Free Guy

Spoiler-free!

What do you get when you remake The Truman Show but update it for modern day by adding elements of Ready Player One, and a bit of the Groundhog Day concept, and make Ryan Reynolds the lead?

You get a summer movie that actually feels like a summer movie.

Here's a shocker: this movie isn't two hours of Reynolds running around in a videogame world making quippy jokes. There's like, a story. And stakes. Remember those? There are characters who have goals, and an antagonist who's in their way. And they're the good guys because their goals are moral, and the antagonist is the bad guy because his goals are immoral, and the story is written so that we'll root for the good guys and have a satisfying sense of resolution if they succeed.

"No duh, Sarah, that's how movies work." Yep. It's weird. I wish I could say I wasn't starstruck by a mere coherent plotline, but here we are. And I know it's not only me. "It's deeper than I expected" is a popular comment on this film. Why? Because it has real-world characters too, with visible character arcs? Because there's an NPC in a videogame who gains self-awareness and freewill and that makes us consider what human value he has? Not exactly mind-blowing stuff here. And yet, it is. Because movies have been without basic things like moral standards, thought, or storytelling coherence for so long that we forgot how essential they are. There's a romantic subplot that's resolved for more reason than "the movie is ending now," and it felt earth-shatteringly original. 

Shawn Levy understands how to assemble a competent film. "Earth-shattering," he is not. Something else is up here.

While I appreciate that this movie returns to a certain filmmaking standard, that's not to say that it's automatically great. The spell only lasted during the runtime, and now I'm left to mull over how exceptionally sad it is that so little could feel like so much. Because sure, the movie feeds us what I've been craving, but in bites, not meal-sized portions. To say Free Guy puts in more effort than recent action-comedy flicks isn't saying anything, really. They have funny guy Ryan Reynolds at their disposal, and they let him do his thing. But too much so. More often it's more like they leave him—to ad-lib quips on top of normal scenes, instead of writing set-up and pay-off jokes for him to elevate. Most of the comedic scenes are not only unnecessary but totally humorless. (Hello Channing Tatum.)

They let Taika Waititi have fun too, and I liked hating the character. But did they think we wouldn't notice he was the bad guy unless they had him spell it out for us? "I love money, I want more money, I don't care about anything but money." We get it. A little subtlety wouldn't kill you, and would ring truer, even for an over-the-top character. And of course, they can't help but wedge in some political talking points, some that clash with the actual intent of the movie. I'd have cut 10-20 minutes from the runtime, mostly in cameos and people watching events from the real world. That got in the way. There are also three separate sequences that feel like the "final battle." One was expensive, one "funny," and one had narrative relevance. Guess which one I'd keep?

Even in action movies the last thing I care about is the action...

My favorite aspect was the real-people characters played by Jodie Comer and Joe Keery. They own the heart of the film, baby-sized as it is. Keery's relevance to the plot was especially a nice surprise. I was fully expecting him to be a side character meant for more jokes only. In fact, I wish there had been more real-life all around. Comer's character is even more essential on paper but doesn't feel it because we see her mostly in the game, where she lacks her real-world personality. We thought that Reynolds' star-power, the humor, and high concept actiony videogame fun was the point, but it's not, not really. It's dressing. Free Guy remembers that better than most, but not quite well enough.

State Like Sleep

Spoiler-free!

Starring Katherine Waterston and Michael Shannon, this neo-noir mystery and drama is about Katherine, who was in the middle of splitting with her actor husband (Michiel Huisman) when he killed himself. A year later and still unable to put it to rest, she begins investigating under the suspicion that he may have actually been murdered.

Coincidentally, I slept on this movie, and now regret it a tiny bit. There's been plenty worse this year.

It was the noir part that drew me to this, and it was the noir part that I enjoyed the most. It had the noir tone, and yes, the noir pitfalls too. At least one big plot hole I noticed when it was all said and done, and as sometimes happens with noirs, the story gets increasingly distracted from the mystery and turns its attention toward character. Katherine was an interesting character, classically broken and cynical for the genre, and I enjoyed watching her go around all depressed and confused, pursuing what she needed to in order to move on. My favorite parts specifically were her conversations with Shannon's character.

I guess you could say they had good chemistry, but mostly, and most importantly, what they had was good writing: conversations and lines that revealed character in subtle and fascinating ways. Their conversations progressed their characters; something that is all too often missing from scripts it seems. But though it has that one aspect, that doesn't make it a decidedly good script. It still was insensible at times, and doesn't follow through on too many of its promises. Viewers looking forward to a meaty mystery will certainly be disappointed; fans of mind-bending conclusions, the same.

I like the idea of the movie more than I do the movie, I think.

The plot effectively drifts away, and while this does serve the character in its way, it will easily leave viewers dissatisfied, especially when they don't know what to expect and then are encouraged by the early stages of the plot to expect a solid and satisfying mystery. So take this review as a disclaimer. Those more interested to see a noirish character drama play out between Katherine and Michael Shannon, Katherine and Michiel Huisman, and Katherine and Katherine will get more mileage than those looking for a sordid mystery to chew on.

Even with that disclaimer, the movie is not exceptional; you've likely seen it all done better elsewhere. For me, with the drawing and talented cast, and my insatiable appetite for noir films, it would have been hard to disappoint me completely. Still, I wish I had read a review like this to point my expectations in the right direction; so maybe with this I can help potential viewers get the most out of this movie's less than giving state.

The Dead Don't Die

Spoiler-free!

*Puts some Sturgill Simpson on Spotify*

In this plotless and super dry zom-com, Adam Driver, Bill Murray, and Chloë Sevigny are small town cops in way over their heads when the dead come back to life... due to the Earth being thrown off its axis... due to fracking on the poles. It's always the fracking. Tom Waits as a woods-dwelling hobo man and a strange-acting Tilda Swinton seem to know what's going on though. And Adam seems to get it too: This is gonna end badly.

Doesn't mean you can't have a good time until then...

To say it's dry and has no plot isn't a criticism, though. I quite liked director Jim Jarmusch's last film (also with Adam Driver) Paterson, which was similarly dry and similarly without much happening plot-wise. Where that movie excels though, is in character. The Dead Don't Die is more about the zombies' character than the living people's. And that's where it falls apart for me. The movie wants to draw a parallel between the fictional zombies and real humans who are slogging through life, not much more than animated bodies. Sure; 90% of zombie movie in existence make that comparison. This movie only seems to believe that the only viable solution is to... not... be... human... anymore.

Like as humans we're doomed to be "zombies." And it's cool for a horror film to be fatalist of course, even a comic one, but it sure does put a lot of effort into showing the fate without showing the alternative. Of the three people who can "see behind the curtain" which is the role-model? If there is no role model, then how is the message expected to come across? There's a warning sermon, but no helpful applications offered. The characters are completely undeveloped to the point of self-awareness when the movie point-blank refuses to give one a backstory. Other times you think relationships and dynamics will be developed... but then the zombies intervene.

It's like the whole movie was a neat set up that ends before it ever gets going.

Still the cast is great fun as they have a competition over who can make their face the most dead-pan as they deliver punchlines. For my money, Adam Driver wins, but Bill Murray is never second-rate in a dry delivery either. The real problem with the comedy is that there simply isn't enough of it to go around. With such a big cast and so many irrelevant characters but a normal shortish run time, you barely get a taste of your favorite before the credits roll and it's all over. Plus, only about a third consists of comedy when there's a gruesome zombie murder quota to fill and a message to chuck across.

Overall it was very much what I expected so I was able to enjoy it as it came -- only one point was a surprise, and that was an element of the tone. It gave off an impression of being a project done out of a desire to goof around and have a little fun over trying to be a "real" movie. Basically no story, no character arcing; just a lot of wandering around and seeing where you are, then going off the rails to try something else. With that in mind, it's hard to blame it for not being a serious movie that plays by the rules. If it didn't even want or try to. It's not saying, "I'm great because I'm different"; it's saying, "I'm different because I was doing my thing," and never claims any level of greatness at all.

So I'll take what I enjoyed and forget the rest!

The Dead Don't Die has a reputation for being politically charged, and it's clearly made out of frustration over the current Presidency, but goes so far over the top that no particular ideology is required to enjoy. Fracking is an easy fictional troublemaker, and Steve Buscemi's hat hilariously and nonsensically reads, "Keep America White Again" as he awkwardly explains to Danny Glover that when he said the coffee was too black, he meant it was too strong. When he bites the dust, Tom Waits muses that you reap what you sow, and then takes a bite of a chicken he stole from him. Political satire? Or parody of political satire? Take it as you like.

When you're a movie character in the zombie apocalypse, you let off steam by killing zombie heads; when you're a film director, you do it by writing it into your movies starring your friends. When you're famous, the finished product gets into theaters. And when you're a film fan, you can see it, and maybe get a kick out of it too. It might end up badly, but even so, it's not the end of the world.

The Perfect Date

Spoiler-free!

The newest team-up between Netflix and Noah Centineo, and this time Noah is the lead instead of the love interest! Brooks is about as poor as a high school student in a rom-com can be. Read: his car is beat up and his dad can't afford his college dreams. He dreams of being Ivy League and spends all his effort in looking good to them. So much so that he's never really developed a personality of his own.

Besides being a super nice and caring person. His fatal flaw is that he's oblivious when it suits the script!

This manifests into situational comedy when he takes his frenemy's cousin Celia (Laura Marano) to a school dance for pay. Light-bulb: an app where girls in need of a respectable chaperone can hire him and choose his personality. Cue hilarious outfit montage. The money helps with paying for Yale, but he still needs to get in. And when he sees the lovely Camila Mendes, he decides a girlfriend would be nice, too. Can he do it all without pushing away the grumpy but honest Celia and his best friend Murph (Odiseas Gerogiadis)?

Well, you can probably predict the way it all goes from there. But you probably also know that the point of movies like this is not the final destination, but how charming the journey can be. Most movies would have to worry about their scripts and scenes, polishing them until the lines and the situations are as cute as humanly possible, cross their fingers and hope it comes across well on screen. But this movie has Noah Centineo, and Noah Centineo has good chemistry with everyone and is incapable of reading assembly instructions for a bookcase without sounding energetic and charming. So, this script was average rom-com fare. Good premise, nothing special in content; but one good casting decision later, it's a guaranteed win.

You know it's true.

There was one point in the movie where Brooks is on a date with a girl he's clearly meant to not have any chemistry with. Awkward pauses galore, and neither character really picks up on the vibe of the other or understands what they're saying -- and yet -- watching it you get a distinct feeling that they get along and are comfortable in the moment. I had to laugh at that. None of the other characters were anything special, but there's innate enjoyment to be had in watching Noah interact with anyone. I liked the idea of the grumpy girl too, to balance his happiness, but ultimately there wasn't much power behind her. The best scenes were between Brooks and his dad (Matt Walsh).

Plot-wise there were a few memorable moments, and a few that were frustrating -- in the normal, misunderstanding, unrealistic, fabricated but harmless rom-com way -- but mostly it was nondescript. I've seen four Noah Centineo movies off Netflix: To All the Boys I've Loved Before is a stand out; Sierra Burgess is a Loser tries extremely hard and is unique though flawed; SPF-18 is terrible, but at least hilariously so; and this, while perfectly enjoyable, is also the least remarkable of all.

"Least remarkable" Noah Centineo movie; still worthy of a recommendation. 

Fans of the genre and fans of the actor will have a fun time. It could've been improved by leaning harder into the premise, which was the unique aspect, and by cutting the more unrealistic moments, but I won't lose any sleep over wasted potential. It had plenty of cute moments and a few genuine and sweet ones too; and had me happy and actually laughing at the humor throughout. Not the perfect date, but with its goal to please a broad audience instead of personalizing for one, it's close enough.

Captain Marvel

Thanks to Jacob Smith for featuring this review on his site! If you're interested in movie reviews, news, and opinion pieces from a conservative perspective, you should definitely check it out -- society-reviews.com!

Spoiler-free!

The MCU's latest origin story is also its first solo film for a female character. They put their absolute best effort into touting the movie as such, and after seeing it, I understand why all the emphasis was on pre-hype. One of Marvel's safest and least-daring films, Carol Danvers' introduction to the universe doesn't do much that's spectacularly irritating -- mostly because it doesn't do anything spectacular at all.

Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck but written by three additional people because all MCU movies all have to be camels at this point. 

We start out with a brief glimpse of the Kree world where Carol (Brie Larson) is serving in the Kree/Skrull war under Yon-Rogg (Jude Law). There's one shot of the Kree city outside her widow that looks like a magnificent scifi scape leaning towards noir-ish, cyberpunk-ish vibes, but we never see it up close. She does some training, she goes on mission, and eventually winds up stranded on Earth circa 1995 where she meets a younger, two-eyed Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Coulson (Clark Gregg) and goes on a hunt for some people of her forgotten memories (Annette Bening) and (Lashana Lynch), all the while the Skrull Talos (Ben Mendelsohn) and his crew are on her tail.

The Skrulls are shape-shifting aliens and shape-shifting is an easy harbinger of fun. And the movie touches on its potential. It's the mid-90's which means grunge and kind of wonderfully cheesy music; and the movie touches on that, too. Carol wears band tees and ripped jeans, and the computers are super slow. Otherwise it could be set anytime. Style only seems to cross the movie's mind is when there's cool CGI effects to show off. Even the worst of the past MCU films have had tonal style and the dampener of the Marvel Brand isn't excuse for the blandness we get here. I wish they had fully embraced the grungy 90's and low-key cheesy spy thriller aspect it was all crying for. It could've been amazing with relatively little tweaking to the core story.

One thing I loved with all my heart: her helmet mohawk. 

The central heart of the story -- getting up when you're knocked down -- had a solid foundation, but I hesitate to call it a theme because the movie's attempts to present it as theme were grasping. Visually it had impact and you can practically feel them scrambling for a verbal iteration to match in the moment. The set-up for Carol's development is weak, and the part about her needing to control her emotions was left hanging. That didn't make sense to begin with as Larson's acting style is so reserved that her being overly emotional as the script says doesn't fly. And I'll will readily defend Larson's acting abilities. She can work wonders in indie films where everything's understated. But as a blockbuster-action superhero, her internalizing emotions gets lost in the total lack of nuance.

There were moments she made me laugh with her delivery and times she made me smile just by being happy and laughing with Fury. On the other side, I think she was miscast. She does look the part and all MCU actors give better performances elsewhere, but ultimately her inexpressive style only adds to the bland feeling that brings the movie down. The only person who seems committed to having fun here is Ben Mendelsohn. Samuel L. Jackson's natural charisma works so well for him that I can't tell if he was phoning in or not. He's also better elsewhere with better scripts. This script actively attacks him, making one very significant thing happen that does its level best to ruin his character with its abject stupidity. (Hint: it's to do with his eye.) Just another day at the old MCU!

Larson and Jackson had fun chemistry. The movie could've leaned hard into their dynamic and been better for it. But it could've leaned into anything and been better for it.

Fan-favorite Goose the cat was great -- when he was being played by a real cat. The disgracefully rendered CGI cat that he was half the time seems to have been animated by a person who has never seen a cat before. It moved like boneless dog. Other random things that bothered me was how Carol's hair was always curled. I felt like her stylist was sitting behind me with a hot iron, waiting for the camera to cut so she could run in and fix the falling waves. There are the expected Marvel Brand jokes to make me die inside. And they only play three era songs for a decent amount of time. One is horribly matched to a fight scene. The fighting overall was shot lazily to negate the need for good choreography. The good action beats came from special effects and infused drama instead.

Despite all this, I did somewhat enjoy myself for the most part. Perhaps simply because I expected a dumpster fire, and instead it was like watching the garbage truck come by your house; something vaguely loud to look at that isn't impactful in any significant way. They did manage to lose me eventually though, with a later twist. To "subvert expectations" is required in every movie now, and appropriately this subversion throws a wrench in the plotting. It flounders for a while before it settles into a new groove, no better than the original. Overall the whole thing feels like the result of cutting corners and skimping on budget -- but if anyone can take a slight risk and make a decent film for girl protagonist, it's Marvel! ... Right?

At this point, I'm not particularly interested in the supposed future Avengers line-up, and if nothing changes for Marvel it won't be hard to quit.

The temptation to pander and squeak by on as little effort as possible was simply too strong. And why not when you can trust the brand and the hype to sell the resulting painfully average product regardless of quality? A handful of genuinely enjoyable moments and splashes of shiny CGI among long stretches of middling boredom is all we are rewarded with for our loyal patronage. Captain Marvel isn't a terrible movie; nor is it good, or a waste, or a success, or hardly anything resembling a movie at all. It has more in common with an extremely competent exercise in running down a checklist. The soulless Marvel assembly machine grinds on.

Aquaman

Spoiler-free!

Pro tip for the DCEU: don't try to copy Marvel. First, because you're bad at it so you'll fail, but also because it's an over-saturated market anyway and as the off-brand you'll never be anything but last place.

I'm so tired of Disney's Marvel movies that when I go to movies like Aquaman and something bad happens I think to myself, "Well, at least I'm not watching another Marvel movie." But Marvel movies are (mostly) still objectively better. (They have a secret ingredient, and unlike your grandma, it isn't love.) I want a new, better, game-changing method to be thought of, so superhero movies can be exciting again -- so, Dear DCEU, I have your best interest at heart.

Okay maybe MY interest is at heart, and your interest is right next to it.

Here's what you need to do, from the perspective of someone who wants to like superhero movies, but more often than not doesn't: Take risks. The last risky Marvel movie was Guardians of the Galaxy and that movie changed their game. The biggest risk y'all ever made was Wonder Woman, and she is, without a doubt, keeping your franchise afloat. Aquaman is a decent movie. It's got a fine cast who are having fun, a unique central setting, a basic plot with lots of locations to visit... but for a live-action movie that takes place 50% underwater, it's surprisingly un-risky. It's good enough. But in today's world, good enough is practically bad.

It has a lot of individual issues, each one speaking to a different origin of misguided intention. For one, it wants to be funny, but outright jokes rarely land and are mostly used to cover up lazy writing. Example: "You could've just peed on it." Yes. Or spit on it. That line draws our attention to the fact, but does little to endow the scene with any more sense. It would've been funnier to me if he had stopped her halfway through collecting his sweat with her superpowers and just spit a nice glob of foamy saliva on the thing. What is most genuinely funny in the movie is when it embraces its own bombastic clichés, so we laugh with them, not at them.

Self-awareness that circumvents the cliché > self-awareness that points out the use of a cliché.

Jason Momoa's presence is amusing in a completely natural way that works. Things like the hair flip, the way he plays off jokes, and his epic poses and awesome hero moments -- he's having a blast and it translates. For that reason, a comedy tone seems like a good idea, but the movie misses matching its tone to him still; it's comparatively dead. He even plays the drama well and comes across as sincere and comfortable, and kinda leaves the film behind in his wake. It gets bogged down in its effort to keep up with him by trying to structure that free-spirit vibe too much. Movies need structure, but this was an undisguised step-by-step adventure, and could barely establish itself in a location before he was ready to move on. It was holding him back.

When the focus was solely on him it always seemed to work. But I rather liked the supporting players so I'm not sure I'd wish for less of them. My favorite was his half-brother Orm, the primary villain played by Patrick Wilson. There was a early-era Loki vibe there, but not in a copycat way, that I enjoyed. Orm is very theatrical and I loved how often he'd yell and it would almost sound like he was singing. His motivations are also not convoluted, unlike the secondary villain (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), who is necessary, yet still distinctly feels like he detracts from the film. I also loved Nicole Kidman and the drama that she brought. Her strange romance with Arthur's father (Temuera Morrison) was a highlight of the movie.

I figured he'd be my favorite part of the movie, and I figured right. His hair was awesome and that's saying something because everyone's hair was a really big deal.

Mera (Amber Heard) I could take or leave. She stole too much of Arthur's thunder, but her presence was necessary, and the Shakespearean battling wits might've worked excellently with a smidge more chemistry and more biting writing. Willem Dafoe was perhaps underused, but better that than overused. The movie seemed afraid to put Arthur in scenes alone, but the best scene was the one where he was alone (well there was a giant monster there too, but it counts), and got to carry the scene without someone inadvertently stepping on his toes. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but his interactions with Mera especially feel more like a passive-aggressive fights to upstage the other instead of an actual scene where the actors play off and elevate each other.

Visuals are a big part of the movie, and overall, I was impressed. Atlantis looked vast and vibrant and almost like a lived-in futuristic water city. Creature design was cool -- they went all out for that giant sea-monster thing. And there was some memorable and neat camera work. Especially in underwater fight scenes it takes on a less 2D perspective of the environment like scenes in outer space. (Should've taken that further!) The underwater effects were my biggest worry and turns out they were well-founded. The animated floating hair was so distracting, I couldn't pay attention to the actors' expressions. And the water distortion bothered me a bit too. I was always relieved when scenes took place on ground or in air pockets.

 Lol check out Willem photo-bombing in the back.

The action isn't anything particular except when paired with good visuals or a pleasantly hammy performance. That second one-on-one brother duel would've been quite good if only Orm had lost that dumb helmet at the start of it. Seems like the whole movie was that: pretty good ideas killed by lazy details and no follow-through. Still, my experience skewed toward enjoyment with the deviance from the Marvel formula -- though I'm sure the idea was to copy it. People have called it a rehash of Black Panther but that's in passing plot points only. Overall, taking tone, theme, and plot into account, it's more similar to Thor, and in a way that I liked.

I had a fine time watching, but it was more the lack of irritation and less the presence of good that was the cause. It's silly, cheesy, and pleasantly extravagant; but in such a risk-less and amateurishly calculated way that much of the magic gets dried up before it reaches us. So, in the end... and I'm sorry for this... it doesn't make any waves. I'll see myself out.

Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society

Spoiler-free.

This mouthful, so large and awkward that even the film's actors couldn't manage to not stumble over it, is the title of a movie, based on a novel, set just after WWII and centering on a young writer (the lovely Lily James) who happens upon a very odd story, and plunges into it headfirst -- as writers do -- only to find it even more compelling and life-changing than she ever could have dreamed up herself.

She does her best, poor girl, but the material is a mess of tropes repackaged in vintage paper.

This movie is not bad -- for what it is. I only feel comfortable in making that statement with the addition of the qualifier, because the movie is not what I expected or at all wanted, but I believe that if what it is is what a person wants to see, they would enjoy it very much. So -- I'm going to try and describe what it is as accurately as possible. If it still sounds good to you when I'm done, then you'll know it's the movie for you.

The novel was written in 2008 by two ladies. Here's how I imagine it went down: the two ladies were binge-watching Hallmark movies in mid-June, and chatting about Jane Austen, or Anne Bronte more likely, and out of the blue one says to the other, "We could write something better than this!" And so they did. And the end result was that it was made into a movie that's basically a Hallmark rom-dram with better production and a first-rate cast. So I guess they succeeded. My only problem is that they didn't aim very high.

I'm sure there's a genuinely great movie hiding in there somewhere.

I make fun of Hallmark movies, but I've seen my share, and if you've seen one plot you've seen them all. And based on the instincts I picked up from them, I predicted the two main aspects of the movie right off the bat, before they ever even set up one of the aspects as a convoluted mystery to be unwound bit by bit. If you know a little about the story you know that the titular Society is a book club. Well in the whole movie there's a grand total of two scenes of this book club, though they are by far the best bits the movie had to offer.

I expected something like Jane Austen Book Club meets Julie and Julia and all I can say is, don't expect that. There's even less cooking than there is reading. What there is, is drama, and our plucky heroine gently nagging the Society members for crumbs of a story until it's been collected, complete with flashbacks of each significant turn to accompany the explanations. If you've also figured it out for yourself, you get it three times. It's like Nancy Drew on a small British island, but with no lurking danger to give any stakes. Miss Marple, but no murderer to catch.

In short, it spends a lot of time doing very little. And it definitely wishes it were a true story.

The cast is excellent. Many familiar names, and even more familiar faces. All been in better things, yet they all admirably try their very best to instill the half-dead script with some life. What's most apparent is their exertion. Penelope Wilton, Tom Courtenay, Katherine Parkinson, and Lily James hold the movie afloat with their efforts. Matthew Goode and Glen Powell are memorable characters. Michiel Huisman looks handsome with his stubble-beard, and makes sure to have a scene where his shirt is tastefully unbuttoned more than usual.

Nothing too scandalous, this is 1946 after all. If, however, it wanted to be set in 2018, very few changes would have been necessary. There's even a scene where a character uses an old-fashioned version of speaker-phone so he can be hands-free during the conversation. A public proposal feels extremely modern, and in fact most of the romance subplot has no clue or care that it's supposed to be era-accurate. Most unpleasant to me, was the juxtaposition between the fluffy romance, and attempts to portray horrors of WWII with effective dramatic impact. It felt oddly cheap and exploiting.

I spent most of my writing time trying to figure out how to better word the title. It's impossible.

If you like Lily James, that's the best recommendation the movie has to give for itself. It doesn't have much artistic merit or character exploration. Attempts at such come across clumsily. It has no real theme though it does pull out the "family is friends" card near the end. It's simply not quality storytelling. It does, however, have some moments that work emotionally, due to the actors mostly, some lovely landscapes and locations, and plenty of contrived melodrama and romance.

I think I said it best in the beginning: It's a TV movie. Don't expect anything more. It's Hallmark with an extra budget and a fondness for an Americanized, modernized, fantasy version of quaint British living circa mid-1940's. Sound good? Then dig in. It's just potatoes, and potato-peelings.

The Hurricane Heist

HURRICANE HEIST! In which talented b-tier actors action/adventure their way into stopping wacky, maniacal villains from stealing $500,000,000 in the middle of a massive hurricane! The result is very appropriately like a mashup of whichever Fast and Furious movie you think is most ridiculous, and Into the Storm or The Day after Tomorrow -- in all ways possible.

Geostorm WISHES it were this awesome.

Toby Kebbell and Maggie Grace probably deserve better than this type of movie in their filmography, but I guess they already have better films under their belt. And sometimes you just need a little silly fun in your life. I'm sure these two were under no illusion that this project was going to be anything more than what it was, and any audience member who watches it and doesn't get what they were expecting probably just went to the wrong theater. It's called Hurricane Heist, and it delivers everything implied.

Quality weather-destruction, impossible high-speed action sequences, and creative problem-solving peppered with plot holes abound. I'm going to go ahead and embrace being cruel to Geostorm, because that movie was a huge disappointment that decided to have a ton of board meeting scenes instead of giving us what we want and what we need, which is grand destruction by way of falling water and blowing wind. Even with the heist part to contend with, this film is very good about being set inside a storm and dealing with the potential dangers that brings.

Tbh I'd watch Toby Kebbell do anything but my favorites are always when he shows up in dumb fun movies and makes them memorable.

We get rain, and people having chases and shootouts in the rain; wind, and climbing high towers in the wind; using air pressure differences to escape the bad guys; and a smallish tidal wave to contend with. Debris blows through the background, parts of buildings and cars blow away, and our heroes are out there among it all. It only lets up to allow set up for the final showdown of racing away from the deadly wall that follows the eye of the storm. When characters start out clean, and end up wet, disheveled, and covered in mud and blood -- that's the best tell-tale sign of a great disaster flick there is.

And it looks way better than it could've got away with. A lot of the stunts were practical, and I would've been impressed if I wasn't too busy enjoying myself to notice the filmmaking techniques. But I'm impressed now. They put actual effort into this movie, people. The script was a disaster (of a disaster), but they made it fantastically. The sequence at the beginning with the house was actually quite stunning. The blending of practical and cgi hit the right balance so the movie didn't feel totally like a cold animated spectacle, but still had plenty of crazy and impossible stuff going on too.

The tagline is "make it rain" y'all. MAKE IT RAIN. There is no subtlety at all, and it is wonderful.

So, no, this movie isn't good when judged on a normal scale. It has some gaping plot holes and is riddled with cliches. The story is obviously ridiculous and it doesn't shy away from playing that element as far as it wants to. The actors are good actors but the characters are one-note and the performances are mostly phoned in while waiting for the next action sequence. BUT. It has some unexpectedly good elements to it too, so don't dismiss it too carelessly.

If you're looking for a good movie, you're looking in the wrong place, plain and simple. If you like Fast and Furious style action you'd probably get a kick out of most of the snappy sequences this one has to offer. And if fighting bad guys and a hurricane simultaneously sounds like a good, fun, popcorn-munching time -- well, you're absolutely right.

Ant-Man and the Wasp

Spoiler free!

Ant-Man and the Wasp's tonal separation from Infinity War saves it; and its universe connection destroys it. From the consequences of Civil War coming into play at the beginning and dictating the plot, to the how inconsequential it becomes in the shadow of this year's earlier monstrosity, it's restricted by its universe ties. But, as it is not a monstrosity of melodrama, it is, despite significant failings, still more superficially enjoyable than that universe-ending party that Scott Lang was somehow not invited to.

Dodged a bullet there, buddy. Probably literally.

The movie's most obvious saving grace is its hero, played by Paul Rudd, who, after this, I'm am fully convinced could carry 12 gallons of water in his hands without the use of a bucket. He can probably carry a tune in the vacuum of space; or the whole world if only he could get underneath it; and he absolutely carries this movie. He single-handedly saves at least five jokes from cringe territory, and even the jokes that wouldn't have face-planted without him, he still elevates, by being, you know, actually funny and charming. Rudd had a hand in the writing too, but the writing only hits on external appeal.

No one has character arcs in this. It's a nonstarter. But with Scott it doesn't matter because he's fun to be around even when he doesn't need to grow or learn something -- perhaps especially so. Same goes for his sidekicks, like Luis, who's so much the same that he even makes the same jokes over again. The crazy part is, it's still funny, because Michael Peña is the man. Bobby Cannavale got the biggest laugh of the whole movie, and sadly Judy Greer was saddled with some stinkers that would've challenged even Rudd. I enjoyed Randal Park, simply for being lighthearted and amusing when the opposite is what you'd expect.

Story-wise, this movie should've been Hope/Wasp's, but it only almost is.

Hank (Michael Douglas) and Hope (Evangeline Lilly) have the most drama going on, and I guess that's what was meant to pass for development. Most of the "progress" they make is things that were backtracked from their growth level of the last movie, and when they overcome it, they're only back where they started. This is mostly applicable to Hope. Hank's more like an echo of her, dramatically. The villain (Hannah John-Kamen) didn't have much potential to start with, but in the end, she only seemed to exist to pad out the run time. Of course, that could be said of the whole movie; pad out a run time, to make a movie, to pad out year time, until Captain Marvel and Avengers: And Now the Other Half gets here.

With what it's sandwiched between, there was little room for creativity. It had to end where it did, and it had to start where it did -- though I do take some issue with how it started. Most of the nonsense the film contains accumulates there. Without the nonsense, the story wouldn't exist. It's a sticky situation, so I sympathize, but there had to be a less paint-by-numbers way of doing this. Ant-Man movies bank on being small-time, but when scaled down, more focus on heart and meaning is required, not less. The story is spread thin over the separate needs of too many characters, and under the microscope, we never get a clear picture of anything, or anyone.

That's why Ant-Man came down to a tiny battle in Cassie's room -- she was all that mattered.

Visually, I've never seen a Marvel movie done so lazily. The action is the best the writing had to offer besides the dialogue (there actually were plenty of good jokes that didn't need Paul Rudd-delivery to work) -- but the sequences are filmed so normally. Remember in the first movie when Scott shrinks for the first time and everything's so otherworldly? That wonder is gone. They plow through action with the style of a lawnmower cutting overgrown grass, and only slow down when they literally slow down -- for a slow-mo shot. There's an extra visual kick, and then it's back to the lame gracelessness.

If I ever watch this again it will be for Rudd and that montage of him hanging out in his house by himself. The movie only irritated me two or three times, but otherwise gave out so little to hold on to, or invest in. I never cared about anything; the characters, their success, their failure; anything. All I cared about was when the next glimmer of fun was going to happen -- moments that were extra welcome in a Marvel movie, but never succeeded in brightening their surroundings. They would flash, and fade, along with my interest.

I guess I should've known Hawkeye wasn't going to be in this. Too good to be true.

Marvel is getting more mechanized by the minute, with less and less importance placed on the human touch. This one barely even attempts to be any kind of art -- it's just there. A movie. I'm sure there were good intentions, and the charm of the leading man, and some commendable humor choices do lend it a nice, distracting coat of paint. Too little, too late. Not tiny and laser-focused, not giant, sweeping and epic; Ant-Man and the Wasp is just average.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

Spoilers!

So now the island that housed the disastrous theme park Jurassic World of the last movie has a volcano on it, and it's going to explode. Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), turned from prim and proper business woman to free-spirited animal lover in the last film, is heading up an organization to save the dinos. The government decides to stay out of it, so she jumps at the opportunity when a private company run by Rafe Spall offers to help her relocate the animals. Then she ropes in Owen (Chris Pratt) because his favorite Raptor, Blue, is still on the island.

Should've bombed the island as soon as all the humans got off. Then they wouldn't have this problem.

But surprise! Rafe Spall isn't actually relocating the dinos to another safe island -- he's bringing them to the mainland and keeping them in the cellar of a massive estate that belonged to John Hammond of the original, original film. What could possibly go wrong? Oh and Dr. Wu (BD Wong) helped him and Toby Jones create a new, new dino by mixing Raptor with the Indominous Rex of the last film. The Indoraptor. Super creative name, yeah? They plan on bidding all of them off to the wealthy and ill-intentioned of the world. Things go exactly as you imagine they will.

And that's not really a bad thing in itself. The giant house wound up being a fun set piece for the last act; the first was getting on and off the island, and the second was adventures stowed-away on the transport ship. With a little tweaking it could have been a rollicking and pure-blooded adventure. But it gets distracted, by focusing way too hard on... trying to teach us a lesson? They were pushing us to feel sympathy for the dinos, which I guess they didn't realize is something we naturally feel. Dinosaurs are freaking awesome, and unless they're actively portrayed as evil beings, we not going to be eager to see them die.

I mean seriously -- look how freaking cute she is!

But they went all ham-handed on the tragedy of their situation anyway, and went so far overboard with it. At the end of the first act as they sail away on the ship, a Brontosaurus is left behind, literally calling to them from the dock as the ash and lava catches up to it. The music swells dramatically; the cloud engulfs the majestic creature; the fire lights its silhouette as it rears and seems to dissolve away.... and I was about to roll on the floor laughing. Feels bad. The harder I tried not to, the funnier it became. I did manage to laugh quietly, so hopefully I didn't annoy the person next to me.

There's also a big plot line involving Blue being a good dino, and one secondary bad guy (Ted Levine) who pulls teeth out of the dinos to collect for a necklace. In case the point about him being evil wasn't clear enough. But guess what they neglected to do? Yep, create sympathy for any of the humans. Maisie (Isabella Sermon) is the most because she spends time alone figuring out the bad guy's evil plot and running for her life. Claire and Owen are complete blanks except that they care about the dinos, which doesn't help me much. They had a bad break and allude to that, and by the end they're kissing again, but nothing happened to get them there.

If one shared near-death experience couldn't keep them together, why should a second? 

And the two sidekicks, Franklin (Justice Smith) and Zia (Daniella Pineda), I actually forgot existed whenever they disappeared from the screen. Everything they did could've been accomplished by Claire and Owen, or was unnecessary in the first place. Like, they have a whole sequence where they reboot the ventilation system to save the caged dinos from poisonous gas, but later their efforts have only stalled for time -- so the leak could've been slower in the first place with no different outcome. They didn't annoy me particularly, but were blank too, and if their time had been redistributed through a smaller cast -- but the problem wasn't lack of screen time, but of attentive writing.

The poisonous gas bit was inter-cut with Claire, Owen, and Maisie hiding from the Indoraptor, in what is probably the best extended sequence of the film. The dark house of endless rooms and museum-displays of fossils, the one dino tracking them down. It's the classic Jurassic Park stuff and only seemed lacking because it wasn't given time to breathe. It needed to revel more. Linger and seep in. It did that in brief staccato moments, but jumped around too much for the feeling to stay.

"Rafe?" "Yes, Toby?" "Are we the bad guys?" "I think." "Well, crap."

And it's probably just me but I wanted a lot more out of the villain. I like Rafe Spall. But he did his thing and then disappeared until it was time for his death scene. And speaking of deaths, literally all but one death goes as follows: person discovers dino danger; person tries very hard to survive; person survives by skin of teeth; person relaxes -- bam! -- person is dino lunch. Not that that's a terrible way to do a death scene, but a little variety would've been nice. Also, I felt weird watching bad guys get munched on. It was like the movie wanted us to enjoy it; to cheer or feel satisfaction over it.

In the previous movies, even a villain death was played for horror, not elation, right? We felt they deserved it, but it was still grisly and disturbing. It's also worth noting that no good guy is killed by a dino in this film. Not a single one. Not even a neutral, innocent bystander. It's not like even a hint of stakes were ever in place for anyone except the dinos -- that was just adding fuel to the fire.

Forgive me if I want to care about human characters in a movie where the human characters are the leads.

Fallen Kingdom builds on a decently solid skeleton, and that keeps it from falling into a distracted oblivion. That, and the innate likability of Pratt, Howard, and newbie Sermon. A quality level equal to Jurassic World was out of reach I think, simply because the "horror at the theme park" premise is tough to top -- but though it's not unworthy of the name, it clearly could've been better than this.

Annihilation

Spoilers.

From Alex Garland, the writer of one of my favorite movies, 28 Days Later. I wanted to be biased for this film.

Biologist Lena (Natalie Portman) goes through a mysterious shimmering wall in search of answers as to what it is and what it did to her husband Kane (Oscar Isaac). Lots of super weird things happen that are ostensibly explained through the imagery of a cell replicating and an overarching idea of biology blending inside "The Shimmer." In the end she more or less knows what happened to her husband due to some videos he shot while inside, and even gets him back, but overall the mystery is little more than an occasionally creepy or cool roller coaster of disappointments.

Whenever a Why is explained about The Shimmer, it's not a revelation. It's just ... "Oh ok."

I don't mind it out of principle. I'm totally okay with a movie not explaining itself, or using an umbrella explanation like "this unexplainable thing is making unexplainable things happen." I quite enjoyed it earlier this year when The Cloverfield Paradox utilized it. The two were received like polar opposites, but from my seat -- at home on my couch -- they're remarkably similar. Annihilation felt very much like a Netflix film -- in both the good way and the bad. Bad in that it was less than advertised, and good in that it was an original and well-assembled film.

It has practiced pacing, a slow increase of tension throughout, and a firm grip on how to build a quality moment. Each one gets ruined later of course. Sometimes preemptively through flash-forward interrogation scenes. It's like the exposition scenes are there because there was no confidence in the audience's ability to understand visual storytelling. The dialogue is reiteration of what we've seen but simplified; making it all feel mundane. But the curious moments in and of themselves work well. Disregarding the glaring soft white light, the cinematography is thoughtful and fits the style, and there are moments when the score is mesmerizing.

I presume the idea was the lights and colors were blended like everything in The Shimmer -- a neat idea in theory, but visually unpleasant. It gave an eye-ache. 

It's in the details that the movie most shows signs of life. Though many moments were ruined by the too-revealing trailer, including the return of the bear. Though it having Sheppard's voice was still a wonderfully disturbing feature. Also interesting: the guy who'd grown into the wall like a clicker from The Last of Us, the tree people, Kane's bear-rose tattoo, Lena's tattoo which appears on her arm and is also visible on Anya and Last of Us Dude; and the end sequence was extremely unusual to say the least. Things like the tattoos are just tidbits. Others like Dude and the trees are explained in ways that sucks out all the wonder while never satisfying your curiosity.

"Everything gets blended." Great, cool idea, but that's not an explanation, it's just a description of the result. Why? How? Is it good or bad? Why should we care? Scientific terms are used, but it's not challenging to understand. This movie was advertised like another Interstellar; promising mind-bending, science-y scifi. It spends half its time in exposition, but it never goes deeper than the main idea. I can't have my mind blown over the same thing twice, no matter how many times its illustrated. And they introduce many potentially strange things, only to explain them away in the same disengaging way over and over.

The rules were all-encompassing, so I accepted everything that happened unfazed.

The movie falters equally as a horror film, for the same reasons -- less than advertised, and lack of exploration leaves potentially disturbing elements as merely weird, so the terrifying things such as the bear are left as fleeting external threats. It's unclear if the alien being was meant to be viewed as a threat. Characters talk about it in an understanding way, but it's pattern is one of causing death, and the film ends with Lena tricking it into self-destructing instead of herself self-destructing for it. The Shimmer still exists inside Lena and Kane, so presumably it lives on -- but if it's a representation of self-destruction, isn't that bad?

"It wasn't destroying. It was making something new." "Making what?" "I don't know." That exchange sums up everything. We're meant to look at it positively but are given no reason why. Not even a vague one that invites interpretation. It seems to clash with the film's theme of self-destruction and replication. There's also a cancer thread that goes maddeningly unexplored. The movie only ever points out things; details that tie together into a meaningless theme. It's all very tidy and interesting, but at some point, I need satisfaction, and something concrete to hold on to.

"Kind of a lame movie." -- My Dad. It's not that it lacks the proper features; it just doesn't work them properly. 

As a drama, it's weird and very hit-or-miss. I liked what the actresses did to give an extra smidgen of personality to their characters, but the supporters are given one or two lines of exposition dialogue as their character development, and it doesn't go far. I liked Sheppard's quiet, matter-of-fact manner. And a clear thematic reason for all the cancer mentioned was missed. Oscar Isaac and Natalie Portman are good together. So good that I found it a stretch that she'd cheat on him. The idea is introduced that self-destruction is in our DNA, so she can't help it, but the ending was meant to counter that, I believe.

Never lacking something odd to look at, the main fault I have with Annihilation is that I looked hard for answers to the mysteries beneath the oddities, and the hidden intelligence I thought I'd been promised; I was prepared and ready to have my mind challenged, but I never found anything inside to interpret. It was all a pretty shell; and when laid bare, the fascination crumbles.

Marrowbone

Spoilers are marked and saved for the end.

It's 1969, and an English family -- a mother and four children -- come to a quaint American town and change their name to Marrowbone. They appear to be hiding from someone. When the mother dies of illness, her oldest, Jack (George MacKay), is not yet old enough to inherit the house, so he, Billy (Charlie Heaton), Jane (Mia Goth) and Sam (Matthew Stagg) must hide their mother's death from the world until his 21st birthday -- even from Jack's girlfriend Allie (Anya Taylor-Joy). But more sinister trouble is stalking them than questioning townsfolk.

For someone who doesn't like horror I do sure subject myself to it a lot. I need to understand it!

Not to turn this post completely into musings on my personal preferences of horror sub-groups, but it is curious to me, as someone who claims distaste for the genre in general, and yet many of my favorite films are horror movies. I don't know how to define the difference between categories of horror I do like and ones I don't. It's not about the specific elements that makes up the film, as I would say this one was well made, yet overall, I was left with a bad taste.

A Quiet Place made me feel more on edge, yet I loved it more. IT was equally as distressing and disturbing, yet I loved it more. Psycho has a mentally sick twist to it that, if not absolutely lovable in the same sense, is pivotal to making the film the masterpiece it is. Even this year's The Ritual had creepy supernatural horror that was scary but totally enjoyable. I suppose in order for a horror story to work for me, it needs to be good and have some meaning to latch on to -- otherwise it's not worth it. Marrowbone is competently made on the surface, but failed to give its meaning any real meaning.

It does have some very sweet moments in it, and those I enjoyed most. 

This is one of those movies where you know there will be a twist to it, because things aren't adding up as they should be. Obviously, the idea was conceived as the twist and then filled in from there. Once the twist reveals, everything makes sense that seemed odd or like mistakes at first. And while the twist worked on me, and I presume evoked the right emotions, it seemed to make everything else the movie set up moot. Not that it set up deep themes or super involving characters arcs, but I got pretty invested in the basics: family, survival, good vs. evil.

The twist worked logistically but not thematically, when the reverse would have been preferable. In great twist movies, isn't it the twist that amplifies and then resolves the theme? Here it just muddied everything, and beyond giving the audience a nice disturbing shock, was pointless. The way it ended seemed to imply a theme was intended to survive the twist -- love and family was still present, but in a weird way; as if in appeasement to those of us who might be disappointed. The same path without such reserve might've had better impact. If it ended on a bold note, instead going bold and then backing down.

Maybe I should have tried to guess the twist. I always just let myself go for the ride. 

Besides one plot hole it all makes sense logistically, as I said, with some thoughtful details thrown in. And it has plenty of commendable aspects on the technical side. A nice look, for starters, with great locations and filming that was unobtrusive and lovely, with the proper edge for scares and suspense. The acting was convincing all-around. If nothing else, this movie gave me the opportunity to hear Charlie Heaton's British accent. George MacKay carried the movie excellently, and Anya Taylor-Joy was good, though this is the first film I've seen her in, and I imagine she's better elsewhere.

It's just not my kind of movie. But -- though I'm not well-versed in the type, I'd venture to say it's not as well-made as it first appears to be. It was made to make sense. At the end, I understood absolutely everything -- except how I was meant to feel. I've figured out what theme was meagerly intended, and as with the rest of the film, I understand it; but it evokes no feeling other than disappointment and distaste.

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

Cover your ears, kids -- it's Spoiler Time!

(Spoilers -- from here to the end!) 
Okay, I have to add this spoiler section because of how striking this realization is to me. Giant spoiler right here, last chance: In this movie, all of Jack's siblings are dead, and it's more or less his fault, though he was trying to protect them. He has multiple personality disorder (classic), and thinks they are still alive, and even after treatment at the end of the film he still sees them. It's supposed to be happy (the movie's tagline is, "no one will ever separate us") but, um, they're dead.

This, in contrast with the last horror film I watched, A Quiet Place, is pretty astounding, because the family theme is the same, but polar opposites. (Additional Spoilers for A Quiet Place now. You've been warned.) Both film's climaxes happen at death; one, in the realization of it from failure of the protagonist's part, and the other as self-sacrifice for the success of the protagonist's goal. In the latter, it completes the theme of the film; in the former, it ruins it.

Now, ruining it is fine, because it's a horror story. Bad endings are fine, especially in a twist. If the twist is necessary, then the way to end the movie is in that hard, heartbreaking realization, not some scrounged-together happy ending. It doesn't matter that they're "alive in his mind." He failed them. It feels completely disingenuous to be told to be happy while I'm still reeling from the tragedy. Jack was a sympathetic character, and I wouldn't blame him necessarily for the deaths, but I definitely don't want to see him happy and the end of such a terrible story -- commit to the darkness, or get out.

All that to say, don't watch Marrowbone, watch A Quiet Place!