Tag Archives: review

A very short review of “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” (2014)

I think that “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” (2014) is the best of Peter Jackson’s prequel trilogy, and not only because of its predictably terrific climactic battle.  I’d give this movie a 9 out of 10.

First, it’s less cartoonish and far more adult than its predecessors, in everything from its themes to its fight choreography.  (Compare the beautifully staged final melees here, for example, with that Warner Brothers-esque sequence in the second film, in which the dwarves dance across barrels and river rapids to repel their orc pursuers.)

It also seems like a better peek at a larger fantasy universe, with different races, armies and cultures working at cross purposes before needing to align, and with more than one protagonist’s real failings factoring in to that.

And … HOT DAMN!  That’s GOTTA be the greatest depiction of a dragon I’ve ever seen.  One small quibble I’ve had throughout all of Jackson’ Tolkien films was that the stories’ antagonists sometimes seemed too silly and clownish to be truly menacing.  (The orcs, trolls and goblins seemed cartoonish and are too easily defeated by beings sometimes half their height; only the Nazguls and the Uruk-Hai hybrids managed to impress.)  Jackson’s depiction of Smaug ravaging Laketown makes dragons look like Middle Earth’s equivalent of a goddam nuclear device.

[Edit: I just realized that in both this film and NBC’s “Hannibal,” the amazing Richard Armitage costars with a “Red Dragon.]

hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies_ver21_xlg_large

A quick review of “The Visit” (2015)

I quite liked M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Visit” (2015); I’d give it an 8 out of 10.  It is by no means a perfect movie.  But it has all of the elements of Shyamalan’s work that I love: it’s beautifully shot; it has a fresh, creative story; it’s suspenseful; it’s atmospheric, and it has well drawn, likeable protagonists.

I am an unashamed Shyamalan fan.  I love all his horror-thriller movies, even the one or two in which I can guess Shyamalan’s trademark “twist” in advance.  Yes, I even liked “The Village” (2004).  And I liked “The Happening” (2006) a hell of lot too.

This movie indeed has said twist.  I thought I guessed what it was in the opening minutes.  I was wrong, and when the real twist was revealed, it was pretty damn effective.  For a moment, I was as dumbfounded as the characters on screen.  This was despite the fact that all the clues had been right there in front of me, and seem obvious in retrospect.

And it is scary in places.  A scene beneath the house comes first to mind.  So does the “oven” bit that we see in the trailer.  The cast is uniformly good.  The standout was a fantastic performance by Deanna Dunagan as “Nana.”

A couple of things nudged this movie just slightly left of the “great” category, into the “good but not great” category.  For one, I think this could have been a short film, and didn’t need more than 40 minutes or an hour to tell its story.  The pacing seems to suffer a little because of that.  For the first hour, we keep revisiting the same arc in tension: a grandparent behaves strangely, a grandchild queries them, and then the behavior subsides.

Character choices are also implausible.  These are bright, savvy kids, who are either oblivious to or cavalier about obvious signs of danger.  I think any person in real life would be too frightened to remain in the house where “The Visit” takes place.  Later, certain things change a little too conveniently after the twist is revealed.

The rapid change in tone after the story’s conclusion was a little heavy-handed.  I thought the story’s final minutes were nice, but maybe a little too much.  (I am being intentionally vague here to avoid spoilers.)

Still, I’d recommend this.  If you can overlook the movie’s faults here and there, you’ll enjoy a damn creepy modern fairytale.

images

“Annabelle” (2014) scared the $#@& out of me!!

“Annabelle” seems like precisely the sort of horror film that shouldn’t work.  Thinly drawn characters wind their way through a series of overly familiar tropes, including, of course, the titular possessed doll.  These characters make the same baffling decisions that only people in horror movies are stupid enough to make, and cavalierly remain in dangerous situations long after you and I would have gotten the hell out of there.  The film is so reminiscent of “Rosemary’s Baby” (1968) that for a while I actually wondered if it was a remake.  And the script is pretty clunky — especially the coda at the church.

Yet … “Annabelle” still works.  This is a frikkin’ scary movie.  I’d give it a 9 out of 10.

There are a couple of reasons for the movie’s success, I think.  First, it’s beautifully shot and directed throughout an especially creepy apartment building. Our supernatural antagonists are (at first) wisely seen down long corridors and stairwells.  There are some static shots of the doll but none of the silly cut-and-cut-back tricks to explain that it is moving on its own.

Second, there is no ham-handed CGI to make the action cartoonish; there are only sparsely placed practical effects, and they work quite well.  This felt like an effective old-fashioned 1970’s horror movie about the devil.

Third, Annabelle Wallis does well in her role as the wife in the young married couple targeted by Satan. She underplays it quite a bit, but she’s still a good actress.  (The beautiful Wallis is none other than the college student that young Charles Xavier tried to pick up in 2011’s “X-Men: First Class.”  And, yes, she does have the same first name as the demonic doll.  Weird world.)

I was confused at first about the awkward and confusing bookends to the film; they’re distracting and unnecessary.  Wikipedia informs me that these are intended to remind viewers that this movie is a spinoff of “The Conjuring” (2013), which is regarded by horror fans as superior to this film.  I guess I’ll need to watch that soon.

 

a11da6bd58b95b334f8cd49f00918f16_500x735

Catch “Cooties” (2015) — you’ll like it.

And I am certain I am the only filmgoer who has come up with that clever headline.

This was fun, though — I’d give it an 8 out of 10.  It isn’t quite the instant classic you might expect from the trailer, but it’s an engaging horror comedy that made me laugh.

The running jokes connected with Elijah Wood’s straight man and Jorge Garcia (HURLEY!!!) ran thin early on.  (The former is an obsessed would-be author, that latter is a drug-addled security guard.)  Far funnier was an unrecognizable Rainn Wilson as the boorish gym teacher, and the pretty Nasim Pedrad as the paranoid aggressive.  The nod to The Lord of the Rings was especially nice.

Upstaging the entire rest of the cast, however, was a surprise comedic performance by the screenwriter himself, Leigh Whannell, as the office weirdo.  Whannell wrote this film along with other great horror movies like “SAW” (2004), and the “Insidious” films.  I had no idea that he could be so damn hilarious; he’s a talented guy.

If you like horror-comedies, check this out!

cooties-poster

A review of “Deliver Us From Evil” (2014)

“Deliver Us From Evil” (2014) pleasantly surprised me by being a pretty decent horror movie; I’d give it an 8 out of 10.

I expected a predictable melodrama between its two primary protagonists — the hardened, intractably “close-minded” cop and the wise young priest.  This, I thought, would upstage a thin, generic, supernatural backstory.

Well … there was some of that expected character interaction, but I admit that it was done pretty well.  And the old fashioned scares served up here make this an above average horror movie.

I say “old fashioned” because this seemed to channel the demonic possession classics that defined this horror movie sub-genre, for me, anyway — “The Exorcist” (1973) and “The Exorcist III” (1990).  It has an expansive story that begins in a nicely surprising battle scene in Iraq, then shifts its focus to several chilling violent crimes in New York City.  Then it effectively blends a horror story with a police thriller.  And the story is detailed, with some thought put into the demon’s modus operandi and choice of victims, as well as the their investigation by streetwise New York City cops.  A straight horror-thriller like this is a nice contrast to recent well made supernatural horror films like last year’s “The Babadook” or “It Follows,” which were ambiguous and heavily thematic, personal stories with virtually no exposition.

Eric Bana and Edgar Ramirez were both terrific; even they might have been upstaged by Joel McHale in a supporting role as Bana’s foul mouthed but loyal anti-hero partner. I was rooting for him more than the thinly drawn hero scripted for Bana. (Can any NYC cops really wield a knife like that?  If so, that’s totally badass.)  McHale is damn good — I’ll be looking for him in his regular role in the upcoming revival of “The X Files.”  If you were an NYC cop, wouldn’t you want a partner like that?  Seriously … that dude is BADASS.

Regrettably, this movie’s thought and creativity do seem to lose steam toward the end.  Certain scares and images were done wonderfully.  The scenes inside the asylum were great, for example, especially one shot that made me think of the Batman mythos’ Arkham Asylum.  Others fell flat.  Our Big Bad, when finally revealed in full, is just a generic ugly dude in drab whiteface.  And a sequence involving a piano is shot with little visual flair.

The most frightening subplot of all involves a troubled girl in her bedroom; it’s cut short and rendered irrelevant in order to move the plot forward.  And the finale features an exorcism that recycles mostly old tropes from the sub-genre.

Hey … this was still a good movie, though.  It certainly was better than I thought it would be.  I’d cheerfully recommend it.

Oh!  One more thing — this is supposedly based on a true story.  Scott Derrickson’s interesting screenplay derives from the 2001 book, “Beware The Night,” by retired NYC police officer Ralph Sarchie (Bana’s character).  I wonder what evidence anyone has gathered to either support or debunk the story here.

deliver_us_from_evil

A very short review of “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues” (2013)

“Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues” (2013) might not match the magic of the original, but it was still damn funny; I’d give it a 9 out of 10.

Occasionally a major gag was so bizarre that it was more perplexing than funny (Dobie the shark, the RV accident, the ghost of Stonewall Jackson).  But this movie is mostly a great and nicely quotable farce, as the first one was.  Predictably, the biggest laughs result from Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) and Brick Tamland (Steve Carell).  But Paul Rudd and David Koechner both are still perfect as Brian Fantana and Champ Kind, and they add a lot.

I think movies like this tend to work best when farcical, over-the-top characters are played against “straight men” characters; here, Ron’s dinner with his girlfriend’s family is a perfect example.

Weird world — I thought that the guy in Marvel’s “Ant Man” posters looked familiar.  That’s Rudd.

MV5BMjE5ODk0NjQzNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwODk4MDA1MDE@._V1_SX640_SY720_

A comic book tip conundrum: “Daredevil: Fall From Grace” (Chichester, McDaniel, Colazzo, 1993)

I was all set to plug my favorite Daredevil storyline following the success of Marvel’s show on Netflix; now I hesitate.  I absolutely loved 1993’s “Daredevil: Fall From Grace,” written by D. G. Chichester and illustrated by Scott McDaniel and Hector Collazo.  But a simple google search reveals that this is yet another thing that I loved and everyone else apparently hates.  So we can file it right alongside certain 90’s artifacts like “Alien 3” (1992), “Knightfall” (1993), and “Wyatt Earp” (1994).

Man, the reaction to this was poor, despite its high sales upon release.  I actually do understand the criticisms.  It’s a complicated story, into which various unrelated characters from the Marvel universe are shoehorned.  (A “virus” bioengineered by the Defense Department can “remake what it infects” into anything at all, granting the infected with whatever superpowers they wish.  Various Marvel villains and anti-heroes arrive in New York to compete for its discovery, after its loss decades ago in the subway system is made known.)

People hated “Fall From Grace,” describing it as convoluted and difficult to follow.  They said Chichester’s writing was incomprehensible and too wordy.  The experimental new art style by Scott McDaniel was described as “murky” and equally hard to follow.  Today, people wonder why the widely panned story was ever even collected into trade paperback.  (It’s pricey, by the way.)

Maybe I’m just nuts, but … this is one of my favorite comic book storylines of all time.  I absolutely would not recommend it to a reader new to Daredevil, as I recommended Frank Miller and John Romita Jr.’s “Daredevil: The Man Without Fear” on Monday.  In fact, it might only really be enjoyed by someone with at least a bit of familiarity with the Marvel universe.

Yes, Chichester’s writing was lengthy and verbose.  But I loved his sometimes poetic and always mood-setting exposition, and his dialogue occasionally really shined.  I forgave the story for inserting characters with whom I was unfamiliar.  “Hellspawn” (and his Jamaican accent?) was entirely new to me, but damn if that monster didn’t make a unique and frightening enemy for Daredevil.  (He’s the demonic looking, tiger-like “doppleganger” you see pictured in the first cover below.)

And look at that art.  Certainly, it wasn’t to everybody’s taste.  It was abstract, minimalist, dark, and it often lacked detail. It was almost … impressionistic?  But I loved it.  The radically altered style was perfectly suited to this new, much darker tone and story.  (There was a hell of a lot of pathos in this storyline, including torture and assassination at the hands of the government.)  It was full of shadow and dark color, served the story’s mood perfectly, and it was nothing like I’d seen in a comic book before.

I couldn’t honestly recommend buying this in trade paperback, given the fact the entire world except me seemed unhappy with it.  But, hey …  if you can borrow it from a friend or the library, then check it out.  Maybe you’ll find some of the magic in it that I did.

865251

dd321p2

dd320p7

b370ba24ac7547651854ee6ba90581a4

“Sinister 2” is goddam frightening!

For the life of me, I cannot understand how “Sinister 2” (2015) is getting such bad reviews.  It’s a well made, terrifying horror movie that actually exceeds the 2012 original, which itself was superb.  I’d cheerfully give it a 9 out of 10.

These films have a hell of a story setup.  I won’t describe it in detail here, to avoid spoilers for either movie.  Suffice to say, it is disturbing, even by horror movie standards.  If your standard fare is disposable slasher flicks, bump-in-the-night ghost stories, larger-than-life survival fantasies like zombie movies — beware!  This film take it up a notch.  (As Nigel Tufnel once expounded, “This one goes to 11.”)

The movie depicts a demon who is responsible for the ostentatious, ritualistic murders of entire families.  If that isn’t bad enough, his exact modus operandi is … gut wrenching.  I can’t imagine what kind of pathological muse spoke to screenwriters Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill in coming up with this s@#$.  Yeesh!!!

I actually thought this was much scarier than the first “Sinister.”  (A caveat — I’m pretty sure I’m alone here; it seems like nearly everyone else panned this movie.)

First, the demon’s sickening systematic methods here are examined in detail.  (The first movie worked as a mystery, in which these methods are gradually discovered by an investigative journalist.)  We examine in greater depth the 8MM film strips that serve as a story device.  (I don’t think I am revealing too much here, as they are shown in every ad for the movie.)

Second, we have a protagonist here that we can actually care about.  It is none other than “Deputy So-And-So” (nicely played by James Ransone), the supporting character from the first film, who turns out to be a surprisingly likable anti-hero.  He’s got character and charm that Ethan Hawke’s arrogant true-crime writer utterly lacked in the first movie.  (It was the screenwriters’ fault, not the immensely talented Hawke’s, by the way.)  We’ve got a nice guy that we can care about and root for.  The imperiled family here is also more likable; the writer’s family in “Sinister” was portrayed in little depth.

Seriously, this is a highly disturbing horror movie, if that’s what you’re in the mood for.  The “Christmas morning” scene really got under my skin.  My fellow horror fans might skewer me for saying this, but it scared me as much as anything in “The Shining” (1980).  It … just … YEESH, man!!

One quick final note — at the very end of the movie, I came up with my own twist ending; I’m surprised they didn’t go with it.  It contains a spoiler, so I explain it after the jump beneath the poster below.

sinister2_p1

Continue reading “Sinister 2” is goddam frightening!

Season 1 of Netflix’ “Daredevil” was downright superb!

Throughout the entire first season of Netflix’ “Daredevil,” the obsessive comic book nerd in me kept scanning outdoor scenes for The Avengers Tower.  I don’t think I saw it once.  But that didn’t affect my enjoyment of a serial crime thriller that was so often fantastic.

And I think that sums up the program nicely.  This is only a putative part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  References to the fantastical larger universe of Marvel’s comic book movies are perfunctory and vague.  The intergalactic invasion of the Chitauri lizard-men, engineered by the Norse God Loki, is referred to only as “the event” — even though the destruction in New York is part of this season’s plot setup.  Characters like Iron Man and Thor are referred to dryly by a secondary bad guy who doesn’t even mention their names.  And other “comic book connections” tend to be minor, obscure, and sparing for a 13-episode season.  I actually gained the suspicion here that the screenwriters for this brutal crime drama were unconsciously embarrassed that their show was part of the MCU.  Yes, I do know that Netflix will soon launch other related shows, for less iconic comic book characters such as Luke Cage and Iron Fist, and that this incarnation of Daredevil seems fated to join something called “The Defenders.”  (Ugh.)  But that thankfully hasn’t happened yet.

Even the comic book elements of the Daredevil mythos seemed to me to be underplayed here.  His unusual powers (they don’t even feel like “superpowers”) rarely take center stage.  His villains aren’t garish. He’s only nicknamed “Daredevil” via a news article in the final episode; nor does he don anything approaching his trademark costume until then.  Wilson Fisk, our Big Bad, is never once referred to by his comic book appellation, “The Kingpin.”

And you know what?  All of that works just fine.  The Hell’s Kitchen we see in “Daredevil” might seem like a universe unto itself.  But, given this show’s quality, even a diehard comic book fan like me can concede, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

It ain’t broke.  I’d rate Season 1 at a 9 out of 10.  In many ways, “Daredevil” is far superior to anything else in the MCU.  This show’s distinguishing characteristic isn’t that it’s dark.  It’s that it’s a well written, well directed, and usually quite well performed crime-thriller.

It has surprisingly three-dimensional, truly interesting characters who are rendered in depth and detail.  This includes a few bad guys, by the way, who might have a knack for winning over viewer loyalty just by being so good at being bad.  (Most people would point to Fisk, but for me, Wesley was the guy you hate to love.)  Many characters are so well written and played by their actors that they seem 100 percent “real” — particularly Ben Urich and Karen Page.  This is the single MCU property with the most compelling characterization and, yes, I am including the “Iron Man” films in this comparison.

Yes, everything you’ve heard about this being Marvels darkest onscreen outing is correct … and THEN some.  The story is not just thematically dark; the story is itself brutal.  This seems to be a corner of the MCU in which the harshest consequences result for characters at every level.  Daredevil doesn’t just “take a hit” here; he gets cut up, bloodied and scarred — so much at several points that he requires the services of a (regrettably plot convenient) off-duty emergency room nurse.

Far worse is what happens to ordinary people who are heroic themselves.  No good deed goes unpunished in this nasty niche of Marvel’s world.  Defenseless people are shown no mercy by the story’s stronger protagonists.  The murder of one beloved character is all the more chilling because we witness their fruitless attempts to defend themselves despite a complete absence of special powers or training.  It’s … actually a bit worse than what we saw in that paragon of gritty superhero films, Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy.

And the crimes and criminals themselves?  Yeesh.  An early scene in the very first episode gives us a chilling little glimpse of human trafficking, with sobbing, kidnapped women loaded into the back of a dockside shipping container.  Not long after, we witness a father being beaten in the street before his son’s eyes; the child is then snatched.  The running theme here is that ordinary human evil can be more terrifying than dimension-hopping lizard-man armies or tyrannical Norse gods.  Sure, this theme is something we’ve seen plenty of times before.  But here, it’s just done so damn WELL.

The fight choreography was frikkin’ SWEET.  It was fantastic enough to be comic book violence, but gritty and consequential enough to be real-world violence.  I kept trying to figure out where a stunt double might be filling in for Charlie Cox, who portrayed Daredevil.  I couldn’t.  He’s … not doing his own stunts, is he?

The acting was usually quite good.  Deborah Ann Woll consistently stole the show as Karen Page — the script here beautifully elevates Karen beyond her pretty pathetic comic book incarnation.  (A caveat — I was reading the “Daredevil” comics in the 1990’s, and am using those as a frame of reference here; of course they might have changed significantly since then.)  Karen often seems to emerge as much of a primary protagonist here as Daredevil himself.  She’s got far more at stake, personally, and Woll expertly gets that across to the audience.  And she’s a complex character, playing the fool for Foggy Nelson, being the the darkly driven de facto apprentice to Ben Urich, and occasionally being manipulative and ruthless in ways that our other protagonists never could.  What a great improvement on the original source material.  (Hint — comics are not a medium known for its feminist sensibilities.)  Woll, who I remember hitting it out of the park in her psychopathic role in HBO’s “True Blood” (2008) outshines every co-star.

Nearly every other cast member was perfect or near perfect.  Vondie Curtis-Hall needs special mention here for truly bringing Ben Urich to life on the big screen for the first time.  His turn as the aging, jaded newspaper reporter was flawless.  Urich, to me, will always be the greatest reporter in comics.  (F&*$ Peter Parker and those Daily Planet pretty people; Ben was the real deal.  Who cares if he was past mid-life?  He was the only character in the comic books who spoke and proceeded like a real journalist.)

There were really only a couple of forgivable weaknesses that affected my enjoyment of Season 1.

First, the narrative structure … seemed “off” somehow.  I see the basic underlying story here as ultimately being an deeply personal battle between two men: Daredevil and the Kingpin.  (This is despite the way that Karen and Ben delightfully distinguish themselves as prime movers in the plot.)  I …. never really sensed any momentum here.  For a while, Daredevil and Fisk have minimal information about each other.  We see Matt Murdoch in skirmishes with many underlings; these seem episodic and without greater consequence.  Then … Matt quite accidentally meets Fisk for the first time, when he tries to “get a sense of” his enemy by … meeting his girlfriend?  Huh?  I never really got a sense of these two primary characters moving toward each other until the last episodes.  Oh, well … the comics were kinda like that.  But I do hope that future seasons are more tightly plotted, with more consistent tension.

Second, there really seemed to be multiple problems connected with the character of Foggy Nelson.  I do think that Eldon Henson performed quite poorly in the role.  Maybe he was just miscast.  He doesn’t once come close to the performances of his co-stars.  I also think the script did absolutely nothing to make Foggy a likable character.  He’s immature, self-absorbed, and ethically rickety.  His jokes fall flat; his flat “banter” with Karen is grating (and makes her look like an idiot).  He’s … downright irritating.  Why would Matt want him as a “best friend” or business partner?  Why would anybody?

Third, I occasionally would like a more specific nod in Hell’s Kitchen to the larger Marvel universe.  Maybe a truck passes by with the Stark Industries log.  Maybe a kid passes by with a Captain America t-shirt.  Maybe a couple of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents investigate Fisk’s employees in connection with offshore partners who are alleged to have super-powered henchman.  Just something small — it wouldn’t spoil the “real” feel of our dark drama, and it would place our protagonists’ lives in a larger context.

All in all, though, “Daredevil” was surprisingly superior to what I thought it would be, even with all of its glowing press.  See it.

One final note — if you’re a fan of both superhero comics and AMC’s “The Walking Dead,” then Season 2’s casting has a wicked cool surprise, if you haven’t already heard about it.  Head on over to The Internet Movie Database to see who is playing whom.  You’ll smile.

Poster-Season-One-daredevil-netflix-38398364-680-1000

“ISIS Rising” (2013) might be the stupidest documentary ever.

“ISIS Rising” (2013) is a film with no educational value, and I can’t believe anyone could find it helpful in understanding the terrifying events connected with ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  Throughout this film’s entire running length, it yields no genuine insight into the international crisis.  Indeed, it doesn’t even provide the viewer with any information whatsoever!  I’d rate it at a 0 out of 10.

The filmmakers here made a truly bizarre major creative decision in trying to inform the viewer via … metaphor?  We are actually introduced early on to a character name “ISIS.”  She is, inexplicably, a buxom female mummy.  No … you read that right.  ISIS is represented by a major character who is a big-bosomed, female mummy.  She fights a male mummy (presumably representing Western democracies?!).  In fact, the entire film plays out like a low-budget pageant set in ancient Egypt.  Why was that choice made?  How does the pantheon of ancient Egyptian Gods relate to radical Islam in the modern world?  Isn’t that a bit like employing Roman mythology as a metaphor for contemporary Christianity, Judaism, or another modern religion?

There is a preponderance of breasts.  What did they symbolize?  Iraq and Syria?  When ISIS the lady mummy clutches her breasts, does that represent the terrorist army clutching the two countries in its grip?  And what about the barely dressed male mummy?  Should I be offended that the United States and her allies are represented by some guy’s giant schvantz?

Skip this.

Isis-Rising-Movie