Pet Sematary

Directed By Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer

Starring – Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, Amy Seimetz

The Plot – Louis Creed (Clarke), his wife Rachel (Seimetz), and their two children Gage (Hugo Lavoie) and Ellie (Jete Laurence) move to a rural home where they are welcomed and enlightened about the eerie ‘Pet Sematary’ located nearby. After the tragedy of their cat being killed by a truck, Louis resorts to burying it in the mysterious pet cemetery, which is definitely not as it seems, as it proves to the Creeds that sometimes, dead is better.

Rated R for horror violence, bloody images, and some adult language

POSITIVES

– Contrasts from the original. The point of any remake is to experiment with the property in ways that separates itself from the legend of the original, and thankfully there’s enough here to recommend in this regard. During the first half of the film, I shamefully will say that I was nearly falling asleep because of how safe to the chest this film presented itself, but the best was yet to come. Once the third act kicks in, the film takes some unexpected steps in finality that I truly didn’t see coming, and offers an ending, which for me, was exceptionally more satisfying than that of its predecessor, all the while paying tribute of sorts to the deranged nature of the novel. Likewise, the film also rewards fans of the original movie with a couple psych-out scenes, that make you think you know where the action is headed, but in reality spins a different take with these deviating wink-and-nod’s to the faithful fan in all of us. My only problem with these is the terrible trailer reveals far too much with them, and anyone who sees it will already know what’s to come because of its burdening spoilers.

– Deeper meaning with the material. One thing that has always glued me to the Pet Sematary concept is this unshakeable feeling of mourning, and how difficult it can be, especially for a parent, in letting go, and that’s certainly the case once more, as Kolsch and Widmyer make the grief feel every bit as thick and suffocating of that of the fog that surrounds the Pet Sematary itself. It justifies the premise of such a preposterous idea by tapping into our psyche, and asking if we would risk it all to get one more chance with the person we love most, and it’s really in that question where so much of the material compartmentalizes itself with, minimalizing the line of rationality that we usually call a movie out for, in favor of understanding for someone going through something so tragic, so recent.

– Imaginative set designs. This is the aspect that makes me gleam with pride the most, as the cemetery and surrounding woods capture Stephen King’s descriptive vocabulary to a tee, with a combination of props and effects that sustain that aura of uncertainty all the way to the finish line. I mentioned earlier about the flow of never-ending fog, but it’s the way the fog interacts with the creativity associated with the grave structures that adds emphasis to such an ominous setting. There’s also great telegraphing of each layer of the woods itself, and I was never struggling to keep up or left subdued with the versatility of where the story took us and how deep we pursued.

– The kid steals the show. Jason Clarke continues to harvest the emotional registry of a celery stick, garnering a complete lack of emotions during a pivotal moment of loss that should cripple him. Lithgow is solid enough, but his performance is consistency on one level, that never elevates or adds to the pacing of the material. Seimetz contains both emotion and fragility, but a mother becomes a supporting character in a film that she co-leads. Where this statement turns into a positive is in the nearly flawless work of Jete Laurence, who has many leading roles ahead of her. Here, it’s her emotional as well as her physical performance that gives the film grit in circumstance, and allows the young phenom to have fun with the role that doesn’t require clever editing or manipulation like Gage in the original film. Laurence is a thrill to watch, and breathes life into the movie’s much better second half, giving us the single best child performance since Jacob Tremblay in 2016’s “Room”.

– Blood thirst satisfied. This is an unnerving film in regards to bone-crunching sound mixing and brutality accentuated by make-up detail, and both of those things go a long way in lasting impact for how they’re used sparingly. What I appreciate about the spread out nature of these is it not only makes you appreciate them more when you do see them, but their sudden inclusion forces its audience to wince in depiction because they pop-up out of nowhere in a scene that is otherwise tranquil. This also points to the gore making up a majority of jump scares for the movie, conjuring up a combination of consistency and impact that make them necessary for inclusion, and I don’t say that often. This is an R-rating that doesn’t go out of its way to remind you why it’s given the coveted honors, but the lasting permanence of some jaw-dropping blows sneak up on you in a way that occasionally earns it.

– Like Marvel after credit sequences, we’ve come to expect Easter eggs in a Stephen King movie that ties some of his properties together, and this film is no exception. Without spoiling anything, there’s a sign displaying a familiar town in King novels being close by, and adds only further speculation on a Stephen King shared universe that all of these stories are tied together by. As is the case especially by some recent King stories like “It”, “Gerald’s Game”, and “1922” getting the big screen treatment, it feels pretty cool to think that all of these crazy things are taking place within the same realm of this twilight zone that feels not too far from the familiarity of our own world.

NEGATIVES

– Clunky exposition. The film takes a bit too long to set up the Pet Sematary lore, as well as family back stories, that often make the progression of the current day narrative feel a bit stalled because of it. What’s even more revealing about the strain it causes is in Lithgow’s character knowing everything there is to know about the area, and yet still choosing to live there regardless, creating a hole in logic that we’re just forced to go along with. Finally, because this is a 96 minute movie, the detail discoveries feel far too quickly paced to race to where this story is inevitably headed, and not given the typical few days before weird things start going bump in the night for this family.

– Obvious green-screen effects. Two scenes in particular stand out like a sore thumb for me, and create the usual darkened background when compared to our character in focus that we’ve come to expect with cheap digital effects. This screams artificial during the scenes when supreme filmmaking is supposed to impress us, and it let me down for how little the directing influenced what is transpiring on film, leaving far too much to imagination during one of King’s most gruesome stories. If a scene looks fake, it takes my immersion completely out of it, and suddenly I’m only focusing on the strings and lack of fully rendered textures that especially stand out in a film this grounded in budget effects work, and it makes me wish that practicality was more of a distinguishing feature, even if it is at the expense of child actor risk. It’s so poorly directed that I felt nothing for arguably the film’s biggest emotional gut-punch.

– Limited directing capabilities. Lack of actor handling, ignorance in its lack of use with the set designs, poor character decisions for the sake of script progress, choppy narrative overall, and lines feeling completely out of place. On the latter, one such line involved a female medical student shrieking “I CAN SEE HIS BRAINS!!!” and we’re supposed to believe that a woman who trained her whole life for this career never thought that she would see gore in her life. These are all examples of these two guys feeling so inferior for the importance of the material, giving it in some aspects a made-for-TV remake feeling that I couldn’t escape because this film never reached the potential that it truly could’ve.

– Not enough deviation. Perhaps the biggest problem that plagues this film is it inevitably does nothing to free itself from the shadow of an only decent original movie. In my opinion, I could’ve used more dark humor, especially after the final shot of the movie confirms every feeling that I had in this respective direction. The tone, the story movements, and the pacing are all very similar to the 1989 original that was so conventionally made, it practically begged a remake to make everything right, and this just isn’t that film. It plays itself far too close to the belt to ever stand out in its own unique perspective, and just settles far too often for soulless horror tropes that make all of these movies interchangeable.

My Grade: 6/10 or C

The Best of Enemies

Directed By Robin Bissell

Starring – Taraji P. Henson, Sam Rockwell, Wes Bentley

The Plot – Based on a true story, the film centers on the unlikely relationship between Ann Atwater (Henson), an outspoken civil rights activist, and C.P. Ellis (Rockwell), a local Ku Klux Klan leader who reluctantly co-chaired a community summit, battling over the desegregation of schools in Durham, North Carolina during the racially-charged summer of 1971. The incredible events that unfolded would change Durham and the lives of Atwater and Ellis forever.

Rated PG-13 for thematic material, racial epithets, some violence and a suggestive reference

POSITIVES

– Eye for detail. With an on-going story that is based entirely during the early 70’s, Bissell’s finest quality as a director is the attention she channels in generating the proper aesthetics. Beyond articulating the heat of the sunbaked temperature, which vibrantly reflects that of the underbelly of tension by a group refusing to change with the times, the film also uses its budget for wardrobe and automobile choices that were literally ripped from 70’s pop culture. What’s important is that nothing feels out of place or remotely counterfeit to where it’s plucked and placed, and this makes the story setting transition feel that much more fruitfully realized, keeping with the consistency of recollection that is out of this world in terms of its depiction.

– Charismatic performances. While the casting of Henson and Rockwell is a bit too gracious in terms of visual likeness to their real life counterparts, the duo do a magnificent job in juggling the complexities that each battle in the face of change. For Rockwell, the transformation is obvious: we have the leader of a racist organization, whose ignorance is eventually silenced the more he learns that color is merely only that, and that these are real people who he’s hurting. Rockwell maintains the air of energy associated with his comedic roles, all the while combining it with the dramatic pulse for long-winded speech deliveries that have made him a sought-after commodity. Henson herself has a flare for the dramatic, instilling a personality in Ann that brings the elements of bravery and resiliency to the forefront. The film thrives the most when the duo are on-screen together, but the ever-changing complexion to the way they view each other is better documented during scenes of isolation, and it establishes a twinkle of magic between two Hollywood heavyweights that each bring the thunder for such an important story, especially to a world still dealing with racial inequalities.

– Simmering soundtrack. Music plays such a pivotal role to the very pulse of the events that transpire in the script, and each insertion of audible familiarity is deposited without so much as an ounce of topical or obvious nature, that often take away the message of its inclusion. Roy Orbison, Al Green, and my personal favorite: Bill Withers are just a few of the names that play against what feels like such a lawless and evocative setting, and it adds a layer of depth and nuanced intensity to the tonal inconsistencies, which can sometimes feel overwhelming in the heart of the material. Setting a film in the south during a 70’s can be daring in what it’s trying to depict, but if it gives us one more chance to soak of that Southern sizzle of collective song stimulation, then I will be in every single time.

– Surprises within the screenplay. Some things that I commend this film for is in the touches of originality that left me appreciating as so much more than a two person show. For one, the supporting cast themselves are anything but one-dimensional characters, and the over two hour runtime gives more than enough opportunity for each of them to breakout of the subdued shadow that supporting roles can sometimes force. Two such actors, Babou Ceesay and Gilbert Glenn Brown, stole the show for me, breathing these articulate, open-minded people, who provide a sense of social commentary for each respective side of the color spectrum. Also, the necessity to include Ann’s flawed moral compass is another aspect that I give the film great respect for. It would be easy to focus solely on C.P., and what needs to change from within him, but Ann is someone whose darkest adversity has also rubbed off on her, and it’s led to a female protagonist who battles just as many demons as her white male adversary. Race subgenre films are usually one note when it comes to who leads and who follows, but “The Best of Enemies” reminds us of the condemning similarities that bind them.

– Strength in adversity. After a movie like “Green Book” taking Best Picture honors last year for feeling a bit too shielded of its material, it’s nice to see a film like this come along and remind us that the sweetest rewards of unity are only fully realized from the deepest conflicts, and it gives the story that much more of an urgency from within, because this town could literally burn to the ground at any moment. For my money, films depicting racism should always offer a gut-punch to audiences that endure them, and while “The Best of Enemies” isn’t a knock-out blow in this regard, it leaves enough damage on the complexion of audience feelings to leave you feeling stimulated by it, long after you leave the theater. For a PG-13 movie, there are scenes of daring nature, and it doesn’t balk whenever it starts to feel the weight of its daring impact.

– Insightful post credit offerings. If you’re seeing this film, definitely stay in your seats for the film’s epilogue, which includes footage taken from real life interviews between C.P and Ann that better paint the vibes in friendship that the film otherwise stops too early to fully realize. What’s so effective about these vital inserts is that the air of rivalry from between them didn’t die, even all the way to both of their final days on Earth. In particular, there’s a scene of the two dancing that reaches back into the arms of time, and allows the two aging figures on-screen to emulate their youthful strides for even one more minute, and it’s proof that the memory of these two touched so many people, yet it was the work that they did on each other that carved out two monumental figures with racial integration in Southern schools.

NEGATIVES

– Dry spots. The first hour of this film was a bit of a challenge to get through for me, not because of the pacing of the film, mind you, but because outside of C.P’s introduction, we go so long without a flare for the dramatic in the pulse of this story. It almost gives a sense of what’s transpiring outside of this group is less important to the context of the story, only to be put on pause until the film absolutely requires it. Thankfully, the final forty minutes of the film is easily the highlight for me, but it’s such a task in getting there that some might turn back before making the upward climb through 128 minutes of dialogue driven material.

– Convenient and manipulative plot device. C.P Ellis did in fact have a mentally handicap son, who lived his life in a group home, but my problem is more with how this tier is included into the film, making it feel every bit as predictable as it is assisting. On that second adjective, I mean that the film only cuts to it when it needs reason to tie clunky storytelling together. Likewise, this subplot is the breath of air that the film gives us to never completely hate Rockwell’s character, allowing him enough wiggle room to get out of the ties that he binds himself in early during a disgusting scene that tests your first impression of him. What’s so obvious is that his son is brought into the fold in the immediately next scene after this introduction, making me roll my eyes because I knew that this kid was only going to be called upon for the meandering.

– Technical issues. While not the biggest of blunders here, the editing to me felt a bit too strained, as well as yearning for the two hour plus runtime that would otherwise be unnecessary. Anyone who knows me, knows I love long-take sequences in a film, but here their only intention is to halt the audience from looking away from a facial reaction (Particularly from Henson) after engaging in something humbling for her character. There are honorable intentions in this kind of visual creativity, but the reaching scenes never pull anything of depth for the performances themselves, and as a result, we’re left with with sequences that feel a bit delayed in their transition, instead of converging in one fluid movement that solidifies consistency.

– Tonal inconsistencies. I feel weird asking if a film about racism is a comedy, but the first half of this film plays its terrible events with a sense of ironic dark humor that is confirmed in the gleeful musical score and lively line delivery that could’ve definitely used another take. On a whole, the tone of the film never blends together as one cohesive unit, often feeling like a film of two halves, where each of them blend about as well as a train-wreck approaching each other at full force. In my opinion, the film should’ve remained faithful to being a drama. The humor itself never worked for me, and only adds confusion to scenes and sequences that are anything but humorous.

My Grade: 6/10 or C+

Dumbo

Directed By Tim Burton

Starring – Colin Farrell, Eva Green, Michael Keaton

The Plot – Holt (Farrell) was once a circus star, but he went off to war and when he returned it had terribly altered him. Circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) hires him to take care of Dumbo, a newborn elephant whose oversized ears make him the laughing stock of the struggling circus troupe. But when Holt’s children discover that Dumbo can fly, silver-tongued entrepreneur V.A. Vandevere (Keaton), and aerial artist Colette Marchant (Green) swoop in to make the little elephant a star.

Rated PG for peril/action, some thematic elements, and brief mild adult language

POSITIVES

– Just enough deviation. For my money, there’s a strong combination between the familiarity of scenes from the original animated property, as well as a healthy helping of experimentation with the gut-punch of the source material, that allows the film enough balance to prosper without playing it safe and conventional, as Disney often does with these live actions remakes. What surprised me most is the focus and unapologetic attention rendered to animal abuse, especially under that of a business model, which allowed the script to master some of its finer dramatic elements, in turn transcending itself from the safety net of feeling like a Disney movie. Part of that is on Burton’s gritty surface level temperature, which at times does push towards a PG-13 direction of harsh realities, but swings itself back around for more of the fantastical imagery needed to transfix the youthful audience.

– The complex case of Ben Davis. As a cinematographer, Davis is a mixed bag. After the bland presentation that was “Captain Marvel”, he redeems himself here, getting lost in a Burton-esque world, complete with weathered color design and the vibrancy of the circus, which transfixes and serves as an ode to fantasy visuals. The glowing of radiant lights surround our characters, giving the setting a surreal feel of the attention they command over the army of eyes ready to be dazzled, and placing these familiar faces in cast in a place and time far from anything they’ve ever been a part of. Whether Burton opened up the mind to expand Ben’s creativity, is a question we’ll never know the answer to, but one thing remains certain: he has a visual encompass that perfectly captures the radiance and imagination that lives and breathes in this palace of outcasts, and with such an echoing ambiance, we too are delighted to be a part of it.

– Superb visual effects. While not perfect in its movements during scenes of flight for its title character, I can say that the illustrations and aesthetics associated with the film do master not only a believable quality to the color and shapes of its animals, but also a heavy one with the way its manufactured properties interact with the sets surrounding them. In my opinion, it’s the details in attention to Dumbo, complete with wrinkled skin texture and baby blue eyes as big as oceans, that take the cake, and blend synthetically with the grade in visual cinematography that I previously mentioned above. Nothing ever feels counterfeit or out of place to the integrity of each frame, and masters a visual immersion that is second only to 2016’s “The Jungle Book” in terms of spell-binding accuracy.

– Elaborate set designs. Where does one start with the single best aspect of the movie? Perhaps in the intimate atmosphere of the small-stage circus, complete with man-made posters and signs, giving it that cult-like quality of better days being behind this family troop. Or maybe it’s the collision of present and future in the devil’s nest known as “Dreamworld”, garnering no shortage of stadium lighting, ride attractions, and the promise of science to hook its curious minds. Every prop or gimmick in the film holds immense weight to the complexion between two completely different settings, and this allows us the audience to be visually seduced by the pageantry of it all, in the same way that these performers thirsty for a chance are embracing for the first time ever. Instead of telling us what makes these places so different, Burton shows us, and it’s in that immense size where we understand the disposition of being seduced by greed, regardless of who gets hurt along the way.

– Burton brings his posse. What’s unique about this film is that it not only brings forth some of Burton’s most favorite alum, but it also treats us to a reunion of one of his most legendary films: “Batman Returns”. I couldn’t get enough of seeing Danny Devito and Keaton interacting, albeit in reverse protagonist and antagonist roles from their previous engagement, but there’s definitely a winner between them. Keaton easily steals the show from the rest of the gifted ensemble, chewing up enough scenery with a hokey inconsistent accent and relish for the fame, which make this role unlike anything we’ve ever seen from the decades-old performer. If Keaton has one adversary in scene-stealing however, it’s definitely from 14-year-old Nico Parker, who herself comes from acting royalty being the daughter of Thandie Newton. Parker has the childlike innocence in facial resonation, but it’s really the sass that boils just below the surface that made her endearing to the cause, and made her so vital to Dumbo’s development as a stage act throughout the movie. In fact, the film knows this so much that it focuses repeatedly on her, and nearly forgets about her on-screen brother (Played by Finley Hobbins).

– Perfectly paced. At 104 minutes, “Dumbo” is more than double the screen time of its animated predecessor, so immediately you know that plenty is going to be added to the story and subplots associated with the film, and thankfully I can say that all of it works in a way that never dulls or sags with the movement of the material. For a movie that thrives on redundancy, in that we’re seeing a lot of these scenes repeated to perfect the act of the flying elephant, there’s a surprisingly increased interest with each passing scene because the stakes are being constantly raised, not only for our big-eared protagonist, but also for the family that have taken him in to this point. It, as well as the fact that the entire second half of this movie is new material for the Dumbo folklore, gives the film strong urgency and uncertainty for where the story is headed, and despite its desire to repeat so much of what comes and goes, there’s not a single sequence during the film that I would change to fan dwindling interest. I was glued to my seat throughout this film, and that isn’t easy to do with someone like me who doesn’t support Disney live action remakes.

NEGATIVES

– An unwanted guest. Legendary ring announcer Michael Buffer makes two surprise appearances in the film, and you can pretty much guess what his involvement is here, as well as what line he mutters that made me completely want to punch a wall for how it broke my immersion into the film. I compare it a lot to 2013’s “The Great Gatsby” when rap music is being played throughout the film, despite the fact that this is taking place in 1922, when rap genre music wasn’t even a glint in the beatboxer who developed it. Buffer’s involvement in this film is every bit as cringey as it is unnecessary to the integrity of the time period and the consistency of the movie’s tone, and it reeks of desperation in the worst way possible.

– Lack of human character development. There’s so many scattered plot threads introduced early on in the film that are never followed upon or elaborated further with for the integrity of depth needed for the people whose names aren’t in the title. Dumbo is Dumbo. He will be alright regardless of what we learn about him, but it’s really those other pivotal leads who are never given the light of day to enhance your interest into them, particularly that of Colin Farrell’s wartime hero, who goes virtually unnoticed during the climax of this movie, minus climbing a stadium sized building along the side of it with one freaking arm, and without any sweat or conflict what so ever. I wish this film wasn’t afraid to dig a little deeper with the people we spend the most time with, and as it stands we learn more about a character who doesn’t talk than people who can’t shut up.

– Ruining a solid musical score. Legendary composer Danny Elfman pens one of his most emotionally stirring scores in quite some time, bringing along compositions that impact important scenes, just not in the way I was positively hoping. The music elevates the scenes, but it’s done in such a way that is mixed far too loud in each scene of inclusion, making it stand out as more of a distraction rather than a necessary inclusion, and it takes something that should feel inspirational, and instead brings out the emphasis in meandering from the audience what they are supposed to be feeling. Elfman brings the lightning, but the deafening delve of its level of incorporation is the thunder that unnecessarily shakes.

– Disappearing antagonists. One of my favorite clichés from movies is when a bad guy character will disappear in favor of a bigger, badder character, and that’s totally the case here, as a throwaway character during the first act, who says some of the most ridiculous lines to children that I’ve ever heard, practically vanishes once Vandevere’s character is brought to the forefront. Think of it as the movie’s inability to build two of the same characters simultaneously, but I think it’s a testament to just how unnecessary this prior antagonist feels, especially when you consider that he exists in an environment where everyone else interacts so positively.

My Grade: 6/10 or C

Captain Marvel

Directed By Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck

Starring – Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, Jude Law

The Plot – The story follows Carol Danvers (Larson) as she becomes one of the universe’s most powerful heroes when Earth is caught in the middle of a galactic war between two alien races. Set in the 1990s, Captain Marvel is an all-new adventure from a previously unseen period in the history of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and brief suggestive language

POSITIVES

– Delightfully engaging cast of characters all around. For the title character, Larson is solid at conveying the dramatic pull of Carol’s loss of life on Earth, as well as the personable side of her demeanor that allows her to have fun through some truly trying times in the balance. My lone problem is in her ability to come across as intimidating to her opposition because of her inherited powers. Perhaps it’s in the way that her enemies view her, as a weakling woman, but to me I felt that anger and fire deep below in Larson’s performance was missing from her complex character, and I hope it’s something they can further flesh out in future movies with her. What Larson does thrive at however, is being a sponge that soaks up and adapts to the change in personalities she comes across. Most notably, it’s in her impeccable chemistry with Jackson’s Fury and Jude Law’s Yon-Rogg where we get the most indulging sense of banter between scenes and characters, making for thoughts of a buddy cop movie that floats to the surface. Jackson is definitely the show-stealer for me, as finally we get a film where Fury is brought to the forefront of the conflict and resolution, allowing us to see him in his prime, long before time and shadows forced him to step away from the action. Ben Mendelsohn’s Talos also shouldn’t be slept on, as his exceptional range as an actor gives him the power to connect to the audience despite being under layers of make-up and prosthetics for his character.

– Complete musical package. For the first time in a Marvel film, we are treated to a female’s perspective in musical score and accompaniment, as Pinar Toprak’s electronic atmosphere gives the film’s scenes of war and reveal a fine combination of pulse and energy necessary to hook the audience firmly into the sometimes abrupt movements of the camera. Likewise, the film’s soundtrack collection of 90’s favorites, although topical at times, does succeed in capturing the eclectic essence of 90’s top 40 radio for now future generations to immerse themselves in. One such song near the end of the film, I actually predicted would pop up, and while there are instances like this that sometimes feel obvious, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t lip-sync along once they made their presence felt to the dynamic of the story and title character.

– Computer generation effects at their finest. For my money, the transformation effects used on Fury and Coulson in the film, to make them look decades younger, is some of the most seamlessly effective enhancements that I have seen to date, and speaks volumes to the way Disney calculates where to spend their cash. This is of course a story that takes place in the 90’s, so obviously make-up isn’t going to cut it. Instead, the actors are shot and redistributed to the audience in a way that adds an inspiring layer of reality to the movements and authenticity of their shapes and size to the film, that would before feel obvious in its inclusion. There’s subtlety in artificial effects work, and Marvel just paved the way for an entire generation.

– Touching tributes. Being that this was the first film after the untimely death of Marvel founder Stan Lee, you knew that the familiar face would pop up a time or two, and thankfully the movie takes ample time to pay respects to the reason we’re all here in the first place. I won’t spoil much, but there’s an introduction to the movie that is every bit as clever as it is resounding, as well as a usual cameo appearance that may be my new personal favorite for Lee, considering the prop that he carries with him in the scene, and where it fits from a timeline perspective. I’m not sure if this scene was shot before Lee’s death or not, but the computer generation that I mentioned earlier gives me hope that Excelsior will live on forever.

– Overabundance of comedy. This would usually be a big negative for me, especially considering there are a few deliveries that didn’t land for my auditorium, but the film’s tonal decision to establish a healthy amount of humor for this character is one that I give great credit for. When the film was missing for me in waiting for this lead character to remember who she used to be, I was treated to clever quips in the form of a dangerous cat, Jackson’s impeccable straight man persistence, and of course 90’s nostalgia that constantly reminds us how far we’ve come with technology. The latter is also part of the genius of the particular place and time of the film’s setting, as they don’t have Tony Stark’s inventions or advanced technological measures to guide them through, therefore creativity is all of the rage, and it is incorporated in such a way that will poke and prod at anyone in the theater who is over the age of 25 and still remembers their America Online Password.

– Positive pacing. Perhaps the single biggest accomplishment in this two hour movie is how, despite its narrative flaws, it never manages to slug or stand in place for too long. Instead, the pacing of this script constantly keeps moving and keeps you glued to the unfolding characters who move in and out of frame in the fight for this unforeseen power. As far as Marvel movies go, pacing is often one of the biggest flaws that I have, often times padding a film’s run time to reach a certain time destination, but I feel like two hours was perfect with the knowledge dispersed inside, all the while allowing for just enough time to soak up these rare character engagements and 90’s setting all the same.

NEGATIVES

– Struggles under the weight of its responsibility. As a narrative, this is a link to the past, an origin story, a fitting chapter to the on-going Avengers story, and a potential entry way into the next phase of the Marvel universe, and I think all of that simultaneously struggles under that weight. This is a very scattered narrative in the form of a non-linear style of storytelling, and that direction presented some issues with exposition obvious dialogue, as well as audible character narration that was only used to solidify what the previous scene already showed us. Beyond this, the jump cuts are edited in a way that felt every bit as choppy as they did visually unappealing, and when sequences are this visually repulsive, you wish that they would just go with the conventional dream effects that, while overdone in cinema, at least don’t force you to stop every few minutes to wonder where they fit in.

– Speaking of visual presentation, the film never carves out a visual captivation for its film in the same way that Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, or the Thor films made famous. It doesn’t have to be as beautiful looking or enchanted as those movies, but the coloring filters used in this film wasted some eye-catching landscapes in planetary details that would usually pop with their introductions, but instead came off as looking like they were clouded in a dense fog that rendered them colorless. I point particularly to the first act of the movie, when the establishing scenes waste away so much of the movie’s stylistic personality in ways that don’t even allow the colors of the costumes to make their presence felt, and it all made me think the finished product required one final post production edit to remind us of the vibrancy of the worlds that Carol is fighting for.

– Fumbled fight sequences. Too many cuts, too mundane of fight choreography, and especially far too close on the angle in depictions. It was not only very difficult to follow through with what was transpiring on screen between these scenes of physical conflict, but it suffers in the same way that D.C Films resolve their conflicts: By throwing everything at the screen in order to convince you of resolution. There are no shortage of explosion porn or crash devastation to make the audience flinch, but because we have an editor who is anxious in making their presence felt, it all just comes across as jumbled pieces from a puzzle that never fits together in the movement of the scene. My favorite fight scene of the film was a practice fight that happens in the first five minutes of the movie, and that’s a nothing fight between two characters. It’s all downhill from there.

– No struggle what so ever with her powers. Carol Danvers ability to adapt to any new knowledge or power that the movie gives her, is something that I think takes away greatly from the human side of Captain Marvel that is never truly fleshed out. In any superhero film, self-conflict is the strongest form of developing empathy, and there is none when there’s never truly a moment where this character fails. Even though Captain America or The Hulk now tangle with newfound capabilities, it’s their inner tortured souls in vulnerability that allow them to connect with the audience, and this movie doesn’t afford Danvers the same bend. Any miniscule level of adversity is really more of a hiccup or an accidental move incorporated by someone else around her, and it ultimately constructs what feels like an android developed in Tony Stark’s lab, as opposed to a human being coming to terms with the fear of a new gift that she knows nothing about. MINOR SPOILER – It doesn’t just stop with Carol however, as a little girl also manages to come up with a familiar costume, thanks to some Skrull technology that she herself has never used.

My Grade: 6/10 or C+

On the Basis of Sex

Directed By Mimi Leder

Starring – Felicity Jones, Armie Hammer, Justin Theroux

The Plot – The film tells an inspiring and spirited true story that follows young lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Jones) as she teams with her husband Marty (Hammer) to bring a groundbreaking case before the U.S. Court of Appeals and overturn a century of gender discrimination.

Rated PG-13 for some adult language and suggestive content

POSITIVES

– An emerging love story. Without a doubt, the movie’s single greatest strength is depicting the progressively blossoming relationship between Ruth and Marty, that is written by Ginsburg’s nephew Daniel, and is acted out wonderfully from the impeccable chemistry between Jones and Hammer. Their relationship is one that doesn’t demean or classify them in any particular role, as Ruth is very much the breadwinner while Marty holds down the fort at home, and there is no shortage of wit to balance the situation. One such gag involves Ruth trying to cook for her family, with the kind of success that makes them grateful for napkins. It’s a constant reminder of this relationship playing against type, giving us a fresh perspective on two people who practice what they preach in progressive ideals.

– Vibrancy amongst 70’s wardrobe. The work here from costume designer Isis Mussenden is clever enough to never distract, but radiates wonderfully the passage of time with a combination of three-piece suits and thigh high dresses to give the styles a familiar reflection without feeling like a tongue-and-cheek rendering of the era. In addition to this, the consistency in detail holds up throughout, keeping anything from feeling out of place, thanks to Mussenden’s synthetic encompassing of the sleek trends that were prominent in such a revolutionary decade, and even reflective of some of the outfits that Ruth herself wore during some of her more important court cases.

– The collective work from a gifted ensemble cast. This is definitely Jones’ show, as she echoes the very look and personality of R.B.G seamlessly, bringing forth a beacon for change who is anything but flawless as a character. Jones’ instills her as this very human first presence, and it’s in that candid perspective where we feel closest to Ruth, illustrating a combination of intelligence and determination that makes her an easy protagonist to root for. Hammer is also delivering solid work, as his dry wit and caustic delivery make for some much-needed moments of release for us the audience that he provides repeatedly. Then there’s the against-type roles from well known faces like Stephen Root, Sam Waterston, and my personal favorite for the movie: Jack Reynor, as this smooth-faced lawyer who stands in the way of Ruth’s inevitable greatness. This is definitely a film that thrusts responsibility on all of its pivotal pieces, and proves that while this is Jones’ film for the taking, every great figure triumphs because of the influence of those surrounding her.

– An honest courtroom film. The film provides many instances where it focuses on the pressures involved with the many circumstances involved with preparing a case. Beyond just the endless amount of studying with the facts itself, we are also treated to Ruth preparing her personality for the court by talking in front of a mirror, the prejudices inside of a courtroom itself, and a mock trial run hosted by those closest to Ruth, that eludes her to the environment that she will be getting herself into. Other courtroom films often overlook this aspect of its career elective, but Leder sees immense value in harvesting Ruth’s fears and anxieties when fighting arguably the single biggest case to date in women’s rights, and it’s a decision that not only allows us the audience to immerse ourselves into the psychology of Ginsburg, but also highlights the difficulties of preparing a case.

– Obviously important for the rough terrain that females still face today. As a vehicle for Ginsburg, the film gives her the respect that she deserves by the mentioning of her pivotal role in the many cases that have shaped our country remarkably, but it’s really the comparison between the material in the movie and our own modern day landscape, which hints how far women have come but still have much further to go for equality, where the film earns its strongest value. A film like this serves as the first step in really understanding the magnitude of courts that are being played out every day in our own country, and I think it will inspire not only females, but people of all genders to get involved and let their voices be heard, a right that Ginsburg still elects to take charge of to this day.

– My favorite scene of the film. Is it a good or bad thing that my favorite scene of the movie involved a sequence during the opening credits that shows Ruth walking a sea of men towards the Harvard auditorium? Either way, it’s dissected wonderfully when you consider that Ruth’s baby blue dress contrasts that amazingly of the mundane single color suits of the entirety of people who surround her. This feeds into Ruth being a one of a kind, but also in the arrival of change to the game that she’s destined to bring, and I thought for symbolism there is no bigger or more important shot in this film.

NEGATIVES

– One problem with Felicity. While I give Felicity a solid 90% on her overall performance of Ginsburg, there was one glaring problem that pops up throughout the film: her accent. It’s hard enough for a woman of English heritage to perfectly channel the New York accent with conviction, but Jones’ work here is so completely spotty that it definitely deserved more takes. Sometimes her English accent comes out, sometimes she is a midwestern American, and rarely we get the Yonkers accent that we came to expect. When the latter does happen, the transformation of Jones as Ginsburg finally feels complete, but it’s only during a few rare instance instead of a continued consistency that great performances require.

– Conventional filmmaking all around. I have no problem personally with Mimi Leder, but I think a story as revolutionary as Ginsburg’s deserved an equally engaging presentation to mirror that of the trail-blazer. My biggest problem is that there simply isn’t enough of a gut punch in the material to ever lay heavy on the dramatic weight of the court case. Never did I feel like this case had an ounce of the importance that the dialogue so frequently repeated, nor did I ever feel like it strayed from the rules of courtroom subgenre films that define predictability. Perhaps Leder was the wrong director for this film, and because of such it will stand in the shadow of last year’s documentary “RBG”, which eclipses this one in nearly every presentational aspect.

– That one embarrassing trailer line. I have to say I’m a little disappointed that more people aren’t calling this movie on its bullshit for the line in the trailer that states that the word freedom is never stated once in the constitution. Let me clue you in to the First Amendment, which declares that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Already I have read that the movie’s screenwriter has tried to fix this by stating that it’s an out of context line in the trailer, but let me ease your concerns by telling you that nothing in the film fixes a line of dialogue so lazy that it can’t google a simple question. For irony sake, let me mention that I am typing this while laying on my bed, and even I found the word in the constitution in five seconds.

– Forgotten puzzle pieces. There are a few instances where things are mentioned, and then quickly swept under the rug of continuity, never to be mentioned again. One such example involves Marty’s cancer, which is not only never mentioned again, it never creates anything to be followed upon for the rest of the film. It doesn’t keep him from doing his job or helping out around the house, literally nothing. Another is the incredible case involving Ruth’s son James, who after an introduction scene while helping to prepare dinner is never mentioned or seen again. This presents a mystery disappearance to a character that has only been topped by Paul in 1981’s “Friday the 13th Part 2”. If you’ve seen or heard from James, please leave a comment below, and I will forward it on to Justice Ginsburg.

My Grade: 6/10 or C+

Escape Room

Directed By Adam Robitel

Starring – Deborah Ann Woll, Taylor Russell, Logan Miller

The Plot – A psychological thriller about six strangers who find themselves in circumstances beyond their control and must use their wits to find the clues or die.

Rated PG-13 for terror/perilous action, violence, some suggestive material and adult language

POSITIVES

– Rich production quality in set designs. Of course a film with this title should put everything they have into the elaboration and eye for detail in the many rooms the game takes us through, and each of the ones inside are every bit as cryptically fun as they are sinisterly condemning. What I like here is that none of the rooms repeat, and one such room even plays tricks on the minds of audience members, offering us a psychological immersion into our character’s current foreboding dispositions.

– Eclectic casting. Fresh faces like Russell and Miller capture the attention of audiences with their breakthrough performances that prove they can sustain the depth associated with a leading role, all the while the inclusion of Woll and Tyler Labine add a layer of big name prestige that constantly throws off your guessing game. The wide variety of personalities is what truly keeps the film fresh and evolving, and instills an ideal of ensemble work that very few films are brave enough to touch on anymore. They work so well together because each is given ample time to shine, and it’s something that doubles their chemistry the longer the film progresses.

– Value towards character exposition. What really impressed me and kept me gripped to the unfolding narrative was the film’s combination of game and backstory that equally did wonders for the other. The film takes valuable time in fleshing out who these people locked in the game are before they agreed to it, and the more you start to learn about each of them, the more you start to understand why certain characters are better suited for certain environments. Even more beneficial, the exposition only shows us a few brief moments and lets us sniff out the rest for ourselves, providing food for thought once more for movies that don’t need to spoon-feed their audience.

– PG-13 and proud of it. This film gets a lot of comparisons to the Saw franchise for obvious reasons, but the line of similarities quickly diminishes when you bare witness to the nature of the torture itself. For one, Saw definitely earns its status as torture porn, as to where “Escape Room” is a psychological bending that doesn’t require the exploitation of blood or gruesome nature to sell its believability in permanency. In fact, there isn’t a single drop of blood spilled until the film’s final fight for survival, with around fifteen minutes left in the movie. It’s impressive when horror can still dazzle under such constrictions, and Robitel’s style for substance never believes in taking two steps back.

– Anxiety for days. The quick cuts in precision editing, combined with the variety of many eye-catching angles brings out the sheer drama and urgency of the game itself, doing wonders for the overall pacing of the ever-changing backdrops along the way. Even at 95 minutes of run time, each location is given plenty of time to engage yourself in its adversities and rules, and every movement of choice feels incredibly heavy on the well-being of the group. Through the use of trial and error by our stumped character’s choices, the screenplay almost dares you to shout out your two cents, and this gives “Escape Room” amazing presence as a group watch with friends over a couple of drinks.

– Evolution of the atmosphere. The tone for the movie is handled in such a way that allows for plenty of laughs early on in the film, to get over the personalities of this extremely likeable group, but eventually matures more when the consequences and brutality of the game comes to the forefront. Likewise, the character’s themselves evolve, for better or worse, and it’s interesting to see where two certain character’s end up by the film’s full-throttle finale. When the material and characters work hand-in-hand smoothly, everything fires on all cylinders, and you have a seamless film that moves together in one cohesive movement.

NEGATIVES

– Condemning introduction scene AGAIN. So this is the new cliche in almost EVERY single going today, huh? The scene that starts out a movie spoils far too much, and unless you’re a braindead noodle, you can piece together everything that is coming by film’s end. Only certain films do this properly, showing less in its depictions, but sadly “Escape Room” is the latest victim of this movie, as a sole survivor is shown going through the last trap of the game, before our linear story begins. If you must do this stupid idea, why not show an instance from the trap where everyone is still alive? Why give away so much in a movie where suspense is so important?

– Easy Solutions. I understand that thinking on your feet is difficult in such predicaments, but when an idiot like me can figure out simple ways to solve three different rooms, I have to start wondering if I’m the smartest person in the movie. SPOILER – There’s one room where six different coasters have to be weighed down into the coffee table for a door to stay open. The group goes through hell and time filling six glasses with water. Why not get the six legged couch behind you? I seriously can’t be the only person yelling this.

– What happened with the prize? Considering the trailer says these six strangers are competing for a million dollars, the film’s delivery of ten thousand dollars feels a lot more anti-climatic. Besides the fact that it’s difficult for me to believe that two characters in particular would even go for this for such a limited payoff, a million dollars just sounds better in the advertising campaign, and clearly the trailer crew felt the same way, as they changed it for audiences because they knew how stupid it sounded.

– The ending. I knew it would be difficult for a movie like this to have a satisfying conclusion, but what transpired in the final ten minutes took a solid film down a peg to nothing other than a glorified rental. If it ends after the final conflict, FINE, but the film keeps dragging along, catering to an inevitable sequel instead of properly concluding the movie that is front-and-center. What’s even worse is the additional material tries to answer far too much, leaving very little meat on the bone for the second installment, and feels like final scenes from an entirely different movie. Did this film seriously just turn into a spy thriller? Really?

My Grade – 6/10 or C+

Second Act

Directed By Peter Segal

Starring – Jennifer Lopez, Milo Ventimiglia, Leah Remini

The Plot – Lopez stars as Maya, a 40-year-old woman struggling with frustrations from unfulfilled dreams. Until, that is, she gets the chance to prove to Madison Avenue that street smarts are as valuable as book smarts, and that it is never too late for a Second Act.

Rated PG-13 for some crude sexual references, and adult language

POSITIVES

– It’s all in the name. “Second Act” might be the most appropriately titled movie of 2018 because it’s really during that time when the tone and material of the film evolves, all as a result of a twist that I totally didn’t see coming. For a bombshell to come out of nowhere and completely change everything that this film is about is something I greatly commend the screenwriters for, and it takes what could easily be a throwaway comedy and morphs it into a hard-hitting drama that will squeeze the tears from any female moviegoer. Even more important, there are still trailers that don’t ruin the movies that they advertise.

– Thought provoking commentary on book smart versus street smart. I myself am someone who believes that education should never be the single lone argument in determining who is most deserving of a job, and this movie hits on this debate with some strong arguments for the latter that I wish the world would hear. College degrees themselves are catered to the small percentage who can either afford it or go through the first fourth of their lives without so much as a single speed bump to hit them, so there is that feeling that somewhere someone out there is probably a more qualified candidate, and it makes Maya that much more indulging as a protagonist because we’ve all been told that we’re not good enough for something.

– The performances from an eclectic cast. Lopez gives another solid turn as Maya, even if I found her physical appearance throughout the film a little different from what the movie is trying to pursue her as. This is basically a supermodel who everyone treats as nothing special, and after a while the glare from her timeless beauty and extremely revealing outfits kind of shines through. For my money, it’s the supporting cast that really steal the show. Remini gives food for thought as to why she isn’t a bigger star in Hollywood, supplanting much of the film’s best comedic timing throughout. Vanessa Hudgens also gives another dramatic impulsive turn, providing tears on command that prove how far she’s come in her challenging typecast career. I’m glad that she becomes more important to the plot as the film goes on, as her facial registries tug at your heartstrings and hit every time the film needs them to. Also great to see Dave Foley and Larry Miller back on the silver screen, as I feel we just don’t get enough of either comedic icon.

– Strength of humor. It still baffles me that this film is given a PG-13 rating, because there are many instances throughout where the language and ensuing material feels testing for younger audiences. This provided a 33-year-old-man like myself no shortage of laughs, and the landing ratio is surprisingly positive for a movie that I was dreading seeing heading into it. In my opinion, it’s the way the talented cast play out these conventional lines, stretching them to their furthest reactions because of the vibrancy of personality that they invest into each gag. It’s something that constantly reminds audiences of the good times they are having that are helpful in forgetting some of the film’s biggest sins creatively.

– Gorgeous establishing shots of The Big Apple. Segal himself was born and raised in the big city, and his love and passion for the city is clearly evident in some gorgeous photography of New York City that articulately channel the vibe of the setting. Aside from these gorgeous sun-setting shots behind these early 20th century style bridges, we are also treated to frequent shots of the imposing skyline, providing visual emphasis for just how far our protagonist has come, as well as a few moments of reflection sequences inside of the silver bullets that whiz throughout the variety of neighborhoods and cultures alike. Segal, and even his leading lady, have a spot in their hearts for their city, and they’re not afraid to show it with beautiful depictions that constantly capture the beauty from within.

– Has a strong message despite being drowned in lies. I know that sounds completely strange and a bit contradictory, but despite the fact that this woman lies to get this job, and then continues the lie over and over again, the third act of the movie brings home its honorable intentions by explaining the importance of being true to yourself. In doing so, it makes the achievements that you attain that much sweeter because they were done by you….the real you. Whether the film’s conclusion does go the way you think it will or not, I’m a sucker for a feel good story that reflects with respect the kinds of things in our own lives that we take for granted every day, and “Second Act” preserves this quality with dignity.

NEGATIVES

– Recycled dialogue from other obvious films of the genre. Part of the nagging problem with my investment into many of these scenes was the lack of care and concern with dialogue that definitely deserved a second look at the script. There are many instances of films like “Must Love Dogs”, “Sleepless In Seattle”, or even J-Lo’s movie “Main in Manhattan”, but the biggest sinner of all is one of the film’s closing lines that in so many words echoes that of “Field of Dreams” quote “You wanna have a catch?” It basically confirms that these type of movies are starting to rub together, and doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room if the creativity is this limited.

– Nuisance of the gimmick. I believed in this plot for about two minutes, until the blaring voice in my head said how ridiculous this whole thing really is. You’re telling me that a major cosmetics institution based in New York City doesn’t do a deep background check, calling former professors and bosses to confirm that what they read on paper is true? BULLSHIT!!! The movie’s explanation for all of this feeds into that second act plot twist, but the film’s antagonist even has trouble confirming that anything in this application is bogus when he decides to look into Maya. This kind of thing might be believable in the 90’s, but in 2018, during the age of technological advances, it’s not feasible in the least.

– Overlooks vital information about the profession. One of my biggest pet peeves in movies is when a particular job’s specifics are remotely glossed over, leaving you unable to preserve any amount of knowledge gained about the job that would make its characters feel believable. Instead of giving us specifics, we are given a series of montages that are supposed to artistically fill in the blanks, instead of pointing out the weaknesses in Maya taking up a job that she knows absolutely nothing about, other than how it performed in the grocery store she worked at.

– Far too many subplots and side characters. The biggest sacrifice in this formula is the development of a romantic subplot involving Lopez and Ventimiglia that is ignored for almost an entire hour, removing the possibility of gaining some traction for the flailing chemistry and overall lack of weight from consequences that goes virtually unnoticed. There’s far too much at play between the battle for screen time as well, as characters switch sides and personalities at the drop of a hat. The only explanation would be if something was left on the cutting room floor for DVD extras, but as a cohesive narrative, 98 minutes just simply isn’t enough time to juggle this many bowling pins that more times than not crash and burn.

My Grade: 6/10 or C

Vox Lux

Directed By Brady Corbet

Starring – Natalie Portman, Jude Law, Raffey Cassidy

The Plot – Follows the rise of Celeste from the ashes of a major national tragedy to pop super stardom. The film spans 18 years and traces important cultural moments through her eyes, starting in 1999 and concluding in 2017. In 1999, teenage Celeste (Cassidy) survives a violent tragedy. After singing at a memorial service, Celeste transforms into a burgeoning pop star with the help of her songwriter sister (Stacy Martin) and a talent manager (Law). Celeste’s meteoric rise to fame and concurrent loss of innocence dovetails with a shattering terrorist attack on the nation, elevating the young powerhouse to a new kind of celebrity: American icon, secular deity, global superstar. By 2017, adult Celeste (Portman) is mounting a comeback after a scandalous incident that derailed her career. Touring in support of her sixth album, a compendium of sci-fi anthems entitled Vox Lux, the indomitable, foul-mouthed pop savior must overcome her personal and familial struggles.

Rated R for adult language, some strong violence, and drug content

POSITIVES

– From an aesthetic aspect, this might be one of the more grittier and beautiful films of the year. Arronofsky inspired handheld style is on full display, following the movements and directions so tightly of our characters that it never misses a beat. Likewise, the cinematography is cold and callous, outlining a sort of ghost character of its own that follows Celeste every step of the way since this devastating tragedy that has defined her entire life and career. This is subtle exposition in the form of filters, and it’s something that allows the audience to fully grasp the psychological toll of being a sole survivor.

– Finely measured performances everywhere you turn. For the first half of the film, this is easily 16-year-old Raffey Cassidy’s show. Cassidy’s facial registry channels that of a youth who is still trying to grasp why things are the way they are, and feels especially troubled when she’s forced to grow up at such a quick pace at such a very young age. From there, Portman takes the reigns, giving us a glimpse at a personality corrupted by a business of betrayal, with subtle occasional hints at the little girl inside who is still fighting to get out. This isn’t Portman’s best performance, but it might be her most psychologically straining to date. Jude Law is also excellent as Celeste’s uneasy manager, and the chemistry between he and his musical prodigy is something that transcends that of the four films that Law and Portman have acted in together.

– While the musical taste from artist Sia wasn’t my taste of choice, the concert footage and overall spectacle from within dazzle us in a way that truly channels the monster pop icons of the world. Lights, make-up, costumes, and a multitude of angles capture the magnitude of Celeste’s growth as an artist, entertaining thirty thousand fans with a combination of rumbling club tracks and top notch dance choreography to really immerse yourself in the moment. This serves as the only moment when Celeste feels complete without feeling some kind of pain, and it’s clear from the moment she steps on stage that she’s made for the spotlight.

– Gripping social commentary that never relents. The material inside of this screenplay covers a multitude of topics including the insensitivity of turning tragedy to triumph, teenage stardom, and the desire to put sex above music in the order of importance, bringing a bunch of great questions along with each of them. Each of these gives more depth to the unfolding narrative, and etch out that layer of Celeste that helps you understand why she acts the way she does despite not being there to see some of her most trying times. What’s most important is the film never holds back in hitting us with uncomfortable imagery, so if this isn’t your bag, then this simply isn’t the film for you.

– Unique montage sequences. As to where most films cover a wide range of time with a series of footage cuts, the instances of time flash-forward here are literally that: fast-forward footage in the style of VHS tapes that actually takes us through everything at eight times the speed. Even more commendable is that the direction from Corbet during these sequences is so tight and precise that even at an unusual speed we the audience still get enough time and focus to translate what is transpiring on-screen. This is an idea that I wouldn’t mind seeing more of in film with this kind of attention of craft to it, and I commend Corbet for giving us something fresh even after decades of versatile films.

– Creativity with the credit sequence. The long scroll of the expansive name credits that usually just happens at the end of a film actually invades our attention twice during the film. The first of which is about ten minutes into the film, replacing quick cut introduction credits in a strange fashion, that is until I understood its purpose. LIGHT SPOILER ahead. The scroll credits are included here to signify the end of one life and the beginning of another. Once Celeste wakes up, she’s almost an entirely new person from the little girl enjoying school that she was, and this divide felt different in presentational aspects, and only added to the originality of the aesthetics.

NEGATIVES

– Strange casting choices. This is a film that takes place in two respective timelines, with Raffey obviously playing the younger side of Natalie Portman’s Celeste, but Raffey actually plays two characters in this film, portraying Portman’s daughter in the second half of the film. This is a strange decision for many reasons, but mostly because it’s distracting when the two actresses are on-screen together. As they interact, we start to see how differently and unbelievable their portrayals are for emulating the same character, especially with a Brooklyn accent by Portman that wasn’t there for Raffey when she portrayed Celeste. In addition to this, Celeste’s sister Eleanor (Played by Stacy Martin), doesn’t age or switch actresses during the respective timelines. Neither does Jude Law. So we have a protagonist who changes completely, and two characters who haven’t even changed hairstyles or age in 17 years. Interesting

– Abrupt ending to the narrative. While I mentioned earlier that I appreciated the artistic merit of the concert scenes, I will say that their drowning on forces an unusual ending to the movie that just dropped the anticipation. The last twelve minutes of this movie are concert scenes, so already that concept is far too long, but they come at a time when many questions still require answers, leaving us the audience hanging in the balance. I could’ve used an additional ten minutes after the concert to tie loose ends together and manage to garner some of that momentum that dropped like second week record sales.

– Willam Dafoe’s strange narration. Yep, that’s right: The Green Goblin himself voices a couple of parts during the film. My problem is the usual, in that I don’t appreciate when narration tells us too much instead of shows us, and something else entirely that didn’t fit with the pacing of the storytelling. Dafoe just pops in at the most random of times, and it feels like a violent pause button during some of the more interesting confrontations that the screenplay can muster up. I am a big fan of Willam’s work, but I feel like “Vox Lux” would’ve been best left off of his immense filmography, if only so this story didn’t have so many divides between it that do it zero favors in terms of pacing.

– Uninteresting soundtrack. I have no problem with Sia as a performer, as songs like “Chandelier”, “Titanium”, and “Big Girls Cry” were some of my favorite tracks of their respective years. But her work in this soundtrack just isn’t my taste. The sound mixing is noticeably louder for the music than the vocals, the lyrics lack any kind of complexity, and the hooks completely lack that earworm quality that allows the song to get stuck in your head. Thankfully, there’s only four original songs in the movie, but it doesn’t help when we get each song in its entirety (See negative #2).

My Grade: 6/10 or C

The Front Runner

Directed By Jason Reitman

Starring – Hugh Jackman, Vera Farmiga, J.K Simmons

The Plot – The film follows the rise and fall of Senator Hart (Jackman), who captured the imagination of young voters and was considered the overwhelming front runner for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination when his campaign was sidelined by the story of an extramarital relationship with Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As tabloid journalism and political journalism merged for the first time, Senator Hart was forced to drop out of the race; events that left a profound and lasting impact on American politics and the world stage.

Rated R for adult language including some sexual references

POSITIVES

– All boys club. While the film regrettably wastes away the talents of Farmiga, the work of Jackman and Simmons are more than enough to keep the entertainment factor of the audience consistent. Jackman’s transformation into Hart shows an empathetic and articulately intelligent side to the politician than we’ve ever seen. As expected, Jackman commits himself freely to the role, echoing off no shortage of long-winded and volume-increasing diatribes that have him commanding the presence of the screen firmly. Simmons is his usual comedic self, but his sharp tongue pierces the scenery of every scene he comes into contact with, because of the overlapping witty banter written by Reitman, Jay Carson, and author Matt Bai. This trio of reputable writers rivals only that of Aaron Sorkin in terms of cool consistency, and it allows Simmons to shine in his best deliveries since 2014’s “Whiplash”.

– Illustrates a poignant approach to political reporting that is relevant now more than ever. When you consider how far from normal we are in our current political landscape, a movie like “The Front Runner” outlines the question when is it too far to dig deeper, and especially when you consider everything positively that Hart had going for him, that moral dilemma feels like more of an obstacle than expected. We might not agree with the process depicted in the film, but the commendable notion that hints that the leader of the country should be the one to lead by example, is something that I couldn’t agree more with.

– The film does a great job of showcasing what it was about Hart that inspired so many. In many ways, this is a family man, who never dressed, walked, or acted like a politician, and many people saw themselves in a man who very rarely spoke at a podium. In the film, Hart often feels like the last of a dying breed, and it’s a breed that went beyond words, and required actions to back up their claims. As an informative piece, the film is strong on the political side of Gary, but leaves a bit more to be desired on the home front. Either way, it’s a timely piece of political intrigue that shouldn’t be understated for its similarities to modern day obstacles.

– As for aesthetics, the film is presented as a mockumentary style of sorts, without the extreme nature of the gimmick. What I mean by this is the camera often weaves in and out of desktop conversations with ease, stopping only to follow a character who moves out of frame to do something in private, and spies on them through books and other objects to stay firmly in grip. These sequences also occasionally throw in a manipulated sense on long take shots, keeping the focus on the importance of issues being discussed.

– In dissecting the story into three week intervals that obviously reflect the three act structure in a film, the movie is able to properly channel the bending of time between things going good and bad in Gary’s campaign. For instance, during week one when things are optimistic, time flies like a train. When things are awful for Gary, the pacing slows down and the days turn into what feels like years. This is quite a unique take on a film’s pacing, and I commend Reitman for positioning the audience into the feel of a whirlwind campaign’s random ups and downs.

– Cinematographer Eric Steelberg’s subtle balance of an 80s realism. Grittiness and production design details with elaborate movement and a genuine mastery over the place and time, are just a couple of the examples of the visual story taking place, and this perk overall elevated the film from feeling like just another imitation of style over substance. It looks and moves like a film that was produced in the 1980s, in spite of the script’s decidedly post-modern beats, and Steelberg’s photographic memory of the place in time cements the believability of the film in ways that documentation of events don’t always do.

NEGATIVES

– Despite the big name cast, credible director, and intriguing real life story, the film comes across as regrettably bland when analyzed in the sum of those parts. The film itself is alright, but considering the release date during Oscar season will inevitably leave us expecting one of the best films of the year, the execution leaves much more to be desired. As far as political biopics go, this one is very mundane and middle of the road, leaving “The Front Runner” campaigning to be something it never attains.

– Too ambiguous on where the film itself stands on the issues. Is Gary wrong? Is the media wrong? You will find that your opinions on both questions aren’t fully fleshed out by the conclusion of the movie. Because of such, the weight of the drama in the screenplay is never fully realized, despite its hefty, urgent material, and over a two year period when films like “The Post” or “Vice” are its competition, there’s much to be forgettable about Reitman’s late season project. Sadly, it’s not even the best Reitman film of 2018.

– Remarkably tone deaf for a movie that deals with such sensitive matter. For my money, I could’ve used an “Ides of March” second act switch with the tone. This would give the film great urgency, that is otherwise noticeably missing from the film, and supplant more emptathy for Hart’s disposition that the film never spends enough time on. It’s difficult to classify this as just one particular genre, and the film’s cautious stature to remain too clean for the subject matter, does it a disservice in the compelling drama department.

– Convenient narrative? How could the film forget to include the legendary National Enquirer photo, involving Donna Rice sitting on the lap of Hart, while on vacation? It’s my belief that Reitman doesn’t include this to make Hart feel like more of a victim of his own respective era, and crafts a layer of deceit for the film’s production that angered me. This might not be a big deal to other people, but to me, without that picture, the evidence against Gary is a stretch at best, and allows the floor to fall out from beneath what was a story of logic and relevance to that point.

My Grade – 6/10 or C+

Bohemian Rhapsody

Directed By Bryan Singer

Starring – Rami Malek, Lucy Boynton, Joseph Mazzello

The Plot – A foot-stomping celebration of Queen, their music and their extraordinary lead singer Freddie Mercury. Freddie defied stereotypes and shattered convention to become one of the most beloved entertainers on the planet. The film traces the meteoric rise of the band through their iconic songs and revolutionary sound. They reach unparalleled success, but in an unexpected turn Freddie (Malek), surrounded by darker influences, shuns Queen in pursuit of his solo career. Having suffered greatly without the collaboration of Queen, Freddie manages to reunite with his bandmates just in time for Live Aid. While bravely facing a recent AIDS diagnosis, Freddie leads the band in one of the greatest performances in the history of rock music. Queen cements a legacy that continues to inspire outsiders, dreamers and music lovers to this day.

Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, suggestive material, drug content and adult language

POSITIVES

– A fine collection of Queen’s greatest hits for the soundtrack. Going into this movie, you knew there was going to be some great music, and the assorted catalog of Queen favorites throughout their storied careers, certainly don’t disappoint. Everything from “We Are the Champions”, “Under Pressure”, “We Will Rock You”, and of course the title track for the film are all digitally remastered and sound great inside a theater with top notch sound quality, giving off the rush of the concert vibe that can only be attained at the highest decibel.

– Malek’s immersion into the character that gives us perhaps his performance of a lifetime. While he still isn’t my top pick for who should’ve played Mercury, Rami more than delivers as the iconic frontman, blending Freddie’s physical stage presence with a gentle side of intimacy in his daily life, giving forth a general outline for a man who was taken far too fast from us. The accent is also right on-point, and never bends or breaks through 130 minutes of progression throughout the film. Malek won me over about halfway through the film, when what felt like an impression up to that point matured into a transformation that made it easier to believe, the longer the film went on.

– Live-Aid sequence. The final ten minutes of the film were for me the highlight of the movie, and compared to how it plays against the rest of the film, it’s easy to see why. The grand scale of this immense concert with all of the biggest names in music is given the royal treatment, giving us a wide range of camera angles, frequent shots of the C.G crowd below, and a near shot-for-shot recreation of the band’s movements on stage. Had the rest of the film remained as faithful as this one sequence, you’d have a front-runner for Best Picture at next year’s Oscars, but instead it stands out as gold in a field of cubic zirconia’s.

– Channels the loneliness of Mercury’s jaded disposition. While much of the screenplay is riddled with problems for me, the isolation of Freddie’s life decisions as a bi-sexual man and swimming in riches, left him empty, and gave us the audience a very somber and empathetic investment into the man and character who just needed somebody to love (See what I did there?). It’s the strength of this dramatic muscle in the movie that really adds a great deal of compassion for Freddy, and gives food for thought for a world that treated the gay community as criminals, and how far we as a nation still have to go in respecting their important life decisions.

– Newton Thomas Siegel’s impeccable scope of cinematography. Considering this is a story that takes us through the increase of popularity for Queen, it’s an important task to visually relate that rise to fame in the subtle touches like concert footage, and Siegel’s vision here masters that request, giving us the kind of moments of reflection when played against the backdrop of an audience that keeps growing deeper. Is it presented in a music video style fashion? Yes, but that element of cheese works for this particular story, especially during the backdrop of the 70’s and 80’s, when rock concerts were a spectacle.

– Dexter Fletcher, who is uncredited as director, took over the head responsibilities from Bryan Singer about midway through, and does the best job possible in emulating what the screenplay asked of him. The most important aspect is that it’s difficult to assume where Singer left off and Fletcher began, keeping the consistency of the project firmly at hand, without any obvious moments of counterfeit that stood out like a sore thumb. I am hoping that his work in this film will earn Dexter more casting in a directing capacity for future reference, as the man’s professional capacity more than ring true to the integrity of the film, and will give a majority of fans who just look for a good time and nothing more, the movie they want.

NEGATIVES

– PG-13 over R-rating? This is the choice that worried me before the film, and ended up being the thing that stood out as one of the biggest negatives. For me, the racy material of Mercury’s life is told at face value or not at all, with the delves into drugs being left entirely on the cutting room floor. As for his sex life, it’s referred to endlessly, but the screenplay almost feels too sensitive in how it depicts its passion, coming off without affection, when it really needs it the most. I feel like honesty goes a long way in a biopic, and if you can’t show everything about Mercury for better or worse, then why even take the project on?

– Speaking of honesty, this film is anything but with the events it depicts. I find it shocking that so many supposed Queen fans are fine with how manipulative this screenplay is, choosing to cherry-pick left and right where it could matter most to the impact of the film. For example, the skipping of two Queen albums that are never mentioned, the introduction to “Under Pressure” being in 1985, yet in real life was actually 1982, and the shameless decision to lie about Freddie’s AIDS discovery supposedly before Live Aid, when in reality he didn’t find out until nearly a year after the concert. This is what we call manipulation in the business, and it does so in a way that isn’t remotely redeemable in the eyes of a story that writes itself without the distortion of events. Do your homework.

– What we learn. I feel this film will payoff mostly to a new generation of Queen fans, who barely know anything about the film. For those of us enriched in the band’s history, there isn’t a single instance where anything in the film should surprise you in the least. This is a by-the-numbers Wikipedia entry if I have ever seen one, and I say that because the script refuses to dig deeper in offering us something to justify the provocative nature of the film. The other band members are glossed over like carpet, giving us no instances of this “Family” that the film so badly wants to tell us they are. Yes, I know this is mostly Freddie, but how can you properly tell his story without echoing the thoughts and interactions with those who were closest to him during the final fifteen years of his life?

– Biopic cliches. Beyond the sequence of events feeling hollow and standing on their own, without any cohesive weight as one, this film runs into the same problems that recent musical biopics do, in that they are very formulaic and full of individually telegraphed chapters. There’s nothing smart or deep about the way these songs are introduced, and you can see their introductions coming from miles away. There’s also those glossing moments over the things that matter: Where did Freddie’s passion for music start? Why is there such little focus on the love between Freddie and Mary? What’s the deal with the cats? Who cares though, because music should be everything in a music biopic. These aren’t humans, they’re musicians, and people will love it.

My grade: 6/10 or C

Halloween

Directed By David Gordon Green

Starring – Jamie Lee Curtis, Judy Greer, Andi Matichak

The Plot – Laurie Strode (Curtis) comes to her final confrontation with Michael Myers, the masked figure who has haunted her since she narrowly escaped his killing spree on Halloween night four decades ago.

Rated R for horror violence and bloody images, adult language, brief drug use and nudity

POSITIVES

– John Carpenter’s lucid nightmarish return to form. This isn’t just a return to the silver screen for Curtis and Michael, it’s also one for the legendary composer, whose work on the first film still resonates with audiences forty years later. For his return, Carpenter stays true to form with the classic numbers, giving them a much needed upgrade as far as sound mixing and refurbishing are considered. But it’s in his collaboration with Daniel A. Davies that carves out what little atmosphere that the film has going for it, entrancing us with a serene sense of ominously terrifying inserts that amplify the tension in every scene of chase.

– Green is certainly a student of the game. While the film occasionally has problems toeing the line between respectful homage and downright theft, one thing is certain: David Gordon Green was definitely the man for the job. Green’s directing conjures up a sense of female empowerment rarely seen in classic horror films, but it’s definitely his eye for detail in replicating the look and presentation of Halloween that moved me miles artistically. An opening credits sequence, complete with identical text coloring and italics, remind us of the fear associated with the infamous day that Michael thrives on, and for a few minutes it feels right to indulge on nostalgia, if only for these simple-but-effective credits that competently set the precedent moving forward. Keep your eyes open for some familiar Easter eggs to past films, particularly my favorite trio of masks for the Halloween franchise that aren’t Michael’s.

– There has never been a character in this series that is remotely as interesting or developed as Jamie Lee Curtis’s Laurie Strode, and in picking up the role for the fifth time in the series we have what might be her most complex portrayal yet. This is a Laurie that feels unavoidably scarred from that one night of terror that has defined her for better or worse over the past four decades, and given the once personable Strode an enveloping of strength and persistence that compares her to Michael in terms of her life’s mission. Curtis’s dry delivery and believable progression make her one of a kind in this modern day setting, and etches a general outline of what female heroines could and should be when in the hands of an actress who has grown with the character. Jamie nails the vulnerability AND the strength of the character equally, and this film would be garbage without her.

– Plenty of gore and creative kills alike. Many people might have a problem with the amplifying of the gore in this sequel that is anything but replicated from the 78 original, but Michael’s increased anger makes sense to me because this is very much a psychopath with a thirst to kill, who has been locked up for forty years. Think about what that building thirst feels like once you are out in the free world, and you understand why this is arguably the most dominant Michael that we have seen to date. Throw in some old school practicality with effects work and wincing props, and you have enough thrills in its grasp to make this a devilishly delicious treat in an era when creativity is often cut away from.

– As for Michael, the design of the mask finally feels right again, not feeling too white in coloring, nor too clean in terms of the weathering process. It replicates Michael’s becoming of the mask that the movie touches upon, making it easier to comprehend this as Michael’s actual face. What else is delightful is the passing of the torch generations with Nick Castle portraying Michael in the scenes he doesn’t wear a mask, and James Jude Courtney when he does. What I love about this decision is that it reminds us of Michael’s human side that the other films blurred for all of the wrong reasons. This is very much an aging man who still breathes that air of fire because of his life’s mission that has kept him going, and the combination of Castle’s still-frame complete with Courtney’s stalking movements, makes this the Michael from 78, whose cerebral psychology make him every bit as dangerous as his imposing stature.

– For my money, I would be fine with a one hour film that featured only the first and third acts of this film. I say that because the whole movie is built around this inevitable confrontation with Laurie and Michael that does fortunately pay off in more ways that one. For one, there’s this incredible setting inside of Laurie’s house that has, for better or worse, become a panic room of sorts, and gives Michael a lot more to fight against rather than the typical house that he can manipulate the shadows with. This final battle not only lives up to expectations, but lives up for all of the reasons you’re not expecting. I won’t spoil what happens, but if this is the final Halloween, count me pleased.

NEGATIVES

– The dreaded second act. There’s about thirty minutes in this film that is every bit as unpleasant as it is unnecessary, and a lot of this has to do with this overabundance of filler that adds nothing to character or consistency with the rest of the film. Laurie goes missing for a few scenes, and is replaced with this awfully forced humor and dialogue that repeatedly tested my patience. If this wasn’t enough, a late act decision that violently changes an unimportant and borderline disrespectful character came and went like it had no lasting effect on me what so ever, and only highlighted how faulty this screenplay was when it tried to present something different.

– Speaking of different, there’s not a lot of it in this film. I mentioned earlier about paying homage to the Halloween franchise with these brief and weightless Easter eggs, but what doesn’t work is when you are literally duplicating scenes from other Halloween films, some of which aren’t supposed to exist in this canon, and playing them off in a way that feels desperate. This makes this movie possibly the most forgettable of the Halloween series, mainly because it doesn’t carve out a unique voice of its own, relying far too much on the success of past scenes and screenplays that were left in the past for obvious reasons.

– It’s amazing that after forty years of the knife-wielding psychopath, writers are still interested in the why without understanding that the mystery of Michael is what makes him intriguing as an antagonist. The scariest killers are the ones that happen just because (Think The Strangers), and traditionally the more you find out about Michael, the least fascinating it is. This film, while not as drastic as Rob Zombie’s for reveals, continues this annoying tradition, wasting valuable minutes along the way to paint a picture that I don’t ever require to make me enjoy one of my favorite on-screen killers more.

– Unanswered question. To anyone who has seen the ending of the 1978 “Halloween”, you’ll know that Michael gets away before the camera fades to black. So my question is what happened after to get Michael captured in this film. The movie never elaborates on this aspect, and we’re left to fill in the gaps where the screenwriters won’t. In my opinion, I would’ve liked to have included the events of “Halloween 2”, and explain that Myers burning body was rescued in the nick of time. Two attacks would also add to the believability of Laurie’s now fragile state, and keeping the brother and sister angle would explain Michael’s obsession a little more clearly with Laurie.

My Grade: 6/10 or a C

The House With A Clock In Its Walls

Directed by Eli Roth

Starring – Jack Black, Cate Blanchett, Owen Vaccard

The Plot – Lewis Barnavelt (Vaccard), after losing his parents, is sent to Michigan to live with his uncle Jonathan (Black). He discovers his uncle is a warlock, and enters a world of magic and sorcery. But this power is not limited to good people: Lewis learns of Isaac Izard (Kyle Maclachlan), an evil wizard who wanted to cause the Apocalypse so that he could see what happened afterwards. To do this, he constructed a magical clock with black magic, as long as it exists it will keep ticking, counting down to doomsday. He died before he could finish the clock, but he hid the clock in his house, where Uncle Jonathan now lives. Now Lewis and Jonathan must find the clock before it’s too late, and before Isaac’s wife, Selena (Renee Elise Goldsberry), gets to it.

Rated PG for thematic elements including sorcery, some action, scary images, rude humor and adult language

POSITIVES

– Zany production designs on every level. This is a film that takes place in the 1950’s, and what I appreciate about that is it gives the film a one-of-a-kind style in wardrobe and architecture to compliment the special effects that are constantly flying at us on-screen. The wardrobe in particular is a delightful throwback to the days of faded gowns and dusty blue jeans, and the lighting scheme inside of the house vibrates well off of the gothic style set pieces, that all of which perfectly capture the mood of the material in spades.

– Strong crossover appeal with Harry Potter fans. Whether you know it or not, the book of the same name for which this film is based on was actually an inspiration for J.K Rowling and her series of novels that have re-defined the young adult genre respectfully, so it’s certainly easy to see the appeal for kids in particular, who will easily immerse themselves in this world of similarity. I do have problems with some of the magic itself, which I will get to later on, but there’s clearly enough paranormal instances depicted here that will give the less-picky audience members a roaring good time.

– Black and Blanchett steal the stage. What I appreciated about their relationship more than anything is that the film doesn’t forcefully paint them as this romantic coupling just because every film seems to require that. These are very much two friends with devilishly delicious banter back-and-forth, who colorfully narrate the bond between them that transcends romance. In that way, they very much feel like outcast soulmates who have grown together because of their inability to fit in anywhere else in society, and the duo constantly keep this film on the railings of positivity thanks to their portrayals never feeling like this is a basic paycheck job.

– Sentimentality. Beneath the complexions of spells and warlocks, what won me over for this film immensely was the subplot involving Lewis’s remorse for his parents, and how it crafted and underlying layer of sensitivity for the film that I wasn’t expecting. Early on especially, we feel a sense of great isolation for Lewis that overrides the actor’s lack of focus on emotional resonance, keeping our investment in the character firmly for wanting to see him achieve the greatness he is destined for. Where the film ends especially hammers this angle home, and proves that this film has the heart required to counterbalance the scares, that could or could not test the younger audience.

– Enchanting musical score by Nathan Barr. More often than not, Barr’s tones of temperament ease us through the majestic mystery that resides in this gorgeous house, repeatedly giving that feeling of possibility in the air that the film’s environment requires. Nathan uses a lot of orchestral cues in enhancing the energy of what transpires visually, and offers enough variety in samplings to never feel like each piece is rubbing together or repeating.

– Great world-building in magical spells that will surely satisfy even the most hardcore magic fans. What I like about the spells mentioned and portrayed in the film is that they very much feel like they are ones that are at an introductory level, for the beginner who has recently picked up the skill of magic. Never in the film does Lewis feel like this prodigy who advances without practice, and I appreciate when a film isn’t afraid to document a character’s struggle, especially for something that is anything but easy to pick-up as a casual hobby.

NEGATIVES

– Poor child acting. I’ve already mentioned what worked about Vaccaro’s performance, but his screeching delivery and unbalanced emotional registry made for an uninentional rendering of the character that left him more annoying than indulging. In particular, it’s Owen’s inability to play up the dramatic pulse of the film dealing with his deceased parents that constantly underwhelmed, and left me wondering what could’ve been. Beyond Owen, the extras in the school scene severely lack focus. There are scenes where kids are in frame staring at the camera, that left me wondering how this ever got past the editing room that usually fixes these sort of ordeals.

– Obvious Plot Ploys. As usual in kids movies, there’s a lot of emphasis in the first act objects and subplots that are briefly mentioned, yet quickly diminished, that you know will pop up eventually as the film goes on. It’s terribly distracting for how these drops of exposition force their way into these casual conversations, but one in particular is far worse than the rest. This involves a backstory flashback scene shown to us the audience in film-strips, but doesn’t answer the question of how or who is filming this amazingly edited scene for the time.

– While this isn’t Eli Roth’s best film to date in my opinion, it is definitely the most ambitious of his career. Unfortunately, Eli is only half up to the task of the scope of such a legendary story, feeling the constant nagging of tonal imbalance and lack of overall wonderment that the story so desperately requires. There are interesting aspects that go bump in the night, but the volume of Roth’s magic feels very tamed when compared to a Potter or Goosebumps film that properly emphasized more of the impact and consequences from its delicate pages.

– Underwhelming effects work. While not everything is terrible about the 90% C.G work here, there’s also nothing impressive about it that we haven’t seen from better films. In the era of computer generated effects that often lack weight or heft to their inclusion, here comes another film that finds its way into that dreaded category. The layers of color constantly feel off with their manufactured properties when compared to physical that surrounds them, and the interaction with live actors always feels a step too late to feel surprising.

6/10