MANK Review

I must admit I feel like something of a fraud even attempting a critique of a film so steeped in not only cinematic history, but history in general. Yes, I've seen Citizen Kane more than once and I've listened to season upon season of Karina Longworth's You Must Remember This podcast and specifically the series of MGM stories that centered on Louis B. Mayer’s rise and fall, yet somehow director David Fincher's Mank still feels so drenched in the world it re-creates that it's difficult to imagine being able to gain all the film has to offer after only a single viewing. As it were, Fincher's latest is likely too inside baseball for anyone outside of those that worship at the altar of cinema, but what might prove to be the most fascinating aspect of Mank is whether or not the core struggles of the main character appeal to a viewer who has no idea who someone like Irving Thalberg - or for that matter, Herman J. Mankiewicz - was. Naturally, those who do in fact worship at said altar are largely going to adore Fincher's latest exercise in clinical cinema that this time not only executes itself with profound professionalism and skill a la all of Fincher's work, but does so as it examines the "golden age" of the industry. The difference will be whether the details included and the approach taken will be enough to enthrall those already on board for a "movie about the movies" or if, while appreciating all of those things, the admiration for what Fincher has accomplished outweighs what is genuine love for it. That is to say, those on the outside looking in who come across Mank as they scroll through Netflix will either continue to scroll past it based on the poster alone or become fully engulfed in the confusion of the time and place Fincher drops his audience into should they be brave enough to press play. As an individual who admittedly knows more than the average Netflix subscriber, but a lot less than a lot of other people about the history of Hollywood Mank feels akin to a highly-stylized and extremely well performed re-enactment. Fincher's film clearly gets everything it possibly could right about the history, the costumes, and the character traits yet there is little that resonates emotionally. Never mind the fact Herman Mankiewicz is the only credited co-screenwriter to Orson Welles on what many consider the greatest movie ever made as Fincher's intent wasn't to make a movie about the making of Citizen Kane, but rather to capture the essence of a process and a person and leave the audience with a little more context and insight than they might have had before. As Gary Oldman's "Mank" says early on in the film though, "You can't capture a man's life in two hours, all you can hope is to leave an impression of one," and while Mank may not necessarily provide the catharsis one desires come the time the credits roll it undoubtedly leaves a strong impression.   

GHOSTBUSTERS Review

I'd like to think there's not as much ignorance in the world as the internet tells me there is, but the small corner of the World Wide Web known as IMDb and more specifically the user reviews for 2016's reboot of Ghostbusters would suggest everything I've hoped to be true about this world is in fact wrong. Given the film has been out in wide release for less than 24 hours at the time of this writing it's astonishing how many harsh and outlandish tirades have been hurled at this film. Of course, we're not here to discuss the inability of what are likely now forty year-old men to share in the wealth of their childhoods, childhoods that provided such pleasures at the original 1984 film, and extend those same feelings of excitement and pure joy to the kids of today and moreover the young girls and women of today who have undoubtedly always looked to the portrayal of their gender in Hollywood and wondered why they were always so restrained. As far as I'm concerned and as far as I can tell (I was born in 1987 so I don't exactly "get" the hoopla that surrounds the original) despite how much the original Ghostbusters was a huge success and universally praised at the time of its release I've never understood the level of infatuation with it. Sure, it's a perfectly enjoyable comedy with a charismatic cast and unique premise, but in the thirty plus years since its release I can't help but think the film has lost some of its charm otherwise I wouldn't feel as out of the loop. With this new, all-female version director Paul Feig has both paid homage to the original film while creating a world and characters all his own. Written by Feig with the help of The Heat screenwriter Kate Dippold this new Ghostbusters universe doesn't capitalize wholly on the gimmick of the gender swap, but more it uses this basis of an idea to explore a familiar world from a new perspective. While no matter how good the film might have turned out to be there would undoubtedly still be people decrying the fact it exists at all, but that it is a lot of fun if not necessarily an exceptional comedy will surely only anger them more. To remain focused on those who take away from the unadulterated fun that Ghostbusters can provide though is to be reminded of the disappointment this world can be whereas to simply take the new Ghostbusters on its own terms can make you believe good does in fact exist among us. In short, it's a delight.

ME BEFORE YOU Review

If you're buying a ticket to Me Before You you know what you're getting yourself into. The movie itself, based on the novel by Jojo Moyes (who also penned the screenplay) and directed by first time feature director Thea Sharrock, knows what it is and has no qualms with embracing the tropes of the romantic drama genre. Its ultimate goal is to have tears flowing from your eyes as you leave the theater and if you are indeed buying a ticket to Me Before You and subsequently crying as the credits roll you are probably happy with said purchase. That is what audiences are looking for from a movie like this and for the most part, Me Before You delivers. What isn't necessarily expected from such a film, but that Me Before You tends to deliver in spades, is an endearing quality of humanity. It isn't anything new to find a relative nature to the characters at the core of the conflict in movies such as this, but with our two leads here Moyes smartly adds another layer to their relationship that takes it beyond being non-traditional and not just based on if issues of the heart will keep them together or draw them apart. Rather, this caveat elevates the story to one that forces us to contemplate the courage needed to redirect a life that has been thrown completely off course. That may sound slightly dramatic in itself given the tone this film initially takes on is quite affable, but when it comes down to it-when the relationship has been developed and the tears inevitably shed there is left a large amount of respect for Me Before You for not only embracing the recurring archetypes of its genre, but for daring to try to improve upon them. Whether this be through the act of stronger characterization in our female lead than typically seen, the sometimes downright dislikable nature of the male lead or the generally high quality of acting on display-there is something pedigreed and understated about the final product that allows skeptical audiences to appreciate its willingness to improve upon acknowledged tropes while pleasing the target audience in a way they may not have known to be possible before. All in all, Me Before You is a tearjerker that earns that title through improving on and adding to the familiar while still hitting every box on the genre checklist.

Full Trailer for ME BEFORE YOU Starring Emilia Clarke

I was just thinking this weekend about how it's been a long time since we've had any type of romantic comedy, legitimately fun despite its conventions or not. There are no marquee male stars to headline these things anymore and the closest we seem to get presently are either riffs on the genre a la last summer's Trainwreck or the dredge that is director Garry Marshall's holiday-themed movies that intertwine multiple stories and feature as many stars as possible so that the financial success doesn't hinge on a single name (we get Mother's Day at the end of this month if you're curious). So, I began to wonder what a modern romantic comedy might look like and without considering the aforementioned films that are more or less derivatives of the original template the closest thing I could come up with was Brooklyn. Yes, last years tale of an Irish immigrant who lands in 1950s Brooklyn where she falls in love with a local Italian is the closest I could come up with. Clearly, this isn't in the same genre as those Matthew McConaughey headliners from the mid-2000's though, and so my thoughts extended even further into the genre of grand romantic films in general. A genre the Nicolas Sparks-based The Notebook reinvigorated in 2004, but has since become something of a parody of itself with the continued adaptations of Sparks' novels turning into rote, cheesy reminders of how great Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams were together. One movie looks to buck that trend this year though. Me Before You is an adaptation of the hugely popular novel by Jojo Moyes and is being brought to the big screen courtesy of theater director and Call the Midwife alum Thea Sharrock making her feature directorial debut. Emilia Clarke (Game of Thrones) and Sam Claflin (The Hunger Games) star in this story of a girl in a small town who forms an unlikely bond with the recently-paralyzed man she's taking care of. The film also stars Jenna Coleman, Janet McTeer, Matthew Lewis, Charles Dance, Vanessa Kirby, Stephen Peacocke, and Brendan Coyle. Me Before You opens on June 3rd, 2016.

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES Review

Say what you will, but I've never read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. That said, I've clearly become familiar with the story over the years and have seen some of the many adaptations namely Joe Wright's 2005 film starring Kiera Knightley. Say what you will, but I did read Seth Grahame-Smith's 2010 novel Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and kind of loved it, but the 2012 movie adaptation was less than satisfying. Given I knew Grahame-Smith's debut novel would also get the movie treatment I decided not to give it a look with the fact I'd never read Austen's original text also weighing on my decision. And so, going into Pride and Prejudice and Zombies I looked forward to seeing if a film version of one of Grahame-Smith's parody/mashup novels could be turned into an entertaining movie or if it would still be little more than a good idea even without knowing the depth of the original text. Of course, much of Grahame-Smith's novel from which this film is based is apparently text taken directly from the Austen classic only with elements of modern zombie fiction inserted throughout. So, one could say if you know Pride and Prejudice it isn't hard to imagine what Pride and Prejudice and Zombies might be. That's true. It isn't. Strangely enough though, it isn't the fact the story doesn't have to be outrageously creative in order to weave the zombie narrative through it, but more simply how much the movie embraces that aspect. Director Burr Steers (Igby Goes Down, 17 Again) has crafted a film with its tongue planted firmly in its cheek, but does so without ever going too far. Sure, the movie is aware of what it is, but it never becomes a parody of itself in that it goes to certain lengths to highlight its unique premise while never giving cause to laugh at it. In short, the film is cool enough to laugh with us at its absurdities and for that it packs a fun enough punch as far as action/adventure movies go. All in all though, the film is simply decent. While it exudes style at certain points and embraces itself fully that still doesn't necessarily mean it executes itself well and when it comes to following through on the promise of the premise with such spectacle this film version falls short and unfortunately feels rather fatigued by the time we cross the finish line.

Teaser Trailer for PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES

While I read Seth Grahame-Smith's Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and enjoyed it I was of course less ecstatic about the 2012 feature film adaptation. What I haven't read is Grahame-Smith's 2009 novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the one that put him on the map and made his whole "thing" the mashing together of classic literature and historical fiction with staples of the horror genre. It's a pretty ingenious idea and it clearly worked as the books seemed to be well received, but having not read the new version of Jane Austen's novel (who Grahame-Smith credits as a co-author) I'm curious to see if this film turns out any better than that other Grahame-Smith adaptation. The story essentially follows the plot of Pride and Prejudice, but places the novel in an alternate universe version of Regency era England where zombies roam the English countryside. While the trailer is merely a teaser and more or less is a compilation of quick action shots it certainly gets it's tone across by opening as if little more than another Austen adaptation before switching things up. This is an expected twist if you know what's coming, but one I'd think many will find a fair amount of fun in if they're seeing it for the first time in a movie theater and are unaware of what trailer might play next. The look of the film seems to be top-notch and given I really enjoyed Lily James in this years live-action Cinderella film I'm anxious to see what she does with a role that's completely opposite the sweet and innocent Disney princess facade. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies also stars Ellie Bamber, Millie Brady, Bella Heathcote, Suki Waterhouse, Sam Riley, Jack Huston, Douglas Booth, Matt Smith, Lena Headey, Charles Dance and opens on February 5th, 2016.

CHILD 44 Review

Child 44 is a movie that seems to want to be one thing, but doesn't know how to be that thing. It has ideas of how to be this grand period piece/spy thriller yet it isn't sure how to convey the inherently intriguing story it is dealing with. There aren't necessarily too many facets occurring or even a lack of focus, it's simply put: a script issue in that the gripping story wasn't told in the most gripping of ways. It is actually somewhat impressive that what was seemingly used as the shooting script was able to make it to that stage in the first place. If the film I saw was taken directly from the screenplay, and it's highly unlikely there was any improv on this set, then one would imagine it would come to light pretty obviously that there were some major structural problems that needed to be reassessed. Instead, director Daniel Espinosa (Safe House) and his exceptionally talented cast drift through this somber and distinctly cold film without seeming to notice that the pieces weren't congruent. There could be any number of reasons Espinosa and his crew didn't take note of these shortcomings while in the midst of shooting as I imagine there is a great pressure to get things done in a certain amount of time and under budget, but while something should have come of this in the editing room (where many directors admit the a film is truly made) the major issues still come back around to point their fingers at the script. Based on what the final product delivered this was more like the second draft of a screenplay rather than one further down the road, one that was able to find its voice and emphasis on particular themes. Adapted from a novel by Tom Rob Smith and written for the screen by Richard Price (who hasn't written a feature since 2006 and has tellingly worked more in television) the editors were unable to craft a slimmer film from the footage that was shot because each moment admittedly relies on a detail in the previous scene to move forward despite the two halves of the film feeling completely disconnected.

WOMAN IN GOLD Review

Woman in Gold is a perfectly fine film. It is as competent as it is generic. The issue with the film though is that it so clearly wants to be more than that. It has a sense of needing to feel important based on the origins of its story when, in reality, the fashion with which it's told and the narrative structure it's delivered through make it appeal as little more than light, afternoon fluff with only a slight edge in existing over something that is purely melodramatic. There is nothing wrong with being no more than an afternoon distraction or even a slight piece of information that serves to highlight little known aspects of major events we've heard about time and time again, but Woman in Gold, while recognizing a number of themes dealing with mortality, isn't the heavy handed drama it seems to want to be or thinks it is. And so, while director Simon Curtis (My Week With Marilyn) and first-time screenwriter Alexi Kaye Campbell may or may not have been aiming for one thing by casting Helen Mirren in a role so perfect for Helen Mirren it's almost cliche to have her actually play it and doing the opposite with Ryan Reynolds as he plays against type while dealing with a story that involves Nazi's it would of course seem one would have the perfect formula for a pre-packaged Oscar contender. What Curtis and Campbell have actually delivered though is ironically something largely opposite the heady and often too artsy for mainstream movie-goers the Academy does nominate in delivering a by the numbers account of a true story that both rouses the human spirit and will no doubt be appreciated by older audiences for its clean sense of class and respect for history. More times than not it is the straightforward, fluff-type films that serve ones interests better and for that, Woman in Gold has nothing to be ashamed of simply because it doesn't reach the heights it seemed manufactured to scale. I'm not necessarily saying this is a film worth seeking out, but it definitely isn't a bad option if you're looking for something to take your (grand)parents to this weekend.

First Trailer for CHILD 44

Between The Dark Knight Rises, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Lawless and now Child 44 Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman might as well star taking roles in all of each others films no matter the lead. Still, the reason to be interested in the latest from director Daniel Espinosa (Safe House), for me at least, is that it features a seeming intense performance from Hardy. Hardy is not only one of the most exciting actors working today, but one of the most diverse and, in my opinion, the best. Between Locke and the (underrated) The Drop from last year Hardy has established himself alongside the likes of actors such as Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Fassbender who are young, still feel up and coming and yet have the power and credibility to make their own creative choices and do the projects they actually want to do. With that said, I can't help but be excited for what Child 44 holds and what kind of year it might kick off for Hardy who will follow it up with at least three more major projects by years end. As for the film itself, this first full trailer gives us plenty to chew on as it dives deep into the plot taking place in Moscow of 1952. A disgraced member of the military police (Hardy) investigates a series of nasty child murders after his fellow soldier and his wife lose their son. There is a distinct style to the piece and an atmosphere that is almost irrepressible. More than this, the premise is extremely dour and feels right in line with the kind of mood Hardy typically thrives best in. Child 44 also stars Paddy Considine, Joel Kinnaman, Jason Clarke, Noomi Rapace, Charles Dance, Vincent Cassel and opens on April 17th.

THE IMITATION GAME Review

There is a line that is repeated several times in director Morten Tyldum's The Imitation Game that reassures our lead character that, "Sometimes it is the people we imagine nothing of, who do the things we can not imagine." This applies to our protagonist because our protagonist is Alan Turing as played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Turing has now come to be renowned as the brilliant mathematician and cryptanalyst who broke the German Enigma code in World War II that won the war quicker and as a result saved millions of lives. This man who seemingly would need to have everything going for him to come to such a prosperous title is given the aforementioned advice though because he is challenged every step of the way. It is clear from the moment we meet Cumberbatch's Turing that he suffers from some high level of asperger's syndrome in that his demeanor is not simply an irrational genius routine, but a degree of social awkwardness that conveys an inability to truly relate with those around him because he likely feels no one truly understands him. In coming at the world from his unique perspective, Turing sees human beings as simply being too selfish to make the sacrifices necessary to stave off the mental and physical threat posed by the enemies of his country. This leads to the creation of what is essentially the first computer that, while saving large parts of humanity that would have otherwise been lost, requires an equal amount of restraint that will knowingly allow people to die. It is only the ability to both create and be disconnected that the best definition of a perspective success can be claimed and Turing had the mentality and genius to see both through. Yes, in war there are countless deceptions and non-democratic decisions being made which, as long as they are for the seeming good of humanity, remain completely acceptable. It is on this fine line that the most interesting ideals are born from the film as Turing learns not only how to gauge his intelligence, but how best to use it. There is much to be admired in Tyldum's rather straightforward biopic that despite being as by the numbers as one can imagine, is consistently enhanced by its exceedingly fascinating story.

DRACULA UNTOLD Review

First time feature writers Burk Sharpless and Matt Sazama have traced the root of the Dracula name back to the descendants of Vlad II of Wallachia or "Vlad the Impaler" and told his story as a point of origin for the Dracula myth that was popularized by Bram Stoker in his 1897 horror novel. While this may seem like an interesting take on an age old tale it speaks volumes that it arrives at a time in the cinematic landscape when Universal wants to create a universe akin to Marvel's with their classic monster line-up as well as being on the back end of the vampire craze. It was evident from the first trailers of Dracula Untold that everything this film had to offer was already being shown. Strangely enough though, the trailers implied a large-scale film; one with sweeping locations and handsome costume design that would span possible centuries while rooting this origin story in an environment we might want to come to better know given the chance. In actuality the final product feels very small, a film akin to that of January's I, Frankenstein which results in nothing more than an ugly step-sister to the summer blockbusters that have equally silly stories or premises, but real vision and money behind them. To come down even harder on Dracula Untold is to take into consideration this is director Gary Shore's feature directorial debut (working from a screenplay by two rookie writers) and every ounce of that inexperience shows on the screen. To keep it simple, this is as by the numbers as you could ask for which I'm sure Shore was happy about because he'd managed to make something that looks and feels like everything else does at the moment, but it does nothing to set itself apart as an introduction to a world where great things could possibly happen. It is even somewhat unfair Universal would strap that responsibility on Shore and his crew in the first place. From the first 300-inspired frames of the film one can see where this is going, one can tell the type of tone that will be used simply by the dim aesthetic and bland dialogue that comes from every other film set in the 1400's. Dracula Untold is a mess, a film with some clear ambition (which is actually saying something), but one that can't seem to summon that ambition either on the page or in its visuals resulting in a film that is little more than recycled rubbish.