Tuesday, June 28, 2016

The Shallows - Film Review


“There just aren’t enough shark movies in the world,” said absolutely no one at any point in the history of life.

Ever since Jaws paved the way for the Summer Blockbuster back in 1975, numerous efforts have been produced in the hopes of replicating its success. You can find most of them in the $2.99 DVD bin at your local Wal-Mart. While the ‘Shark Attack’ genre has certainly been prolific, no one would argue in favor of its quality. In fact, other than Jaws, I don’t know if I could name a single other ‘shark movie’ worth your time. (Sharknado, maybe? Shark Tale? Deep Blue Sea? Does Open Water count?)

Until now!

In the midst of a summer movie season overwhelmed by mediocre sequels comes The Shallows, a thrilling attempt to inject the genre with some honest-to-God credibility and genuine scares. That it manages to succeed on any level is a testament to Jaume Collet-Serra’s talents as a director and Blake Lively’s excellent performance. Sure, the story doesn’t amount to much more than ‘Blake Lively vs. Vindictive Shark,’ but it’s a laser-focused, nail-bitingly effective effort and a more-than-welcome diversion from the big-budget insanity released the same weekend. (And, don’t worry, I plan on seeing Independence Day: Resurgence sometime this holiday weekend, so you should be hearing all about that big-budget insanity relatively soon)

At the film’s start, we meet Nancy (Lively). She’s a med student at a crossroads. Watching her mom succumb to cancer has caused her to question whether or not the medical profession is right for her. She opts for some soul-searching (soul-surfing?) on the beach where her mother first discovered she was pregnant with Nancy years ago.

These opening scenes unfold in a lighthearted, leisurely manner with an emphasis on the beautiful setting. Collet-Serra milks the scenery for all its worth, taking full advantage of the breathtaking images. The dialogue and exposition are a bit clunky; the screenplay does its best to cram as much as it can regarding Nancy’s backstory and family life into the first 15 minutes. It’s clearly designed to help us empathize with Nancy, as the rest of The Shallows is entirely devoted to her desperate attempts to survive, but it can’t help feeling a little too on-the-nose. Nancy’s dad even goes so far as to give her a pep talk that explicitly spells out her character arc. Truthfully, Lively is such a likable personality, Anthony Jaswinski screenplay could have gotten away with scrapping the awkward FaceTime conversations entirely and focused solely on her.

None of this matters, however, once the shark shows up. From that point on, The Shallows grips you tight and doesn’t let go for the remainder of its runtime. Collet-Serra knows just the right ways to make you squirm, whether it’s the unflinching close-ups of Nancy mending a brutal shark bite, or the near-unbearable tension milked any time she goes into the water to fetch a necessary tool. He also fully embraces the inherent ridiculousness of the genre. Deep down, we know no shark would ever behave like this, but who cares? It’s all about the excitement, the thrills, the terror and, most importantly, the fun. The Shallows takes itself just seriously enough to get us on board, but never forgets to wink at the audience to remind us it’s not taking itself too seriously.

But despite Collet-Serra’s impressive technique, Lively is the one who carries The Shallows to victory. For the majority of the movie, she’s the only person on screen and she commands it with ease, balancing the fine line between being frantic and intelligent without becoming annoying. It’s difficult not to root for her, not just because of the grisly fate that awaits her if she doesn’t succeed, but because she evokes genuine audience empathy.

Labeling The Shallows ‘the best shark movie since Jaws’ isn’t much of an honor, considering the competition, but The Shallows is an undoubtedly fun, throwaway experience. Its simplicity is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness, but the talent both on screen and behind the camera is too strong to deny. If you’re in the mood to see a terrorized Lively kick some ass, now’s your chance.


FINAL RATING: 3.5/5 

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Finding Dory - Film Review


I’ll admit, Finding Dory wasn’t on my radar in the slightest. While I enjoyed Finding Nemo, I was never as taken with it as I was with, say, Toy Story or Wall-E. And while Pixar has established itself as one of the most reliable brands in storytelling, even the studio’s staunchest supporters will admit their track record as of late has been sporadic, to say the least (Inside Out notwithstanding). And, let’s face it, is there really a strong need for a Finding Nemo sequel aside from Disney wanting to make more money?

Thankfully, Finding Dory eschews any expectations of mediocrity. It’s consistently delightful, delivering all the charm and humor we’ve come to expect from the studio. Andrew Stanton (writer/director of A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo and Wall-E) has crafted a thoughtful examination on the nature of family and how one can achieve great things, despite whatever physical or mental ailments might stand in the way. It might not be on the level of Finding Nemo, but it’s still a worthy follow up, fitting comfortably in Pixar’s ‘good, not great’ category, which is a pretty solid place to be, all things considered. Fans of the first film should walk away feeling wholly satisfied and then some.

As you no doubt have guessed, this time around the focus is on everyone’s favorite blue tang Dory. Things kick off with a heartbreaking prologue, which right off the bat put to rest any fears I had of this being a shallow sequel. (An ocean reference! Let me see if I can keep this up) In it, we’re introduced to baby Dory and see what her life was like before she ended up on her own and grew up to be Ellen DeGeneres. As a child, Dory’s parents did everything in their power to help her cope with her memory condition. They played games with her and invented fun songs to help her remember important rules about the ocean. For reasons revealed later on, Dory became separated from her family, and though she spent her formative years searching for them, eventually she forgot all about them. Her attempts were fully abandoned when she bumped into Marlin and decided to aid him in his search for his son Nemo. It’s a masterfully crafted introduction, exhibiting all the best storytelling traits that have become synonymous with the Pixar brand.

A year after Nemo was found (spoiler alert), we find Dory living ‘happily ever after’ with both him and Marlin. All is well until her memory is jogged and she starts having flashbacks to her time as a child. She remembers her a family and realizes that, more than anything, she wants to be reunited with them. With the aid of Marlin and Nemo, Dory embarks on an epic quest across the ocean to be reunited with her parents, facing many a trial and tribulation and making plenty of new friends along the way.

If this sounds familiar, that’s probably because it is. Finding Dory follows a similar story structure to that of its predecessor, and never shakes the feeling of treading familiar waters. (Boo-yah! Another one. I am the master) Additionally, its 2nd act is made up of a lot of repetitive incidental happenings –  Dory encounters an obstacle, meets a new friend, finds a solution, and the cycle starts all over again. It’s still plenty of fun, but it’s unquestionably the least involving section of the film, and the story never finds a way to satisfactorily involve Marlin and Nemo or make their subplot in which they try to keep up with Dory more engaging.

But, impressively, the screenplay, co-written by Stanton and Victoria Strouse, does a great job fitting in references to Finding Nemo in an organic way without feeling too bogged down by them. Additionally, a colorful cast of new characters help keep things from getting too stale during this section. There’s a near-sighted whale shark (Kaitlin Olson), a lovable, grumpy octopus (played by the lovable, grumpy Ed O’Neill), and, perhaps my personal favorites, two sea lions who laze about on their rock all day (Idris Elba and Dominic West).

And, of course, we have returning cast members Ellen DeGeneres and Albert Brooks as Dory and Marlin respectively. Brooks still provides Marlin with that charming, panic-first mentality; the character is relatively unchanged from the previous film. It’s DeGeneres who really gets a chance to shine here, as Dory takes the leap from supporting character to fully-formed lead. DeGeneres, who is always a delight, takes full advantage of the opportunity provided here. She instills Dory with all the charm we’ve come to expect, but now there's a level of emotional resonance which makes it far easier to empathize with the character. It's some of DeGeneres's best work.

At the end of the day, it’s the underlying themes that make Finding Dory truly effective. Stanton keeps the heart of the tail (like a fish tail! Sorry, that one was a bit of a stretch…) firmly at the forefront, while still managing to keep things light and fun. Despite its meandering middle section, Finding Dory is a worthy entry in the Pixar catalogue and a fine sequel to a classic animated film. If you have any level of affection for the original, you won’t want to miss this.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

Friday, June 3, 2016

The Lobster - Film Review


It’s been nearly a week since I saw The Lobster, and to be completely honest I’m still not sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand, it is masterfully made. Writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos has a keen visual sense and directs his screenplay, co-written by Efthymis Filippou, with understated confidence. It’s also very funny with consistent laugh-out-loud moments and thoughtful insights on dating and love.

On the other hand, it is a deeply unsettling viewing experience. Its comedy is pitch black, which some may find off-putting, and understandably so. There were moments where I wasn’t sure whether I wanted to laugh or cry. Or both. There were also moments when I could hardly bear to look at the screen.

But in the days since my viewing, The Lobster has stayed with me. It has an undeniable power, and that alone deserves merit. Film fans owe it to themselves to see this remarkable piece of work. General audiences might want to brace themselves for a challenging experience, or just steer clear in general.

In a not-too-distant future with a consistently overcast sky, being single is outlawed. Those without a significant other are taken to a Hotel, where they are instructed to find a mate within 45-days. If their attempts are unsuccessful, they will be turned into an animal of their choosing and sent off to live in the wild.

After his wife left him for another man, David (Colin Farrell) checks into the Hotel with his brother, who failed to find a mate and was turned into a dog. If he fails to find a partner, he desires to be turned into a lobster. When the Hotel manager (the wonderful Olivia Colman) asks him why, he explains they have long life-spans and remain fertile throughout their lives. “I also like the sea very much.”

Farrell is superb here, delivering a performance both subtle and sympathetic, despite his persistent dead-eyed expression. Even when we’re not quite sure what’s going on (the screenplay does an excellent job of withholding information until exactly the right moment), Farrell keeps us involved and invested. The supporting cast, featuring the likes of Ben Whisaw, John C. Reilly, Rachel Weisz and Léa Seydoux, is equally effective.

I won’t spoil specifics, but about halfway through its runtime The Lobster switches gears, abandoning the story of its first half for something new and almost entirely unrelated. It’s not wholly successful in this sudden switch; many ideas set up in the beginning are abandoned for new ones. And while the film’s 2nd half kept me involved despite the introduction of a brand new story and characters, the whole thing can’t help feeling somewhat disjointed. Though I applaud Lanthimos resistance to answering every question presented, allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions, I felt the film might have benefitted from a bit more insight into this world and the reasoning behind turning people into animals.

Another thing I had difficulty with was that The Lobster seems to be an attempt to comment on the concept of relationships, but it’s never clear what it’s trying to say. Are we over-reliant on them? Are we taking them for granted? Is love a positive thing or is it only a byproduct of humanity’s need to procreate? Lanthimos presents plenty of intriguing thoughts, but never fleshes them out in a fully satisfying way.

Perhaps The Lobster merits repeat viewings to unlock all its secrets, but it can’t help feeling slightly pretentious in its purposeful efforts to be bizarre and elusive. Chances are you will either love it or hate it. Despite this, it is an utterly fascinating viewing experience, one which I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone who appreciates cinema as an artform.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5 

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

X-Men: Apocalypse - Film Review


As we walked into the theater to watch X-Men: Apocalypse, the 5,000th entry in the X-Men film series and the 4th to be directed by Bryan Singer, my friend Richie pointed something out to me:

“How is this movie taking place 10 years after Days of Future Past, but none of the characters look any older? I mean, if Magneto was, like, 12-years-old in 1944 and this film takes place in the 80s, wouldn’t he be 60-years-old now?”

X-Men: Apocalypse never bothers to address this gaping hole in logic. It appears Singer was so enthralled by the idea of an X-Men film taking place in the 80s he forgot to offer any justification or reasoning for it. With the exception of some fashion styles and pop culture references, the decision to place the film in the decade is totally arbitrary. All style, no substance.

That’s probably the best way to describe X-Men: Apocalypse as a whole. Singer has traded the emotional subtext of his earlier entries for flashy superpowers and explosions. (I feel like he’s still desperate to prove he can make BIG summer movies after his 2006 film Superman Returns was chastised for containing so little action) And while the film is nowhere near as bad as the worst this series has to offer (I’m looking at you, X-Men: The Last Stand), and not even particularly bad in general, it is easily Singer’s least engaging entry to date.

Perhaps the biggest issue is an overstuffed script lacking in nuance. Singer developed the story with past collaborators Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, who co-wrote X-Men 2 and Superman Returns, and Simon Kinberg, who penned Apocalypse’s screenplay. Within the film’s first 20-minutes, we’ve hopped all over the globe and been introduced to multiple characters, some familiar and some new. Nothing is given any room to breathe and the sheer amount we’re expected to invest in without any context weighs down any attempts at effective storytelling. It’s so focused on being BIG and EXCITING that it forgets to sweat the small stuff and give us something to care about.

On the plus side, Singer’s strong visuals are still present and accounted for, though I’ll admit they’re bogged down by an over-reliance on green screen and mediocre visual effects. He has the benefit of working with an extraordinary team of actors, who are able to pick up the slack, garnering empathy despite a weak screenplay. James McAvoy continues to be effortlessly charming as Professor Charles Xavier. Michael Fassbender gets by on raw talent, but is saddled with an illogical character arc and motivation. Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique is thrust into a leadership role (the X-Men series always gives that position to its Oscar winners), and thankfully Lawrence seems a bit more up to the task, her performance being slightly less sleepy than it was in Days of Future Past.

The excellent new additions to the cast Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner and Kodi Smitt-Mcphee, playing Cyclops, Jean Grey and Nightcrawler respectively, don’t get much to do. Their presence indicates the possibility of a much better film on the horizon that focuses on Xavier’s students - their relationships and their training. I couldn’t help wishing that was the film we ended up with instead of what we got. There’s also Olivia Munn as Psylocke, Alexandra Shipp as Storm and Ben Hardy as Angel. None of them are fully fleshed out and just stand around and try to look cool while having little to no impact on anything that happens.

And what of Apocalypse himself? He might be the film’s biggest problem. The character has no depth and remains painfully undeveloped through the entirety of the film. His primary motivation is (stop me if you’ve heard this one before) World Domination. Great. Why even bother casting Oscar Isaac in the role? The excellent and accomplished young actor disappears under layers of makeup, prosthetics and armor, and the character requires so little heavy lifting acting-wise, there’s no point to having such a talented actor fill the part. Such a waste.

So much of X-Men: Apocalypse feels like a waste. Singer and his team have involved just about every single character you could possibly imagine, but they’ve put forth so little effort to involve the audience. The storytelling focus and underlying emotional themes that made the first two X-Men films and even First Class and Days of Future Past so effective are nowhere to be found. It’s just another garish display of special effects, albeit a passively entertaining one.

So after all this, you might be shocked to hear that I didn’t hate X-Men: Apocalypse. I actually moderately enjoyed it. I know, right? I’ve gone on for so long about what’s wrong with it, that I’m actually pretty surprised myself. Its flaws are many, but weren’t substantial enough to deter my enjoyment. It just barely gets by on the talent of its cast and the competence of Singer’s visuals. There were action sequences that delighted me (gotta love Evan Peters' Quicksilver) and some intriguing ideas amidst the madness. I just wish Singer would have focused less on trying to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe and more on his own strengths. As much as I love Singer and appreciate what he's accomplished with this franchise, it might be time for a fresh young talent to take the reigns and steer it back on course.

FINAL RATING: 3/5