The Cursed

Not your grandad's werewolf story. Actually, it's more like your great-great grandad's werewolf story, and that's exactly what makes it stand out. Watching it, I could almost believe that it was adapted from some gothic horror story written in the late 1800's, when the story is set.

Sean Ellis wrote, directed, and did his own cinematography work. 

Originally titled Eight for Silver, referencing the old nursery rhyme, because silver naturally plays an important role. But changed to the more mundane The Cursed because the plot also heavily features a curse set on an old English estate by a band of gypsies who are murdered when they try to stake a claim on the land. The movie takes its time in getting started, establishing the Laurent family and showing the ill-advised murders in grisly detail, as well as the set of silver wolf's teeth a gypsy witch fashions for the curse. It's not until the children dig up the teeth and one of them gets bitten, subsequently disappearing, that the story's hero comes on scene—McBride, a pathologist, who has experience in these strange circumstances.

From there McBride drives the story, the setup so thorough and detailed that the plot glides along effortlessly on its strength. We know many beats of the story already; people will be attacked, the survivors changing too, until McBride closes in on the beast and discovers how to stop it. A classic in many ways. There's appeal in a classic story told well for me, but there's also a fresh appeal in this one's approach. Details of the creature design, origin and behavior which bring out the eerie and bleak style of horror. The character of the family involved. And most of all for me, the period setting, and location. The house, the village and the surrounding woods all make for a memorable, creepy, and gorgeous visual for the story to live in—a crucial element for gothic tales.

The imagery of the silver teeth was a great touch. There are many good details like that.

I have a soft spot for the sort of low-tech horror that happens here. Someone taking the time to load their muzzleloader rifle before firing an important shot brings the same sort of suspense as a modern-day scene wishes it could when it makes characters suddenly clumsy in their panic to load something that should take two seconds. The army takes days to arrive unlike modern cops, so there is no need to fabricate a reason why outside help doesn't come. Suddenly a single threat becomes so monstrous that you wonder how it will ever be dealt with. A great example of how less is more. Without having to overblow the horror element to get attention, the film has plenty of spare time to spend on character and lore development. 

While it's not my new favorite movie or anything, I'm at a loss for any significant flaw here. The one thing that comes to mind is that Boyd Holbrook isn't British, and that is apparent when he speaks next to his British castmates. He errs on the subtle side mostly which is smart, but sometimes he'll say something that just plain sounds wrong. I enjoy watching Holbrook far too much to care though. And as far as performance goes, everyone hits the spot. Besides the spotty accent, Holbrook feels every bit the gothic horror hero, balancing that simple and able determination of old-fashioned leads with the undercurrent of past wounds that keeps audiences engaged. Kelly Reilly's soft strength is perfect for the mother, as is complex coldness Alistair Petrie brings to the father. The children are excellent, and the supporting cast a vital and winning addition.

The daughter's old timey accent was flawless.

The slow, depressed gothic approach to the horror element won't be for people looking for a more intense, action-heavy, or scream-inducing horror experience, but it gets the tone exactly right for my tastes. It's the sort of movie you can dig into—and one that digs into you right back. The ending seals it all into a neat and emotionally resonate package, leading me to the observation that this is a story of singular vision; written, directed, and even shot by the same man. And with minimal interference, his vision comes through with deft skill and purposeful heart. I would praise it for that even if I didn't find much personal worth in the story itself. The Cursed or Eight for Silver, whatever it is called, this monster movie of old-fashioned sensibilities is worth seeking out.

In the Shadow of the Moon

Spoilers. Spoilers galore.

This movie starts out so well. Set in 1988 and starring Boyd Holbrook as a beat cop who latches onto a strange serial killer case, it's pulpy scifi noir, and I thought had a great chance of being one of my favorite pure-fun movies this year. But that was just the first five or ten minutes; by the time it ends, it's worked its way into being one of the most trite, self-righteous, garbage movies of the year instead.

It's like he's trying to do penance for being a man. Just keep elevating fun movies! Don't throw your career away on guilt-ridden garbage!

What caused the decline? As with most movies of recent days that have fantastic premises but flop into miserable piles of wasted opportunity, it boils down to an agenda. Films should have agendas; if they didn't, they'd never be anything but an unstructured mess of nothings. Most movies have an agenda to entertain, tell a meaningful story, or show a character grow into a better person. To be art! This movie's agenda? To promote an idea; the idea that some ideas should be restricted and punishable by death.

This movie says that if you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, you should do that, but not even to stop there, but kill his family and anyone who might have influenced him. (Otherwise they may simply influence someone else into being "Hitler.") It declares that to be a moral good and doesn't ever offer a counterargument. We follow the lead down the rabbit hole as he chases a murder suspect who reappears every nine years. He grows older and falls further away from his daughter in his obsession, until finally he is taught -- like in a Sunday school lesson time -- that the murderer is good, and that he must accept her deeds as such because one day he will believe as she does, and be the one to teach it to her in the first place.

This is the Antifa version of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl.

Plot twist! She's a time-traveler. And his granddaughter. When he first met her in '88, he killed her, and in 2015 when these realizations come, it is too late for him to fix anything, though she hasn't gone through it yet. Also, he's made a miserable life for himself and his daughter over the past 27 years, and none of his action resulted in anything. Understandably, he's upset. So, what happens after that? Nothing. He accepts it all like the good, contrived fictional character he is, and the film wraps up with a hopeful sermonette on the importance of saving the future by any means or some such BS.

Because the future is apocalyptic and the lead's granddaughter's mission is to kill just the right people in the past, whether they be innocent or guilty, to prevent the apocalypse. It's like if Skynet were presented as the good guys. They'd blame John Connor for the war (he did resist their takeover, after all!) and use that to justify killing Sarah Connor and anyone else who gets in the way. Their ultimate goal is to prevent a war! How could you possibly call that evil??

The movie aims to never allow the validity of their moral reasoning to come into question. There's no debate presented within the movie's pondering, and though the lead is crazed to stop the killer, he never argues with her once she explains her actions. She's clearly the twist good guy, and he is clearly just ignorant; misunderstanding the situation. This winds up hitting the movie's quality down from two directions. First, who is ever going to enjoy a movie where that boring monstrosity is the lead's arc? The film ends at his lowest point and he's never given a chance to overcome anything, decide anything, or have ultimate triumph. The "triumph" is taken from him and given to his granddaughter, who never earns her spot as hero.

Makes me want to watch The Predator. A dumb fun movie where he gets to be heroic. 

Secondly, it hits the movie from a messaging standpoint. These days all movies seem to have a message of some kind -- and by that I mean a meaning to takeaway that is intentionally added by the filmmakers. All good art has meaning of some kind, but I remember a day when that meaning was merely what the viewer saw in the art. And nowadays most films will add a little straw-man counter argument at least, so they can knock it down easily and make their message look even better. I suppose this movie was afraid of counterarguments. And well it should be; all it takes is for someone to point out that killing an innocent person is morally wrong, and the whole movie crumbles like a house of cards made of dry sand.

This whole movie is like if you were to cook a spaghetti noodle by dipping it incrementally deeper in the hot water. (The hot water is a metaphor for all this movie's indoctrinating hot air.) The end of the noodle you'd hold onto is the extremely solid premise and set-up. Then the longer the noodle soaks in the garbage water, the softer and limper it becomes until by the end it disintegrates into nothing -- overcooked until its structure fails.

The evil ideas on a pedestal here eat into every aspect of the movie. If they don't directly influence it, they distract from anything that could be worthwhile as the filmmakers clearly don't care about constructing a clever scifi mystery at all. The scifi and time-travel is a means to an end, never explained beyond a vague "the moon allows for it." They don't care about character, or they wouldn't have destroyed their lead to make their point. And they don't care about entertaining through world building or visuals or anything else. Good actors give lazy and contrived performances, and the action is messy, and unforgivably bland.

The antithesis of Minority Report. And Minority Report had the good grace to present the appeal of the other side.

I can ignore bad, even evil ideas if the rest of the movie is good and high-quality. I can even ignore if a movie is low-quality in technical aspects but at least has an entertaining story. I was open to forgive this movie's horrible progressively worsening slog of preaching and cheap storytelling; all it needed was to give me one solid thing to hold onto. One. It had a gigantic head start, being two sub-genres deep into my favorite genre, and starring someone who makes even the worst crap worth watching, playing a character set up with great potential.

How they lost it is almost beyond me. Almost. They failed and lost because even though their starting point was two steps away from a successful finish line, when the race began, they sprinted backwards. In the Shadow of the Moon is the sad and frustrating proof that any movie can ruin itself if it tries hard enough.

The Predator

Spoiler-free.

When a Predator crashes to earth, military sniper McKenna (Boyd Holbrook) accidentally meets him. Oops. But survives. Also oops. The government finds him, and on his way to be permanently silenced, accidentally becomes leader of a rag-tag group of other damaged soldiers, including Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, and Thomas Jane. No oops. Scientist Casey (Olivia Munn) joins them too, to balance out the testosterone.

Meanwhile McKenna's son Rory (Jacob Tremblay), super smart and on the spectrum, wears the Predator's mask and gauntlet out on Halloween. The Predator wants it back. And leader of the government alien research, Traeger (Sterling K. Brown) wants it too. Let the action begin.

I'd like to admit that I had a blast with this, but I did go with low expectations. But also a small bias. 

The film is pretty basic, but don't confuse basic for dumb. It's basic in that it has a straightforward, one-note goal of being entertaining every second of its run time. To achieve that, it has a lot going on under the surface. The plot is pretty complicated for the amount of time in which we are presented it. The beginning almost feels like jumping into the middle of a story, as we aren't introduced to the characters until after the plot is set on its course. Exposition is saved for later, once the ball is rolling. That way, taking a little time to explain and establish the characters doesn't stall the pace.

It's like, wham, there's a character. You know he's the lead because he's the first person shown, not because the script, or the shot, or the music tells you. Or, you know she's a main character because important, shady-looking people come and ask for her immediate help. Then wham, you're at a scene. Plot things happen. Wham, next scene. Et cetera. Any normal action film would've taken 30 mins to accomplish what this one did in 20 -- just by knowing what's fat and how to effectively trim it. It's a little jarring, but not in a way that's at all inappropriate to the genre.

Pictured: Director Shane Black eliminating the unnecessary.  

You could almost say the movie never gets started, but the truth is, by the time we join, it's already going full speed. We get to use common sense to play catch up, while being fed new information, and paying attention to the constant banter, all at the same time. It's easy enough, but for a "mindless movie" it's impressively engaging. Oh, and that banter. On paper, nothing but dumb and cheesy to actual cringe, but with a perfect storm of the actors' delivery, ultra-brisk editing, and a care-free, self-aware attitude, it became not only pleasant instead of painful, but downright hilarious at times. And there's no wallowing in jokes until they stink; they're still crisp and fresh as we move on to the next.

This pacing works wonders for the plot and action side, never giving us a chance to get bored, but it's also one of the film's biggest weaknesses, as it never allows a slow moment to linger for long enough. There are slow moments, for the use of character developing, but never as much as I wanted. The lingering is only for as long as there's new character information to show. As someone who doesn't mind sacrificing action for character, I wouldn't have minded a few more exchanges between McKenna and his son -- and his ex-wife (Yvonne Strahovski) too. I wish she had been Casey's character, actually. Casey didn't turn out to be much more than the Token Female Character.

I also thought it was funny how Casey would be cool one second and then oddly incompetent the next. 

The other ex-soldiers are basically red-shirts with unique and fun personalities, though the three I mentioned at the top do grow further than that. They're well-defined, a large bunch, yet easy to keep straight, and when character is touched on it works well, and more was wanting. Sterling K. Brown's villain was all he needed to be: super cool. But naturally, McKenna was my favorite. I heard of this movie's existence fresh off of Logan introducing me to Boyd Holbrook, and a year or so of anticipation later, I wasn't let down. He borders on straightforward action hero, but takes on what meat of the story there is like a pro; puts oomph into the drama, and fun into the bantering action sequences.

I even managed to pick out some themes, which I didn't expect at all halfway through this gleefully bloody fight-and-jabber fest. One, put as close to the front burner as the action would allow, is about how people we might see as damaged in one way or another are simply valuable in unique ways. And the other nearly counters it in the narrative, but instead they work together. That heroes don't have to be the one labeled as important. The Predator judges things by black and white. The facts removed from circumstance. But there's no accounting for the human spirit, and the drive of determination that love can bring. I'm not sure how intentional that one was, but it occurred to me, so I'm taking it.

The Predator franchise has been very kind to me. I'm also a big fan of Adrien Brody.

There's also a lot of bizarre details scattered around that I appreciated for the way they twisted convention. At one point, someone smashes a chair on another person -- but the chair doesn't break. The chair always breaks, but not here. Also, the scene involving the ship and the force field. Since when has the logistics of that kind of tech ever been explored? But it was, and then utilized for awesome results. That scene is a perfect sample of the whole movie. You know what needs to happen, but don't have a clue how; then the How is creative, yet doesn't require pace-slowing explanation, and plays out thrillingly.

Like I said, the pacing is the biggest flaw. It felt like stepping over hot, poolside pavement without shoes on. You want to slow down to smell the metaphorical roses but can't; and running is against the rules, so you keep stepping this relentless brisk but even pace. There were places they could've slowed; to build tension, act structure, and character. But that's the sort of thing that I won't mind come a second view, and hardly mind now. In fact, I daresay the pacing was intentional, and the result was worth the sacrifice. Also there's some odd editing going on, that when paired with the hot-pavement pace, confuses the action a few times and makes it hard to tell where people are.

The practical effects look awesome. The CGI is noticeable but overall perfectly fine.

I know this movie isn't great. Certainly not in a conventional way. But it tried some things differently, and I say the experiments worked out. It feels random at times, but you can tell it wasn't tossed together haphazardly. There's real effort and intention behind it -- it merely comes through in different ways. And a lack of exceptionalism isn't a huge blow, given the genre. It's an alien-monster action flick, so an astounding cinematic experience wasn't the goal. The goal was to be fun and entertaining in a fresh, unique way, and in that it totally succeeded.

And so, in the future, when I want to experience this particular brand of unusually amusing and crazy scifi monster action, I'll know exactly which movie to hunt down.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - September

Well, I didn't get out to see any of my August picks. I thought I might not, but I'm still looking forward to most of them, so I'll just have to catch them later. I mostly stayed home and played catch-up on some earlier 2018 releases: The Endless, The Hurricane Heist, Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society, and Rampage.

I did go to the theater though -- Dad and I went to see 2001: A Space Odyssey for it's 50th anniversary. It was a cool experience, definitely more powerful and effective on a big screen with cranked up sound! It's a fascinating film, and I seem to enjoy it more with each rewatch.

Hopefully I'll get to the theater this month -- there's at least one that I'm hoping to get out for! Not a huge spread this month, as summer wraps up, but definitely still some interesting ones! What looks good to you?


Cold Skin
Sept 7th; NR
I know, I know. I know what this looks like, and I know there's no way it's a really good movie -- but I want to see it anyway. It's the kind of lower-rate fantasy action horror that I enjoy. At the very least it has a memorable premise and setting. Ray Stevenson in in it, and the main actor, David Oakes I've seen around the block on Masterpiece productions.




The Predator
Sept 14th; R
My boy Boyd Holbrook leading a Predator movie? After Logan I'd watch him in anything, but with how much I enjoyed Adrien Brody's take on a Predator hero, I get the impression that this is going to be a real treat. Maybe I should try and watch the original first though. I never got around to that one. Also I'm not sure this one looks as good as Predators, but even if it isn't, it would take a lot to keep me from enjoying it! Jacob Tremblay, Tom Jane, and apparently Yvonne Strahovski are also in it. So, that's extra cool. If I had to pick only one movie to see this month, at the moment this would be it! (Red band trailer.)

 



Patient Zero
Sept 14th; R
Alright, now that's what I'm talking about! This is what I was hoping for whenever Matt Smith left Doctor Who -- that he'd get to star in original movies that were fun but expanded from Who. (I was super disappointed at his role in Terminator Genysis, and then he was still underused in P&P&Z) But this looks neat. Zombies, but a new and imaginative take on them. And he's the lead. At this point I don't even care if it's bad. I mean, I'd watch it anyway because I like zombie flicks. Also, there's Natalie Dormer and Stanley Tucci, and Stanley Tucci is always a good idea.




A Simple Favor
Sept 14th; R
I don't want to watch this so much as I just want to know then result of the mystery. The style is appealing. It claims noir, and the plot has a noir tone, and it reminds me a bit of Thoroughbreds, but then I found that it's directed by Paul Feig and I'm wondering if it'll really have that style or if it's just an effective trailer and good marketing.




I Think We're Alone Now
Sept 14th; R
One of THOSE scifi movies. I'm a fan. Well, I mean, I like slow and cerebral scifi, anyway. This trailer really wants you to know how art-house-y it is, and otherwise reveals so little -- besides that it's got Peter Dinklage and Elle Fanning, everyone else is dead, there's some white X's on the ground, and it's all super dramatic -- that I don't have anything to say except I'll probably watch it just because I like scifi.



The House with a Clock in it's Walls
Sept 21st; PG
After the unusually enjoyable Goosebumps movie, kid's fantasy movies with Jack Black have an extra appeal for me. Ooh, and Steven Spielberg produced. And Cate Blanchett. She's golden. The kid looks like Jacob Tremblay, but it's not him. Based on a book and you should know what I think about that by now! (It's generally a good sign.) It's like Harry Potter lite, with more little-kid fantasy. Yep, I want to see this.




Life Itself
Sept 21st; R
Okay, but do all the story lines connect? It looks like it's gonna be one of those Love Actually things where there's only a loose connection and so many stories because one wasn't meaty enough to make a whole movie. That the impression I just got, anyway, but hey, I'll watch it. I'll watch it for Oscar Isaac and Olivia Cooke, and also for Olivia Wilde and Mandy Patinkin.




The Old Man & the Gun
Sept 28th; PG-13
Robert Redford's last movie before he retires from acting, apparently where he plays a gentleman bank-robber, and Sissy Spacek becomes his Bonnie. It looks like a very nice and well made film, though not exactly the sort I'd watch out of interest for the plot. Still I'll keep my eye on it and the reviews and maybe something about it will catch my fancy. At this point in my life, Redford's older movies are higher on my priority list.




Black 47
Sept 28th; R
Nice. Hardcore Irish revenge drama in 1847, during the famine. Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, Freddy Fox, and Barry Keoghan. The lead I've not seen before -- no wait, I have, in Animal Kingdom. Anyway, I like the idea of violent period dramas, most of the one's I ever watch are more on the romance side, and Dickens is the darkest it gets. On the downside of that though, more tragic and meaningless character deaths (I can only assume) because of the famine, a real-life thing, which is sad. Still it looks like it's worth a watch.




Summer 03
Sept 28th; NR
Haha, so this is for kids who wanted to like Lady Bird but it turned out to be too meaningful and not romantically cliched enough, right? Kids that probably don't even remember the early 2000's. I do, and being catholic wasn't unusually popular. So the fact that this movie has it as well as Lady Bird which was set only a year later, seems like a rather big coincidence. That's all I have to say. I don't want to watch this movie. (And I don't really care if it's Lady Bird lite either.) (On another note it feels super weird to me that so many movies are being set "back" in the 2000's. Like, it feels like it just happened yesterday. Is it really vintage already??) (ALSO I generally love coming of age movies, but the sexual ones are literally the worst???) Okay I'm really done now. Have a nice day!

The Host

Sometimes I watch movies and don't review them. I'm unsure why I'm not doing that in this case, because to be perfectly honest I'm not exactly proud that I watched this one. That is to say, it's downright embarrassing, and one of my more shameful movie choices. I knew what I was getting into, yet here we are. Why did I watch it, you ask? Let me paint you a picture:

It was the night after I watched Logan for the first time, and the rest of my family was not ready to watch it again. I was (and for the record still am) freshly enamored with the easy to love and fun to hate snide chatterbox of a villain of Logan, and the actor who played him, Boyd Holbrook. A quick perusal of his IMDb page informed me that I had only seen him in one movie previously, (A Walk Among the Tombstones, where he had a small role I barely noticed) and was in three more movies I immediately knew I had easy access to. And one, as you've probably guessed by now, was The Host, which I had casually plopped into my Netflix cue on the excuse that it was an Andrew Niccol film, with a vague inclination to watch it if I had nothing better to do and was in the mood to kill some brain cells. It's amazing how fast a vague inclination can turn into a legit interest with the proper incentive. I was like, "hey, let's watch this," and in my defense, no one protested.

And in their defense they liked this guy in Logan as much as I did.

But enough of the disclaimers. Movie review. The Host. I feel like the most accurate review I can make is to give a hearty laugh while waving my hand dismissively, but I'm a writer, so I suppose I should try and put it in words.

Spoilers beyond!

In the movie, Earth has been invaded by parasitic aliens who posses humans and take over their lives. At the very beginning, our heroine Melanie (Saoirse Ronan), a human rebel is caught and possessed by an alien called Wanderer, who, it turns out is nice -- unlike the villain (Diane Kruger) -- and when Melanie's mind refuses to leave the body to the invader, the two form an unconventional friendship. Wanderer gets to control the body, and Melanie yells things in her head. Wanderer turns to Melanie's side and runs away in search of Melanie's brother (Chandler Canterbury) and hunk boyfriend (Max Irons). She finds them along with her uncle (William Hurt) and other human survivors -- including a good looking dude named Jake Abel, I mean Ian, and his brother Kyle AKA Boyd Holbrook (AKA "oh yeah, that's why I'm watching this") -- who have a cute little community going on in some caves in the desert. Melanie's family assumes that she is dead, but conveniently decides not to kill the alien possessing her. Meanwhile Melanie inconveniently decides that telling them she's still inside is a bad idea, so Wanderer keeps quiet about it, causing some very convenient drama.

You can tell the possessed because the alien parasite makes their eyes glow blue. Also probably worth mentioning; Stephenie Meyer wrote the novel.

If you're thinking this doesn't make any sense, that's because you're right, it doesn't. The aliens are pacifists, trying to make the worlds they conquer peaceful, yet more often than not possession kills the host. (Hey, that's the name of the movie!) They're so "pure" we're told, they are incapable of picking up a gun. The villain is, however, conveniently able to for some magical reason, and shoots and kills people which in the movie's eyes make her infinitely worse than every other alien who kills by kicking souls out of bodies. This issue is brought up by "antagonistic" human characters to create conflict, but is never resolved.

For their part, the humans will go out, kidnap aliens, and forcibly remove the alien soul, which has a 100% fatality rate for both parties. They don't know how to remove the soul properly, but don't know what else to do, so they keep trying. This I suppose could balance the morality of both sides, making them equally wrong, but instead what the humans are doing is presented as barbaric. It never seems to dawn on Wanderer (Wanda for short, who's really the main character) that what her people are doing is at least equally terrible. Anyway the movie uses the conflict for drama when it wants and ignores it when it wants. On to lighter, sillier things.

Ship ship ship ship ship ship ship ship ship ship ship ship...

Love triangles! Yay. Actually it isn't quite. Melanie and Jared are consistently in love, but it's super awkward for him seeing "Melanie" walking around not being Melanie... especially when something starts growing between Wanda and Ian. The more you think about this the weirder it gets, because Wanda is literally just a parasite that is thousands of years old. Ian insists that he fell in love with her mind, but why in the world should their minds be compatible? And she could have fallen in love with anyone, why the guy who is a good physical match for her? Also he tried to kill her, but bygones I guess, or, whatever.

So with Jared being possessive of the girl who looks like and is possessing his girl, and the girl who looks like his girl liking someone else, but being hesitant to do anything about it because the real girl is in her head yelling at her not to, things really do feel like a love triangle; only, one that was created to have a happy ending for all involved. Yes, this scifi plot exists for the sole (soul!) purpose of enabling ideal romantic situations for its characters. It's truly amazing how many situations are contrived to bring about kissing too. I am actually impressed. It was as if that, and not the plot or the characters were the point of the movie or something. Odd, but that couldn't be, right?

Hahahaha... ha... RIGHT??

Now I'm going to talk about Kyle even though he's pretty insignificant to the plot and the entire point of the movie, because, I want to. He's the main human antagonist, which is an unnecessary and therefore small part, but I watched this movie because of him, and danged if he wasn't the best part. At one point he tries to kill Wanda, but plagued by the convenient writing, almost dies himself instead. Wanda saves him (against Melanie's protests) and then even lies about what happened to protect him from punishment. This is a good moment for Wanda, and also for him, and I enjoyed Holbrook's performance in that scene as the bad guy who suddenly finds he has to rethink everything after being given some unexpected and very undeserved grace.

Overall the entire cast isn't bad either, but campy writing can bring a bad performance out of anyone. Saoirse Ronan's Wanda was a good lead, but Melanie is underdeveloped. Being a disembodied voice for the majority of the movie did her no favors. She has decent chemistry with her two co-stars, which was important for what the film wanted to be. Jake Abel's Ian was much more interesting than Max Irons' Jared, who was about as blank as Melanie, even with screen time. Ian and Wanda were fundamentally more interesting because of the way we get to see their relationship develop. It ends with a bit of a cringe though, because while Ronan and Abel had chemistry, Abel and Emily Browning did not -- she being the empty body that Wanda is transferred to in the twist ending, giving Melanie hers back. Browning was only there a couple minutes, but was spectacularly incapable of convincing that she was the most developed character in the film once she took over.

That twist ending should have won an award for Most Obvious Twist Ending Ever.

This review is already way longer than it deserves to be, so I guess I'll wrap up. The movie succeeds in being what it was conceived and designed to be. Oxymoronic connoisseurs of YA romance are perfectly catered to, and as long as they have no perception of what actual good, artistic filmmaking looks like, satisfaction is guaranteed. The small part of me that enjoys teenage romance flicks was mildly amused. The scifi fan in me was both intrigued (by the premise) and irritated (by the lazy and one-note direction it took). And the movie reviewer-me is absolutely appalled at the senseless plotting and cheap scripting used to contrive laughable romance, but still had fun cracking up at all those unintentionally hilarious moments this movie deals out like glowing blue eyes and pointless make-out sessions. In conclusion: It was a terrible movie, and time well spent!

Logan

Spoiler-free.

I finally got the Blu-ray and watched Hugh Jackman's last run as The Wolverine, and I am here to confirm that it is indeed an R-rated superhero film. I also believe that it is an ideal R-rated superhero film. Mainly because it doesn't stop at being R-rated, and it doesn't stop at being a superhero film. It understands that those things alone cannot a great film make, and like its hero, it does not stop.

My copy also came with a black and white "noir" version. Looking forward to watching that.

I always find that the best superhero flicks are what you might call "superhero plus." Examples: Guardians of the Galaxy; superheroes plus space opera. Ant-Man; superhero plus heist film. Captain America: The Winter Soldier; superhero, spy film. It's a good way to make your comic book film stand out in this tired and over-saturated market, and the further you veer from "superhero" to "plus" the more naturally original the film appears to be. And now, here's Logan -- a western film, in everything except the almost throwaway fact that Logan is a superhuman mutant.

He's not even invulnerable anymore as the Adamantium that makes up his skeleton is leeching into his body and poisoning him, slowing his healing abilities and sticking him with a bad cough to boot. Now he limps through the film, scarred, weary, and haggard. Almost not even recognizable anymore -- almost. Logan is so different from what we've seen of him before, but truly it's more as if we've never seen him accurately before now, and this bitter, grimacing old man with bloodshot eyes is the true and honest version of Logan -- one the PG-13 movies were forced to hide from us. Even in those toned-down flicks Hugh Jackman has never taken a misstep playing his iconic character, and with his dedication everything he does as Logan is guaranteed to be optimal; here, even going so much darker and deeper and pushing the boundaries further than ever, it is no different. He is Logan, through and through. Maybe I should feel more impressed as it is an impressive performance, but it is also no surprise.

With the realistic futuristic tech and the fantastic aging makeup, it truly feels like a film from the near future.

I was impressed, however, by Sir Patrick Stewart's equally aged and reshaped Charles Xavier. My logical mind knows he is a superbly talented actor perfectly capable of complex performances. The rest of me completely bought that there was a feeble old man with dementia on the screen. With the combination of the performance with the makeup Charles is suddenly so much more than the honestly flat and uninteresting straightforward mentor he used to be. Now he is sad and complicated and a magnificent mixture of harrowing and funny. The all-important make-or-break element of the film was the little girl Laura, played by Dafne Keen. With great screen presence she pulls off the part from the beginning, and from there only continues to add to the impressiveness as more about the character is continually revealed. The animalistic intensity of her fighting -- on par with Wolverine's -- is excellent and sells the risky character.

And with how reliable Jackman is, and how necessary the R was, she was probably the film's only risk. Paid off.

The dark horse for favorite character is the villain, Pierce, played by Boyd Holbrook. In such a hard and intense film is nice to have that one character who's determined to enjoy himself, and that's what this guy is. He likes the sound of his voice, and he likes his mechanical hand, and he likes his villainous position, and he's out there to make the most of it all. This might be an apt description of the actor as well -- and I'd say they both succeed. At any rate he's an easy-going, casually antagonistic kind of character that finds a delightful balance between charming and sinister. I found myself looking forward to his appearances and growing happier whenever he survived another scene. When Richard E. Grant showed up playing his superior, I was afraid he'd be replaced as the main villain and forgotten, but that doesn't happen, though Grant gets his time to shine creepily as well. Also worth a mention is Stephen Merchant as Caliban. I imagine I'd appreciate the part more if I knew the character previously, but the value of his inclusion was not lost on me.

Just keep on rockin' that neck tattoo, bud! (between starting this review and finishing it, I've seen him in two more movies, but no I'm not obsessed why would you think that.)

With no rating holding back the filmmakers from exploring the deep recesses of these characters and shaping a unique heart out of the mature fodder, the film's themes and emotional focus take on unusual shape. It is, again, much more western than anything else, and the issues at hand follow that theme. Though in our world the story wouldn't make news, the stakes -- personal, fleshed out, and tightly focused on -- seem huge. Bigger and more important even, than the traditional end-of-the-world plots of the X-Men of yore. The destruction is small but the impact is massive. And you don't need an R-rating to get that, but it certainly does seem to come naturally with it. Kudos to the writers and director James Mangold for knowing what the movie needed to be, and sticking with it to the end.

The easiest way the film could have been distracted was in the action. Instead, it may have been its greatest strength. Firstly they really make up for the seven movies where Wolverine wasn't allowed to stab people in the head. I never knew how much he needed to do that until now. Then they also remember to match the action with film's scale and emotional center. Small destruction; massive impact. Check. Also not forgotten is the film's most basic roots -- superhero film; western film. With those genres it's the action that sells and they deliver on those promises. It's something they needed to do, but it's also obviously something they wanted to do. The action sequences and fighting -- while always connected to the plot in significant ways -- are hugely important elements, and great care and attention was given to them. Each sequence was unique. The choreography was spectacular. And the filming captured it deftly for maximum entertainment.

Visually unique and beautiful, but perhaps more importantly, visually memorable.

That goes for the whole movie in fact; the cinematography added beautiful interest to a story that on paper might give the impression of being boring. But with the characters there's always something to think about, with the cinematography there's always something to look at, and with the action there's always something to be wowed by. I have one grievance and that was the brief nudity -- in a movie that was otherwise refreshingly R out of necessity, it was irritatingly unnecessary. Otherwise the filmmakers stayed on target to keep the movie focused on what was important, and the result is a structured and concise work of art, moody, gritty, and full of heart -- with a massive impact. Logan and Hugh finally get the movie they deserve. Our happy fate is that we get to watch it.