In Short: July 2017 New Movies

Hey! Long time, no see! Wanna know what I thought of the new movies from the past couple weeks? Let me tell you anyway! Real quick!

The Big Sick--From the mind, and REAL LIFE, of Pakistani comedian Kumail Nanjani comes this sweet little rom-com about the goofy guy falling for the girl he has a hard time treating well, only for her to wind up in a coma, during which he bonds with her parents and finds himself. If it sounds saccharine and predictable, that's cause it kinda is, but the miracle of the thing is how well it works anyway, mostly because of just how sincere it is (It helps that it was a TRUE STORY). It does have a unique angle, dealing explicitly with the cultural repercussions of a Muslim-raised guy breaking family tradition to be with an American girl, and the cast is terrific (Zoe Kazan makes for a charming comatose patient, and Holly Hunter is a friggin' fireball as her mother; Anupam Kher and Vella Lovell are his aejfjekorably obtuse parents). Emotionally manipulative though it may be, it's the good, non-forced kind, where you enjoy getting suckered. A-

Dunkirk--While keeping in mind that I'm not a very big Christopher Nolan fan, this may be his best movie. One of the problems I've always had with his work is how increasingly indulgent his movies have become with his growing success. At a tight and tidy 107 minutes, this movie has all the cinematic scope and value of his other stuff, but with the discipline to not overdo it. Told across three different overlapping timelines and featuring a large ensemble cast (including pop singer Harry Styles and superstar Tom Hardy in roles where you can't recognize them, while great, underappreciated actors Kenneth Branaugh and Mark Rylance can always be clearly seen), it's the kind of war movie that's more about how everything felt than it is about what actually went down. And for a movie that's largely about people waiting around for something to happen, it's pretty darn intense. The vigorous score from Hans Zimmer and a generous use of sound effects do a lot of the heavy lifting, but even without them I would have been interested and enthralled. Good, good stuff. A-

War for the Planet of the Apes--As a fan of this sci-fi series partly because of how absurd they have been (the Lawgiver, the bomb-worshippers, the END OF ALL THINGS), it's alarming how quickly the three reboot movies from this decade have become somber and, well, possible. This one continues a recent trend of grim and thoughtful blockbusters taking the place of the more frivolously exciting ones, though that's not to say it isn't exciting. There are moments, like the prison break finale, that are downright thrilling, and the obligatory comic relief character pops up now and again to remind us not to take it too seriously. But I enjoyed it for providing further proof of how valuable motion capture is for the engineering of artificial emotion and for the overall attempt at respectability, even if the weight of its tone is occasionally at odds with its subject. We're still watching a movie about sentient monkeys taking over the world, after all. B+

I still haven't gotten into a screening of Spider-Man: Homecoming, but I may try to get to it this week.

Recent Releases-March

10 Cloverfield Lane—Mary Elizabeth Winstead stars as the victim of a kidnapping (Kidnapper played with wonderful ferocity by John Goodman) and finds herself locked in close quarters underground with a man who believes the world is ending. This is intense, claustrophobic stuff, even  as it gets increasingly ridiculous the more questions it answers. That’s the movie’s only real problem, which turns out to be kind of a big one: it keeps trying to one-up itself and only manages to go off the deep end. I can’t discuss specifics of most of the plot without it being considered spoilers, but I’ll just say that nothing the movie conjures up is scarier than John Goodman (That’s a compliment). Fortunately, the parts that do work, which is really the first two-thirds or so, work really well. It’s still easily recommended. B+

Zootopia—The latest Disney animated offering makes extra effort to help further close the boundary between “family” movies and “adult” ones. It’s not the kind of movie your kids will love while you grate your teeth, cause it’s, you know, actually good. It’s set in a world made up of nothing but anthropomorphic animals who mostly live in harmony because the predators and the prey keep to their own kind and do the same job that animal has always done in service of the maintained status quo. But one plucky bunny decides to become a police officer and, with the reluctant help of a sly fox, sets out to solve one of the land’s biggest mysteries and prove that little animals can do big things. It sounds mushy, but the themes of empowerment and equality (It’s offensive for another animal to call a bunny cute; that’s their word) are well-meaning and not obnoxiously overplayed. Plus, the mystery is smartly played out and has some actually funny bits to boot. If only all kid’s movies were this intelligent and entertaining. B+

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot—This is the true story of reporter Kim Barker who is assigned to Afghanistan as a war correspondent and must learn to deal with living in a bunker full of men who see very few women, while trying to maintain a long-distance relationship with her boyfriend in New York and actually getting some good scoops on the situation in the territory without getting herself killed. Tina Fey has always been a competent and funny comedian, often thriving with goofy, throwaway material that’s fine for a quick laugh, but doesn’t have much of a long-term effect. Which is why it’s nice to see her tackle something like this, a movie about serious business that uses an unintrusive sense of humor to keep it from being bogged down. The film as a whole isn’t so great, as it struggles with the fact that it doesn’t have much of a plot, causing it to meander more than it should. But Fey carries it well and it’s amusing enough to warrant a watch for the interested. B

London Has Fallen—Isn’t it just the worst when all the world leaders are in the same place for a funeral or something and it turns out to have been orchestrated by bad guys who want to kill all the world leaders? Bummer though that may be, the American President (In this case, Aaron Eckhart, who could probably be a more worthy candidate than the lot we’ve got now) is safe in the hands of his bodyguard (Gerard Butler, as grunty and shoot-people-in-the-facey as ever)! And…they run from the bad guys who are still trying to catch them and, uh, they shoot some people, or whatever. If there’s anything worse than an unimaginative action movie, it’s one that additionally boring. This movie doesn’t have any reason for existing and doesn’t even make up for it by being fun. Following in the already dumb footsteps of White House Down and its immediate predecessor Olympus Has Fallen, you’ve seen it all before and you really don’t have to see it again. Please don’t go. Stop now before it’s too late! C-

The Other Side of the Door—If there’s anything worse than an unimaginative horror movie, it’s one that’s additionally boring (You can do this with any genre). This one is about a grieving mother who is told about a magic Hindu door through which one can speak to the deceased. The only rule is that you can’t open the door as that would let the spirit free, and of course this lady does it. There’s a good chunk of the flick towards the end that works its way through all the usual haunted house tropes, doing so without being scary or surprising. The majority of the movie, though, isn’t even trying to be scary, and the story it’s telling is muddled at best and downright idiotic at worst. Thankfully, it flopped and I don’t think it’s even playing anymore so why am I still talking about it? C-

The Witch (2016) Review

Sometimes the scariest things in the movies (or life, for that matter) are the invisible things that make us uncertain. It is often said that it’s not the dark that’s scary, but what’s in the dark, but I argue that the dark can be plenty scary on its own. The Witch is a new horror movie unlike any other, one that understands that no amount of ghouls and gore can give you the same long-lasting shivers as a speculative unknown.

It’s 17th Century New England, right at the height of the religious paranoia that would bring about all those famous witch hunts. And religion is of special interest to William (Ralph Ineson) who, due to some vague theological difference of opinion, drags his wife and five children away from their village home to live a life of pure solitude in the middle of nowhere just outside a creepy forest. Only a few minutes into the film, eldest child Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) is playing with little baby Samuel when he vanishes from sight. Thomasin has no idea what happened to him, but we as an audience are clearly shown that he was abducted by a mysterious figure who does some pretty horrifying things.

Thomasin’s mother Katharine (Kate Dickie) blames her for the loss of the baby and spends her days in bed crying and praying for Samuel’s soul. Middle child Caleb (Harvey Scrimshaw) becomes confused about his parent’s theology, but is assured by his father that there is no way of knowing whether or not one is good enough for God, so just keep being good and hope for the best (This is, of course, directly contrary to Biblical teachings, but maybe that’s why they’re not in the village anymore). 

Being constantly coaxed by this type of hyper-devotion, it’s little wonder everyone in the family is constantly glum and terrified for their immortal well-being. Everyone, that is, except the young twins Mercy and Jonas who are always cheerfully singing songs and talking to their goat friend Black Phillip. Are they just naive youngsters playing around or is there really someone in the goat conversing with them? When the farm’s crops start dying and the animals become sickly, is it a punishment from God for untold sins, or is there evil mischief afoot? And just what is out there in the wood?

These are questions, amongst others, that the movie asks and either doesn’t answer straight out or answers in a way that may be insufficient for modern minds. But this is not a modern horror movie, and it puts much more focus on uneasy mood and atmosphere than on narrative specifics. Those expecting a fun matinee scarefest in the Insidious vein will be very disappointed, and I should warn potential viewers that if there’s a crowd at your screening, you may as well turn around and get your money back, cause the people who came expecting to scream and laugh will still be screaming, but in disgust and anger.

The negative reactions to The Witch are understandable because it’s a literally scary movie, scary in a way that goes beyond the normal sensations of watching a movie and into a place that feels truly evil. First-time director/writer Robert Eggers has created an extraordinary work that is technically sound (The photography by Jarin Blaschke is really lovely and makes good use of creepy, natural lighting) and it is written in a way that feels like a document (All of the dialogue is accurate for the period, complete with “ye”s and “thou”s and always spoken in a thick, occasionally hard to understand dialect). It was little surprise to me when the end credits said it was based on actual journal accounts, and as suffocating and awful as it makes this family’s religious views look, it’s also no surprise that the movie got an endorsement from the Satanic church. This really is the kind of movie that makes the dark side look promising.

As a Christian myself, The Witch was terrifying to me in spiritual ways that may not carry over for other people, because it’s a reminder of how scary faith can be, what with evil having great physical power in the world and God remaining silent. It works as a morality tale about the necessity of strength in a partnership with God, rather than relying solely on human principles, but it also works from a totally non-religious viewpoint. Even taken just as a spooky folktale, it has some chilling tricks up its sleeve, assuming you’re in the mindset to let the movie work them over on you.

A-

My Oscar Predictions 2016

Here are my official Oscar predictions for 2016. I got 17 out of 24 last year, so let’s see how much worse I can do this time!

BEST PICTURE-

I would be fine with any of the eight nominees here winning; they’re all truly good. Room is a unique emotional story with two powerful performances. Brooklyn is a really sweet, lovely romance. Bridge of Spies is a solid, old-fashioned thriller. The Big Short is a zany, yet effective comedy. And then there’s The Martian and Mad Max: Fury Road, both surprisingly creative and entertaining thrillers which prove how great big-budget action movies can be when they’re not just mindless movies of the week. As for what will actually win, a few months ago I would have said Spotlight. That was probably the best all-around great movie of the year and I think any reasonable person who sees it would like it, unlike a few of the others. But the favorite right now is The Revenant, which is an undeniably great cinematic achievement, and it was actually popular with the normal people too.

Likely Winner-The Revenant/My Vote-Spotlight

BEST DIRECTOR-

Lenny Abrahamson (Room), as much as I loved his movie, was an out-of-nowhere surprise nominee, and Adam McKay (The Big Short) is up for a good flick but after a spotty track record. Neither of them have a chance. That leaves indie favorite Tom McCarthy (Spotlight), cult legend George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road) and last year’s winner Alejandro Inarritu (The Revenant). Inarritu’s accomplishments are arguably the most cinematically awe-inspiring and he won the Director’s Guild of America award. Since those people will also be voting here, it looks like we’ll have a consecutive win, the first since Joseph L. Mackiewicz’ wins in 1949/1950.

Likely Winner-Alejandro Inarritu/My Vote-George Miller

BEST ACTOR-

Let’s be real. All five of these guys are worthy contenders, but Leonardo DiCaprio is getting it for The Revenant; it’s become too much of a phenomenon and, you know, he got cold and stuff. I thought Matt Damon (The Martian) was one of the great assets in an already great movie. I think Bryan Cranston (Trumbo) is such a good performer that he made the movie he was in better than it would have been without him. I like Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs) and he does wonders with an overall unlikeable character. Then there’s Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl) who didn’t need a nomination after winning last year and isn't as good at playing a woman as he was at playing a paraplegic. But yeah, DiCaprio.

Likely Winner-Leonardo DiCaprio/My Vote-Leonardo DiCaprio

BEST ACTRESS-

BRIE LARSON ALL THE FRIGGIN’ WAY!!! Larson’s performance in Room is one of the best things that happened at the movies in 2015 and it’s a shame her young co-star Jacob Tremblay couldn’t have been recognized as well. I loved Saoirse Ronan in Brooklyn (It’s pronounced Sursha) and she’s the only one who could beat Larson and I wouldn’t be too horribly pissed. Cate Blanchett does solid work as an elegantly messy character in Carol, but she’s got enough trophies on her shelf. And I like Jennifer Lawrence as much as anybody, but her nomination for Joy wasn’t really necessary. I haven’t seen Charlotte Rampling in 45 Years because it hasn’t played anywhere and I’m very upset about that.

Likely Winner-Brie Larson/My Vote-Brie Larson

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-

I never thought I would be rooting for Sylvester Stallone to win an acting prize, but here I am stating in all seriousness that his performance in Creed is the complete package of everything you could want in a supporting performance. That being so, the more respectable choice would be great British actor Mark Rylance’s quiet and memorable turn in Bridge of Spies, plus we mustn’t rule out Tom hardy’s intensely evil performance in The Revenant. The guys who shouldn’t win are Christian Bale whose outrageousness in The Big Short felt a little too controlled to me and Mark Ruffalo who is fine in Spotlight, but not better than several other strong contenders, including a few from the same picture! But anyway, anyone voting based on pure emotional resonance will go Stallone.

Likely Winner-Sylvester Stallone/My Vote-Sylvester Stallone

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-

I cannot more strongly and bitterly stress the fact that Rooney Mara is not a supporter in Carol. This is one of the most blatant examples of category fraud pretty much ever, as Mara is as significant a character/performer as Blanchett, if not more so. She’s good in the movie, but shouldn’t win on principle alone. Also arguably a lead is Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl, but at least her character is actually supporting the star, and she’s the best thing in a movie that’s mostly a good-looking trainwreck. Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs) is a rare supporting nomination that actually has limited screen time and she does make the most of it. Rachel McAdams (Spotlight) is an essential part of a great ensemble and has possibly the most memorable moment in the movie. But my personal favorite is the lady least likely to make it: Jennifer Jason Leigh as the utterly foul and murderous Daisy Domergue in The Hateful Eight. It’s great fun watching her be so gleefully evil.

Likely Winner-Alicia Vikander/My Vote-Jennifer Jason Leigh

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-

Spotlight. Easiest choice in the world. Everybody loved Inside Out, but it’ll get its desserts in the animation category. Bridge of Spies, again, is good stuff. Ex Machina is an intellectual treat and Straight Outta Compton gets the obligatory biopic nod. But Spotlight is just too darn good.

Likely Winner-Spotlight/My Vote-Spotlight

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-

The choice is slightly more complicated here, cause The Big Short, Brooklyn, Carol, The Martian, and Room are all really good examples of the writing craft. I think I most prefer Room, and I think most people prefer The Big Short. So there, I guess.

Likely Winner-The Big Short/My Vote-Room

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE-

With a nomination for Star War: The Force Awakens, John Williams has been nominated for more awards than any other composer, and its good, nostalgic stuff. Thomas Newman is also up for his typical dramatic score for Bridge of Spies, and if it weren’t for the fact that he has yet to bring the gold home, I’d say be gone with him until he has something more memorable to offer. Something like the fun and chilling score for The Hateful Eight, which also has the benefit of being written by movie legend Ennio Morricone. Yet, if we were actually voting for the best score as a complete whole, we’d have to go with Carter Burwell’s work on Carol. But no, like it or not, we’re voting more for the writer than the product, especially if that project has a hummable theme, so Morricone it is.

Likely Winner-The Hateful Eight/My Vote-The Hateful Eight

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE-

I am still mortified that Fifty Shades of Grey is an Academy Award-nominated movie because of this nomination for “Earned It” by The Weeknd, and it’s not even that good! “Manta Ray” is a decent song from a meh documentary (Racing Extinction) and “Simple Song #3” from Youth is an artistically sound composition that actually works as part of the movie’s narrative, but Youth was weird and nobody saw it. So it’s between the two pop stars. Sam Smith’s “Writing’s on the Wall” from Spectre may be just another Bond song, but it’s the only one of these five that I remember any of right this minute, and I’m sure it’s the only one most people would recognize on the radio. But, wait! Lady Gaga has a song about rape victims! The Hunting Ground wasn’t an amazing movie, but “Til It Happens to You” is an appropriately angry and powerful song.

Likely Winner-Til It Happens to You/My Vote-Til It Happens to You

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM-

The dagblasted distributors don’t think anyone wants to see subtitled movies, so I haven’t had a chance to see any of these. However, hearsay declares that Son of Saul has the best chances. The other nominees are Embrace of the Serpent, Mustang, Theeb, and A War.

Likely Winner-Son of Saul

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE-

Pixar’s done it again! Despite the fact that Inside Out was literally blatant emotional manipulation, it worked, and I feel quite sure it’ll win easily. Anomalisa is another very special movie that works on both comedic and tragic levels, but it’s very intense, bizarre, and intended for adults (It has strong language and cartoon nudity), so it doesn’t have the universality that this award requires, great though it is. The other three nominees are Boy & the World, Shaun the Sheep Movie, and When Marnie Was There. These did MUCH smaller business than the likes of The Good Dinosaur, Minions, and The Peanuts Movie, but they’re actually better movies. So, good for the Oscars for sticking up for the underdogs!

Likely Winner-Inside Out/My Vote-Inside Out

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE-

Cartel Land is good journalism. Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom has value for documenting a big moment in a nation’s history. What Happened, Miss Simone? is a well-rounded and involving story of a brave and talented woman’s struggle-filled life. Amy is an above-average, in-your-face character study of an international icon. And then there’s the downright heartbreaking The Look of Silence, a sort-of sequel to director Josua Oppenheimer’s once-in-a-lifetime The Act of Killing, and together they're the kind of movies that leave a permanent imprint on your brain. The Act of Killing lost to the good, but not great, music-filled 20 Feet from Stardom, and it’s probably going to happen again.

Likely Winner-Amy/My Vote-The Look of Silence

BEST LIVE ACION SHORT-
A lot of people are predicting the serious, but only OK Shok. Others think Ave Maria is amusing enough to get it. A lot of people liked Stutterer, and Day One packs a powerful punch. Everything is Going to Be OK is the only one nobody seems to like. I'm going to guess Day One because it's American and about war and stuff.
Likely Winner-Day One/My Vote-Ave Maria

BEST ANIMATED SHORT-

Bear Story, Prologue, and We Can't Live Without Cosmos are all good, but it's between the other two. Sanjay's Super Team could win because of Disney's strong marketing campaign and it would help with the racial diversity problem the Oscars have going on right now. But anyone who has seen these shorts knows that the best is World of Tomorrow and I am just hoping its greatness alone will make it a sure thing.
Likely Winner-World of Tomorrow/My Vote-World of Tomorrow

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT-

I've only seen two of these and they were both meh: Chau, Beyond the Lines and Last Day of Freedom, both of which feature good subjects but don't really delve into the stories. That leaves Body Team 12, Claude Lanzmann: Spectres of the Shoah, and A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness, any of which could win based on their topics (ebola, the making of the greatest Holocaust documentary, ritualistic murder in Pakistan), but my money's on Spectres of the Shoah, partly because it sounds the most interesting to me, but mostly because I think the Academy will want to honor a movie that they ignored originally and which is now considered an all-time documentary masterpiece.
Likely Winner-Claude Lanzmann: Spectres of the Shoah

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY-

I love the old-fashioned, filmy looks of Carol and The Hateful Eight. I’m not altogether convinced Sicario needs to be here, unless the Academy is trying to establish a tradition of not awarding Roger Deakins. Mad Max: Fury Road is visually impressive, but not as breathtaking as The Revenant, which was shot by Emmanuel Lubezki, who has won twice in a row for Gravity and Birdman. So I smell an unprecedented streak.

Likely Winner-The Revenant/My Vote-The Revenant

BEST FILM EDITING-

The Revenant is here in recognition of its overall technical brilliance, though its editing isn’t a quality as apparent as fellow nominees Mad Max: Fury Road and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Spotlight is also in the boat with the movies that are so well-edited that you don’t notice the editing as all. Then there’s The Big Short which owes a lot of its energy to the way it jumps around not only through time, but between narrative, fantasy, and documentary footage. however, I think Mad Max will be doing well in the technical categories, and there’s no reason it shouldn’t.

Likely Winner-Mad Max: Fury Road/My Vote-Mad Max: Fury Road

BEST SOUND EDITING/MIXING-

I think Mad Max and The Revenant will be splitting these, although Star Wars: The Force Awakens and The Martian are just as good. Sicario is up for Editing and Bridge of Spies for Mixing, but neither have a chance against those other more spectacular nominees.

Likely Editing Winner-Mad Max: Fury Road/My Vote: Mad Max: Fury Road
Likely Mixing Winner-The Revenant/My Vote-The Revenant

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN-

Maybe I’m ignorant, but the fact that Mad Max: Fury Road, The Martian, and The Revenant all mostly take place in wide open spaces make them seem like strange fits here, with the elaborate period sets of Bridge of Spies and The Danish Girl looking like harder work to pull off. Still, I think the most impressive examples of art direction are in the creation of fantasy worlds that appear believably real. So, Mad Max it is.

Likely Winner-Mad Max: Fury Road/My Vote-Mad Max: Fury Road

BEST COSTUME DESIGN-

The period costumes in Carol, Cinderella, The Danish Girl, and The Revenant are more awards-y than the cosplay dares in Mad Max: Fury Road. There is as good a chance that Mad Max could make it here as much as anywhere, though The Danish Girl is the only movie that actually makes a fuss about its own clothing. I don’t know.

Likely Winner-The Danish Girl/My Vote-Mad Max: Fury Road

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING-

Since there’s only three nominees here and one of them is always something random (This year's being the Swedish comedy The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared), it’s usually pretty easy to tell which makeup voters are gonna go for. That leaves either Mad Max: Fury Road or The Revenant, and Mad Max’s work looks like it was much more complicated.

Likely Winner-Mad Max: Fury Road/My Vote-Mad Max: Fury Road

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS-

And finally, we have yet another category in which all of the nominees would be worthy winners. The least likely is Ex Machina, which had great effects, but on a much smaller scale than the others. Then, between Mad Max: Fury Road, The Martian, The Revenant, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, who knows?! They’re all good! I’m just gonna guess Star Wars cause it was so popular.

Likely Winner-Star Wars: The Force Awakens/My Vote-Mad Max: Fury Road

Deadpool (2016) Review

If there’s one thing we Americans love, it’s superhero movies. They don’t have to be very original or even particularly exciting superhero movies, just so long as they have superheroes who fight computer-animated nemeses and crack wise. And if there’s one other thing we Americans love, it’s vulgarity. It doesn’t have to be very original or particularly clever vulgarity, just so long as it’s vulgar and obscene. Much like when Taco Bell introduced its Dorito Quesadilla, it was only a matter of time before we combined these two great loves of our nation, the product of which is Deadpool.

Ryan Reynolds stars as Wade Wilson, a sort of thug-for-hire who only takes jobs that make bad people pay for things they’ve done to others (It’s ok for him to beat up an underage boy because the kid was a stalker or something.). He hangs around with other mercenaries at a bar where he meets and becomes quite attached to Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). He likes her so much, in fact, that he walks out on her when he finds out that he has cancer, to spare her suffering.

This story takes place in the same world as the X-Men, so Wade turns to the mysterious underground scientist Ajax (Ed Skrein) who believes that he can cure the cancer by turning Wade into a self-healing mutant. He does so by putting his subjects through extensive torture with the intention of selling the newly mutated people to other criminals as slaves, which causes Wade to resent him a great deal. So when he does successfully become a disfigured mutant, he breaks out of the secret lab, dons a full-body suit, and makes it his mission to track down Ajax (Real name: Francis) and his minions and wipe them off the planet.

One of the biggest pains of being a movie critic is judging comedy, because it all really boils down to whether each individual person laughed or not. In the case of Deadpool, a full-blown comedy that actually focuses more on jokes than action, I didn’t laugh, not even once. I was mostly extremely annoyed by Reynolds’ entire character, who is perpetually snarky, crass, and unlikeable. Mind you, I’m not specifically offended by the crass nature of the film’s hero or humor, but by how humorless it is.

Take another look at last year’s Ant-Man, another Marvel movie that had a good deal of humor in it. Its hero, played by Paul Rudd who was also a co-writer, was an everyman who found humor in his life’s problems and the bad situations he found himself in. It was a relatable style of humor that built up the character to better solidify his narrative, unlike Deadpool, which uses humor to distract from the fact that there isn’t much of a story to begin with.

What makes the Deadpool character even more obnoxious than the fact that he is intentionally obnoxious (and that’s supposed to be endearing?) is how lazy his whole persona is. He breaks the fourth wall, but only so that he can point out that he’s doing so, and then point out that the fact that he pointed it out is a joke. He thinks that simply saying profane words or mentioning certain body parts is hilarious in itself, so he does it constantly without regard for taste or context. He treats other people, including his long-suffering girlfriend, his best friend (T. J. Miller), his blind roommate (Leslie Uggams), and a couple of X-Men recruiters (none of whom have any real role in the story), worse than the villains but then acknowledges that he’s a bad person, which I guess makes it all better. It’s a badly written movie is what I’m saying.

And that’s where it really falls apart for me. It would be one thing if Deadpool were a passable entertainment that I just didn’t think was funny (like most of the Marvel movies, for example), but if you take away the novelty of a superhero who says the f-word and talks about sodomy, all that’s left is just another comic book origin story, only worse than usual. I’d sooner see three new Spider-Man reboots before a Deadpool sequel.

C-

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) Review

Way back in 2009, when the book Pride and Prejudice and Zombies first hit store shelves, you better believe my 19-year-old self thought that it was just about the funniest thing ever conceived. Well, the title was at any rate, and I bought the sucker solely because of that title. The book was an admittedly clever idea for the nerd crowd. It was approximately 80% of Jane Austen’s classic romance novel more or less untouched, but with zombie attacks thrown in, transforming the entire narrative into a horror story, just with a few gory references here and there. As written by Seth Grahame-Smith, the idea worked better as an idea than as a novel, and actually reading the book was a bit tiresome. Austen was a brilliant author and there’s a point where you’re sick of her work being interrupted by immature violence that does nothing for the story except make it potentially more accessible for a certain crowd.

Both the book and movie begin with the same line, reworked from Austen’s original: “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains.” How you react to this opening line of the film, whether it be a laugh, eye-roll, or sigh of indifference, will be the sign of how you’ll feel for the remaining 100 minutes. It’s either gonna be a blast or an excruciating agony, although you must be open to the idea of a zombie apocalypse version of Jane Austen to begin with or you shouldn’t bother with the movie at all.

The story is essentially the same as the novel. Elizabeth Bennet (Lily James) is the smartest (and, in this case, fiercest) of the Bennett daughters whose mother (Sally Phillips) really wants them married off to the first wealthy men who show interest. The most promising match at the start of the story is between young Jane (Bella Heathcote) and rich Mr. Bingley (Douglas Booth), while Elizabeth is faced with interest from three potential suitors: the handsome Mr. Wickham (Jack Huston), the dim-witted Mr. Collins (Matt Smith), and the stand-offish Mr. Darcy (Sam Riley). Elizabeth is forced to weigh her feelings for Darcy, who she grows to love despite his rude personality, against her desire for Wickham, all while avoiding Collins.

That’s the basic story of the original. This time around, it’s all set during a period after a plague has swept the world which I guess resurrected the dead or whatever, so now the Bennet girls face both unwanted courtships and attacks by the undead. And these are the most intelligent zombies I’ve ever seen. They can speak, reason, plot, fight, and disguise themselves as normal people. But not to worry, wise Mr. Bennet (Charles Dance) has trained his daughters as warriors, and Austen has already written them as strong-willed women, so those zombies had just better watch out!

Again, if you’re not open-minded about Pride and Prejudice and Zombie’s gimmick, you’re better off sticking to whichever serious film version of Austen’s novel you already love. For everyone else, it’s all up to personal tolerance. Because the movie presents the original story mostly in tact, there’s a lot of romantic drama that could make horror fans anxious, and despite the PG-13 rating, the zombie stuff is icky enough to deny it traditional “chick flick" status. But the novelty of these things being together at all, and both being treated with a certain degree of dignity makes the movie fun for someone like me, who enjoys a wide variety of entertainment types.

This is a handsome-looking movie, full of the costumes and sets and stuff that’s customary for a dramatic period picture, and the casting is surprisingly well thought out. Though the nature of the film is such that there isn’t time to delve into the emotional complexities that make Austen’s story so timeless, all the actors are well-suited for their parts. Matt Smith seems to be having an especially good time as the silly Mr. Collins, as is Lena Heady as Mr. Darcy’s sword-weilding aunt. Plus, much of the dialogue is still Austen’s, even if it’s being said in less elegant scenarios than for what they were written, and Mr. and Mrs. Bennet still get the biggest laughs.

What’s just as surprising is how well-executed the action scenes are, with the climax being the biggest departure from the original novel and also what makes the best use of the zombies as savage monsters. Basically, whenever the movie is all Austen or all zombie, it works. What it doesn’t do as successfully is balance the two, especially since I still don’t know if the whole thing is supposed to be funny or not. In the end, it may not have any brains, but it’s harmless Saturday afternoon fluff and as good a movie as the material deserves. And if it brings more interest to the real Pride and Prejudice, all the better.

B-

Hail, Caesar! (2016) Review

If you look through the filmography of Joel and Ethan Coen, among the best filmmakers in modern cinema, there are two major themes that are frequently apparent. First, their movies almost always deal with the hopelessness and absurdity of life (Refer especially to Fargo, The Big Lebowski, The Man Who Wasn’t There, No Country for Old Men, Burn After Reading, A Serious Man, and Inside Llewyn Davis). Second, the Coens sure do love movies (Blood Simple, Miller’s Crossing, Barton Fink, The Hudsucker Proxy, True Grit). As serious as many of their pictures are, they also love goofy, screwball comedy (Raising Arizona, O Brother Where Art Thou, Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers). They also love looking at the mental conditions that drive people in all facets of life, including love, work, faith, and, uh… Oh, heck, so the Coens make great movies that have a lot going on in them, ok?

Their new movie Hail, Caesar!, the 17th film in a nearly flawless canon of work, is sort of a conglomeration of everything they’ve done so far. All the aforementioned themes and views, all their trademark style and wit and pathos is present in this loving homage to 1950s Hollywood, affectionately presented in all its wacky, two-faced glory.

The story is about an executive at a stereotypical big movie studio, played by Josh Brolin. His name is Eddie Mannix and his job is essentially that of a fixer. He maintains studio credibility for reporters, keeps stars and directors happy and in line, arranges sneaky, back room transactions; anything to keep things running as smoothly as possible. His big project at the moment is a Ben-Hur style Biblical epic starring Baird Whitlock (George Clooney), a household name movie star who is kidnapped by Communists mere days before the end of shooting. Mannix is forced to gather ransom money lest the picture lose thousands of dollars from halting production.

He has to do this without anyone suspecting, especially nosy reporters Thora and Thessaly Parker (twin sisters both played by Tilda Swinton), all while continuing to run everyday business. There’s Western star Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) who has been cast in a serious film directed by Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes), despite not having the theater-trained acting ability expected of him. There’s DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson), star of classy musicals, who becomes unexpectedly pregnant and must come up with a father quick. There’s the government man who wants to hire Mannix, and Mannix’s wife who wants him to quit smoking, and the priest who becomes frustrated with Mannix’s daily confessions and insists that he ‘isn’t that bad.” Would that it were so simple.

There’s a lot going on in Hail, Caesar! both on the surface and in-between the lines. Half the fun of watching it is deciphering what is really happening during moments like a roundtable discussion from major religious figures about the nature of God, or when the Communists very politely inform their hostage about the unfair treatment of screenwriters, or when the epic film’s editor nearly strangles herself when her scarf gets caught in the machine. There’s a lot of heady stuff that gets discussed, referenced, and lampooned, especially pertaining to the impending wartime politics that underline all the cheery shenanigans. Of course, double meaning is what the whole movie’s about, from an innuendo-laden, sailor-filled musical number to the fact that Mannix is the only character in the whole thing who actually values morality and doesn’t live a secret life.

All the philosophical elements are great, but the other half of the fun in watching Hail, Caesar! is, well, just how darn fun it is. It’s a very insistently bright and silly movie, and some of the biggest laughs are from the goofiest jokes. All the actors, including one or two scene cameos from Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, and Frances McDormand, are clearly having a blast. Surprisingly, the biggest scene-stealer is little-known child actor Alden Ehrenreich who is endearingly dopey as the cowboy turned important film star. My favorite bit was watching him and Ralph Fiennes bicker over proper enunciation.

Hail, Caesar! isn’t one of the Coens’ best movies, it’s too much of an inside joke to reach a mass audience, but it’s an absurd delight just the same. Even those who may not appreciate its various senses of humor (It gets pretty dark and occasionally irreverent, while remaining perpetually goofy) will, at the very least, not be bored. Arguments can be made for the movie both as a comedy masterpiece and as a flippant excess, but either way, at least it’s a new movie worth talking about.

B+