Originally published 30 July 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-2583771729
"Occasional dino thrills in this odd, goofy sequel."
"Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" is the follow-up to the "Jurassic Park" soft reboot "Jurassic World", and the fifth entry overall in the "Jurassic Park" series. Confused? That is perfectly fine, because the movie is, too. "Fallen Kingdom" cannot decide what movie it wants to be, so it presents itself as two movies for the price of one. It will ultimately depend on personal preference which half of the film you prefer, if at all, but I preferred the oddball second half far more than the first.
"Fallen Kingdom" picks up a few years after the events of the previous film. Isla Nublar, home to the resurrected dinosaurs, just so happens to be the site of an active volcano that is about to erupt. Animal rights activists want government intervention to save these endangered species, while others (specifically Jeff Goldblum, in what amounts to a begrudging cameo) insist the dinosaurs should be left to die since their very existence is unnatural. Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), the dino-loving heroine of the previous film is approached by a representative of the heretofore unmentioned business partner of John Hammond, the crazy rich guy behind the original Jurassic Park. The slick investor-bro representative offers Claire a chance to rescue some of the reptiles from the island since the government refuses to intervene. One brief scene of recruiting Owen (Chris Pratt) the raptor trainer later, and the two protagonists (plus two deliriously unfunny comic relief sidekicks) once again find themselves knee-deep in dinosaur action.
The film often feels like a retread of "The Lost World", particularly the dinosaur rescue mission. Just like in that film, the operatives hired to assist the heroes with rescuing the big lizards have ulterior motives. There is the requisite betrayal as the heroes realize the rescue mission is profit-minded rather than altruistic. The island erupts, there are action scenes of fleeing from lava, a daring escape onto the bad guys' ship, and so on and so forth. If nothing else, these scenes are shot competently, sometimes even shot well. There is a particularly affecting image of a brachiosaurus slowly being engulfed in a cloud of ash that could have been a powerful closing statement had this been the end of the film. Instead, the film continues on. The sequel to a reboot stops to reboot and start a new story in the middle of the film. What crazy times we live in.
The second half of "Fallen Kingdom" decides it wants to be a goofy B-horror film, which is an abrupt change from the whiz-bang adventure of the previous hour, but it is a change for the better. The first half of the film lacked a sense of identity, merely blending together with other generic summer fare. Once the dinosaurs are back stateside, the evil representative guy reveals his master plan: selling dinosaurs on the black market. He does not elaborate on this plan much further, aside from the implication that these creatures could have military use. Sure, okay. To further add to the ridiculousness, the representative shmuck decides to engineer a custom-built velociraptor (the "Indoraptor") in the style of the engineered T-Rex of the previous film. Obviously, the creature gets loose, eats some of the paramilitary goons, and runs amok. There is a solid half-hour of Howard, Pratt, and a generic child actor being chased around a spooky old mansion by a giant mutant velociraptor. It is every bit as dumb and loud and silly as you could hope for. There is even a shot of a Good Guy raptor running away from an explosion like an action movie hero. Some might be turned off by this nosedive into craziness (the mutant raptor can even open doors this time), but for those with a love of weird monster movies, there is plenty to enjoy.
I was not particularly enjoying "Fallen Kingdom" until the second half of the film. The parts with the mutant raptor realize that the characters of the "Jurassic World" films are not why people come to see them. It delivers on dino action in full, to a ridiculous degree. Everything is absurd and illogical, but it works in the way those pulpy Lincoln & Child-type sci-fi/adventure books work. It is strictly lowbrow fun, but what an hour of fun it is. I wish the first half had been as entertaining, but it is certainly worth sitting through that part to get to the zany dinosaur-in-a-mansion part.
Rating: 6/10
January 8, 2020
Movie Review: Deadpool 2 (2018)
Originally published 30 July 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/deadpool-2-review-2586468410
"A much-needed breath of fresh air in a crowded superhero market."
Summer blockbuster season is here once again, ready to pummel audiences with action movies and big-name adaptations. If "Deadpool 2" is any indication, summer 2018 is off to a good start. This superhero sequel improves upon nearly everything that did not work about the first film, chiefly the watery plot and inconsistent humor. The direction is a marked improvement over its predecessor as well. David Leitch (co-director of "John Wick") delivers a far more colorful and spirited product than the dreary, clunky original.
Following a spoilerific tragedy, Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) finds himself depressed and alone. He attempts to immolate himself in a giant explosion, only to realize that due to his regenerative abilities he cannot die. Looking for meaning in his life, the Merc with a Mouth joins the X-Men (well, just the members that appeared in the last film, plus Negasonic Teenage Warhead's girlfriend). On their first outing with their new member, the X-Men must stop a young mutant named Russell (Julian Dennison) who is attempting to use his fire powers to burn down the orphanage where he is a resident. Deadpool botches the mission and lands in mutant jail alongside Russell.
While in prison, Wilson develops a tenuous fatherly bond with Russell (as he quips in the film's cold open "["Deadpool 2"] is a movie about family"). This bond is soon tested with the arrival of Cable (Josh Brolin), a time-traveling cyborg mutant who is out to kill Russell. In the future, Russell becomes a supervillain who kills Cable's family. Deadpool sees the good in Russell and thinks he can prevent him from becoming a future killer. In the ensuing prison scuffle, Wilson and Cable are thrown from the prison, leaving Russell behind. It is now up to Deadpool to enlist a ragtag team of heroes so he can rescue his young pal before Cable gets to him.
The strength of "Deadpool 2" derives from its large cast of supporting characters. After all, this is a movie about family. Deadpool is empty inside but learns to fill the void with the company of his X-Men friends and his assembled team of rejects, the X-Force. Colossus, one of the best parts of the first "Deadpool" is still great here, working as a scoutmaster goody-two-shoes straight man to Wilson's violent Looney Tune antics. A new edition to this movie is Domino, a mutant who possesses the power of luck. While Deadpool mocks the usefulness of her ability, she makes a great case for her appearance in future X-Men related films. In her action scenes, her mutant ability allows her to survive death-defying stunts and encounters by comically slim chances. Think of the absurd setups from "Final Destination", but for avoiding death. Josh Brolin also proves to be yet another compelling superhero villain after his performance as Thanos in "Avengers: Infinity War". Cable only wants to prevent Russell from creating a disastrous future, but he does not share Deadpool's that the boy can change for the better.
In addition to a great cast, "Deadpool 2" is incredibly funny. Like the previous film, there are pop culture and comic book references galore, but this time it actually feels fresh instead of like rejected "Family Guy" quips. There is a greater emphasis on cartoony slapstick graphic violence in this movie and less on the painfully juvenile sex jokes of its predecessor. While not every joke hits, they fly by at such a rapid-fire rate that they land more often than not.
"Deadpool 2" is a welcome breath of fresh air, or rather a rancid burritos-and-beer burp, for the superhero movie market. Its self-referential humor frequently takes aim at other superhero movies, and it is nice to see one that is willing to take aim at its colleagues. If nothing else, "Deadpool 2" is finally something different in the superhero market. The first movie promised to be the raunchy shakeup we had all been desiring but wound up delivering a generic origin story. After so much sameness, this is finally something different. This is a superhero movie that recognizes the inherent goofiness of the source material and, shock of all shocks actually has fun with it.
Rating: 8/10
"A much-needed breath of fresh air in a crowded superhero market."
Summer blockbuster season is here once again, ready to pummel audiences with action movies and big-name adaptations. If "Deadpool 2" is any indication, summer 2018 is off to a good start. This superhero sequel improves upon nearly everything that did not work about the first film, chiefly the watery plot and inconsistent humor. The direction is a marked improvement over its predecessor as well. David Leitch (co-director of "John Wick") delivers a far more colorful and spirited product than the dreary, clunky original.
Following a spoilerific tragedy, Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) finds himself depressed and alone. He attempts to immolate himself in a giant explosion, only to realize that due to his regenerative abilities he cannot die. Looking for meaning in his life, the Merc with a Mouth joins the X-Men (well, just the members that appeared in the last film, plus Negasonic Teenage Warhead's girlfriend). On their first outing with their new member, the X-Men must stop a young mutant named Russell (Julian Dennison) who is attempting to use his fire powers to burn down the orphanage where he is a resident. Deadpool botches the mission and lands in mutant jail alongside Russell.
While in prison, Wilson develops a tenuous fatherly bond with Russell (as he quips in the film's cold open "["Deadpool 2"] is a movie about family"). This bond is soon tested with the arrival of Cable (Josh Brolin), a time-traveling cyborg mutant who is out to kill Russell. In the future, Russell becomes a supervillain who kills Cable's family. Deadpool sees the good in Russell and thinks he can prevent him from becoming a future killer. In the ensuing prison scuffle, Wilson and Cable are thrown from the prison, leaving Russell behind. It is now up to Deadpool to enlist a ragtag team of heroes so he can rescue his young pal before Cable gets to him.
The strength of "Deadpool 2" derives from its large cast of supporting characters. After all, this is a movie about family. Deadpool is empty inside but learns to fill the void with the company of his X-Men friends and his assembled team of rejects, the X-Force. Colossus, one of the best parts of the first "Deadpool" is still great here, working as a scoutmaster goody-two-shoes straight man to Wilson's violent Looney Tune antics. A new edition to this movie is Domino, a mutant who possesses the power of luck. While Deadpool mocks the usefulness of her ability, she makes a great case for her appearance in future X-Men related films. In her action scenes, her mutant ability allows her to survive death-defying stunts and encounters by comically slim chances. Think of the absurd setups from "Final Destination", but for avoiding death. Josh Brolin also proves to be yet another compelling superhero villain after his performance as Thanos in "Avengers: Infinity War". Cable only wants to prevent Russell from creating a disastrous future, but he does not share Deadpool's that the boy can change for the better.
In addition to a great cast, "Deadpool 2" is incredibly funny. Like the previous film, there are pop culture and comic book references galore, but this time it actually feels fresh instead of like rejected "Family Guy" quips. There is a greater emphasis on cartoony slapstick graphic violence in this movie and less on the painfully juvenile sex jokes of its predecessor. While not every joke hits, they fly by at such a rapid-fire rate that they land more often than not.
"Deadpool 2" is a welcome breath of fresh air, or rather a rancid burritos-and-beer burp, for the superhero movie market. Its self-referential humor frequently takes aim at other superhero movies, and it is nice to see one that is willing to take aim at its colleagues. If nothing else, "Deadpool 2" is finally something different in the superhero market. The first movie promised to be the raunchy shakeup we had all been desiring but wound up delivering a generic origin story. After so much sameness, this is finally something different. This is a superhero movie that recognizes the inherent goofiness of the source material and, shock of all shocks actually has fun with it.
Rating: 8/10
Movie Review: Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Originally published 30 July 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/solo-a-star-wars-story-review
"Does "Solo" overcome its troubled production to bring some summer fun?"
"Solo: A Star Wars Story" is part of Disney's plan to release a "Star Wars" film every year for the rest of eternity or until box office receipts dry up. This film is the second entry in Disney's "Star Wars" catalog to feature the moniker "A Star Wars Story" as if audiences would be unsure if "Solo" was actually about Han Solo if there was not a handy subtitle to remind them which Disney property they are viewing. The film caused a stir last year when it came out that the original directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller ("The Lego Movie") had been fired from the project and replaced with Ron Howard ("Apollo 13"), who would subsequently reshoot 80% of the movie. Despite the troubled production, "Solo" manages to avoid being a disaster of "Justice League" proportion, but nonetheless falls short as a fun summer blockbuster.
The story is a prequel, taking place somewhere in the chronology of the "Star Wars Rebels" TV series, which is to say the film's events occur at some point before the original "Star Wars". Han (Alden Ehrenreich), who does not get a surname until a few minutes into the movie, lives a hard life on the industrial planet of Corellia. He and his girlfriend Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke) dream of one day making it off of their home planet and starting a new life together. However, in their attempt to escape, the couple is separated and only Han makes it off the planet by hastily enlisting in the imperial army. Three years later, now dubbed Han Solo by the imperials, Han finds himself wrapped up with a gang of thieves who are out scavenging the battlefields. Along the way, he also meets his iconic companion, Chewbacca. What adventures the Wookie had in the interim between "Revenge of the Sith" and this film are not mentioned, presumably to save material for the inevitable "Chewbacca: A Star Wars Story".
After a botched train heist (farewell, CGI Jon Favreau, we barely knew ye), Solo and his new criminal comrade Tobias Beckett (Woody Harrelson) must find a way to appease their contractor, Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany). Conveniently for Han, Qi'ra works for Vos, and the two have a tenuously happy reunion. To make amends for their bungled mission, Solo and Beckett offer to steal more of hyperfuel (a glorified space MacGuffin) from the spice mines of planet Kessel. With the help of Qi'ra, Han recruits Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover) and his ship, the Millennium Falcon, to complete the mission and escape from Kessel through the treacherous Kessel Run. Any "Star Wars" fan worth their mettle knows where this is going. The heist is, of course, successful, and Solo makes the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs. This is not a spoiler, by the way. Han boasts of this feat in the original "Star Wars". This film decides to show us how that happened. The film continues on for what feels like another forty-five minutes past this climactic chase sequence, with all manner of double-crossings going on as Han and the crew try to give the hyperfuel to Vos. This being a Disney franchise film, the door is obviously left open for future sequels, or even worse, in-universe crossovers à la the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Like the widely reviled prequels before it, "Solo: A Star Wars Story" falls prey to the constant desire to retroactively explain things about the original "Star Wars" trilogy. We as an audience do not really need to know how Han got his blaster, nor do we need to know how Chewbacca learned to play holographic chess, but "Solo" is going to tell us anyway. Constantly connecting things and events from the original trilogy only serves to make the universe feel smaller and more cramped.
The performances and characters of "Solo" do not fare any better. Alden Ehrenreich comes off like a second-rate Chris Pratt, but the script does him no favors. In the original trilogy, Han Solo was roguish and perhaps a bit brusque. "Solo" makes him too much a jackass to ever care about him as a character. Donald Glover's performance as Lando Calrissian is serviceable, but he is somehow outshined by his snarky robot co-pilot, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge). Strangely, the two non-human members of the supporting cast, Chewbacca, and L3-37, are the only two characters who breathe any spark of life (and fun) into the film.
"Solo" brings nothing new to the "Star Wars" universe, and it frequently feels like a placeholder film meant to tide over fans until "Star Wars Episode IX" comes out next year. I have no idea if Lord and Miller's take on Han Solo would have been any better than what Ron Howard delivered, but the final product is just not compelling. It drags for a majority of its runtime and is dead on arrival whenever an action sequence rolls around. Disney is well on its way to making yearly "Star Wars" films something to dread instead of something to anticipate.
Rating: 4/10
"Does "Solo" overcome its troubled production to bring some summer fun?"
"Solo: A Star Wars Story" is part of Disney's plan to release a "Star Wars" film every year for the rest of eternity or until box office receipts dry up. This film is the second entry in Disney's "Star Wars" catalog to feature the moniker "A Star Wars Story" as if audiences would be unsure if "Solo" was actually about Han Solo if there was not a handy subtitle to remind them which Disney property they are viewing. The film caused a stir last year when it came out that the original directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller ("The Lego Movie") had been fired from the project and replaced with Ron Howard ("Apollo 13"), who would subsequently reshoot 80% of the movie. Despite the troubled production, "Solo" manages to avoid being a disaster of "Justice League" proportion, but nonetheless falls short as a fun summer blockbuster.
The story is a prequel, taking place somewhere in the chronology of the "Star Wars Rebels" TV series, which is to say the film's events occur at some point before the original "Star Wars". Han (Alden Ehrenreich), who does not get a surname until a few minutes into the movie, lives a hard life on the industrial planet of Corellia. He and his girlfriend Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke) dream of one day making it off of their home planet and starting a new life together. However, in their attempt to escape, the couple is separated and only Han makes it off the planet by hastily enlisting in the imperial army. Three years later, now dubbed Han Solo by the imperials, Han finds himself wrapped up with a gang of thieves who are out scavenging the battlefields. Along the way, he also meets his iconic companion, Chewbacca. What adventures the Wookie had in the interim between "Revenge of the Sith" and this film are not mentioned, presumably to save material for the inevitable "Chewbacca: A Star Wars Story".
After a botched train heist (farewell, CGI Jon Favreau, we barely knew ye), Solo and his new criminal comrade Tobias Beckett (Woody Harrelson) must find a way to appease their contractor, Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany). Conveniently for Han, Qi'ra works for Vos, and the two have a tenuously happy reunion. To make amends for their bungled mission, Solo and Beckett offer to steal more of hyperfuel (a glorified space MacGuffin) from the spice mines of planet Kessel. With the help of Qi'ra, Han recruits Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover) and his ship, the Millennium Falcon, to complete the mission and escape from Kessel through the treacherous Kessel Run. Any "Star Wars" fan worth their mettle knows where this is going. The heist is, of course, successful, and Solo makes the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs. This is not a spoiler, by the way. Han boasts of this feat in the original "Star Wars". This film decides to show us how that happened. The film continues on for what feels like another forty-five minutes past this climactic chase sequence, with all manner of double-crossings going on as Han and the crew try to give the hyperfuel to Vos. This being a Disney franchise film, the door is obviously left open for future sequels, or even worse, in-universe crossovers à la the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Like the widely reviled prequels before it, "Solo: A Star Wars Story" falls prey to the constant desire to retroactively explain things about the original "Star Wars" trilogy. We as an audience do not really need to know how Han got his blaster, nor do we need to know how Chewbacca learned to play holographic chess, but "Solo" is going to tell us anyway. Constantly connecting things and events from the original trilogy only serves to make the universe feel smaller and more cramped.
The performances and characters of "Solo" do not fare any better. Alden Ehrenreich comes off like a second-rate Chris Pratt, but the script does him no favors. In the original trilogy, Han Solo was roguish and perhaps a bit brusque. "Solo" makes him too much a jackass to ever care about him as a character. Donald Glover's performance as Lando Calrissian is serviceable, but he is somehow outshined by his snarky robot co-pilot, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge). Strangely, the two non-human members of the supporting cast, Chewbacca, and L3-37, are the only two characters who breathe any spark of life (and fun) into the film.
"Solo" brings nothing new to the "Star Wars" universe, and it frequently feels like a placeholder film meant to tide over fans until "Star Wars Episode IX" comes out next year. I have no idea if Lord and Miller's take on Han Solo would have been any better than what Ron Howard delivered, but the final product is just not compelling. It drags for a majority of its runtime and is dead on arrival whenever an action sequence rolls around. Disney is well on its way to making yearly "Star Wars" films something to dread instead of something to anticipate.
Rating: 4/10
Movie Review: Trilogy of Terror (1975)
Originally posted 30 July 2019 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/trilogy-of-terror-review
"A fun, campy TV movie oddity."
"A fun, campy TV movie oddity."
"Trilogy of Terror" is a made-for-TV anthology horror film that originally aired on ABC in 1975. While TV movies are not typically known for their quality, this particular film is enjoyably silly and even has a few mildly spooky moments. The three stories featured in the film are all based on short stories by acclaimed sci-fi/horror/fantasy writer Richard Matheson, which is a large part of why the film succeeds. Matheson wrote several episodes of "The Twilight Zone" during its original run, and the three stories in "Trilogy of Terror" all bear a strong similarity in tone and structure to that show.
The three stories, "Julie", "Millicent and Therese", and "Amelia", all feature actress Karen Black in the leading role. She is by far the strongest part of the first two segments. In "Julie", she portrays the titular character, a college professor who is being blackmailed by one of her students. Bad news for the student, because the tables quickly turn and it becomes apparent she is not merely a meek academic type. The content of this shot is dicey (there is a heavy implication of date rape), but the last five minutes shine. Black transforms from mousy teacher to vamping femme fatale. For fans of high camp acting, this film should not be missed.
The second short is the weakest by far, due to its obviously telegraphed "Twilight Zone"-esque twist. Still, Black remains the high point in her duel role as antagonistic sisters. Millicent, who looks like a schoolmarm version of the Goblin Queen from "Troll 2", believes her sister Therese is responsible for various misfortunes throughout her life. Or is there even an evil sister at all? (Three guesses what the twist is.) Black gets another opportunity to cut loose as the evil sister Therese, a comically tawdry character that embodies every "bad girl" trope imaginable, and it is truly a sight to behold.
The third short actually has the weakest of Black's performances, but overall remains the strongest of the bunch. It centers on Amelia, a woman who is terrorized by a tiny Zuni fetish doll that she bought for her anthropologist boyfriend. The doll wears a gold chain that prevents the evil spirit trapped within it from escaping, and of course, Amelia accidentally lets the chain fall off. Soon the pint-sized figurine is up and running, chasing Black around her apartment whole wielding a paring knife. This short is relatively small-scale, focusing on Amelia and the doll in a singular setting, which keeps things suitably terse and suspenseful. Unfortunately, Black does not get an opportunity to ratchet her performance into over-the-top overdrive, but the freaky little doll more than makes up for that. It skitters around, chattering like the Tasmanian Devil from the Looney Tunes. The ending for this one is also the best of the three, as it is not nearly as predictable as the preceding shorts.
Sadly, there is no wraparound story in "Trilogy of Terror", no through-line to connect the stories in any way. This is likely due to the time constraints of the TV movie format, but I do wish there had been some connection to tie all three stories together other than the loose theme of "Karen Black gets repeatedly terrorized". The movie sets out with a modest goal, to string together three vaguely "Twilight Zone"-ish stories into an ABC Movie of the Week. In that regard, it accomplishes its goal. Karen Black is an incredibly fun actress and it is a treat to watch what is often a one-woman show. It may not be a horror masterwork, but it is certainly a decent way to spend 75 minutes.
Rating: 6/10
Movie Review: Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
Originally published 30 July 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/ant-man-and-the-wasp-marvel
"Can Paul Rudd survive this dud?"
With "Ant-Man and the Wasp", Marvel has finally recreated the experience of the comics, at least in the sense that loyal fans must begrudgingly watch a stopgap sequel in order to keep up with the main story. Marvel Comics has a storied tradition of releasing annual crossover events in which various standalone series are drawn into the fold, forcing readers to pick up issues of series they may not otherwise be interested in so that they can follow the story. Such is the case for "Ant-Man and the Wasp". I doubt anyone was clamoring for a sequel to "Ant-Man", but here we are. The only real draw is the opportunity to see how the inevitable post-credits scene will tie the characters into the events of "Avengers: Infinity War", from which Ant-Man and the Wasp were absent. While marginally better than the first "Ant-Man" film, this sequel fails to generate anything resembling genuine interest or excitement.
Picking up shortly before the events of "Infinity War", the movie finds Scott "Ant-Man" Lang (Paul Rudd) drawn back into the fold of superheroism just as his house arrest sentence is coming to a close. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his daughter Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) believe they can rescue Janet Van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer), the wife and mother of the Pym family, from the subatomic quantum realm. Lang's time in the quantum realm during the climax of the first "Ant-Man" has left him with a sort of psychic connection to Janet, so Hank and Hope forcibly recruit the ex-con to assist in locating her.
This being a superhero film there is, of course, a supervillain. This time the antagonist is Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen), a molecularly unstable baddie who is out to steal Pym's quantum technology. Aside from some interesting visual effects work with Ghost's phasing powers, she joins the large pile of forgettable MCU villains. Most of the movie is a back-and-forth as Ghost steals the technology from the protagonists and vice versa. There are additional pursuers, too, including the FBI and an evil black market tech dealer. The various parties run around in circles for the remainder of the movie, which makes little pretense of being nothing more than a series of chase scenes.
It seems like it would be pretty easy to get an audience to care about rescuing someone's family member, but the movie never gives the rescue operation any emotional weight. It feels like the Disney higher-ups felt Janet's status as a wife and mother would be enough to care whether or not she is saved. As a result, the movie strangely treats rescuing Janet Van Dyne as if she were some object to be retrieved, rather than a human being the other characters care about. This leaves a vacuum in the middle of the movie that is never filled. There's constant scurrying around in all sorts of action scenes, but it's hard to care about any of it.
"Ant-Man and the Wasp" is a dull sequel to an already dull film about a character that Marvel can't seem to make interesting. The "big things get small, small things get big" concept should be more fun than it is here. There is little in the way of ingenuity or creativity. There is nothing here that hasn't already been done in other Marvel films. I have been growing increasingly bored with Marvel's output over the past few years, and this does not make it any better. I should have just rewatched "Phase IV" instead.
"Can Paul Rudd survive this dud?"
With "Ant-Man and the Wasp", Marvel has finally recreated the experience of the comics, at least in the sense that loyal fans must begrudgingly watch a stopgap sequel in order to keep up with the main story. Marvel Comics has a storied tradition of releasing annual crossover events in which various standalone series are drawn into the fold, forcing readers to pick up issues of series they may not otherwise be interested in so that they can follow the story. Such is the case for "Ant-Man and the Wasp". I doubt anyone was clamoring for a sequel to "Ant-Man", but here we are. The only real draw is the opportunity to see how the inevitable post-credits scene will tie the characters into the events of "Avengers: Infinity War", from which Ant-Man and the Wasp were absent. While marginally better than the first "Ant-Man" film, this sequel fails to generate anything resembling genuine interest or excitement.
Picking up shortly before the events of "Infinity War", the movie finds Scott "Ant-Man" Lang (Paul Rudd) drawn back into the fold of superheroism just as his house arrest sentence is coming to a close. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and his daughter Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) believe they can rescue Janet Van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer), the wife and mother of the Pym family, from the subatomic quantum realm. Lang's time in the quantum realm during the climax of the first "Ant-Man" has left him with a sort of psychic connection to Janet, so Hank and Hope forcibly recruit the ex-con to assist in locating her.
This being a superhero film there is, of course, a supervillain. This time the antagonist is Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen), a molecularly unstable baddie who is out to steal Pym's quantum technology. Aside from some interesting visual effects work with Ghost's phasing powers, she joins the large pile of forgettable MCU villains. Most of the movie is a back-and-forth as Ghost steals the technology from the protagonists and vice versa. There are additional pursuers, too, including the FBI and an evil black market tech dealer. The various parties run around in circles for the remainder of the movie, which makes little pretense of being nothing more than a series of chase scenes.
It seems like it would be pretty easy to get an audience to care about rescuing someone's family member, but the movie never gives the rescue operation any emotional weight. It feels like the Disney higher-ups felt Janet's status as a wife and mother would be enough to care whether or not she is saved. As a result, the movie strangely treats rescuing Janet Van Dyne as if she were some object to be retrieved, rather than a human being the other characters care about. This leaves a vacuum in the middle of the movie that is never filled. There's constant scurrying around in all sorts of action scenes, but it's hard to care about any of it.
"Ant-Man and the Wasp" is a dull sequel to an already dull film about a character that Marvel can't seem to make interesting. The "big things get small, small things get big" concept should be more fun than it is here. There is little in the way of ingenuity or creativity. There is nothing here that hasn't already been done in other Marvel films. I have been growing increasingly bored with Marvel's output over the past few years, and this does not make it any better. I should have just rewatched "Phase IV" instead.
Movie Review: Incredibles 2 (2018)
Originally published 29 June 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/incredibles-2-2018-2579585717
"Does Pixar's long-awaited sequel live up to the original?"
"Incredibles 2", the sequel to the beloved Pixar property, has finally arrived after a fourteen-year wait. One would hope that the reason for the lengthy gap between films was to ensure that the sequel lived up to the standards of the original. Unfortunately, writer/director Brad Bird takes the path of least resistance and delivers a blatant cash-grab. Like "Monsters University", "Finding Dory", and the "Cars" sequels before it, "Incredibles 2" joins the growing pile of forgettable passing diversions from Pixar.
The film picks up moments after the end of the first film, with the superpowered Parr family facing off against the subterranean villain, the Underminer. Unfortunately, the villain gets away, leaving the family in dire straits. Superheroes are still illegal, and the superhero relocation program is being shut down. This leaves the super-family with little option but to return to normal society and ignore their natural abilities. Enter the Deavor siblings (Bob Odenkirk and Catherine Keener), a pair of billionaire industrialists who approach Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson), Elasti-Girl (Holly Hunter), and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) with a plan to make superheroes legal again. Deavor wants to reintroduce superheroes into the spotlight in the hopes of changing public opinion, determined that Elasti-Girl is the right hero to spearhead this movement.
With Elasti-Girl out in the field, Mr. Incredible is left to take care of the kids. This leads to a bloated series of scenes that comprise a bulk of the movie, unfolding without any urgency or real sense of direction. Mr. Incredible struggles to be a stay-at-home father, and hijinks ensue. Violet is mad because a boy she has a crush on had his mind wiped (and thus any memory of her) by the government following the Underminer fight, which she blames on Mr. Incredible. Jack-Jack's powers are still unpredictable, and he is a nuisance to wrangle. Dash is just an annoying kid. These scenes lack the relatable family dynamic of the original film, feeling more like a repetitive series of "What if X character did this?" moments. Meanwhile, Elasti-Girl gets wrapped up in a case involving the mysterious Screenslaver, a villain with the power to control minds (and, presumably, give the audience seizures) using flickering hypnotic screen displays. This storyline is oddly disconnected from the parts with the rest of the Parr family, further straying from the family dynamics that made the original great.
When the two disparate stories finally intersect, it is highly implausible. The Screenslaver's true identity and motivation make little sense, and their master plan is ridiculous. They plan to keep superheroes illegal by gathering a bunch of them and mind-controlling the heroes to crash a boat. Sure, okay, I guess. If nothing else, the third act at least benefits from some creative action scenes, even if there is minimal emotional investment in anything going. Several new superheroes are introduced during the Elasti-Girl storyline, and they all get a chance to show off their powers during the final fight in a series of mildly funny setups. By the time everything wraps up neatly at the end, it becomes apparent the movie had nothing else to offer than intermittent one-note gags.
Like most Pixar sequels, "Incredibles 2" is a harmless diversion in the moment but has no long-term staying power. As is to be expected from Pixar, the film looks gorgeous. The animation in the original film has aged awkwardly, as CG animation frequently does, but the sequel is suitably fresh and bright. There may not be much of substance going on, but at least there is plenty of neat animation and a fun 1960's atmosphere to look at. This is a sequel that feels like an extended coda, never adding anything new or meaningful to the original. Pixar is resting on its laurels for easy money, but even when they phone it in the result is better than most family movies.
Rating: 6/10
"Does Pixar's long-awaited sequel live up to the original?"
"Incredibles 2", the sequel to the beloved Pixar property, has finally arrived after a fourteen-year wait. One would hope that the reason for the lengthy gap between films was to ensure that the sequel lived up to the standards of the original. Unfortunately, writer/director Brad Bird takes the path of least resistance and delivers a blatant cash-grab. Like "Monsters University", "Finding Dory", and the "Cars" sequels before it, "Incredibles 2" joins the growing pile of forgettable passing diversions from Pixar.
The film picks up moments after the end of the first film, with the superpowered Parr family facing off against the subterranean villain, the Underminer. Unfortunately, the villain gets away, leaving the family in dire straits. Superheroes are still illegal, and the superhero relocation program is being shut down. This leaves the super-family with little option but to return to normal society and ignore their natural abilities. Enter the Deavor siblings (Bob Odenkirk and Catherine Keener), a pair of billionaire industrialists who approach Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson), Elasti-Girl (Holly Hunter), and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) with a plan to make superheroes legal again. Deavor wants to reintroduce superheroes into the spotlight in the hopes of changing public opinion, determined that Elasti-Girl is the right hero to spearhead this movement.
With Elasti-Girl out in the field, Mr. Incredible is left to take care of the kids. This leads to a bloated series of scenes that comprise a bulk of the movie, unfolding without any urgency or real sense of direction. Mr. Incredible struggles to be a stay-at-home father, and hijinks ensue. Violet is mad because a boy she has a crush on had his mind wiped (and thus any memory of her) by the government following the Underminer fight, which she blames on Mr. Incredible. Jack-Jack's powers are still unpredictable, and he is a nuisance to wrangle. Dash is just an annoying kid. These scenes lack the relatable family dynamic of the original film, feeling more like a repetitive series of "What if X character did this?" moments. Meanwhile, Elasti-Girl gets wrapped up in a case involving the mysterious Screenslaver, a villain with the power to control minds (and, presumably, give the audience seizures) using flickering hypnotic screen displays. This storyline is oddly disconnected from the parts with the rest of the Parr family, further straying from the family dynamics that made the original great.
When the two disparate stories finally intersect, it is highly implausible. The Screenslaver's true identity and motivation make little sense, and their master plan is ridiculous. They plan to keep superheroes illegal by gathering a bunch of them and mind-controlling the heroes to crash a boat. Sure, okay, I guess. If nothing else, the third act at least benefits from some creative action scenes, even if there is minimal emotional investment in anything going. Several new superheroes are introduced during the Elasti-Girl storyline, and they all get a chance to show off their powers during the final fight in a series of mildly funny setups. By the time everything wraps up neatly at the end, it becomes apparent the movie had nothing else to offer than intermittent one-note gags.
Like most Pixar sequels, "Incredibles 2" is a harmless diversion in the moment but has no long-term staying power. As is to be expected from Pixar, the film looks gorgeous. The animation in the original film has aged awkwardly, as CG animation frequently does, but the sequel is suitably fresh and bright. There may not be much of substance going on, but at least there is plenty of neat animation and a fun 1960's atmosphere to look at. This is a sequel that feels like an extended coda, never adding anything new or meaningful to the original. Pixar is resting on its laurels for easy money, but even when they phone it in the result is better than most family movies.
Rating: 6/10
Movie Review: Upgrade (2018)
Originally published 19 Jun 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/upgrade-movie-review-2018
"An uneven but interesting sci-fi thriller that will make you scared of your Alexa."
Finally, a movie that dares to ask the question "What if Siri was evil?". Leigh Whannell, noted alum of the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises, takes this question seriously, skewering humanity's increasing reliance on artificial intelligence with the new sci-fi thriller "Upgrade". The film struggles with its cumbersome revenge plot, but there are plenty of interesting questions raised along the way. You may even think twice about talking to your Alexa after this.
The film takes place in the not-too-distant future, where our society has become increasingly mechanized and automated. Self-driving cars fill the highways, tabletops have touchscreen capabilities, and houses operate with AI systems. Even the Hollywood gold standard for impractical but flashy futuristic technology, the holographic computer display, makes an appearance. Humble mechanic Grey Trace (Logan Marshall-Green, looking distractingly like a knockoff Tom Hardy) rejects the aid of computers. He is a man who works with his hands, repairing and restoring old cars (while listening to vinyl records, naturally) for rich clients. Grey and his wife, Asha (Melanie Vallejo), deliver a refurbished muscle car to the subterranean home of the billionaire tech genius, Eron (Harrison Gilbertson). The creepy Elon Musk wannabe shows the couple his latest invention, a miraculous piece of nanotechnology known as "Stem", which can supposedly control and connect to any electronic device.
On their way home, the couple's self-driving car makes an unexpected detour into a seedy area of town. The car promptly crashes, leaving Grey and his wife at the mercy of a gang of villains. The criminals shoot Asha and Grey, leaving her dead and our protagonist quadriplegic. Enter Eron, who offers Trace a chance to walk again with the aid of Stem. One nondisclosure agreement and a top-secret surgery later, and not-Tom-Hardy is up and mobile once again. Stem is implanted into Grey's spinal cord, connecting into his nervous system and communicating with him through his eardrums. The two maintain a tenuous rapport, with Trace wary of his new A.I. companion (and as if the Tom Hardy resemblance wasn't enough, the Stem/Trace banter bears a strange resemblance to Hardy's interactions with his alien symbiote in the "Venom" trailer). Trace, now armed with the power of technology, decides to track down his attackers. The police officers of the future are not much help, even with their dystopian fleet of patrol drones monitoring everything, so vigilante justice is the only logical route for Grey and his microchip pal.
Trace proceeds to track down and, much to his chagrin, kill the people responsible for his wife's death. You see, Stem has the ability to override Grey's motor functions if granted permission. Our protagonist is better at fixing cars than fighting cyborg military veterans, so he must give himself over to the A.I.'s control in order to survive. These fight scenes are some of the stronger points of the movie, with the camera following Grey around with mechanical motion-controlled precision as Stem pilots his body. His unwillingness to engage in the violence that his body commits on autopilot is perversely funny, like some weird offspring of "John Wick" and "Idle Hands". Both the police and Eron catch on to Trace's revenge scheme, with the police wanting to apprehend the supposedly quadriplegic killer, and Eron wanting to prevent his experimental technology from being linked to murders. The race is on as Grey must outwit his pursuers and keep Stem from overstepping its control of his body.
There are some truly interesting, if not unsubtle, themes at play in "Upgrade". As technology continues its endless march of progress, it's important to consider how much control we give computer systems over our lives. Everything in this movie's vision of the future is automated or computerized in some way. Not even analog technology can save the day. In the same year that we get the mostly pro-VR "Ready Player One", "Upgrade" gives us imagery of VR addicts in a derelict building reminiscent of an opium den. It may be lunkheaded, but the messages are sufficiently alarming.
The major flaw with "Upgrade", coincidentally, is with its universe. Or, rather, the lack of focus on the universe. The story Leigh Whannell decides to tell is just not as interesting as the various things hinted at in this sci-fi setting. Grey's revenge plot gets repetitive around the time he offs the second bad guy and decreases in excitement as it becomes increasingly obvious the movie is headed for a dumb villain reveal (which, alas, it is). I was much more interested in the strange cyberpunk underworld that exists just below the cold, sleek surface of the movie's futuristic technology. Whannell is more concerned with cheap thrills, and that is totally fine. I just wish the movie had focused more on the stuff in the periphery.
Rating: 5/10
"An uneven but interesting sci-fi thriller that will make you scared of your Alexa."
Finally, a movie that dares to ask the question "What if Siri was evil?". Leigh Whannell, noted alum of the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises, takes this question seriously, skewering humanity's increasing reliance on artificial intelligence with the new sci-fi thriller "Upgrade". The film struggles with its cumbersome revenge plot, but there are plenty of interesting questions raised along the way. You may even think twice about talking to your Alexa after this.
The film takes place in the not-too-distant future, where our society has become increasingly mechanized and automated. Self-driving cars fill the highways, tabletops have touchscreen capabilities, and houses operate with AI systems. Even the Hollywood gold standard for impractical but flashy futuristic technology, the holographic computer display, makes an appearance. Humble mechanic Grey Trace (Logan Marshall-Green, looking distractingly like a knockoff Tom Hardy) rejects the aid of computers. He is a man who works with his hands, repairing and restoring old cars (while listening to vinyl records, naturally) for rich clients. Grey and his wife, Asha (Melanie Vallejo), deliver a refurbished muscle car to the subterranean home of the billionaire tech genius, Eron (Harrison Gilbertson). The creepy Elon Musk wannabe shows the couple his latest invention, a miraculous piece of nanotechnology known as "Stem", which can supposedly control and connect to any electronic device.
On their way home, the couple's self-driving car makes an unexpected detour into a seedy area of town. The car promptly crashes, leaving Grey and his wife at the mercy of a gang of villains. The criminals shoot Asha and Grey, leaving her dead and our protagonist quadriplegic. Enter Eron, who offers Trace a chance to walk again with the aid of Stem. One nondisclosure agreement and a top-secret surgery later, and not-Tom-Hardy is up and mobile once again. Stem is implanted into Grey's spinal cord, connecting into his nervous system and communicating with him through his eardrums. The two maintain a tenuous rapport, with Trace wary of his new A.I. companion (and as if the Tom Hardy resemblance wasn't enough, the Stem/Trace banter bears a strange resemblance to Hardy's interactions with his alien symbiote in the "Venom" trailer). Trace, now armed with the power of technology, decides to track down his attackers. The police officers of the future are not much help, even with their dystopian fleet of patrol drones monitoring everything, so vigilante justice is the only logical route for Grey and his microchip pal.
Trace proceeds to track down and, much to his chagrin, kill the people responsible for his wife's death. You see, Stem has the ability to override Grey's motor functions if granted permission. Our protagonist is better at fixing cars than fighting cyborg military veterans, so he must give himself over to the A.I.'s control in order to survive. These fight scenes are some of the stronger points of the movie, with the camera following Grey around with mechanical motion-controlled precision as Stem pilots his body. His unwillingness to engage in the violence that his body commits on autopilot is perversely funny, like some weird offspring of "John Wick" and "Idle Hands". Both the police and Eron catch on to Trace's revenge scheme, with the police wanting to apprehend the supposedly quadriplegic killer, and Eron wanting to prevent his experimental technology from being linked to murders. The race is on as Grey must outwit his pursuers and keep Stem from overstepping its control of his body.
There are some truly interesting, if not unsubtle, themes at play in "Upgrade". As technology continues its endless march of progress, it's important to consider how much control we give computer systems over our lives. Everything in this movie's vision of the future is automated or computerized in some way. Not even analog technology can save the day. In the same year that we get the mostly pro-VR "Ready Player One", "Upgrade" gives us imagery of VR addicts in a derelict building reminiscent of an opium den. It may be lunkheaded, but the messages are sufficiently alarming.
The major flaw with "Upgrade", coincidentally, is with its universe. Or, rather, the lack of focus on the universe. The story Leigh Whannell decides to tell is just not as interesting as the various things hinted at in this sci-fi setting. Grey's revenge plot gets repetitive around the time he offs the second bad guy and decreases in excitement as it becomes increasingly obvious the movie is headed for a dumb villain reveal (which, alas, it is). I was much more interested in the strange cyberpunk underworld that exists just below the cold, sleek surface of the movie's futuristic technology. Whannell is more concerned with cheap thrills, and that is totally fine. I just wish the movie had focused more on the stuff in the periphery.
Rating: 5/10
Movie Review: Deadly Prey (1987)
Originally published 18 May 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/retro-review-deadly-prey-1987
"A glorious B-Movie action-fest for the ages."
"Deadly Prey" is everything I want to see in a B-Movie. Second-rate genre fare works best when it can boil down its native genre to its bare essentials and run from there. For me, the best kinds of crummy/amazing movies are those that seem unreal, like a half-remembered movie watched while falling asleep in front of the TV. I find myself amazed that a movie like "Deadly Prey" exists. It seems too goofy to be true, but here it is. There is an unselfconscious air about the best B-Movies. Outings like "Deadly Prey" are either completely unaware of how schlocky they are, or they are aware but do not care. This film falls into the latter category: it feels like an attempt to cash in on the popularity of "Rambo: First Blood Part II" and other military action films of the 1980s, but it goes completely over the top while remaining oblivious to its own low-budget excess.
The story is more or less "The Most Dangerous Game" with mullets. The villainous Colonel Hogan (David Campbell) likes to train his squad of mercenaries using real people. These unfortunate souls are left in the woods to be hunted down by goons with guns. This time, Hogan's men abduct the wrong guy and the hunters become the hunted. By the wildest of coincidences, the victim this time is Mike Danton (Ted Prior), a former marine who once worked under Col. Hogan ("Know him? I trained him!" Hogan declares). Danton is dropped off in the woods wearing nothing but acid wash cutoff jeans. He begins making quick work of the mercenaries in the woods, taking down scores of men before he is finally captured and taken back to base. I can only imagine this brief pause in the action is to give the audience a breather from the glorious sight of a human G.I. Joe figure mowing down unsuspecting extras for half an hour.
The movie only stops the action briefly for the scenes at the mercenary base camp, so Hogan and Danton can swap tough-guy threats. Danton does not remain imprisoned for long, however, as he is freed by an old buddy from the Vietnam War who is conveniently working for the colonel. Even though the base camp is apparently "seventy-five miles southeast of Los Angeles" according to the movie, Danton is able to run back home in a short amount of time. Upon returning to his house, he finds that his wife has been kidnapped by Hogan's henchman. The stakes, as always seems to happen in action movies, have been made personal. Danton gears up in greasepaint and army fatigues (but still no shirt) and runs back to the woods (again, located at least seventy-five miles away) to set up booby traps. What follows is a glorious action spectacular as mercenaries continually step on Danton's jerry-rigged tripwires, triggering spike traps and cheap explosions. Danton also beats a guy to death with his own arm. You know, as you do.
The true joy of "Deadly Prey" is how juvenile and brainlessly macho it is. There are two women in the film, a henchman and Danton's wife. They exist to be Evil Female and The Victim, respectively. The rest of the movie has so much testosterone it becomes testostertwo. "Deadly Prey" is not a film that adheres to logic, it is a film of visceral lunkheaded thrills. It is a movie that will put hair on your chest, only so you can wax it off to better showcase your giant pecs. This film is a magnificent jumble of clichés and charming cheapness. This is Action with a capital A. It may not be a smart film, or even a well-made one (although there are actually some pretty striking shots here and there), but it is certainly fun. A good time is all the movie ever promises, and it delivers on that and then some.
Rating: 10/10
"A glorious B-Movie action-fest for the ages."
"Deadly Prey" is everything I want to see in a B-Movie. Second-rate genre fare works best when it can boil down its native genre to its bare essentials and run from there. For me, the best kinds of crummy/amazing movies are those that seem unreal, like a half-remembered movie watched while falling asleep in front of the TV. I find myself amazed that a movie like "Deadly Prey" exists. It seems too goofy to be true, but here it is. There is an unselfconscious air about the best B-Movies. Outings like "Deadly Prey" are either completely unaware of how schlocky they are, or they are aware but do not care. This film falls into the latter category: it feels like an attempt to cash in on the popularity of "Rambo: First Blood Part II" and other military action films of the 1980s, but it goes completely over the top while remaining oblivious to its own low-budget excess.
The story is more or less "The Most Dangerous Game" with mullets. The villainous Colonel Hogan (David Campbell) likes to train his squad of mercenaries using real people. These unfortunate souls are left in the woods to be hunted down by goons with guns. This time, Hogan's men abduct the wrong guy and the hunters become the hunted. By the wildest of coincidences, the victim this time is Mike Danton (Ted Prior), a former marine who once worked under Col. Hogan ("Know him? I trained him!" Hogan declares). Danton is dropped off in the woods wearing nothing but acid wash cutoff jeans. He begins making quick work of the mercenaries in the woods, taking down scores of men before he is finally captured and taken back to base. I can only imagine this brief pause in the action is to give the audience a breather from the glorious sight of a human G.I. Joe figure mowing down unsuspecting extras for half an hour.
The movie only stops the action briefly for the scenes at the mercenary base camp, so Hogan and Danton can swap tough-guy threats. Danton does not remain imprisoned for long, however, as he is freed by an old buddy from the Vietnam War who is conveniently working for the colonel. Even though the base camp is apparently "seventy-five miles southeast of Los Angeles" according to the movie, Danton is able to run back home in a short amount of time. Upon returning to his house, he finds that his wife has been kidnapped by Hogan's henchman. The stakes, as always seems to happen in action movies, have been made personal. Danton gears up in greasepaint and army fatigues (but still no shirt) and runs back to the woods (again, located at least seventy-five miles away) to set up booby traps. What follows is a glorious action spectacular as mercenaries continually step on Danton's jerry-rigged tripwires, triggering spike traps and cheap explosions. Danton also beats a guy to death with his own arm. You know, as you do.
The true joy of "Deadly Prey" is how juvenile and brainlessly macho it is. There are two women in the film, a henchman and Danton's wife. They exist to be Evil Female and The Victim, respectively. The rest of the movie has so much testosterone it becomes testostertwo. "Deadly Prey" is not a film that adheres to logic, it is a film of visceral lunkheaded thrills. It is a movie that will put hair on your chest, only so you can wax it off to better showcase your giant pecs. This film is a magnificent jumble of clichés and charming cheapness. This is Action with a capital A. It may not be a smart film, or even a well-made one (although there are actually some pretty striking shots here and there), but it is certainly fun. A good time is all the movie ever promises, and it delivers on that and then some.
Rating: 10/10
Movie Review: Elvira, Mistress of the Dark (1988)
Originally published 3 May 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/retro-review-elvira-mistress-dark-1988
"Does the TV horror hostess successfully make the leap to film?"
"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" is a bit of an outdated oddity by today's standards, but in a world where there is a movie based on emojis, a movie based on a TV host is perhaps not too strange. Elvira (aka Cassandra Peterson) was a popular late-night TV host; in a bygone era before online streaming, the discerning fan of horror movies would often have to turn to late-night TV to catch various cinematic oddities. Most cities had some form of late-night programming focused on horror movies (invariably B-grade schlock with cheap licensing rights). These various shows always had some sort of horror-themed host who would introduce the movie and occasionally make comments on the film in between commercial breaks. It may seem strange, then, that someone would make a spinoff movie based on such thin source material. Despite this, "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" is not only competently made but also quite fun.
Fittingly, the movie opens with Elvira on the set of her TV show. However, the TV station's new manager arrives and immediately starts harassing her. In what is to become a trend throughout the film, Elvira tells the guy off with acerbic insult comic wit. Although at times the movie seems to be objectifying Elvira for her notoriously buxom figure and low-cut dresses, the script (co-written by Peterson herself) is full of oddly empowering moments where she fends off various creeps. After the encounter with the creepy boss, Elvira quits her job to pursue her dream of starring in a Las Vegas act. Unfortunately, she needs $50,000 to finance the act, but in one of those conveniences that only happen in movies, Elvira learns she has a long-lost aunt who has died and left her an inheritance.
Elvira promptly drives up to the Fallwell, Massachusetts for the will hearing. Upon arriving, it is apparent that the horror hostess's outlandish goth valley girl look clashes with the bland, conservative locals. Much of the comedic moments that follow are derived from this setup, as Elvira's unselfconscious sexuality and hokey stand-up comic humor ruffle the feathers of the town council and other residents of Fallwell. At the hearing, Elvira inherits her aunt's house, pet poodle, and a recipe book, but no money for financing the Vegas act. Also in attendance is Elvira's long-lost uncle, Vincent Talbot (W. Morgan Sheppard), who takes a suspicious interest in getting the book from his niece. While trying to figure out how to come up with the necessary cash for her act, Elvira continually runs afoul of the town council, who fear she is corrupting the morals of the town's youth. However, the town's youth think Elvira is the coolest thing ever, to the point that a large group of teens paints her new house for free.
Wacky hijinks continue to ensue while Uncle Talbot and his hired goons (of course he has goons, why wouldn't he?) try to find Elvira's newly inherited recipe book. The book, however, is not merely a recipe book, but a spellbook. As she eventually learns, Elvira is descended from a line of powerful witches, and the spellbook was hidden away by her aunt to prevent Uncle Talbot from using it to take over the world. This being a goofy comedy, Elvira winds up using the spellbook for revenge against her tormentors in Fallwell. She cooks up a magic dish and sneaks into the buffet table at a community picnic, which has an unexpected aphrodisiac effect, sending the conservative town council members into comically bacchanalian abandon.
Elvira's prank does not sit well with the Fallwell authorities, so they opt to use an archaic Massachusetts law and execute her by burning her at the stake. The townsfolk almost succeed, but Elvira manages to escape and goes on to do magic battle with her evil uncle. To describe the proceedings in further detail would ruin all the wonderfully cheesy jokes crammed into the third act. Suffice to say, good prevails over evil and Elvira gets her Las Vegas act. And of course, the includes the requisite ending song-and-dance number that populates so many comedies that don't know how to wrap things up properly. There's even a regrettably dated rap verse in her performance!
"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" is incredibly on-the-nose and silly, but it is also self-aware enough to realize that. There is an inherent camp value to the film that makes it very fun to watch. Most of Elvira's comedy shtick consists of jokes about her large bust and cheesy Dad Joke one-liners (you can practically hear the rimshot sound effect after half of her lines in the movie). In a way, the movie's sense of humor is similar to that of Peterson's former Groundlings theater troupe colleague, Paul Reubens. Both Elvira and Pee-Wee Herman have a broad, intentionally campy style, with lots of mugging at the camera and corny standup zingers. Your mileage may vary on this film if that type of humor does not gel with you, but for those who find it funny, this is a campy comedy cult classic.
Rating: 8/10
"Does the TV horror hostess successfully make the leap to film?"
"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" is a bit of an outdated oddity by today's standards, but in a world where there is a movie based on emojis, a movie based on a TV host is perhaps not too strange. Elvira (aka Cassandra Peterson) was a popular late-night TV host; in a bygone era before online streaming, the discerning fan of horror movies would often have to turn to late-night TV to catch various cinematic oddities. Most cities had some form of late-night programming focused on horror movies (invariably B-grade schlock with cheap licensing rights). These various shows always had some sort of horror-themed host who would introduce the movie and occasionally make comments on the film in between commercial breaks. It may seem strange, then, that someone would make a spinoff movie based on such thin source material. Despite this, "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" is not only competently made but also quite fun.
Fittingly, the movie opens with Elvira on the set of her TV show. However, the TV station's new manager arrives and immediately starts harassing her. In what is to become a trend throughout the film, Elvira tells the guy off with acerbic insult comic wit. Although at times the movie seems to be objectifying Elvira for her notoriously buxom figure and low-cut dresses, the script (co-written by Peterson herself) is full of oddly empowering moments where she fends off various creeps. After the encounter with the creepy boss, Elvira quits her job to pursue her dream of starring in a Las Vegas act. Unfortunately, she needs $50,000 to finance the act, but in one of those conveniences that only happen in movies, Elvira learns she has a long-lost aunt who has died and left her an inheritance.
Elvira promptly drives up to the Fallwell, Massachusetts for the will hearing. Upon arriving, it is apparent that the horror hostess's outlandish goth valley girl look clashes with the bland, conservative locals. Much of the comedic moments that follow are derived from this setup, as Elvira's unselfconscious sexuality and hokey stand-up comic humor ruffle the feathers of the town council and other residents of Fallwell. At the hearing, Elvira inherits her aunt's house, pet poodle, and a recipe book, but no money for financing the Vegas act. Also in attendance is Elvira's long-lost uncle, Vincent Talbot (W. Morgan Sheppard), who takes a suspicious interest in getting the book from his niece. While trying to figure out how to come up with the necessary cash for her act, Elvira continually runs afoul of the town council, who fear she is corrupting the morals of the town's youth. However, the town's youth think Elvira is the coolest thing ever, to the point that a large group of teens paints her new house for free.
Wacky hijinks continue to ensue while Uncle Talbot and his hired goons (of course he has goons, why wouldn't he?) try to find Elvira's newly inherited recipe book. The book, however, is not merely a recipe book, but a spellbook. As she eventually learns, Elvira is descended from a line of powerful witches, and the spellbook was hidden away by her aunt to prevent Uncle Talbot from using it to take over the world. This being a goofy comedy, Elvira winds up using the spellbook for revenge against her tormentors in Fallwell. She cooks up a magic dish and sneaks into the buffet table at a community picnic, which has an unexpected aphrodisiac effect, sending the conservative town council members into comically bacchanalian abandon.
Elvira's prank does not sit well with the Fallwell authorities, so they opt to use an archaic Massachusetts law and execute her by burning her at the stake. The townsfolk almost succeed, but Elvira manages to escape and goes on to do magic battle with her evil uncle. To describe the proceedings in further detail would ruin all the wonderfully cheesy jokes crammed into the third act. Suffice to say, good prevails over evil and Elvira gets her Las Vegas act. And of course, the includes the requisite ending song-and-dance number that populates so many comedies that don't know how to wrap things up properly. There's even a regrettably dated rap verse in her performance!
"Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" is incredibly on-the-nose and silly, but it is also self-aware enough to realize that. There is an inherent camp value to the film that makes it very fun to watch. Most of Elvira's comedy shtick consists of jokes about her large bust and cheesy Dad Joke one-liners (you can practically hear the rimshot sound effect after half of her lines in the movie). In a way, the movie's sense of humor is similar to that of Peterson's former Groundlings theater troupe colleague, Paul Reubens. Both Elvira and Pee-Wee Herman have a broad, intentionally campy style, with lots of mugging at the camera and corny standup zingers. Your mileage may vary on this film if that type of humor does not gel with you, but for those who find it funny, this is a campy comedy cult classic.
Rating: 8/10
Movie Review: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
Originally published 2 May 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/movie-review-avengers-infinity-war-2018
"Is Marvel's big crossover event worth the ten years of buildup?"
"Avengers: Infinity War" is the culmination of a decade's worth of planning, representing the apotheosis of Marvel's Cinematic Universe. All of Marvel's superhero characters (well, almost all— Ant-Man and Hawkeye are absent, not that anyone misses them) have finally teamed up to duke it out with Thanos, the Big Bad who has been teased since the first "Avengers" in 2012. With all this hype behind the film, it is no surprise that it is currently smashing box office records left and right. But is "Infinity War" worth the ten-year buildup?
Picking up right after the events of "Thor: Ragnarok", we learn that Thanos is out to obtain the Infinity Stones, a series of magic rocks that will power his Infinity Gauntlet. With this weapon, he will be able to destroy half of the universe with the snap of his fingers. The Hulk is spirited away back to Earth to warn the other heroes of the impending danger, while Thor is cast into space, soon to be picked up the Guardians of the Galaxy. The film wisely splits the massive cast of superheroes into smaller groups, thus preventing the film from ever feeling too cluttered. Thor blasts off with Rocket Raccoon and Groot on a side-quest to get Thor a weapon capable of taking down Thanos. Meanwhile, the rest of the Guardians team up with Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Doctor Strange, the latter group now stranded in space after fending off Thanos's henchmen. Back on Earth, the remaining superheroes must help their robot pal The Vision remove and destroy the Infinity Stone conveniently residing in his forehead before Thanos can get to it.
With all these separate storylines going on, it seems like "Infinity War" would be a jumbled mess, but miraculously the story functions like a well-oiled machine. The script deftly balances the huge cast, cutting back and forth between each group of characters with ease. Each group gets their time to shine, although the earthbound heroes receive significantly less screen time than the space-faring groups. Amid all the superhero shenanigans, the movie still finds time to give Thanos his own scenes. We learn that Thanos wants to destroy half of the universe because he believes it will solve overpopulation problems and provide balance to the cosmos. His unwavering conviction in this logic is unsettling, and it makes him the most compelling villain in the MCU's ten-year history.
However, despite the script's impressive balancing act, "Infinity War" is held back by the same problems that continually plague Marvel movies. Most egregiously is the lack of stakes in the film, which is more of a problem with Marvel as a studio than the film itself. "Infinity War" promises to be the serious Marvel film, the one where things actually matter and have permanence this time. This is completely undermined when it is readily available knowledge that the major players in the film are still under years-long contracts with Marvel. It is hard to feel any emotional impact when characters die in "Infinity War" when Marvel is currently producing future films featuring the supposedly deceased characters.
The other big stumbling block for "Infinity War" is the incessant quipping. Marvel has branded itself on being the lighthearted and comedic superhero franchise, as opposed to DC's gritty, gloomy output. Unfortunately, Marvel frequently confuses being lighthearted with nonstop jokes. There are numerous moments throughout the film that attempt to be serious or contemplative, only to be undercut by some witticism or round of banter. At one point, Thor is brought to tears while reflecting on the numerous deaths in his family. This moment is immediately followed up with jokey dialogue from Rocket Raccoon. It is possible for a film to maintain a lighthearted tone overall while still containing serious moments. "Infinity War", despite being marketed as a darker chapter in the MCU, cannot commit to its own moments of darkness, as if maintaining a constant jocular attitude will stave off comparisons to DC's films.
Ultimately, "Avengers: Infinity War" is like Frosted Flakes/Lucky Charms: a crossover that seems like a good idea on paper, but one that ultimately leaves you feeling empty. There are things to like about the film, particularly Josh Brolin's performance as Thanos. The problem is that "Infinity War" cannot break free from the same problems that hold back every other Marvel film.
Rating: 4/10
"Is Marvel's big crossover event worth the ten years of buildup?"
"Avengers: Infinity War" is the culmination of a decade's worth of planning, representing the apotheosis of Marvel's Cinematic Universe. All of Marvel's superhero characters (well, almost all— Ant-Man and Hawkeye are absent, not that anyone misses them) have finally teamed up to duke it out with Thanos, the Big Bad who has been teased since the first "Avengers" in 2012. With all this hype behind the film, it is no surprise that it is currently smashing box office records left and right. But is "Infinity War" worth the ten-year buildup?
Picking up right after the events of "Thor: Ragnarok", we learn that Thanos is out to obtain the Infinity Stones, a series of magic rocks that will power his Infinity Gauntlet. With this weapon, he will be able to destroy half of the universe with the snap of his fingers. The Hulk is spirited away back to Earth to warn the other heroes of the impending danger, while Thor is cast into space, soon to be picked up the Guardians of the Galaxy. The film wisely splits the massive cast of superheroes into smaller groups, thus preventing the film from ever feeling too cluttered. Thor blasts off with Rocket Raccoon and Groot on a side-quest to get Thor a weapon capable of taking down Thanos. Meanwhile, the rest of the Guardians team up with Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Doctor Strange, the latter group now stranded in space after fending off Thanos's henchmen. Back on Earth, the remaining superheroes must help their robot pal The Vision remove and destroy the Infinity Stone conveniently residing in his forehead before Thanos can get to it.
With all these separate storylines going on, it seems like "Infinity War" would be a jumbled mess, but miraculously the story functions like a well-oiled machine. The script deftly balances the huge cast, cutting back and forth between each group of characters with ease. Each group gets their time to shine, although the earthbound heroes receive significantly less screen time than the space-faring groups. Amid all the superhero shenanigans, the movie still finds time to give Thanos his own scenes. We learn that Thanos wants to destroy half of the universe because he believes it will solve overpopulation problems and provide balance to the cosmos. His unwavering conviction in this logic is unsettling, and it makes him the most compelling villain in the MCU's ten-year history.
However, despite the script's impressive balancing act, "Infinity War" is held back by the same problems that continually plague Marvel movies. Most egregiously is the lack of stakes in the film, which is more of a problem with Marvel as a studio than the film itself. "Infinity War" promises to be the serious Marvel film, the one where things actually matter and have permanence this time. This is completely undermined when it is readily available knowledge that the major players in the film are still under years-long contracts with Marvel. It is hard to feel any emotional impact when characters die in "Infinity War" when Marvel is currently producing future films featuring the supposedly deceased characters.
The other big stumbling block for "Infinity War" is the incessant quipping. Marvel has branded itself on being the lighthearted and comedic superhero franchise, as opposed to DC's gritty, gloomy output. Unfortunately, Marvel frequently confuses being lighthearted with nonstop jokes. There are numerous moments throughout the film that attempt to be serious or contemplative, only to be undercut by some witticism or round of banter. At one point, Thor is brought to tears while reflecting on the numerous deaths in his family. This moment is immediately followed up with jokey dialogue from Rocket Raccoon. It is possible for a film to maintain a lighthearted tone overall while still containing serious moments. "Infinity War", despite being marketed as a darker chapter in the MCU, cannot commit to its own moments of darkness, as if maintaining a constant jocular attitude will stave off comparisons to DC's films.
Ultimately, "Avengers: Infinity War" is like Frosted Flakes/Lucky Charms: a crossover that seems like a good idea on paper, but one that ultimately leaves you feeling empty. There are things to like about the film, particularly Josh Brolin's performance as Thanos. The problem is that "Infinity War" cannot break free from the same problems that hold back every other Marvel film.
Rating: 4/10
Movie Review: Isle of Dogs (2018)
Originally published 1 May 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/movie-review-isle-of-dogs-2018
"Does Wes Anderson's new animated feature offer more than passing fun for dog lovers?"
"Isle of Dogs" is the newest film from acclaimed director Wes Anderson, and his second stop-motion animation feature after 2009's "The Fantastic Mr. Fox". This new outing is rife with the typical Anderson visual peculiarities. Fans of his flat, meticulously detailed shot compositions will not be disappointed. With the control over fine details afforded by the medium of stop-motion animation, Anderson is able to furnish and frame his film with precision-cut orderly arrangements. However, missing this time is Anderson's penchant for memorably quirky characters. There are quirks abound, but it does not add up to anything memorable.
In the near future, the Japanese city of Megasaki is faced with a flu epidemic affecting the local canine population. The cat-loving mayor, Kobayashi (Kunichi Nomura), riles up anti-dog sentiment and decrees that all dogs in the city be banished to an abandoned offshore waste disposal site. Thus we have the titular Isle of Dogs (which is sadly never referred to as such by any of the characters, instead only being referred to as "Trash Island"). A roving gang of dogs, voiced by an all-star cast (Bryan Cranston, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, and more), happens upon a young boy who has crash-landed an airplane onto Trash Island. The boy, Atari Kobayashi (Koyu Rankin), is the mayor's orphaned nephew and ward, who has come to the island in search of his dog, Spots. The dog pack agrees to aid Atari in his search, although whether or not the dogs can communicate with humans is never clearly established and remains a confusion throughout the film.
Despite constant objections from Chief (Cranston), the only stray dog of the group, the dog gang leads Atari to the residence of two wise-dogs, who they believe may know the whereabouts of Spots. Chief's objections are worth noting because he constantly refers to how the dogs are better off living without masters on Trash Island. Will he eventually come to find the joys of domestication and the comfort of Atari's company? The script telegraphs this so obviously you would be hard-pressed to answer anything but "yes". At the behest of the wise-dogs, Atari and his canine companions head towards the farthest tip of Trash Island to find Spots, all the while being pursued by Mayor Kobayashi's paramilitary rescue teams. On the mainland, foreign exchange student Tracy Walker (Greta Gerwig) begins investigating into Mayor Kobayashi's sinister plans for Trash Island, which could result in the elimination of the island's canine inhabitants. The two parallel plots convene in one of those movie climaxes where someone gives a speech that brings the in-universe listeners to tears but leaves the actual audience in the theater with dry eyes.
The strangest aspect of "Isle of Dogs" is the decision to have all the Japanese characters in the film speak their native tongue. This is not an inherently bad idea, but Anderson continually backpedals on this choice. Most of the plot-relevant Japanese dialogue is translated into English through the clunky injection of an on-site translator, who tells us everything that is being said under the pretense of international broadcasting. The foreign exchange student character only further serves to awkwardly cram in English translations and English dialogue. There are even some portions of the film in which Atari speaks to the dogs without any subtitles. In a live-action film, the actor's facial expressions and body language would likely be enough to get the message across regardless of the language barrier, but with a stop-motion puppet, the ability to communicate minutiae of expression is far more difficult. The effect is that many of Atari's bonding scenes with the dogs feel alienating and distant when they should be heartwarming. I would have preferred the movie to either use English subtitles for the Japanese dialogue or just have the Japanese characters speak English. Trying to meet somewhere in the middle comes across as waffling as if the filmmakers (or more likely the higher-ups handling the financial side of things) did not think American audiences would watch a film with extensive subtitles.
Although there are some questionable choices regarding the film's use of multiple languages, "Isle of Dogs" still offers many of the pleasures of Anderson's other work. The design of Trash Island is particularly striking, with endless monochromatic expanses of trash, making something beautiful out of literal garbage. The animation is impressive as well, particularly a brief sequence in which one of Mayor Kobayashi's henchmen prepares sushi. Anderson's trademark flat shot compositions are at peak flatness here, with many of the wide shots in the film bearing a charming picture-book quality, like some sort of post-apocalyptic Richard Scarry illustration. Especially as a follow-up to the excellent "Grand Budapest Hotel", "Isle of Dogs" feels like Anderson resting on his laurels. The expected stylistic panache is there, but the story is predictable and the characters are not as memorable as those of previous Anderson films. "Isle of Dogs" is cute enough if you love dogs, but for a Wes Anderson movie, it leaves something to be desired.
Rating: 6/10
Movie Review: Ready Player One (2018)
Originally published 17 April 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/movie-review-ready-player-one-2018
"Steven Spielberg's highly anticipated sci-fi adaptation offers fleeting moments of blockbuster fun and not much else."
"Ready Player One" is director Steven Spielberg's highly anticipated adaptation of author Ernest Cline's 2011 novel of the same name. If you have spent any amount of time on the internet recently, you have likely seen people either anxiously awaiting the film's release or preemptively deriding it. After months of strong opinions from fans and detractors, the film has finally arrived and the results are disappointingly tepid.
The film follows Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), a bland teenage composite of Dylan Minette and Miles Teller, who lives in the dystopian future of 2045. The only escape from the daily drudgery of the future is a virtual reality world called the OASIS, a massive online video game where players can live out their wildest fantasies (which are apparently limited to video games and movies from the 1980s and 90s). Watts roams the virtual world from the comfort of an abandoned cargo van, nestled in a "District 9"-style shantytown in Columbus, Ohio. His virtual counterpart, a vaguely elven avatar named Parzival, is one of thousands of players involved in an elaborate Easter egg hunt set forth by OASIS's creator, James Halliday, upon his death five years prior. The rules of the hunt are simple: the first player to find three keys hidden within the OASIS will gain control of the program and serve as Halliday's successor. In the ensuing years since Halliday's death, no one has been able to find the first key. Watts stumbles across a clue that leads him to the first key, and suddenly the race is on as everyone in the OASIS is out to complete the hunt and win the prize. I.O.I., one of those pesky faceless corporations that always seem to be causing trouble in movies, is also out to win the competition, but only so that it can monetize the otherwise free-to-play world of OASIS.
The film unfolds in a humdrum fashion from here. Watts falls in love with an equally bland player named Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), who teams up with him and his team of friends (I won't bother to name them all because the movie doesn't care enough to give them personalities, only actions to complete in service of the plot) to complete the hunt before the corporate baddies. Art3mis doesn't want to meet Watts in real life, but of course, they eventually do, and of course, they still fall in love in real life anyway. Eventually I.O.I. manages to get information on Watts' shantytown whereabouts, which forces him to go on the lam with his real-life teammates, attempting to complete the hunt while fleeing in a modified postal truck. Everything culminates in a big battle outside the third challenge of the hunt, which I.O.I has conveniently blocked off with a magic force field. As is to be expected, Watts rallies the legions of OASIS users to fight for the fate of their beloved virtual reality world. Many heroic words are said, but none of them are particularly memorable. And what would a modern blockbuster film be without a giant CGI army battle? Pop culture characters abound as the Iron Giant and a Gundam robot duke it out with Mechagodzilla, and armies of video game and movie characters flash up onscreen. Good bests evil as is expected, and Watts is treated to a one-on-one meeting with a simulation of Halliday, who signs over the OASIS and suggests that real life should not be ignored in favor of escapism. A strange moral with which to end the film, given that the sequences set in the OASIS are far more interesting than anything taking place in the real world.
I am not a fan of Cline's novel, so I went into the film expecting to hate it. Much to my surprise, the big-screen adaptation of "Ready Player One" was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. It pares down the constant, clunky pop culture references of the novel and greatly reduces Watts' creepy behavior. The movie also replaces the hunt challenges of the novel with ones that are more visually interesting, it is better for it. By far the most engaging sequences in the film are the first and second challenges of the hunt. I particularly enjoyed the second challenge, which is set in a recreation of the film "The Shining". The visual effects used to generate replicas of the Overlook Hotel sets are quite impressive, and the sequence moves along at an exciting clip. As is the case with the book, the portions of "Ready Player One" set in the real world are just not as interesting as the scenes set in the OASIS. The virtual world, while clogged with pop culture references, is far more visually interesting than the drab dystopia of Columbus, Ohio. None of the characters are particularly memorable, either, although this could be seen as an improvement. In removing most of Watts's pathetic creepiness towards Art3mis in the adaptation process, the movie erases the only defining trait of his character. The cinematic adaptation of "Ready Player One" is in many respects better than the book, but it still falls short as a film.
"Steven Spielberg's highly anticipated sci-fi adaptation offers fleeting moments of blockbuster fun and not much else."
"Ready Player One" is director Steven Spielberg's highly anticipated adaptation of author Ernest Cline's 2011 novel of the same name. If you have spent any amount of time on the internet recently, you have likely seen people either anxiously awaiting the film's release or preemptively deriding it. After months of strong opinions from fans and detractors, the film has finally arrived and the results are disappointingly tepid.
The film follows Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), a bland teenage composite of Dylan Minette and Miles Teller, who lives in the dystopian future of 2045. The only escape from the daily drudgery of the future is a virtual reality world called the OASIS, a massive online video game where players can live out their wildest fantasies (which are apparently limited to video games and movies from the 1980s and 90s). Watts roams the virtual world from the comfort of an abandoned cargo van, nestled in a "District 9"-style shantytown in Columbus, Ohio. His virtual counterpart, a vaguely elven avatar named Parzival, is one of thousands of players involved in an elaborate Easter egg hunt set forth by OASIS's creator, James Halliday, upon his death five years prior. The rules of the hunt are simple: the first player to find three keys hidden within the OASIS will gain control of the program and serve as Halliday's successor. In the ensuing years since Halliday's death, no one has been able to find the first key. Watts stumbles across a clue that leads him to the first key, and suddenly the race is on as everyone in the OASIS is out to complete the hunt and win the prize. I.O.I., one of those pesky faceless corporations that always seem to be causing trouble in movies, is also out to win the competition, but only so that it can monetize the otherwise free-to-play world of OASIS.
The film unfolds in a humdrum fashion from here. Watts falls in love with an equally bland player named Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), who teams up with him and his team of friends (I won't bother to name them all because the movie doesn't care enough to give them personalities, only actions to complete in service of the plot) to complete the hunt before the corporate baddies. Art3mis doesn't want to meet Watts in real life, but of course, they eventually do, and of course, they still fall in love in real life anyway. Eventually I.O.I. manages to get information on Watts' shantytown whereabouts, which forces him to go on the lam with his real-life teammates, attempting to complete the hunt while fleeing in a modified postal truck. Everything culminates in a big battle outside the third challenge of the hunt, which I.O.I has conveniently blocked off with a magic force field. As is to be expected, Watts rallies the legions of OASIS users to fight for the fate of their beloved virtual reality world. Many heroic words are said, but none of them are particularly memorable. And what would a modern blockbuster film be without a giant CGI army battle? Pop culture characters abound as the Iron Giant and a Gundam robot duke it out with Mechagodzilla, and armies of video game and movie characters flash up onscreen. Good bests evil as is expected, and Watts is treated to a one-on-one meeting with a simulation of Halliday, who signs over the OASIS and suggests that real life should not be ignored in favor of escapism. A strange moral with which to end the film, given that the sequences set in the OASIS are far more interesting than anything taking place in the real world.
I am not a fan of Cline's novel, so I went into the film expecting to hate it. Much to my surprise, the big-screen adaptation of "Ready Player One" was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. It pares down the constant, clunky pop culture references of the novel and greatly reduces Watts' creepy behavior. The movie also replaces the hunt challenges of the novel with ones that are more visually interesting, it is better for it. By far the most engaging sequences in the film are the first and second challenges of the hunt. I particularly enjoyed the second challenge, which is set in a recreation of the film "The Shining". The visual effects used to generate replicas of the Overlook Hotel sets are quite impressive, and the sequence moves along at an exciting clip. As is the case with the book, the portions of "Ready Player One" set in the real world are just not as interesting as the scenes set in the OASIS. The virtual world, while clogged with pop culture references, is far more visually interesting than the drab dystopia of Columbus, Ohio. None of the characters are particularly memorable, either, although this could be seen as an improvement. In removing most of Watts's pathetic creepiness towards Art3mis in the adaptation process, the movie erases the only defining trait of his character. The cinematic adaptation of "Ready Player One" is in many respects better than the book, but it still falls short as a film.
Movie Review: Encino Man (1992)
Originally published 17 April 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/retro-review-encino-man-1992
"Revisiting a childhood favorite proves to be a bad idea."
Much like Brendan Fraser's titular caveman, my memories of enjoying "Encino Man" at age 12 were inexplicably unearthed this past week. I decided to revisit the film out of curiosity, unsure if my hazy recollections of the film still held up. It would seem that some childhood memories are best left buried.
The plot of "Encino Man" is standard fish-out-of-water comedy fare. High school students Dave and Stoney (Sean Astin and Pauly Shore, both looking far too old to be playing teenagers) discover a frozen caveman while digging the foundation for a swimming pool in Dave's backyard. The two twentysomething teens thaw out the caveman (played with an embarrassingly dogged commitment by Brendan Fraser), dub him "Link", and decide to integrate him into the local high school. Much like Michael J. Fox's lycanthropy in "Teen Wolf", the presence of a caveman in Dave and Stoney's company inexplicably increases the duo's popularity in school. Wacky hijinks ensue for a majority of the second and third acts as Link fumbles his way through high school and other zany aspects of modern life, repeating the same joke over and over. Try to stifle your laughter as Link fails to understand how a modern convenience works, followed by some form of slapstick joke. Eventually, the movie just stops, without much of a climax. There's a halfhearted showdown with a bully character, but that too ends in the same lamebrain slapstick that comprises every other gag in the film. And of course, there's a choreographed dance number at the prom because it what would a generic comedy be without a choreographed dance number?
"Encino Man" functions best as an anti-nostalgia film. If you ever find yourself pining for all things 1990's, this movie will remind you why we left all that behind. "Encino Man" is a parade of everything regrettable from the final decade of the 20th century. The costumes in the film are garish, mismatched attempts at capturing the hip youth look. Brendan Fraser's clashing neon plaid wardrobe and Pauly Shore's pink mesh sweater are two of the biggest eyesores to ever blemish the silver screen. There is also the matter of Pauly Shore, one of the more embarrassing pop culture icons of the 1990s. His character is obnoxious, speaking almost entirely in manufactured pseudo surfer dude lingo. Even worse, he cannot seem to be bothered to give the performance any energy, frequently coming across like Bill & Ted on Nyquil. This is especially apparent whenever he shares the screen with Fraser, whose spirited commitment to the role of the vacant-eyed manchild Neanderthal is equal parts admirable and concerning.
The experience of watching "Encino Man" is unpleasant on multiple levels. For one, it's a predictable and unsurprising film that fails to offer anything funny or original. But the deep-seated unpleasantness of this film is how 1990s it is. As much as I would like the view the decade with rose-tinted glasses and only remember it as a mishmash of vaporwave aesthetics, this is as much a representation of the 1990s as anything I would rather remember. Warts and all, "Encino Man" is a time capsule of the era, and it is unpleasant for me to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that the same decade that produced many things I enjoy also produced this half-baked Pauly Shore film.
Rating: 4/10
"Revisiting a childhood favorite proves to be a bad idea."
Much like Brendan Fraser's titular caveman, my memories of enjoying "Encino Man" at age 12 were inexplicably unearthed this past week. I decided to revisit the film out of curiosity, unsure if my hazy recollections of the film still held up. It would seem that some childhood memories are best left buried.
The plot of "Encino Man" is standard fish-out-of-water comedy fare. High school students Dave and Stoney (Sean Astin and Pauly Shore, both looking far too old to be playing teenagers) discover a frozen caveman while digging the foundation for a swimming pool in Dave's backyard. The two twentysomething teens thaw out the caveman (played with an embarrassingly dogged commitment by Brendan Fraser), dub him "Link", and decide to integrate him into the local high school. Much like Michael J. Fox's lycanthropy in "Teen Wolf", the presence of a caveman in Dave and Stoney's company inexplicably increases the duo's popularity in school. Wacky hijinks ensue for a majority of the second and third acts as Link fumbles his way through high school and other zany aspects of modern life, repeating the same joke over and over. Try to stifle your laughter as Link fails to understand how a modern convenience works, followed by some form of slapstick joke. Eventually, the movie just stops, without much of a climax. There's a halfhearted showdown with a bully character, but that too ends in the same lamebrain slapstick that comprises every other gag in the film. And of course, there's a choreographed dance number at the prom because it what would a generic comedy be without a choreographed dance number?
"Encino Man" functions best as an anti-nostalgia film. If you ever find yourself pining for all things 1990's, this movie will remind you why we left all that behind. "Encino Man" is a parade of everything regrettable from the final decade of the 20th century. The costumes in the film are garish, mismatched attempts at capturing the hip youth look. Brendan Fraser's clashing neon plaid wardrobe and Pauly Shore's pink mesh sweater are two of the biggest eyesores to ever blemish the silver screen. There is also the matter of Pauly Shore, one of the more embarrassing pop culture icons of the 1990s. His character is obnoxious, speaking almost entirely in manufactured pseudo surfer dude lingo. Even worse, he cannot seem to be bothered to give the performance any energy, frequently coming across like Bill & Ted on Nyquil. This is especially apparent whenever he shares the screen with Fraser, whose spirited commitment to the role of the vacant-eyed manchild Neanderthal is equal parts admirable and concerning.
The experience of watching "Encino Man" is unpleasant on multiple levels. For one, it's a predictable and unsurprising film that fails to offer anything funny or original. But the deep-seated unpleasantness of this film is how 1990s it is. As much as I would like the view the decade with rose-tinted glasses and only remember it as a mishmash of vaporwave aesthetics, this is as much a representation of the 1990s as anything I would rather remember. Warts and all, "Encino Man" is a time capsule of the era, and it is unpleasant for me to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that the same decade that produced many things I enjoy also produced this half-baked Pauly Shore film.
Rating: 4/10
Roger Corman's Edgar Allan Poe Series Ranked
Originally published on 5 April 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/roger-cormans-edgar-allan-poe-series-ranked
"A worst-to-best ranking of B-Movie legend Roger Corman's Poe-inspired horror movie series."
Between 1960 and 1964, legendary B-Movie producer Roger Corman directed a series of eight films based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe. Compared to the rest of Corman's output (an additional 11 films) during this period, his Poe films are heavily stylized. The costumes and sets are flashy and artificial, embracing the overwrought excess of their literary inspirations. The low-budget approach to Gothic horror is quite effective, capturing the paradoxical broody stoicism and overflowing emotion that characterizes the genre. This past month I watched all eight films and have compiled a ranking of the series from worst to best. I would not recommend binging all eight films back-to-back like I did, but there is certainly a lot of fun to be had with this series.
8. "Tales of Terror" (1962)
Anthology films rarely work due to inconsistency between segments, and "Tales of Terror" is no exception. The first segment, "Morella", is too short to properly build up suspense. The second, "The Black Cat", tries to incorporate comedy into its story. This mostly amounts to Vincent Price making goofy faces and Peter Lorre embarrassing himself as a stock drunkard character. The third and final segment, "The Case of M. Valdemar", is the only interesting one of the bunch, but like "Morella", it does not get enough time to fully develop into something interesting. If you are going to skip watching a Corman Poe film, this is the one to avoid.
7. "The Masque of the Red Death" (1964)
The main conceit of "The Masque of the Red Death" is that the villainous Prince Prospero is creating a descent into hell within the walls of his castle while the countryside is ravaged by the plague. The rich and powerful are supposedly safe in the castle, but Prospero's madness and decadence lead to everyone's destruction. This idea works well in the original short story, but stretched out to feature-length, the idea becomes repetitive. By the end, Vincent Price may as well be directly asking the audience "Get it? Get it? Ironic, huh?".
6. "The Premature Burial" (1962)
This is the only film of the series not to feature Vincent Price, instead substituting veteran actor Ray Milland in the lead role. Milland is no replacement for Price, but the story succeeds despite his unremarkable performance. Guy Carrell (Milland) is terrified of being buried alive, and someone is trying to drive him mad through this fear. There is a degree of mean-spiritedness to the proceedings that is not present in the other Poe films that elevates it above the weaker entries in the series. Not the best, but certainly an interesting adaptation.
5. "The Raven" (1963)
Corman goes for comedy in this loose adaptation of the famous Poe poem. The results are incredibly corny, like a knockoff version of those live-action comedy films Disney was producing at the time. Much like those cheesy Disney movies, "The Raven" is fun if you are in the right mood. Vincent Price and Boris Karloff play off each other well, and their climactic wizard duel is a fun bit of bad special effects and hammy overacting. This is by far the goofiest film in the series, but the movie at least recognizes that and runs with it.
4. "The Tomb of Ligeia" (1964)
A strange but fitting note on which to end the series. The story, quite puzzlingly, leans more towards the romantic side of Gothic fiction rather than horror. The atmosphere is certainly spooky, but it does not embrace the usual horror elements as strongly as the rest of the series. Unlike the preceding seven films, "The Tomb of Ligeia" features scenes shot on location in authentic castle ruins, rather than just using a soundstage. This is by far the most cinematic looking film in the series, eschewing stagey, static framing for a more mobile camera that roams through the high-quality sets. An odd outlier in the series for sure, but it sure looks great.
3. "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1961)
Definitely one of the better Vincent Price performances in the series. His slow descent into madness over the course of the film is tragic and compelling. When Price finally goes off the deep end, he gets the chance to cut loose and chew scenery as only he can do. The film is great at slowly building suspense over time, but the climactic encounter with the titular torture devices leaves something to be desired. There is never an adequate sense of danger, which kills the otherwise suspenseful editing in the film's final scenes. The rest of the movie is great, it just fumbles with the last ten minutes or so.
2. "The Haunted Palace" (1963)
Technically an H.P. Lovecraft adaptation (the Poe title was added at the insistence of the film's distributor), and a solid one at that. The moldering castle and foggy village sets bring Lovecraft's writing to life as much as Poe's. "The Haunted Palace" also features the creepiest visuals of the series, with grotesque mutant villagers and ghoulishly gray evil housekeepers. The story is much darker than the other films in the series as well, with elements of possession, eldritch monsters, and even the Necronomicon popping up at various points. As far as early 1960s horror films go, this is as close as it gets to being actually unsettling.
1. "House of Usher" (1960)
The first film in the series is also the best film in the series, most effectively capturing the intersection of low-budget filmmaking and Gothic excess. Vincent Price (looking strangely like Lawrence of Arabia) gives his best performance of the series, going for a chilling understated delivery as Roderick Usher. The movie is a slow burn, allowing for plenty of brooding from the lead actors. When the film is not reveling in emotional turmoil, there are some genuinely creepy moments, including a psychedelic nightmare sequence and a genuinely unsettling finale. If you only watch one of the Corman Poe films, this should be the one.
"A worst-to-best ranking of B-Movie legend Roger Corman's Poe-inspired horror movie series."
Between 1960 and 1964, legendary B-Movie producer Roger Corman directed a series of eight films based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe. Compared to the rest of Corman's output (an additional 11 films) during this period, his Poe films are heavily stylized. The costumes and sets are flashy and artificial, embracing the overwrought excess of their literary inspirations. The low-budget approach to Gothic horror is quite effective, capturing the paradoxical broody stoicism and overflowing emotion that characterizes the genre. This past month I watched all eight films and have compiled a ranking of the series from worst to best. I would not recommend binging all eight films back-to-back like I did, but there is certainly a lot of fun to be had with this series.
8. "Tales of Terror" (1962)
Anthology films rarely work due to inconsistency between segments, and "Tales of Terror" is no exception. The first segment, "Morella", is too short to properly build up suspense. The second, "The Black Cat", tries to incorporate comedy into its story. This mostly amounts to Vincent Price making goofy faces and Peter Lorre embarrassing himself as a stock drunkard character. The third and final segment, "The Case of M. Valdemar", is the only interesting one of the bunch, but like "Morella", it does not get enough time to fully develop into something interesting. If you are going to skip watching a Corman Poe film, this is the one to avoid.
7. "The Masque of the Red Death" (1964)
The main conceit of "The Masque of the Red Death" is that the villainous Prince Prospero is creating a descent into hell within the walls of his castle while the countryside is ravaged by the plague. The rich and powerful are supposedly safe in the castle, but Prospero's madness and decadence lead to everyone's destruction. This idea works well in the original short story, but stretched out to feature-length, the idea becomes repetitive. By the end, Vincent Price may as well be directly asking the audience "Get it? Get it? Ironic, huh?".
6. "The Premature Burial" (1962)
This is the only film of the series not to feature Vincent Price, instead substituting veteran actor Ray Milland in the lead role. Milland is no replacement for Price, but the story succeeds despite his unremarkable performance. Guy Carrell (Milland) is terrified of being buried alive, and someone is trying to drive him mad through this fear. There is a degree of mean-spiritedness to the proceedings that is not present in the other Poe films that elevates it above the weaker entries in the series. Not the best, but certainly an interesting adaptation.
5. "The Raven" (1963)
Corman goes for comedy in this loose adaptation of the famous Poe poem. The results are incredibly corny, like a knockoff version of those live-action comedy films Disney was producing at the time. Much like those cheesy Disney movies, "The Raven" is fun if you are in the right mood. Vincent Price and Boris Karloff play off each other well, and their climactic wizard duel is a fun bit of bad special effects and hammy overacting. This is by far the goofiest film in the series, but the movie at least recognizes that and runs with it.
4. "The Tomb of Ligeia" (1964)
A strange but fitting note on which to end the series. The story, quite puzzlingly, leans more towards the romantic side of Gothic fiction rather than horror. The atmosphere is certainly spooky, but it does not embrace the usual horror elements as strongly as the rest of the series. Unlike the preceding seven films, "The Tomb of Ligeia" features scenes shot on location in authentic castle ruins, rather than just using a soundstage. This is by far the most cinematic looking film in the series, eschewing stagey, static framing for a more mobile camera that roams through the high-quality sets. An odd outlier in the series for sure, but it sure looks great.
3. "The Pit and the Pendulum" (1961)
Definitely one of the better Vincent Price performances in the series. His slow descent into madness over the course of the film is tragic and compelling. When Price finally goes off the deep end, he gets the chance to cut loose and chew scenery as only he can do. The film is great at slowly building suspense over time, but the climactic encounter with the titular torture devices leaves something to be desired. There is never an adequate sense of danger, which kills the otherwise suspenseful editing in the film's final scenes. The rest of the movie is great, it just fumbles with the last ten minutes or so.
2. "The Haunted Palace" (1963)
Technically an H.P. Lovecraft adaptation (the Poe title was added at the insistence of the film's distributor), and a solid one at that. The moldering castle and foggy village sets bring Lovecraft's writing to life as much as Poe's. "The Haunted Palace" also features the creepiest visuals of the series, with grotesque mutant villagers and ghoulishly gray evil housekeepers. The story is much darker than the other films in the series as well, with elements of possession, eldritch monsters, and even the Necronomicon popping up at various points. As far as early 1960s horror films go, this is as close as it gets to being actually unsettling.
1. "House of Usher" (1960)
The first film in the series is also the best film in the series, most effectively capturing the intersection of low-budget filmmaking and Gothic excess. Vincent Price (looking strangely like Lawrence of Arabia) gives his best performance of the series, going for a chilling understated delivery as Roderick Usher. The movie is a slow burn, allowing for plenty of brooding from the lead actors. When the film is not reveling in emotional turmoil, there are some genuinely creepy moments, including a psychedelic nightmare sequence and a genuinely unsettling finale. If you only watch one of the Corman Poe films, this should be the one.
Movie Review: Thoroughbreds (2017)
Originally published 27 March 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/movie-review-thoroughbreds-2017
"Corey Finley's directorial debut features a familiar story with excellent performances."
"Thoroughbreds" is a crime film that generated a lot of buzz on the festival circuit last year, and it has finally hit theaters in limited release. I had heard good things about the film and was quite excited to see how it turned out. Does it live up to the hype? For the most part, yes. "Thoroughbreds" treads the same ground as many crime films before it, but it succeeds due to the exceptionally strong performances and its flashes of dark comedy.
The film follows Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy), a high school girl who rekindles her relationship with Amanda (Olivia Cooke), an old childhood friend. Amanda is emotionally disturbed and most likely a sociopath, which Lily finds morbidly fascinating. Lily begins spending more and more time with Amanda, partly out of her fascination and partly to annoy her obnoxious stepfather, Mark. Amanda is acutely aware of Lily's contempt for Mark and suggests that they simply kill him to solve the problem. Lily initially resists the idea, but after discovering her stepfather plans to ship her off to boarding school as a means of getting rid of her, she agrees to go through with the deed. The teenage duo enlists the help of Tim (the late Anton Yelchin), a sleazy small-time drug dealer, to carry out the murder. As with most crime films, things do not go as planned, and things spiral out of control.
Other movies before "Thoroughbreds" have dealt with petty crime schemes gone wrong ("Heathers" and "To Die For" come to mind when thinking of this film), but where this film succeeds is in its performances. First-time director Corey Finley comes to this film with a background in theater (the script for "Thoroughbreds" was even originally written as a stage play), so it makes sense that great emphasis is placed on the performances. Olivia Cooke is particularly captivating as Amanda. Her deadpan delivery gives her frequently disturbing dialogue a darkly comedic edge. She consistently elicited nervous laughter from the audience at the screening I attended, a mutual feeling of "is she really serious or is this all some sort of sick joke?". Anya Taylor-Joy plays off her costar quite well, transforming over the course of the film from a curious observer into a cunning manipulator as she becomes more actively involved in the murder plot. Anton Yelchin is also quite good as the cagey, pathetic drug dealer, one of the more outwardly comedic characters in the film. The screen chemistry between the three actors is excellent, and their shared scenes are some of the better ones in the film.
While the acting in the film is certainly enough for me to recommend the film, I wish the story had gone a bit further. The movie never quite gives a convincing enough reason for Lily to want to kill her stepfather. He is unbearably WASPish and is rude to both his wife and daughter, but his relationship with Lily never seems so tenuous that murder would ever enter the equation. Perhaps the intention was to satirically underscore Lily's status as a spoiled upper-crust rich kid living in Connecticut. However, not enough is made of that point for it to ever coalesce into something solid, so it winds up stretching suspension of disbelief that she would decide to resort to murder so quickly.
Overall, "Thoroughbreds" is a pretty solid crime movie. It does not reinvent the wheel, but the performances are strong enough to carry the familiar plot. There is a pleasantly off-putting edge to the film, a feeling bolstered by Olivia Cooke's performance as Amanda. It is the kind of movie where it always feels like it is on the verge of going off-the-rails crazy; there is a sort of low-grade nervous tension that pervades the film. Ultimately things play out in a predictable manner, but there is always a feeling that things could take a weird turn, and I appreciate that there is at least the tease of something unexpected happening even if it never manifests. Corey Finley is definitely a director to keep an eye on, and I look forward to seeing what he does next.
Rating: 8/10
"Corey Finley's directorial debut features a familiar story with excellent performances."
"Thoroughbreds" is a crime film that generated a lot of buzz on the festival circuit last year, and it has finally hit theaters in limited release. I had heard good things about the film and was quite excited to see how it turned out. Does it live up to the hype? For the most part, yes. "Thoroughbreds" treads the same ground as many crime films before it, but it succeeds due to the exceptionally strong performances and its flashes of dark comedy.
The film follows Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy), a high school girl who rekindles her relationship with Amanda (Olivia Cooke), an old childhood friend. Amanda is emotionally disturbed and most likely a sociopath, which Lily finds morbidly fascinating. Lily begins spending more and more time with Amanda, partly out of her fascination and partly to annoy her obnoxious stepfather, Mark. Amanda is acutely aware of Lily's contempt for Mark and suggests that they simply kill him to solve the problem. Lily initially resists the idea, but after discovering her stepfather plans to ship her off to boarding school as a means of getting rid of her, she agrees to go through with the deed. The teenage duo enlists the help of Tim (the late Anton Yelchin), a sleazy small-time drug dealer, to carry out the murder. As with most crime films, things do not go as planned, and things spiral out of control.
Other movies before "Thoroughbreds" have dealt with petty crime schemes gone wrong ("Heathers" and "To Die For" come to mind when thinking of this film), but where this film succeeds is in its performances. First-time director Corey Finley comes to this film with a background in theater (the script for "Thoroughbreds" was even originally written as a stage play), so it makes sense that great emphasis is placed on the performances. Olivia Cooke is particularly captivating as Amanda. Her deadpan delivery gives her frequently disturbing dialogue a darkly comedic edge. She consistently elicited nervous laughter from the audience at the screening I attended, a mutual feeling of "is she really serious or is this all some sort of sick joke?". Anya Taylor-Joy plays off her costar quite well, transforming over the course of the film from a curious observer into a cunning manipulator as she becomes more actively involved in the murder plot. Anton Yelchin is also quite good as the cagey, pathetic drug dealer, one of the more outwardly comedic characters in the film. The screen chemistry between the three actors is excellent, and their shared scenes are some of the better ones in the film.
While the acting in the film is certainly enough for me to recommend the film, I wish the story had gone a bit further. The movie never quite gives a convincing enough reason for Lily to want to kill her stepfather. He is unbearably WASPish and is rude to both his wife and daughter, but his relationship with Lily never seems so tenuous that murder would ever enter the equation. Perhaps the intention was to satirically underscore Lily's status as a spoiled upper-crust rich kid living in Connecticut. However, not enough is made of that point for it to ever coalesce into something solid, so it winds up stretching suspension of disbelief that she would decide to resort to murder so quickly.
Overall, "Thoroughbreds" is a pretty solid crime movie. It does not reinvent the wheel, but the performances are strong enough to carry the familiar plot. There is a pleasantly off-putting edge to the film, a feeling bolstered by Olivia Cooke's performance as Amanda. It is the kind of movie where it always feels like it is on the verge of going off-the-rails crazy; there is a sort of low-grade nervous tension that pervades the film. Ultimately things play out in a predictable manner, but there is always a feeling that things could take a weird turn, and I appreciate that there is at least the tease of something unexpected happening even if it never manifests. Corey Finley is definitely a director to keep an eye on, and I look forward to seeing what he does next.
Rating: 8/10
Movie Review: Annihilation (2018)
Originally published 19 March 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/movie-review-annihilation-2018
"Does the new sci-fi thriller improve upon its source material, or does it fall prey to its own problems?"
"Annihilation" is a new sci-fi thriller from acclaimed writer/director Alex Garland ("Ex Machina"), based on the 2014 novel of the same name. When evaluating film adaptations of books, it can often be difficult to separate your feelings on the source material from the film's execution of events. It becomes all too easy to pick apart an adaptation because of inaccuracies to the book or casting decisions that do not reflect the reader's mental image of a given character, and so forth. Adapting books to screen, particularly a book like "Annihilation", which is focused on the main character's internal thoughts, is a difficult process and it is more useful to determine its measure of success on how closely the film captures the general idea and spirit of the source material rather than its accuracy of minutiae. On that note, the film adaptation of "Annihilation" fails both at capturing the spirit of the novel while also failing to work as a compelling thriller in its own right.
The film is told in flashbacks as Lena (Natalie Portman), a biologist, is interviewed in a government facility. She is the only surviving member of a group of five scientists who were sent to investigate a large swath of land known only as "the shimmer", an area subject to strange phenomena and from which no previous expedition had returned. Lena, it is revealed, was recruited onto the team after her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), inexplicably appeared in her home a year after his own expedition team disappeared in the shimmer. Both the government and Lena are want to find out what happened to Kane's team and why he is suddenly suffering from multiple organ failure after his return from the shimmer. As Lena and the expedition team venture into the shimmer, they notice strange mutations in the flora and fauna and begin to wonder if these mutations may be affecting them as well. After finding video footage of Kane's team mutilating a mutated crew member, Lena's expedition team begins to descend into paranoia as they advance toward their assigned destination point, a lighthouse.
The biggest problem I have with "Annihilation" is its lack of drive. There is never a sense of urgency in the story. The expedition team merely wanders from point to point, discovering clues at random intervals. Their destination is a lighthouse, but there is no urgency in the plot to get there. Even as the scientists are picked off by mutant creatures and the forces present in the shimmer, there is no sense of increased tension or rising action. We know that Lena will be the only survivor since she is recounting the story in flashbacks, which further hampers any chance at suspense. In particular, there is a scene in which the crew is attacked by a mutated bear creature. It is difficult to remain invested in the proceedings because we already know Lena will make it out alive; it is merely a question of which of the other scientists will get eaten, and the movie hardly cares enough about the supporting characters for me to care either. The other four members of the expeditions are varying degrees of bland, with a particularly underwhelming performance from Jennifer Jason Leigh. I think she was attempting reserved stoicism, but it comes across like she is half-asleep for most of her scenes.
My other issue with "Annihilation" is its lack of atmosphere. The shimmer is supposed to be uncanny and off-putting, a subtle distortion of normality. Unfortunately, the production design team took that to mean "make everything look like an oil slick rainbow". The movie is an eyesore, full of garish colors and lens flares. Hardly what I would call unsettling. Even the mutated plants and animals are underwhelming. There is fluorescent-colored lichen every now and then, and some weird flowers. How spooky. The creature design is limited to "what if regular animals had more teeth than normal, or maybe a skull face?". The concept of the uncanny, that not-quite-right unease, is a difficult one to achieve in movies, but "Annihilation" does not even try to make an attempt.
I wanted to like "Annihilation". The book is full of interesting ideas and an unsettling atmosphere but is too vague on many key plot details to really work as a whole. I had hoped that the film adaptation could improve on the novel's weaknesses and strengthen the ill-defined details, all while maintaining the creepy atmosphere of the uncanny and paranoia. While the film certainly does restructure the book (to the point where it barely resembles it), it does so in a way that does not improve upon the novel's structural issues. The flashbacks-within-flashbacks in the film are somehow even clunkier than the regular flashbacks in the novel. "Annihilation" is a film that does not work as an adaptation nor as a standalone work. I wish the movie had been better, but like many other book adaptations before it, maybe "Annihilation" just was not meant to be adapted to the screen.
Rating: 4/10
"Does the new sci-fi thriller improve upon its source material, or does it fall prey to its own problems?"
"Annihilation" is a new sci-fi thriller from acclaimed writer/director Alex Garland ("Ex Machina"), based on the 2014 novel of the same name. When evaluating film adaptations of books, it can often be difficult to separate your feelings on the source material from the film's execution of events. It becomes all too easy to pick apart an adaptation because of inaccuracies to the book or casting decisions that do not reflect the reader's mental image of a given character, and so forth. Adapting books to screen, particularly a book like "Annihilation", which is focused on the main character's internal thoughts, is a difficult process and it is more useful to determine its measure of success on how closely the film captures the general idea and spirit of the source material rather than its accuracy of minutiae. On that note, the film adaptation of "Annihilation" fails both at capturing the spirit of the novel while also failing to work as a compelling thriller in its own right.
The film is told in flashbacks as Lena (Natalie Portman), a biologist, is interviewed in a government facility. She is the only surviving member of a group of five scientists who were sent to investigate a large swath of land known only as "the shimmer", an area subject to strange phenomena and from which no previous expedition had returned. Lena, it is revealed, was recruited onto the team after her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac), inexplicably appeared in her home a year after his own expedition team disappeared in the shimmer. Both the government and Lena are want to find out what happened to Kane's team and why he is suddenly suffering from multiple organ failure after his return from the shimmer. As Lena and the expedition team venture into the shimmer, they notice strange mutations in the flora and fauna and begin to wonder if these mutations may be affecting them as well. After finding video footage of Kane's team mutilating a mutated crew member, Lena's expedition team begins to descend into paranoia as they advance toward their assigned destination point, a lighthouse.
The biggest problem I have with "Annihilation" is its lack of drive. There is never a sense of urgency in the story. The expedition team merely wanders from point to point, discovering clues at random intervals. Their destination is a lighthouse, but there is no urgency in the plot to get there. Even as the scientists are picked off by mutant creatures and the forces present in the shimmer, there is no sense of increased tension or rising action. We know that Lena will be the only survivor since she is recounting the story in flashbacks, which further hampers any chance at suspense. In particular, there is a scene in which the crew is attacked by a mutated bear creature. It is difficult to remain invested in the proceedings because we already know Lena will make it out alive; it is merely a question of which of the other scientists will get eaten, and the movie hardly cares enough about the supporting characters for me to care either. The other four members of the expeditions are varying degrees of bland, with a particularly underwhelming performance from Jennifer Jason Leigh. I think she was attempting reserved stoicism, but it comes across like she is half-asleep for most of her scenes.
My other issue with "Annihilation" is its lack of atmosphere. The shimmer is supposed to be uncanny and off-putting, a subtle distortion of normality. Unfortunately, the production design team took that to mean "make everything look like an oil slick rainbow". The movie is an eyesore, full of garish colors and lens flares. Hardly what I would call unsettling. Even the mutated plants and animals are underwhelming. There is fluorescent-colored lichen every now and then, and some weird flowers. How spooky. The creature design is limited to "what if regular animals had more teeth than normal, or maybe a skull face?". The concept of the uncanny, that not-quite-right unease, is a difficult one to achieve in movies, but "Annihilation" does not even try to make an attempt.
I wanted to like "Annihilation". The book is full of interesting ideas and an unsettling atmosphere but is too vague on many key plot details to really work as a whole. I had hoped that the film adaptation could improve on the novel's weaknesses and strengthen the ill-defined details, all while maintaining the creepy atmosphere of the uncanny and paranoia. While the film certainly does restructure the book (to the point where it barely resembles it), it does so in a way that does not improve upon the novel's structural issues. The flashbacks-within-flashbacks in the film are somehow even clunkier than the regular flashbacks in the novel. "Annihilation" is a film that does not work as an adaptation nor as a standalone work. I wish the movie had been better, but like many other book adaptations before it, maybe "Annihilation" just was not meant to be adapted to the screen.
Rating: 4/10
Movie Review: Piranha (1978)
Originally published 28 Feb 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/retro-review-piranha
"Jaws rip-off is technically impressive but not that fun to watch."
"Piranha" is a 1978 B-horror film from legendary producer Roger Corman. The movie was clearly made to cash in on the success of the 1975 blockbuster smash, "Jaws", swapping out one large killer fish for hordes of smaller ones. Despite being a blatant rip-off made for a quick buck, there is some amount of ingenuity behind the production. It is not enough to save the film, but the talent of the crew who would eventually go on to more respected work (the film's director, Joe Dante, would go on to greater acclaim with other creature features like "Gremlins" and "Small Soldiers") is quite evident.
The film's story is simple: during the Vietnam War, a secret government program developed a breed of mutant piranha to disrupt the Vietnamese ecosystem. The war ended, and the program shut down. The fish were supposed to be killed off, but some survived, breeding into large hordes, that of course eventually escape into the local river system and begin making their way downstream. It is then up to a plucky skip tracer (Heather Menzies) and a crusty backwoods recluse (Bradford Dillman) to save the day before the razor-toothed fish devour their way through a nearby summer camp and lakeside resort.
Not surprisingly, "Piranha" borrows many of the same techniques as "Jaws" in its presentation of its aquatic villains. The editing of the piranha attack scenes is actually quite brilliant if not a bit cheap. The film goes to great lengths to avoid showing the piranhas whenever possible, relying on shots of victims thrashing in the water and underwater point of view shots. This is perhaps for the best, because the few times we do see the killer fish, it is quite apparent that they are just puppets on sticks. Nonetheless, the editing is quite impressive: even though the trick is obvious, you buy it because it sold with conviction. When the piranha fish attack the protagonists' raft in the river, it is quite obvious there are no puppets in the water and someone is just pulling apart the log raft from underneath. However, due to the combination of sound effects and rapid cutting, the illusion actually works and you can almost buy into the scene. The film's editor, Mark Goldblatt, would later go on to edit action classics like "Commando" and "Terminator 2", and sequences like this and the resort massacre hint at the Oscar-nominated talent he would build later on in his career.
Unfortunately. technical smarts alone cannot save a film. The film has a scrappy determination, but the tone is confused. "Piranha" cannot decide whether or not it wants to be a horror-comedy or a serious film, and so it falls into a strange valley of tongue-in-cheek attitude that leaves feeling more like a fake movie that characters in a movie would be watching. The premise plays out straightforward, delivering its goofy exposition about secret government fish programs with stone-faced seriousness, but then other times the movie veers into comedy, like the scenes at the summer camp and the resort.
Perhaps it is the inclusion of Corman regulars Paul Bartel and Dick Miller in the cast that proves distracting, as both actors generally have a flair for the comedic in their roles. Perhaps it is that Joe Dante would eventually go on to direct more comedic films later on in his career, and "Piranha" was his testing ground for horror-comedy. Regardless, the little gags here and there (a woman is clearly seen reading "Moby Dick" on the lakeside before the piranhas attack the resort) leave the film in a strange state of not quite self-parody but not quite-self serious.
There is a lot to admire about "Piranha", especially given its outwardly crass commercial trappings. It is best viewed as the training ground of a crew of talented individuals who would hone their skills further on other, better films later in their careers. This is an interesting curiosity to view as a piece of work in the fledgling careers of Joe Dante, Mark Goldblatt, and even special effects technicians Phil Tippet ("Robocop", "Jurassic Park") and Rob Bottin ("The Howling", "The Thing").
Unfortunately, as an entertaining B-movie, it fails to deliver because it cannot commit fully to either being a comedy or a straight horror film. If you are really desperate for a killer fish movie, this is hardly the worst film you could watch, but you are certainly better off just sticking with "Jaws".
Rating: 5/10
"Jaws rip-off is technically impressive but not that fun to watch."
"Piranha" is a 1978 B-horror film from legendary producer Roger Corman. The movie was clearly made to cash in on the success of the 1975 blockbuster smash, "Jaws", swapping out one large killer fish for hordes of smaller ones. Despite being a blatant rip-off made for a quick buck, there is some amount of ingenuity behind the production. It is not enough to save the film, but the talent of the crew who would eventually go on to more respected work (the film's director, Joe Dante, would go on to greater acclaim with other creature features like "Gremlins" and "Small Soldiers") is quite evident.
The film's story is simple: during the Vietnam War, a secret government program developed a breed of mutant piranha to disrupt the Vietnamese ecosystem. The war ended, and the program shut down. The fish were supposed to be killed off, but some survived, breeding into large hordes, that of course eventually escape into the local river system and begin making their way downstream. It is then up to a plucky skip tracer (Heather Menzies) and a crusty backwoods recluse (Bradford Dillman) to save the day before the razor-toothed fish devour their way through a nearby summer camp and lakeside resort.
Not surprisingly, "Piranha" borrows many of the same techniques as "Jaws" in its presentation of its aquatic villains. The editing of the piranha attack scenes is actually quite brilliant if not a bit cheap. The film goes to great lengths to avoid showing the piranhas whenever possible, relying on shots of victims thrashing in the water and underwater point of view shots. This is perhaps for the best, because the few times we do see the killer fish, it is quite apparent that they are just puppets on sticks. Nonetheless, the editing is quite impressive: even though the trick is obvious, you buy it because it sold with conviction. When the piranha fish attack the protagonists' raft in the river, it is quite obvious there are no puppets in the water and someone is just pulling apart the log raft from underneath. However, due to the combination of sound effects and rapid cutting, the illusion actually works and you can almost buy into the scene. The film's editor, Mark Goldblatt, would later go on to edit action classics like "Commando" and "Terminator 2", and sequences like this and the resort massacre hint at the Oscar-nominated talent he would build later on in his career.
Unfortunately. technical smarts alone cannot save a film. The film has a scrappy determination, but the tone is confused. "Piranha" cannot decide whether or not it wants to be a horror-comedy or a serious film, and so it falls into a strange valley of tongue-in-cheek attitude that leaves feeling more like a fake movie that characters in a movie would be watching. The premise plays out straightforward, delivering its goofy exposition about secret government fish programs with stone-faced seriousness, but then other times the movie veers into comedy, like the scenes at the summer camp and the resort.
Perhaps it is the inclusion of Corman regulars Paul Bartel and Dick Miller in the cast that proves distracting, as both actors generally have a flair for the comedic in their roles. Perhaps it is that Joe Dante would eventually go on to direct more comedic films later on in his career, and "Piranha" was his testing ground for horror-comedy. Regardless, the little gags here and there (a woman is clearly seen reading "Moby Dick" on the lakeside before the piranhas attack the resort) leave the film in a strange state of not quite self-parody but not quite-self serious.
There is a lot to admire about "Piranha", especially given its outwardly crass commercial trappings. It is best viewed as the training ground of a crew of talented individuals who would hone their skills further on other, better films later in their careers. This is an interesting curiosity to view as a piece of work in the fledgling careers of Joe Dante, Mark Goldblatt, and even special effects technicians Phil Tippet ("Robocop", "Jurassic Park") and Rob Bottin ("The Howling", "The Thing").
Unfortunately, as an entertaining B-movie, it fails to deliver because it cannot commit fully to either being a comedy or a straight horror film. If you are really desperate for a killer fish movie, this is hardly the worst film you could watch, but you are certainly better off just sticking with "Jaws".
Rating: 5/10
January 6, 2020
Movie Review: Phase IV (1974)
Originally published 21 Feb 2018 on Odyssey at https://www.theodysseyonline.com/retro-review-phase-iv
"A cerebral sci-fi thriller like "Arrival," but with ants and a psychedelic 1970's flair."
"Phase IV" is the lone directorial effort from legendary graphic designer Saul Bass. He is known for his iconic logo designs for companies as varied as Kleenex and AT&T, and for his movie poster illustrations for films such as "Anatomy of a Murder" and "Vertigo". It may seem strange, then, that his sole foray into filmmaking is a cerebral and frequently psychedelic science fiction film about ants and their role in the ecosystem, which is a subject decidedly far removed from Kleenex or movie posters. "Phase IV" is a wholly unique experience, one that rides the line between dry documentary and abstract beauty. It doesn't entirely stick the execution overall, but it is an undeniably different cinematic experience.
The film centers on two scientists, Ernest Hubbs and James Lesko, who are investigating unusual ant activity in a rural Arizona community following an unknown celestial event. The local ant population has apparently undergone a rapid evolution, and have begun exhibiting signs of higher intelligence. The insects construct large, geometrically perfect obelisks in the desert, and appear to be attempting to communicate through their movements, similar to bees. The science team sets to work in a futuristic laboratory resembling the Epcot center, struggling to decode the cryptic messages of the ants. Are they trying to communicate with humanity? If so, what do they want? The clock is ticking, as the ants exhibit exceptionally aggressive behavior, killing any local wildlife that encroaches on the hive's territory, and driving the sparse human populace from their homes. The insects begin taking on sinister qualities, immunizing themselves against the scientists' array of pesticides and sabotaging equipment by short-circuiting the systems with hordes of worker ants. Will Hubbs and Lesko be able to crack the mysterious hive mind of the intelligent ants, or will the seemingly small threat prove to be too large for two men to handle?
The strength of "Phase IV" is its visual presentation. The ability to communicate weighty, abstract ideas through abstract montages of ant footage is an impressive feat. The ants are filmed in beautiful nature documentary style close-up by Ken Middleham (who also filmed the microphotography for the Academy Award-winning etymology documentary "The Hellstrom Chronicle") that casts them as creatures of an entrancing alien quality. By contrast, the two human scientists are constantly dwarfed by their own mechanical surroundings, like some high tech ant farm cross-section. The contrasts of organic and mechanical surroundings raise many interesting ideas about the role of our increasing mechanization of the environment. Outwardly, the movie may be about two scientists trying to talk to ants, but the movie brushes with many interesting environmental concerns that were popular talking points in the 1970s. The implications are sinister: if something as small as an ant can throw the entire ecosystem out of balance, how badly are we screwing things up on a grander scale? Ultimately, the film takes a bit of a compromise and settles for "2001: A Space Odyssey" style psychedelic visuals as a substitute for any sort of concrete answers to the admittedly broad questions it raises. Although, to be fair, the only way the film could have given any kind of concrete resolution would probably have required some form of lengthy narration, which would derail the film's hypnotic flow.
"Phase IV" is a film completely unlike any I've ever seen. It takes Michael Crichton style hard science fiction and fuses it with an otherworldly mysticism. The results are flawed, leaning a bit too much into the hippie psychedelia for its own good at times, but it's undeniably fascinating to watch. If you enjoyed the intense linguistic science of Denis Villeneuve's "Arrival", this is certainly worth looking into. There's nothing else quite like it.
Rating: 7/10
"A cerebral sci-fi thriller like "Arrival," but with ants and a psychedelic 1970's flair."
"Phase IV" is the lone directorial effort from legendary graphic designer Saul Bass. He is known for his iconic logo designs for companies as varied as Kleenex and AT&T, and for his movie poster illustrations for films such as "Anatomy of a Murder" and "Vertigo". It may seem strange, then, that his sole foray into filmmaking is a cerebral and frequently psychedelic science fiction film about ants and their role in the ecosystem, which is a subject decidedly far removed from Kleenex or movie posters. "Phase IV" is a wholly unique experience, one that rides the line between dry documentary and abstract beauty. It doesn't entirely stick the execution overall, but it is an undeniably different cinematic experience.
The film centers on two scientists, Ernest Hubbs and James Lesko, who are investigating unusual ant activity in a rural Arizona community following an unknown celestial event. The local ant population has apparently undergone a rapid evolution, and have begun exhibiting signs of higher intelligence. The insects construct large, geometrically perfect obelisks in the desert, and appear to be attempting to communicate through their movements, similar to bees. The science team sets to work in a futuristic laboratory resembling the Epcot center, struggling to decode the cryptic messages of the ants. Are they trying to communicate with humanity? If so, what do they want? The clock is ticking, as the ants exhibit exceptionally aggressive behavior, killing any local wildlife that encroaches on the hive's territory, and driving the sparse human populace from their homes. The insects begin taking on sinister qualities, immunizing themselves against the scientists' array of pesticides and sabotaging equipment by short-circuiting the systems with hordes of worker ants. Will Hubbs and Lesko be able to crack the mysterious hive mind of the intelligent ants, or will the seemingly small threat prove to be too large for two men to handle?
The strength of "Phase IV" is its visual presentation. The ability to communicate weighty, abstract ideas through abstract montages of ant footage is an impressive feat. The ants are filmed in beautiful nature documentary style close-up by Ken Middleham (who also filmed the microphotography for the Academy Award-winning etymology documentary "The Hellstrom Chronicle") that casts them as creatures of an entrancing alien quality. By contrast, the two human scientists are constantly dwarfed by their own mechanical surroundings, like some high tech ant farm cross-section. The contrasts of organic and mechanical surroundings raise many interesting ideas about the role of our increasing mechanization of the environment. Outwardly, the movie may be about two scientists trying to talk to ants, but the movie brushes with many interesting environmental concerns that were popular talking points in the 1970s. The implications are sinister: if something as small as an ant can throw the entire ecosystem out of balance, how badly are we screwing things up on a grander scale? Ultimately, the film takes a bit of a compromise and settles for "2001: A Space Odyssey" style psychedelic visuals as a substitute for any sort of concrete answers to the admittedly broad questions it raises. Although, to be fair, the only way the film could have given any kind of concrete resolution would probably have required some form of lengthy narration, which would derail the film's hypnotic flow.
"Phase IV" is a film completely unlike any I've ever seen. It takes Michael Crichton style hard science fiction and fuses it with an otherworldly mysticism. The results are flawed, leaning a bit too much into the hippie psychedelia for its own good at times, but it's undeniably fascinating to watch. If you enjoyed the intense linguistic science of Denis Villeneuve's "Arrival", this is certainly worth looking into. There's nothing else quite like it.
Rating: 7/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)