Category: Genre

How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World


 The Film Freak

Directed By Dean Deblois

Starring – Jay Baruchel, Cate Blanchett, Gerard Butler

The Plot – As Hiccup (Baruchel) fulfills his dream of creating a peaceful dragon utopia, Toothless’ discovery of an untamed, elusive mate draws the Night Fury away. When danger mounts at home and Hiccup’s reign as village chief is tested, both dragon and rider must make impossible decisions to save their kind.

Rated PG for adventure action and some mild rude humor

POSITIVES

– Consistency in animation amazement. Considering this is a film series that has been released by three different studios, it’s the prestige associated with Dreamworks Animations that have allowed it to thrive by remaining true to itself. There’s a fine combination of wonder and beauty associated with the adventurous movements of the camera, as well as the detailed illustrations of costume and character trait that gives definition to appearances, and these are only further impactful when you consider that the legendary Roger Deakins is once again behind the movie’s cinematography. Deakins prescribes us a dose of fantasy immersion that almost allows us to feel the wind in our hair from these vibrant showcases of airtime, and the scenes of the hidden world itself are among my favorite setting for an animation film in quite a long time.

– Adds value to the previous chapters. For my money, the best kind of films give us a desire to re-visit previous installments to see if later narratives consistently hold up, and this is one trilogy that moves and breathes as one cohesive property because of Deblois’ continued interest in adding prestigious layers to kids films. There is one such subplot about the Night Fury’s that helps clear up some plot holes that I had for the first movie clear up. It’s not the only instance of this powerful capability, and only instills in me an air of respect for Dean and his vision in building each chapter simultaneously, even after its shelf life has expired.

– Maturity of the dialogue. One thing that becomes clear about this movie almost instantly is the influence of more comedic-driven dialogue and material that easily makes it the most light-hearted of the series. This was something that worried me after seeing the trailer, for reasons that it would take away from the focus of the conflict, in turn diminishing the urgency of the atmosphere. But I must say I was wrong, as the material is not only positively tasteful, it also hits its mark effectively more times than not. I love an animated film that can make me laugh as well as keep my attention in the narrative, and if more films were like “The Hidden World”, the world of kids films would be a better place.

– Characters first. This third film in the series is proof of the major payoff that supplanted enough weight in emotional registry and audience investment, thanks to the evolution of this growing group of characters who bonded as a family. Thankfully, this film also supplies the strongest antagonist of the entire series, harvesting enough uncertainty in the unfolding of this long distance journey to prove why 3 is only a number. There’s a constant reminder of previous plots and predicaments each time you see a particular character, giving respect and reminder to the past, while building them closer to the future that has inevitably awaited them all this time. We, just like the characters, have grown with this series, and that reflection benefits us in ways that pays off tenfold to the story, structure, and the world that Deblois helped create.

– The equal balance of tonal territory from musical composer John Powell. The music itself in the film envelopes these tense scenes of action and expedition with an evening of dream and devastation that give the scenes it accompanies an audibly reflective roar that channels more emotion than words ever could. Deblois has such confidence in Powell that he removes any kind of distraction in the form of dialogue or on-set sound design from intruding. For a few exceptionally long takes on this wild ride, Powell’s orchestral influence is all that we the audience hear, and it almost makes every first line that follows after it release this air of disappointment that snaps us out of the impressive partnership of sight and sound that enhances the artistic merit for the film.

– A big name behind every corner. Aside from Baruchel’s captaining, which has been a star-making turn for the leading man, the work of big name presences like Blanchett, Butler, Jonah Hill, Kit Harrington, Kristen Wiig, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, America Ferrera, and Craig Ferguson preserves a velvet rope where only the biggest are invited. I left out F. Murray Abraham for a reason, and that’s because as Grimmel, the film’s prime antagonist, the sun turns back and allows us to focus on the greatness that is Abraham one more time. Grimmel isn’t the villain you come to understand, but the one you fear for his sense of purpose that prove some dark days are ahead for these dragons. The film has no problem tapdancing on our devotion to Toothless, and it allows Abraham the ability to shine under his most sinister.

– Smooth fluidity in the pacing. At 97 minutes, this film is the quickest of the three movies in the series, but its runtime is only a metaphor for the movement through the three act structure that flows so breezy that I wouldn’t have been angry with another twenty minutes to better flesh out some of the supporting cast. Because of this light runtime and the benefit of watching a movie that knows and delivers to its audience, we get as easy of a sit as you’re going to find, and what’s more convincing is that it’s one that the whole family can enjoy.

– Finality with the ending. There is no hint at a fourth film, nor is there unanswered questions left that leave us searching for more breadcrumbs on the path to closure. What does emerge is an ending that is every bit satisfying as it is reflective, as sentimental as it is responsible, and as poignant as it is heartwarming. After three great films, it’s tough to say that I wouldn’t want to see more from this franchise, but for me there has never been a series that has had three near equally great films in its clutches, therefore the weight associated with goodbye has never felt as therapeutic as it has here. We can say that this is a film that never had a single bad installment. How often does that happen in any franchise?

NEGATIVES

– No arcs in the way of supporting characters. The biggest negative for me are these friends from Hiccup’s past, present, and future, who serve as nothing more than props to the focus of this particular narrative. There’s very little focus or mention of them in anything that doesn’t involve Hiccup or any of the other dragons, and that’s a bit of a letdown considering they all were pivotal pieces to the franchise at one point or another. This gives the film a reminder of it having too many characters and not enough for all of them to do, and if your favorite character is someone other than Hiccup, this will challenge you in ways that you weren’t expecting.

– While I enjoyed the structure and motivation for Grimmel as an antagonist, the film unfortunately falls into the hole of conventionalism, as every choice the character makes only hinders the ideas in his plan. For instance, there is an attack in the film by Grimmel’s army, where they more than make their presence felt, and despite this he refuses to land the crushing blow for any reason other than the convenience of plot. This doesn’t exactly spoil the ending of the movie, but it does meander some of the menace to Grimmel that made you believe in the power of his punch, and I wish there were better ways the film could’ve exploited prolonging the conflict for reasons that aren’t as obvious.

My Score: 8/10 or B+

Glass


 The Film Freak

Directed By M Night Shyamalan

Starring – Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, James Mcavoy

The Plot – Following the conclusion of “Split”, “Glass” finds David Dunn (Willis) pursuing Crumb’s (Mcavoy) superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Price (Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men.

Rated PG-13 for violence including some bloody images, thematic elements, and adult language

POSITIVES

– One more chance with these characters. I still stand by that James Mcavoy should’ve been nominated for an Oscar for his work in “Split”, and here that momentum only continues. Mcavoy easily carries the movie, ushering us through 23 different personalities that all casually make an appearance in this installment, giving James a phenomenal range with improv characteristics. Likewise, Samuel L. Jackson as the title character is also impressive, combining a wide range of intelligence and anger that really make you feel for this man who has only ever known pain in his life. When Mcavoy and Jackson interact, it’s easily the best parts of the film for me, but unfortunately this is again a case of Bruce Willis phoning his performance in. It doesn’t help that the film has so little for him to do, but Willis’ calm demeanor doesn’t win him any awards in the category of most charismatic.

– A wide variety of shot compositions. While there is one problem in this area that I will get to later, the overall choices of angles and creativity associated with the film’s movement left me satisfied, and proved that above all else, Shyamalan still knows how to shoot a movie. What’s interesting is that “Unbreakable”, “Split”, and “Glass” are all part of the same series, yet none of them look visually anything alike. This allows each of these films to stand out on their own, so as to never repeat or derive the style about its respective films that harvested that air of originality that made each of them thrive visually.

– Creative use of flashback storytelling. There are no shortage of flashbacks throughout the film, in fact, I think “Glass” may have topped last year’s “Fantastic Beasts” sequel in how many times it recalls the past. Why it worked more here for me is not only the surprising instances of what it reveals, but also in triggering pivotal moments in these characters lives that peel the layer of the psychological onion one layer further. The transitions are never sloppy or rushed, and most importantly they keep the pacing of each scene they accompany firmly in their grip, never allowing them to drag or stall for too long.

– Shyamalan’s love for comic books once again shines through. “Glass” takes ample time not only in explaining the history surrounding some of the more important comic book novels of the past, but also incorporates them to this particular narrative, and it pulls out this poignancy that crafts an honorable message to the film’s social commentary. My take is that the film is reminding us that greatness exists in all of us, and this world will constantly try to diminish or devalue its existence, but it’s us who must stand up and give them irrefutable proof of the gifts we’ve always known were inside of us. If you take anything from this film, take this inspiring message that Shyamalan preaches, reminding us that all of us should be considered super.

NEGATIVES

– One terribly bad shot choice. This film has no shortage of close-up POV angle shots, particularly in that of the film’s fight sequences, that render them with a complete lack of believability. For one, we as an audience can’t register what is happening in each of them because we only see the face of one man, not what is transpiring beneath this face, therefore we can’t detect when a pivotal blow has been landed. For two, this screams PG-13 limitations, as well as an overall lack in chemistry between Willis and Mcavoy that tried so hard to frame the violence in ways that wouldn’t expose their limited capabilities. It could be forgiven if it happened a few times, but this gimmick is exploited so much that I couldn’t help but wince each time it popped up, and I can’t begin to imagine why Shyamalan felt that this was the way to go for capturing the impactful devastation.

– Plot holes/inconsistencies. I could write a book on this section alone, but I won’t bore you with the endless details that even the movie couldn’t answer for itself. Characters making irrational decisions, rules of Mcavoy’s character being changed from the previous film, continuity errors from scene to scene transitions, and issues with the capture of these men that had me scratching my head. Because of these frequent road blocks in creativity, the film feels like it can’t go ten minutes without the same question of logic popping up into my brain, and even in an era where we don’t question how Captain America can’t suffer any difficulties in the unfreezing process, or a selfless billionaire donning an iron suit to constantly risk his life, “Glass” feels like the biggest fabrication of truth in the comic genre that I’ve ever seen.

– Far too much humor. I expected that some of the line deliveries that Mcavoy gave were going to come across as comical. You can’t play an 8 year old or a woman without the audience snickering a time or two, but the overwhelming amount of comedy, not only with Mcavoy’s character, that constantly filled the screenplay, frequently pulled me out of the film’s immersion, giving the audience far too many moments of breath in between what should be these tense and epic showdowns. A joke about rap artist Drake is repeated on three different accounts, leaving Shyamalan as a screenwriter feeling like your hip grandpa who just discovered Youtube last week.

– Disjointed storytelling. “Glass” feels like three different stories being told simultaneously that never mesh together to form one cohesive unit. My biggest problem comes in the form of pivotal characters disappearing for long stretches of time, smashing any kind of momentum that the film requires in giving audiences each perspective side. Mcavoy feels like the one constant, but the lack of revenge conflict between Mr Glass and Dunn never actually happens, leaving the very same dynamic that blew the roof off of the theater in “Unbreakable” feeling underwhelming. It makes for a finished script that is often pulling us in different directions without us fully understanding why.

– Shows its hand far too often. If you seek a movie that gives away pivotal twists and turns constantly throughout the movie, then this might be the film for you. The first rule of competent screenwriting is that mentioning something once is forgettable, but to mention it twice or more means its important, and the film’s idea of repeating its own rules within this superhero world it establishes left me with a few telegraphed instances within the film, where I knew something was coming. That’s not to say that “Glass” is entirely predictable, it’s just entirely far too obvious and lacks any kind of nuance to slip one by you.

– That convoluted ending. When there was one twist, I loved it. That added layers to a previous film that wasn’t originally established. When there were three twists, I felt it was beginning to get out of hand. When there were six twists, I felt that the film got way ahead of itself, and it all became this overstuffed vacuum bag that blew minutes prior, yet still kept pumping. This is Shyamalan at his most Shaymalan, and what I mean by that is he has what he feels is a genius idea and keeps poking at it until we the audience scream “ENOUGH”. The final twenty minutes of this film could easily be considered the ending, and each scene that follows could easily be the ending in any film. But Shyamalan leaves the camera on for far too long, and the closing moments take this film to an ending that I’m confident will be unsatisfying to anyone who watches it, ending a once promising trilogy on a note of obvious disappointment that reminds you why the name Shyamalan scares you in the first place.

My Grade: 4/10 or D-

Inception


 The Film Freak

Directed By Christopher Nolan

Starring – Leonardo Dicaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page

The Plot – Dom Cobb (Dicaprio) is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the dangerous art of extraction, stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state, when the mind is at its most vulnerable. Cobb’s rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible – inception. Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists have to pull off the reverse: their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But no amount of careful planning or expertise can prepare the team for the dangerous enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming.

Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and action throughout

POSITIVES

– One of a kind direction. Before “Inception”, Christopher Nolan already carved his name out as one of the best directors of the current era, but after the distinct imprint that he left on this picture, he became one of the greatest minds of all time, challenging the audience in ways that films often don’t anymore. This is very much a passion project for Nolan, whose pictures envelope the very best in all areas of the technical spectrum, and are only surpassed by a script that is the epitome of a game of mental chess. This film is the very definition of expedition, treating us to an idea that geographically feels galaxies away, yet in reality is something that we ourselves can reach out and touch, and it’s because of this quality that the science fiction in a film feels possible for once, because it is grounded in such reality.

– Art imitating life. Nolan based the roles of the Inception team similar to roles that are used in craft filmmaking, with Cobb being the director, Arthur being the producer, Ariadne being the production designer, Eames being the actor, Saito being the studio, and Fischer being the audience. What this does is mold a team-based exercise for the movie out of something that Nolan knows best, giving what I interpreted as an immersion into the mind of a literary and visual genius. In addition to this, the initials of each character spell out a bigger message to the audience at home. D(om), R(obert), E(ames), A(rthur), M(al), S(aito), P(eter), A(riadne), Y(usef) = Dreams Pay.

– Best of both worlds. There is this prejudice in Hollywood that big budget Summer blockbusters can’t be intelligent and poignant, but “Inception” was really the film that changed this dimming perspective. Combining a monstrous budget of 160 million dollars with a script so expansive in material that it took ten whole years to write, made for the rare breed of Summer releases that challenge the audience in ways that disaster films and monster movies simply never could, and man did it pay off. Every time I watch this movie, I learn something entirely new about it, and it’s in those clever nuances that have since become known as Easter eggs where the film has tremendous value as a two-and-a-half hour film that you actually yearn to watch again and again. As far as heist films go, it is easily the most challenging and most evocative that I have ever seen.

– Sight and sound. There are no shortage of achievements when discussing this film, but the exceptional perfection that is the rumbling texture of the film’s sound mixing, as well as the practical-dominated work of visual effects serve as the strongest duo, for far greater reason than it taking the Oscar in both respective categories. The movie’s audio thrives as this building ball of momentum, constantly mimicking that of the intensity in dream conflicts that builds to a satisfying blow-off without ever decreasing the urgency in the atmosphere. Everything introduced into the dream is always enveloped by this emphasis that engages you with its presence, and it’s even more incredible when you consider that most of the jaw-dropping visuals we’re seeing are done with limited- to-no computer generation. It’s a technical marvel that sheds light on the tremendous confidence that Nolan had in his crew in depicting this world that looks very similar, but feels eerily foreign to our own laws of gravity.

– Tremendous world building. While I do have a problem with some of the inconsistencies of the rules established that I will get to later, you can’t deny that this idea within these dream worlds were treated as so much more than just table dressing to the film’s essential plot. The film takes valuable screen time in explaining the rules, ideas, and consequences within this state of sleep that give it this rich sense of originality when compared to anything else in film history. Likewise, the set designs and backdrops feel vastly different in channeling the deeper levels of tranquility that the team invades, so as not to feel redundantly confusing to the audience keeping score at home. Also, the fine tuning of superb editing allows for great visual definition when it comes to each ever-changing layer of the dream, and kept things from ever feeling convoluted in a film where it easily could’ve been. This is editing that is visually telling us as many as four different stories at once, and never lost its location for the story along the way.

– Hans Zimmer’s best musical score to date. Zimmer has always been one of my personal favorite composers, but the work done here is exceptionally breathtaking in the way it takes command of these impactful sequences. Hans not only treats us to a fine variety of eclectic compositions, but his dedicated influence through a majority of this picture prove that he is working overtime when actors need a break from the frame. The music very rarely ever leaves the picture completely, and Hans even manages to save the best for last, as “Time”, a somberly building track that plays during the film’s emotional finale, may just be my single favorite piece of music not only by Zimmer, but by any composer in any film ever.

– Collective ensemble. I’ve read a lot of disdain for the performances in the film feeling wooden, but to me this couldn’t be further from the truth, as Dicaprio’s Cobb channels a lot of anger and grief in the valuable things lost that I felt his addiction to the past to induce shivers each time he comes at a crossroads to let them go. In addition to this, the banter and engagement of these top notch actors constantly keep things fresh because of their differences in dynamic, especially that of Levitt and Hardy, who feel like they have a complicated past between them that have left them uneasy towards one another. My favorite scenes really are just the ones when these characters interact with one another, proving that if personalities and presence are strong enough, you can’t get enough of their influence on the picture.

– Absorbing cinematography. The shot composition and color illustration in the film serve so much more purpose here than to outline a beautifully intricate film, it also establishes versatility in complexion that mimics each room it invades. Pay close attention to the background lighting or color pallet in each scene, and you’ll get an undeniable sense of how something so distant plays such an unavoidable presence in the foreground. What made it a done deal for me is that the color correction never feels overwhelmingly artificial, instead endearing subtly in a sponge-like quality to harvest the artistic merit in each scene. For a film made in 2010, it could easily stand tall with the 4K definition of a 2019 film.

– That controversial ending. (Light SPOILERS) Like most artistically poignant films, this one has plenty of room for interpretation, during the film’s pivotal closing moments. Many people have their own take whether Cobb is indeed awake or not when he is reunited with his children. My personal take is that there is a wobble on the spinner right before the screen fades to black, therefore instilling the idea that this is the real world. I say this because in the dream world there never was one instance of this even slightly wobbling even a little bit, therefore he must be in the real world. Either way, I applaud Nolan for giving food for thought to the idea that there is no wrong answer, and that either ending could alter the feeling of the film and its characters conclusively. It proves that endings don’t always need clarity to hit you the hardest emotionally, and if done right they can leave plenty of room for incorporated fan feelings, because after all, that is why movies are made in the first place.

NEGATIVES

– Inconsistencies with the rules. Some of the glaring problems upon my recent watch involved a few things that crossed my mind as being false, based on the established rules. The first is with the Limbo stage of the dream itself. If Limbo is indeed thought of as the point of no return, why is it so easy for Ariadne, Cobb, and Fischer to escape it by simply killing themselves in the dream? What about Cobb’s incarceration? How was he found guilty when he wasn’t even in the hotel that his wife jumped from? Doesn’t the hotel have cameras showing who went in and out of each room? Wouldn’t they have record of her checking into two different hotel rooms? It seems pretty clear cut to me. Finally are the audience conveniences that make absolutely zero sense in the context of the movie, but are there to forcefully teach the audience about the dream world. Why is Cobb even set up for a water kick when any kind of kick would work in waking him up? Why does it have to be water, and why not a mattress? How come the fall itself into the bathtub doesn’t wake Cobb? I’ll tell you why: So the movie can show water invading a dream. Once again, it only makes sense in the context of speaking to the audience. What about Cobb failing three different times during Saito’s test, and yet he still hires him anyway? What about Cobb’s kids being in America while he lives in other countries? Why not send the kids with Grandpa (Michael Caine) over to where Leo is, so they can be together? I could go into these things for years, but these were the ones that really bothered me.

My Grade: 9/10 or A-

The Upside


 The Film Freak

Directed By Neil Burger

Starring – Kevin Hart, Bryan Cranston, Nicole Kidman

The Plot – Inspired by a true story, the film is a heartfelt comedy about a recently paroled ex-convict (Hart) who strikes up an unusual and unlikely friendship with a paralyzed billionaire (Cranston).

Rated PG-13 for suggestive content and drug use

POSITIVES

– Hart and Cranston are a constant riot. Aside from the impeccable chemistry that provides endless banter between them, the stage proves that there’s enough room to their performances for this to be eye-opening for both. In Hart, we are still saddled with the same comedian that we’ve come to expect in every film, but his temperament feels much more reserved and timely when he instills a laugh to the picture. He also proves that he has some fine dramatic chops, as Burger takes his character through this redemption arc with a family who are at odds with him, and Kevin obliges by providing enough heart to help develop his moral transformation. Cranston’s physical limitations are consistently authentic through two hours of film, and his personality renders that of a man who has lost everything while struggling for a reason to hang on. Being a rich protagonist is a difficult thing to translate in terms of likeability, but Bryan’s timeless smile and dry reactions to Hart’s shenanigans makes the money a backdrop instead of a defining character trait.

– The less you know about the original film, titled “The Intouchables”, the better. I think “The Upside” will charm audiences of a new generation, who aren’t suffering from inevitable comparisons to the original movie. For one, I feel enough time has passed to give this a modern rendering, as well there’s much to be appreciated about a feel good story that doesn’t sugarcoat the material to manipulate them in one way or another. This film is very much a ball of nerves, that like life, will have you riding the highs and lows of a bonding friendship in which these two men desperately need each other for completely different reasons.

– Tons of personality in the overall photography of the picture. What’s commendable about Burger behind the lens is his ability to switch things up and never allow his presentation to feel conventional or stale, and because of such it adds a lot of energy to offset the weight of the dramatic material. Some examples we are treated to involve unnerving close-up angles to represent the awkwardness of something said or done, as well as following self-still frames to represent the lunacy of two characters getting high together. What’s even more important is that these special takes are reserved for the right time, and do wonders in articulating the atmospheric mood that the material sometimes clashes over.

– Charmed by the material in the script. While some scenes did challenge me morally for laughing at them, I do enjoy a film that takes place in the modern P.C era and doesn’t abide by any particular book on what’s acceptable. Instead, it lets the audience interpret things for themselves, and because of such I was treated to an early 2019 favorite in terms of comedic firepower. As well, I’m glad that it was the dialogue that I was laughing at, and not physical or bodily humor like Hart’s other films are known for. The dialogue is rich with a combination of sarcasm and character personality that allows it to thrive from each perspective, and we simply can’t get enough interaction between Hart and Cranston because of it.

– Informative look at the quadriplegic lifestyle. In taking care of people like Cranston’s character in this movie, I can say that the depictions and treatment given warms my heart with a level of honesty and fact that I wasn’t expecting from this movie. Everything from the way we look at paraplegic’s when we speak to them directly, to the sensitivity needed in feeding them, feels enriched because of the knowledge it passes down, allowing it to succeed as so much more than a piece of entertainment.

NEGATIVES

– Production issues. There is no shortage of color correction used, especially during the first act of the film that made for that inauthentic feel that we all get from Lifetime Television movies. One such instance involves sun shining through the windows, when in reality we see that it is a cloudy day outside, and there’s no possible way that this volume of light could possibly be bleeding through the windows. Likewise, the overall cinematography feels a bit too experimental for something that could’ve thrived with more nuance and less painting of the picture for us.

– Jarring musical score. The tones and music incorporated into the film reeked of 90’s romantic comedy, in that its intrusive nature tried to audibly narrate what the audience should be feeling because of its lack of confidence in the clashing of tones in material. There is no precedent for consistency here, and it makes some of these scenes swell up with a lack of subtlety that constantly pulled me out of the dramatic depth in every scene. It simply tries to accomplish too much, in that it can’t decide if it wants to be heartfelt and emotional or bumbling and funny. Each are fine by themselves, but when stitched together as a cohesive unit lack the kind of solid direction needed in mastering these meaningful moments.

– Needs another edit. “The Upside” is two hours even, and the ambition of that run time just doesn’t match the fluidity of the script that begins to feel its weight around the halfway point. For my money, twenty minutes could easily be removed from this script, as there are scenes involving Hart and Kidman’s characters that could easily be trimmed or cut all together because they add nothing to the developing progress or character dynamics established early on. There’s also an early third act introduction involving a romantic subplot that comes and goes only to force a conventional third act distancing that doesn’t feel believable because of everything that has already transpired. This drags the pacing down violently, and especially so with an ending that feels like it happens ten minutes too late, and builds something climatic that is instead neatly tucked away in predictably bland territory.

– Great imbalance in tone. Films that incorporate both comedy and drama to a movie can work. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t have a subgenre titled “Dramedies”. But the occasional slapstick scene, like Hart being overwhelmed by a technologically advanced shower, don’t blend well with those deeper moments where the integrity of the film needs to resonate with the heartbeat of its audience. For much of the first half, the film feels juggled between these two opposite directions, giving it a feel of multiple cooks in the kitchen to the movie’s development, all before settling down in the final act as a sombering drama completely. Much of the film constantly feels like a juxtaposition of itself, and with more control could’ve balanced these directions seamlessly into feeling like one cohesive unit.

– Racially insensitive? Similar to last year’s “Green Book”, we have another story of trade-offs, where a black and white character give each other something that they were lacking before, but unlike that movie the exchange in “The Upside” feels cringing the minority audiences who will see it. Cranston instills class in Hart’s character in the form of opera music, while Hart gives Cranston weed and Aretha Franklin music. You can kind of see where the representations are a little one sided here, and for a business that claims it is becoming more progressive with each passing film, it certainly drops the ball in leveling the playing field with this exceptionally offensive take.

EXTRAS

– One unique take. Considering this film revolves around an ex-con who is looking to redeem himself to the people who judge him for his past, I guess it’s appropriate that Hart is cast in this role, considering the current controversy of the Oscars with Hart once recruited to host. If we learn anything from this film and particularly Hart in general, it’s that people can change, and shouldn’t just be defined by something from their past that was more than enough time ago to believe they may have changed for the better. It’s a reminder to our own world that people make mistakes, and we can either allow ourselves to become saddled with those mistakes and keep them from redeeming themselves, or we give them the chance to make everything right.

My Grade: 5/10 or D+

On the Basis of Sex


 The Film Freak

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+

A Dog’s Way Home


 The Film Freak

Directed By Charles Martin Smith

Starring – Bryce Dallas Howard, Ashley Judd, Alexandra Shipp

The Plot – Separated from her owner, a dog sets off on an 400-mile journey to get back to the safety and security of the place she calls home. Along the way, she meets a series of new friends and manages to bring a little bit of comfort and joy to their lives.

Rated PG for thematic elements, some peril and adult language

POSITIVES

– For a light-hearted family atmospheric film, this one conquers some dark and challenging material. This is the area of the film that I wish had more time devoted to it, as prejudice against the Pitbull breed, canine abuse on the whole, and even human death are all touched upon in these surprisingly revealing ways, giving the film a bit of much-appreciated social commentary. These are the rare instances where the movie feels like it has something to talk about in addition to the cute and cuddly material that it saddles itself with a bit too comfortably, and with more of a push for the PG-13 rating, could’ve separated more widely from the rest of the pact of subgenre films that are easily forgettable because of their similarities.

– The best actor in the film. It feels strange to talk about this, but the kind of physical performance that Smith emits from his canine protagonist is something that gained an air of astonishment from me. In addition to being thrown in the way of constant danger and conflict, the dog limps his way through a third act that really hammers home the length of this impossible journey with a one legged approach of consistency that you’d have to be a cold-heart not to appreciate.

– Smooth and fluent pacing throughout. One accolade that I give the film is the lack of boredom that these kind of films often radiate with, but this exception works because of the decision to keep it limited to 91 meaningful minutes that never lets the story get away from focus. Because this journey is so expansive and ever-changing in its environmental challenges, it frees itself of repetition or redundancy that would test the patience of its younger audiences, making this as easy of a January watch as you’re going to find.

– Nuance to the passage of time. I can’t believe that I am going to give “A Dog’s Way Home” respect for depth in storytelling, but the use of background pictures to fill in the gaps of character separation is something the film does exceptionally well. One such scene near the end of the film has one character in his bedroom, and long before we see anything or anyone else, we focus on this picture that articulates not only how much time has passed, but where certain characters end up. I love a screenplay that doesn’t need to stop to explain these kind of things, especially when you consider that this is the dog’s story first, and everything else, quite literally and figuratively, are backdrops for the main course.

– Fine combination of engaging cinematography and gorgeous backdrops make for eye candy. Even though this film’s dedication to C.G properties often hinder the immersion of each situation in scene, the breathtaking vantage points of some of South California’s most beautiful landscapes made for a rich and ambitious presentation visually that kept the integrity of the big budget feel preserved. Especially when you consider this as a journey film, you would be doing a huge disservice if you didn’t depict the immensity of these jaw-dropping visuals to counteract the ferocity of the wild, and I give great credit to Smith for knowing constantly where to point the camera to get the most out of every shot.

NEGATIVES

– Uninspired C.G animal properties. Simply put, in 2019, artificial animal renderings should not be so obvious to where the outline nor the texture of the animal matches the lighting of the environment that it’s put in. Even worse than that, these laughably bad mountain lions and cougars move so sluggishly in their attacks that the camera has to adjust to how fake everything comes across with interaction. This brings forth camera movements that are the worst I’ve seen since 2016’s “Jason Bourne”, echoing as close to a visual seizure as you’re going to find on camera.

– Minimal plot. I should receive an Academy Award for what I typed in the plot section above, as so much of this film instead feels like a series of events, instead of one cohesive narrative that bends and twists to the three act structure. Not only is this movie completely predictable, but it’s predictable in a way that feels content with walking the same path and pissing on the same trees as the films that came before it. Some people think a movie with a title that tells you everything you need to know about a film is a positive, but it also establishes early on just how empty the sum of its jumbled parts really are.

– Speaking of title. To say I hate the confusing title of this film is an understatement. Why is it confusing? “A Dog’s Purpose”, “A Dog’s Life”, “A Dog’s Tale”, “A Dog Year” Catching my drift? All of these movies have boring, unimaginative titles, and yet none of them are related in the slightest. I get that this film was a book before 2017’s “A Dog’s Purpose”, but couldn’t you have changed the title because of such similarities? So the next time a friend asks if you’ve seen the sequel to any of these films, called “A Dog’s Way Home”, you can remind them that studios have the imagination to include a line like “Snow do your business”, an actual line of dialogue from this tar pit of terrible.

– Familiarity rears its ugly head. When you really think about it, this movie isn’t anything like those other films I just mentioned, it’s instead a dead ringer for a “Homeward Bound” remake. Think about it: dog meets and falls in love with his adolescent owner, is left with a family member during a trying time, escapes said house, and begins a long distance trip to get home. Sniff what I’m conveying to you? Unfortunately this film has about a fifth of the charm of “Homeward Bound”, and not even that in the regards of narration. Oh the shame of this narration…..

– The shame. The narration is so annoying and pointlessly used in this film that I even still fail to understand why its inclusion was depended upon so frequently. Bryce Dallas Howard voices the inner thoughts of this dog, and when she isn’t piercing our eardrums with this screechy, human repellent voice, she’s intruding constantly on our perception of what’s transpiring. For instance, if this dog finds something to eat, we hear her say “I was so hungry”. Or if the dog is cuddling with her owner, we hear “I love you so much”. Really important stuff movie. I could’ve never interpreted that for myself, thank you. This film would’ve been a lot better if it didn’t go the voice route, and just let the heartfelt story play out for itself. So many of these tender scenes would’ve been much more effective if Howard didn’t articulate what Ray Charles could see about a particular scene, and it serves as the single worst aspect of this film.

My Grade: 5/10 or D+

Replicas


 The Film Freak

Starring – Keanu Reeves, Alice Eve, Emily Alyn Lind

The Plot – A daring synthetic biologist (Reeves) suffers through a brutal car accident that kills his family. In response, he will stop at nothing to bring them back, even if it means pitting himself against a government-controlled laboratory, a police task force and the physical laws of science.

Rated PG-13 for thematic material, violence, disturbing images, some nudity and sexual references

POSITIVES

– Cohesive musical score that channels the vibes of science fiction authenticity. While much of the audible deliveries in dialogue lacked anything of depth or convincing nature for my ears, the experimental touches of tones performed here by composers Mark Kilian and Jose Ojeda echo the paths of uncertainty brewing beneath the surface, and were a treat to my otherwise tortured eardrums. As expected, there are plenty of techno samples incorporated into the general outline, but it’s more so in the majority of practical piano that brings with it an air of class and sophistication to the picture, preserving the high stakes feel that our characters are playing with.

– Unintentionally humorous. Whether the film meant to instill such a ridiculous amount of cheese and silliness to the film, the result more times than not brings us the audience some delightful refrains in the area of hearty laughter. One thing that I can say about “Replicas” is that I was never bored during its 97 minute presentation, and a lot of that has to do with shaky line reads and braindead scientific accuracy that constantly demeaned this film from taking itself too seriously. This might sound like a glaring negative, but I would rather have a terribly funny movie than a terribly boring one, and the former is what helped push me through many of the problems that I will mention coming up.

– Intelligence in shooting schedule. Outside sequences in films often cost much more money to shoot and finalize, and this film’s capability to keep their screenplay indoors is certainly something that helped slim production costs. More than 90% of this movie takes place inside, and it’s probably a good thing because so much of the cinematography outside, especially during daytime scenes, radiate with an overall feeling of artificial lighting design that constantly break the fourth wall of realism. It’s not only believable why these instances would take place inside, but never hinders the creativity associated with the progression of the picture, and it’s awesome that they took something that would be considered a negative and blossomed it into a positive.

NEGATIVES

– How important is a good director? Well, they are responsible for garnering the best in emotional range and gut-punching relatability to us the audience, and neither are anywhere close to where they should be for this film. The movie just kind of glosses over the concepts of grief and its importance to investing so deeply in its characters, riding along with the kind of wooden performances that are easy to sniff out for even occasional moviegoers. When you take a film like “John Wick” and come to understand the importance of his dog, and what losing him meant to John, you back the character through anything, and that was anything but the case in “Replicas”. In a sense, it almost makes Reeves character here feel detestable, in that his selfishness and lack of emotions expressed during the film’s most impactful scene goes unfulfilled, and it made for characters who I just didn’t care for at all.

– Horrendously phony C.G effects. The movie “I, Robot” came out in 2004, and I mention that because not only did this film rip-off the android designs from that movie, but also did it with half of the captivation and weight that a film fourteen years prior did better. Aside from the live action actors totally getting the height capture wrong when staring at their android counterparts, the movements of fingers and limbs is so hollow that you can almost see the computerized dimensions moving stiffly without perfecting. Thankfully, these properties aren’t in the movie much, but the end result makes me think that was more intentional than anything.

– Has a show-and-don’t-tell mentality when it comes to its science. If you can somehow ignore that transferring memories is done in a basement, and done so flawlessly, the lack of explanation that goes into the surgical transfer itself will bother you in hanging on to what is transpiring. Instead, the film shows us a bunch of “Iron Man” touchscreen visuals, which translate to nothing more than lazy screenwriting so that no one calls it on its bullshit. Speaking of that sentiment, why doesn’t the film cover the issue of internal bacterial flora? In real life, these clones would die of constipation or some other stupid disease in no time, just from breathing in our air and not being used to its level of pollution. To be fair, the movie does showcase something going on in Alice Eve’s body while she’s out running, but we never get any explanation if this is what I’m talking about, or just vicious diarrhea from Reeves challenging breakfast offerings.

– In addition to what I just mentioned, the movie also has enough plot holes to drive a Range Rover through it. For one, this research team is specializing in memory transferring, so how are they top notch experts in cloning? If this guy is able to move a whole laboratory to his basement without error, why can’t he just work from home? There’s a scene where Reeves steals car batteries the night before to gain enough power for the transfer, and the cops come to his house the next morning asking if his car is ok, to which he replies “No, they didn’t get me”. How would he know when the thieves did it the night before, and he’s just now waking up? Wouldn’t they ask him to at least check his car before answering? Doesn’t this make him at least remotely suspect? Who cares, because it’s a movie, and you’re supposed to be stupid when watching a movie. Hating it means you’re an old grump.

– Obvious foreshadowing. The many times during the movie when something is unsubtly squeezed into a conversation, removes any kind of suspense or nuance to the developments of the picture. This as you might expect renders much of the screenplay predictable, giving us ample time to sniff out where and when it will pop up in the scenario to remind us why it was mentioned. The biggest instance of this is a crayon drawing by Reeves daughter on their kitchen table that the camera shows us for no reason than to hint that it will pop up somewhere down the road later, and of course it does. Reeves character is so stupid and unbelievable as a scientist that he somehow logs onto his kids Facebooks to clear up their disappearances, gets rid of all of the pictures and clothes in his house, yet somehow doesn’t see this abnormally big drawing of a dinosaur in crayon on a place he frequents often in the film. UGH!!!

– Uneven pacing. While the film was never boring to me, the polarly opposite first and second act did a complete disservice in settling down and enjoying the narrative. The first act speeds through any character introductions, and feels like it starts where a movie’s tenth minute usually is at, yet the second act slugs along in such a way that hinders the progression of some solid suspense up to that point. If the film could ever settle itself down and gain some consistency for itself, these acts would flow seamlessly, but as it stands the script lacks confidence in translating how much entertainment value it pulls from the material.

– It’s been a while since I’ve been this angry at a movie’s ending, but “Replicas” final five minutes renders everything that came before it completely pointless. SPOILERS – The antagonist group that moves in the shadows are never stopped or dealt with, the world evolves in a way with these replicas that is every bit as ridiculous as it is unexplained, and the negatives that hindered Reeves’ family replicants are never addressed again. I guess they just diminish in the same way my expectations for this movie did. It ends as abruptly as you can possibly imagine, leaving ten minutes of credits to inflate the movie’s run time to feel like a big screen run time.

My Grade – 3/10 or F

If Beale Street Could Talk


 The Film Freak

Directed By Barry Jenkins

Starring – Kiki Layne, Stephan James, Regina King

The Plot – Set in early 1970s Harlem, the film is a timeless and moving love story of both a couple’s unbreakable bond and the African-American family’s empowering embrace, as told through the eyes of 19-year-old Tish Rivers (Layne). A daughter and wife-to-be, Tish vividly recalls the passion, respect and trust that have connected her and her artist fiancé Alonzo Hunt, who goes by the nickname Fonny (James). Friends since childhood, the devoted couple dream of a future together but their plans are derailed when Fonny is arrested for a crime he did not commit.

Rated R for adult language and some sexual material

 

POSITIVES

– Jenkins’ impeccable influence in black cinema. What I find so refreshing and commanding about Barry’s touches as a storyteller is in the ability to finely illustrate characters of color in a way that renders them every bit as human as they are relatable. A lesser director neglects to stray far from the confines of subliminal stereotyping, but the people in Barry’s films are enriched with a level of respect and class that sadly black cinema just doesn’t capitalize on enough, and this in turn allows you to comprehend not only the nuance of every character’s personality, but the mentality of what makes each of them vibrantly tick.

– In addition to what I just mentioned the film offers mind-blowing and exceptionally eye-opening commentary on black experiences inside and out of the judicial system. What’s impressive is that it often does this in deep-focus conversation instead of showing us front-and-center, preparing us for what’s to inevitably come thanks to this informative foreshadowing. I was also painted with these strokes of helplessness, paranoia, and especially longing, that made the material blossom with self-indulgence. This is a film tnat takes place in the 70’s, but the contrasts and poignancy to the kind of injustices still going on in our own world in 2019 highlight an unnerving feeling that I simply couldn’t escape, nor did I feel that the audience ever should. It’s moving material to say the least, and offers an underlying pressure boiling beneath this nourishing love story.

– Competency in juggling dual-narratives. The storytelling in “Beale Street” is somewhat a linear structure, in that it is being told in a straight line, however there are actually two different time periods, before and after Fonny’s arrest, that the film simultaneously captures. What’s important is that there is plenty of time distance between both arcs, giving them narrative importance in keeping up the consistency of the pacing. One or two scenes do feel briefly repetitive, but there’s nothing inside that I would ever cut or trim, as I feel like just under two hours was the proper time allowance for this film to thrive on.

– Above and beyond artistic merit. This is a BEAUTIFUL film, complimented by an expansive set of shot composition photography and dreamy cinematography by frequent Jenkins collaborator James Laxton that offer enough experimentation and capture to constantly dazzle. During scenes of intimacy or reflection between our romantic leads, we are treated to POV slow-motion style depictions, with some of the strongest framing that I have ever seen. It gives the intimacy between them a feeling like nothing else exists in their world, as well as a vantage point in the scenery surrounding them that perfectly articulates the different worlds that their respective character’s come from. If you see this film for anything, see it for the images that solidify the team of Jenkins and Laxton as one of the best 1-2 visual combos since Villenueve and Deakins.

– The pulse of the neighborhood itself. This is really what I refer to when I mention that a setting is a respective character in a movie, as the very look and feel of this rapidly changing neighborhood really preserves the heartbeat of the many ideals and adversities locked inside. Throughout the film, we are treated to haunting visuals and unrelated stories from neighborhood citizens that conjure up a complete feeling of what it means to be settled here, and it’s in these feelings where the spirit of a proud but terrifying world reflects with each of them. Jenkins takes his time in capturing the polished colors and abandoned buildings of a once prestigious landscape, and really makes them pop against the ambitions of these two people who are now making a world for themselves.

– Immersive sound design. One thing that bothers me in films is when a scene takes place in what would otherwise be a noisy surrounding, and we only hear the conversation between the characters in our story. That couldn’t be further from what’s going on in “Beale Street”, as this place that is described early on as a noisy one perseveres with its own rhythmic shifts in traffic and population to constantly remind you of its presence. I would frequently close my eyes and let the narration of the characters tell me the story, and each time my imagination came to fruition because of these echoes in the atmosphere that only go away when a movie wants to be completely dishonest with itself and the world it creates. I give this film all of the respect in the world for bringing along the complete picture, and not just the things that are obvious.

– Nicholas Britell’s emotionally picturesque musical score. Britell is given vital free range here to play with feelings and nerves present in the film, and does so with such attention to character atmosphere that really takes us the viewer on a roller-coaster of free range emotion, through the ups and downs of this shaken family. There are many excellent musical takes from the film, but the one that has been on repeat coming through my speakers since I saw the film is “Agape”, a three minute tender sentiment that captures so much of the hope and fireworks associated with falling in love for the first time. I have attached it next to the trailer, up top. The relationship between jazz and classical music thrive in complexity from the different styles of technique pumped into each, and that’s never more prominent than its inclusion into the airy worlds that Jenkins manufactures.

– All of the performances are also well-timed and essential to the importance of scenes, but for my money it’s Layne and King who steal the show. Layne’s got the kind of eyes that weaken you in the knees, and continuously transfer her feeling of emotional registry long before she ever says a word. As for King, it’s a return to form for an entirely underrated actress, who here serves as the glue that bonds this family from falling apart. King gives us no shortage of long-winded dialogue deliveries, and the fire that captures the love she has for those important to her is admirable and conveying in the importance of a Mother’s touch on any family. I hope they both receive Oscar nominations, as the film would lose a lot of its luster without the perfect casting of each.

– My favorite scene. Amazingly enough, the scene that stuck with me the most throughout the film doesn’t have a single character, nor a line of dialogue spoken. It takes place with one of Fonny’s incomplete wood carvings, and the camera continuously revolves around it, illuminated by warm, golden lighting, and to me represented Fonny, in that it and Fonny both have the potential to be something whole and complete. It’s one of these genius moments that cement Jenkins as a genius, but also the importance of hope, which feels like it’s slipping the longer the film goes on. Take time to appreciate scenes like these, because often directors are trying to convey something to us that is anything but beautifully decorated table dressing.

NEGATIVES

– There’s very little to complain about in this film, but small things distracted me from an otherwise perfect presentation. The first is in two big name cameos that lessen the impact of fresh-faced atmosphere from the picture. My problem is that these two are not only obvious, but a bit cartoonish because of the roles they portray, and it just didn’t sit well when everyone else is portrayed and grounded in such realism. The other problem I had is in the film’s attitude lacking the kind of urgency that was so prominent in the novel. While I was firmly invested in Fonny’s on-going trial, the lack of a scene depicting how much prison is changing him could’ve done so much in capturing the essence of time.

My Grade – 9/10 or A-

Escape Room


 The Film Freak

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+

Bird Box


 The Film Freak

Directed By Susanne Bier

Starring – Sandra Bullock, Trevante Rhodes, John Malkovich

The Plot – In the wake of an unknown global terror, a mother (Bullock) must find the strength to flee with her children down a treacherous river in search of safety. Due to unseen deadly forces, the perilous journey must be made blindly.

Rated R for violence, bloody images, adult language and brief sexuality

POSITIVES

– Kicks off right away. I love a film that wastes little time in getting the pulse of the action going, and the first fifteen minutes of “Bird Box” perfectly set the precedent for what’s to come in the following two hours. We are caught off-guard with the ensuing mayhem in the same way Malorie (Bullock) is, learning things as we go in this unpredictable circumstance. This momentum sticks around permanently throughout, making a challenging runtime feel like half of that because of constantly-evolving challenges and suffocating atmosphere that boil together to produce one electrifying experience.

– Non linear story that actually pleases. It’s a lost art anymore to piece together a story that adds anything of originality to its structure, but screenwriter Eric Heisserer does a solid job of constructing two respective timelines, one in current day and one five years prior, while instilling intrigue to both. What’s impressive is that each arc adds to the other, delivering a series of bombshell deliveries that make certain aspects about the opposite timeline come to light because of the important information. What’s valuable is that neither is more compelling or lagging, building two enthralling stories for the price of one.

– Performances. While I did have many problems with the characterization of the film, there’s a familiar face behind every corner that only adds to the big name atmosphere of the streaming presentation. There are many challengers in the way of Sandra’s domination of screen time, most notably in Malkovich’s stuffy snob, whose conservatism keeps him reserved on the front of human interaction, or in the continuation of “Moonlight’s” soft interior bad boy Trevante Rhodes, who acts as the protector of sorts to Bullock, but it always comes back to her. Bullock captivates the screen frequently, bringing a combination of on-call tears and Motherly instinct that make her an indulging protagonist. Most leads get stronger the more they’re tested, but Bullock’s Malorie feels grounded in reality, etching out a layer of vulnerability with the character that comes with parental instinct.

– Unavoidable weight and consequences. One thing often missing from post-apocalyptic movies is the air of permanence that elevate its conflict and illustrate a line of urgency that resonates with the audience. That’s never a problem here, as stakes are constantly raised between an adapting antagonist and an increasing body count that diminishes the hope of ever going back to the old ways. There is no quick and easy solution to the mayhem that persists throughout, and if a depressing story challenges you negatively, this isn’t the story for you.

– Decaying beauty in the film’s cinematography. Especially is the case during scenes on the river, there’s an overall greying tint and literal fog in the air that make for some exceptional scenes of transfixing focus amongst the gorgeous photography. Salvatore Totino brings with him the same textures and filters of somber ambiance that made his work on “Everest” one of that year’s best, and harvests a big screen level of toxicity in the air of post-apocalyptic backdrop that conjures a big screen stature for Netflix films.

– A gift of anxiety for all. This is one of the things that I hear most about the film, and after watching it I can say that the exhilaration of tense sequencing is clearly the strongest aspect of this film. Between a combination of finely documented camera work whose editing increases between each respective character in frame, and the powerful duo of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross once again providing gas for the proverbial fire, we get a collection of exchanges that constantly ratchet the tension and hang just perfect enough in air to amplify our intrigue without it ever carrying on for far too long. In addition, the periodic use of point-of-view camera work casts the audience in Bullock’s shoes, exerting that feeling of uneasiness that comes with being blindfolded against an adversary you’re so unfamiliar with. In general, there are very few films that can compete with “Bird Box” this year in terms of audience investment, and that constant elevation of the elements at play cook to make a boiling pot of nerves on the audience’s indulgence.

– Interpretive poignancy. As with any movie, there are tons of interpretations at a deeper meaning beneath the material, and “Bird Box” expanded my mind on a couple of self-observations that transcends the table dressing of the plot. SPOILERS AHEAD. The first is the entity’s lack of physicality on humans throughout the film, instead choosing to possess the ones that see so that they can hurt others. I interpreted this as the film believing that we the humans are the ones that are killing everything and everyone around us, and that we are the only ones capable of preserving our future as a race. The second one is really my opinion on the film as a whole. It’s about mental health and depression, and how we as a nation are blind to its effects. This not only explains the influence of suicide throughout the film, but also why it happens to random people instead of everyone, hinting that it can plague anyone at any time. Like I said, these are just my opinions on the material, and certainly nothing that’s concrete. I like a film that makes you think, and this one had no shortage of that.

NEGATIVES

– Thinly written characters. Outside of Bullock’s central protagonist, the film doesn’t waste any time donating exposition or backstory to the pasts of the group of eclectic survivors who surround her. This is probably why many of their deaths didn’t resonate any kind of emotional feeling from within me, and more than that creates an unintentional highlight of its own for who is expendable, based on the amount of screen time that each of them receive. Some characters die without little impact, some disappear to never show up again, and some I still don’t know the name to. May they rest in peace, forever nameless.

– Unanswered questions and plot holes. There were no shortage of times when I scratched my head at the lack of answers from a movie that clearly didn’t think things out all the way through. SPOILERS AHEAD How were they able to properly determine that sight was the cause of the mayhem? Why not breathing, or hearing? How do only a few people see the thing in an enormous crowd who are all looking in different directions? How did Malorie’s sister see it but she didn’t when they were in the same car, looking the exact same direction? How does a blindfold secure you, but seeing it on a surveillance camera doesn’t? It’s proven that this thing can kick down sturdy structures, so why does a house remain its weakness? It knows people are in there, so why isn’t this thing blowing this house down? What about animals? Why are they safe from seeing it? Wouldn’t there be more animals in the streets than humans if this were the case? During the GPS car scene, there isn’t a single flipped or turned car on the road that would block their path? GPS is never an exact science, so when it tells them to turn? How did the guy know EXACTLY when to turn? How was a guy the size that size able to sneak up on someone in the water? Especially considering the hearing sense of the trio should be at its peak with other senses diminished. These are just a few of the questions that I left the theater with, but I saved my real money for……….

– Lack of believability with the ending. SPOILERS. Why is a village of blind people the safe zone for Malorie and her family? What does them being safe have anything to do with her safety? How has this house stood for this long without some kind of conflict from the monster against it? How were all of them even able to get here? How will blind people defend themselves from someone getting in? It’s happened before, so it’s not crazy to think that it will happen again. Is an ending where the monster is still alive supposed to be satisfying? Are you the audience anymore relieved or confident because Malorie and her family reached this place? This is my problem when I think about the final moments to a story that was so edgy and unpredictable. It’s too neat and tidy to feel believable, and let a lot of momentum out of a film that was otherwise seductively suspenseful.

My Grade: 7/10 or B

Holmes & Watson


 The Film Freak

Directed By Etan Cohen

Starring – Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, Ralph Fiennes

The Plot – Legendary detective Sherlock Holmes (Ferrell) and his partner Doctor Watson (Reilly) return for a comedic take on their classic literary partnership, as they use their incredible deductive minds to solve a mystery involving the Queen.

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

POSITIVES

– On-location filming and detailed set design. One of the few fortunate aspects of this film is in the beautifully rugged England scenery, which gives the film an authentic channeling of its late 19th century setting accordingly. The interiors are laced and loaded with a barrage of English colonial furniture and Gothic wall decor, to add a lot of style to the bumbling substance that fills the air like a clogged toilet. Thankfully, the historical accuracies providing a lot of depth and legacy to the interiors at least gave me something to look at.

– A big name presence behind every corner. While there’s nothing to rave at in terms of performances, the work of everyone on-screen constantly emits a level of professionalism that is far too good for this movie. Actresses like Kelly Macdonald and Rebecca Hall supply endless energy and tasteful pulp to their respective characters, treating this like a stage show of “Macbeth”, instead of the illegitimate step cousin of “Taladega Nights”. My favorite however is definitely that of Fiennes, whose air of sophistication and mental prowess outline an antagonist to the movie that I wish we spent more time with. In the end, anyone who acted in this film should get a free coupon to be cast in an Oscar bait contender, squarely out of pity, but the dedication to the craft is never stilted for a single second, outlining a glow of respect for these film veterans who go above and beyond the smell of duty.

NEGATIVES

– One flimsy idea. “Holmes and Watson” is based off of a Saturday Night Live skit, in which Ferrell dons the raincoat and three piece suit to garner a bunch of laughs in a four minute allowance. The problem comes when you try to stretch out the ideas within a four minute skit and turn them into an 86 minute feature length film, complete with new comic material and a narrative that should’ve easily been solved in five minutes. Television laughs don’t translate well to the silver screen, and it makes for a very subdued, straight-faced comedy that feels too dull to ever be intriguing. Because of such, the entertainment factor for the duo characters suffer tremendously, adding nothing of value or even originality to the tale that could’ve taken this ages old story in an intriguingly fresh direction.

– Poor audio mixing. Not that I expect flawless execution when it comes to a spoof film, but the amateur work of some horrendous sound mixing and possibly the worst A.D.R of 2018 is something that would be bad for a Sears infomercial at three-o-clock in the morning. There are times when mouths move, but words aren’t heard, there are times of vice versa when the words are heard with no mouth movements, and then there are times when words are shaped and manipulated so that they cater to the PG-13 tagging. This film was butchered in post production, and it shows behind scenes of tweeked dialogue that may have been the only laugh that I got during the entirety of the film.

– Weak material. If you don’t feel confident in the laugh you’re trying to pull from your audience, yell repeatedly. That’s the thought process behind Ferrell and Reilly, whose comic delivery rival that of a mortician, and made for an experience so mind-numbingly annoying that it made “Step Brothers” material look like “The Godfather” by comparison. In addition to this, the material doesn’t have enough cleverness to stay in its designated time frame, so it moves on to modern day gags that make absolutely zero sense, and feel forced for their redundancy. In particular it’s the inclusion of “Unchained Melody” to mimic the scene from “Ghost”, a 1990 drama that revels in the freshness of its passing decades, and the work of (Count em’) FOUR Trump Jokes that were so desperate to cater to audiences that they had a Trump hater like me saying enough is enough when I saw an obvious one coming. Are you starting to see the SNL ideas coming into play? To wrap it all up, yes they actually went there: A “No Shit Sherlock” joke of course is included, leaving the last bit of shame evaporating from my body just in time for the holidays.

– And then there’s…… If the work from above isn’t enough to tickle your funny bone, take comfort in knowing that each of them drag on and are repeated endlessly throughout the film. If you cut off Ferrell or Reilly after their first delivery for a respective joke, this film would barely clock in at an hour. Instead, with the lack of depth in script or even pacing for audiences still with a percentage of battery left on their phones, Cohen would rather replay each delivery, in case you may have missed it the first, second, or fourteenth time. Believe me, the law of averages diminish every time you have to go through something you may have laughed at only minutes before.

– Female abuse that is played off for a laugh. I left this one separate because it really does deserve a section of its own to scoff at any director’s idea in 2018 that female abuse is an admirable trait of any big screen protagonist. If this happened once, I could forgive Holmes and Watson, but in physically assaulting multiple females in the film, the movie creates an air of acceptability that proved where this movie and screenwriter’s moral compass were at. If there’s even a glimmer of consequence to what these two idiots are doing, then fine, but it’s all brushed off like a pat on the back, and if I’m the only person who sees anything wrong with it, it proves to me how many moviegoers have already been dumbed down by bodily humor stick that should’ve died in the Post-silver screen, Pre-Netflix era of Adam Sandler flicks.

– Lack of believability. Even for a spoof, Ferrell and Reilly’s portrayal of the title characters lack a single bit of familiarity to make them easily immerse themselves into the roles. Both are braindead idiots, whom I would have difficulty believing that they could tie their shoes, let alone solve a crime. Every other character surrounding them is at least a football field ahead of them in terms of intelligence, and if it had not been for supporting cast practically beating the answer over the heads of these buffoons, then this film would never end (An idea I don’t even want to think or joke about).

– Telegraphed twist. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that even the mystery of this film is a big letdown, ushering in a switcheroo during the third act that has prepared us for this throughout the film, thanks to Cohen’s script spoiling things almost an hour in advance. To put it lightly, I sniffed out the twist of this movie at around the twenty minute mark, and that was with mild interest toward the movie. It’s about as subtle as a colonic volcano, and even more incredible is that the twist totally breaks established history with Mortiary, in that we know from past stories he doesn’t have a daughter. But once the movie so bluntly establishes this point of reference during the first act of the movie, you see it coming from a mile away, which wouldn’t be so bad if you were having a good time in the first place.

– Rating limitations. Courtroom masturbation, heroin, cocaine. These are a few of the mentions in the movie, but are unlikely to receive further elaboration because of a PG-13 rating that does the material, nor its leading males any favors in highlighting forbidden material. Any movie can talk about anything endlessly, but there comes a time when showing it would elicit more of a general reaction from surrounding audiences, but sadly the film just can’t capitalize on such a thing. For my money, even mentioning something that you can’t further in material or shock factor is completely pointless, and only serves as a reminder of why some films lack that compelling edge that leaves them otherwise searching for an identity of their own.

My Grade: 2/10 or F-

Welcome To Marwen


 The Film Freak

Directed By Robert Zemeckis

Starring – Steve Carell, Leslie Mann, Diane Kruger

The Plot – When a devastating attack shatters Mark Hogancamp (Carell) and wipes away all memories, no one expected recovery. Putting together pieces from his old and new life, Mark meticulously creates a wondrous town where he can heal and be heroic. As he builds an astonishing art installation, a testament to the most powerful women he knows, through his fantasy world, he draws strength to triumph in the real one.

Rated PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence, some disturbing images, brief suggestive content, thematic material and adult language

POSITIVES

– Vibrancy in art design. While nothing original in terms of its production specifics, the animation in the film free-flows the beauty and attention to detail of a doll’s aesthetics. The actors film these scenes in live action, and in post-production are given a plastic shine filter to emulate them as acting dolls against a live action backdrop. In addition, the lighting of these scenes are beautiful, conjuring up a soft gloss of light that reflects on the smooth plastic exterior of their physical properties. You can say a lot of things about this film, but lacking in the art department will never be one of them.

– Steve Carell dazzles once again. The screenplay does this man zero favors in making his character look presentable to the audience, yet the constant professionalism of one of the strongest dramatic forces working today constantly elevates the material and gives light to another transformative performance. In Carell’s Hogancamp, we taste humor, some anguish, and a lot of fragility, and it’s in the masking of the last term where we really outline a layer of empathy to the character, making his a story of redemption that we are constantly investing ourselves in. Steve delivers a lot of heart for the real life figure, and that commitment to the ball of nerves that dominate his daily routine is something that only an actor of this magnitude can pull off without it feeling humorous every time.

– Believable setting. The boundaries of Mark’s real life town inside of Kingston, New York are tightly shot, preserving that air of a small town quality where everyone knows everything going on. This not only explains why Mark’s situation is the discussion of so many people surrounding him, but also a news broadcast that clues us in on what’s taking place with the men who jumped and beat him down during one fateful night. This is an area of filmmaking that is often overlooked for whatever reason, but in keeping our filming locations limited, and the framing tight, it accurately presents that air of claustrophobia inside of a small town.

NEGATIVES

– Musical miscues. Besides these obvious tracks feeling distracting during the scenes in which they play because of their boisterous volume levels, the overall soundtrack for the film is riddled in such topical convenience for what is playing out on-screen. An example is a sleeping sequence that is being enveloped by The Everly Brothers “Dream” playing out in the most eye-rolling manner. It made for these times of musical incorporation that I dreaded hearing from, and made me wish the remainder of the film was a silent one from the roaring 20’s.

– Cluttered dialogue. There’s nothing subtle or nuanced about the dialogue in the film. From force-feeding of backstories, to obvious metaphorical representations, this film constantly reeked of desperation, and progressed little because of how much explanation it was required to give for the past. Because of such, it feels like two movies are playing out in real time: one for the current narrative, and the one in which the movie has to stop every two minutes to explain something we see in real time or hear about on the news. Who knew in 2018 that biopics can still be this clumsily written?

– Lack of sensitivity for the subject matter. Hogancamp’s story is one that is plagued by mental illness, depression, and especially abuse, and the screenplay tiptoes around these subjects so as not to make anything under Zimeckis’ roof feel risque. For Mark himself, the movie approaches him as this bumbling infant who is part compassionate and part creepy for the demeanor he exerts on others. An example of this is his interaction with Leslie Mann’s character, in which he describes how he collects women’s essences. Keep in mind that all of this is out of Mann’s context, as she just moved to the town, and would otherwise come across as a serial killer who is obsessed with her likeness. In addition, the conflict of mental illness is cleaned up in such a way that is not only insulting to someone like me who has fought his own battles with such adversities, but irresponsible for how easy it is eventually defeated.

– The “Sucker Punch” effect. Zach Snyder’s 2011 fantasy epic is the last film that I ever thought or ever wanted to reference again, but it feels like Zimeckis has watched this film one too many times in his rendering of this project. The fantasy sequences often take far too long to reach their point. As well, they also dominate the time allowance over the live action narrative in a two-to-one ratio, taking far too much focus away from Mark’s confining circumstance. There’s almost too much optimism in a story that should otherwise feel so dark, and I’m not naive enough for a second to believe that the answer to both films conflicts resonate somewhere in the fantasy world. Seriously, fuck you.

– Disjointed continuity. Some character dynamics are dropped and never referenced again, some female doll likenesses are never explained or introduced at all, and some scenes are so miniscule in importance that they were better left on the cutting room floor. It all pressures the pacing of the film into some dire consequences that make 111 minutes feel like three hours of burning wax torture. The main problem is that these scenes never allow themselves to pick up any kind of relative momentum, instead feeling like a collection of instances that don’t gel together as one cohesive unit that is otherwise building towards the bigger picture.

– A talented cast that is completely wasted. Besides what I mentioned earlier about the work of Carell as the film’s central protagonist, the entirety of the female cast is shipped in and shipped off in such a way that makes their value that of their wax counterparts. There just simply isn’t enough time to donate to all of them, so inevitably someone is going to get sacrificed, and the pendulum swings more on Mann and Janelle Monae than anyone else. Mann is Mark’s love interest, and aside from them intentionally lacking chemistry despite Mann and Carell doing three films together, the development constantly feels rushed and unnatural in the way it flows, limiting the film’s one redeeming quality in such a way that gives us the audience nothing to look forward to from the predictably bland third act that comes to fruition.

– Pretentiousness rears its ugly head again. While this isn’t the most pretentious film of 2018 thanks to Lars Von Trier’s “The House That Jack Built”, it does more than its share of Zimeckis referencing to drown out the immersion of the film. I won’t spoil all of them, but I would be doing you a disservice if I didn’t mention that the Doloreon from “Back to the Future” is prominently featured in the dynamic of an important scene, midway through the final act. Why is this included? Because one of the doll’s require a time machine, and we obviously can’t think of anything other than Robert’s biggest franchise when it comes to that distinction. It stinks of desperation, and emits an air of pretentious filmmaking that reminds us that Zimeckis is leaps and bounds from where he once was.

My Grade: 3/10 or F+