by Philip Price Director: Oz Perkins Starring: Maika Monroe, Nicolas Cage & Blair Underwood Rated: R (bloody violence, disturbing images & language) Runtime: 1 hour & 41 minutes “Longlegs” features a completely surreal style a la the isolation of characters and staging of settings that writer/director Oz Perkins manages to merge with the expectations of a procedural, allowing the story to boil in the tedium of its case gone cold before the unexpected convictions of its characters come to light - revealing the true intent of the piece. Key to this intent is the understanding that the world we're being presented with is largely dictated by the perspective through which we see it. “Longlegs” doesn't always sustain itself on the intrigue of its mystery yet continuously gets under the skin with the disturbing, if not sometimes heightened, ideas it has around real-world difficulties. That isn't to say the central conceit of the film as a crime thriller doesn't work, but if that's all one takes away from it, then they are missing the point. In essence, Perkins has put together a cautionary tale of sorts regarding the trappings of mythologizing both regular human beings who choose to do terrible things as well as deities, demons and whichever side you affiliate with in terms of worshipping them. Perkins, who is presently the father of two teenagers, is also, if not more, interested in the ideas of the extent and severity to which parents go to not only protect their children but ensure the purity of their life experiences for as long as possible than he is told procedural aspects. Alicia Witt turned in a genuinely chilling performance in support of such. Yes, “Longlegs” features the titular character played as extravagantly as one would expect Nicolas Cage to play a creepy serial killer who looks like Tiny Tim and Powder's lovechild but for as effectively (and memorably) as Cage portrays this doll-making witch doctor what echoes for days after seeing the film is not the actions of the character of Longlegs, but more the credibility he lends his beliefs based off nothing more than intuition and how far he was willing to follow them. Intuition is a crucial idea in Perkins' screenplay and shapes much of the direction Maika Monroe's FBI Agent, Lee Harker, does and doesn't follow. We are introduced to Harker in two different periods - first as a child in the mid-‘70s when she initially encounters Longlegs and then 20 years later as a newly minted agent on the job. It is her intuition in an introductory investigation that lands her working alongside Agent Carter (a fantastic Blair Underwood) and Agent Browning (Michelle Choi-Lee) in the search for Longlegs, a serial killer whose work very purposefully parallels that of the Zodiac, Manson and interestingly enough, JonBenét Ramsey murders. Why Harker has this intuition becomes more apparent, and her connection to this assumed killer becomes more intrinsic as each new layer of the case is revealed. As involving as the pieces of the puzzle are, though, what is most striking about the storytelling in “Longlegs” is how Perkins infuses the hallmarks of a crime story with the amount of unease and malevolence he manages to inject into every frame. A critical aspect in crafting horror films is deciding if it is meant to scare audiences or creep them out in ways they feel they can't shake what the film did to them and “Longlegs” is very clearly the latter. Perkins takes what is familiar and expected about the genre and twists things just enough to make the viewer want to question yet ultimately trust that perspective; a tightrope to walk for sure, yet the director's design is so omnipresent across each scene that the performances entrusted with conveying these objectives all feel in tune with one another as well as the movie overall. There is a darkness to the aesthetic and mood that is balanced by much of the awkwardness, outlandishness and humor of the characters involved. The uncomfortable, if not unpleasant, aura of Harker is felt from moment one. While signaling a defining personality trait, this decision also establishes the necessary tone of the film overall, with the previously mentioned trust in the midst of the surrealist spirit hinging on Monroe's performance. Harker has to be both our conduit into this world and this investigation while simultaneously being something of an ambiguous personality without coming off as a fraud. It's a lot to balance and a lot for Perkins to ask in a single performance, much less a single and subdued performance. Still, Monroe manages to convey these elements and facets both through her actions and just as critically - through her reactions to the manner and mode Perkins has built his film on. Kiernan Shipka, in a single scene, along with Zilgi's score, offers some major assists in terms of contributing to said mood as well. Of course, the more straightforward performance, and the one that will be discussed most, is Cage's. While some might consider Cage's interpretation to be at odds with the spirit of the rest of the film, I would argue that no one other than Cage could have played this part at this level with the same impact as what he delivered. While many interpretations of serial killers over the years have leaned into that mythical nature by stripping them of any recognizable traits, both Cage and Perkins seem intent on exposing the flimsy and frail nature of such an individual. The scene in which Longlegs encounters a flippant teenage girl (portrayed by Perkins' daughter Bea) who is working the register at a hardware store tells audiences all we need to know about how we should view the character as opposed to this liaison for the Antichrist AKA "the man downstairs" who believes he has the power to make people follow and worship Satan with the same sense of wonder he does. As a character states in the film, “Suffice to say, it’s all heavily satanic.” This refers to Longlegs' methods but could just as easily apply to the movie. For instance, there is imagery of a snake eating its tail in the film, an ancient symbol with many meanings, but which signifies here that the mythologizing of a man like Longlegs through his presentation in the film itself represents a dark cycle of life, death and rebirth. We want the perpetrator killed or locked away, yet we don't allow their legacy to be forgotten. One could venture into delicate and complex territory when discussing why these stories continue to be told and re-told, but how our culture treats murder investigations in a serialized state with an almost comforting, enjoyable affection is the literal resetting of that cycle. Serial killers have come to be presented, often decades later, in a nearly mythical fashion that, if not necessarily making an allowance for their actions, endears them in a strange way to a new swath of minds. This veneration of sorts ensures the easily influenced and/or certain persuasions of thinkers that these actions can just as easily lead to idolatry as they do death, confirming that acting upon such thoughts will remain perpetually present. Suppose there are multiple ideas and considerations “Longlegs” prompts. In that case, the central hope seems to be that yes, the world can be a terrible, cruel place - especially for the little ones - but if we have people willing to sacrifice and do the dirty work to cleanse society, we might at least honor that work by not extolling the antagonists.
0 Comments
by Julian Spivey Last year I embarked on a movie challenge in hopes of seeing some films I’ve never seen and more importantly opening myself up to some kinds of films I likely would never see. The premise is that you have 12 months to watch 12 movies recommended by 12 friends. I don’t often participate in such social media challenges but being a movie buff, I felt this might be an interesting way to get out of my comfort zone a bit when it comes to watching movies. Like in 2023, I have some movies on the list that I’ve always meant to get around to watching but haven’t – most notably the 1962 classic “To Kill a Mockingbird,” which I think I saw the first half of in school but was absent on the day it finished. And there’s some stuff I probably never would’ve gotten around to like Andrzej Wajda’s 1958 Polish film “Ashes and Diamonds.” As I did last year I will write about my thoughts and feelings on each of these films after I have viewed them. Here are the 12 movies recommended to me and the months I’ve assigned myself to watch them: January: “The Wonder” (2022) February: “To Kill a Mockingbird” (1962) March: “Dreamgirls” (2006) April: “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (2004) May: “21 Jump Street” (2012) June: “Mamma Mia” (2008) July: “City of Angels” (1998) August: “Fried Green Tomatoes” (1991) September: “Ashes and Diamonds” (1958) October: “Clue” (1985) November: “The Intouchables” (2011) December: “The Agony and the Ecstasy” (1965) My July movie recommendation was the 1998 fantasy-romance City of Angels, directed by Brad Silberling. My friend Brent recommended it. Good God, “City of Angels” is awful. I knew I might have a hard time with this one from the moment it was selected. I’m predisposed to dislike movies starring Nicolas Cage, and the idea of an angel falling in love with a human doesn’t seem like something that’s going to be up my alley – but, hey, getting out of my movie comfort zone is a big part of what this series is about. “City of Angels” is a loose remake of Wim Wenders’s 1987 foreign film “Wings of Desire,” which is neither here nor there as I haven’t seen that film either, but at least that one is pretty acclaimed. Spoilers will be ahead if you haven’t seen this 26-year-old movie and would like to. “City of Angels” begins horrifically with the death of a little girl, while Nicolas Cage’s angel Seth looks on waiting for her to draw her final breath so he can take her with him, assumingly to Heaven. The film is loose with its religion. There are angels. They look after the dying and take them to an afterlife, but there isn’t much talk about God or Heaven. I get this is what an angel would do, but beginning a movie - especially one that’s going to turn into a romance - with the death of a little child is bonkers. But just wait for how the film ends! The angels in this film don’t really seem to have many feelings, despite the fact that Seth obviously is enamored with and falls for Meg Ryan’s Dr. Maggie Rice, which leads to Cage looking mopey for most of the film, which I guess is easy for him. When Maggie loses a patient early on in the film, she takes it hard, and Seth finds out he can actually make her see him if he tries. So, they meet in the hall of the hospital, and despite Seth coming off as more like a serial killer than anything else, Maggie is immediately taken with him. This makes no sense, as Ryan and Cage have no chemistry whatsoever. In the middle part of the film, the two characters fall more and more, I suppose, though there’s really no reason for Maggie to. Seth, on the other hand, just wants to know what it’s like to feel human. Mostly to touch the skin of another. Essentially, he’s just really horny. Maggie finds out Seth is an angel and it kind of freaks her out, but probably not as much as realizing you’re in love with an angel should freak someone out. Meanwhile, Seth has struck up a friendship with one of Maggie’s patients, Nathaniel Messinger, played by Dennis Franz, who happens to be a former angel who fell to earth and became human and explains to Seth how he can accomplish this as well. Franz is the only interesting character in this movie, even if he’s only used for this necessary part of the plot. So, Seth turns into a mortal and tracks down Maggie. The two share a passionate evening. And then, the next morning, Maggie rides her bicycle into an oncoming log truck, and BAM, she’s dead. Yeah, I’m not joking. Seth mopes a bit and asks his former angel friend Cassiel (Andre Braugher, who is too good for this) what all this means. And basically determines, “Well, I got to have sex, so it was worth it.” Seth is going to be OK! Some will find much more in this flick than I did. I might be too cynical for it. But I haven’t seen a movie this bad in some time. by Julian Spivey Director: Mark Molloy Cast: Eddie Murphy, Taylour Paige & Joseph Gordon-Levitt Rated: R (language, violence & brief drug use) Runtime: 1 hour & 58 minutes When you first hear a sequel is going to be made for a movie that came out 40 years ago the first question that pops into your head is … why? That was my feeling when I heard that the fourth “Beverly Hills Cop” movie was being made for Netflix. But, as he did with 2021’s “Coming 2 America,” Eddie Murphy has once again shown that his original movie characters are so lovable that you don’t mind spending time with them even though they’ve long since obtained their AARP cards. Of all of Murphy’s characters he’s played multiple times (and there have been a lot), Detroit detective Axel Foley is probably his best received by moviegoers and critics alike (if we’re subtracting the animated Donkey from the “Shrek” series that is) so even though it’s been 40 years since we were first introduced to him and 30 years since we last saw him on film it made sense to bring the iconic cop back to the big screen, or I guess since it’s Netflix the smaller screen. My only experience with the “Beverly Hills Cop” series before first-time director Mark Molloy’s “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F” was the original 1984 film. I haven’t seen 1987’s “Beverly Hills Cop II,” and from what it sounds like, I have no reason to watch 1994’s “Beverly Hills Cop III.” ‘Axel F’ isn’t trying to rewrite the book or do anything new or fancy. It knows we want to spend another couple of hours with Murphy’s detective solving a crime – that once again involves him going across the country from Detroit to Beverly Hills. ‘Axel F’ introduces two new characters: Axel’s estranged daughter Jane (Taylour Paige) and her ex/Beverly Hills detective Bobby Abbott (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Still, it’s the reunion between Axel’s old Beverly Hills cop pals John Taggart (John Ashton), now promoted to Chief, and Billy Rosewood (Judge Reinhold), who has quit the force to become a private detective, that leaves the biggest impact on the audience – even if we may not have gotten as much interaction between the three as we might have liked. ‘Axel F’ sees Jane, a criminal defense attorney, who has run afoul of some bad cops during a case involving a client who has been set up to take the fall for the death of another cop. Kevin Bacon plays the baddie of the film in bad cop Capt. Cade Grant, whom you know from the moment you see him on the screen, is going to be the movie’s villain. It would’ve been nice to keep that under wraps for a little while, at least, but 1) Bacon is so adept at playing villains maybe you go with it from the start and 2) Axel is above-average smart and good at his job and can see through Grant’s smile from the start (which would be in keeping with the history of Axel seeing things other cops don’t). Bacon’s Grant can’t match the smarmy villainy of the first film’s Victor Maitland (Steven Berkoff), who just had that typical ’80s action film villain of European descent vibe about him that worked so well. The storyline is pretty average cop case stuff – the kind you’ve seen hundreds of times before from cop movies or TV procedurals – but Murphy doing his regular likable Murphy thing as Foley makes it an exciting, fun watch from start to finish. by Tyler Glover Director: Chris Renaud & Patrick Delage Starring: Steve Carell, Kristen Wiig & Will Ferrell Rated: PG (Action & Rude Humor) Runtime: 1 hour & 35 minutes Minions, assemble! It is time for another adventure with Gru, Lucy and the GURLS! Oh, and don’t forget, we have Gru Jr. now! Illumination’s massively successful “Despicable Me” franchise has released its sixth overall film, including the two “Minions” films. There is no question that it is going to be a massive box-office success. What better way is there to spend the weekend? When you go through a journey with characters for so many films, they become like family to you. You want to help Gru catch a villain, talk about unicorns with Agnes, and of course, witness the antics of our favorite yellow creatures in denim. It is time for their latest adventure and we all should rush to the cinemas to see the ride. In this sequel, Gru (Steve Carell) has helped the Anti-Villain League capture one of their most wanted villains, Maxime Le Mal. Unfortunately, he escapes from jail and is ready to take revenge against Gru. The AVL alerts Gru and his family and places them in Mayflower with new identities to hide until he is recaptured. Hilarity ensues as all of them try to adapt to their new surroundings while waiting for Le Mal’s recapture. If you are a fan of this franchise, this film will be a very enjoyable experience. I do not feel that this entry is better than the first two, but it is a step up from the third film. There is plenty of Minion humor and situations going wrong to make a very funny film. It is a film everyone in the family will enjoy. What I feel is lacking, though, is some emotional resonance. It is not as if I am expecting these films to reach “Inside Out 2” levels of emotional complexity; it just hasn’t seemed to recapture the way that the girls originally stole Gru’s heart in the very first film. I think if the film had tried to focus on the family a little more, it would have been possible. What makes the film hilarious is all of the situations the family is undergoing while in hiding. Lucy is a hairstylist who should not be a hairstylist and gets a very disgruntled customer early on, which leads to a grocery store run-in like no other. Gru is awkwardly trying to bond with a Country Club member. Agnes has trouble lying about her new name because she isn’t a liar. The film has so many side stories that honestly make this film feel like it could be an even better television series. Every situation is episodic and hilarious. It would have been even better if some of them could have been expounded upon, maybe in another medium. Fans of the franchise will not be disappointed and will feel this is a very enjoyable way to spend an afternoon with the kids. There is a scene toward the end of the film that is a treat for all fans of this franchise. I don’t want to spoil it, but it is the thing that stayed with me the most since I left the theater. Whoever had the idea to do that was smart. It paid off to give a very satisfying ending. While I do not feel “Despicable Me 4” will be nominated for Best Animated Feature, it is a very fun film for the entire family and fans of the series to enjoy. by Tyler Glover Director: Michael Sarnoski Starring: Lupita Nyong'o, Joseph Quinn & Alex Wolff Rated: PG-13 (terror and violent/bloody content) Runtime: 1 hour & 39 minutes Ssshhhhhhhh! Do not let them hear you! In the new horror sci-fi flick, “A Quiet Place: Day One,” you may want to be quiet to prevent yourself from dying. An attack by an extraterrestrial creature is guaranteed if you make noise, and you will face almost certain death ... but I can tell you one thing: I will not be quiet about how great this film is. This is the third entry into the wildly popular ‘Quiet Place’ series. It is both a spin-off and a prequel to its predecessors. Instead of following the Abbott family, we follow Samira, played by Academy Award-winning actress Lupita Nyong’o. She is facing the same alien invasion that takes place in the other films. That is one thing I find refreshing about this expansion of the universe. If an event like an alien invasion ever occurs, everyone in the world will be affected. Movies will show us how this affects a certain number of people, but by giving this story its own film, we are genuinely getting to see what that adventure is like for someone else facing the same invasion in a moment-by-moment way. “A Quiet Place: Day One” follows Samira (Nyong’o), a young terminally ill cancer patient who has gone on a day trip to New York City to see a puppet show with other hospice patients. They are led by Reuben (Alex Wolff), a caretaker at the center, who tries to be encouraging to Samira despite her bleak circumstances. Samira is very excited to get to have pizza in the city. However, while leaving the show, extraterrestrial creatures invade the Earth. As mentioned above, they can hear every noise humans make. Samira, accompanied by her adorable cat named Frodo, has to figure out how she will survive. Samira eventually befriends Eric (Joseph Quinn), and they decide to help each other navigate these unprecedented circumstances. The film’s screenplay is written by Michael Sarnoski and based on a story by John Krasinski and Sarnoski. The writing on these films is a key component to what makes them so special. When you see a disaster movie or apocalyptic movie, you almost always see major landmarks being overtaken. You might see a tidal wave over the Golden Gate Bridge, an ominous shadow overtaking the Statue of Liberty, or disaster striking the White House. Most films in this genre show the massive global repercussions of whatever event occurs. In these films, we are dealing with a disaster from the perspective we would face it in. We wouldn’t be able to flash over and spy on the President and his people and how they are handling it. We wouldn’t be getting intelligence from the CIA or FBI about where these aliens came from. We would be trying to survive. We would be dealing with little to no information about what is going on. That’s what this movie and this franchise has done so brilliantly. We are witnessing these events happen as they would for us in the real world, which makes it even more thrilling and horrifying. The film also shows us these events from a different perspective. The first two films show how a parent would navigate this horror to protect themselves and their kids. How would you feel differently about these events if you were single and terminally ill from cancer? What do your priorities become in an event like this? How do they differ? What do you want to do with the rest of your time here on Earth? How does that differ with these new horrific circumstances? Lupita Nyong’o shows us why she won that Academy Award years ago for Best Picture winner, “12 Years A Slave.” Nyong’o’s performance shows us all that while she is a brilliant actress in general, she is one of the absolute best in the horror genre. In Jordan Peele’s “Us,” Nyong’o was this close to an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. Lupita Nyong’o always delivers extraordinary performances and was perfectly cast in this film. While I could continue to sing the praises of this film, I think I’ll be quiet now ... before they hear me. by Julian Spivey Last year I embarked on a movie challenge in hopes of seeing some films I’ve never seen and more importantly opening myself up to some kinds of films I likely would never see. The premise is that you have 12 months to watch 12 movies recommended by 12 friends. I don’t often participate in such social media challenges but being a movie buff, I felt this might be an interesting way to get out of my comfort zone a bit when it comes to watching movies. Like in 2023, I have some movies on the list that I’ve always meant to get around to watching but haven’t – most notably the 1962 classic “To Kill a Mockingbird,” which I think I saw the first half of in school but was absent on the day it finished. And there’s some stuff I probably never would’ve gotten around to like Andrzej Wajda’s 1958 Polish film “Ashes and Diamonds.” As I did last year I will write about my thoughts and feelings on each of these films after I have viewed them. Here are the 12 movies recommended to me and the months I’ve assigned myself to watch them: January: “The Wonder” (2022) February: “To Kill a Mockingbird” (1962) March: “Dreamgirls” (2006) April: “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” (2004) May: “21 Jump Street” (2012) June: “Mamma Mia” (2008) July: “City of Angels” (1998) August: “Fried Green Tomatoes” (1991) September: “Ashes and Diamonds” (1958) October: “Clue” (1985) November: “The Intouchables” (2011) December: “The Agony and the Ecstasy” (1965) My June movie recommendation “Mamma Mia!” comes from my friend Hailey. I believe it may be her favorite movie. Having never been a big fan of ABBA I knew this one might not be my cup of tea from the outset but trying new things is a big reason for this series I’ve been doing for a year and a half now. Based on the Broadway play that debuted in 1999, “Mamma Mia!” is a jukebox musical that tells the story of Donna (Meryl Streep) and her soon-to-be-married daughter Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) and Sophie’s recent realization that one of three men her mom spent a summer with on this Greek island they call home is her father. She invites all three (played by Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgård) to her wedding to find out which one. That’s the entire plot and the film uses 20-plus ABBA songs to move it along - even though some of the songs and scenes probably would’ve been better off on the cutting room floor. For instance, I don’t quite see the point in Christine Baranski’s “Does Your Mother Know.” Most of the songs seemed to be more seamless. There were the big songs everybody, even non-ABBA fans would know like “Dancing Queen” and the titular song and many others that are likely known only to ABBA fans. I found Streep, Seyfried and Brosnan to be the most entertaining singers of the group – Streep and Seyfried could both hold a tune and, while Brosnan couldn’t it seemed to fit his character well. “Mamma Mia!” is a gorgeous film to look at having filmed mostly on the island of Skopelos, Greece. Why the story chose a fictional Greek island for its setting I don’t know but it doesn’t impact the film. Ultimately, I feel like “Mamma Mia!” is one of those particular films where it’s almost a necessity to be a fan of the group’s music it’s set upon. For instance, I'd be the first in line if they ever did a film version of the 2002 Broadway musical “Movin’ Out,” which told a story completely using Billy Joel songs. But ABBA and the whole disco, Europop thing was never really my interest in the realm of popular music. Watching he film it felt like the cast seemed to enjoy every second of making it and that leads to enjoyable moments whether you’re all that interested in the songs they’re singing or not. by Philip Price Directors: Adil El Arbi & Bilall Fallah Starring: Will Smith, Martin Lawrence & Vanessa Hudgens Rated: R (violence, language and some sexual references) Runtime: 1 hour & 55 minutes It’s nothing new for a ‘Bad Boys’ movie to have an overly convoluted plot and too many side characters, but what has remained consistent is how each movie somehow manages not to let those things detract from the centerpiece chemistry between Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. Four years is the shortest time between sequels in this franchise thus making the latter two films feel as equal in weight as the impressive debut and chaotic classic that’s “Bad Boys II.” Why “Bad Boys III” didn’t come out in 2009-2010 and why we converted to confounding subtitles rather than sticking with the already established roman numerals I will never understand, but here we are with two very distinct halves of the Mike Lowery and Marcus Burnett saga. In truth, it would be hard to mess one of these movies up. Fortunately, all the key ingredients are present with “Bad Boys For Life” directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah returning in full "Bayhem" mode employing (and deploying) as many drones to shoot the film as Alexander Ludwig's character does to shoot the bad guys. Screenwriter Chris Bremner returns while “Aquaman” and “Justice League” scribe Will Beall joins him to fashion a story around the next phase in Mike and Marcus' already illustrious careers after seemingly working through all the late-stage personal and professional conflicts these two would have encountered as aging lieutenants. This is where the real challenge of the film lies though, as up to this point each ‘Bad Boys’ film was capturing these characters at very different stages of their lives and careers, but as a direct sequel to ‘For Life’ this not only deals in many of the same themes but picks up certain plot lines directly and carries them through. There isn't anything wrong with this approach from a high-level perspective (though I hope they don't wear out their welcome because this is the only viable franchise both are currently clinging to) but as you get into the weeds of what matters on a story-level one can feel the straining to both find new layers for Smith and Lawrence to explore with these characters while also seemingly trying to set-up the future of this franchise in two successors who have ever met one another and whose chemistry - the necessary chemistry that allows these movies to elevate themselves above other, traditional police procedurals - is untested. To freshen up the dynamic, “Bad Boys: Ride or Die” first does something of a role reversal in the partnership giving Marcus a new lease on life thus abandoning all the anxiety and worry he has previously brought to the relationship while for the first time in his life, Mike has something of value he has to worry about protecting and/or losing. To do this, Bremner and Beall have Mike's wedding open the film which was a nice thought and a smart touch until we realize he isn't marrying Paola Núñez's Rita from the previous film (nor did they bring back Gabrielle Union's character from part two for a nice surprise) but instead a(nother) new character in Melanie Liburd's Christine is introduced, who was Mike's (physical) therapist - solid joke. Rita and Mike's past does not go unacknowledged, but this new relationship was solely a decision based on the plot as Rita is now dating incoming Miami Mayor Lockwood (Ioan Gruffudd) in what is possibly the most telegraphed yet still held as a twist reveal in any movie ever. Further complicating the otherwise solid base of a premise (the bad boys must clear Joe Pantoliano's Captain Howard's good name) is the presence not only of Howard's daughter (Rhea Seehorn) but also his granddaughter (Quinn Hemphill). It would have been easy to rearrange characters and their objectives/purposes to get the same results without introducing so many new players into this now nearly 30-year-old game, but I have to assume Sony wants plans in place to keep this train on its current trajectory thus the reason the interrelationships play out the way they do in the film's climactic action sequence. All of that said, it does say something that we've come this far in a review of this fourth film - where Marcus has unretired and where Mike's mortality continues to slap him in the face - and have not mentioned either Reggie (Dennis McDonald) or Armando (Jacob Scipio) much less Eric Dane who plays the big bad in this installment. Dane is a serviceable villain yet doesn't get the arc his complex character clearly deserves due largely to the astounding number of other characters this film introduces and then must establish (have I mentioned Vanessa Hudgens is in this movie? No? That's kinda crazy, right?). Fortunately, El Arbi and Fallah understand that no matter who else is in a scene, Smith and Lawrence are the stars and are in control of the narrative and that remains true throughout ‘Ride or Die.’ The directing duo also understands the action is the emphasis in these movies and can pull off several sequences that manage to measure up to what we might imagine a 60-year-old Michael Bay would be doing had he continued to helm these films (Bay also makes another great cameo appearance here). Highway shootouts and alligator parks aside, two of the more exciting and intense sequences the film offers are a brutal jail yard brawl in which Armando is apprehended but not before doing some serious damage along with Reggie holding down the fort at Marcus' house as he puts his Marine Corps training to the test and dispatches an entire team of Dane's McGrath's most elite soldiers. These highlighted moments combined with the film's final scene give us a strong hint at where the ‘Bad Boys’ franchise might be going even as there's hesitation in Smith and Lawrence both giving up and going on with this series. by Tyler Glover Director: Kelsey Mann Starring: Amy Poehler, Maya Hawke & Kensington Tallman Rated: PG Runtime: 1 hour & 36 minutes It is officially summertime at the cinema. You know what that means, right? Time for tons of sequels to hit theaters hoping to become major box office smashes like their predecessors. While some people may feel “Joy” about this, some are watching in “Fear” and “Anxiety,” hoping the sequel doesn’t ruin their beloved characters. Fans become concerned the movies were made solely for the money and not for the creative process of continuing the stories of their heroes. Fans are worried the studios just watch in “Envy” at other studios’ successes and in their “Anger,” do whatever it takes to match or best them. It can make the fans feel great “Sadness” to think these sequels could be made and be an utter “Embarrassment” to the franchise. If the script is full of “Ennui,” it can leave fans filled with “Disgust” for the studio. Movie fans are full of so many emotions about sequels and luckily, most of those are emotions of “Joy” for Disney-Pixar's “Inside Out 2.” It has been nine years since 2015’s “Inside Out” hit theaters introducing us to Riley and her emotions. The time has finally come to continue Riley’s story as she turns 13 -years-old. All the emotions we met in the first film are back: Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Tony Hale), Anger (Lewis Black) and Disgust (Liza Lapira). They are all here for Riley as she goes to a weekend ice hockey camp in hopes that it will help her qualify for her school’s team, The Firehawks. Shortly before arriving, Riley learns that her best friends Bree and Grace will not be attending the same high school as her, killing her dream that they would all be on the same team together. In the two years since the events of the first film, Joy has made a new section in Riley’s mind called the “Sense of Self.” This “Sense of Self” is basically Riley’s belief system and who she is. If there are any negative thoughts, Joy pushes those to the back of Riley’s mind. Joy hopes she will mostly be positive. However, shortly after attending the camp, headquarters becomes overrun with new emotions: Envy (Ayo Edebiri), Embarrassment (Paul Walter Hauser), Ennui (Adele Exarchopoulos), and the best thing about the sequel: Anxiety (Maya Hawke). Anxiety is basically the Head Honcho of the new group and is the equivalent of Joy in leadership. Anxiety is determined to make Riley happy but her attempts prove to be misguided. Joy and the gang must race against time to help Riley through the weekend and help her to not lose who she is before it is too late. I think this film is just as good as the original. What I love about it is that it perfectly introduces four new characters and makes us fall in love with them while not sacrificing time with the already beloved characters from the original. I feel the scriptwriters (Meg LeFauve, Dave Holstein and Kelsey Mann) did an impeccable job balancing the time given to all the characters. Our love for Joy, Anger, Fear, Sadness and Disgust just grows even stronger while also allowing us to embrace new friends. The MVP of the film is Anxiety, though. Hawke’s portrayal of Anxiety is so full of energy, chaos and charisma. Audiences around the world will fall in love with Anxiety and will feel like they want more time with her, even though there is much time already given to her. One of the most magical aspects of movies is to take us somewhere we have not been before. This film’s production design is just as beautiful as the original. It is full of breathtaking visuals that make us long to go to a place like this. You can be on a river floating next to broccoli, a cave full of mystery including a “Deep Dark Secret,” or at a big pile of memories to sort through in the back of your memory. Wherever it is, if it is in this film, it’s going to be a gorgeous place to be One critique I could see many having with the film is that the storyline is reminiscent of the first in trying to help Riley remember who she is and why she would not do things that she starts to do. However, that is the beauty of this sequel. We all experience this throughout our entire lives. You would think over time we would know better but we don’t. Sometimes, we learn some of the same lessons over and over again. Certainly, at Riley’s age, that could be even more true. While it may be similar, I feel the screenwriters did a fantastic job of making the story fresh, new, and exciting despite its similarities. “Inside Out 2” is such a fantastic film. It manages to entertain young kids while also giving us a great lesson about the world we live in. My only partial criticism is I feel this one doesn’t hit emotionally as well as the original. It has a moment where we reflect on joy and adulthood that was a great moment but could have gotten us in our feels a little more. That is something we have come to expect heavily from a Pixar movie. by Philip Price Director: Chris Nash Starring: Ry Barrett, Andrea Pavlovic & Cameron Love Rated: Unrated (Gruesome violence, language & drug use) Runtime: 1 hour & 34 minutes About 20 minutes into writer/director Chris Nash's “In A Violent Nature” we meet the group of early twentysomethings we would have typically followed from the couple amongst them's duplex to the remote cabin in the woods where the six of them now sit around a campfire airing out grievances and ghost stories. Typically, key word here, we would have more context for said grievances and a deeper understanding about who each of these people are and how they play into each other's lives allowing for any kinship or tension between them to also play into the dynamics of their impending doom given the order with which they are dispersed. Again, typically we would have a focal point, our final girl if you will, who is highlighted early and earnestly before both the film and her world descend into a madness she would have never imagined on the sunny, optimistic-filled drive she embarked on upon our introduction to her. Instead, it is not until that 20-minute mark that we meet anyone with a remotely optimistic viewpoint as Nash opens with dread rather than allowing his movie to descend into it. The hook (pun intended) of “In A Violent Nature” is that it is told almost completely from the perspective of the killer. As is the case, much of what we're treated to are tracking shots of our antagonist lurking through very green, very lush, wooded areas until he comes upon his victims and then - without much forethought or hesitation - moves forward with some of the most gruesome gore you've seen at the movies. In many ways, this leads to the film being more an exercise in style and form than it does in story or theme. These are essentially iterations of scenes we've seen hundreds of times before in this genre with Nash simply looking for new ways of framing them. It's hard to imagine there was much of a script for the film, but likely more a collection of death descriptions along with the routing of our killer's journey. “In A Violent Nature” is a largely wordless affair, the only dialogue coming from the aforementioned group of twentysomethings whose pre-determined fate more or less negates any interest in what they're talking about. This could both serve as a warning sign for those who feel it necessary to have characters to invest in and root for, but considering the tone Nash establishes early in the film it is understood this is not the point of his slasher. Instead, any ideas or commentary audiences pull from “In A Violent Nature” would seem to be wholly their own - the film itself serves only as a prompt. The obvious comparison for the film is Jason Voorhees and the “Friday the 13th” franchise in addition to any number of early ‘80's slasher flicks Jason gave rise to. Such inspiration is derived from both the template it follows as well as the aesthetic from which it is so lovingly borrowing. There are of course hints of other horror icons here as well - namely Michael Myers given how those films would frequently cut to Michael's perspective when he would lurk and kill - along with plenty of other homages to the horror subgenre throughout, but the most striking choice is that of chasing the intentional camp (again, pun intended). Based solely on the title and teaser trailer for this film it would seem what Nash was aiming for was something truly sinister, taking that camp born from the stilted acting, melodramatic delivery, and ostentatious logic often associated not only with the kills, but with stock slasher characters and transplanting those cues into a more grounded, realistic setting. No editing flourishes, no musical accompaniment, and most importantly - no give on the gore; this felt positioned as a peak into the genuinely deranged and not something that recognized the kind of ironic value those early slashers carried. Instead, “In A Violent Nature” very much leans into these qualities especially in regard to the stilted acting and (almost hilariously) long shots of our antagonist slowly walking after people who are running away and could have likely escaped if the movie didn't need them to die. There is certainly a way this could have been shot and cut differently that would make it a more depraved experience, but crafting a loving acknowledgement of the kinds of horror films that inspired Nash with a flipped perspective is understandable too - the campiness of the kills despite the brutality - allowing the audience to ease up on the depths of such immorality, making this more about how far the filmmaker and his practical effects team can push things rather than forcing us to think about the families of these victims in their most degrading, mortifying moments. Of course, having a concept is one thing but executing on said premise in a fashion that doesn't feel tired and/or lose its appeal after revealing its hand is another task altogether. “In A Violent Nature” will likely either be someone's cup of tea or not and viewers will be able to identify which camp they fall into after the first five minutes. Nash is intentionally hanging on still frames for extended periods of time to the point one begins to question if they're missing something or if they're simply looking at the wrong part of the image. This is undoubtedly a play on some kind of overarching meaning the filmmaker means to pull from the project while also lulling the audience in, but it could definitely prove tiresome for some viewers. If the idea of following around this Jason-like figure, known here as Johnny (Ry Barrett), for 90 minutes in order to get a keen sense of the why and how as we stay in step with this monster sounds appealing it probably will be, but if that sounds either slow or boring or both then odds are you'll mentally check out prior to Johnny making his first real show of grisly pop art. There are long stretches of silence, no musical score is utilized with only momentary flourishes of organic soundtrack though there is some clever use of sound design throughout but especially in one of the more climactic moments that utilizes the unrelenting sounds of sharp objects hitting blunt surfaces - allowing the film to make a lasting impression in more ways than one. Nash utilizes the natural sounds of the forests, conversations between his non-Johnny characters, and the 4:3 aspect ratio to set an almost ethereal tone, but ethereal in the most demented way as it is the form within these choices that draws viewers into the nostalgia of the piece only for Nash to then reveal the function of it by delivering some of the most gruesome (and creative) on-screen violence that has ever graced the slasher genre. It would be a disservice to give away any details of the techniques Johnny uses to incapacitate his victims, but maybe more interesting is the way in which Nash chooses to capture these killings. As has been mentioned, the tone is campy to the point it's almost overcompensating to make sure we the audience know that the movie itself is in on the joke yet the filmmaking is still very much a series of steady and concentrated sequences that show not only an understanding of the genre but a flair for how to pull what is really impactful about these moments to the surface. Whether it be through a unique vantage point that keeps all the action in-camera in what appears to be a single take or conveys certain terror through minimal movement while still crafting haunting imagery, Nash understands the essence of the genre is not wholly to freak people out for a few fleeting seconds in the moment, but to remain terrifying hours or even days after when you wake up in the middle of the night to what looks like more than a shadow in the corner or when you find yourself staring into what is seemingly an empty space but you could swear you saw something move. It's more than unforgiving, more than scary - it's haunting in such an eerie, creepy way that the chills are inescapable. Even if Nash's film doesn't quite reach these heights within every attempt there is still enough here to gauge his potential trajectory. It was a gamble to invert the slasher movie given we typically find the victims as the characters worth rooting for and the shock/surprise of when the killer pops up to hold much of the stories tension and there was certainly the possibility that by taking these perspectives away that “In A Violent Nature” would feel flat and emotionless. It's true we don't care much about the victims, that Johnny's backstory is just sound enough to have us buy into his violent fits, and while the final 15 minutes or so almost completely undoes what the film has worked so hard to earn with its not-so-subtle, but precise solemnity “In A Violent Nature” remains an effective horror film if not solely for the execution of its executions, but for allowing audiences to unearth a few ideas along with its antagonist of a protagonist. by Philip Price Director: George Miller Starring: Anya Taylor-Joy, Chris Hemsworth & Tom Burke Rated: R (sequences of strong violence & grisly images) Runtime: 2 hours & 28 minutes Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Fury being the keyword. We all crave revenge though, just as Chris Hemsworth’s wicked Dementus would say, but while we may not be able to balance the scales of our suffering with such revenge - seeking after such does have the capacity to make for one hell of a story. Such is the tale of the titular Furiosa in George Miller’s nine-year-later follow-up to his bombastic ‘Fury Road.’ While that film - itself a 36-year-later follow-up to Miller’s dystopian trilogy that began simply as a story of another vengeful Australian who set out to stop a violent motorcycle gang - is now something of a cultural milestone and turning point for action filmmaking in and of itself it didn't necessarily blow me out of the water in the way so many of its fans praise it for doing (more on that later). Why Miller, who will be 80 in less than a year, chose to enter this world once again through the prism of a prequel to flesh out the details of a fascinating yet not necessarily unambiguous character whose destiny we are well aware of might at first feel a little puzzling as the film unfolds the filmmaker’s justifications are made clear: re-entering this world and continuing to flesh out not only the character of Furiosa but all of the characters at play in these wasteland fortresses along with the wasteland itself is what makes it worth the trip. Such a task is an admittedly impossible line to walk in not only in having to deliver on the expectations set by ‘Fury Road,’ but also in attempting to deliver something that is inherently cut from the same cloth yet stands on its own merits. “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” for all the context, history and set-up that would seem to inform its creation is ultimately still an origin story - the beginning of a saga if part of one at all - and needs none of the circumstances surrounding it to be known to flourish for what it is. Where ‘Fury Road,’ for all its audacity and inspiration, felt more like an art installation of a movie - meaning I was floored by its visual achievements but not necessarily moved by or invested in its experiment – ‘Furiosa’ is full-fledged epic where the storytelling is as front and center as the action - much to the chagrin of the majority of movie-goers, I'm sure. That said, the film still delivers where it will count for most just not as often as some might have hoped. Following up a film that was essentially two or three long, extended action sequences with something more akin to a mythic tale of how a warrior earned their stripes is certainly a pivot, but if you thought Miller wouldn't still delight in big rig chases featuring an array of aerial acrobatics you'd be mistaken. While one of the early action set pieces that takes place in the heart of the Citadel suffers due to the same fears this film's first trailer ignited by the time we reach the single biggest sequence in the middle of the film in which Miller is both cooking and flexing as a character named Praetorian Jack (Tom Burke) drives a decked out semi through a storm of war boys and sandstorms while Anya Taylor-Joy gives birth to the titular character as we know her to be - slickly maneuvering from one tanker to the next and into the cab of the truck while dismissing upwards of 10 adversaries along the way - all faith has been restored and all bets are off. It is in these action sequences that Miller is clearly (and oddly) most comfortable as he seemingly delights in being able to orchestrate things unfolding in-camera that less than a handful of other filmmakers could pull off, but also where he finds himself able to express the most with said visuals. What ‘Furiosa’ does have in common with ‘Fury Road’ is its lack of dialogue with an obvious emphasis on action, but even more it is about how one action leads to the next and how these measures different characters make and take build on top of one another, overlay each other, and generally move us not only further along in the story but deeper into theme as well. ‘Furiosa’ is a movie about controlling your destiny, not simply accepting the hand fate seems to have dealt you but taking that hand and fashioning it to work in favor of your objectives even as the journey perversely does the same thing to you; molding you into the type of person with the skills and personality to succeed in the face of that adversity. Furiosa's main objective is returning home. The film begins in the "Green Place of Many Mothers" where a young Furiosa (Alyla Browne) is picking peaches along with her sister, Valkyrie. This "Green Place" is one of the last remaining areas in an otherwise barren desert with fresh water and agriculture. This place is also very much a safeguarded secret haven so when Furiosa and Valkyrie spot a couple of plunderers picking through their plants Furiosa attempts to sabotage their bikes but ends up captured instead. In this first, tone-setting sequence of the film Furiosa's mother (Charlee Fraser) chases said plunderers through that aforementioned barren desert only to stumble upon an outpost of desperate and dirty bikers led by Hemsworth's Dementus. Through a series of events, Dementus proves worthy of his title of "warlord" as he holds the young Furiosa captive and charges into the Citadel making demands we know the immortal Immortan Joe (Lachy Hulme) will never bend to. In response to this lack of compliance Dementus invades and captures Gastown - the second fortress of the wasteland that features some really cool production design - positioning Dementus as just as critical a player in this story as Furiosa herself. Miller and co-screenwriter Nick Lathouris with whom Miller also wrote ‘Fury Road’ are certainly interested in their female lead's arc, but it is Dementus and Hemsworth's performance as the villain of the piece who is something of an unexpected focal point for the film, some might even say the narratives loudest voice. While I didn't expect too many surprises from a prequel to a sequel that took a decade to make and release, I was somewhat surprised not only by the lack of similarities between this film and its immediate predecessor but also by the structure that ultimately shapes ‘Furiosa.’ For starters, Taylor-Joy does not appear in this film for the first full hour, thus giving Hemsworth time to sink his prosthetic nose into the sand and the mind of this somewhat deranged, mostly dumb meathead who likely found himself in charge more for his physical prowess than his strategic mind. Knowing the road certain characters must take and the demise some must face for the events of ‘Fury Road’ to begin is an aspect that hangs over this more traditionally told story, but while ‘Fury Road’ as a film likely contained more ideas than it did support any kind of actual story the opposite feels true of ‘Furiosa’ as it is more of a plot-driven film with a few main ideas propping up Miller's craftmanship that is on full display - the real reason any of this exists at all. Even still, Furiosa manages to unravel a few surprises along the way despite the foregone conclusions of its script and more traditional storytelling methods; how well the film still plays and how absorbing everything happening on screen continues to be only validates further how strong of a film this is despite any hesitation toward the prequel approach and story decisions. “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is both more of what one might expect Miller to deliver, more of the same as ‘Fury Road,’ yet simultaneously something completely different. Though not a ‘Mad Max’ completist, mega fan, or Miller enthusiast necessarily - I still found myself taken with the oddities of this counter-culture Miller and co. created while admiring the wittiness of what dialogue does pop up to the extent that my limited familiarity with Miller's filmography made this quite possibly my favorite thing I've seen him do. Whether it be in small touches like Immortan Joe's right-hand man and his gas mask crotch guard, the hole he purposefully cut in his shirt for easier access to his nipples, or better yet - the design of the chariot of motorcycles Dementus conducts, the breadth with which this world has been sketched out and filled in is impressive solely on its own terms. Complaints of pacing and imperativeness of the material in general will arise and the third act especially could have been condensed as the film stretches toward the two-and-a-half hour mark, but as an audience member completely immersed in not only the aesthetics of Miller's playground but the plight of Furiosa - I didn't mind. Taylor-Joy's performance honors the Charlize Theron energy of the character while still communicating her controlled rage and mechanical competencies through what is largely a wordless performance. Sure, Hemsworth steals the show when he's on-screen as this scoundrel that would have you believe he's smarter than he is, and Burke is notably effective in his role but none of it distracts from the frenetic energy surrounding the titular character. There are a lot of opinions on what prequels and sequels and prequels to sequels should be or should embody and it depends on the franchise what route said types of films in the lineage will take. ‘Furiosa’ could have seen Miller spending more time in "The Green Place" or more time deepening and enhancing aspects of this character we already know and instead - for better or worse (but to the great amusement of this movie fan) - Miller chooses to balance the character study with more vehicular mayhem and war boys that, together, somehow manages to still pull a fair amount of substance from its familiar elements. |
Archives
July 2024
|