Category Archives: Fantasy

“Beauty and the Beast” Movie Review

It’s a tale as old as time with songs as old as rhyme. Meaning this is probably not the last interpretation of the story we’re getting in the next century or so. This is just a warmup. The latest live-action Disney remake, this romantic musical fantasy was released around the world on March 17th, 2017, going on to gross over $1.2 billion at the box office. It likely would have made more had it not been for a certain controversy that we’ll discuss in a little bit. Initially, the studio had planned an adaptation of the Broadway musical from 1994, which never made it past development hell. However, in the wake of other successful remakes such as Cinderella and The Jungle Book, a plan was put together. Twilight: Breaking Dawn director Bill Condon signed on and the whole cast was announced, making this dream become a reality. Emma Watson stars as Belle, a beautiful young woman who is ridiculed in her small French village for reading. After rejecting the egotistical hunter Gaston, she discovers that her father has been captured in a decrepit castle, hosted by a mysterious Beast. She offers to take her father’s place and begins a strange and unexpected relationship with the Beast. The word that has been tossed around the most in regards to this movie is “unnecessary.” An unnecessary remake, an unnecessary movie, an unnecessary cash grab by Disney. I don’t entirely disagree with this sentiment, as it is extremely (almost detrimentally) faithful to the 1991 animation classic. But last year’s remake of The Magnificent Seven wasn’t really necessary, and yet I still really enjoyed that one. And it’s the same case here. Did Disney have to do a live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast? Absolutely not. But even so, Bill Condon did a fine job of reimagining this timeless story for a new generation. Like I said, this movie caused some pre-release controversy, but not because of its existence. It was because LeFou, Gaston’s plump sidekick played wonderfully by Josh Gad, was revealed to be gay. This was a landmark for Disney as their first homosexual character, but caused quite a stir in certain countries and theaters. The film was banned in Kuwait and Malaysia, was refused by a theater in Alabama, and received a very strict rating in Russia. Here was my reaction to the revelation: How could we have ever assumed that LeFou was straight in the animation? His mere behavior and the “gay moment” talked about by many pundits were very natural to the story. Emma Watson plays Belle very nicely but is nothing worth putting in the record books as an all-time great performance. Her beauty matches her character (whose name literally translates in French as “beautiful”) and her compassion is very much present. Dan Stevens, who has proven himself in the excellent thriller The Guest and Marvel’s Legion, is especially good as the Beast. He gives off a charm and wit that seemed missing the first time around. The supporting cast is filled out by a mass of big names, some of whom sing better than others. Kevin Kline plays Belle’s eccentric father, Ewan McGregor is delightful as a dancing candlelight Luminere, Sir Ian McKellen sounds Gandalf as the clock Cogsworth, Emma Thompson is warm as the teapot Mrs. Pots, while Stanley Tucci, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Nathan Mack, and Audra McDonald play the rest of the lively house utensils. But the obvious show-stealer here is Luke Evans as Gaston, the handsome and cocky villain of the town. Seemingly born to play the role, he is so delightful and fun to watch, despite his character’s despicable nature. He absolutely looks like he is having the time of his life playing this guy up, and that energy really seeps off the screen. Whenever he was singing or riling the villagers up, I wanted to get up and dance with him at his side. Meanwhile, on the technical side of things, Disney spared not a dime of its $160 million budget. Beautiful, wide shots of the setting by Tobias A. Schliessler give it this certain feeling of being whimsical, as the story should be. It also brings out the amazing use of bright colors in otherwise drab-looking environments. Costume and production design is also gorgeous. Even when some of the CGI for the Beast or his servants isn’t very convincing, the sets and clothes of our characters are a joy to look at. The famous dance scene between Belle and the Beast was recreated to perfection here, and the design of her dress and his suit made it even more appealing to see. Alan Menken returns to compose the musical score not just for this movie but for his 11th collaboration with the studio. Virtually all of the songs from the original are present, but a few new ones have been added. Of particular note is the number “Evermore” sung by Stevens. I felt it added more depth to the Beast’s feelings for Belle and his struggles with accepting those in his hollow life. It’s possibly a contender for Best Original Song this February. Aside from that, most of the new songs are kind of flat. Even though it ultimately falls too far back on the original film, Beauty and the Beast is a lovely adventure for all ages to appreciate. Its lessons are conveyed the only way a Disney film can do it, with great characters and music to boot. If you just want a movie to watch with your whole family on a night in that’s relatively lightweight, it’s available on Netflix right now. Give it a chance.

Image result for beauty and the beast

Advertisements

“Mother!” Movie Review

Jeez, Daren Aronofsky! You beautiful, creative, courageous, unapologetic, batshit crazy, magnificent bastard. Way to make me feel uncomfortable in a filled auditorium with complete strangers. This controversial psychological horror film premiered at the Venice Film Festival, garnering both boos and a standing ovation. It has received a limited release on September 15th, 2017, and will continue to expand in later weeks, earning over $15 million on a $30 million budget. After the wide emotional response for Noah, Aronofsky initially wanted to make a family film. But the project couldn’t come to light and wrote the screenplay for Mother! instead, which apparently took him five days to complete. I think it’s safe to say that his brain was on fire. What’s this movie about? Well, that’s actually pretty tough. At a surface level, Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem played a married couple who live a tranquil life in a secluded house. One day, some uninvited guests, played by Michelle Pfieffer and Ed Harris, arrive at their door asking for some middle-of-the-road help. And from there, some truly insane and unpredictable things happen to our protagonists. I have rarely seen such a divided reaction from people on a new film. Critics, while not entirely positive, have agreed on their pleasure on the movie. Audiences, however, have gone out of their way to trash it, even scoring it an F on the website CinemaScore. But considering that they gave films like Transformers and The Emoji Movie relatively good grades, I don’t really trust it. And I know some people personally who didn’t like the movie at all, which is understandable. I, however, was riveted almost the entire time. From the getgo, I want to make it clear that this is not a movie for everyone. If you go into this movie expecting a straightforward or conventional film based solely on the premise of the trailer, you’re going to be very disappointed. It is extremely metaphorical in the story from beginning to end which I’ll discuss later on. For the first half of the film, it’s relatively normal yet creepy, building the tension and establishing the characters. But- and what I’m about to say is going to sound hyperbolic but I assure you it is not -the last 30-45 minutes of the movie is the most disturbing and disgusting piece of cinema I’ve ever seen in my life. And this is coming from someone who sat through Antichrist, The VVitch, Sicario, and Requiem For a Dream. As much flak as she’s gotten in recent years for phoned-in performances in major franchises, Jennifer Lawrence is amazing in the lead role. She’s in almost every single scene of the movie, and she’s not charming or funny. She’s on-edge, unhappy, and could snap at any moment. Almost 20 years her senior, Javier Bardem provides as with another committed role. He’s a poet with an obsession, but different than that of Anton Chigurh or Raoul Silva. His obsession isn’t based on murder or anger, but rather with celebrity. Ed Harris and Michelle Pfieffer show they haven’t lost their touch after so many years of acting, giving some of their best performances. If I were to judge this film based purely on filmmaking techniques, then Mother! would be the best of the year. This is a Darren Aronofsky film through and through, so you’re going to see a lot of close-up shots of the protagonists’ faces. It does a pretty neat job at making the audience feel uncomfortable. Matthew Libatique keeps the camera steady and focused, very rarely giving in to shaky cam hijinks. It’s only matched with the visceral editing of Andrew Weisblum, who previously worked with the director on Black Swan. It’s chopped together in a frantic yet cohesive manner that never panders to the audience. Some of the most frightening things that happen, we barely any of it. Also worth noting is the complete absence of a musical score in this film. Without the help of collaborator of Clint Mansell, Johann Johannson was apparently onboard to write the soundtrack for the movie. But after watching the synchronized version, they apparently agreed to let the movie play with virtually no music. And in some ways, I feel that it made the film even more effective in creeping out the audience, as it got a few genuine scares out of people with the need for jolts of strings to signify jumpscares. But like I said if you go into this movie expecting a straightforward horror flick like the ads promised, look somewhere else. Like I said, Mother! is not a piece of conventional filmmaking. Inherently, it’s all one big metaphor for something I never thought of. Actually, there are multiple interpretations of what the plot could mean, depending on your viewing. The relationship between God and the Earth, how celebrity affects a person’s needs, environmental abuse, as well as Cain and Abel. If you are at all familiar with the Bible, you are probably going to pick up more than a few references. But I really can’t overstate how truly disturbing and cage-rattling this film is. During the last 45 minutes of the movie, my jaw was dropped in amazement at what happened inside the house. When it was all over, most of the fellow patrons were discussed what they thought. I sat through the credits for about 2 minutes because I was left speechless. Although not for the weak-stomached, faint of heart, or less-than-patient, Mother! is a visceral and unrelenting symphony of madness in marriage. If you approach it with an open mind, it will be something truly unique. You have never seen anything like this before. And considering the current climate of big studio blockbusters, I think it’s a good thing that people are talking about this movie. Paramount, you had some balls.

Image result for mother movie

“Death Note” Movie Review

Full discretion before we begin: I have never read a page of the manga nor watched an episode of the anime series from which this Netflix feature was adapted. I’m going to review this with completely objective eyes. If there’s something I don’t understand in this post that you would like to correct or shed light on, feel free to comment below. This psychological dark fantasy was produced on a relatively small budget of $40 million. Though Netflix doesn’t release their viewership figures, it did attract a large crowd at the 2017 San Diego Comic-Con before being released on August 25th. According to several sources, at least 10 studios were bidding for the rights to the Death Note franchise as early as 2009. In 2016, after Adam Wingard signed on as the director, there were outrages and accusations of whitewashing in the cast. Basically, it’s suffering the same fate as any Hollywood adaptation of a beloved anime. Nat Wolff stars as Light Turner, a lonely high school student who receives a mysterious notebook out of the sky. When he meets the death god Ryuk, he is told that anyone can die if he simply writes their name and cause of death in the book. He uses the book to start ridding the world of known criminals under the guise of a god “Kira,” and attracts the attention of an enigmatic detective named L. Now as I said, I have no familiarity with the franchise. Only in recent years have I started getting into anime, particularly ones by Hayao Miyazaki. And for those of you asking about my opinion on this year’s Ghost in the Shell… I bought a ticket to see Power Rangers instead. But just hearing the whole concept of Death Note intrigued me, as any anime usually does. And from what I heard, the original creators gave their official stamp of approval for the American version. So I actually was somewhat looking forward to watching this movie on Netflix. Honestly… I feel underwhelmed. Is it as terrible as some people are touting it to be? No, it’s not. But there are a lot of problems. Starting with Nat Wolff as Light Turner, who may just be one of the most uninteresting actors in recent years. He gives an absolutely lifeless and dull performance for this character who can actually be pretty compelling. Willem Dafoe voices Ryuk, and he really sounds like the Green Goblin from Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man all over again. Except now, he sounds way more demonized and menacing than before, especially with the character’s sweet design. Though, it sometimes feels like he’s just waiting for his paycheck to clear. Margaret Qualley, who gave a brilliant role in The Nice Guys, is Light’s love interest and accomplice. She isn’t given much to say or do aside from encouraging our hero to give in to his darker instincts. But the best actor here, by far, is Atlanta‘s Lakeith Stanfield as L. Having impressed me with his small part in Get Out, I feel like this could be one of the quirkiest and nerdiest actors around. His mannerisms and style of wardrobe are really relatable and badass, even if he feels underutilized. The visual style is rather unique, easily the most consistent aspect of the entire movie. The film uses bright neon lights to illuminate the characters in stark red and light blue. The way the David Tattersall uses the camera to focus in on characters or a scene feels odd, but it sells the idea that this is an (adaptation of) anime. There have certainly been worse Dutch angles used in cinema. The editing was sometimes awkward, choosing to use multiple cross-fades interjected into a single scene. I don’t really understand why, other than trying to add more and more style to the film. Atticus and Leopold Ross work together on the score and feels eerily similar to Atticus’ work on The Social Network. Mostly 80’s synthesizers, it helps build an atmosphere worthy of a psychological thriller. But there aren’t really any memorable or standout tracks. It also includes several real-life songs, particularly some bits of late 90’s soft rock. A friend of mine, who is familiar with the source material, told me a while back that they always think of anime when late 90’s or early 2000’s soft rock is laying. I couldn’t tell if they were joking or not. Let’s get right to the last act of the movie. It wasn’t very good, to begin with, but the last 15 or so minutes of Death Note kind of just bury it. In case you actually want to watch this movie, I won’t spoil it here at all, but my God. It might as well be the cinematic epitome of the word “convenience.” Because right when the end happens, it reveals an extensive contingency plan that our protagonist came up with on the fly on a public desktop. Also, a quick rant: Why would you have Ryuk built up as a third-act villain if the Rules he establishes can be easily broken, leaving to just loom large a lot of the scenes? I take one of two interpretations out of this: Either Ryuk is a useless character altogether or they’re setting him up for a potential sequel. I really doubt that this will be the one that causes Netflix to release a full-length follow-up to one of their originals. While its visual style is compelling enough, Death Note wastes a promising plot on bad actors and confused writing. If you want to watch it, go ahead. If you want to watch a good thriller, watch Adam Wingard’s other film The Guest instead. In all honesty, L is the saving grace of this picture. And this is coming from someone who, again, has never been affiliated with the source material. I can only imagine what real fans must have thought of.

Image result for death note netflix

“Avatar” Movie Review

So, I have been looking for a while now for a time to review this movie. I couldn’t quite figure out when or where exactly to put it. But since Terminator 2: Judgement Day is officially getting a 4K re-release in theaters, I decided it was time to rip myself a new asshole and talk about a movie everyone once loved but now seems to hate. This epic science-fiction adventure from writer-director James Cameron saw an international release date on December 18th, 2009. Despite being one of the most expensive films ever on a budget $237 million, it went onto gross over $2.7 billion worldwide, becoming the highest-grossing film of all time, mainly because so many people saw it in IMAX 3D instead of conventional cinema. If rumors are to be true, the film was conceived in 1994 and was intended to be produced immediately after Titanic. But due to the lackluster technology, Cameron had to wait a decade before he really started developing the world and the story of Avatar. Set in the mid-22nd century, mankind has colonized a lush habitable moon called Pandora. In order to mine for unobtanium, a highly valuable superconductor, they have started a program allowing human soldiers and experts to helm genetically engineered versions of the Na’vi, the indigenous population of Pandora. One of these subjects is Jake Sully, a paralyzed soldier who starts getting in over his head and questions his loyalty. How do you review a film that has had such an odd reputation? As I said, when it came out in 2009, everyone loved it with every fiber of their being, calling it one of the best movies ever made. Nowadays, it seems the cool thing to do is to hate on it and call it stupid and simple. It’s like U.S. politics: take a side or lose by default. Personally, I do find this movie to be a bit overhyped, but there is still a special place for it in me that I would love to explain. I will never forget the first time I saw it. I was a lot younger and just starting to see more movies in the theater more often. My family was hyped out of our minds to see it in 3D. And I remember, through the lens of those thick glasses, being completely sucked into the beautiful world of Pandora, truly realizing the potential of CGI and motion-capture. And 161 minutes later, I left to my family car in a complete daze. It ended up becoming one of the very first films I ever purchased on Blu-Ray, and I watched that 3-disc set quite a bit. And every time I get a new T.V., this the first disc I put in as a demo and end up getting swept away in its fantasy. Although he has been ridiculed later for his performances in mediocre movies, Sam Worthington is actually good here as Jake Sully. He had apparently been living out of his car at the time, so the movie more or less saved his life. Zoe Saldana is an underrated action star, and her mo-cap turn as Neytiri is proof of that. She’s different enough to appear alien, but sexy and feisty enough to be relatable. Stephen Lang, meanwhile, makes a great villain out of Colonel Miles Quaritch, the military leader of the humans. One of the biggest badasses ever, you understand his character’s motivations fair enough. Michelle Rodriguez and frequent collaborator Sigourney Weaver plays Cameron’s trademark strong female characters, Giovanni Ribisi is morally conflicted as a corporate administrator, Dileep Rao and Joel David Moore are great sympathetic doctors inside the colony, while C.C. Pounder, Laz Alonso, and even Wes Studi appear as the other primary Na’vi characters. But the character I cherish most in this adventure is the score of the late James Horner. Having arguably the hardest job of anyone involved in the production, he successfully captured the feeling of arriving on a wholly different and alien environment with several unique sounds. High-pitched piccolos, a heaven-like choir, and a wide range of percussion instruments such as a deep bass drum do a fantastic job immersing us into this world. Along with the pitch-perfect sound design, every bit of music seems to evoke a whole scope of emotions no matter how reserved you may be. The two main points of derision for Avatar are very much correlated to each other: the story and its themes. The overall plot- a man discovers his true purpose and switches sides in a conflict -is a structure that has been seen dozens, if not hundreds of times before. Specifically, it plays out like a space version of Dances With Wolves crossed with Princess Mononoke. While it is undoubtedly conventional, not everything that happens is predictable. In fac,t the first time I watched it, I almost left the theater because I was so scared about the ending fate. But themes is where some people, like conservative Armond White, were especially pissed off. Criticisms ranged from an oversimplification of imperialism and colonialism to anti-American propaganda to racism towards indigenous peoples. The parallels between the plot and the early days of Native American relationships are undeniable, but I choose to see it a different way. I choose to see it as two civilizations that are doomed from the started to go to war, but search for other possible outcomes. In the end, Avatar may be derivative, but it’s also great escapism at its most imaginative. 8 years since coming out that theater and I haven’t wavered my overall opinion; I love this film. Like critic Scott Anderson once said, “Loving this film is the cinematic equivalent of dating an absurdly gorgeous girl in high school, but your best friend hates everything about her personally.” I guess that means my cinematic equivalent is better than my game ever was in high school for me.

Related image

“Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie” Movie Review

I write this review with the full knowledge that not many of my readers will actually care about Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie. I can live with that. This 3D computer-animated family comedy was released on June 2nd, 2017, where it grossed over $77 million against a $38 million budget. This makes this film the lowest budget animation from Dreamworks in the studio’s history. It also marks the second directorial effort of animator David Soren. Based on the long-running and recently-ended series of children’s novels by Dav Pilkey, best friends George and Harold, voiced by Kevin Hart and Thomas Middleditch, are a pair of prankster elementary school students who love writing comic books and stories. One day, they accidentally hypnotize their mean-spirited principal Mr. Krupp, voiced by Ed Helms. They then convince him that he is Captain Underpants, the hero of their comic books, and things don’t quite go as expected for them. I remember reading some of the books in this series when I was younger and enjoying them. I wasn’t immensely impressed, but it was still fun reading. And when I heard that they were adapting it into an 89-minute feature film, my reaction was something of passable trepidation. But then, I saw on Rotten Tomatoes (A website that isn’t always accurate) the film got moderately positive reviews, and so I actually spent $11 to see this in my nearby theater. And I walked out feeling the same way as I did with the books: not particularly impressed, but still rather pleased and entertained. Kevin Hart continues his streak of family-friendly animation from last year’s The Secret Life of Pets here, which is actually surprising considering how adult-oriented his stand-up routines usually are. He and Thomas Middleditch share some nice chemistry, as their youthful voices sell the ideas that these two have been best friends since the 5th grade. Some of the pranks they pulled had me in stitches, while others felt like they were trying a bit too hard. Ed Helms more or less plays an animated version of his character Andy Bernard from The Office, as both Captian Underpants and Principal Krupp are total idiots. Thankfully, he’s able to switch between the two of them relatively easily. One’s an angry but misunderstood school supervisor, the other’s a fictional superhero who introduces himself by singing, “Tra-la-laaa!!” In the world where superheroes have brooding catchphrases like “I’m Batman” or “In brightest day, in blackest night,” it is nice to listen to something a little more lighthearted. Nick Kroll and Jordan Peele both voice the respective bad guys in the film, albeit very different ones. Peele voices the arch-nemesis of George and Harold, a child prodigy obsessed with grades. Kroll shines as a German, humor-hating science professor with a very embarrassing last name. Both are good and play fair to the stereotypes they’re with. That being said, the sense of humor found in Captain Underpants is very juvenile. Similar to the source material, several of the jokes are specifically centered around toilets and farting kids. But the main characters frequently break the fourth wall to address this to the audience, adding a great feeling of self-awareness to the overall package. Potty humor is the lowest form of wit on this Earth, and they’ll either fully embrace it or poke fun at it. Occasionally they do both at the same time. In fact, the final act of the rather short 89-minute picture is centered around the idea that the antagonist is trying to rid the world of humor and laughter from children. The way he does it? A scanning laser from atop a massively enlargened, toxic toilet. Obviously, this isn’t going to be competing with any of Pixar Animation’s finest achievements over the years in terms of visual storytelling. But when it comes to the visuals alone, Captain Underpants is pretty damn impressive. The character models are shaped and animated just as they were in the books, faithful in at least its visual adaptation. All of the animation, in general, is smooth and crisp at 24 frames-per-second. Similar to 2015’s The Peanuts Movie, the creators managed to inventively bring a two-dimensional cartoon strip series into glorious 3D computer animation with imaginative flair. So if for nothing else, give them props for that. Ultimately, though, Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie doesn’t do quite enough to completely justify its cinematic existence. The humor is mostly low-brow, the voice acting is good but not award-worthy, and the storyline is as predictable as a kids movie can get. But the still gets in some good laughs in amidst nice animation. It’s great that it remains aware of what it is. If it tried to have some sort of higher meaning then it would just be too awkward. But thankfully, Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie is a fittingly absurd round of family-friendly fun that never really impresses.

Image result for captain underpants movie poster

“The Mummy” Movie Review

Oh, the things I do for you guys. This horror action thriller from debuting director Alex Kurtzman released nationwide on June 9th, 2017, surprisingly earning back nearly $300 million at the box office. It also marks the beginning of a brand new cinematic universe franchise entitled “Dark Universe,” a highly publicized reboot of the Universal Monster series from the 1930’s and 1940’s. Tom Cruise stars as a looter named Nick Morton who accidentally stumbles upon the grave of a thousands-year-old mummy princess, played by Sofia Boutella. Once she awakens, it’s up to him and Annabelle Wallis to prevent all hell from breaking loose in the modern world, while a mysterious organization looms over everything. Now this movie has been raked over the coals by critics and audiences everywhere, saying that it is a betrayal of everything this franchise stood for. Confession time: I was never a fan of Stephen Sommers’ original The Mummy from the late 1990’s or its two sequels. I haven’t seen them in years. I also think that some of the early Universal Monster movies are a bit overrated. In short, I genuinely do not care about this series, so I was able to enter the theater with a completely open mind. And after 107 minutes of my time absorbed, I walked out blown away… at how bad this actually was. Let’s start out with the positives in this movie, as I typically like to do. Like most of his other movies, Tom Cruise totally brings it to his role as Nick Morton in physical demand. The fact that this man is willing to perform most of his own stunts and retain that iconic All-American smile gives an edge and sense of being fun to watch that most action stars miss. While yes, he does run a lot, his character arc is essentially the same one he’s been playing for the last several years. Meanwhile, Anabelle Wallis plays his love interest with some great feistiness and is able to keep her wits about her. Their love story follows all of the beats you’d expect rather predictably and lazily. Sofia Boutella is a greatly underrated actress and action heroine who deserves more recognition than she already has. Her mummy actually had a relatively intriguing backstory Despite the rest of the cast consisting of A-list talents such as Courtney B. Vance, Jake Johnson, Javier Botet, Marwan Kenzari, and Russel Crowe, they feel wasted and wanting of more to say and to do. And that’s apparently because Cruise reportedly had way too much creative control over the production of The Mummy. From rewriting the meager script (Which already had six people credited to writing) to teaching Kurtzman how to properly direct to downplaying the roles of actors, this might as well have been his own directorial debut, Stanley Kubrick style. No wonder Universal Studios gave a monster salary for this film. Now I’m left to wonder if the movie would have become better if he had let the creators do what they wanted. I haven’t even gotten to the technical parts of the picture, which are an extremely mixed bag. The sound design and surround audio are crisp and nice, especially during gunfights or tomb looting moments. But the visual effects are the most inconsistent aspect of the film as a whole. Some scenes, it looked fine; not nearly impressive, but fine enough. Other times, it looked a wholly unconvincing sequence of greenscreen voodoo magic infused with whatever few practical sets were built on a studio lot. The design for the mummy herself, Princess Ahmanet, was pretty cool and showed off some impressive make-up, but that’s about the extent of it. Action movie man Brian Tyler composes his fourth feature film score this year, and can be deemed as “passable.” While it does lean on the tense strings during some of the more horror-driven moments, for the most part, the tracks often feature rousing orchestral arrangements in the vein of high-flying adventures like Indiana Jones. Which I find funny, considering that Stephen Sommers’ The Mummy actually started out as an Indiana Jones rip-off, which itself was a parody of tomb raiding adventures like the original from the 1930’s starring Boris Karloff. Everything that goes around eventually finds a way to come back around. But above all else, The Mummy is simply frustrating in its attempts to set up the much-talked about “Dark Universe.” Alex Kurtzman is so convinced that he has to create this world in which we can have sequels and spin-offs in the future that he and the other five screenwriters end up rushing through many beats. Whereas Marvel Studios took their sweet time establishing the whole universe and set of characters to come, The Mummy wants to get it all out of the gate immediately, using Russel Crowe’s character of Dr. Henry Jekyll and his organization as a thread tying it all together. Hell, even the DC Cinematic Universe seemed more patient than this one does. To be fair, that whole segment involving Jekyll and his people was the most genuinely entertaining part of the entire 107-minute runtime, and as far as I’m concerned watching the origin of his character and organization would have been a much more interesting movie than the one we ultimately got. All the hype around this new cinematic universe of iconic movie monsters coming together and this is the best thing they could come up with? Unless you’re the curious completionist or fan of brainless action, The Mummy is a desperately rushed and wholly underwhelming barrage of boneheaded potential. Confusing in tone and disappointing overall, there is honestly a compelling movie SOMEWHERE underneath this foundation; it’s there. I’m just waiting for the first person who finds it.

Image result for the mummy 2017 poster

“Blue Velvet” Movie Review

Hmm… I’m not quite sure if I should love this movie for challenging me to think or hate it for leaving me unsatisfied. I guess I should write a review and see what comes up from it. This off-kilter erotic mystery thriller came out in September of 1986, where it barely turned a profit on its $6 million budget and garnered initially mixed reviews. Eventually, writer-director David Lynch’s 4th theatrical feature film gained great critical acclaim and analysis in the years that followed- though it was still famously hated by critic Roger Ebert even after revisiting it. The plot is a mystery where Kyle MacLachlan plays a perve who, through a series of circumstances, gets wrapped up in a plot of sadomasochism and murder involving a night club singer and a really demented gangster. I call him a perve because what other kinds of person would hide in a woman’s closet and then return the following nights to have sex with them? This actually happened in the movie. Twice. Look, I get it. David Lynch is an absurdly creative talent with an eye for the visually and narratively strange. In fact, he often embraces that weirdness with open arms to wrap around the audience. But sometimes, he just gets so caught up in his amount of weirdness that it becomes rather hard to enjoy his movies. Take Blue Velvet, for example. To be clear, I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad film. In fact, there are moments of Blue Velvet that are genuinely entertaining and watchable, particularly when it gets into the noir elements. Lynch has always been a master at that level of storytelling with the cult classic show Twin Peaks and his later film Mulholland Drive, both of which I adored. And the performances are alright from the main actors, but let’s be real. The only truly great actor here is the late, great Dennis Hopper as Frank Booth. This is basically the movie that relaunched his dormant career with his surprising turn as an unpredictable if outrageous villain. It’s always fascinating when a movie has a hidden meaning or message underneath the surface, as it can often time warrant watching the film a few more times to soak in everything that needs to be. David Lynch himself has professed that his art is meant to be interpreted freely by the viewers. And the ideas that Blue Velvet brings to life are pretty interesting. But more like his first feature Eraserhead, this film became so obsessed with what it was trying to say that it virtually eliminates the need for a rewatch. My politics being my own private business, I tried to watch this movie without any feeling of demoralization or anger. But truth be told, this movie really got under my skin early on. The level of sadomasochism and sexual pleasure these characters take in is not very believable and borderline unrealistic. To be fair, Lynch has always gotten close to the surreal and blending fantasy with reality. But here, Blue Velvet seems so determined to make Isabella Rossellini as abused as possible and make her ask for even more from a totally innocent man. Considering the amount of press that feminism has gained recently, it’s arguable that this may be Lynch’s most dated movie out of his whole catalog. When sitting down to watch a film by David Lynch, there are usually a set of expectations I set for it: a completely self-absorbed, overly-indulgent showcase of thematic fingerpaintings featuring good actors playing unrealistic characters. Not everything in a movie has to be realistic. I mean, shit, some of my favorite movies are in the sci-fi and fantasy genres. And with Blue Velvet, it’s not quite as much of a fantasy as Mulholland Drive, but it was a bit better than I had expected it to be. If you like serious films with interesting messages, then definitely check it out. Others may be off-put by its excessive weirdness. But this is not conventional filmmaking in the slightest. I’ve already established that about David Lynch. He thrives off of the refusal of formula or convention. I like Blue Velvet and I don’t like it at the same time. It’s as simple as that. It’s a fascinating if a somewhat pretentious portrait of suburban lust that’s just not worth watching too many times. Maybe twice, but that’s about it.

Related image