Current Film Reviews- The Goldfinch

     Hey, an Ansel Elgort feature that is being released in theaters.  Despite having now designated myself as his nemesis (which would mean something if he was aware of my existence), I didn't know whether or not to review this film. That is, until its debut at the Toronto International Film Festival, where it was scorched by critics. I knew the book was controversial when it won a Pulitzer, but even that didn't prepare me for the savaging this film got. And then and there, I decided to do this review. I'll say this: it didn't disappoint.

    Based on Donna Tartt's 2013 Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, The Goldfinch tells the story of the life of Theodore Decker (Oakes Fegley  as a child; Ansel Elgort as an adult), who survives a terrorist attack on MoMA, which takes the life of his mother (Hailey Wist). However, as he stumbles through the wreckage, he comes across the mortally wounded Welty Blackwell (Robert Joy), who entrusts him with Carel Fabritus' 1654 painting The Goldfinch. Decker keeps the painting with him, as he journeys through life. From staying with family friend Samantha Barbour (Nicole Kidman) and her family, including his best friend Andy (Ryan Foust), and apprenticing with Backwell's partner James Hobart (Jeffrey Wright) as well as meeting Blackwell's niece Pippa (Aimee Laurence as a child; Ashleigh Cummings as an adult) before his deadbeat father (Luke Wilson, being very Luke Wilson-y) drags him to Las Vegas, where he befriends Ukranian expatriate Boris (Finn Wolfhard as a child, Aneurin Barnard as an adult). Through it all, he still has the painting, seemingly.

       This is going to be a very negative review,  but I'm obliged to at least point out things that work. There are some flashes where young Theo and his friends are having fun or enjoying each other's company which work and are actually mildly interesting. There's a shot here and there that kind of works. Occasionally, it gets bizarrely melodramatic, or overly serious enough to be unintentionally funny.

     The film this most reminded me of was M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening. Stiff acting all around; pretentious, absurd themes and dialogue; weird, out-of-place cartoon characters in otherwise stern serious work. This feels like a very bad late period Shyamalan movie (ironically, his own movie this year is actually better), and all the flaws that entails. It's a shame, because the director, John Crowley, did Brooklyn , which has the bright lighting, but had a charm and warmth to it, that this film severely needs. It takes itself way too seriously, with its themes of terrorism, abuse, the value of art, antiques, family but it never focuses on one theme long enough for any of it to matter or for it to have a coherent message. Like I said, sometimes, it's untentionally funny sometimes, it gets so melodramatic and offbeat. Bigger than that, though, is that the film is just boring. There is no narrative structure to it, so it's very hard to tell when it's going to end, and it just keeps going. It just goes on with dull acting and painfully boring dialogue. I almost fell asleep watching this a couple times. It crosses the threshold into terrible with its crushing length. 2 and a half hours! Virtually nothing happens in this, and it takes that long to tell this story.

     If I hadn't gotten a literal headache watching Godzilla:King of Monsters, this probably would be the worst movie I've seen this year. I struggle to find things that really work about this film. I considered just getting up and walking out, I was so un-invested in this film. It is simply terrible, and I can't think of any reason to see it. Even if the accidental humor intrigues you, it is so few and far between to really make this worth 2 and half hours, and it's mostly tedium in between. I was worried that I wouldn't have enough to write this before I saw the film. Now, I think I have too much, because there might be stuff I've forgotten!

   Anyway, thanks for reading, and join me on the 28th, for the start of my annual horror review, beginning with the 1958 version of The Fly.

Current Film Reviews- Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw

     So, I've never seen a Fast and Furious film. I may have seen part of the second one years ago, but I've never seen any full film from the franchise, despite its increasing acclaim as an internationally, intersectionally minded blockbuster franchise. I just don't really know where to start, given that the continuity of the films is famously bizarre, and its shift from street racing to international spy thrillers equally such. So, given this, I decided to do this review with that mindset. Having not seen any of the Fast and Furious films, does this spin-off stand up as its own film to a non-fan such as myself, who isn't immersed in this particular franchise.

     A group of MI6 agents try to capture a device containing a virus that could wipe out most of mankind (sadly, it is not called "Thanoslite"), from the terrorist organization Eteon. However, an Eteon operative named Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), with superhuman abilities, comes out to retrieve their device. He kills all the agents, except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) who injects the virus capsules into herself before fleeing. Brixton promptly frames her for the attack. The CIA then recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Hattie's brother Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) to find Hattie and bring her to justice. Of course, Brixton is on the trail, and complications arise.

    First, the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Stathem basically is the entire film. I've heard that they get on pretty well in real life, and it does show. I could just see them trash talking each other for a feature-length film. It helps especially during some of the sequences where they are forced to work together. Most of the other actors do fine in their roles (Idris Elba seems to be having fun in this). The actions sequences are spectacular, with elaborate set pieces and a lot of activity going on, making all of them exciting and fun . This could be attributed to director David Letch, who did similar large scale action scenes with John Wick, Atomic Blonde, and Deadpool 2 (Funnily enough, Ryan Reynolds plays a small role in the film). Best of all, there is no reliance on continuity, aside from some nods or subtle references (I don't know how much the two interacted before in the franchise, but they clearly have some history), and the big theme of family that has been through the franchise. It works as a standalone action film, with a lot of heart and sentimentality. 

     This was way too long. An hour and a half long story extended to nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes. It really starts to grind down in the second act, as the action sequences seem to go on too long. I know people don't really care about the story, and I don't really either in this case, but there are a number of continuity errors and plot holes that were a little distracting, even in a movie like this.

    So, I can't speak to whether fans of the franchise will enjoy this, but just as a fun action movie, I enjoyed it. I had a lot of fun, and there was a large amount of heart to this. I might actually check out the others in this series if they're all this fun and jovial. Even if you've never seen another one of these, I think one could watch this, and follow it with ease.  

Coming to a Video Screen Near You- Under the Silver Lake

     Okay, I was looking forward to this one for a while, ever since I saw the trailer about two years ago, I think. I loved director David Robert Mitchell's previous feature It Follows, one of the best horror films of the last decade. It was scheduled for June, 2018 (the same day Jurassic World: Fallen Franchise was meant to come out). Perhaps because of this, it was then moved to December. And then to April. And when I remembered it was supposed to come, I found it that it had an incredibly limited release in New York and Los Angeles (damned coastal elite), and was just going straight to video. Given I've annoited myself reviewer of shit studios dump onto VOD, I decided to take a look, and see if it really deserves these delays, in the inaugural entry of my series now looking into these discards.

      Sam (Andrew Garfield) is a jobless voyeur living in Los Angeles who is obsessed with an alternative comic called Under the Silver Lake, written by Comic Fan (Patrick Fishler), which has some similarities to recent events. One day, he meets a young woman named Sarah (Riley Keough), living in his apartment complex. After they share a night of ...passion, one could call it, he wakes up to find that she and her roommates have completely vacated the premises. Sam, already a conspiracy theorist, slowly pieces together a larger conspiracy involving the murder of a millionaire (Chris Gann), a rock band, and several pieces of pop culture ephemera.

      First, the score is great. Disasterpiece (that's apparently what he's called), who did the iconic score for It Follows did the music for this, and it gives the film atmosphere. Punctuating moments, allowing the ambiance of a brightly lit scene to settle in, and just sounds great whenever it's on. I liked how parts of the conspiracy were constructed and how Sam was able to decode the messages. The Under the Silver Lake comics have nice animation that really capture the feel of an alternative horror comic like this. I like how, despite the darker undertones of the film, Los Angeles itself is shown in a bright, colorful manner that is somewhat reminiscent of films like La La Land, which is a nice contrast. After watching this, I do kind of want to visit LA again after seeing it.

      I'll say first that Andrew Garfield just wasn't the right person to play this role. I know others praise his performance, but it's just didn't click for me. I think he is too subdued. This character is supposed to be more nuts and crazed, but he is too relaxed and too stoner-y to pull it off. A couple reviewers said he was a stoner, so that might be why, but I didn't quite get the performance and it didn't click with me. The conspiracy is well-thought out, but it feels like there are little stakes in it. There's no sense of real urgency or importance to it. It feels more like an elaborate treasure hunt made for a primetime game show. When it culminates in the revelation, it a.) feels incredibly underwhelming, and b.) leaves several loose plot threads out to dangle in the wind. Maybe this was the intention, but I never got invested in this character journey. There is a lot of gratuitous nudity, sex, and butt shots, of all things, and maybe there is some They Live-commentary there, but it just felt awkward (and a bit off-putting) to watch. It is also way too long for the plot, with so many digressions and needless elements.   

     There were interesting elements to this film, and I was drawn by those. However, a lot of it just felt tedious, especially its use of pop culture brownie-point, like The Long Goodbye as written by Max Landis. I don't really think a theater experience would've enhanced this much. That said, if you are intrigued by the synopsis or the look, I'd say rent it and see what you might think of it.