Current Film Review- Ready Player One

      In a sense, I've been preparing for this very review for over a year. I read the book in order to fully immerse myself into this particular mythos, and to adequately critique this particular work on the basis of adaptation. Now, I wasn't really a fan of the book (and about a year after reading, I've forgotten large swathes of it), but even after finishing it, I did see the potential for a decent film adaptation. Yeah, the book was pretty mediocre, but Steven Spielberg has taken mediocre books, (like, say, an airport novel about a shark attacking a beach town or a technothriller about an amusement park filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs), and turned them into some of the greatest thrillers ever made. So, despite my own misgivings on the source material, I did see the potential in this particular film. Now having seen it, it definitely is not among Spielberg's best, but it is still overall fun and enjoyable on itself, and despite myself, I had a good time watching it.

        Based on Ernest Cline's novel of the same name( which is the "Holy Grail of Pop Culture", whatever that means), the book is set 37 years in the future. The world is in shambles after a series of named (though unspecified) incidents, and most people decide to retreat into a large video game system called "OASIS", where people, in their avatar forms, live their lives effectively online, using some sort of VR system mixed with motion sensors, it seems. However, most people spend their time in one particular pursuit. The architect of this system, James Halliday (Mark Rylance), has strategically placed three easter eggs (in the form of keys), throughout the OASIS, and whoever can locate and use these three keys can gain his fortune of 500 billion dollars and control over the OASIS itself. Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), aka Parzival (after the knight who discovered the Holy Grail) is one of those so-called "Gunters", who hunt down clues, using Hallidays disturbingly large collection of 80's trivia and memorabilia to help find these clues. He is joined by his friends Aech (I'd give the name of the person who plays Aech here, but it's kind of a spoiler, so I won't), Daito (Win Morisaki), and Sho (Phillip Zhao). During the race challenge for the first key, he also meets Artemis (Olivia Cooke), who he begins to have affection for. Parzival's luck changes when he looks closer at the original clue for the first key, and manages to win his way into becoming the first person to win the key. This prompts a frenzy as the search restarts after being moribund for so long. However, Parzival's success also attracts the attention of IOI, a large tech corporation of some kind, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), who keeps a series of indentured servants called "Sixers" around to help find the keys, to give IOI control over the OASIS, whereupon they'll turn it into a massive ad space. Now, as Parzival, Artemis, and co. try to find the other keys, they also must prevent IOI from gaining them first, thus attaining complete control over OASIS.

       First and foremost, this film looks gorgeous. For a fully CGI world, it just pops out, especially in terms of color. It is very bright and distinct, managing to pump a lot of detail into various shots. It is incredibly pleasant to look at, and manages to invokes the feel of what the OASIS is meant to be. In effect, a large scale CGI MMORPG.  Even during the various action scenes, the film largely remains coherent in terms of visuals. Speaking of action, it is a lot of fun to watch, and sometimes very creative, especially during the climax. I was honestly enthralled and absorbed by a lot of these action scenes. I also thought the film managed to fix some of the issues I had with the book (some, I used there, as I'll explain later.) The plot feels a lot less flabby and directionless, and the characters are much more fleshed out, or at the very least, somewhat compelling or interesting in some way. The story also does actually use its setting to deploy some commentary.  It's not particularly deep or revelatory, but its presence is an immediate upgrade from the book, where the implications of its various parts isn't really considered to any significant degree. I also got a better sense of the dystopia that was there, even if, like in the book, it isn't explained very well. It also removes a lot of the more problematic elements of the book, and makes the main character a lot less of an unsufferable know-it-all(probably my biggest problems with the book)

     Like I said, the film fixes several of the books problem, but a couple remain. The exposition at beginning was very reminiscent of the exposition, and much like that, it doesn't work. It feels like a case of  "tell, not show". The dialogue also got a little cringy at times, especially during Parzival's and Arthemis' relationship, or some of Sorrento's interactions. The interworkings of this future, the OASIS, and IOI aren't explained very well, and I got confused sometimes trying to figure it out. The references, like in the book, got a little bit on my nerves. Some works, like Kim Newman's Anno Dracula series or Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen , manage to integrate references in such a way that either drives the plot, or is just interesting salad dressing. The references in this and its source material just feel gratuitous and even a tad absurd. I'll give the film version, Spielberg changes a lot of them, and some of them are decent enough tributes to friends of his (Robert Zemeckis and Stanley Kubrick among them). Overall, though, it still feels a bit pander-ish, and it weakens the film's ability to stand on its merits.

      Despite the flaws of the film (which are more apparent once you've seen it), I enjoyed this picture. Unlike the slog of a book it came from, this managed to invoke a sense of fun and excitement, and I was invested. It was (ironically) a fun retreat, where I could just sit and enjoy what's happenng on the screen. It certainly did make a better film than it did a book. If you like the book, you may enjoy this, though bear in mind, a lot has been changed, especially in terms of plot. If you hated the book, you might either appreciate the changes, or still dislike it, because the basic structure is still present. If you've never read it, I think it will make enough sense for you to follow it, though even I, someone who has read the book, got lost at times, so don't feel bad if you do. 

Current Film Review: A Wrinkle in Time

         It's rare I'm blindsided by something like this. Sure, I read and watched the reviews, which said that this ranged from disappointed to terrible. However, this truly was... I don't know how to describe it. I could not have imagined something like this. It was not good, but it was not good in a very interesting, creative way. It was fascinating in its weirdness and, perhaps because of that, I was invested in it. It is still severely flawed, but it's interesting. A lot of reviews say that this will probably become a classic for kids today, the same way something like Neverending Story or Hook was for my generation. I tend to agree. I bet that in 10-20 years, this film will be regarded by some as a classic.

        Based on the seminal young adult novel by Madeleine d'Engle, the film follows Meg Murry (Storm Reid), a young woman in Los Angeles, who lives with her mother, Dr. Kate Murry (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and younger brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) (who is constantly referred to by his full title for whatever reason). She has become more temperamental and rebellious after the disappearance of her father, astrophysicist Dr. Alex Murry (Chris Pine). One night, Meg and her mother find Charles Wallace playing with a strange woman, who introduces herself as Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon), who foreshadows events to come. After another encounter with Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), Meg and her new companion Calvin (Levi Miller) note the strange behavior of Charles Wallace. Finally, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who unite with their leader, Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), who explain their appearance: They want to help find where Meg's father is. Soon, Meg, Calvin and Charles Wallace are brought on a literal intergalactic journey, where they confront their inadequacies and the power of love (I think, something like that)

       This was creative and interesting to look at. It has a wide color palette, and utilizes a diverse range of settings and backdrops to give a more whimsical atmosphere. It has a number of interesting (if underexplained; I'll get to that) ideas, and visuals to convey these ideas.  It's very nice to look at, and very unusual for a blockbuster. The performances mostly work, and the actors appear very invested in the material. It has some emotional scenes and some occasionally funny moments. Like I said, a kid now might be very charmed and enchanted by the scenes in this, even if I was mostly uninvested in them.

    The biggest problem with this is that it is underexplained. So many confusing things happen in this. Some ideas are brought up, and never mentioned again. Some ideas just come out of nowhere, and you're left confused as to how the sequence of events eventually led to this moment. I certainly was left at times wondering why things happened, and how things were resolved. It feels like stuff was cut from this that would've clarified and fully explained the events that occurred. That hypothesis is supported by the fact that a prominent part of trailer is not in the film, suggesting scenes were cut from this. The characters also feel underdeveloped and react to things in a manner normal people don't. Mrs. Whatsit's first appearance in their home is mostly shown as if a nosy neighbor had stopped by, and not a mysterious woman had just broken into their house. At no point do the characters ever question what's happening or think that they are dreaming. Finally, the villain of the story is underdeveloped. Once again, probably something that was cut, since there is a scene at the end that suggests that the villain's defeat was part of a larger philosophical battle, or something. This film left me baffled as to what it was trying to do.

       Once again, I feel that this might become a sort of classic when elementary and middle school teachers put it on during  recess or breaks, or if they are studying the book itself in school.  And, honestly, while I didn't like per se, I don't hate either. It is far too interesting and creative for me to really dislike. While it is very flawed, as I have detailed, I recommend this, especially if you are young and interested in seeing this.  Probably as a matinee, though, there are probably better movies out now.

      Next time, I will be tackling the nostalgia fest of Ready Player One. 

Current Film Review: A Futile and Stupid Gesture

      About two years ago, I watched a documentary called Drunk, Stoned, Brilliant, Dead, a look into the National Lampoon magazine during its rise and height during the 60's and 70's. It was interesting, if a bit self-congratulatory, seeing how this magazine came to influence a lot of the comedy of the late 20th Century. It's influence can be seen from its lucrative film licensing to its prominent writers and editors (PJ O'Rourke, John Hughes, Al Jean and Mike Reiss of The Simpsons), to the number of its talent that would go on to help create Saturday Night Live. However, the documentary had very "greatest hits" feel, looking only at the best of it, and never its low points (aside from a brief mention of Disco Beavers from Outer Space) . My particular criticism is that doesn't explore the end of the Lampoon to any degree. It just blames it Christian conservatives, and not (based on my reading), a decreasing reader base and a consortium of businesses that simply took the brand (applying to a number of sub-par, "found on a Blockbuster shelf" films), and neglecting the magazine. Still, it was interesting and enjoyable enough that I was exciting for Netflix's biopic of Doug Kenney, the founder of the Lampoon. Though, the time in which the film gestated took a while, and there was no real release date until about a month ago. Now that I've seen it, it was enjoyable overall, but not necessarily a great or even particularly good film. Let me tell you why.

     Based on Josh Karp's biography of the same name, the film tells the true story of Douglas C. Kenney (Will Forte) from the perspective of an hypothetical older Kenney (Martin Mull), who didn't die in 1980 (That's not a spoiler. You can find that fact in about five seconds) . As a Harvard freshman from Chagrin Falls, Ohio, he befriends a fellow student, Henry Beard (Domhnall Gleeson). Together, the two become the lead editor of Harvard's humor magazine The Harvard Lampoon, and release a very successful parody of Lord of the Rings (Bored of the Rings). However, Doug finds his after-college prospects daunting, so he comes up with the idea of a nationwide version of the Harvard Lampoon. After convincing Beard to come on board, they shop around the idea of a humor magazine, until they sign a deal with publisher Matty Simmons (Matt Walsh). They assemble a team of writers and editors, including Michael O'Donoghue (Thomas Lennon), Anne Beatts (Natasha Lyonne),  Tony Hendra (Matt Lucas), and PJ O'Rourke (Nelson Franklin). While having a shaky start, the magazine becomes incredibly successful, and eventually spawns a radio show, starring such talent as Gilda Radner (Jackie Tohn), Bill Murray (Jon Daly), John Belushi (John Gemberling), and Chevy Chase (Joel McHale) (Like I said, a lot of the talent went on to work for SNL). However, in spite of his massive success, Kenney finds that his own personal vices are growing. Incapable of handling those vices and success and work only compounding them, he finds himself at odds with the people closest to him, and his own personal state is deteriorating.

      The film has a couple of good points. The main cast does well, with Forte, Gleeson, and McHale as particular stand-outs. McHale does a good impression of 70's era Chevy Chase (probably helped by the two of them working on Community together). It had some very funny moments, particularly in its metatexual nature. The older Kenney often breaks the fourth wall and discusses the events in meta sense, (and even lists the various parts of the film that weren't true at one point). There was also the interesting gambit where in place of the typical biopic looks into the protagonists deteriorating state, are a bunch of sketches reminiscent of the Lampoon's dark humor streak. Some of these work well, some less so, but it is ambitious and unexpected.  The behind-the-scenes stuff was interesting, if a bit un-detailed. The dramatic moments work well (especially how it makes Kenney's death a mystery, much how it is in real life), along with the comedic ones

    Remember how I said that this was greatest hits? Yeah, it just mostly drives through the most notable moments of Kenney's tenure at the Lampoon, but with little to no look into how they were formulated or the real production behind them. We get only a very brief mention of Bored of the Rings towards the beginning, the radio show and many of the most parodies are only glanced at, and most notably, the production of Animal House and Caddyshack are skimmed over. Key moments, and they are barely explored. None of the memorable scenes or jokes are shown. Also skimmed over were a lot of the famous faces. Aside from Chevy Chase (which is likely because of his major role), most of the other writers, editors, and actors are not given much development, and kind of disappear towards the third act. While each of the original writers are given little introductions, they end up underdeveloped. Some of the other major players (PJ O'Rourke, Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis, Lorne Michaels) are given little to no introduction.  A lot of the later SNL actors come off more as impressions than real performances of these people, especially John Belushi. Another big problem was that the film would vary wildly from standard biopic about famous figure and their accomplish, and a strange, surreal dark comedy. Parts from both work at times (as I said earlier), but when put together, come off haphazardly and feel a bit off as a result.

      Despite the less-than-satisfying way the film handles its subject, this was fairly enjoyable and fun for the most part. If you have a Netflix account, and are interested by what I have written, or are interested in the comedic that would influence the many comedies of the past 50 years, I recommend this. It's only an hour and a half anyway, so no real investment of time is necessary.

Top Films of 2017

So, another year has passed, and we all know what that means: another Top Films list.  Another recount of the rules. This is all the films I saw between January 1st and December 31st, that were first released to a wide audience. If a film came out in a festival in 2016, but only came out to general audiences in 2017, it counts. Sadly this means that some awards contenders will not be on, since those don't come here until January. Once again, these are only films that I saw this year. My list once goes from the worst film I saw at the very beginning, and the films improve in quality until we reach the best film of the year. So without further ado....

Worst Film of 2017
The Space Between Us

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Space_Between_Us_poster.jpg

       I watched this in February, and I just knew that nothing could possibly beat it out as worst of the year. 10 months later, and despite at least one close contender, that prediction has held out. This does everything wrong. Its story relies on a number of contrivances and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Its lead is dull and bland, and lacks consistent (or any) characterization, as don't any of the other characters. It is shot like a commercial or a low-budget PSA. It is not remotely memorable or interesting in any way. I don't quite know how else to describe it. It is really bad, in ways at times I can't even describe. Not for spoilers, but you might not believe me.

Bad

November Criminals 

Source:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/November_Criminals_%28film%29.png

     You'll be happy (or indifferent) to know that this finally garnered enough reviews to have a Rotten Tomatoes score of 0%. (One may call it the anti-Lady Bird). I already laid into this film pretty harshly, and even then, I might have been too kind on it. You really have to see this to understand how botched the whole thing is. (Do not see this, I'm merely illustrating a point). The choices made both with the filmmakers and the characters within the film are bizarre and inexplicable. It comes off like a mixture of a Lifetime movie and an old ABC Afterschool Special, with a bit of an added white savior narrative to boot. It is strange, in most awful way possible.

Ghost in the Shell

    Even if you take the anime out of this, what you get is a really boring, pretentious, and overall forgettable film. It is everything bad about modern blockbusters, from its over-use of CGI, its misuse of an iconic source material, and especially its dull action. The worst part was that, while it took various parts of the anime and manga (most of which I hadn't seen), it clearly didn't adopt any of themes of technology or memory or intelligence that were present in the original franchise, yet it still expects that its surface level exploration of these topics are sufficient enough. It also is incredibly boring, and like I said in my review, I almost fell asleep watching it. I suppose it's good for insomniacs. 

Life

       You know what really sinks this film? Not that it was just a generic creature feature that thought itself some deep meditation on extraterrestrial life, but it was a bad creature feature. One with dumb characters, a very generic looking alien, a distinct lack of tension or horror, and a really obvious twist ending (paired with a very odd song choice for the ending credits.) How this Syfy original movie came out with an all-star cast in theaters is beyond me. In a year of decent horror, this is the stand out in terrible.

American Assassin 

  

   Okay, I checked, the book this was based on was written in 2010. Odd, considering this feels like something made in 2006. This film definitely wears its Tom Clancy-lite origins proudly, I'll say that. I'd actually might have had some deeper problems with the narrative, had it not also been  incredibly boring and confusing. The lead, uh...Dylan O'Brien lacks charisma or any definable personality, Michael Keaton is mostly wasted, and I frankly can't tell you a single thing that happens in this. Not because I can't remember, but even sitting there in the theater, I couldn't tell you what happens in it. Or that I actually cared. 

A Cure For Wellness

   This might be the controversial choice, but frankly, I hated this movie. It is nearly 2 and a half hours, but nothing is really accomplished. The narrative constantly changes, it's incredibly inconsistent, the scary imagery adds nothing, I can barely remember what happens in it. This felt pointless. Nothing actually mattered, and there wasn't anything to make you care about what is happening. The only thing keeping this high is that I saw this on an airplane, which is probably the most appropriate setting to watch this. 

Meh

Justice League

        Like I said, it's better than its two predecessors, which actually makes it less interesting. I feel that, if I were to talk about the specific problems of this film, I would be repeating myself from either earlier in the list or my own review of this. Really, it's exactly what most people were expecting. A overwrought, ugly looking film that Warner Bros had tried to salvage and ended up making it far worse. After the promise that Wonder Woman showed, that was the true disappointment. But, it made its money back, so we might be getting more of these. To leave on a note of optimism, maybe they'll learn their lesson. (Or not, given the DCEU track record.)

Downsizing 

Source:https://i0.wp.com/teaser-trailer.com/wp-content/uploads/Downsizing-movie-poster.jpg?ssl=1

       This goes into the category of "wasted potential". This was a high concept science fiction satire, directed by Alexander Payne. A recipe for a potentially great film. What we get is middling at best. It doesn't seem to find much of a plot, instead going from non-sequitur to non-sequitur. We learn nothing about the character we're following, the downsizing process is underutilized, and the lesson feels tacked on, and not what the film was building up to. A real disappointment from Payne, who was known for smart, interesting commentary in previous films, but really comes up short here. 

Free Fire

Source:http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQkl_myF0IWyWS1g2GHLP7qiKJuYNvPpUg-XxYa17XJyG7ECig

     I wavered a bit on this, whether it belongs here or in the okay category, because there are decent things about it (the conceit of an action film set entirely in one location, some of the action scenes and the sound and acting choices, which make it a little more realistic). However, what put it here was my own lack of enjoyment. One sign that I didn't like this was that I couldn't remember any of the character's names. Not just now, while I was watching the film. There's a big twist at the end, which didn't work, because it involved a named character, who I didn't know. That stems from all the characters basically being the same person. They have no distinct personalities, other than ostentatious clothing and swearing a lot. Because these characters aren't distinct or memorable in any way, I had a hard time caring when the action started. The action is confusing, and you only have a vague sense of what's happening, which I think was the point. The problem is that I didn't care, because these characters were not interesting, and frankly, seeing someone crawl because they got shot, while novel at first, got really old really fast. I've heard this director's other work is good, but this probably isn't one of them. 

Suburbicon

   Did you know this movie had a major subplot about a black family moving into the titular all-white Suburbicon? No? That's because the trailers don't show it, meaning the marketing clearly saw what everyone else did. The integration plot is very awkwardly juxtaposed with the Matt Damon-Julianne Moore plot, they have virtually nothing to do with each other, and they rarely interact. Would it surprise you to learn that this is actually two scripts, one by the Coen Brothers and one by George Clooney and a writing associate, mushed together like Playdo by Clooney. It is just as bizarre as it sounds. The reason it is this high, is that, while it is a definite failure, the sheer scale of this failure is sort of spectacular. This movie was given every opportunity to succeed, with such talent involved ( George Clooney's previous films as director were decent), but it's a complete disaster. It's like if Tommy Wiseau tried to direct a movie about the ills of the 1950's. It's terrible, but it's fascinating in its terribleness. 

Okay

The Hitman's Bodyguard 

     The only thing keeping this off the "meh" list was that it was funny enough. Ryan Reynolds and Samuel Jackson have good chemistry, and they and Selma Hayek have the funniest lines in the film. The problem is that everything else in the film is done very poorly. The action is comparable to Die Hard 5 in its incomprehensibility, and it has severe tonal shifts, from the wacky antics of Reynolds and Jackson to fairly graphic scenes involving Gary Oldman's Belarusian dictator. The plot got a bit convoluted. It might not have an actual good movie, but it is humorous enough that I enjoyed it. 

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

   As someone who really loved the first film, this was quite a disappointment in comparison. Still, in spite of the stalled narrative and the feeling of repetition, I did find enjoyment in this film, and the big action scenes were entertaining. That, and a pretty funny Elton John cameo, were enough to leave this off the bad side of the list. It's not really that disappointing a sequel, but it was still lackluster. 

Molly's Game

   Another one I wavered a bit on as to whether or not it belonged here or in "meh". I ultimately enjoyed this film, so it came here. Despite its flaws (the occasional Sorkinism, the overlong explanations trying to be "The Big Sick", the overuse of narration and dialogue to convey character traits that should be shown), ultimately, Jessica Chastain and Idris Elba are able to salvage this, and the story is very entertaining. How much of it is true, I can't say, but you know, artistic license and all that. Frankly, my biggest fear (Sorkin unedited is also the preachiest Sorkin) was unfounded aside from two scenes, and he actually is able to convey the story without getting bogged down in its own minutia. 

American Made

   I may have said this before, but I've grown more or less tired of this genre of "guy gets rich off criminal activity, enjoys the spoils, ends with him getting screwed". The problem is how similar these films end up feeling to each other. It's the same story, it's filmed similarly, there are archetypes. This is basically that kind of film, and it's not particularly unique among those films. However, it does have the benefit of Doug Liman  (The Bourne Identity, Edge of Tomorrow)  directing and Tom Cruise once again giving his all. There are some really good flying scenes, and some history behind the 80's drug boom and the CIA's activities in Central and South America during the 80's (even if Barry Seal's involvement in the latter is dubious in terms of accuracy). Of an increasingly tired and cliched genre, this was probably the most tolerable one I've seen in years.

Going in Style

    I wasn't the target audience for this, and I haven't seen the original 1979 film. That said, this was decent enough. The three leads are all hilarious in their own way, are all developed characters, and the plot is interesting in the turns that it takes. I watched it with my dad, who had seen the 1979 film, and he seemed to enjoyed it. I think this is a nice family film for people to watch on a lazy Saturday. I can't say I'll ever watch it again, except in the background.

All the Money in the World

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWPRvrJToDBRlmAZA2joRqJhI1ffxvR-Fp3_hfzCPW-8RG7pV6

     I admit, I wasn't particularly interested in this film, before the whole announcement that Kevin Spacey was to be completely erased from this picture, and replaced with Christopher Plummer, and still get to the release date. A month before that date. After that, I knew I had to see if that could be pulled off. Having now seen the film, on that front, it is seamless. There is no indication that Kevin Spacey was in the film, and Plummer is placed smoothly in the narrative. Plummer is also great in the role, which he completely disappears into, and has gravitas. The rest of the film around it is fine. Good performances from Michelle Williams and Marky Mark, some good tension, and character dynamics.  It's fine, mostly, and I enjoyed watching it, but I probably won't be revisiting it any time soon.

The Foreigner

  Again, fine. Good turn from Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan. A decent, if somewhat outdated, plot with Chan trying to find the IRA members responsible for the bombing that killed his daughter, and Brosnan also trying to get to the bottom of it. Some intense action scenes and some good turns of the plot. Not particularly memorable, but one I could see watching again at some point.

Atomic Blonde

Source:https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/atomic-blonde-2017/large_kV9R5h0Yct1kR8Hf8sJ1nX0Vz4x.jpg

    You know, the title of this film doesn't make any sense once you've seen the film, considering nuclear weapons don't really factor into the plot. (The Coldest City, the title of the comic it's based off, makes more sense). Regardless, this is very style-over-substance, but in a good example of the genre. Unlike Suicide Squad , the strange editing and tone are actually consistent and work throughout the film. It also has some pretty stylish and unique action to it, which make it stand out. It's plot is incredibly convoluted, yet very predictable, and has that ending that never ends, unfortunately, so I can't fully recommend. Still, it was fun, and I admit, I wouldn't mind seeing it again. 

Good

The Big Sick

    This is a small movie. It primarily focuses on the real life story of comedian Kumal Nanjiani dealing with his girlfriend Emily's coma. It does a fairly good job of showing it, particularly with Kumal's interactions with his own family (and the secret he was dating a non-Pakistani), and his dealings with Emily's parents as they all deal with Emily's Coma. The film primarily works as a nice little story, populated by likeable characters, and imbued with a sincerity and charm to it, one which only increases when you realize it is a true story. 

Spider-Man: Homecoming

    I've been a big Spider-Man fan for a very long time, so I was excited for his entry to the MCU. This was a pretty good introduction to this version of the character. For one, since this character has frequently recited origin, this is not an origin story, but instead a "day in the life" of Spider-Man as he adapts to suddenly being associated with Tony Stark and the Avengers. That was refreshing, and it largely stands as a good film in its own right. That said, it really isn't particularly outstanding in the MCU, nor was it even the best Marvel film of the year. It was merely good.

Kong: Skull Island

   Well, at least, it's title is honest: Kong actually appears in this film for more than 15 minutes. That's one thing it has over Godzilla. While not as good as the 1933 or 2005 versions, this still manages to carve a unique niche in terms of the character, with its early 1970's setting, and its Kong more inspired by the Japanese Kaiju version of the character. It also has some pretty good characters to follow in scenes that don't feature Kong, including good turns from Samuel Jackson and John C. Reilly. After the disappointment of Godzilla, this shows that maybe there is life in this franchise after all. 

War for the Planet of the Apes

In comparison to the other two films, this wasn't as good as those, but this is still pretty good nonetheless. A strong narrative that focuses on war, what life is like under it, and the extreme actions taken during it, it is intelligent, compelling, and very tragic in its dealings. It also expands on the ideas introduced in the previous films, and uses them as the foundations for the society that will eventually be depicted in Planet of the Apes. These are helped by great performances by Andy Serkis and Woody Harrelson, and some excellent effects and action scenes. It is an overall thrilling experience. 

 Murder on the Orient Express

Source:http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhN5N8AjbsRwE-PkDpWkpfWv5nF7KvTyXAm39-mQ8qnvhbtTDX

      Having not had any particular familiarity with this book (having only read a summary in preparation for watching this) I can't speak to the accuracy of this film. I can say this was entertaining. All the actors are great in this, especially Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot. It has some good period dressing, and the build-up to the final solution is well-executed. I could tell when things were changed (namely, superfluous action scenes), but it mostly works, at least for someone who hadn't read the book, like myself.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi 

Source:http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgcIU4MKHZkZNeDt_tAewyfwX7PAmSdj_7wdg_FInkZw8Um9F_

   This is very much the Empire Strikes Back to Force Awaken's New Hope. As such, it is a better film, and a lot more original, both in terms of plot and world building. While fan-service is still there, there is still a legitimately good plot and characters to go along with it, and we see how these characters progress and have changed since the last movie. It also is very tragic, in regards to some beloved figures, both in-universe and in real life. My only criticism is that it was a bit too long, but overall, I found that this was a good film. Since Return of the Jedi was also good, I have a feeling the third one of these might end the trilogy on a high note.

Thor: Ragnarok 

      I liked the visual style of this film. Very 70's, sort of Heavy Metal in terms of design. The humor, while a bit much, was good, and I really liked Tessa Thompson, and especially Cate Blanchett as the villain. I also liked the subtext of the relationship between peoples, societies, and violence. It gives you a lot to think about, and the ending was especially nice and poignant. A nice lead-in for Infinity War. 

It Comes At Night

    This was a tad slow towards the beginning, and the conceit that the audience knows as much as the characters do about the situation perhaps worked better on paper, than it does on film. However, this film was chilling enough for it to work. I was gripped for every last second, and the ending is haunting, especially when it builds on the ideas that the film introduced. It's the sort of film that still gives me chills sitting here writing about it. 

Logan

Source:https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQwODQwNTg4OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTk4MTAzMjI@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

   I will not contest the idea that this was a pretty great film. Jackman's final turn as Wolverine shows the actor and character at his most vulnerable, showing the torment and anguish he has suffered through the years with the destruction of the X-Men and the slow extinction of mutants, and how that affects his relationship with what I think is supposed to X-23 (the young female clone of Wolverine in the comics). Patrick Stewart, in his own last turn as Professor X, is fantastic, and he shows why he was so great in this role to begin with. The rustic setting and dark tone are very invocative of where the film is going to go. I do have trouble seeing it as one of the best superhero films of all time (given that other superhero films have also shown this ground). However, I see why others love it, and I really love it too. It is a very fitting final act for these versions of Wolverine and Professor X. 

Dunkirk

Source:http://www.pieuvre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Dunkirk.jpg

        Aside from the somewhat odd transitions and the sound mixing which makes it a tad hard to hear at times, this was ultimately an intense, interesting experience. Showing three stories set within the Dunkirk evacuation during World War II, it is able to convey these stories with minimal dialogue, while displaying a wide array of emotions and motivations. As someone not into war films, this was a war film that hooked me in. Its scale is so massive, yet it also has a very personal touch to it. This probably one of Nolan's best. 

Logan Lucky

This Oceans- style heist film featuring lower class West Virginians attempting a heist of the Charlotte Motor Speedway could've easily become a put-down and condemnation of the region and its people. However, director Steven Sodebergh (a Southerner himself by origin) manages to make the audience feel empathy for the characters and their plight, by showing the kinds of problems that they deal with on a regular basis, and why something like this is attempted. It also shows genuine affection for its characters and portrays them as extremely skilled and clever in their own. The heist itself is very elaborate and well done, and the ending is pretty happy, all things considered. Even if the elements of the plot turn you off, this will actually somehow win you over. 

The Void

   You can tell how heavily John Carpenter influenced this film. From the Lovecraftian themes to the disturbing imagery to the synth heavy score, this is very clearly influenced by John Carpenter. It works, in that sense. While a bit confusing, and the imagery a bit too much, this is a decent enough riff on Lovecraftian horror, with enough existential dread and cult activity to satisfy dedicated Cthulhu enthusiasts and enough blood and scares to satisfy other horror fans. I could certainly seen this gaining a following in the former circles. 

Blade Runner 2049

   The failure of this was a real surprise to me, given how iconic the original is, and influential and homaged it has become. Then again, the original was actually not very successful at the box office, so maybe this franchise isn't as popular as imagined. Nevertheless, the film is an achievement in its own right. Denis Villeneuve was able to honor the original, without copying it, and build up the universe and its own original story. It works even if you've never seen or know anything about the original.  It's universe is unique and alive, and very alien, yet familiar, helping with the franchises themes of real and "fake" life in the form of the replicants. A shame not many people saw it. 

The Disaster Artist

The Room is a film with not so much as a plot, as a sequence of non-sequiturs and odd filmmaking choices, and the interactions between characters don't resemble that of regular beings. The Disaster Artist by Greg Stestero (who played Mark in the film) was about the making of the film and the bizarre auteur behind it, a mysterious man by the name of Tommy Wiseau.  I read the book, and I admit, I was a tad disappointed that the more insane episode from the book weren't featured in this. That said, this was probably the best adaptation anyone could ask for, managing to capture the insanity of the making of this film, and Tommy Wiseau's unstable nature. James Franco is great, capturing the mannerisms and voice of Wiseau perfectly, to the point where you stop seeing Franco, and start seeing Wiseau. It also explores why the Room is so enduring (a bit too much at times, but that's not here or now), and very piously recreates the footage from the film. For Room fans and non-fans, it is a must-watch. 

It

This was a surprise. Another adaptation of Stephen King (the first from 1990), I didn't know what exactly to expect (maybe a Stranger Things rip-off). What I got was the scariest film I saw in theaters this year. It is intense, and unrelenting in its scares, barely letting you breath before the next scene. It was exasperating. There were flaws, incredibly jarring tonal shifts, and a villain that got sillier and unintentionally funny as the film went on, but those were overrided by the sheer terror of this film. Hopefully the sequel captures that essence well. 

The Lego Batman Movie

The film that finally got me to tolerate Batman again. While not as good or funny as The Lego Movie,  it is still funny, creative, and surprisingly heartfelt. It lampoons Batman and his universe, while paying homage to the character 80 years of history. It also is a nice story about Batman finding a new family. Certainly, a treat for both Batman fans and non-fans alike. And the song at the end is pretty good too. 

Wonder Woman 

All this had to be was better than Batman v. Superman., The fact it ended up as good as it did is nothing short of a miracle. This is the first DCEU film that actually captures what the character truly fought for, and is a good representation of it on film. WW is also the most heroic of any of the heroes in the DCEU so far. It has an good plot that utilize and challenge Diana's values, and show off both her powers and her compassion for others. And unlike other people, I actually did like the villain, and the eventual twist. A sign that maybe DC was getting... and then Justice League happened. 

John Wick Chapter 2

This is the best kind of sequel in that it takes what worked about the original, and expands on it. It basically is more of Keanu Reeves doing elaborate shoot-outs and fights, but in a good way. The film has larger scale fights, a larger international plot and settings, and a larger ending. However, it still has the essential elements that made the first one work. The narrative is very tight and well-paced, the shots are stylish, the action is almost poetic, and the universe is intricate and elaborate. Here's hoping John Wick 3 is as good. 

Baby Driver

      Edgar Wright manages to take his signature style and flair, and easily applies it to a more straight-forward action film. The film manages to combine Wright's editing with a great soundtrack, which the film actually integrates into the shots and action happening on screen, and a good tribute to old heist and gang movies. Ansel Elgort does well as our hero, and despite being mostly silent, is able to convey a lot of emotion and character. The action is memorable, and the characters each have their moment. I can't say this is Wright's best, but it's right up there. (Though the presence of Kevin Spacey might make it a bit awkward to watch now.)

Coco 

Every time Pixar seems at its lowest (Cars III, which I skipped, came out this year as well), it always finds a way to come out on top. I knew this would be this high when I cried twice during its run time. While the story is a little predictable, it manages to be very poignant with its themes of family and the power of music, as well as staffed with very interesting, memorable characters. This is also one of the most beautiful films Pixar has ever released, with bright colors and unique designs on every corner. While the comparison to Book of Life is inevitable, given their shared themes of Dios de la Muertos and music, this film is very distinct from that one, both in terms of its design, its plot, and especially its strong message about family (which, according to some Mexican viewers, is more resonant with Mexican values than Book of Life's follow your dreams angle). While I may not know much about the holiday of Dios de la Muertos, this certainly was a great holiday film and among Pixar's best.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. II

This was going to be my number for much of the year. While something ultimately beat it out, this still made it this high on the list. Once again, taking what worked about the first film and expanding on it, we see a surprisingly touching and heartwarming film ultimately about family and all the complications relationships it's made up of. Not just blood relations, but the connections that people make that are close to family. Every characters gets a moment to shine, the villain is probably the best in the series, and it still has that great soundtrack (and a joke about Zune at the end, which I didn't get, because I didn't what a Zune was, but whatever.) The aesthetic of the films very much invokes the 70's Marvel Cosmic comics that the original Guardians had come from. The villain (an iconic Marvel character) is probably one of the best MCU villains. It is funny, charming, fun, and very, very sad (it's hard not to cry at the ending.)

Best Film of the Year

The Shape of Water

I see this as less a film and a more a work of art. Everything invokes that style, from the cinematography to the designs of the setting to even the creature itself. It is so beautiful in the way it looks. Guillermo del Toro once again makes a sort of historical fairy-tale, taking the basics of films like Creature from the Black Lagoon , and turning it into a love story. In a sense, it's also somewhat of a live action version of The Iron Giant, except it being a love story Everything is done so well, from the characters to the acting to the writing. Maybe I also have bias, because I am interested in the Cold War period, and this is very much a film set right in the deepest part of it, but the way it integrates that, 60's culture and paranoia into it does help its message about the universality of decency. This was simply a great film, and if you haven't seen it, I implore you to do so. 

-----------------

So, here's to 2018. I hope you have a happy New Year, and I'll see you soon. 

End of the Year: Documentary Feature

   Often, I always consider putting documentaries onto the end of the year list. I always refrain from this, because I feel that comparing narrative films to documentaries would require a complicated system, due to their vastly differing nature. However, I still want to acknowledge the various documentaries that I have seen this year. And not just those released this year, but just ones I happened to watch for the first time this year. So, here are the documentaries I've seen this year. Not necessarily ones that came out this year, but ones I happen to have seen. These are going to be ordered by means of recommendation, meaning those I recommend the most will be closer to the top, while those I don't recommend will generally go below. So, without further ado....

Tower(2016)


This is the first one, because, of the docs that are going to be featured here, this is the one I recommend the most. This is an animated account of the events of the 1966 mass shooting at the University of Texas at Austin, from the perspective of some who had witnessed it, from students caught in the crossfire to policemen responding to it in real time. These accounts provide a unique perspective of the incident, and shows how confusing and horrifying this situation can be if you're in the middle of it. A good example of this is that for much of the documentary, many recall that they assumed there were two shooters (instead of the one). This documentary brings you directly into the mist of this situation, and shows you its tragedy, but also the heroism that some displayed even in the chaos. In this era of mass shootings, this is a must-watch.

Icarus (2017) 

   The story of how one man's investigation into doping in amateur bicycling and help he receives from a prominent Russian anti-doping doctor ended up with that man stumbling onto a massive doping conspiracy by the Russian government is an interesting thriller in and of itself, before you remember that it is a real, ongoing story. It is eye-opening as to how pervasive this really was, and disturbing how intricate it was planned out with. It is a great expose on this issue, and with recent actions by the Olympic Committee, it is still an ongoing story.

OJ:Made in America (2016)

   This is an excellent companion piece to The People v. OJ Simpson. Made for ESPN's 30 for 30, it doesn't just cover the trial, but also is a comprehensive look into OJ's entire career, from football to Hertz spokesman to film star. It looks at how he had effectively been accepted by white America by assimilating and declining to get involved with African American causes. This would prove ironic when race would play a large factor in his trial (set in the backdrop of the aftermath of the LA riots). It also shows his life post-trial, and how he gradually alienated everyone who had stuck by him, even during the trial. It shows how OJ's life and career occupied a unique position in the intersection of race, celebrity, and sports during the late 20th century, and all three came to affect his life and his murder trial. This is perhaps as comprehensive as you could get with a documentary.

Red Army (2014)

   If you've seen Icarus, the revelations in that might put a damper on this documentary about the Soviet national hockey team, especially since the focus, Viacheslav "Slava" Fetisov, was apparently chair of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Still, this is a fascinating look into the Red Army Hockey Club and Hockey in the USSR in general, as recounted by Slava and some of the players themselves. It looks into the infamous unbeatable team, and explores how they got to be that powerful. However, there are also dynamics with a brutal coach and a authoritarian government which looms over their shoulders and tries to limit their interactions with the Capitalist west. Even if you have no interest in hockey, it is still an interesting history documentary on a very popular sport in the USSR

Jodorowsky's Dune(2013)

   Earlier this year, I read a book called "Shock Value", about the 70's horror renaissance. It was a decent enough book, and provided some good information about some of the classics from this era. I bring this up, because the book focused primarily on Dan O'Bannon, writer of Alien, and his involvement with Alejandro Jodorowsky's ultimately doomed adaptation of Frank Hubert's Dune was chronicled briefly. I remembered that's the focus of this documentary, and decided to pick it up. I'm glad I did. It is an interesting look into the process of making a film like this, and how people are brought together to make a film, and how it eventually can peter out from one thing or another. O'Bannon, French comic artist Moebius, HR Giger, and even Salvadore Dali were all involved with this film during it's production.  In some way, despite never actually being made, it was influential in its own way, with the former three mentioned going on to create the Alien franchise. The designs Jodorowsky and Moebius created are alone good recommendations to see this film, but it is also a fascinating look into what might have been. And, while it might have been an unwatchable mess, I am interested in seeing what might have been with this film.

The Farthest: Voyagers in Space (2017)

Released on PBS to honor the 40th anniversary of the launch of the Voyagers, this is a comprehensive look into the program, exploring its origin, how it was build, the composition of the Golden Record, and its eventual launch. It explores how scientists and engineers were able to overcome obstacles and problems during the production of the two crafts, and be able to launch this craft. It also explores how it made its various scientific discovers, and the sacrifices in other areas to make those. This is a fitting enough documentary to explaining the continuing endurance of the crafts after 40 years, and how they became the first man-made objects to leave the Solar System. The usual great PBS science documentary.
Sembene!(2015)

    I had really no knowledge of the subject of this documentary aside from a short skim on his Wikipedia page when I came across it, nor did I have any familiarity with African cinema in general. It certainly was enlightening in that regard, and I learned a lot about both subjects. This documentary on the radical Senegalese filmmaker Ousmane Sembene is in part an examination of his filmography, and his friend and biographer Samba Gadjigo trying to contemplate Sembene's legacy and their own personal friendship. It is a fascinating look into a man whose work captured the attitudes and problems facing post-colonial Africa, as well as a look into a region that is often neglected in world cinema. If you're interested in either, I do recommend seeing this film.

Five Came Back (2017)

   Netflix's much vaunted WWII documentary sees several filmmakers (among them Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, and Guillermo del Toro), discuss other filmmakers (William Wyler, John Huston, and Frank Capra for the three listed) participation in the "Motion Picture Unit" of the US Army during World War II. It explores each of the filmmakers, what their careers were up to that point,  how they added their own unique perspective and experiences during their service, and how it affected each of them after the war had ended. Whilst the "famous directors talking famous director" is a bit gimmicky, the actual stories are each unique and interesting in their own way, and sort of encapsulate the American experience on both fronts. If you're into World War II, this'll provide a less explored topic in most histories of the war.
June 17th, 1994 (2010)

Another 30 for 30 about OJ, though this takes a completely different route. It intersects coverage of OJ's chase in his Bronco on the titular date with other sports events happening that day. These range from Golf master Arnold Palmer's final round at the US Open, New Yorkers celebrating the victory of the Rangers in the Stanley Cup, and the Game 5 of the NBA Finals between the Houston Rockets and the New York Knicks. This admittedly odd conceit actually works well in terms of juxtaposition, showing the relative tranquility of Palmer's round or jubilation at the Ranger ticker tape parade with the tension from Simpson's chase. It especially works when the clips start to interact, with newscasters (including Bob Costas) at the NBA finals determining how to cover the OJ chase in the midst of the game. A fascinating and effective experimental documentary, I certainly do have the inclination to watch it again.

Exporting Raymond (2010)

    This was the last doc I saw this year (having only seen it hours ago). It looks at Everyone Love Raymond creator Phil Rosenthal's attempts to adapt the show for Russian audiences, and the enormous difficulties that he faces. He finds that some themes that he thought universal were actually quite hard to translate in some culture, but other themes and ideas (especially the persistence and interference of network executives) are actually universal. It's a good look into how television shows like this are produced in Russia, and how shows like Raymond are adapted for non-American audiences. Just as someone interested in how American ideas are adapted by non-American cultures, that was probably the best part.

An American in Madras (2013)

    Despite being half-Tamil myself and both my parents having come from Tamil Nadu, I have little knowledge of Kollywood, or Tamil film industry. That was perhaps why this was more of a personal enlightenment. Ellis R Dugan was an American filmmaker who found himself in India, and worked in Tamil Nadu for over 15 years, directing many very popular films with some of the biggest Tamil stars. When I watched the film with my mother, while many of the films had been before her birth, and she didn't know Dugan by name, she had recognized a lot of the actors and the songs. (The former because a lot of them ended up becoming political figures in the state). It was a nice look into a part of the history of what is essentially my ancestral region, and a little bit more on the history of Kollywood. Even you aren't Indian or Tamil, it still is pretty interesting story about an American making films in a foreign country.

     

The Lovers and the Despot (2017)

I wrote an entire review about a book I read on this exact topic (The kidnapping of South Korean director Shin Sang-Ok and his actress wife Choi Eun-hee by Kim Jong-Il), so I knew the story of this pretty well. While it was nice to hear Choi describe her experience, along with friends and associates, the doc's leading problem is a lack of details. Even if I didn't know this story, that part would've still bothered me. There is little on the films made by Shin during their captivity, or any details on how Kim Jong-Il was, or why he kidnapped them. Granted, yes, it can't be as detailed as a book, but the lack of substantive detail  is apparent. Still, if you want the basics of this strange story, I think this'll do nicely. 

Ghosts of Ole Miss (2012)

   Another 30 for 30 (spoiler, the next is also a 30 for 30) dealing with the successful Football season for the University of Mississippi team in 1962, which corresponded with the riots surrounding James Meredith's enrollment into the University (the first African American to do so). It is an decent enough recounting of both events from many of the participants (including Meredith himself), but aside from one instance of Meredith not being able to attend a Football game, the two don't really interact in a significant way. It feels like just two events that just happened to be around the same time, and the filmmaker is trying to derive some meaning from that, rather than treat it like a coincidence. Maybe if perspective was exchanged on the issues, it could've worked, but it felt off as is.

The U (2009)

    The final 30 for 30 for this year, this is about the University of Miami's football team during the 80's, and how it went from an underfunded operation to a very successful team. It was also ostensibly using that to explore Miami during the 80's, and how the team became an icon, but in practice, it mostly focuses on the team and its successes and failures. That is fine, but I felt the occasional intersections of Miami culture was a bit superfluous. It was just me, it is perfectly serviceable and accessible to a non-sports fan.
Lost in La Mancha (2002)

This is close to the bottom, because I couldn't finish it. Unlike the surreal, detailed, and fascinating look into an unmade film like Dune above, this look into the making of Terry Gilliam's unfinished adaptation of Don Quixote (called The Man Who Killed Don Quixote) was not particularly interesting. It was intended as a making-of feature, which it feels most like, but that works best for a film that's actually finished. It works significantly less knowing that the film isn't finished. Maybe the part I didn't see would've been actually had some intrigue, with production ultimately stalling the film until this year (editing was finished on the film just last month), but the beginning was not promising. Who knows, maybe if the finished film is good, I'll go back to this.

Voyeur (2017)

    I'll admit, there was one primary reason I watched this: the events depicted (Gerald Foos, owner of the Manor House Motel, spying on his guests through a system of fake vents) happened near where I grew up.  The motel is demolished now, but I easily could've driven by it at some point. So, imagine my surprise when it turned out to be more about famed journalist Gay Talese writing first a New Yorker article and then a book on Foos. That should've been a sort of interesting look at how these sorts of articles are written, but this feels off. That might be because it seems to play devil's advocate on Foos (the only reason he isn't being prosecuted for what he did is the statue of limitations), which doesn't exactly put Talese himself in the best light. It probably wasn't intended by the creators, but comes off that way to the viewers. Also, it doesn't really much actual fact-checking aside from one episode where Talese is confronted by a Washington Post reporter, who challenges the account, which is resolved quickly off-screen, but highlights that little fact-checking was shown on screen. As a result, it feels  insular and fishy, and even if all of it was true, it still probably should've acknowledged Foos' behavior more as creepy and, you know, illegal. That is probably the main reason it is the lowest one in terms of recommendation.

-------------------

So, yeah, all the documentaries I saw this year. I hope you  seek out some of these, and join me in the next few days as I rank the films of 2017.

Current Film Reviews: November Criminals

    There is one, and only one reason I decided to watch this film. Despite the fact it has been available on demand for a few weeks, only now have reviews appeared. My sister has surmised that it was because it wasn't out in theaters. That is likely true, but it seemed odd that no one was talking about a film that has technically already been released. I mean, you could buy or rent this film, and watch it beginning to end. The trailers were savaged for their seeming portrayal of a typical white savior narrative (which, having watched the film, it is, spoiler), but only now have two actual reviews come up in preparation for the release date next week. This, despite widespread availability since Nov. 7, apparently made so little of an impression on the culture. And I could see why.

     Based on the book by Sam Munson, we follow the story of Addison Schacht (Ansel Elgort), who we see dropping off his application for the University of Chicago with his female companion Phoebe or "Digger" (Chloe Grace Moretz), with 22 pages in response to the question "What are your best and worst qualities?" I don't know why that was particular germane to the rest of the film, but we continue as they travel to their favorite hotspot in Washington DC. There, Addison and Digger met their friend, Kevin Broadus (Jared Kemp). When they leave, however, someone walks into the coffee shop, and kills Kevin. Addison hears a brief remark about this being gang-related, and, deciding that nobody is paying attention to this story because of this (despite the extensive coverage on the news and the police investigation, and the fact that a detective later tells him they don't know if it is gang related, and apparently haven't heard testimony from any of his other friends), decides to investigates his death. This  investigation ... doesn't actually go very far, but it apparently brings him and Digger into the brink of danger. Apparently.  (the danger is not that apparent)


     This film is.... in focus. You can tell what is happening. Chloe Moretz and David Straithairn (who plays Addison's dad) are decent in their performances. It was coherent in terms of narrative and cinematography. I don't really know what else is okay.

     Where do I start? Well, you could tell by my larger than normal snark in the synopsis that the plot isn't that good, primarily relying on "show, don't tell", (because based only on what they show, the plot would not be able to happen otherwise), and relies on contrives and the main character not thinking for 5 minutes. It could've worked if (Spoiler) He decided that it was not his place to investigate, and try to handle the grief in a way that he could understand that some things he can't control, like was implied with how he deals with his deceased mother. But no, he manages to solve it (accidentally, because, once again, he doesn't think), and it turns out well for him.  Oh, yeah, and that U. Chicago application is completely tangential to the proceedings. I heard that was the center of the entire book. I feel like it should've been something that the events of the film could've built up to.(Spoilers) Ansel Elgort decides to piss away the goodwill he received for Baby Driver by giving a non-committed performance full of "dull surprise" expressions. He and Chloe Moretz have no chemistry, and their attempts at romance are painful to watch. It's only an hour and 25 minutes, but it feels so much longer, with the tedium of him tepidly investigating and constantly (and rightly) being told not to. Simultaneously, because of the latter, it feels like nothing really happens until the final act. Nothing was accomplished by Addison, except when he stumbles on it. There are shots in the film that, in theory, should work, but are so mangled, they become unintentionally funny. The director is competent, having helmed a pretty good retelling of the making of Psycho in 2012's Hitchcock , but here, when it's not interesting shots done wrong, it's mostly generic looking and feeling.  As for the white savior narrative, yeah, while some of those complaints are exaggerated (one of them from the The Mary Sue claimed that Addison gave Kevin a book in the trailer because that is what a white person does to uplift a black person in a white man's burden narrative. In the actual film, they're exchanging books, with Addison giving Kevin the Aeneid, and Kevin giving Addison a James Baldwin book), but their basic complaint is true. Kevin is a driving force for Addison, less in the sense of a friend trying to honor a friend, as the movie seems to think, but as a way for Addison to self-actualize through the experience. This line from the Mary Sue article I linked is particularly prescient: "That friend is played by Jared Kemp, who is billed so low on IMDB it’s hard to imagine he’s more than a featured extra in his own story." That is very, very true. The character of Kevin Broadus appears in the film just as much as he does in the trailer, despite his centrality to the plot. We don't see or know much about him from observation, except how Addison is affected by his death, and his own friendship. Once again, it is less about the black person killed than how his white friend was affected by it. It leads to a larger problem with the film. None of the characters are well-developed. That whole "show, don't tell" problem is very apparent, where we are told things about characters, instead of them being shown. As a result, the events hold little interest, because these character don't resonate, and what happens to them doesn't really have any impact on the viewer.

      Based on the fact it was released on video on-demand before theaters, I was expecting some sort of complete disaster. A fascinatingly bad film with A-list talent (the way Suburbicon was a couple months ago) that Sony clearly thought a dud, and wanted some money back on. This is not it. Oh, it's certainly a dud, but it's not interestingly bad. It's just boring and awful, to the effect of a really bad TV movie. I certainly cannot think of any reason to see this, especially in the theater. If you're still interested, it's still available on Google services, so just watch it there. But don't watch it. This was fun, though. Exposing an obscure film , despite finding it terrible.