himself.
And that's in a nutshell what makes the movie so infuriatingly complex. This small smell seems to set into motion the plot that will culminate in a frenzied experience that rivals any hysteria produced in modern films. But the audience is kept out of the loop. We cannot smell this, just as we cannot experience the winds blowing through St. Faith. This air, the sisters constantly comment, is eerie and reminds them of their previous lives. Flashbacks of life before the Catholic church start to roll in and it becomes a battle between will of faith and giving in to 'temptation'.
It is unclear at the movie's ending whether or not the changes in the characters is specifically motivated by the strains of native and imposed culture/religion or whether the group of females themselves are the reason because of their tendency to be hysterical.
Whatever the answer, it's no surprise that Jack Cardiff won the Academy Award for cinemtography for "Black Narcissus" because, like his other collaborations with Pressburger and Powell, the film looks frightfully good. It is also no surprise that "Black Narcissus" didn't receive more acclaim at the time. After all, this is a movie which seems to have no reverence for religion and thus, it must be shunned.
What I'm left with afterwards is the chilling wind of St. Faith, and all these striking images floating around in my head. I don't know what to make of "Black Narcissus" and I know I don't have any definitive idea of what exactly Pressburger and Powell were trying to accomplish but I do know they made a hell of a film.

Score: ★★★★Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-50349179315633630312017-03-06T16:51:00.002-08:002017-03-06T16:51:25.554-08:00Get Out (2017) (R)

At the core of "Get Out" lies a two-sided film: the horror narrative itself and the political commentary that amplifies it. This should come as no surprise to the viewer. The trailers made it very, unapologetically clear, that this was a movie about race. But this is not a movie in the veins of "The Color Purple" or "Lee Daniels' The Butler"—biopics or period pieces or films that are easily moving and could callously be called "sentimental". "Get Out", rather, provides a frightening mirror to see the present day status quo not only surrounding the violence upon African Americans by systems of power, but also the underlying objectification of the conversation surrounding race altogether.
"Get Out" is really simple in plot. A young black man named Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) and his white girlfriend Rose Armitage (Allison Williams) take a trip over the weekend to visit her parents. Before they leave he asks her if she let them know that she's dating a black man and she laughs it off. She explains that her parents are very liberal so don't worry, "Dad would have voted for Obama for a third term if he could have." And this sentence is supposed to set Chris' mind at ease as he climbs in the car and drives the few hours outside the city into the center of rich, white, socialite paradise.
Rose's mom and dad are smart people, a neuroscientist (Bradley Whitford) and a psychiatrist (Catherine Keener) who are very invested in their daughter's life but don't seem to bat an eye as the car pulls up and the interracial couple enter.
From here, the movie's climax can be seen obviously, as the conversations about race are both uncomfortable (particularly for myself, as a white man) and forewarning of the more surreal horrors to come later.
Part of the movie's success thus far has to do with Jordan Peele's name only. This is a man who built the first half of his career as a comedian, and one of the more recognizable comedians because of his sketch show with his other half Keegan-Michael Key. There is always the expectation of something humorous right around the corner; but "Get Out" holds nothing back as it plunges down into the cerebral story of a man unable to communicate his experience to those around him. Here is the movie's biggest strength.
In a post-Obama America, "Get Out" seems like the perfect movie to critique the Right and the GOP. It's a movie about racial tensions and we're all familiar with the sitting president's lackluster approach towards addressing racism. Going in, I expected a butchery of conservative politics; but what was delivered was the opposite. Instead, "Get Out" very cleverly chastises the left's more objectifying and condescending ways of having the conversation about "the African American experience" without including the people they are talking about. Imagine a dinner party where rich white people talk about how badly poor black people have it off as they sip expensive wine and make toasts to prosperous years to come. This is the central drive of the movie and it is so cleverly integrated into the film, the sense of the duality (commentary and narrative) is lost in what I'll call the second act of the film.
But then we have to talk about the movie's problems and minor SPOILER alerts here. The biggest issue with the film is the narrative itself. As most horror movies do (and as I have complained many, many times), "Get Out" writes itself into a corner and the "reveal" of the movie is a conclusion almost too ridiculous to take seriously, which of course, makes me ask the question if we were supposed to take it seriously or not. I think "Get Out" is a horror movie first, a political commentary second, and possible a satire of the genre third and on its first front it doesn't function as well as it could. Peele obviously had an intention with the film and it sometimes feels like jamming a square peg into a circular hole.
The second issue is the narrative need for incredible violence as an emotional finale. I think the movie justifies its carnage; but it loses the political commentary as it does so.
The performances here are very good including a very convincing and evocative turn by Kaluuya and Betty Gabriel as Georgina the maid. The film manages to pull convincing reactions from its characters as Peele re-imagines the associations between slavery and the language used to shun it. The visuals are Kubrickian and Peele reminds us to never judge a movie based on the history of its director.
"Get Out" functions well as a horror movie but maybe it was all about the commentary and not enough about the substance of the plot. I'll be curious to see if Peele goes on to make other films and how he matures as a feature film director. I think after the critical success of this movie and how almost stunningly effortless a lot of its technical feats are, he will likely achieve quick status as a director to watch.

Score: ★★★ Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-10740108092186007682016-12-18T07:59:00.002-08:002016-12-18T07:59:54.194-08:00Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) (PG-13)

This review contains SPOILERS!
"Rogue One" should be un-spoilable (which isn't a word, I realize). This is the nature of prequels. We know what's going to happen and from just the trailer we know roughly what the movie is about: the reconnaissance mission that captured the plans for the Death Star prior to Episode IV. If this comes as news to you, you either didn't read the spoiler alert, didn't watch any of the trailers, or have no idea about any of the "Star Wars" movies, in which case you probably shouldn't watch "Rogue One". This is a movie filled with Easter eggs and wonderful side moments to placate the many "Star Wars" fans.
But as much as it fits into the cannon of "Star Wars", "Rogue One" is most decidedly not a "Star Wars" movie in the modus operandi of the original Lucas films. This is because Lucas is, against all odds, an optimist and due to the structure of a simple narrative, we can expect certain outcomes. "Rogue One" defies this, and rightly so.
Although the Lucas optimism might make a safer film, the critical and popular reception to this movie thus far has proven that the writers made the right decision. All that being said, do not go into "Rogue One" thinking that it will be a perfect movie because—even though it adds so much complexity to the original trilogy without treading on the sanctity of the beloved franchise (no easy feat)—this is a movie with a lot of faults.
The first half of the film is clunky and slow. We jump between crucial figures who get no real introduction including Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed), two characters whose important is soon explained by their proximity to the story's protagonist Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones). It feels like Roger Ebert's complaint of Nolan's closing "Dark Knight" film: there is too much going on in too short of a time. Sometimes the cue cards that tell us which planet we are whipping off to show of writer Tony Gilroy's "Bourne" franchise credentials. It should come as no surprise that Darth Vader makes an appearance but after all the hype, I almost wish that that scene was cut from the movie because it feels patronizing and cheap.
Yet the film slows down and introduces a few crucial characters like Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus (played by Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) and the robotic sassy character K-2SO voiced pretty perfectly by Alan Tudyk. What's almost amazing about all this is that we don't feel so lost when the movie gains its footing.
"Rogue One" asks complex questions about determination, ethics, and self-sacrifice. Although it does wrap up very nicely, the impact of the movie was very clearly felt in the theater I went to see it at. The reaction was very physical.
I think the reason "Rogue One's" second half is so splendid is because it decidedly moves away from the Lucas campy film making that we somewhat expect. This is a movie almost forty years later that is re-imagining the entire franchise and somehow this works really well. Although there seems to other alternative, it's nice to see a movie with this kind of budget committing to the only outcome that feels honest to the story it is telling. It does not coddle its viewer.
This also proves that Gareth Edwards is a force behind the camera. As only his third movie, "Rogue One" will likely not be the high point of the "Monsters" and "Godzilla" director. He handles the action sequences with such spectacle that it's almost breathtaking.
"Rogue One" feels like the very first "Star Wars" movie that actually lives up to its namesake. This movie is about a war; and we realize that immediately.
All my complaints aside, "Rogue One" is a testament to everyone who worked on the film. It's artistry meeting blockbuster and I feel hopeful (pun intended) that other action movies will take cues from this and follow in its footsteps.
"Rogue One" deserves all the praise it is getting. Go see it in the theaters.

Score: ★★★½Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-10244143415929329182016-12-18T07:29:00.001-08:002016-12-18T07:29:51.914-08:00Arrival (2016) (PG-13)

This review contains SPOILERS!
There's something familiar about the idea of aliens coming from the far corners of the universe to visit us. Maybe it's because we have an idea of our self-importance and place in the cosmos that makes Earth the central target for all these types of movies. And naturally, there are two possible outcomes for an extraterrestrial visit to earth: it is in peace and in the name of science, or it is in the name of war and conquest.
Hearing the setup for "Arrival" one would immediately assume that something like "Independence Day" would ensue. Twelve monolithic type ships descend from space and stop at various places across the globe. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) in voice-over narration makes note of the occurrence as not something that she views as a beginning or ending or anything; but simply a monumental visit that changed everything.
We expect, in the first five minutes, to be thrown into a government meeting with military experts who will then tell us that violence appears to be the only answer; but this isn't what we get. Instead, "Arrival" side-steps every single major convention of the genre that we have some sort of Pavlovian reaction to. We see an alien ship, we start to salivate.
Instead, we get a sense of unease a dread from a civilian perspective, and in all truth, it's this that grants understanding that "Arrival" might be the very first movie to treat this subject with any sense of severity, emotional integrity, and intellectual gravitas.
Louise Banks, a linguistics expert, is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) who plays her a sampling of an interaction with the beings in the ships. This recording is incomprehensible but Louise still asks to be taken to the ship itself because the interactions with the aliens might be more helpful to her. After denying this request, Weber is back with a scientist in tow, Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner). It's very clear that these are the two ways of approaching something like this: the scientist who wants to know the how and the linguist who has the ask the question.
"Arrival" is a movie that thrives on its script more than anything else. It's a precise work that is almost shockingly perfect. There is not a dull moment in the middle section of the movie and most of this should be credited to both Eric Heisserer and Denis Villeneuve whose previous work has made him into a critic's darling, and rightfully so.
A simple UFO visitation turns into a poetic contemplation on time, language, the meaning of communication, the media's fear of the unknown, memories, and being able to chose your own destiny. Though some of that is almost eye-rolling cliche at this point in cinematic history, "Arrival" manages to present the issues and themes in entirely new ways with such pacing and immersion that you might forget there is anything else besides this movie.
The ending strains for a climax that it ultimately cannot deliver quite as well as the set-up but what we're left with when the dust settles is an evenly paced, magnificently scored, eerie commentary on a host of issues.
There is no loss of the sense of irony that I must rely on words to convey how much I liked "Arrival". Most of the movie allows to realize that a bad translation without connotation or intent is like taking a sentence out of context and ending civilization with it. Every word matters.
And with that weight we are given two incredibly understated and wonderful performances by Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner. Their chemistry is powerfully quiet and restrained.
"Arrival" is not just the best science fiction movie of the year, it's one of the best films of the year and it's one of the smartest science fiction movies in the last decade.

Score: ★★★★ Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-2494697173103744432016-12-14T17:43:00.000-08:002016-12-14T17:43:05.780-08:00Enter the Dragon (1973)

Bruce Lee is a large figure in cinematic history. Not because of his stature or his personality, but because he along with a few other people like Jackie Chan, popularized the martial arts movie genre in Hollywood. As perhaps the most well-known of his works, "Enter the Dragon" shows why he became such a superstar that his name is still a household feature even to those who have never seen his movies.
A decade after the first James Bond movie, "Enter the Dragon" feels very much in the vein of 007. Its premise is eye-rollingly simplistic and its execution is very standard and yet, this isn't an art house movie attempting to revolutionize the film industry. This is something that was made to entertain and it succeeds on most fronts.
The movie is acceptably short and never contains any unnecessary scenes, albeit the script might contains unnecessary characters.
In the film, the poetry of martial arts is not lost to Lee (Bruce Lee) who is being trained at one of the most illustrious academies in the world. A prior student has left the school and its altruistic manner of thinking and has decided to go rouge, as it were. Any suggestion of Sarah Palin aside, this is pretty much "Star Wars" before "Star Wars" and here martial arts is the Force and this school is the Jedis. But whatever...moving on.
This rouge ex-student is named Han (Kien Shih) (yes, Han like Han Solo) and he holds a tournament on the island he owns for masters of martial arts to come and compete for a prize. This kind of rough and tumble free for all method of fighting is not Lee's style, yet a few officials in some government agency approach Lee and ask him to be their spy. Lee also has emotional ties to this case, but I won't say anything on the matter.
Anyways, so there's the premise: assemble the best fighters in the world on one island where shady somethings are happening and ask Lee to figure it all out.
The aforementioned Bond franchise should not be forgotten because the music is so jazzy/rock-n-roll that it's impossible to ignore James Bond's impact on the action film before "Enter the Dragon". There's nothing in the movie that would be particularly rememberable and yet, it is very fun throughout. It moves quickly, it has a solid, if beaten down plot, and Bruce Lee is a very watchable lead.
The movie does break down in terms of the actions of the protagonist. We see him teaching a pupil early in the movie about what martial arts is and he tells the student to fight him with emotion...but not anger. Well, don't pay any attention to that because Lee does becomes somewhat of a rage monster towards the end of the movie and other films would take these moments to show how the protagonist is flawed and have them learn from it...but not this flick. It just barrels past these moments at a breakneck speed to the conclusion. And I suppose I can't blame them for that.
Spies, thrills, fights, etc. What more did you want?

Score: ★★★Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-19065532028301618392016-12-11T13:52:00.003-08:002016-12-11T13:53:02.017-08:00Batman Returns (1992) (PG-13)

Tim Burton's second voyage into superhero territory is probably best known for its villains. Though "Batman" and its sequel were crafted with the goal of being blockbuster movies—the film's carnival approach to death and destruction a far cry from the quasi-'realism' of the Nolan movies—it feels like all the right pieces of an art house movie inside something Terry Gilliam only dreams about. The large sets, the overt acting—it all rings true of a less poignant "Brazil". Yet what escapes the almost incoherent revelry is a solid movie and a few iconic performances.
After the Joker was defeated in "Batman", a new super villain emerges, The Penguin. The movie opens with the birth scene of this deformed animal/man and his parents decision to throw him into the sewer on Christmas so they can be rid of the responsibility of raising him and also to save their own socialite public figure. This sets up the wrestling issues and themes of the rest of the movie: the privileged versus the tenacious; the stable versus the sane; and the politics of manipulating power.
A few important figures are introduced in the beginning moments of "Batman Returns", we see Shreck (Christopher Walken) a business man whose villainy is not so subtly hidden under his dealings. He wishes to control all the power of Gotham, both figuratively and literally. Then there's the sitting mayor (Michael Murphy) who seems to just be a pawn in the hands of those who wish to take his place. Shreck's shady dealings don't go unnoticed by his anxious secretary, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer) but she is either too innocent or too naive to realize that she might have gotten in over her head until its too late.
"Batman Returns" doesn't follow any typical trajectory of a superhero movie. We're never really quite sure who the "big bad guy" is, because the power dynamics keep shifting throughout the film. Pretty much every characters besides Batman goes through ups and downs in their ability to adhere to the audience's sense of morality, which is to say, they switch from Batman's side to the other side and back again. The Penguin (Danny DeVito) is sometimes the mastermind of a plan and sometimes he falls into the hands of a more conniving Shreck and vice versa.
Although this view of shifting powers is true in the context of the movie, it's also possibly giving the film too much credit. After all, this is a movie that was designed to please crowds and it's very enjoyable to watch. The story arc of Selina Kyle turned Cat Woman is so deliciously fun that the movie is worth watching for that alone. Michelle Pfeiffer pulls out all the claws and scratches her way into a mentally disturbed, power savvy antihero who wants to exact revenge on her shady boss. There are some inconsistencies here with Cat Woman, mainly with the writing and how she seems to be able to get easy access to each other and is commonly united against either Shreck, the Penguin, or Batman at different times depending on where you are in the plot. Yet what the movie lacks in organization, it makes up for with sheer color.
The film's greatest success is that it never entirely loses its sense of tragedy and sorrow even underneath all the cooky costumes and robotic penguins. This, actually, is something Roger Ebert criticized about the movie; but I appreciate that, amidst all the crazy explosions and frankly bizarre plot turns, we see the back of Selina Kyle, looking into a glass store and saying "why are you doing this?" It's a small moment that gets lost in a larger performance but it reminds us that some of these characters are actually struggling and hurting inside their masks (a not so subtle theme the movie threads into the dialogue).
There is a lot to roll your eyes at, particularly some of the more comical dialogue provided by the Penguin. But maybe Nolan ruined the Adam West style of Batman, or maybe Tim Burton is just deftly standing in between madness and humor and nonchalantly shrugging, letting us love or hate the gray areas.

Score: ★★★Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-84078370334928030902016-11-26T11:28:00.001-08:002016-11-26T11:28:22.880-08:00The Shawshank Redemption (1994) (R)

It's hard to keep on open mind when you go into "The Shawshank Redemption", mainly because its reputation precedes it. This movie tops "best films" lists time and time again and, if we are to believe IMDb, it's the best movie of all time. That's saying a lot and so, when watching it for the first time, it's hard to get rid of the idea that you're watching the best movie that's ever been made. Being the kind of person I am, I immediately go on the offense and look for errors in the film to justify to myself why my favorite movies are 'better' than this, which is probably not the right frame of mind.
I first watched "The Shawshank Redemption" a few years ago and I decided to give it another chance today. On first viewing, I found it long, boring, and counter-intuitive—on second viewing I must say I was more impressed with it.
The spoofs, rip-offs, and references to this movie are so numerous almost nothing is left as a surprise, even for first time viewers. And for those who know nothing, the script's tendency to lean towards optimism usually allows you to predict what's going to happen.
Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is wrongfully convicted of the double murder of his wife and her secret lover. He is sentenced to two life sentences and finds himself inside Shawshank, a prison run by a fundamentalist warden (Bob Gunton) and enforced by a violence prone Captain Hadley (Clancy Brown). There is something giddy and righteous about these two men and the power they hold over the prisoners of Shawshank, it plants the seed of resentment in both the audience and the prisoners themselves.
Like any movie with this power conflict, we are led into several situations in which fairness and equality are thrown away and the lack thereof is flaunted in front of our face. It's enraging and it's very energizing. Andy becomes a pawn in this world, but, as his new friend and our narrator Red (Morgan Freeman) points out, he may be the match the prison system is waiting for.
Unlike "Cool Hand Luke", "The Shawshank Redemption" gives us a hero who is in no shape or form a rebel. Andy likes to play by the rules, but he likes to be smarter than everyone else and use his knowledge to gain control of limited situations. When he hits a walls a realizes that he has come to the extent of his power, this is when his world starts to collapse.
The biggest theme that pieces together the more episodic moments of the film is hope. Red thinks that hope is dangerous and Andy thinks hope is the only thing left worth fighting for. It is clear by the end of the movie which man we are supposed to believe.
"The Shawshank Redemption" isn't what I would like it to be: a commentary on prison; but instead it's a movie about hope and how good things happen to good people. This is my biggest problem with it. There is nothing in the movie that feels believable, and yet the vacant spaces between acts of courage and intelligence are filled with the depressing realization that the world isn't fair. The karma of the movie winds up in a final trope that allows us to take a deep breath and realize that everything is going to be okay.
This is very different from "The Green Mile", director Frank Darabont's other Stephen King prison movie, which ended a little bleaker and a little more powerful. "The Shawshank Redemption" states its purpose in the title itself, it is a redemption of Andy Dufresne and the injustices done not only to his physical body but to his emotional well-being. And by the end of the movie, we realize that he is one such protagonist who deserves this redemption.
If I would have had my way, the film would be much more dismal than it, which would defeat the reason that "Shawshank" has become so ubiquitous to the American film oeuvre. In my mind, it would make a more honest film; but maybe that's not what people want, they want the good guy to win, they want to see the bad guy suffer, and then want—all ironies understood—escapism.
But still, watching the movie, you have to appreciate its artistry and the care that went into it, particularly Thomas Newman's evocative score.

Score: ★★★Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-73004683115151667452016-11-24T15:12:00.001-08:002016-11-24T15:12:45.486-08:00Shaodw of the Vampire (2000) (R)

"Shadow of the Vampire" will mean nothing to you if you haven't seen the original 1922 "Nosferatu". Hollywood, as per its usual homage to itself, captures the madness of the production of the horror classic and mixes in its own psychedelic horror and poetry in order to establish something a little out of grasp than what it can achieve: art. That is to to say that the film is deftly made and often hypnotizing, letting little screentime go to waste; but it does try to overreach its boundaries.
Probably your marker of enjoyment of "Shadow of the Vampire" would come with how well you like the original "Nosferatu" and if you're a fan of vampire lore in general. I myself am a fan of both, therefore, this was not a movie that was difficult to like. The premise of the movie is so absurd it's almost impossible for the movie to function at all: maybe, the actor who played the vampire in the 20s, was actually a vampire. While this may seem a little too full of itself, when the film starts to play out, the similarities between the movies and life itself becomes purposefully blurred and the escapism of the film, in its more brilliant moments, allows us to believe in the story itself.
Friedrich Murnau (John Malkovich) is determined on making an amazing picture about a vampire. Having just been denied the rights to Bram Stoker's Dracula, he has replicated a similar story with a new villain called Nosferatu. Surrounded by a skeptical production team and hell-bent on making something lasting, Friedrich becomes obsessed with the relatively new technology of film and decides that this medium will be the one that will make his name go down in history.
In his research for the film, he comes across a method actor named Max Schreck (Willem Dafoe) who seems so fit for the role of the vampire that it is soon too late to realize that he might be more than he originally said.
"Shadow of the Vampire" is very smart for two reasons: the intermingling of the original shots of the 1920s movie, and the way that Willem Dafoe handles himself so eerily like Schreck's mannerisms. Of course, Werner Herzog's influences are seen here as the vampire is then seen in many scenes reading from Alfred, Lord Tennyson's epic poem "Tithonus" about a man trapped by immortality These moments fade into the background as the vampire's more "human" side fades and he just becomes the villain of the movie, motivated only by bloodlust and greed.
John Malkovich's Murnau is a much more problematic character. He seems so ensconced in the idea of his movie that he risks other human lives for the sake of his art. In the final frames of the movie, he stands behind the camera, seemingly oblivious to the carnage, and commands that his will be done. His god-complex comes to fruition throughout the movie and it leaves the viewer wondering at what cost art is manufactured.
The issues with the movie are numerous, even considering its fantastical themes that excuse the less realistic feeling scenes. The wavering accents of the cast is a problem, as is Malkovich's tendency to over-play his characters with a typical scream-and-shout tantrum technique.
The take aways of the film far outweigh any of its problems; bu at its core, it remains deeply in love with itself as any film about films would be.

Score: ★★★½ Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-35797661557110921132016-11-16T16:39:00.000-08:002016-11-16T16:39:10.889-08:00Moonlight (2016) (R)

This review contains SPOILERS!
"Moonlight" feels like many things at once. It is an example of the indie movie meeting great critical reception (and, no doubt, limited theater attendance); a poetic look at the anxiety of living as a gay, black man; and the story of a boy growing up in isolation.
It's no surprised that one of the first moments we see Chiron "Little" (Alex R. Hibbert), he is inside a run-down apartment, escaping the bullies outside. There is almost no light inside, but soon the window is pried open and Juan (Mahershala Ali) walks in and invites the little boy to lunch. The boy doesn't speak for hours, not even after he's taken back to Juan's house. Eventually, he tells them that his name is Chiron, but everyone calls him Little.
Chiron lives with his mother in Miami and things aren't great at home. His mother and he have a strained relationship and he starts his mother's addiction become more important than his well-being. Juan sees this too—Chiron and Juan spend much of the first third of the movie together, talking about seemingly nothing. The first shift in the movie occurs when Chiron leaves his mother's house, walks all the way to Juan's place and asks him two important questions: 1. what is a faggot? 2. Are you a drug dealer?
The answers to which lead to the abrupt fade into the next section: Chiron as a teenager. Everything from the first part influences the anxieties that are now made much more evident in the movie's second act. We see Chiron (Ashton Sanders) now much older, much taller, skinny, and very, very anxious about his sexuality. The kids tease him constantly for being gay, bullying him and pushing him around. At home, his mother's addictions are getting worse and the only solace he finds is with Juan's old girlfriend, Teresa (Janelle Monáe). This is probably the best portion of the movie, not only because Sanders is such a compelling actor to watch; but also because it perfectly focuses the tensions of the movie into a stretch of very precise film making.
As the film movies on and Chiron ages again (played this time by Trevante Rhodes) we begin to see the possibility of resolutions. The last act is the movie's weakest, not only for its curious optimism but also for its quick repair of all things we have come to be anxious about for the sake of the protagonist.
In some ways, the film is straight-forward, a coming-of-age story about one boy in a particular circumstance. Yet, the way the film defines itself, and is being defined by the wealth of critical acclaim it has already received, is a much more interesting idea: a gay black drama. Certainly, this is a far cry from "Brokeback Mountain" and it's probably the closest thing we have gotten to a virtual queer masterpiece ever since Haigh's "Weekend"; but I find myself resisting the urge to call it just a "gay drama". It becomes limiting.
It is enlightening to see how the movie tackles issues of masculinity, violence, and pride; but it never defines any of its characters within the normalized white queer culture, and for that, it becomes something we haven't really seen before.
The film making itself is beautiful to look at, from the classic inspired soundtrack to the more Dolan moments of emotional release and artistry. It's powerful and keenly acted. Everyone in the film feels honest and true to their parts. "Moonlight" should see some Academy Award attention when the time rolls around.
By the film's ending, it does seem that writer and director Barry Jenkins is very clearly stating that this is a gay film and the optimism in the end is appreciated for once. It doesn't feel campy or cliche and no one is killed off or destroyed by the end of the film—it is a resistance of those tropes. The last moments seem to indicate a healing of sorts that occurs; and in this, there is some mystery.
Whether or not I understand every idea and symbol in the movie is irrelevant. What is important is that the film gives us honest portrayals of people rarely seen on the screen before.

Score: ★★★½ Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-65336854859094468162016-11-11T15:47:00.000-08:002016-11-11T15:47:40.219-08:00Fiend Without a Face (1958)

This review contains SPOILERS!
"Fiend Without a Face" seems, at first, like a movie that so disgustingly and perfectly embodies the woes of a post WWII world. Atomic energy, the military's intrusion into civilian lives, and the yearning for a 'simpler' time—they all seem to line up fittingly for a world that was just wrecked by a powerful war in which an atomic bomb seemed to be the genesis for mass hysteria and paranoia. Yes, at first all these themes and more make sense in a historical context...if the movie had come ten years prior.
But due to the gap between the end of the war and the movie's debut, one might have to reconsider these ideas—although, certainly, they should not be dismissed entirely...after all the second world war was no small issue. Instead, think of an international paranoia gripping the world because of intelligence. It shouldn't surprise you that central to the film's titular monsters is a radar powered by atomic energy that can peer thousands of miles away into the homes of everyday Russians.
While this fact is lost in the larger, gory, more entertaining suspense of a story about Canadians being attacked and strangled by brain sucking monsters from space, it should not be dismissed.
"Fiend Without a Face" concerns the American and Canadian border where a military base is testing out an atomic powered radar which they will use to gather intelligence on the Russians. Cold War panic was just about to hit its zenith in America, so the film seems fittingly targeted on Soviet territory. But, rather than be focused on the impact the radar might have should the enemy gain control of it, "Fiend Without a Face" presents a problem that allows us to examine it introspectively.
No, don't get me wrong, the film isn't that smart and purposely so, but it isn't a stupid movie. Here, rational arguments and complex ideas are pushed aside for "mental vampires" as protagonist Major Cummings (Marshall Thompson) describes the phenomenon.
Civilian lives are dropped like flies due to an unseen, unknown serial killer and the tensions between the Canadian agrarian community and the American military stationed on the border. These farmers want the base gone; but the military chain of command is digging in its heels and shaking its head. Here is a classic stand-off.
Add a few deaths in there and voila, you have a perfect recipe for less than hospitable foreign relationships. In the case of "Fiend Without a Face" we can take a break from all the drama now and again for a scene now and again where important and periphery characters are taken down one by one by this mysterious killer.
Naturally Cummings' love interest is introduced at one of these initial deaths and from there the sparks fly, because nothing says "I love you" more than looking into the hollowed out skull of a man who just had his brain sucked out of his back like a hardboiled egg...oh, but don't worry, the man is also this love interest's brother. Barbara (Kim Parker) pops back into the plot again and again like an unwanted alarm clock that keeps getting snoozed. It's clumsy the way the script entangles her in the detective work of Cummings.
As they come closer to discovering who or what is causing these deaths, the stakes are revved up because the end of the world could be coming, as is only natural. By the end of it, having gone from political to the absurd and back, we are left wondering if "Fiend Without a Face" is discouraging any sort of rational thought. It might be suggesting that we stifle ourselves and not attempt to stretch our minds; but then again, maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Considering all it has against it, from the Irish accents that are supposed to be Canadian, to the more vibrant gore scenes in the end of the movie, "Fiend Without a Face" works...and it works surprisingly well. While it's philosophies may have gotten tangled, I'm still impressed that a B-horror movie could thrive on such a level of critical thinking and such a lack of monsters.

Score: ★★★Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-22621343275618488092016-11-01T16:10:00.000-07:002016-11-01T16:10:08.749-07:00The Last Picture Show (1972)

At one point in "The Last Picture Show", Lois Farrow turns to her daughter and begs her to leave the small town of Anarene, Texas. The town is "flat and empty" and Lois has spent her whole life trying to spice up the monotony. It's no surprise that there is nothing to do in the town, the opening shot of the movie shows Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) struggling with his truck on what appears to be the biggest street in the whole town. It's empty except for his car.
Anarene has one pool hall, one theater, and perhaps only one bar. "The Last Picture Show" traps its characters in this town as it traps its viewers into it. A more optimistic approach might see the quaint-ness and intermingling of the people thereof as a reflection of proximity of people and find something uplifting about that. I don't see it this way, from the opening shot of Sonny's sole car puttering down the street to the deep chill that the movie's more emotional moments take place during, there is a stillness that is almost stifling here; and this is not a movie with dull moments. The gossip alive in the movie thrives in the underbelly of small-town America. It's this kind of film that inspires works to come after it like "The Ice Storm" or "Blue Velvet". In fact, Peter Bogdanovich gives us the most coherent David Lynch style of film.
With all that said, you can imagine how pleasant it is to watch.
A film more concerned with "life" than a gripping plot, "The Last Picture Show" is a snapshot of a year in Anarene as characters grow up, become more mature, lose their virginities, and decide about their future. The three highschoolers that receive the most screentime are Sonny, Duane (Jeff Bridges), and Jacy Farrow (Cybill Shepherd). As they grow older, we begin to realize there is something almost malicious about the story itself. It's a not so subtle "losing of innocence" story; but what it entails feels rather ordinary. There is gossip about people sleeping around, there is heartbreak when relationships end, and there is the misery of knowing that at one point it might all be taken away from you.
The movie is slow and steady, never rushing and never preaching. It doesn't build into anything grander like Kubrick or Lynch might be tempted to do. Instead, it relies on its characters being multi-dimensional and nuanced to bring its emotional impact to a crescendo. What is most shocking about this is how well it works. I felt drained by the end of the movie, hopelessly crushed, desolated, but somehow hopeful. As the protagonist, Sonny is allowed to have a quasi-happy ending even though he might not deserve it.
Perhaps the film's greatest accomplishment is how fragile everything seems and how aware the viewer is of this fragility but how unaware the characters are. The dread comes from us knowing the small-town life has its host of issues; but no one saying or doing anything about it.
I won't really go into what happens in the movie because it's not really the point of the film. The affair during the middle of the movie is one of the most famous in cinema, but it really shouldn't define the film because there's so much more going on here.
With all these gears turning, sometimes the plot devices seem excessive, like watching Jacy's sexual, voyeuristic debut, or a moment where the town's caretaker figure Sam the Lion (Ben Johnson) tells us about his highschool sweetheart. People claim this is the high moment of the film, but it seems like more of the same.
Not everything in the movie works; but it does take the breath out of you.

Score: ★★★½ Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-46837866384063832502016-10-23T09:13:00.003-07:002016-10-23T09:13:46.348-07:00Star Trek: Beyond (2016) (PG-13)

This is a guest review by Elizabeth Jones. Follow her on twitter here.

I've been a Star Wars fan all my life. I cut my teeth on next generation and was lovingly introduced by my father to the Original Series, Voyager, and Deep Space 9. More than any other franchise, Star Trek shaped my view of science fiction, television, philosophy, and literature.

I was so excited when I heard that a reboot for Star Trek was in the works. However the first two movies in this series met with some disappointment from me. Although I found the first movie to be highly entertaining and enjoyable and a really interesting look at different generations and origins of the characters, it felt more like Star Wars or space cowboys or some generic space action movie than the Star Trek that I knew and loved.

Into Darkness, although it gave us a tall, dark, British villain (let's keep that trend going, guys) was even farther from my idea of a good Star Trek movie. It violated a lot of the core principles of the show and did not pay attention to the details of technology and character development that the fans of this franchise are so good at noticing. I was greatly disappointed in the movie and I felt like there was no place the franchise could go after that that would hook me in the way Star Trek usually does.

I was happily surprised.

Star Trek Beyond felt like Star Trek again. A little cheesy a little campy but it recaptured some of the philosophical and personal questions that the characters on the show often wrestled with: questions about self and purpose and fate and destiny and sacrifice.

It also revitalized some of the core characters, their interactions with each other, their behaviors, and their brilliance. I feel like it made the characters people again in a way that the second movie was never able to capture. We also see a more mature and controlled Kirk. He's not the selfish self-absorbed kid he was in the first movie or the brash young captain from the second. He's more introspective; he's more careful; he is willing to delegate important responsibilities to his crew and he trusts his crew to come through in a crisis. I felt like this depiction of Kirk was much more in keeping with the character of Kirk from the original series. It was lovely to see.

(Mild Spoilers Ahead) Early in the movie, one of the most significant parts for me was the destruction of the Starship Enterprise. There were a few little details like the escape pods for the bridge crew being named Kelvin pods after the ship in the first movie that Kirk's father died on to let his crew escape. It was a lovely tie into the theme of fate and destiny as Kirk is put in the same position as his father. There was the emotional devastation of seeing the starship destroyed and potentially witnessing the loss of thousands of lives. It was beautiful and heartbreaking.

Beyond that the world felt more like the world is Star Trek. It was peopled with new and interesting and intelligent species that played many different roles. While some of the message of the movie seemed a bit on the nose, it was still an enjoyable and entertaining movie.

For most of the movie, the cinematography and camerawork was average. There were a couple absolutely spectacular scenes that definitely make me want to go back and rewatch this movie many times. I don't consider this to be outstanding cinema or brilliant scriptwriting. But it was fun, engaging and it honored the source material, especially those from the original cast who have passed on.

Score: ★★★
Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-66593552715865556522016-09-19T06:23:00.000-07:002016-09-19T06:23:45.550-07:0010 Cloverfield Lane (2016) (PG-13)

This review contains SPOILERS!
I am not familiar with any franchise that "10 Cloverfield Lane" belongs to. Any other movies besides this one have not been seen by me. Maybe that's an issue and maybe not; but I think having not explicitly known exactly where the movie was going before walking into it was actually part of the appeal of this film. Most of the time prequels and sequels and companion pieces feel too bound to the source material and then cater to the original, the book, or the first film.
But then you have something like this which, although tying in at the end to a greater narrative, is a stand alone movie. Serving as a genesis story, assumedly, "10 Cloverfield Lane" works as a thriller first and foremost.
Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is running away from her fiancee. The first five minutes of the film are told without sound, as the audience watches her pack up, make a few phone calls, and leave her ring behind. It isn't clear what has happened or who is at fault, but soon she is out of the city and driving into the countryside, stopping only to get more fuel.
And then she crashes her car and wakes up in a strange room chained to a pipe.
Without giving all the juicy details away, although it's hard to talk about the concepts the movie evokes without spoiling every last aspect of it, Michelle finds herself under the care of a man named Howard (John Goodman). She and another man named Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.), are injured and begin to live with Howard as mystery upon mystery falls down on them to solve.
"10 Cloverfield Lane" is not an immediate success. There is some cheap movie making and some awkward moments that are supposed to make us feel things as viewers. Instead of being genuine, it feels necessary in a required sense. We all know that the characters have to get backstory at some point because otherwise apparently we wouldn't care for them and yet the film may realize that there are strengths in not explaining everything...strengths in realism.
Michelle finds herself at the center of multiple conspiracy theories, mysteries, and perhaps even crimes. The film easily recreates the sensation of being caught in a pressure cooker. Claustrophobia? Check. Insanity? Check. Ruthlessness? Check.
And yet, for being so accessible to audiences (note the PG-13) rating, the film never compromises its grit, integrity, or horror.
By the end, you may feel cheated by it all; but "10 Cloverfield Lane" is not a rubix cube. This is popcorn entertainment pure and simple and I don't remember being so pleased by something as smart and well-executed as this.
The performances are great, particularly an unhinged John Goodman, finally movie a blockbuster cash-in on what the Coen brothers have been utilizing for years. What I have to really applaud is J.J. Abrams' production placing virtual unknowns at the helm of what turned out to be a pretty successful movie. Dan Trachtenberg has made no other movies of this caliber and the writing team is mostly comprised of previous editors.
Movies like this are solid and fun and help usher in new talent to the mainstream film world. If this is the of blockbuster movies, count me in.

Score: ★★★Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-6424237201450283582016-09-16T14:27:00.002-07:002016-09-16T14:27:44.451-07:00The Truman Show (1998) (PG)

This review contains SPOILERS!
There's no doubt that Peter Weir isn't a conventional director. His breakout film "Picnic at Hanging Rock" is anything but coherent and yet somehow the surrealism the movie thrives in works. "The Last Wave" is no better, although definitely attempting at something more apocalyptic. If the sense of dread from his first two major pictures carries over into the "The Year of Living Dangerously" and then into "Gallipoli" we understand something crucial about the director: 1) he is keenly invested in interesting characters and 2) his narratives are often filled with trauma.
This is not really different from "The Truman Show" which is probably Weir's launch into Hollywood fame; and deservedly so. What differs here is that Weir doesn't just tell a story for the sake of storytelling—although "The Truman Show's" narrative is annoyingly tight, perfect, and contained—but also for the sake of a philosophical idea. "The Truman Show" has so much going on from the idea of us all being solipsistically self-made stars, to the paranoia of being watched, to the infectious desire to live dangerously and do something with your life. When the film opens, its onset starts the climax, the unrest of the character. A light falls from the sky. From here, the mysteries continue to abound, forcing Truman to confront his purpose existentially while physically escaping from a Foucault inspired nightmare.
The movie concerns a man thrust into stardom, unknowingly. He is the man that everyone is watching without realizing it. From the moment he was born Truman (Jim Carey) has been living in every television set, letting the world see the broadcast of his life. He is the material brain child of Christof (Ed Harris) who wants to give the world some small piece of an authentically perfect life.
There is so much that terrifies me about "The Truman Show". The complacence of everyday living, the routines that we must all follow, the trajectory that we will one day grow up, get a house, get married, start a family, and eventually die. Morbid perhaps, but this kind of living seems to spring out of the necessity to mimic our parents, who in turn are imitating their parents, because we live in a social society and this is expected of us. For Truman Burbank, this expectation materializes all around him at the slightest provocation, agitating the narrative with clever nods to the American nuclear family unit. But this routine seems dangerous because we all desire to be "more". Truman feels this from the beginning of the film, where hints are slowly dropped that he wants to go to Fiji. Later we'll find out that this is motivated by an obsession he has from a one-night encounter with a beautiful lady—this, in of itself, must be considered unordinary, the solitary moment that has shaken Truman's boringly, routinely normal life forever. Although this trip to Fiji seems to be for a woman, when it becomes impossible, he opts for a trip to anywhere, an ill-fated bus trip to Chicago which doesn't even let him get out of the station. The people watching in the bad ask themselves "Why does he want to go to Chicago?" A question that the film never answers aside from Truman's desire to shake up his life.
But then there's the fear of the unknown, that elusive adrenaline that pushes Truman to escape, to find a way to regain power over his life. But in this there is the loss of innocence, the gaining of knowledge, and perhaps the road to a worse life. Truman knowingly moves from comfort towards emptiness and although we all see a part of ourselves in him, perhaps that's not the case. For Truman, the best alternative seems to be for him to escape into the real world and truly "live". For the rest of us, are we really that brave or are we stuck inside our routine worlds, always saying the same things and reciting the same mottos? And, the even scarier question: are we ready to give up luxury? But perhaps that's not fair, and maybe there is a sense of security that is worth the routine.
In feeling, the movie is somehow intimate. The cast of characters is perfect, and the acting is sensational. Jim Carey has almost never been better, proving himself a viable actor and not just "the funny guy". The filmmaking reflects the world of the show, and each time the actor looks at the camera, as if to break the fourth wall with the viewer, it is cleverly understood that there is another layer between us watching Jim Carey and them watching Truman Burbank. This kind of ingenuity doesn't came around but every so often.
"The Truman Show" moves past the idea of passivity and the unknown and challenges us to ask questions. Christof, in an enlightening moment, says "We accept the reality of the world with which we're presented. It's as simple as that." At the end, maybe we take away from "The Truman Show" that accepting reality is never enough. We must question everything.
In college I had to read a short story called "The Sky Is Gray" by Ernest Gaines. Though the story is about race in Southern America and passivity towards injustice from power figures, one line rings true: "Question everything. Every stripe, every star, every word spoken. Everything." This comes at a pivotal moment in the story, like when Sirius, the brightest star in the heavens, literally falls from the sky and shatters in the middle of the road.

Score: ★★★★Micah Joneshttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-829820051691759558.post-14181876767592272502016-09-15T17:36:00.000-07:002016-09-15T17:36:14.974-07:00Beauty and the Beast (1991) (G)

"Beauty and the Beast" is not an original movie. Disney captured this fairy tale/legend that has been remade lots of times and each time with less success than the 1991 animated turn. To the knowing cinephile, The Disney version of the story is not even the most well-regarded, Jean Cocteau's 1946 version is. Yet in comparing the two, though Cocteau's live action movie is splendid at parts, Jean Marais (Cocteau's muse) is kind of stiff as the beast. The makeup on Marais makes him look very nonthreatening, and his voice can be kind of shrill and goofy. Not to say that Cocteau's won't always be the critic's pick for the "best" version of the movie; but Disney here proves something that is hard to refute: the best isn't always the most memorable.
I would argue that Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" is the definitive rendition of the story and one that will never be topped, not even by their live action remake coming out in the near future. What Disney realized is that the grand scope of the enchanted story could not be captured by live action filming in the 90s and thus, animation saves the day. There has never been a stronger case for this medium than "Beauty and the Beast" which dazzles with sweeping shots that would make any live action director green with jealousy, as well as powerful voice acting performances that almost outdo any other Disney film to date.
The story, to borrow a line from the iconic song, is as old as time. A girl's eccentric father gets lost in the woods and stumbles into a magical castle which is under the spell of an enchantress who wants the spoiled prince responsible for the transformation to realize that beauty isn't about outward appearance. The father becomes a prisoner of the prince turned prince and the girl rushes out to find him, trading places with him and becoming the beast's prisoner.
Belle (Paige O'Hara) is bookworm, proto-feminist protagonist who has become the precursor for such characters as Elsa. She is being courted by the town douchebag, Gaston (Richard White) who feels entitled to Belle since he is handsome and she is pretty. Gaston is the foil to the moral of the story not so cleverly inserted to make viewers cringe at the ridiculousness of his actions and his villainy.
From a logistical perspective, animating "Beauty and the Beast" makes much more sense than attempting to place an actor in prosthetic makeup in order to tiptoe the boundary between believable, charming, and scary. The movie's set designs are Gothic, creepy, and always lavish. One could look at the backgrounds of this movie for hours.
The musical numbers, courtesy of Alan Menken and Howard Ashman is probably Disney's most recognizable. Though "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" are both arguably in contention, I cannot think of another Disney song where every number has escaped its source material.
Directors Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise would go on to direct lesser lauded Disney films "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and the incredibly underrated "Atlantis: The Lost Empire"; but would never recapture the respect and admiration of the public and critics again like they did with this film. "Beauty and the Beast" was the first animated movie to be nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards, and remained the only one for well over a decade and if that doesn't speak for the film itself, I don't know what will.
Borrowing a broadway epic feel slyly for numbers like "Be Our Guest", "Beauty and the Beast" is nothing short of magical. Thematically, one might find it confused and most likely problematic; but owing its allegiance to the source material, the liberties that Disney took with the story make it flashy, entertaining, and relatable, even underneath all the magic, singing candlesticks, and Stockholm Syndrome.

Score: ★★★★ Micah Joneshttps://email@example.com