Kubo and the Two Strings: Damn Fine Storytelling

I’m somewhat picky when it comes to kid’s movies. Not super picky, I don’t go around knocking popcorn out of their hands and telling them that the magic in Rise of the Guardians isn’t real, or that balloons can’t lift a house. I’m not a monster. I just think that the best kid’s movies help children deal with the scarier things in the world, this like loss and maturity. They’re tasked with making the world seem just a little less scary. Kubo and the Two Strings is one such movie.

Good job kid

Kubo and the Two Strings centers on a young Japanese storyteller named Kubo (Art Parkionson) who can enchant scraps of paper with his shamisen, a sort of guitar like instrument. Kubo is sent on a journey to retrieve three mystical artifacts so he can defeat his grandfather, the all-powerful Moon King (Ralph Fiennes). He is aided on this journey by a strict but caring monkey (Charlize Theron) and a giant warrior beetle (Mathew McConaughey). It’s a fairly standard plot, get the items and stop the bad guy but the way it’s told, especially the visuals, is what really makes it unique.

Kubo was animated with a stop motion style that somewhat mimics origami. It’s somewhat choppy, and that can be distracting but it complements the Japanese aesthetic incredibly well. In a world where Dreamworks and Disney fight it out to see who can be the king of 3D animation, it’s nice to see a movie that seems to have it’s on unique style, one full of rich, vivid color.

I mean look at that moon. Best animated moon, hands down.

Kubo is not a fluffy, no worries movie. It gets dark at times, and it has its moment of sadness. Kubo’s journey is not easy, it is dangerous and scary, just like the world we live in. It’s not traumatic, just dark enough to make Kubo’s triumph more rewarding.

Kubo is a delightful movie. It executes it’s narrative flawlessly, never bogged down with annoying characters or superfluous B plots. Much like its protagonist it tells its story with great skill, leaving the audience satisfied with their trip to this magical world.

 

Suicide Squad Review

Let’s be honest. DC has not had a great track record when it comes to its new movie universe. Man of Steel was either a boring slog of a movie, perfectly average, or the greatest cinematic tragedy of the modern age depending on how much you like Superman and the follow up, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice was, to put it mildly, not well received. I still haven’t seen it, because I don’t get paid for these reviews and I have a terrifying fear of putting down money for a movie I won’t like. I paid for Transformers 2 twice man. I’ve been burned before.

Twice man. I paid to see this twice.

So with all that said, DC needed a win and they needed it bad. And while Suicide Squad isn’t a home run, it’s a solid base hit with enough good elements to pave over the bad.

Suicide Squad is about a team of villains being forcibly coerced into being a black ops team for the U.S government. They’re a motley crew, semi headed by assassin Deadshot(Will Smith) and Rick Flagg(Joel Kinnaman), and overseen by one Amanda “I will kill every one of your sorry sons a bitches” Waller(Viola Davies). Their objective: Do dangerous things in exchange for slightly reduced sentencing. They are in essence a team of fall guys with powers.

The strength of this flick lies with three people: Margot Robbie, Will Smith and Viola Davies. The Will Smith charm is in full effect here, and it’s nice to see. Smith does a good job of humanizing the hitman he plays, giving you at least one character that you want to see succeed in this venture. He’s definitely a bad guy, no question but one you can root for.

Margot Robbie plays Harley Quinn, former psychiatrist and Joker love interest/partner. Robbie nails the insane nature of the character, providing some quality moments of levity. Downside, she brings the Joker with her and while Jared Leto’s Joker is fine(that laugh is great) he kind of feels unnecessary in the grand scheme. Doesn’t help that their relationship is played like a murderous Romeo and Juliet and that’s…not good? Like, it’s not a good relationship. Harley deserves better.

The finally selling point here is Viola Davies as Amanda Waller. Waller is the epitome of no nonsense. She’s like if the evil CIA heads in a Bourne movie were competent. Don’t cross her. Make no attempts to play her. It will not bode well for you. Davies is intimidating and cold, certainly scarier than the actual threat the squad is facing.

My mom has that same scowl.

As for the negatives there are a couple. The villain kinda falls flat. It’s a nebulous evil entity with no real identity, and thus not all that interesting. The villain has to be stopped because it’s bad, no more no less.

Other members of the squad aren’t as well fleshed out as Smith and Robbie are. While Jai Courtney’s Captain Boomerang was good comic relief, he seems to only have been included to remind the audience that yes, we’re in a bigger world now with other heroes, same with Killer Croc. El Diablo becomes the heart of the team basically for reasons and Katana just shows up. It just feels a little forced, and while you can’t have a team of just two people, some expanding on the rest of the squad couldn’t hurt.

In the end, Suicide Squad is a run of the mill superhero flick. It’s average, neither rising to such lofty heights as is a run of the mill superhero flick. It’s average, neither rising to such lofty heights as your Dark Knights or Captain America: Civil War but never sinking as low as your Superman IV or Iron Man 2. If this is DC’s course correction, then I think it’s a good start. Hopefully they’re on an upward rise from here.

 

Jason Bourne Review: The CIA is Still Shady

In our world the CIA has done some shady stuff. Overthrowing the Iranian government in the 50s, Iran-Contra, propping up governments in South America, the list goes on. Where these actions right? Justified? In the pursuit of freedom, how far is too far? These are the questions we ask ourselves as a nation, and they are central to the Jason Bourne franchise.

CIA: Kings of the Coup Since 1947

The Jason Bourne franchise is essentially a crash course in why not to trust the CIA. Each one is about a new shady CIA program, usually centering around black ops assassins and somehow Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) gets involved. Jason Bourne breaks from tradition by having Bourne foil a counter surveillance program run by CIA Director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones).

Turns out the CIA is combing through your beach photos

As I alluded to earlier, the Jason Bourne movies have an established formula and they rarely deviate. CIA is doing something bad, Bourne finds out and puts a stop to it. it’s a formula that works, and here it’s enhanced by fleshing out Bourne’s past. In the wake of the last movie Bourne remembers his old life but as it turns out there are still things he’s yet to learn. The new threat is privacy, and the CIA is looking to infiltrate a Facebook knock off. It invokes some memories of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks, giving the movie a slight boost in reliability.

Matt Damon’s return to the Bourne franchise has been long awaited and he plays Bourne well. Bourne has always been different than your James Bonds or Ethan Hunts; he’s much dourer and tired and that’s highlighted here. Bourne feels the weight the lives he’s taken, they take a toll on his psyche and Damon portrays the hell out of that. Tommy Lee Jones is a fantastic addition, one I thought the series should have had long before hand. His brand of fanatic patriotism is subtle but effective. You understand his desire to protect his country, even if you don’t approve of them (and you shouldn’t.)

The movie moves at a brisk pace. It sets up the characters quickly and then lets the conspiracy go wild. The action is intense and brutal without being overblown and the car chase at the end was fantastic. The blending of these two elements culminates for a satisfying experience that never overstays its welcome.

I have but one gripe with the movie, and that’s Alicia Vikander’s character. She plays a CIA analyst and her role really doesn’t have a point until the very end, which I won’t spoil here. She seems to exist mainly as sequel bait, without being fleshed out. If you cut her from the movie you really wouldn’t lose anything.

Jason Bourne hits similar notes but the tone is good. It delivers on its action and its thriller elements, and never overstays its welcome. If you like any of the previous installments, you’ll be right at home here.

Plus, they even kept that cool song at the end. You know the one.

 

Late Review: Zootopia-Almost Lion King Status

Every time a new Disney movie comes out someone inevitably tries to tell me it’s better than my all-time favorite, The Lion King. And every time I’ve had to call them a damn filthy liar and it just…

Source: Late Review: Zootopia-Almost Lion King Status

Late Review: Zootopia-Almost Lion King Status

Every time a new Disney movie comes out someone inevitably tries to tell me it’s better than my all-time favorite, The Lion King. And every time I’ve had to call them a damn filthy liar and it just gets awkward. I don’t want to call people liars but that’s the position I’m in. Now, that’s not to say there have been no good movies sine Lion King. Mulan, Lilo and Stich, Princess and the Frog and Meet the Robinsons are all fantastic movies. They’re just not Lion King. They didn’t hit me with the weight that Lion King did for me. And that may come down to pure nostalgia, I fully admit that. Lion King was my life as a child. I saw it on Broadway. Original cast. Dudes in costume came up the aisle and everything. I say all this to give context to what I’m about to write next.

Man, Zootopia is damn near Lion King status. It’s really, really good.

Zootopia is, on the surface, a light hearted family romp with some really good animal puns. Kudos to those writer’s man, they throw some good stuff at you. It centers on a rabbit (Played by Ginnifer Goodwin) with dreams of being a detective in Zootopia , a metropolis where carnivore and herbivore live together in supposed harmony. Things start to go awry when predators start going missing, so she enlists the help of a sly fox (Played by Jason Bateman) to help her.

That brief plot synopsis does a disservice to what the heart of Zootopia  is. Zootopia  is, at its core, a very strong allegory for race relations and prejudice. The language used in regards to predators very strongly mirrors the same rhetoric used in race discussions today. It’s subtle and effective, never beating you over the head, and it’s constantly reinforced throughout the movie, with characters having to confront and deal with their own previous prejudices. It never feels forced, it feels like characters being confronted with their mistakes and learning from them.

Zootopia is impressive man. I haven’t seen a kids show depict racism in such a strong way since Static Shock. That theme really elevates the movie, making it essential viewing for any child or hell, even any adult. My gripes with it are so small they may as well be nonexistent, but here they are. I still think Disney using 3D animation is weird. Not bad, the movie looks great. It just feels weird to me. I also didn’t care for the pop music in the film, because I’m old and jaded. That’s it. That’s all I got. Don’t be like me and put off seeing this man.

Star Trek Beyond Review

I’ve never been a huge Star Trek fan. I chose my sci-fi side, and I went with the one that had cool laser swords and dysfunctional families. That being said, I’ve always respected Trek, ever since I first saw J.J Abrams take a swing at it back in 09. That was my first introduction to the franchise, and I’ve been slowly working my way through it ever since. I enjoyed the 09 reboot immensely and liked a good chunk of the follow up Into Darkness, right up until the last twenty minutes or so, so it was with that positive mindset that I went into Beyond.

I may not know much, but I know Sisko is best captain

Star Trek Beyond centers around the cast of the Star Ship Enterprise, on year three of their five mission goal. The captain, one James Tiberius Kirk is starting to feel melancholy about the mission, about what his purpose is. That’s quickly resolved when the Idris Elba’s Krall strikes, incapacitating the Enterprise and standing the crew on a desolate planet.

The main plot of Star Trek Beyond is fairly basic, if we’re being honest. The crew is stranded and they have to find a way off the planet so they can stop the bad guy. It’s not going to throw you a lot of curves, there’s nothing new added to the formula. What makes this movie work is the crew itself and the writing. The script was helmed by Scott Pegg and you can really see it in the humor. The movie has a light tone, something that’s kind of refreshing, coming of the much more serious Into Darkness. Pegg really gives each crew member a time to shine, shifting the focus away from the typical Kirk/Spock dynamic. The central moral of the movie is that there’s strength in unity, and that’s mirrored in the script.

When it was announced that Furious 7 director Justin Lin was going to direct Beyond, there was an undercurrent of fear that was turned into a full on maelstrom when first trailer dropped. Skepticism was at an all time high.I have to say though; Lin did a fantastic job here. He brought solid pacing and action to the table and the result was an enjoyable ride.

I can’t vouch for how authentic this film is in terms of a classic Trek feel. My cousin, who bleeds Star Trek, says the canon works out so that’s good enough for me. There are good themes running throughout, themes of hope and exploration, of unity in the face of adversity. It leaves you feeling a little warm inside. All in all this was an enjoyable ride into the great beyond.

The Nice Guys Review: It’s Like Chinatown, But Funnier

 

The classic noir story is not a genre you see much in cinema these days, which is a damn shame in my opinion. You get detective movies sure, but nothing with the crisp, snappy banter of a good noir. There’s a certain charm to them, something in the narration that makes them irresistible. I hadn’t realized I missed them so much till I saw The Nice Guys.

The Nice Guys is a perfect throwback to the classic Chinatown style of noir. Directed by Shane Black, 80s action movie master, it’s a perfect throwback to the classic noir style. The story centers around a PI named Holland March (played by Ryan Gosling) and enforcer Jackson Healy (played by Russel Crow) who at first get hired to find a woman but quickly get caught up in a vast conspiratorial web, as is want to happen in these kinds of film.

The driving force in this film is the relationship between March and Healy. Gosling plays a truly pathetic detective, a drunken mess who’s in it only for the cold hard cash. What make him sympathetic is his relationship with his daughter, where you can see the small redeeming cracks of his character. Crowe on the other hand plays a bad guy trying to do good. Yeah, he beats up people for money but at least he’s principled. They juxtapose each other incredibly well, with Goslings exasperated sarcasm being the perfect foil to Crowe’s blunt honesty. They’re perfect together, two wrecks combating the sleaze of L.A.

The mystery these two are tasked with solving is interesting enough to keep you hooked, with great twists and turns throughout the duration of the film. It’s paced perfectly, never dwelling on one aspect too long. The writing is sharp and funny, playing to the strength of both leads. I really cannot stress enough how funny this movie is.

If, like me, you miss the classic noir style of storytelling you owe it to yourself to check out The Nice Guys. In a sea of sequels and big bombastic summer blockbusters, it’s nice to get a more understated affair. It’s simply a good story from start to finish, a true tribute to its genre.

Alice Through the Looking Glass Review: Such Whimsy

Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland holds a weird spot in my heart. It came out when I was in high school, around the time I really started thinking about film as a medium. I didn’t have many ideas on the subject, I hadn’t really developed a taste for what styles I liked, what directors work really captivated me. I had not yet developed the keen analytic mind that I have today. But I knew one thing for sure as I sat in my towns theater.

Alice in Wonderland was an unmitigated mess of a movie. I found it kind of flat, more focused on its weird aesthetic design and eccentric characters than a cohesive narrative. It was certainly a weird movie, there was no denying that. It was just that once I got past all the whimsy I thought that there wasn’t much to the movie.

And here we are, six years later with the sequel and I gotta say, not much has changed.

This is not going to be a glowing recommendation

Through the Looking Glass picks up three years after Alice’s last adventure. Alice, now a sea captain returns to find that her company is about to be sold. That’s not why we’re here though, and that subplot is quickly resolved with little fanfare or effort at the end. We’re here for Wonderland, and it’s not long before Alice is whisked away. There she finds out that the hatter is sick, and only reuniting him with his long lost family can save him. Thus begins our whirlwind adventure through time.

My central problem with this movie is the same as its predecessor: its more focused on being weird than delivering a good story. The movie is so wrapped up in being erratic and strange that it forgets to give you a reason to care about anyone in it. Alice herself is rather boring, which is odd for such a self-proclaimed “weird” character. The rest of the cast feels the same, just the same people from the last adventure simply going through the motions. There’s no urgency, no real driving action. Events simply happen, are resolved, and that’s basically the end of it. It’s visual stimulating sure, but pretty colors can’t carry a movie, especially not with these folk.

Through the Looking Glass is a perfect example of style over substance. It certainly sticks to the Burton visual style, a clash of Gothic architecture and a muted color scheme, but again visuals alone can’t carry a movie if you don’t care about the characters in the story. Fans of the first outing will enjoy the return, but for me it wasn’t worth returning.

The Revenant Review: Just Give Leo his Oscar

I find it hard to talk about The Revenant. It is a good film, no doubt about it. Visually, it’s breathtaking. The performances were great, with Leonardo DiCaprio, Domhall Gleeson and Tom Hardy each giving very strong performances. And yet, I don’t know that I’ll ever see it again, at least not for quite some time. This film was draining on an emotional level. It is not a film you see to be entertained by. It’s something you see to experience it. Whether or not that makes it a good film is up to you.

 

The Revenant is the story of a fur trapper named Hugh Glass (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) who is left for dead after being mauled by a bear. In the ensuing argument over whether or not to leave him, Glass’ son is killed by another trapper, John Fitzgerald (played by Tom Hardy) and so begins Glass’ quest to track him down.

You can’t just kill Leo’s kid Tom. It’s poor manners

To call this film a simple revenge tale does this film a disservice. It is the central conflict of the story yes, but as I said earlier that’s not really why you’re here to see it. The film is really about the journey Leonardo’s character takes, what he endures to reach his goal. In that sense, The Revenant is definitely compelling. You do feel Glass’ struggle as you watch what he endures, especially scenes of extreme cold. Iñárritu’s decision to use only natural light while shooting definitely helped enhance the film. The landscape shots were gorgeous, as were the shots of the night’s sky. It keeps the viewer invested, as there are very few character interactions throughout the film. It reminded me of Gravity in that regard. Both were visually stunning films focusing on a survival narrative, and both truly delivered on the visual front.

 
I do have a bone to pick with The Revenant however. When I first began my foray into the world of film, I was really weary of the “arthouse” film, or films that seek to be artistic solely to be artistic. Since learning more about film as a medium, my distain for these kinds of films has lessened although it has not disappeared completely. There are a few scenes scattered throughout this film that I felt were only included to meet some kind of pretentious film checklist. They’re well shot scenes, I just felt the distracted from the film as a whole. This could be part of Iñárritu’s style. I haven’t seen his previous work Birdman so I can’t compare.

 
It’s hard to say I enjoyed The Revenant because of my earlier declaration that I most likely won’t see it again. I stand by my assessment that it is a story worth seeing. It is compelling, from beginning to end. I don’t regret my decision to see it in the slightest. It is one of the more unique cinematic experiences I’ve had in a while. If that sounds like your cup of tea, I encourage you to go see it. If not, I completely understand.

The Big Short: Is it Worse to be Evil or Stupid

 

Coming out of The Big Short, I felt nauseous. Now, that’s not to say the film was so bad it made me sick. The film is great. Adam McKay really shows his versatility as a director here, and the fact that he went to my current university doesn’t hurt. What made me sick was the subject matter. The Big Short is a movie about the 2008 financial crisis and the few people who saw it was coming and decided to bet on it. It manages to break down the terms and jargon in a way that people who aren’t in the know can understand, and once you understand just what happened you’ll either puke, punch something or both. The Big Short is like a car accident. You don’t want to see the carnage. But once it happens you can’t turn away.

The Big Short centers around a few hedge fund managers who, in 2005, noticed that the housing market was about to collapse and that the mortgages that were being sold to people weren’t worth the ink they were printed on. That’s about the extent of my knowledge. The Big Short dresses it up better, putting a slightly comedic spin on it which helps make it palatable the viewer.

There are no “heroes” in The Big Short. You can’t root for anyone, because they’re all betting that the housing market will collapse, and they’re trying to make a profit on it. Yeah, they were right. But them being right isn’t a victory. You end up watching, horrified as the wheels begin to turn and you watch the sheer recklessness of it all. It makes you think, what was worse. That the bankers responsible were dumb? Or that they knew it was wrong and didn’t care.

There are strong performances abound in this film, though for me Steven Carrel and Ryan Gosling hit it out of the park. Gosling plays a Jordon Belfort type, looking to make the most money he can of the impending catastrophe. He interrupts the film at several points to explain some of the terminology, often using current day celebrities. These segments help break up the film and provide the audience with some relief before diving back in to the nauseating subject matter. Carrel is hedge fund manager with a vendetta against Wall Street who wants to prove it’s corrupt, but the level of corruption goes far beyond what he expected. It’s heartbreaking to witness him loose what little faith he had in the system once the collapse is in full swing.

The Big Short is a tragedy in every sense of the word. There are no winners. No one learns a lesson. There’s nothing you can do but watch the whole thing burn to the ground. This may be one of the most important films I see this year. Go see it, and share in my unbridled rage and crushing sadness.