Review: Love, Simon

Love, Simon (2018) - Greg Berlanti

         I've had some conversations lately about the state of gay representation in popular culture. My roommate (who I swear exists) is sick of how most movies or TV shows about gay people are either completely kitschy and campy or super dire. And it's true, even a movie like Call Me By Your Name, which is a fantastic, thoughtful, and important movie, is about a torrid, underage love affair. There is a complete nadir or normal love stories involving gay people. Which, in 2018, is pretty much ridiculous. There's still this stigma about it and pop culture, while massively useful, still isn't representing this humongous group of people the way it should. Which is part of the reason Love, Simon works so fucking well. 20 years ago this could have been a completely serviceable hetero normative She's All That-esque high school romance flick, but in today it finally serves to show that gay people can have a normal love story too, and I really loved it.

       Nick Robinson stars as Simon, a totally normal teenager. I know this because the movie makes a point of telling us just how normal everything in his life is (note: It is not normal to have a house that big, a room that dope, and parents who look like Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel, that's not normal at all). He hangs with his friends, does theatre, drinks too much iced coffee, and aimlessly drives around in his shitty car (okay that part does sound just like high school to me). But Simon's been keeping his homosexuality from everyone a secret, and it's clearly starting to get to him. Well one day on Creeksecrets.com (I graduated from high school about a million years ago so I can't be sure, but is it normal for a high school to have a salacious gossip blog in 2018? I'd accept answers in the comments, but if anyone reading these reviews is still in high school I'm going to pour gasoline on my laptop and the internet and burn it all down) a student writes an anonymous letter telling everyone he's gay and not ready to come out yet. From there Simon starts a pen pal relationship with the original post writer, Blue, as Simon calls him, while also trying to figure out who he might really be in the high school.

       This is a good movie. This movie's absolute best quality is that its sweet. It takes (almost every, I'll get to that soon) each character seriously and doesn't make light of the things happening to them, even though they're only in high school. The movie very successfully gives us the weight of high school problems, dating, first love, lying, rumours, popularity, but also never makes it obtuse or overwrought. This movie is certainly a drama (and a romance, and also a comedy), but it never feels too dramatic for the sake of drama, and that's unbelievably refreshing. Even without it knocking over the head with dire EMOTIONS, I still basically cried the entire second half of the movie. It was just very, very sweet.
       One of the best things about this movie is that it doesn't have to be a "gay" movie to function well. The main character could easily be a girl (or the mystery blogger a girl) and the movie wouldn't really change much at all. Of course it shouldn't do that, the fact that its about a kid trying to come to terms with himself is one of the crutches of the whole movie, I just want to point out that a love story can still just be a love story, the idea that it's between two males doesn't need to be shocking or different. Our expectations of seeing homosexual relationships on screen is what has been different, so I'm glad the movie doesn't let itself veer off path too much from being just a romantic teenage movie as well as a really strong story about accepting yourself.

       Which is the other best part of the movie: Simon's struggle to come out and be true to himself in front of his friends and families. It's another way the movie is very smart; for Simon his biggest concern is people seeing him differently after he comes out, which, while not everyone who sees this movie will be a gay person who's had to come out, I think everyone can relate to being afraid people aren't going to like you once they find out who you really are. The reason this movie works so well (and why I cried so goddamn much) is because it's smart enough to find relatability in every story line, regardless who's the emotional center of it.
       There's one story line in the movie involving an annoying classmate and blackmail that honestly, in my opinion, goes on way too long. They try to make it a normal part of the story, but honestly the fact that a high-schooler is blackmailing a gay student into helping him or threatening to out him is so morally reprehensible, and there's so little consequence for all of it, that it just becomes kind of angering. And it causes Simon to act like a total dick, lying all around town and whatnot. It's understandable, and Simon eventually does have to face the music, but the kid who actually outed someone doesn't? It's narratively frustrating, especially because this is mostly a movie about nice kids being nice. It doesn't quite fit, but it doesn't ruin it or anything either.

       The end of the movie even has a big spectacle scene where people watch and cheer Simon on as he hopefully finds love with Blue. I hate movies that end in public spectacle, I hate them so much, but even Love, Simon found a way to make the end surprising, exciting, and of course, so goddamn sweet and endearing that I didn't even mind when everyone in the movie and everyone in the movie theatre started fucking clapping at the climax. It had definitely earned it. Love, Simon earns all the laughs and tears it mustered, and I hope more Hollywood movies like this continue to be made and released. It can only lead to good things.

7 out of 10 Different Times I Cried During This Movie
     

Review: Tomb Raider

Tomb Raider (2018) - Roar Uthaug

       Did you guys ever play video games? Some PS? PS2? Some Game Cube maybe, I dunno, let's get crazy! Well, not to be a dickwad, but I've never played Tomb Raider the video game, and I've also never seen either of those Angelina Jolie Tom Raider movies from the early 2000's. I know she goes to Cambodia in one of them (Oh shit, I just put that together with the fact that she adopted like 600 Cambodian children. Now I'm imagining them on the Tomb Raider 2 set, going to town on the craft services and just making a general mess, because children), and I have also been to Cambodia! That's the closest I've gotten to experiencing a Raiding of the Tomb by Lara Croft. So I went into the new Tomb Raider, starring Alicia Vikander and directed by Roar Uthaug (Hooooow is that a name?) with very little expectations. And in that respect I was...mostly satisfied! Low expectations yield mildly pleasant results (also something every girl I've ever slept with has said)!
       So I'm not sure about before, where Angelina Jolie looked like she was practically Superwoman but in caves, but in this version of Tomb Raider Lara Croft is just a regular girl. A regular, MMA-fighting, parkour biking, genius girl. Her dad died (disappeared?) seven years ago, and instead of dealing with her emotions and taking her place among the Croft business (they're super rich, of course), she's been slumming it, working as a bike courier and having trouble paying her gym fees. That is until she finally decides to admit her father's death, and is given a crypto-puzzle type thing that leads her to discover her dad's (Dominic Cooper, or as he will always be truly known: McNutty from The Wire. Yes I know it's actually McNulty, but Bubbles always calls him McNutty, so McNutty it is!) big secret: He's actually an Indiana Jones-like artifact seeker who's discovered an Ancient Japanese Evil! She's a witch or something? It's not important! Lara decides to follow in her father's footsteps and hopefully discover what happened to him all those years ago.

        So this movie doesn't quite need to exist. I can't imagine that it says or does anything that was criminally lacking in the first Tomb Raider movies. I get the feeling this one is supposed to have more of a "realistic" feel to it, making Lara Croft semi-relatable (She's still ripped AS FUCK, but in the first scene they show her losing a fight with a fellow boxer) and even trying to explain some of the more mystical aspects of the story with science. But this whole movie has a weird, early 2000s feel to it. It's basically the best movie of 2002. Think of The Mummy (Brendon Fraser FTW), or even the later Jurassic Park movie when they started using for CGI effects. It's an adventure flick, complete with Indiana Jones riddles and and even some Hunger Games-like kickass female bow and arrow action. You can even throw some early LOST in there. And while I don't want to only compare this movie to other movies, it's kind of impossible not to. It has a very Hollywood adventure hodge podge to it. It borrows tons and tons of very familiar adventure movie tropes. The main reason it doesn't totally fail is because they've reached from SO MANY different places it doesn't quite feel fresh, but it doesn't feel absolutely boring either.

        However, and this is the movie's biggest issue: A decent amount of it is kind of boring. There are a few pretty good set-pieces (I enjoyed the thoroughly stupid but exciting bike race at the beginning), and I was adequately entertained for most of the runtime, but whenever there were down moments from the action, the movie's flaws start showing. The story is stupidly ridiculous (Why did she actually follow him there? Why are they searching for a tomb by literally blowing up an entire island? How hard is it to find a MASSIVE underground tomb? Isn't there technology for that kind of stuff?) and the screenplay and director (Roar is not a name) aren't quite skilled enough to make the emotions or the characters work. So we have to rely on the action (which ain't terrible) and Vikander's portrayal of Croft to keep the movie afloat.
       And one of the best parts of the movie, luckily, is Alicia Vikander. Hot off her Academy Award win (I've seriously spent the last 14 hours thinking about it, and I truly cannot remember if I ever saw The Danish Girl. It's like it's movie-shaped air. Like, I'm sure I saw it because it won an acting Oscar and I really like Vikander in general because of Ex Machina, but for the goddamn life of me I cannot remember a single thing about that movie. Eddie Redmayne is probably a douchebag in real life) her casting as Lara Croft had to be what finally got this reboot off the ground, and she's pretty great even though there's really not much for her on the page to work with. She's basically a stubborn, heroic, genius, but she imbues the almost-superhuman like Lara with relatability and compassion. And she's legit ripped in it. Her six-pack has a six-pack. But she has such a small frame you almost don't expect her to (even in a fake-ass movie world) be able to hold her own as Lara Croft, but she absolutely does. She's fun and she kicks ass.

       I should mention Walton Goggins is the bad guy in the movie, and he is so incredibly wasted. Walton Goggins is a FANTASTIC actor and he's fantastic because he's such a fucking weirdo. This movie has him playing his stupidly even character so mundanely, so uninterestingly, that I felt cheated. Give me weird Goggins or give me death. Also McNutty as Croft Daddy is pretty silly too. Dude, I love the Wire so much, and I love McNutty, but we gotta face the facts the dude ain't that good an actor.

       The end of the movie obviously sets up a larger universe for Lara to (hopefully for Warner Brothers, who have boondoggled the fuck out of their DC universe thus far and need a win that's not just Wonder Woman) continue exploring and fighting her way through. Some evil group named Trinity is the main foe, and there's a thoroughly unexciting reveal at the end of the movie about who's really in charge. Interestingly enough, however, when it set up the possible sequels and ended, I actually wanted there to be a sequel. I would watch another one of these Alivia Vikander as Lara Croft Tomb Raider movies. Sure that's not the highest praise, but in 2018, among the rampant rubble of reboots, video game adaptations, and endless fucking Star Wars movies, that's actually a pretty big compliment. Maybe the next one can go a little crazier and have more fun. Just keep Vikander there and let her kick all the asses.

Grade: 2.8 out of 5 Japanese AIDS Witches

Review: Red Sparrow

Red Sparrow - Francis Lawrence

       The trailers for Red Sparrow were all sleek and sexy, with Jennifer Lawrence's sparkly red dress, her femme fatale Russian accent, and her Charlize-Theron-bleach-blonde-hair a la last year's Atomic Blonde. It was sold as a more psycho-sexual spy thriller, where J-Law uses not only her smarts and strength but also her....sessuality. And while I don't take issues to a movie not quite adhering to its marketing campaign, I do take issue when all the things about the movie that made it look trashy and fun were actually hard to watch and at times basically upsetting. Atomic Blonde had fun, but Red Sparrow seems almost intent to make sure the audience is, while sure, probably engaged, because it is a well-made movie with decent tension and good performances, squirming uncomfortably and wishing to hell an old Russian scientist would give J-Law a necklace that actually shot poison darts or something. This movie's pretty rough.
       Jennifer Lawrence stars as Dominika Ergova (who has a Russian accent but doesn't speak Russian once the entire movie and I know, at thirty years old, and an avid movie watcher, this sort of thing shouldn't bother me, BUT IT DOES. IT ALWAYS BOTHERS ME) a famous ballerina who, because of a terrible injury, is forced into the world of Russian espionage. Yep, pretty much just like that. Her uncle is big into the Russian secret service, and she very quickly gets embroiled in a web of lies, murder, treason, secrets, and Joel Edgerton's sexy abs. Is she playing the Americans? Is she playing the Russians? Will we find out who the mole is?! (Because of course there's a mole. It IS a spy movie).

       There are some things about the movie that work: Jennifer Lawrence is solid and believable (as always). The direction by Francis Lawrence curates a good level of dread and suspense throughout, and the movie definitely has a visceral charm to it that makes it, while not fun, engaging. The first scene of the movie, in fact, was pretty tight, combining a ballet sequence with a thrilling spy chase scene. But after that, the movie's excitement begins to fizzle away. At its core narratively, the movie is kind of a mess. And the main reason for that is none other than Dominika herself.

       This isn't Jennifer Lawrence's fault as a performer. She does an apt job making us care for her. The biggest problem with the movie is that Dominika is a very passive character. A lot of things happen to her, and she's forced to react to them, but throughout the egregiously long run-time of the movie, she is able to make very few actual decisions. I understand that she is continuously put in these situations where the character doesn't have much of a choice, but that simply doesn't make for a very entertaining movie. I'ts her lack of agency that honestly makes large parts of the movie much less interesting. She does this because her uncle says she has to. Then she does that because her evil spy school teacher told her. There are small moments where she tries to reclaim some of herself for herself, but the oppressive world she lives in is so dominating and cruel that for her the biggest choice she gets to make is fucking someone she doesn't want to missionary position instead of doggy. Yes, it was a cool moment for the character, but she really doesn't get to do a lot.

       Yes, by the end of the movie there is, of course, a big reveal (Spoiler Alert: It's not a big reveal. My spoiler alert is that there isn't much of a spoiler alert. Did I just blow your mind? I did. I'm a dirty little mind blower), it's too little too late. I'm glad that things, ya know, work out for her, but it feels like she didn't have a lot to do with any of it until the very end. And even by the end, she's still trapped in a particular cycle that the movie makes very clear she doesn't want or deserve, but because she has so little say in any of it, it's meant to be cathartic, but isn't.

      The movie has very, very little action in it. A good thriller doesn't need car chases and non-stop hand-to-hand combat, but some kind of excitement would have very much helped break up the brutal assault of torture and terribleness the movie settles into from the very beginning. The first job she agrees to, which is supposed to be a simple phone swap case, turns into a scene where the man raping her is murdered while he's still inside her. She almost gets raped again at her training school, which is like a horrifying, sexually manipulative Hogwarts. And then there are no fewer than three more LITERAL torture scenes. Yes, Russians love to torture people (apparently), but the movie is honestly not good enough to take on such brutal and thematically dark material.
       Yes, Jennifer Lawrence plays a strong female lead, and yes, the movie has some pretty good mood going for it, but overall the feeling is one of a flick that just slogs about, not all that excitingly. Definitely not excitingly enough to justify how unpleasant most of the film is during its (did I mention far too long?) run time? Somewhere in the murky, depressing murk of this movie lies something more fun and engaging, but neither the screenplay or the director had the wherewithal to quite find it.

Grade: Much, much better than the nude photos J-Law were leaked online. Oh, but as a movie? Eh. 5?

Review: Game Night

Game Night (2018) - John Francis Daly and Jonathon Goldstein

       High concept comedies are tough. Hell, regular comedies are tough.For a comedy to really work, follow with me, you don't need prat falls and fart jokes (not that I don't enjoy people getting injured and flatulence, because trust me, I do), you need characters you actually like, who are actually understandable, who you have an investment in, falling down and shitting their pants. Otherwise it's just bland and lazy. "Farts are funny, right? Well here's a THOUSAND OF THEM." Not so, Mr. and Ms. Movie people! I want there to be relatable stakes when someone farts or falls down. I know I sound crazy, but follow along here. The best comedies are based in character, regardless of plot (think Ghostbusters, or Superbad, or Mean Girls). High concept comedies are even tougher, because you have to funnel down all that character development and growth into one main, idea: One simple "concept" that drives the whole movie that is USUALLY outside the realm of reality (think Liar, Liar or Groundhog Day). A lot of normal comedies end up being terrible because they care about the shitty jokes than actual characters, and a lot of high concept movies end up being terrible because they lean too heavily into the one crazy conceit instead of actual characters. Game Night, however, smartly avoids failing on both levels, and actually creates an enjoyable, funny movie that also basically succeeds in its main general conceit as well. Game Night, honestly, surprised the hell out of me, and I quite liked it!

       So the plot, which is quite easily explainable in a short amount of words (because high concept!) is that married couple Max and Annie (Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams) are married and looove game night. Their friends all love game night, comprised of Ryan, Kevin, and Michelle (Billy Magnnussen, Lamorne Moriss, and Kylie Bunbury) and whoever Ryan happens to be dating this week (this week it's his less-Instagrammy-than normal coworker, the fantastic Sharon Horgan). Things go awry when Max's brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler) comes into town and, as always, upstages his younger brother with the promise of a more exciting, thrilling game night, complete with a kidnapping mystery. But then, because of Brooks' secret criminal life, he really is kidnapped! Cue insanity! Cue hilarity!

       It would be easy for a movie with this plot to become very tiresome very quickly, but a large reason it doesn't is because the entire cast is funny and they're game. They definitely commit, and even the less sketched out characters (namely the middle school sweethearts arguing about a short lapse in their relationship, Kevin and Michelle), are still charming enough to watch, even if their story-line is pretty thin. Rachel McAdams and Jason Bateman are pretty great as the main couple of the movie. Their relationship is sweet but believable, and they clearly support each other but aren't perfect. Yes, of course, he's ten years older than her in real life and sure that bothers me a little if I stop to think about it for too long, but they work and they play off each other well. The whole cast does. Everyone is funny, even if they end up a bit inconsequential.

       So yes, the comedy movie is funny. That is most of the battle, but if you're going to go high concept, you have to commit to the concept as well. And for this movie, the directors don't make it easy on themselves. Basically, the entire plot of the movie plays out like it's a mystery thriller, complete with David Fincher-esque title cards (that also cleverly look like game pieces, furthering the motif of the movie) and a Trent Reznor like score that actually make for convincing thrills. Usually when comedies blend genres, especially when it comes to action-comedies, which this movie essentially is, no matter how good the comedy is the action usually feels pretty shoe-horned, mostly because that's the world the filmmakers created and they have to stick to it (I love 21 Jump street, more than Game Night, even, but the action scenes of that movie don't amount to much for me). Game Night doesn't quite feel that way, partially because of the flow of information the characters get, partially because the cast is very funny, and partially because the action/thrilling set pieces are done really well.

       There's a particular scene where the entire group has to play hot potato with a fabrigee across an entire mansion that Daly and Goldstein created into one long shot. It twists and turns and keeps the audience on bated breath. It was fun, exciting, worked comedy into the actions, but also added up because of what we'd already learned from each character. It was a really awesome scene that had a technical proficiency most comedies don't really reach for.
       For me, the two standouts in the movie were the Magnussen/Horgan coupling, and Jesse Plemons. Magnussen (who is fantastic in everything I've seen him in, especially Ingrid Goes West) plays stupid without going annoying or too broad. And Sharon Horgan (Pulling, swoon, Catastrophe, SWOON), is reliably fantastic. He's young and gorgeous and she's slightly older (and gorgeous), and even though there's very little screentime dedicated to it, his asking her to the game night even though he wasn't initially attracted to her is endearing and leads to some nice character moments between the two of them. And ugh, Jesse Plemons. He's killing it you, guys. Between Fargo season 2, Black Mirror, and Bridge of Spies, he's one of Hollywood's best character actors today. He plays Gary, the creepy as fuck cop who was outed from game night after he got divorced from his still very beloved wife. Every scene with him is hilarious, creepy, and so slowly paced I bet the movie gained five minutes screen-time from his line reads alone.

       Yes, a few characters definitely get sidelined. Yes, the plot gets slightly too twisty-turny towards the end, but the movie has a strong basis of good character writing and just general good writing to keep its momentum throughout. It's also a very 2018 kind of movie. It feel fresh and relevant without pandering, and it's very referential without being annoying ("Well that's some real cute full-circle bullshit," a character explains during the climax). It's a smart, funny movie that knows it needs to be a smart, funny movie. I enjoyed it much more than I thought I was going to. However, some of that might be because of how often I saw the goddamn trailer (at least 20 times). This Moviepass, man, it's a blessing and a curse.

Score: Pass Go. Collect 200$. Do Not Go to Jail (GET IT? IT'S A GAME REFERENCE) *Fart noise?*

Review: Annihilation

Annihilation (2018) - Alex Garland

       This is only Alex Garland's second directorial feature, but I feel he's already developed strong visual technique and, more importantly, a densely complicated narrative style. His movies are not exactly easy to parse through, and there are entire scenes that after they've finished you're left thinking, "Well what the hell am I supposed to do with that?" I can certainly see how that might turn some people off, but when it's done as thoughtfully as Alex Garland does it, with such a slow, intense build, by the time we get to the climax, even if I'm narratively unsure what's going to happen, I'm already transfixed, glued to the goddamn screen just hoping that Skeleton Bear doesn't come back to scare the hell out of me. Or maybe I did want it to come back. I don't know, everyone! This movie legitimately crazy as fuck.

       Garland's last movie, Ex Machina (which is fantastic go see it if you haven't and watch it again if you have), is a small, claustrophobic little movie about isolation. In Annihilation, Garland widens his scope, instead looking at an entire new kind of world, some kind of extraterrestrial/other-dimension/dreamscape/nightmare creation. But what keeps the movie so thrilling throughout is even with this bigger, more complex world, Garland keeps the movie and the action still feeling small, still claustrophobic, the movie focusing on only a single recon team of only five women. The plot is straightforward enough: After the mysterious disappearance and assumed death of her Army husband, John Hodgkin Biologist and former Army Scientist Lena (Natalie Portman) grieves. But after the even more mysterious return of her husband, Kane, (Oscar Isaac, acting all stoney-eyed and weird), she is, without choice, taken to Area X, that contains The Shimmer (Sci-fi movies are the best because sentences like that last one, which are objectively ridiculous, make perfect sense!). The Shimmer is an ever growing area of strange, refracting light that started when a meteorite from the unknown crashed into a Lighthouse three years ago. Dozens of teams and drones have been sent in, but nothing has come back until Kane.

       The movie really gets going once the team, led by Dr. Ventress (Holly Hunter) and including a physicist (Tessa Thompson), a geologist (Tuva Novotny), and a paramedic (Gina Rodriguez, who throughout the whole movie I never realized was Jane the Virgin (!)), enter the Shimmer to try and find the lighthouse and hopefully discover what is giving the Shimmer its power. A great deal of why the movie works so well is because of incredible visual style inside this new world. Nothing there exists in the realm of normal nature, and the results are breathlessly beautiful but also terrifying. Everything looks and feels strange inside, including time. The entire movie does a really good job of being viscerally disorienting, from time jumps to shots obfuscated by shimmering light or stained glass. The structure of the narrative is even jarring at times, skipping back and forth from the mission, flashbacks of Lena and Kane's marriage (which, wouldn't ya know, might not be so perfect?!), and a present day interrogation after Lena has apparently also left The Shimmer intact (possibly?). It simultaneously gives us information but also confuses other things we thought we knew.

       Before they go in, Jane the Virgin tells Lena that there were two theories as to why no one came back: Either something in there killed them, or they went crazy and killed each other. As one would guess going into a sci-fi action film such as this, there's a good chance it's both of those things. And that's where the bulk of the second act exists. It's slightly straightforward as far as these type stories happen (scary monsters, people going bonkers under the duress), but like I said before, it all works because of the movie's beautiful design and barely creeping speed, almost too slow for how insane the world around them has become. Even the mental deterioration of our characters is slight and happens slowly (until it doesn't). I think a lot of what will decide people's opinions of this movie is how you react to such a slow build of of intense dread. I can see some people finding it tedious at times, but not me. I loooove me a slow, creepy build up that only incrementally leads to a terrifying mind-fuck of a conclusion. It's basically how all my intimate relationships have gone.

       The performances are quiet but solid. Holly Hunter line reads like she just drank some Dramamine, but it works for the whole disorienting, just-not-quite reality the world creates. There are, however, some moments of clunky dialogue, giving exposition that wasn't really ever necessary. Something along the lines of, "Did she try to kill herself?" "Maybe, or maybe she was actually just trying to feel alive." Faaart noise. And the relationship between Portman and Isaac almost starts to get interesting but it gets a bit sidelined by the third act at the Lighthouse, where things go from very crazy to incredibly very crazy.
       But these are small complaints in another wise visionary sci-fi thriller that creates such mood and atmosphere, both visually and narratively. This movie has amazing, slow-burning dread, splashed with moments of intense terror, violence, and even occasionally emotional resonance. The climax is challenging and strange, and I still haven't made total sense of it. It's been almost 3 hours since the movie let out, and I'm not much closer to making heads or tails of it. And I like that. I like challenging movies. I like seeing things I haven't seen before. And Annihilation does all of those things.

Grade: 8 out or 10 Terrifying Skull Bears

Review: 12 Strong

12 Strong (2018) - Nicolai Fuglsig

        Growing up, war movies were kind of a rite of passage, especially in America. It's a weird kind of way to bond with your fellow countrymen over your shared nationalism. And it used to be a lot simpler: The Nazis were terrible (which is true and is still true) and America had to finally get involved to save the world from their fascist regime. You could be a ten-year-old happily sitting next to pop on the couch, watching our hometown boys getting brutally killed but still taking out those bastard krauts and feel excited, proud even. Then you get a little older and you realize that maybe those shady Asians hiding int he trees in the Vietnam movies weren't actually completely the bad guys? I mean, no no, don't get me wrong, they're still the bad guys because America is definitely the good guys, but...maybe they're not all terrible? Then you get older and start watching more movies about newer, more complicated wars (Gulf War, and now Iraq/Afghanistan) and you (hopefully, dear god hopefully) start to question some of the rhetoric you're being fed. Why are we in the Middle East exactly? Wait, why did that helicopter in Mogadishu get shot down in the first place? And of course, more and more movies these days are treating these wars with a more skeptical eye, but there's still such an overriding sense of jingoistic (I love this word and will be using it at least two more times in this review) Americanism to them, because we can never disparage the troops, even though disparaging the troops and disparaging the government interests that put the troops in these places are very different things that the average movie-going public has not been able to ascertain.
       Without getting too political (I am absolutely going to get too political), this is obviously more sensitive now with our current, horrifyingly racist government. So my question is, do we really need more movies about how terrible the rest of the world is and how great America is? Yes, people who use violence as a political measure are terrible, but shouldn't we at least try to understand what their point of view is? Aren't there better ways to show our country as strong and righteous than dropping soldiers in a foreign land to show them killing hundreds, possibly thousands of people there? Basically this is just a long-winded way to say that while 12 Strong wasn't nearly as awful as I thought it was going to be, I really don't think we need more post 9/11, thinly-veiled anti-Muslim rhetoric in our movie theatres. Actually, maybe we don't need war movies at all anymore.

       12 Strong starts on the morning of 9/11, and doesn't waste a lot of time getting right into the main conceit: The Taliban attacked America, so now a small team of 12 soldiers are going in to try and take out a specific terrorist cell in Afghanistan. And they have horses. It's filled with American symbolism, flags everywhere, loving families with dutiful goodbyes, because everyone knows for sure that Democracy is at risk. Part of me wishes I could watch this movie divorced from my own political beliefs, but the movie so specifically posits you in the middle of this world where Americans have to be Amazing and the Afghanis, even the ones on our "side," are backwards and crude and so clearly below us. I don't want to sound like some crazy Liberal screaming on the street, but I can't help but get lost in the whole "this war was fought for oil" kind of mindset, and the movie's politics automatically make me feel uncomfortable, like I'm being somehow un-American for not wanting innocent bystanders in Middle Eastern countries to not killed so that our soldier boys can KICK SOME ASS.

        So, trying to put aside the questionable morals that are lurking behind every scene and narrative arc of the movie 12 Strong, how is it? It's...fine. It's not very good, but it's not awful. It has all the same cliche war bullshit we've been seeing in movies since the dawn of war movies: Soldiers befriending native children so that the kid can die in the next scene so our soldiers can learn a lesson, someone telling someone something can't be done only for the original person who was told the thing they wanted to do couldn't be done actually does the thing, and basically every other general "We're white and that means we're here to save you" trope that can be mustered. However, I will acquiesce that the movie has a decently snappy pace and it's competently shot. The battle scenes have an urgency to them and at least keep your attention. It's only when you spend more than about seven or eight seconds really thinking about it that it starts to have a funky smell and leave a bad taste in your mouth.
       There are some actors in the movie, sure. But there's really not all that much required of any of them, even though some of them are pretty great actors. Michael Shannon is probably the best actor working today but they were still able to saddle him with a character who literally says, "Did we get 'em?" as he's rushed out of battle to an emergency chopper. Did we get 'em? You're not playing pranks on the other frat house, you are literally ending thousands of lives. Michael Pena and Thor are there too to be American, heroic, tough, smart, motivated, strong, and everything else that makes the US Military so goddamn fantastic.

       This movie just didn't sit right with me. It didn't feel great when I watched the previews, while it was on I felt like it was a simplistic and pretty blunt way to tell a story of American heroism, especially in 2018 when a lot of people in this country are taking the notion of being proud of your country to dangerous, nationalistic, and downright fascist levels. Yes, 9/11 was an absolute fucking tragedy and the men and women who risked their lives after deserve our respect. But showing them running around on horses killing people in their own country basically because we're America and WE CAN is just not the kind of storytelling we need today. Besides, we've seen that story in every single American-made war movie ever told (unless maybe Terrence Malick was directing it cuz that dude is straight cray). Maybe it's time we, I don't know, actually try and see how some of it worked from the point of view of the people that were helping us? Ya know, the Muslim characters? Who also risked their lives and had to endure decades of American intervention whenever it met our capitalist goals?

        Sorry, like I said, it's pretty hard to not bring politics into this one.

Grade: 2 Out of 5 Beautiful, Billowing, American Flags.
     
     

     

Review: Den of Thieves

Den of Thieves (2018) - Christian Gudegast

       Sometimes I am amazed when I watch a movie and think about all the work that goes into them. Actually sit there and look at the credits: It's crazy. There are so many jobs, so many names, so many tasks, so many different pieces of the puzzle that must be carefully placed together, from producers and directors down to cast and crew to post and locations and catering and and and and and. That's why it kind of bums me out when you watch a movie that is so...lackluster. Everyone showed up on time, everyone did their jobs. The director objectively knows how to point a camera, and the actors sure did some acting, but Den of Thieves was definitely a "sum is less than its parts," kind of movie. As in, the sum was a trashy movie that was both overstuffed and boring.
       Remember the movie Heat? Well, the movie Den of Thieves either totally hopes you do, or hopes you have never even heard of it, and I can't tell which. Both movies take place deep in the criminal world of Los Angeles bank robbing, both follow the highly trained, highly skilled thieves who knock over banks and armored cars, and the obsessive police officers sworn to take them down, regardless of the cost or even...the law! Well here's the double-edged sword here, because Heat is a fantastic action/drama with frenetic, frenzied, set-pieces that were riveting and spectacular, but also grounded in character based drama, and starring DeNiro and Pacino before they both started sucking. And Den of Thieves did remind me of Heat in a lot of ways. Unfortunately, it was mostly in a way, "Holy shit this movie is nowhere near as good as the movie Heat, regardless how much they want it to be Heat."

       I feel bad singling him out, though it's obviously not just his fault, but one of the main reasons this movie doesn't work is Gerard Butler's cop character, Big Nick (Jesus, that name. Coincidentally, that was never my nickname in college). In the commercials they make a big stink trying to show off Butler and his team of cops as dirty, cutthroat, almost vigilante type officers who break the rules at every chance they get (because everyone knows when you're looking for loose cannons you go straight to the Los Angeles Sheriff Department. I'm kidding. No one knows that), but the movie doesn't actually show this at all. They're not crazy, illegal cops, they're just drunken, bro, fratboy cops who in one scene smoked a joint and hung out with some prostitutes. Woooah, you guys are crazy! And I won't blame all of squarely on Gerard, because the writing is not good, but his performance is still pretty terrible. He does every prerequisite shitty cop thing imaginable, and it reads like a checklist of shitty writing and acting. Argues with the brass? Check. Is always eating/chewing gum and licking his fingers? Ugh, gross, check. Unnecessary family drama to show how committed to the job he is? Check.

       And THEN there's that whole mess with Big Nick's family where we're actually supposed to give a shit about his personal life? Uh-uh. Since this movie is about as nuanced as a sledgehammer to the groin, the scenes depicting Butler's home life do nothing except make us uncomfortable at the sophomoric attempt to show drama, and also make us hate Big Nick even more. But not in a complicated anti-hero way, in a hateful way, like how I feel about every Johnny Depp character (minus Ed Wood) and also Johnny Depp. This movie does not fare its best when its trying to show us complex, emotional people. When Butler cries in his car after seeing his daughter I checked the time on my phone and did a patented Liz Lemon eye roll. Twas fun!
       The rest of the movie isn't much better, buuut slightly! The criminals, who are all ex-Marines, because sure, are more fun to watch than the cops because at least they keep their heads down and are good at what they do. The crew consists of Pablo Schrieber as Merrimen (Nicky Sobotka from the oft-underrated Season 2 of The Wire!), 50 Cent, and O'Shea Jackson (Ice Chip) as the scared newcomer and driver, Donnie. The scenes with these characters don't end up quite so cringe-worthy because their main focus doesn't try to get so emotional and relatable, instead they are here to rob a bank. Or the "bank of banks" because ya gotta have SHOWMANSHIP, BABY. But the movie's biggest problem on this front is, other than "they are criminals and they were marines" we know nothing about them, and other than the fact that I hated Gerard Butler more, I had no reason to really "root" for the cop killing bank robbers who definitely murder innocent bystanders. There's a fluff of trying to fill them in a little bit, like a short and almost kind of comical scene with 50 Cent's daughter going to prom, but they are too few and far between to actually do any emotional heavy lifting, and instead come off as odd.

       There's actually a line from one of the cops where they say, "They went from Army heroes to bank robbers. What happened?" And then the movie never, ever brings it up again. Because they clearly didn't have the answer either, which is kind of frustrating. We don't need a lot of info, but some kind of emotional implication could have taken one or two lines of dialogue and made us actually, I dunno, understand them slightly more.

       The only criminal who gets any kind of actual characterization is Ice Cube's son, who seriously looks so much like Ice Cube that it's just bonkers watching him. I loved him in Ingrid Goes West, and I am excited that the movie clearly poised him as the most relatable person in the whole thing, because they were right. It DID however, lead to a moment towards the end of the film that was so dumb I actually laughed out loud and asked the person I saw the movie with if they were serious (Haha, I'm joking, I saw this alone. It was Den of Thieves for Christ's sake, no one wanted to see it. Also, it was me for Christ's sake, no one wanted to go to the movies with that guy).

       The last act, which should have been the big payoff for the two hours of garbage movie preceding it where the bad guys do clearly obvious things that for some reason the cops aren't arresting them for because they're too busy crashing a double date with your estranged ex-wife to do actual police work, but the finale is muddled and confusing. Christian Gudegast can't decide if the movie is an exciting heist or a full-on gritty crime/drama. The movie goes from Ice Chip crawling around in vents, switching out bags of Chinese food, and practically putting on a fake nose and mustache to talk to the front desk security, to moments later having an intense (and extremely ill-advised on the part of the cops part) shoot-out around hundreds of civilians and having a touching, "I told you I wasn't going back there, bro," moment before it all ends. Ugh, this movie wants to be Heat so bad. And it's not. It's too long, too scattered, and too stupid.
       On the upside, who here wants to watch Heat?!

Grade: 2.5 out 5 Hungrily Slurped Upon Gerard Butler Fingers

Why do my fingers taste SO good?

Review: Paddington 2

Paddington 2 (2018) - Paul King

       Look, let's just get this out of the way: I didn't cry during Paddington 2, which is a sequel to the children's movie Paddington, about (presumably, I've never seen it) a CGI bear who was British before he moved to London, and ya know, made friends and shit? It's based on an old English children's book series (presumably, I've never read it) and the main thing I knew about it before today was that he wore a red hat, and a blue coat, and I definitely didn't cry during the sequel that I saw today. I didn't go to see this movie by myself, a 30-year-old adult (however I do use that word lightly), a children's movie with a fake bear and a British accent who teaches us about manners and eats marmalade sandwiches, and I definitely didn't cry at the end when everyone in the town comes together to prove Paddington right, that if you keep your head on straight and actually care about the people around you, whether they're your family or even a scary, complete stranger, then things might just work out your way. I didn't fucking cry, okay?

       I totally cried, folks. This movie! Where the fuck did this movie come from? Sure I vaguely remember not giving a shit when the first one came out a few years ago, and I remember a few months ago seeing the trailer for this one, similarly not giving a shit, and then moving on with my life (however I do use that word lightly). But then two things happened. 1) Moviepass, ensuring I will probably see anything in theatres (except The Greatest Showman because even I don't have such a strong sense of self-loathing that I would subject myself to that grease-burn of a movie), and 2) It has great reviews and a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. What the actual fuck? My favorite movie reviewer, who I shall not name here, but you know who you aaaare (you do not know who you are. Well, I mean, you probably do, but not like, in the sense that you're my favorite movie reviewer...not yet), apparently loved it, and perfect RT score? I'm not trying to say I follow everything the Great Golden Tomato decries (although I will admit for the most part it is pretty accurate, for my tastes at least. The people who are complaining about its scores should just make better fucking movies), but a ridiculous CGI bear kids sequel getting that high up there was definitely of note. I know as a critic (I'm not a critic, like at all) I shouldn't be justifying why I saw a movie, but I wanted to illustrate just how uninterested I would normally be in a ridiculous CGI Bear kids sequel.

       To the total credit of Paddington 2, I did not have to have seen Paddington the First (there were some bank robbery fallout story lines from the first, and a few very violent flashback sex scenes that probably would have been more powerful and made more sense with some context, but other than that I was totally able to figure it out and also I'm lying a lot). Paddington (Ben Wishaw) was rescued as a wee cub by two charming bears who had to permanently delay their trip to London to raise the new addition to their family. It's very sweet but also has a tiny hint of longing to it, and there's some melancholy when Paddington discusses how it was her (Aunt Lucy, as he calls her) greatest dream to see England. Which is why Paddington wants to get his widowed aunt (read: mother) the perfect 100th birthday present for her, and he's awe-struck when he finds a pop-up book of all the greatest sites of London. Good lord, one paragraph into the summary of Paddington 2 and I've already discussed a longing melancholy. What the fuck is this movie?

       Okay, what this movie really is is pure and earnest and above all, overwhelmingly sweet. Paddington firmly believes in the tried and true words of his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) that "When you are polite the world is good and right." Did that sentence make you want to die a little bit? Okay, good, I'm not alone. But director Paul King with his screenplay co-written by Simon Farnaby do something surprising: they actually create this kind of world where good deeds go rewarded and people are genuine and caring. Of course this world is complete nonsense and completely unrealistic, but there is a commitment that absolutely works throughout. It's the kind of world where people band together to make speeches and help out complete strangers, where even the bad guys get a happy ending. It's absolutely inane, but is done with some genuine care that it never gets stupid, it stays right at sweet and silly. And while it's not surprising to create idealized worlds for a children's movie, but what is surprising is that they do it without being saccharine or annoying. For a kid's movie, that's nuts.

       The movie, of course, is for kids. So there's plenty of goofy, slapsticky comedy involving a bear that was never actually there on set (because it's fake, and made with computers, because apparently you can't make bears "do things for you") doing things like accidentally shaving a guy's head, or trying to wash windows with a bucket of water that's too heavy. And absolutely, kid's movies should appeal to kids, but what makes this movie work well is that the parts that could normally be pretty stupid are done with so much sweetness that they go from being stupid to being very silly. And I like silly. Silly is good. Throw in an actually pretty decently animated bear (it's CGI, remember? And just to be clear, CGI animals next to real humans almost 100% of the time look like awkward nightmare fuel) that is cute as heck and so polite ya just wanna barf, and this movie is  entertaining throughout.
       The other thing that this movie definitely has going for it is, and this is also surprising, is the humans! When are the human counterparts in kid's movies like these anything but an annoying distraction and an obvious excuse to cut down on costs instead of just making an entirely fucking animated movie? Answer? Garfield 3: Feline Fine in the City (I made that up right now and I am not a 100% sure that it's not a real title). But actually, the cast in the movie is fantastic. Sally. Hawkins. Is. In. It. Sally Hawkins!!! Anything that can ever remind me of The Shape of Water I want immediately stuffed in all my face holes. I love her so much, and she brings the same heartfelt and sincerity to her role as here as Paddington's second mother. She's bubbly and excited and honest and an absolute delight (I almost wish she didn't talk, but that's neither here nor there. Gah, I liker her as an actor so much).

       Brandon Gleeson, a welcome addition to any movie, is the grumpy inmate chef (oh yeah, Paddington gets framed and sent to prison in this movie. It's wild) who clunks around and makes ridiculous faces like his granddaughter was just off-camera and he was trying to make her laugh and it's adorable and very silly and so earnest it works. And then Hugh Grant plays a more insane (like legit insane, it was kinda dark, and therefore funny) version of himself as the evil actor who steals the pop-up book that frames Paddington. All the human actors involved (and two of the narwhal cameos) were really well done, displaying once again that the filmmakers involved actually gave a shit when they were making this movie.
       The movie has some really nice sequences and animated flourishes and look really good. It's cute and sweet and has some fun action throughout as well. And it successfully sells its message of friendship and good manners, as much as I may have resisted it while I was watching it. Paddington is just so good and kind no matter where he goes he can leave an infectious happiness that transforms everyone around him to being a better person. That single idea makes me feel ill, and yet this movie never actually made me feel that way.

       And then...ugh, okay, and then there's the end scene...where like...okay, so at the end it's like...it's just really sweet because...and then his...and all his friends...they all...and all the people that he helped throughout the movie, they all...and then like he opened the door at the end and it was...oh my god it was so sweet and so amazing, ugh. I am NOT getting teary eyed right now, okay?
       I am. I am getting teary-eyed. I really liked this movie. It was cute as hell.

Grade: A Hundred Marmalade Sandwiches

My biggest complaint with the movie is that when he transform the prison cafeteria into a cake and tea shop (like I said this movie is ridiculous) they don't make ANY savory items. All sweets and desserts. C'mon, Paddington. Don't you wanna eat some Shepard's Pie or some Fish and Chips or somthing? Damn, dude.

Review: The Commuter

The Commuter (2018) - Jaume Collete-Serra

       I thought of something as I sat down to the one in the afternoon on a Monday showtime of The Commuter (Thank you Dr. King, your words and actions are a constant inspiration, even more today, because the world is straight raw dirty fucked), the newest in the never-ending deluge of Liam Neeson-starring action movies about him being a man with a particular set of skills that for some reason people keep fucking with his family. I sat down and realized: I have never seen any of the past decade of Liam Neeson action films (and there have been loads, three Takens, Run All Night, Non-Stop, Unknown), except maybe The Grey, which I only kind of saw (like, yes I saw it, but no, I was not sober enough to remember anything about it other than the fighting-wolves-with-bottles-on-his-hands-scene happened OFF-SCREEN. Fuck, that still makes me so mad). I just never really felt like I was missing out on much. The stories were right there in the trailer and the action just never seemed all that...persuasive. And remember, these were the days before moviepass when I wouldn't just go spend every day in the a movie theatre because it's better than the crushing silence of loneliness. I jest!
       ANYWHO. As I watched The Commuter I came to the realization that I like the idea of Liam Neeson as an action star much more than I like him as an actual action star. As an actual action star he's kind of...eh. I mean, he's a legitimate badass, and that carries through enough to make him not terrible to watch, but Neeson is seriously just kind of....eh. He has two modes, which are perfect upstanding family man, and barking gruff-o-saurus, and there's no in-between. At least not in his latest output with Jaume Collete-Serra, his oft-collaborator. I like it better when we're kinda winking at how badass and action-y Liam Neeson is, without him ever actually having to do too much actual stuff (like in The Lego Movie, A Million Ways to Die in the West, and Ted, or Family Guy, or even The Orville...Holy shit, Seth McFarlane must have seen him burying a body at some point.)

       And all that long-ass intro brings us to here, The Commuter, the continuing fart space that is January releases. I did not enjoy this movie. This movie's plot is so needlessly confusing twisty but no one involved in the creation process was smart to enough to make any of it really make any sense. It's basically the film Non-Stop (from what I gleamed from the trailers, which was basically the whole movie, because trailers) but on a...you guessed it, commuter train! He has to do some stuff...find some people...figure out clues? It was basically a slightly less boring version of Murder on the Orient Express, but with a less racist title, vaguely more excitement, and not as many famous, abusive, cunt actors (Fuck you Johnny Depp).
       The movie starts with a montage of Liam Neeson getting up in the morning, over and over, being the perfect husband and father, day in and day out. Oh boy! He's a regular guy! He is a good dad! Aw! I sure hope nothing bad will ever happen to his family! Seriously, at this point Liam Neeson is just being irresponsible marrying all these women and having children. He knows something awful is going to happen to them at some point. So this time, Vera Farmiga (who rules, and I hope made a payday for the probable two to three day shoot she had) goes up to Neeson while he's on his regular train back home after being fired from his insurance job (Oh no! He's a regular guy! But now he got fired! Why can't a good guy catch a break!), which I guess ends up marginally mattering to the plot, but mostly it's just badly written emotional stakes, and she offers him 100,000 dollars to...find someone. On the train. Someone who doesn't belong? She speaks in riddles, takes off, and then Neeson takes some of the bathroom money intended as reward, making him involved, and then his family is in danger because Farmiga has people everywhere and can do everything and have lovable old bald men killed instantly at any moment.

       I'm finding myself repeating myself when I write reviews for bad action movies. First I judge the actual plot, characters, emotionality of the film (which is always stupid, non-existent, convoluted, or just plain terribly-made), and then I always say that I could forgive all that if the action was exciting or the comedy was funny or the emotional points were actually emotional. It's a little song and dance I'm finding myself doing over and over.
       I hate to repeat my and get into a predictable rhythm...but goddamnit, this movie was exorbitantly stupid and unnecessarily complicated for very little payoff. The actual mystery/plot is ridiculous and the way he goes about trying to "solve" it is laughable. The action scenes (of which there aren't very many) are just blurs of bad CGI and sped-up punching (much like the gunshots in my last reviewed film, Proud Mary) made difficult to fully perceive due to poor direction. And occasionally there are terrible "jokes" meant to make us "laugh," and also some weird emotional through-line about how commuters on a train are like a close-knit group of friends, but is executed with the nuance of a seven-year-old who is screaming because they can't drink water from the toilet.

       The worst thing about the movie is the general conceit: Why does Vera Farmiga need Liam Neeson, an ex-cop with a particular set of skills (I swear to god she uses those exact words. It's like even in the fake universe the movie inhabits everyone knows Liam Neeson is actually secretly a hitman-assassin-ninja-action-secret-badass-deity), to find this particular person on the train, if she can literally control everything? The moment he tries to tell a friend to call the cops she knows about it, and has someone instantly killed. She can have young kids stop Liam Neeson just as he was about to get off the train to give him his wife's wedding ring to signify his family's in danger, but she can't figure out who a single person is, someone who she knows has been in direct contact with the FBI? Ugh. Why am I thinking this hard? A movie this stupid shouldn't be making me think this hard. It should be fun and entertaining and--oh wait, yeah, we covered that.

 

       Yeaaaaah, they kind of explain some of the plot points I've been griping about at the end with one quick sentence that does kind of clear things up, but only after an hour and forty minutes of stupid sequences and plot twists that no one cared about or asked for. And then there's Liam, just trudging along, being gruff and coarse and screamy when he needs to be, and being confused and worried about his family the other times. Yawn. This movie was about as much fun as actually taking the train somewhere.

Grade: 3 out of 10 Murdered Mike Ehrmantraut (I spelled that correctly on the first try and that makes me so much happier than anything in this movie did!)