Tag: Review

film

Review: Batman V Superman, Dawn of Justice OR “WTF Zack Snyder?”

Posted on by spacecortez

Warning: Massive Spoilers Throughout!

First, let me say that I am a gigantic superhero film fan and I wanted to love this movie. I am a fan of both Marvel and DC characters, especially Batman and Superman. I also quite enjoyed ‘Man of Steel’ and approve of both Henry Cavill as Superman and Ben Affleck as Batman. In fact, the performances within this film are actually the least egregious aspects of it. Rather it is the handling of said characters actions and motivations throughout the muddled story that plague it most in my opinion. I believe Zack Snyder, or maybe the studio heads (its legitimately hard to tell), honestly missed the point of the characters. In fact, the whole idea of Batman Versus Superman is silly in general as you have to work pretty hard to get two, supposedly, intelligent characters that are, again supposedly, morally good to duke it out. A far better movie would have been an adaption of ‘World’s Finest’ where the two meet, are appropriately cautious of each other, then realize they need each other to surmount odds they could not traverse on their own merits.

Overview:

‘Batman Versus Superman’ takes place eighteen months after the events of ‘Man of Steel’. the initial beginning to the films takes us back to the finale of that movie first with Superman battling it out with General Zod in Metropolis. We are introduced to this scene from a different angle this time however, from the literal street perspective of Bruce Wayne as he rushes through downtown Metropolis in a valiant effort to save friends and collegues of his in the Wayne Enterprises building. Here is a strong opening to the movie that brilliantly sets up how Bruce Wayne’s perspective of paranoia and unease towards the Man of Steel is earned and understood.

Sadly that is some of the last good character motivation we get throughout the film. Yes, lots of things happen in this movie, but they just… happen, there is no cohesive storyline that connects all of these events. Thus we get, in my opinion, Zack Snyder’s weakest film to date. And yes, I saw ‘Sucker Punch’. In fact, ‘Sucker Punch’ has similar issues to this film. Looks great, but the plot is a quagmire. I feel the only proper way to analyze this movie is to separate out the core aspects of it and dive into each one individually, because there are good aspects to the movie, they’re just buried in a tangle of mistakes.

Superman:

“I don’t care..” That single line best represents my issue with the adaption of Superman in this film. Somehow Zack Snyder lost the Superman he crafted in ‘Man of Steel’ while transitioning to this story. This version of Superman is dour, brooding, and devoid of the ability to maintain his own trademark optimism whatsoever. You may say these same issues plague ‘Man of Steel’ but I disagree, the level of outright mishandling of the core mindset of the character that is on display here is a confusing creative choice. ‘Man of Steel’ did not have the same misunderstanding of what makes Clark Kent Superman. At the end credits of that movie I felt that Henry Cavill’s Kent was on his way to becoming a more traditionally inspired take on the character.

Never has Superman been this grotesquely unsure of his own actions, he even congeals over whether or not he is actually a good person. Let me be clear though, Henry Cavill’s performance is not what seems to be the problem here. It seems that the creative team was trying to push Superman out of the way, because Batman is here now! That’s my take anyway. In fact, they even set up what could have been a great scene when Superman visits the Senate to discuss his take on his actions, to answer the question of whether or not the world actually needs a Superman. What a great chance to dive into the philosophy of the man of steel! But no, the scene is wasted on an attempt at tension and to point out to the audience that, yes, Lex Luthor is a sinister bastard. I think we could all infer that just from looking at that haircut.

Superman’s portion of the film is possibly what irks me the most as he was greatly underutilized. Superman may have gotten top billing along with Batman but he clearly wasn’t the focus of the filmmakers. They wrote the character as a little too cocky for me at times and then on top of that they had the audacity to kill him.. but only to bring him back in time for the Justice League movie. They did not earn that moment. Superman honestly deserved to have at least one more film before this one to work out his character within this emerging DC world. I submit that a George Miller directed sequel with Brainiac as the villain would have been beyond excellent. Reality, however, dictates that we do not live in that world. We must trudge on with the bungling harbinger of the eventual Super Friends movie that we have before us.

Let me just add that Superman’s greatest superpower is his ability to inspire hope in others. In this movie he could barely find it within himself, let alone inspiring others. How did this happen?

Batman:

Okay, first off, Batman kills people now? This ultimately undermines his heroism, plus when it has happened before in the comic form it was a big deal, he never killed without great purpose and dire need. This was a drastic leap from the character’s moral code without any explanation whatsoever. If he hadn’t utilized blatant murder so flippantly maybe I could see past one super baddie getting his teeth punch down his throat and neck snapped, but Ben Affleck’s Batman simply had no regard for people’s lives in this movie. I would even consider it a begrudging pass if he had one conversation with Alfred challenging him on this, to at least have some sort of acknowledgement to this change in ethics. As it stands Ben Affleck’s Batman is essentially the Punisher in a Batsuit. If I wanted that take on a character I’d just watch season two of Daredevil on Netflix, and you should, its a far better use of your time than this film.

However, I have to say, beyond that Ben Affleck’s version of Bruce Wayne and Batman’s fighting style is downright excellent. This is the only character with solid motivation and reasoning as he moves throughout the storyline. His banter with Jeremey Irons’ Alfred are some of the best lines throughout the film. Batman himself gets several great lines such as, “You’re not brave. Men are brave.” Nice. Too bad that quality didn’t transcend the rest of the film.

One last thing though. Why did we have to have a montage sequence where he’s throwing tires and ropes and chains? A good ole workout won’t do you much good when your rival combatant can take a Nuke to the face and continue the fight moments later. A better montage would have been Bruce and Alfred constructing that admittedly badass supersuit Batman just happened to have lying around for the final showdown. I can’t even remember how he got that.

Lex Luthor:

Suprisingly I didn’t despise Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor as much as I thought I would. I don’t believe he’s the Luthor the audience deserves, but its the one we got, so we must go on. Once his schemes involving the manipulation of Batman and others were unraveled I was somewhat impressed with his cunning ability to have multiple schemes going at once. I was not, however, impressed with his actions regarding him pushing Superman into a fight with Batman near the climax. It was just lazy writing. It was the easy way out. Which is painfully irritating for a character that is supposed to be incredibly intelligent.

Jesse Eisnberg’s Lex Luthor wasn’t the Lex Luthor I wanted, nor one that I was familiar with, but the character’s spirit did seemed buried in this performance, as if this were his origin tale as to how he became the Luthor we knew and will know.. hopefully. Although, I’ll be honest, Mark Strong would have been my first pick in casting for Luthor.

Wonder Woman:

Gal Gadot’s amazonian princess was fairly solid in her performance. Her fighting with Doomsday was also action packed and appropriate for the character. This does not mean she was needed in this film though. Her reveal and moments of interaction spread throughout the film feel desperately pushed by the studio, almost as if you can hear executives at Warner Brothers saying “Well we need her in this movie so people can get used to the idea of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman before the Justice League!” She will be the only solo character to get an another origin before the Justice League, I wish she had her film before this one though. It would have made her presence all the better for the fanboy antics that she riled up upon her arrival.

Story:

There is a way that this story could have worked beautifully. Alas, it did not. Lex Luthor tricking Batman into picking a fight with Superman by manipulation is an interesting idea. Although, I would have preferred Batman not being duped by such a young, slightly annoying, Luthor. The movie just has so many creative choices that make no sense whatsoever. For example, when Lois Lane, who is ultimately wasted throughout this film by the way, picks up the Kryptonian spear Batman forged and threw it in a well filled with water, only to force Superman to save her and retrieve it, felt so blocky and half baked in terms of editing, movement, and pacing. And how many times will Lois Lane be shoved off the side of building? One of these days we’re going to expect her to get saved as she always does, then splat. Dead Lois. It would be consistent with Zack Snyder’s concern over the characters in this world, like Jimmy Olsen. Oh, did you not realize he was in this film? He was the CIA operative posing as a reporter with Lois Lane in the opening of the film. Zack Snyder shot Jimmy Olsen in the head in the first ten minutes of this movie. Ugh. It’s not like he was the most interesting character in the world, but did they have to shoot him in the face?

I can’t mention story here and not point out the flaw in storytelling that is the Martha scene. Both Superman and Batman’s mothers are named Martha. Right before Batman is about to kill Superman with a spear forged from Kryptonite Superman mumbles out “Save.. Martha” and Batman loses his mind, “WHERE DID YOU HERE THAT NAME?” and Lois Lane just so happens to appear at the last second to explain to Batman that Martha is his mother’s name. Batman immediately realizes he was tricked, or something like that I guess, and goes off to save Superman’s mother from Lex’s hired thugs. What? Wow. That is so sloppy and incoherent of a choice to make right at the climax of the fight.

Zack Snyder:

He is now the Michael Bay of Comic Book movies. He just doubled down on everything that didn’t work in ‘Man of Steel’ and nothing that did. Granted, he is not the only one to blame by a long shot. Warner Brothers very clearly had their mitts all over this in an attempt to have the competitive edge against Marvel Studios. Which ironically is probably what made this film suffer the most. As the director I do believe he deserves some of the blame though. He really didn’t get the point of the characters, or if he did he let the story take this shape anyway without righting the careening ship. Like the Captain of the Titanic in full denial Zack Snyder forged ahead and smashed right into that iceberg full of money. We all knew, by the way, that regardless of what this film was like, it would make boatloads of cold hard cash. It definitely has already, and that’s great if you loved this movie, which is fine. I didn’t hate the film in the least, rather I was massively disappointed with it. What worries me now though is the two part Justice League movie, both of which he is directing. If he had such a difficult time handling two of the seven League members, how in the hell is he going to be able to step up to the plate and deliver us two quality films about these characters?

The Super Friends:

Lastly, speaking of the other Justice League members, they too were shoved hastily into this film. When Batman steals Lex Luthor’s secret files concerning the other members of the eventual team he sends Wonder Woman an email with the contents. She clicks through the icons, which by the way have each character’s logo emblazened on them, to see video content of Aquaman, Cyborg, and The Flash. Wow is that incredibly lazy. I mean, someone got paid to write this film.. and that’s how they thought an appropriate reveal of several members of the Justice League should play out. At least the Flash has another moment where he appears to Bruce Wayne through time travel to warn him that Lois Lane is the key, and that “You were right about him!”, although if you didn’t know that A: The Flash can time travel, or B: that typically anytime a red blur with lightning surrounding it appears in the DC universe it’s usually the Flash, that moment would be lost on you.

So, all in all, the film has moments of greatness that are ultimately lost in the muck among the many many problems this film has. Lets all hope they find a better way to handle the Justice League, because I desperately want it to be an epic fufilling movie-going experience. As it stands now I am very concerned about it. Superman may not be able to, but lets all just have a bit of hope. I’ll leave you with a fun article and accompanying video, enjoy!

http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/27/11313366/batman-superman-team-up-animated-movie-dawn-of-justice

Final Score: 2/5

0
film

Review: DeadPool or “This time they didn’t sew his mouth shut!”

Posted on by spacecortez

By now everyone has seen this movie, but nonetheless, I felt like adding to the chorus of praise its getting. There might be some spoiler-ish content, if you haven’t seen this movie (somehow) go check it out, if you’re old enough, its amazing.

Deadpool has had a long history getting to the big screen. This isn’t even technically his first time on the silver screen, but in all honesty, that wasn’t the real Deadpool anyways. This movie rectifies the atrocities of ‘Xmen Origins: Wolverine’ by poking fun at the disservice to the title character, and poking fun at Wolverine himself, and Hugh Jackman for that matter. If that sounds strange to comment on the actor that portrays Wolverine rather than the character himself, then you don’t know Deadpool very well. He constantly breaks the fourth wall to address the audience, and he knows he’s in a movie, or a comic, and uses it to his advantage, comedic or otherwise. Lets get to something very important regarding this movie first though: THIS MOVIE IS NOT FOR CHILDREN. There. Now you know. Deadpool had to be rated ‘R’ ( and trust me, it’s a hard ‘R’) because it helped elevate the performance of the character and his personality. We couldn’t have an accurate Deadpool without his ability to motormouth his way through grotesque violence and mayhem, that would be almost as debilitating to the character as say, sewing his mouth shut and giving him katanas for arms.. oh wait.

Ryan Reynolds is the only person I can even consider portraying this character after seeing this film. Stan Lee even said Reynolds was born to play this role. His comedic chops are put to the test here and it works! Reynolds has been pushing for this film ever since the disastrous ‘Origins’ portrayal of Wade Wilson back in 2009, and the long haul paid off for him. Along with ‘leaked’ test footage and one of the most talked about scripts roaming around for years before Reynolds stepped back behind the camera the hype for this character was insane once the audience got a little taste of the potential. So, here we are seven years later with a suprisingly great Deadpool movie, congratulations Ryan Reynolds, you’re officially redeemed and now everybody loves you.

So, this story is about Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool, and his lover Vanessa (firefly alum, Morena Baccarin). Wade is a former special forces operative turned mercenary when we meet him. His sense of humor, already very ‘Deadpoolish’ to begin with, is what ties him ever closer to Vanessa, his lover who happens to be a prostitute with her own twisted sense of humor. They have something legitimately special together onscreen and it helps to motivate the audience to get behind Deadpool’s copious amounts of blood he spills to get her back from Ajax, or Francis (played by Ed Skrein), who has become quite the meme in the fallout of the film’s release date.

The movie dissects its timeline to great advantage considering pacing and the overall structure of the story. We see Deadpool suited up in his red and black PJs whilst mowing down dozens of gun weilding thugs before we see him as Wade. The opening credits alone are amazingly meta and prove that the filmmakers know their audience going into the film. The best way to break down Deadpool is that at its core, its a revenge story. Wade has a life altering blackout in which hospital tests prove that he has incurable amounts of cancer coursing through him. A secret organization offers to “make him a superhero” and heal his cancer, seeing no other feasible options he accepts. Turns out its a horribly painful experience and that the people behind this transformation aren’t exactly the good guys.

Cue the revenge quest that teams the foul mouthed Ryan Reynolds with X-Men characters Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapicic) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand). Of whom we got more appearances out of than expected, the scene where Colossus tries to lecture Deadpool on the importance of doing the right thing and the responsibility of being a real hero is perfect. Its just one small moment that entirely captures the spirit of Deadpool. The supporting cast does an excellent job throughout the film as they all play off of Deadpool and elevate the story and material surrounding his story. Weasel, played by T.J. Miller, was pefectly cast as the best friend of Wade before and after his transformation into Deadpool. His style of humor perfectly fits within the realm that Deadpool inhabits.

So, this movie is crass, sassy, incredibly violent, and very, very funny. If this type of humor and violence doesn’t offend you, then strap in because this film works on every level for its target audience and does an excellent job introducing the character to newcomers as well. Oh, and there’s also a naked fight scene.

Final Score 5/5

0
film

Review: The Hateful Eight, or ‘Everything you Love and Hate about Quentin Tarantino’

Posted on by spacecortez

After troubled beginnings and much fanfare Quentin Tarantino’s eighth film, the aptly titled ‘The Hateful Eight’, has come to silver screens everywhere. Returning to the western genre once more Tarantino delivers us a truly unique flick as the renegade director gleefully indulges us in his celluloid fantasies. This does not, however, deem it a masterpiece, for it is not one. This film is many, many, other things though, and it deserves accolades for its acomplishments, but it’s also not an effort that lives up to the infamous director’s previous offerings.

‘The Hateful Eight’ follows John “The Hangman” Ruth (Kurt Russell) who is a bounty hunter trekking through Wyoming with the prisoner Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) during a blizzard. Along the way, they reluctantly pick up stragglers, respected rival bounty hunter Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), both notably connected to the Civil War on opposing sides.

On their way to Red Rock, where Domergue is set to hang and Mannix is supposed to become the new sheriff, the four seek shelter at the mountaintop stagecoach stopover Minnie’s Haberdashery. There they find that Minnie has left the business in the hands of  Bob (Demian Bichir) the Mexican stable hand so that she may visit friends on the other side of the mountain. Once inside we’re introduced to the remaining three of the Eight through The Hangman’s John Wayne inspired inspection of each. Who is trustworthy? Who is not? We are left with Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth), a polite Englishman who also claims to be on his way to Red Rock, but as the new hangman of the town. The quiet and seemingly affable Joe Cage (Michael Madsen), is a cattleman/biographer headed to visit his mother. Finally we meet General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern), a former Confederate leader who shared a Civil War Battlefield with Warren, an infamous and vicious Union soldier who once had a Confederate price on his head.

Let’s break it down shall we?

The Good

If you’re a film nerd you’ll find a lot to love in Tarantino’s newest entry. From how it was filmed on an Ultra Panavision 70, a 70mm panoramic format 15% wider than the conventional 35mm standard Panavision format, to the opening overture which just so happens to be a new piece by Ennio Morricone no less, Tarantino flaunts his love of old-school filmmaking here. He utilizes depth and a sense space incredibly well. His style continues to evolve in subtle ways over the years and you can see how his grand love of the old ways influences his creative choices. You might be wondering why the filmmaker chose to use the widest angle possible on a film that is confined to one location for the majority of the runtime, but he deftly moves through the given space of Minnie’s Haberdashery, the one room cabin that acts as a watering hole and waypoint on the side of a mountain in Wyoming. Strangely in this film Tarantino both matures in his filmmaking techniques, and also reverts to his more, indulgent, adolescence stained ways when concerning plot structure and story. Not to say that this film isn’t substantive, it’s a feat itself that the film nears the three hour mark and the pace is never sacrificed ultimately, for it rests on the laurels of engaging writing and committed performances.

Speaking of, the performances here are the entire reason this film works at all. If it were a less credible cast with none of the wit and vile that these hateful participants require, it would be a mess of a movie. Credit goes to the actors here for captivating us as thoroughly as they do, even while portraying themselves as indeed, hateful people, and are yet degrees of likeability higher than what one would expect given their actions and demeanors. Kurt Russell and Samuel L Jackson steal the show as rival bounty hunters in the post Civil War era, but Walton Goggins, who plays a confederate sympathizer and supposed new Sheriff of Red Rock, was a surprising standout among the talent involved. Not all of the Eight get as much screen time as others, but they all add to the bigger picture.Bruce Dern’s role in particular as a curmudgeonly confederate general after the war shines as the setting’s best embellishment. He rarely moves from the point at which we meet him, and he isn’t the main attraction by far, but he serves his purpose for the story quite well. Jennifer Jason Leigh also deserves praise for her range in villainy, from her dead eyed stares to her defiant cackling after getting elbowed in the face by Kurt Russell’s Ruth she proves to be just as captivating as the rest, if not more.

 

The Bad

This entry in QT’s legacy is a fine addition overall, but it’s runtime leaves something to be desired. At roughly three hours long the film’s length can be seriously felt when nearing the end of the flick. Needless to say, I’m no Oscar winning writer or director here, but it feels as though the film really didn’t need to be quite this long. A half hour could be cut and the story would still work.

The Ugly

This film nudges too far into excess for my palette, in terms of intention and how it plays out in the story and what that means for the tale we’re being told. Particularly one scene with Samuel L Jackson’s flashback killing of an offscreen character in a brutal and pervasive manner that divulges Tarantino’s weirdest indulgences as a storyteller.

It’s not that the ultra violent sequences are shocking because of what’s shown (and it is gruesome) but rather it is because it heavily distracts from the established tension and character building that took up the last hour of screentime, only to be thrown to the way side so quickly. I was rather invested in the first half of the film, but the second half, in my mind, undermines the entirety of the first half of the story. Who poisoned the coffee again? I sincerely cannot remember. I rather liked the mysterious banter and wit among the curious nature of the motivations of these people, are they friend or foe? I suppose the film almost demands a second viewing to better understand the picture as a whole, but for the first time in a long time, I’m not incredibly excited to see this Tarantino film again. I will. I just know I can wait until the title hits Netflix or video release.

Final Score: 3/5

0
film

Review: Star Wars The Force Awakens, or “A New Hope Part 2”

Posted on by spacecortez

This review will be Spoiler free.

Finally. It has happened. We got a good ‘Star Wars’ movie. From the moment the opening crawl descends on us until the end credits hit the screen I couldn’t wipe the smile off of my face if I tried. The Force Awakens is easily the best Star Wars film in decades, and while it does have some flaws within it- the film succeeds on almost every front.

The Story follows Rey, a scrapper from the desert planet Jakku, Finn, a renegade Stormtrooper of the First Order, and Poe Dameron, the Resistance’s ace pilot among others. The search for Luke Skywalker is the main thrust of the film as the opening credits inform us, “Luke Skywalker has vanished..” and his sister, General Leia Organa begins the search through trusted X-Wing pilot Poe Dameron. From there we are quickly introduced to the previously mentioned leads and spend some time getting to know them through their actions before stumbling into the lovable scoundrel turned rebellion hero, Han Solo. The first act does an impeccable job meshing the fresh with the familiar. Finn and Solo’s banter alone is gold, but it is a relatively small moment between a litany of lovingly crafted scenes and a clear respect and adoration of the original trilogy and the world it inhabited long, long ago.

Firstly, mother of God the amount of practical effects and production design showcased in this film by itself is almost enough to wash away those feverish nightmares of senate meetings and insufferable Gungans. But enough about the terrible Star Wars movies because this one is great! Maz, a new character, runs a ‘watering hole’ that Han and the new kids eventually arrive at and it is a feast for the eyes as every square inch is packed with puppets, costumes, makeup, and props. Kudos JJ, Kudos. Even BB-8 himself (herself?) was practically created. Robots and aliens aside the best parts about the film are the new characters and how they interact within the story and world. Rey is the standout performance, a young female lead that is incredibly capable and quickwitted? Yes please. We need more of her ilk in huge pop culture films!

As a villain, Kylo Ren was better than expected. He had layers that became more intricate as the runtime trotted along, and he was ridiculously powerful with the force. Plus he actually made use of the extra crossblades of his lightsaber, nice to see they weren’t just for show. As there were a lot of homages and familiarity throughout this film there was also another shadowy figure pulling strings in the background, Supreme Leader Snoke. Snoke was but one of two CGI characters in the film, the other being Maz, and in a film with such a focus on the practical effects in the world, they stood out, and not in the best way. That’s not to say they weren’t interesting characters, just curious that they would go that route when other methods would have been more in canon with the Original Trilogy. A mild complaint in the end. There will be more to be known about Snoke as we get more of these films, but let’s hope, for the love of god, that its not Palpatine… somehow.

There is a very fine between good and evil in this iteration, and some characters straddle the line with poise, but it is an engaging turmoil that boils over onscreen for those involved. The New Order may be vague in its deliberate mission statement, but that’s okay, we all know this is the first step in a new trilogy and who wants to know all the secrets right away anyways. The film tantalizes us with homages to old but keeps us tethered to the story with the curious nature of, how will this unfold? What’s next? This is the first time in a very long time that we know not the ultimate outcome of the standing, or current, set of ‘Star Wars’ movies. The New Order’s ambitions may not be known in terms of their exact inner workings, but we do know they are incredibly ambitious with what they have created.

Starkiller Base. Is it basically a bigger Death Star? Sort of. Only way more impressive, that and it lives up to its name. I won’t go into further detail for the three people that haven’t seen the film and also happen to be reading this, but know this- It is visually, very awesome. Oh and the Dogfighting that ensues is beyond nostalgic, but also simply very satisfying to watch. That really is the core of why this movie works so well, at just over two hours long the film feels like an hour twenty at most, it’s cogs are constantly churning from action to well timed banter or spaceship battles/chases. The pace is a triumph, and more than anything else, this film is pure fun. It won’t win any oscars, and that is completely fine because all this film had to do was give us something new, something familiar, and something fun. The film succeeds on every front, and then some.

Star Wars is playing until the end of time in all theaters everywhere. May the force be with you if you’re on the internet and still haven’t seen this movie for some reason. In the end we all got a good ‘Star Wars’ movie for Christmas, go and enjoy it!

Final Score: 4/5

0
film

Review: Krampus, a creature feature for Christmas

Posted on by spacecortez

The wintry season brings with it the promise of gift giving, hordes of homemade delicacies, and generally warm and fuzzy sensations. This year comes a movie that would like to share the creepy side of the Christmas legend, the titular demon occasionally known as the shadow of Santa Claus, Krampus. The story opens on a wonderfully comedic montage in a typical big box store as consumerism mayhem reaches a violent fever pitch in stereotypical Black Friday style. From here until the end the message is clear to all who enter this tale, don’t let cynicism overwhelm you and make you lose hope, lest darker things come to bump in the night.

‘Krampus’ centers on the Engel family (I see what you did there writers) as they begrudgingly welcome the rest of their family into their home for the Holidays. Things go awry when young Max Engel’s letter to Santa is discovered by his country bumpkin cousins who proceed to make fun of him for his continued belief in the big guy. Max then goes to the dark side by dashing his hopes that this Christmas could be reminiscent of the good ole days by ripping up his letter and throwing it out the window. Thus summoning Krampus to befall the home in a malevolent blizzard.

Directed by Michael Dougherty, ‘Krampus’ succeeds on several fronts. Firstly the production should be praised for its use of practical effects. They offer a far more palpable approach to something that is clearly a lower budget film among such giants as the Marvel Machine and the pop culture phenomenon Star Wars, which we will all be obsessed with shortly. It is refreshing to see such a reliance on costumes, props, and prosthetics. Krampus in particular is always a powerful and creepy presence onscreen. Secondly, the cast all do serviceable performances while not going too over the top, here’s looking at you David Koechner! Adam Scott was a standout to me as he wasn’t playing his typical obnoxious foil in comedies such as ‘StepBrothers’. He really sold me as the father that truly cared despite life taking its toll on him, his family life, and his marriage. Toni Collette also helped the film to stand taller through her performance as well. The two matriarchs of the film, Conchata Ferrell as Aunt Dorothy & Krista Stadler as Omi Engel, have wildly different characters and performances, but they both add to the piece as comedic relief and emotional weight respectively.

My problem with Krampus is that while it is clearly inspired by such 1980’s horror comedies as ‘Gremlins’ and the like, the film does little more than dip its toes in those waters without delivering the extra punch of scary goodness that we all want. As a PG-13 rating the film gets away with some admittedly creepy sights and beats, but it doesn’t quite get to itch that particular scratch. Walking out of the film my first reaction was that if it had gone full ‘R’ with some over the top gore it might have sold me more as a Christmas-Horror flick, but as it stands it was more like a fun ‘What if?’ Christmas tale. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy the film, just that it could have gone farther in the direction that it was headed. There was also too much reliance on Krampus’ minions over Krampus himself. He was a captivating presence every time he was onscreen, but his moments were too fleeting in my mind.

There’s also the issue that almost all of the characters are not terribly likable, thus the audience almost roots for Krampus in the end and we have little to no remorse over the carnage that ensues later. The notable exceptions being Max and his grandmother, Omi. There was a singular moment in which Omi, (remember, all the Engels are the good characters) tells Max that the belief in Santa Claus is not so much based on the details about the man himself, but rather what Santa Claus represents, hope, goodness, & the sacrifice of giving. In fact that last part leads me to my biggest issue with the film.

The ending of the film leaves something to be desired though. Especially with the ‘sacrifice of giving’ lesson that Omi introduced in the third act and follows through til the end. Does the ending undermine that lesson? As I see it, yes. The lesson might have been learned, but if there isn’t any staying power in a message, then what is the point? I suppose as a Christmas tale, as well as it being ‘Horror-inspired’, then it must end with those expected warm and fuzzy feelings. The ending simply felt too predictable and a bit lacking to me.

So, if you’re a fan of campy creature features, and don’t mind a Christmas twist, then you’ll likely find merit within ‘Krampus’. Happy Holidays readers!

 

Final Score: 3/5

2
film

Review: In The Heart of The Sea, OR “Thor & Spiderman fight a Whale”

Posted on by spacecortez

*Note- I’ve changed to a five point rating system, it seems more relevant & useful*

Warning- Spoilers

‘In The Heart of The Sea’ is a film, directed by Ron Howard, that follows the real life tragedy of the whaling ship, The Essex out of Nantucket, Massachusetts in the early 1820’s. Named after the nonfiction book upon which the story is based, written by Nathaniel Philbrick, ‘In The Heart of The Sea’ is the story of two men and their distinct differences in leadership while on the vessel; first mate Owen Chase, Chris Hemsworth, & Benjamin Walker as Captain George Pollard. Hemsworth’s Chase is the man’s man of the picture, a seasoned blue collar Whaler that is placed on the Essex at the whim of the bureaucrats as a first mate instead of the role of Captain as he was promised. That position ends up being filled by George Pollard,  a snobbish, well-to-do blue blood with familial connections. And so the stage is set out as the two characters clash for authority and respect while out at voyage.

If the marketing of this film hadn’t informed you heavily enough the framing device utilized in the film will beat you over the head with the information that Herman Melville was obsessed by this story and that it’s details are what inspired the American literary classic ‘Moby Dick‘. We know this because the film opens thirty years after the events of the Essex as we follow a hopeful young author as he tracks down a lead to a story that has consumed him. Young Melville, portrayed here by Ben Whishaw, finds the last surviving member, Tom Nickerson, of the Essex and after much prodding the gentlemen begins to tell us his part in the tale. Young Nickerson, while portrayed adequately by Tom Holland, seemingly only exists to relay the story to our aspiring author years later within the context of the story, even though Owen Chase and Tom Nickerson are based on real life accounts of the first mate and cabin boy that truly survived the event almost two centuries ago. If the film had only used this device, of dialogue between an older Nickerson, portrayed by Brendan Gleeson, and Melville discussing these events only at the opening and close of the film it would have worked better but the film curiously plods back to get reactions of said sequences or actions, from Melville as he hears it. This is all fine and well in some regards but I really felt as though this disrupted the film’s flow.

Where the film shines is in it’s embrace of the themes of man vs man and man vs nature throughout the runtime. These moments capture what I feel the film was attempting to get more of, but failed slightly in that regard. The dialogue and tension between Pollard and Chase make otherwise longfelt sequences feel breezier. Although the film is long, I never truly felt as if the pace were particularly lacking, although admittedly I adore seafaring tales, so this might have been lost on me. Speaking of these two main characters, they represent more of the problems with the film as time goes on though. Weaknesses that lie in the characters as they are written, not necessarily the performances. There  was never enough done to make us feel particularly attached to any of the characters, and Pollard constantly makes poor, bullish, decisions that make his squaring off with the first mate less of an even footed rivalry and more of a one sided mutiny brewing as nobody liked, and isn’t meant to, the captain from the moment he was introduced to us onscreen.

When the whales finally do show up, they are menacing, or at least their actions show us that they are menacing, but we never get anything more compelling out of what they do, or represent onscreen other than the “vengance for my dead brethren” through-line. There are moments when Chase looks out upon the sea with whale blood speckling his face, almost as if he is pondering whether or not killing these animals was the right thing to do, even though his entire way of life depends on this savagery. The CGI whales do look good, but in all fairness they lack any true weight to the times they are onscreen, they are present and the white whale itself does mess their boat up royally, however there could have been other creative choices that either made the vengeful whale more intimidating, or more of a constant threat instead of the essentially one-and-done that we get when the action does go down. However there is a beautiful moment when first mate Chase seemingly realizes that they are no longer the hunters, but the hunted.

The cinematography, in my opinion, is admirably done but is not without its faults. It captures the tactile presence of the world these characters inhabit, as the boat fills with water and several characters are grabbing provisions we’ll get a close up on a wooden shelf with a whale drawing carved into the side. The boat truly feels lived in by this time. There are other moments when Howard makes this creative choice and I personally couldn’t agree more, to me it feels as though you are giving a real sense of implied time in a given place that resonates with those characters, as a closer look upon a worn in groove or another view of ropes sliding through pulleys that haul the fabric sail aloft you might be beckoned to think of the time spent out on that one boat for so long, and what it might do to a man. However, this creates a problem in that now there is almost more emotional investment in the set than the characters that inhabit it! And while I might not be all too bothered by the tight framing and almost claustrophobic camera movements at times, there can be an argument made for Howard missing out on the scope of the sea that surrounds them by doing so. Especially when you compare to the sequences of the whales that zoom way out and above the ship to give an, albeit needed, sense of scale. It simply feels disjointed when juxtaposed as they are.

Overall the film is thrilling at times and introduces us to similar themes that are far more excellently explored within ‘Moby Dick’, but the sea-faring thriller could just never live up to the bar set by the work that it inspired. If you want a movie to watch and kill some time before the new Star Wars comes out, this would be a fine, but certainly not perfect, addition.

Final Score: 3.5/5

0
film

Review: 007’s Spectre, Superb-but its no Skyfall

Posted on by spacecortez

*Warning: Spoilers*

Spectre opens with, quite possibly, one of the most fun, brash, and intense sequences in all of James Bond’s onscreen adventures. It’s a shame the rest of the film doesn’t live up to that standard. Heading into this movie I wasn’t entirely sure if this iteration of MI6’s most famous secret agent would be a more direct sequel to Daniel Craig’s previous films, or simply another standalone adventure in the spy’s long gestating cinematic history. Let me tell you now, this movie heavily leans on Daniel Craig’s Bond legacy. If you want to fully appreciate all that ‘Spectre’ has to offer repeat viewings of the three previous Craig films would do you well (Although it would be understandable if you skipped ‘Quantum of Solace’).

Now, you might ask, with the 007 series reaching 24 films long, is ‘Spectre’ worth the price of admission? Overall, I say yes. There is enough the film accomplishes here to merit it a success within the terms of what people come to expect from Bond films.  That being said the biggest shadow looming on ‘Spectre’s horizons is ‘Skyfall’. ‘Skyfall’ reshaped Bond’s world in a way that was unprecedented in the series’ history. What made ‘Skyfall’ a standout was that it continued what ‘Casino Royale’ started in adverting expectations and wowing us with a Bond for the new millennium. More visceral, grounded, and gruff yet still suave and classy. ‘Spectre’ has a problem though, its not entirely sure what kind of Bond film it wants to be. The film relishes in larger set pieces, more visually captivating locales, and a host of other well trodden established Bond tropes. Bond reverts to the more Sean Connery style of persuasion with women, he exhibits far more reckless behavior than past Craig offerings, and black turtlenecks. Which I might add, I thoroughly enjoyed purely out of my adoration of the cartoon, ‘Archer’. So you might ask, ‘do any of these aspects weaken the overall experience?’ Well, that depends on what you expect out of a Bond film. Were there car chases? Did Bond have/drive/crash an expensive car? Did Q and Bond have an argument/moment? Was there a torture sequence? Did he get the girl? Did Bond go fist to fist in a brawl with an overly large henchman?  The answer to all of these questions is ‘Yes, most definitely’. If that is enough for you as the viewer, then it is enough, just don’t go into ‘Spectre’ expecting a reinvented wheel. This film is in love with its own past, and it seems to be racing to check off all the boxes of Bond’s world so quickly that it doesn’t even realize that the audience can feel the expectation of the plot as it happens. Every time a box was checked I was happy that it was, though it felt as if we’d all been here before. ‘Skyfall’, again, looms large.

Speaking of Henchmen, Dave Bautista’s ‘Mr. Hinx’ is one of the truly standout performances of the film. The bulky and brooding heavy hitter barely utters a word his entire time onscreen, but this doesn’t mean he isn’t an unrelenting challenge for every second of his time with us. Mr. Hinx will definitely be remembered in the long line up of Bond baddies for his introduction alone, forgoing eloquence for complete brutality in the juxtaposition of the orderly and organized ‘Spectre’ boardroom that the scene takes place in. The organization at the heart of the film’s title is one that largely rests its image on the shoulders of Christoph Waltz’s Oberhauser. I am at the same time both content with, and let down by, this performance. It has nothing to do with Waltz’s acting ability, I think he was fine, I was just expecting a bit more out of it. This may have been unfair of me to do so because of my comparing the character of Oberhauser to that of Hans Landa, Waltz’s infamous Nazi from Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Inglorious Basterds’. Oberhauser is a far more restricted, internal character of sorts, in short, I simply had brought a different level of expectation to the role than if it had been a different actor. The slow burn of his introduction in ‘Spectre’ is handled enticingly well in my opinion though. Oberhauser is however part of the film that, in my opinion, asks almost for too much from us.

THE WORST SPOILERS

‘Spectre’ attempts, and ultimately succeeds, in asking the audience to retcon the last three Bond films into one cohesive piece of storytelling. Partly in building the mythos around the shadowy organization ‘Spectre’ the film constantly throws us little reminders of villains of Craig’s past as bits of evidence tantamount to the tentacled group being, as Oberhauser himself describes it in one particular line, “I am the Author of all your pain James Bond”. But is he really? Oh and the big reveal that Oberhauser is actually ‘Blofeld’ shouldn’t have been all that much of a surprise to anyone knowing the history of the organization in the film series’ past. I think the idea at face value is a bit of a stretch, though they handled it effectively enough in the film, but the less time you spend analyzing it, the more you will enjoy it. If they had gone further with the idea I think it would have been too much, but done as it was, it is acceptable.

It is also worth mentioning that from ‘Skyfall’ to ‘Spectre’ there was a change in the guard of cinematographer from Roger Deakins to Hoyte van Hoytema. It might not be the most apparent change from film to film but the loss of Deakins style can be felt throughout. The use of Q and his relationship with Bond was also more fleshed out than in ‘Skyfall’ so that was a welcome addition. There was also the subplot of Andrew Scott’s ‘C’ merging both MI5 and MI6 operations while simulataneously nixing the double O program in its entirety. He is also the link between ‘Spectre’ and MI6 as he hurries to get international approval for a new global initiative of blending cutting edge technology with George Orwell’s worst nightmares. Hey, a dash of ‘Winter Soldier’ never hurt, right? The film also tries, ever so briefly, to peel back more layers of Bond’s childhood past and psychology, but again, ‘Skyfall’ did this better and in a more compelling fashion.

All in all, this is a fine James Bond movie. If all you are looking for is a competent, rousing, and entertaining action spy movie, then you’re in luck, because ‘Spectre’ was made for you. If on the other hand you wanted just a bit more from Daniel Craig’s latest, and possibly last, outing as the double O, then you might be left wanting more.

Final Score: 8/10

0
film

Review: The Martian, Saving Private Ryan.. again… in space

Posted on by spacecortez

*Warning, certain plot points pivotal to the movie explained here contain SPOILERS*

Ridley Scott’s new film ‘The Martian’ is a rousing realism bound sci-fi flick for our time. Its easily the best film Scott has made in the last decade and is thoroughly riveting. This does not mean, however, that it is not without flaws. The film rests the weight of its purpose on Matt Damon’s tried and true shoulders, and because of this, it soars. Damon embodies Mark Watney with a tremendous amount of humanity and heart, and it shows throughout the film’s runtime. And while the cast that lives and breathes on the outer edges of Watney’s story serves their purpose, some better than others, a few performances feel shoehorned in.

In case you didn’t know, Mark Watney’s tale is that of an interstellar castaway. In the midst of an unexpected superstorm on the red planet of Mars, Watney’s team moves to evacuate their base lest their ship topples and strands them there. During this trudge through the storm to the ship Watney is knocked away from the team by a piece of equipment and his captain, Jessica Chastain, makes a hard choice in leaving him behind, as they assume his death. Watney’s team ascend from the red planet and make way for home before he awakens the next day with fresh wounds and a short air supply. From there it is Watney’s perogative to stay alive at whatever the cost, even though he himself knows the almost innumerable odds he faces, ” If the oxygenator breaks down, I’ll suffocate. If the water reclaimer breaks down, I’ll die of thirst. If the Hab beaches, I’ll just kind of implode. If none of those things happen. I’ll eventually run out of food and starve to death. So yeah. I’m fucked.” This begins the movie with a tangible and tense sense of urgency.

The film does many things quite well, but every so often there is a hiccup that hinders the overall experience. The cinematography, for example, is top notch and really utilizes the landscape to the audience’s advantage. The pacing of the film is also great-most of the time. At times the weight of the two hour and twenty minute runtime can be felt as montages trod on, or when there is time for Watney and others to reflect. Basically, every time the tension is gone, so too does the focus of the film, if only for a scene or two. Which is probably why Watney is thrust into many situations that he must out-think to survive. There are some impeccable sequences in which Watney must react quickly, and intelligently, or he will cease to exist. In fact, the problems Watney frequently encounters are the core thrust of the film in my perspective. They define the film because it is the calm and collected strategy that Watney, and eventually NASA, approaches these problems with that should be hailed with praise. Maybe not for writing’s sake in terms of originality, but in the grand scheme of it all, that despite all odds, we continue. We continue to be, and to be human is to explore, to step out of the cave and do something with ourselves. Fear is crippling, and we shouldn’t let that stop us from advancing, and that is something this movie showcases tenfold. It is something I admire greatly about the film.

There’s also one key scene that reminded me that I was watching a movie rather than being involved in the experience of the movie. When the crew is discussing how to save their man left behind Kate Mara’s character rattles off a line or two that when thought about momentarily was complete movie science lingo garbage. Most of the film does not commit this sin, but that one was particularly brutal. Speaking of the crew, the rest of the cast is quite good. An excellent bunch of actors to be honest. The aforementioned Jessica Chastain gets a few moments, moments where she is referenced particularly by Watney about her mostly disco music selection, which is heartwarming at a time when Watney reflects on his lonliness. With the exception of Jeff Daniel’s CEO of NASA most everyone else is there for exposition, ‘My God!’ scientist scenes, or particularly one note performances. Donald Glover in particular felt especially shoved in, as if his character was from a different movie altogether, not that his performace was lacking, rather that he might not have been given the proper logistics as to what the tone of the film would be.

The moments that do lack however are small and fleeting as most of the movie is with Damon on the lonely red planet, and that’s where the film sizzles. Near the third act news of Watney’s isolation and rescue plan are released to the public and the effect of global teamwork and rallying around the cause of bringing our guy back home is enough to cheer for! Its inspiring and it makes you feel warm in all the right places when you see everyone come together, just to save one man on another planet, 140 million miles away.

Final Score: 8/10

0
film

Review: Bridge of Spies, Spielberg almost does it again

Posted on by spacecortez

‘Bridge of Spies’ is a movie that doesn’t seem to quite know what it wants to be. As many have undoubtedly already stated this movie is expertly crafted, no doubt about it, but when the name Spielberg is at the forefront, people come to the cinema with weighty expectations. The film has this disjointed feeling from start to finish, but this doesn’t mean it isn’t a well made movie, just that there clear stylistic choices that are somewhat at odds with each other. Perhaps the silver screen pairing of the Coen Brothers on the screenplay and Spielberg’s direction tendencies just weren’t quite the match made in movie heaven that some thought it would end up being.

The film centers around the true life events of James Donovan, an American insurance lawyer in 1957 that ends up being selected to defend a recently captured Soviet spy, Rudolph Abel, acted quite well by Mark Rylance. As this is happening an American pilot is captured across the Soviet border while on a reconnaissance mission to gain precious info on the Russians. This time it is the CIA that comes to Donovan to get him to negotiate their spy for ours. Thus begins the heart of the movie. I will say there are plenty of great choices in the film. Obviously Hanks does a stellar job, but curiously in a handful of scenes it almost seems as if even Hanks is almost going through the motions of the film. His scenes with Russian spy Abel are always on point though. There is visually clever editing throughout, and the production team that designed the sets used deserve applause because never once do you feel as if the characters are not in the year 1957.

Lets get to the meat of it though. It feels as though Spielberg wasn’t sure if he wanted to create something more in line with his more serious films like ‘Lincoln’ or ‘Saving Private Ryan’ or his popcorn flicks like ‘Jaws’, ‘Jurassic Park’, or even ‘Catch me if you can’. The film is chock full of idealistic speeches given by Tom Hanks’ character James Donovan. It’s also sprinkled throughout with moments of dynamic tension concerning foot chases, aerial action, and terse negotiating. This wouldn’t be so bad if these same things weren’t also happening in other areas of the film as a whole. This is firstly evident in the writing. Now, this film is very well written, that’s not the issue here. The Issue is that the Coen brothers’ style, which can be felt whenever a character opens their mouth, seems to be running at a different pace than the action, acting, or plot. For example, its often repeated for the main character to ‘be careful’ as danger is afoot, in fact danger is frequently mentioned, but you never quite feel as if anyone you care about in the movie is in any palpable danger at all. It never fully feels as though the two ends of the spectrum are in tandem with each other. They’re both good and well in execution, they just feel out of sync with each other.

There is however one obviously glaring omission in this Spielberg flick. No John Williams. Which is a bit of a let down because the composer and director have come to be recognized with one another after all this time. This is only the second film that Spielberg has not collaborated with Williams on for the score. And you can tell. It almost seems as if Spielberg had a conversation with composer Thomas Newman asking him to “Just try and do what John Williams would do” because the score consistently tries to reach the heights of the legendary composer while only getting to some knockoff version that sounds like Danny Elfman trying to do John Williams instead.

Let it be known however that none of this means that the film is not good or entertaining, it is. We as moviegoers have simply come to expect a more complete package from Steven Spielberg at this point. The movie has heart, a whole lot of it, and at the end you’ll probably leave with slightly warm feelings about it, but I doubt the film ‘WOW’ed anyone at all. When you begin to be associated with wowing people, they will come to expect it. Maybe next time Spielberg. We still love you.

Final Score: 8/10

0