Bloodshot

Spoiler-free!

Based on the Valiant comic books, Bloodshot has a heavy concept of tech-enhanced humans who at one time were seriously wounded, but then become superhuman. KT (Eiza González) lost her lungs. Now a machine breathes for her and does it twice as well. Jimmy (Sam Heughan) had his legs blown off. Tibbs (Alex Hernandez) lost his eyes. Now they have super legs and super sight. (But no, they're not superheroes, that'd be silly.) And Ray (Vin Diesel)? Well. He died.

So Guy Pearce bought his body and replaced his blood with self-healing nanites. Now he's virtually unstoppable. And he only has one thing he needs to do: Kill the man (Toby Kebbell) who killed him and his wife (Talulah Riley). Cue the epic lighting and the slow motion -- it's time for an action scene!

Yep, that's about as gross as this PG-13 flick can get.

Or two. Or twenty. Or somewhere in between. After the concept and set up is explained (which takes a while) there's only really one action scene that stands out. After that, the film begins to fall apart -- like Ray's face reintegrating itself after being blown off, but in reverse. See, they kind of paint themselves in a corner that doesn't allow for much use of the main cool concept of the lead's regeneration abilities. It's shown off a few times and is important once or twice at most, but this movie sold itself completely on that concept. With the plot they have on hand (and perhaps the PG-13 rating was restrictive too) it's a bit of a let-down that we don't see much, or learn anything more about it than we do in the trailer.

The movie gets slowly muddier and muddier, until the action and quips and regurgitated drama all blends into a dull roar and I found myself zoning out by the time the end battle was raging. It happens a lot with films of this caliber. You usually know what you're getting into just by looking at the poster. And if you know, and still go for it, then you know you won't mind too much -- or even enjoy yourself. But it is disappointing to see a movie try to go for Upgrade levels of epic violent action, and then give up after only one sequence.

There's also a larger percentage of static conversations than should exist.

Vin Diesel is a good, safe bet to carry a flick like this, and he does a fine job. For him, I think even going through the motions produces a perfectly acceptable result. You know he's been better, and that he can be better... but there's nothing wanting either. Guy Pearce phones in, but you don't really notice that either. And the rest (with one exception) are fine -- the sort of actors that need a good script to play well. And, well, they don't here. The lines that the British tech nerd character had to say were horrendous. Like an American wrote them, looking up jargon as they went. (Wait.)

The exception is Toby Kebbell. He never gets much to do when he pops up in movies like this, but darned if he doesn't give it his all anyway. And full disclosure: I'm a fan. I'm biased. But the only real moments this movie possessed were conveyed by him. But him being outstanding was only a comparative feat. Also, I did not understand what kind of accent he was going for at all.

The action was underwhelming on the whole. As I said, parts were interesting, but that was mainly due to effectively distracting focus on setting and visuals. Choreography had a moment or two but wasn't near what it should have been -- and was liberally augmented with slow-motion and, of course, the CGI. It's necessary for Ray's ability, and that didn't bother me, but it was still overused to create cheap action set pieces and often to replace stunts. And those things make it less impressive to watch.

This movie is called Bloodshot, but those are vodka.

This was a film made for theaters, yet it felt like nothing more than another passable, forgettable Straight-to-Netflix offering. Something for you to be placated by before grabbing a snack and starting the next thing on your queue. There's a demand for fun action flicks that don't require a ten-year investment for fans. I know that. But that doesn't mean filmmakers get a pass to throw all quality standards and effort out the window. If that's too much of me to ask... I don't care. I will continue to ask it. Bloodshot scrapes by and fulfills its purpose. And it's also a bad film.

For Those in Peril

Spoiler-free!

Continuing my mission to impart my strange love for random obscure films onto people who don't much care -- that would be you, so thanks for reading -- I now come to For Those in Peril. A modern folktale that straddles the psychological line between fantasy and reality. It tells of a small Scottish fishing village in the aftermath of a mysterious boating accident where 5 of the 6 crew members were lost at sea.

Written and directed by Paul Wright. Streaming free on Amazon Prime.

The survivor is Aaron (George MacKay), younger brother of one of the lost. While the village mourns and raises questions of a "Jonah," Aaron becomes consumed by the idea that his brother and the other men are not dead at all -- but that he can somehow get them back. This idea stems from a tale told commonly in the village of a Devil that lives in the sea, stealing people and happiness away, and must be killed to restore everything to the way it was before. Aaron believes he's right, but is he? Or is he simply going crazy, as the town, and even his mother (Kate Dickie) thinks?

Oddly, that's where I feel like leaving you. But I don't suppose I can fully recommend a movie on premise alone. For Those in Peril is a tough sell, though. Not for the easily bored, as it spends much of its meager run time crafting a tone almost separately from its plot. It compiles dramatic, artistic shots that don't convey much of substance, but do effectively bring a sense of the weird and the unsure which is greatly useful as we go deeper into the uncertainty that the plot brings as well. The movie is also small and small budgeted, though it doesn't lack anything for being so. It accomplishes what it needs to, and often accomplishes it beautifully.

I love when small movies know how to use a budget. There's no lack of style or impact here. 

If the film did have a bigger budget or loftier goals in its technical elements, I can only see that being a distraction, not something that'd do the story or characters any good. A handheld camera and rural Scottish landscape may have been all that is used, but many shots are stuck in my head, due to the raw impact they bring. There are also brief interludes of camcorder footage used for flashbacks, and the intentional low-quality becomes ingrained into the style of the picture. It's used at first alongside soundbites of narration to get information out. Then later, the grainy footage reveals information and connects dots in a more disembodied way that is eerily effective.

I found this one when I was on the lookout for George MacKay movies, and though this film impressed me and has stuck with me beyond his involvement, I think he is the standout, and the most important element. No one does the decent into madness deal like he does, and his extremely internalized performance here is both frightening and endearing. The balance is important. Kate Dickie as his mother is equally as strong, perhaps even more so, and with less than half the screen time. Together they carry the film, while Michael Smiley and Nichola Burley round out the vaguely recognizable cast.

The sea-themed hymn, Eternal Father, Strong to Save gives it its title: "Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee, for those in peril on the sea!"

With a well of disembodied details to unpack at leisure, memorable imagery, two rich and feeling performances at the center, and a bold ending that doesn't hold back, one thing For Those in Peril manages without a doubt is to keep away from the middling. You might find it boring and bad, or you might find yourself thinking about it for days afterward as I did, pondering the questions it raises, and falling a little bit in love. I went out searching and came back with a gem; so who knows? You might could, too.

Onward

Spoiler-free!

In a fantasy realm where magic had faded from popular existence, two elf brothers, Barley and Ian, get a present from their father, who died before Ian was born. In the package, a wizard staff, a Phoenix Gem, and instructions for a spell -- a spell that will bring their dad back for 24 hours. Barley is a history buff and obsessed with magic, but it's Ian who makes the spell work... well, halfway. The gem explodes and their dad is just a pair of khakis, so the boys set out on a quest to find another Phoenix Gem and finish the spell before their time is up.

DID SOMEONE SAY "QUEST"??? SIGN ME UP.

I've been tired of Disney Pixar for about ten years, so it's about time for a revival! I knew the moment I saw the poster -- where high fantasy is blended with urban fantasy -- that I had a great chance of loving it, and I was right. Even if the story wasn't great I would have still enjoyed the distinctly fantasy world building, down to things like small dragons kept as pets instead of dogs, Valor being a van model, and angry fairies in motorcycle gangs eating Pixy Stix by the straw-full. That stuff was creative and fun, and the exact kind of attention to detail that I love to see in Pixar, but this is, in my opinion, the best Pixar fare since 2008, and has more working for it than an exciting and fleshed-out world.

Tom Holland plays Ian, and Barley is Chris Pratt. Two charming and talented actors, and their characters are the main reason this film works as well as it does. The way they're written and played. Pratt has first-rate hilarious line-delivery, and if anyone can make awkwardness likable, it's Tom Holland. The way the two characters' personalities clash and complement each other is heavenly, and you get lost in their easy conversations, whether they're arguing, having fun, in the middle of action, or anything in between. Ian is the main protagonist, and he makes a check list of things he wants to improve about himself.  Then, each stop along their quest pushes him unaware toward his goal.

I found it pleasantly predictable in many ways, but it had some wonderfully unexpected moments too, when it needed them.

And Barley could have easily fallen into the comic relief character trap (considering how effortlessly hilarious he is) but instead the character is fleshed out in some unexpectedly mature ways. He seems like the kind of guy that doesn't take anything seriously, but then there's the bridge scene -- or the hilariously epic "Rise to Valhalla" moment -- where his seriousness is truly serious, but still funny. Humor isn't something you turn on when it's comedy time and off when it's serious time. He's just genuine, and therefore can be both. And that's how the whole film is. It never announces it's time to switch gears; it's a constant flow of adventure, with all the ups and downs it needs present, but not showcased or ballooned to unnatural proportions.

Pixar has finally come up with an original story that appeals to me as an adult. Sure, it's still a kiddie film, not intellectually complex, and follows a basic and straightforward story structure, but every beat it hits is earned. It got a toe in the door with the fantasy world, then swept me up for the ride in a way I haven't allowed myself to go on with Pixar since Toy Story 3 introduced me to the gross feel of emotional manipulation. But Onward feels right in every way: The quest-style structure of little adventure vignettes built on top of each other... the way every detail is set up for later but not in an obvious way... a conflict that comes naturally from the core of the characters -- and a resolution that hits home because the story speaks for itself and doesn't need to be forced.

I see people dismiss it as "B-tier Pixar" and wonder when they forgot to value stories for the joy they bring.

I'm happy to know Pixar is still capable of winning storytelling along with its usual features of unique premises and beautiful animation. Onward is everything a great and worthy adventure should be -- full of Heart's Fire, you might say; and light, charming humor; and warm characters; and sweeping glorious fun; and inspired world building. And no, perhaps it won't appeal to everyone as strongly as it does me. But that, I think, is the great thing about Pixar. At their best, they send risky, niche stories out into the wild, and every once in a while, we wind up with something magical.

Color Out of Space

Spoiler-free!

This is a weird one, and that makes me happy. Modernizing the horror short story by the master of cosmic horror, H.P. Lovecraft, Color Out of Space tells of a mysterious event that takes place on an alpaca farm, where a meteorite lands and begins to alter the life around it.

Directed by Richard Stanley.

The event is witnessed by Ward (Elliot Knight) who stumbles across the farm as he does a survey of water tables in the secluded woods of Arkham County. The farm residents are the Gardner's, father Nathan (Nicholas Cage) mother Theresa (Joely Richardson) daughter Lavinia (Madeleine Arthur), and two sons, Benny (Brendan Meyer) and Jack (Julian Hilliard). After the meteorite crashes in their front yard they begin to experience an exponential growth of strange and disturbing happenings, that we know will lead nowhere good.

We don't get many straight-up H.P. Lovecraft movies, so I knew I was going to watch this no matter how bad it was, but I am genuinely impressed at how good an adaptation this is. It's set modern-day and there are a handful of other detail changes done, but with Lovecraft, the appeal isn't in exactly what happens, but the feel evoked -- and this felt every bit like the Lovecraftian menagerie of epic unknown terror that it should. The horror has that insane edge to it, and it creeps up slowly, focusing on the way the mystery effects the characters' mental states.

I loved this wobbly effect visible in the background.

It also withholds, but not so much that you feel cheated. You imagine, and then you get to see for yourself. And the effects are pretty darn fantastic. Sometimes in the vein of John Carpenter with practicals, sometimes with almost experimental digital -- rendering madness, and the indescribable. And it is cool. Violent and cosmic cool -- both in the concept and the way it is pulled off. As someone who doesn't like to be actively scared during a film, it was ideal for me. When you see how terrifying it must be for the characters, but are amazed, amused, and entertained yourself.

Despite having a fairly low budget, the movie doesn't lack anything, due to the original story dictating a remote location and tiny cast of characters. The woods and farm in the area are beautiful, and are made up in small ways to have an otherworldly vibe even before the changes begin. A lot of thought was put into the layout and details of the sets -- they stick in your mind with clear and unique imagery. And besides Nicholas Cage, no one is a big name, but they all sell the weird and the horror plus some. My favorites were Lavinia and Ward. Cage is like the cherry on top that brings out the crazy. Like he was born to play Lovecraft characters.

I would love to see more adaptations in this vein.

This film goes for it. The changes made are only to modernize, and to make the happenings film-able. Though Lovecraft's stories are not very cinematic, the solution, this film knew, isn't to try and "fix" the story. It fleshes out the characters and has to make up narrative scenes, but they are all in service to doing justice to the tone and nature of the story -- which is what's important. I was in awe by the end. It was wild and beautiful, disturbing and gleeful, and epic, and mad -- a true Lovecraftian film.

On the Hallmarkies Podcast!

Today my Twitter friend Rachel (@rachel_reviews) invited me onto her podcast to talk about the new Emma film (read my review here!) and how it compares with the four other versions that already exist! It was a fun conversation (talking Jane Austen, so how could it not be???) so if that sounds like a good listen to you, give it a listen below!

Emma (2020)

It is my firm belief that Jane Austen's books should see a new adaptation every ten years or so, and so far, filmmakers have been very dutiful in humoring me with this work in particular. Emma is the most broadly appealing of the Austen works, playing out as a sharp and lively rom-com in regency-era settings. It has been adapted to film five times by my count, and this fifth one, with Anya Taylor-Joy in the title role, is keen to not feel repetitive.

And so, it's directed with style, by Autumn de Wilde.

It is a faithful adaptation. And honestly that's all it needs to be to earn my seal of approval. But it goes beyond that, too. In its eagerness to make itself stand out from the pack, it puts much effort into its visual style, and also focuses down on a few key emotional and thematic elements to make the story stick; which as a side-effect means that elements that don't involve those key parts can be left wanting. Attention is mostly given to the character of Emma; to see how far into her flaws you can delve before she loses her appeal and charm. In that case Anya Taylor-Joy was the perfect choice to play her -- at least for me, since I am already biased to like her. The movie is upfront about her flaws, but successfully allows us to also see the good heart underneath too, as she works tirelessly, yet misguidedly, to improve the lives of those around her.

And yet, little of the film's focus is on acting. Casting was done, it seems, with stress on appearance, and the result is mixed; characters who look right on surface might occasionally feel out-of-sync with the characterization. I wasn't enraptured by any of the performances but think positively of them all. The characters that were explored deeper sometimes seemed squished to fit a mold that the direction laid out, but worked beautifully when the natural charm of the actors would shine through. Especially with Mia Goth as Harriett. Taylor-Joy is a commanding and charming lead, but some of the emotions Emma expresses are intentionally simplistic. The only way I can account for this is in the assumption that the film cared more about being different from other adaptations than it cared to be natural or instinctive about the character's thoughts and reactions.

It didn't want to copy anything -- but that's a hard task when so much has been done already.

And then some characters were only explored on surface level. This isn't any fault of the actors, but the result of a script that simply doesn't have time for them all. That's the eternal problem with Austen adaptations: you can't reasonably expect any theatrically released romantic comedy to be over two hours, but unedited, Emma's plot is too complex to fit into less. So, adaptations rise and fall on what they choose to leave out. This one leaves out a few things I would have wished to see -- like more of the truth behind Frank, or a more groan-inducing look at the detestable characters such as the Elton's -- but it also includes at least one part that none other adaptations have as I recall, and some small, original moments that serve to build the film's emotional core in the desired direction.

If it lacks one thing for sure, it is cheerfulness. While often funny, the humor is more cynical than light and gleeful, and moments of negative emotion are handled with more care. Again, intentionally directed focus. It's more interested in seeing the error of these people's ways than basking in the humorous ridiculousness of human folly. I love that Jane Austen was able to take things lightly, and I missed that sense of unadulterated enjoyment here. Small quibbles involve some bizarre choices made: the men's collars coming too high on their faces, an unexplained moment where someone's nose bleeds for no reason, and one or two off-putting moments of undress. I will always find that kind of thing unnecessary in Austen films -- but will likely never escape them.

I wasn't wowed by the style, but didn't need to be. Style or no style, it hits the right notes when it should.

The camera placement is hard and bold; sometimes to the detriment of the scene, when it cannot find a reason for its actions. Too often the style was done for the sake of style itself and contributes little to the overall quality -- as nice as uniquely pretty costumes and bright green fields are to see. It doesn't integrate itself into the story. Lines are often ripped from the pages which I love, but then occasionally there were silences between those lines, meant to be charged with emotion and context, that came up dry. And Austen's dialogue, ready-made and sparking with wit, was sometimes delivered almost as a side salad to the high-brow slapstick comedy the film invents for itself. A bizarre disconnect.

The scenes that do meld, and do connect -- which make up the majority -- are wonderful and innate. I wish the film could have found that stride throughout its run time, but I think it opposed itself too often and tripped itself up from time to time. It is funny, it does have moments of great charm, thoughtful sincerity, and smile-inducing romance -- but most importantly, it's a solid adaptation of Jane Austen's winning story. Not quite perfect, but no matter: we can't all be as perfect as Emma.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - March

I did go to the theater in February... to see 1917 again. I may or may not have a problem. But I didn't go for anything else only because Emma doesn't have a wide release until next weekend. So I'll definitely see a 2020 movie this month, and very much looking forward to it!

I also caught up with Parasite just before it took Best Picture at the Oscars. A fascinating film, if not one I feel in love with on a personal level. You can read my review of it here!

I think I might be sliding into 2020 mode now. So let's got to those March movies! What are you planning to see this month?



Onward
In theaters March 6th; PG
Between the releases Toy Story 3 and Toy Story 4, I've been interested in exactly one Pixar film: Incredibles 2. So I'm surprised that they have my attention again with the original Onward. I hear tell it's not as "great" as Pixar is known for, but I've been disenfranchised with the franchise for roughly 10 years. So either this is even worse, or maybe everyone else not falling for it is a sign that I will. Because I really love fantasy. And adventures. And this has both in spades -- and flaunts it. I don't think the plot will need to be fantastic for me to enjoy it, which is all I want. I also like the cast of Tom Holland and Chris Pratt in the leads. Maybe it won't be Great Pixar, but it at least looks like Pixar that's successfully catered to me.




The Way Back
Normally I'd write this kind of film off instantly; sport plots rarely appeal to me. Sport dramas even less. And if it must be sport dramas, basketball is not recommended. I've had enough of that in my lifetime. And I do not care for Ben Affleck. But. The director is Gavin O'Connor, who made Warrior, a sport drama that broke the mold for me, so despite all the marks against this one, I'll keep an eye on it because of that.




Bloodshot
In theaters March 13th; PG-13
I will watch anything with Toby Kebbell in it, and that's as complex as this needs to get. If the plot, action, and Vin Diesel are good that'll be nice, but it doesn't really matter to me. But... I kinda wonder how this premise could be any good without a R-for-violence rating. And for some reason I thought it was a Netflix film, and so I'm disappointed that I'll have to wait to see it streaming. And Toby Kebbell doesn't even appear to be the main villain. But like I said, those things are irrelevant to whether or not I'll see it.





A Quiet Place Part II
In theaters March 20th; NR
Do I wish they'd have just stopped, left great enough alone and not made more at the risk of ruining everything? Of course I do. I will I see this sequel anyway? Yes. Yes, I will. And what's more I will be relatively excited for it -- because John Krasinski must have heard about my reservations and decided to distract me from them by adding Cillian Murphy to the cast. A cheap trick, that is working beautifully. I'll probably see it in theaters. But gosh I hope it's a worthy sequel. Those things are a rarity these days.




Mulan
In theaters March 27th; PG-13
Until the remake Atlantis: The Lost Empire or Treasure Planet, I will not be excited for a Live Action Disney Remake. But this has potential to be the best one since Cinderella -- simply because it doesn't appear to be a paint-by-numbers copy of the animation. It still looks like a Disney movie, but also like it'll maybe try to be a good film, too. So hey... maybe it will be. I won't get my hopes up. But it has a better chance than most, I think.