WRECK-IT RALPH 2: RALPH BREAKS THE INTERNET Review

Walt Disney Animation Studios is now in the stage of their resurgence that began in 2010 with Tangled and was cemented two years later with Wreck-it Ralph where they are hoping to maintain the momentum of this resurgence by beginning to produce sequels to the movies that helped solidify their name as an animation powerhouse once more; that Disney could still be Disney without Pixar. Whereas the former flourished in hand-drawn animation for years and years (obviously) the mouse house hadn't had much luck with their transition to computer animation (Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt each largely failed both critically and commercially at the time of release) and in trying to re-capture the magic of their nineties hot streak with the hand-drawn Princess and the Frog in 2009 it only seemed the studio was moving backwards instead of forward. With Tangled though, things began to shift and, in many regards, the first Wreck-it Ralph was a confirmation that the Disney brand was back in full effect. Wreck-it Ralph, unlike the more traditional approach Tangled took, was a cool and hip concept that was both relevant and nostalgic, but most importantly it was an idea that-when you were a kid-would have loved to think could really be true. Like Toy Story, Wreck-It-Ralph was about what happens after the kids are done playing and characters must go on with their lives. This was all well and good and spurned a rather fantastic and inventive film about feeling insecure in the role society has assigned you and securing the confidence to break free of that mold and not only become whatever it is you aspire to be, but to gain confidence in and embracing what others might inherently assume about you. Though this wasn't exactly a stretch for the studio given it was ultimately a variation on the "be yourself" lesson countless pieces of children's entertainment have spouted, it worked well given the format. The catch was, Wreck-it Ralph told such a tight and compact story that it was difficult to imagine how directors Rich Moore and Phil Johnston would naturally extend the film into something new that felt organic and wasn't dark as hell considering the inevitability of this arcade eventually closing and all of the games getting unplugged (which they'll have to address in the trilogy-capper, right?). And while the trailers hinted at something scarcely close to The Emoji Movie, Ralph Breaks the Internet is the rare, equally inventive sequel that strives to say something more even if what its saying gets somewhat lost in translation. Even still, the dynamite dynamic between John C. Reilly's Ralph and Sarah Silverman's Vanellope is enough to hold down the fort...or the internet.

Movies I Wanna See Most: Fall 2018

The fall/winter movie season is always one of those times of the year where it seems there's so much to do and so little time. I've always attempted to find a balance between big-budget and indie fare rather than dismiss the blockbusters and only adore the smaller, more intimate movies and vice versa. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily more excited for Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 than I am something like Suspiria, but rather that I'm interested in both for very different reasons. While neither of those titles will be on my list I would place each of them just outside my top fifteen along with the likes of the sure-to-be juggernaut of this holiday season, Marry Poppins Returns, and the likely to be overlooked The Hate U Give from director George Tillman Jr. Elsewhere, there is your typical festival fodder like Beautiful Boy, The Favourite, Boy Erased, and Mary Queen of Scots that I'm certainly interested in seeing, but not necessarily overly excited for as I feel as if I kind of know what I'll be getting myself into with each of these (except for maybe the Yorgos Lanthimos experience), but am more than happy to take a chance and spend some time with them as any given movie could come out of nowhere and blow you away; if attempting to watch as many new releases as I do each year has taught me anything it is this.

There are two movies in particular that I had a difficult time grappling with whether they should go on my list and furthermore, where they should go on my list if I were to include them, but ultimately they didn't make it and I'm still not sure if that was the right choice or not. First is Jonah Hill's directorial debut, mid90s, which tells the story of a thirteen-year-old in 90s-era LA who spends his summer navigating between his troubled home life and a group of new friends that he meets at a Motor Avenue skate shop. I think Hill will probably have a rather distinct voice and good handle on conveying his own screenplay given the sheer amount and vast variety of creative people he's worked with, but the subject matter isn't something so near and dear to my heart that I find myself aching to see it. And then there is the first film from writer/director Alfonso Cuarón since Gravity earned him a Best Director Oscar five years ago. Cuarón's two hour and fifteen-minute opus that chronicles a year in the life of a middle-class family in Mexico City in the early 1970s wuill have its festival run, but is set to largely premiere to a wide audience on Netflix in mid-December. This may be the smarter route financially, but the anticipation of such an event and/or return can't help but to feel a little undercut by the knowledge that in my region of the country it's unlikely I'll be able to experience Roma on the big screen. All of that said, you won't find the likes of Bumblebee, The Mortal Engines, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, or that new Robin Hood movie on my list, but like I said, I'm by no means opposed to unabashed blockbusters as is evidenced in my number ten pick...

Official Trailer for WRECK-IT RALPH 2: RALPH BREAKS THE INTERNET

Disney has unleashed a second trailer for the highly anticipated sequel to 2012's Wreck-It Ralph subtitled Ralph Breaks the Internet. While Ralph was always one of those movies that seemed ripe for a sequel I've re-watched that original quite frequently as of late given my three-year-old had that stretch where it was the one movie she liked to watch again and again and I couldn't help but to wonder how they might credibly follow the film up given the first ends with everything seeming to be set-up so nicely. Of course, I was only more nervous after the title of the film was revealed even if that initial teaser trailer made the premise look a bit more promising and naturally intriguing. With this full, theatrical trailer though-I'm totally in the bag for this thing. Sure, it looks more like The Emoji Movie given all the product placements and timely jokes/references than I would have ever imagined, but there's seemingly no chance Directors Rich Moore and Phil Johnston's sequel will measure up to that ungodly travesty that tried to capitalize on both a hot cultural and cinematic trend and just didn't work at all. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, John C. Reilly's titular character and Sarah Silverman's now Princess Vanellope must head to the Internet in order to find a replacement part to save Vanellope’s game. Yes, there are nods to Amazon, Google, Twitter, and such aplenty, but what is kind of surprising but shouldn't be is how much Disney is both tooting its own horn and utilizing everything under its umbrella at the same time. There is blatant Star Wars and Marvel name-dropping, of course, but Disney also draws from its own catalogue as a scene feature the mouse house's cavalcade of princesses is sure to be what people remember from the trailer and look forward to in the finished film. Wreck-It Ralph 2: Ralph Breaks the Internet also stars Taraji P. Henson, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, Alan Tudyk, and opens on November 21st, 2018.

KONG: SKULL ISLAND Review

In the vein of Marc Webb going from (500) Days of Summer to The Amazing Spider-Man and Colin Trevorrow from the quaint Safety Not Guaranteed to Jurassic World, Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures have plucked indie director Jordan Vogt-Roberts from the safety of his summer getaway that he so lovingly crafted in his 2013 break-out, The Kings of Summer, and thrust him into the world of blockbusters with literally one of the biggest stars in Hollywood history: King Kong. In an effort to re-boot the property that hasn't been touched since Peter "Lord of the Rings" Jackson's epic attempt in 2005 and build a cinematic universe a la Marvel with Gareth Edwards 2014 iteration of Godzilla, WB and Legendary have given Vogt-Roberts the keys to Skull Island AKA the home of the titular Kong and several other species of creatures, most of which are prehistoric in nature, but in other cases-are species that come straight from the pages of an old school horror/fantasy novel. A place where those who own the earth really reside, the place that God forgot to finish. The place where not only a human tribe somehow still resides, but so is there proof of dinosaurs, of more than one Kong, and of devils from the deep that the best character in the film affectionately refers to as "skullcrawlers". And so, the question is-what has the director done with such an environment to elevate the mythology it inherently carries? What has he done to give this mythical island a real sense of place and of substance and of tangibility? Well, the answer to that question is more positive than what the response might be to, "How good is the movie overall?" as the movie itself is pleasant and fun enough, but the real value in the piece comes from seeing that of Kong do what audiences want to see him do on a large scale and creating a full-on world in which these unbelievably thin characters and rote plot exist. It is because this world in which these things exist does indeed feel so lived in and palpable that much is forgiven. Even the special effect that is Kong himself holds more weight and authenticity than one might expect with the film eliciting a real soul from the beast which is more than it can say for the majority of its human cast. This is all to say that Kong: Skull Island certainly has its issues and could benefit from having at least one protagonist other than the movie's eponymous monster that we could sympathize with, but in a strange turn of events the spectacle holds more significance than the non-existent emotions and ideas it seems to have never had any ambition of carrying. In that regard, this is very much decent enough popcorn entertainment-fine if not completely forgettable.

Official Trailer for KONG: SKULL ISLAND

The first glimpse of the latest re-boot/re-make/re-imagining of the King Kong mythos we received this past summer looked visually engaging, but was always going to have deliver that something extra to differentiate itself from being just another in a long line of blockbusters that will now be populating theaters from March until August and now, this new official trailer gives us how exactly it stands to do that: John C. Reilly. In something of an interesting twist I couldn't have seen coming from a mile away (though I admittedly haven't been following this movie or its production too closely) it seems Reilly will serve as both the audience and a large amount of the ensemble casts way "in" to the world that Kong now dominates. He looks to be an explorer of some kind who became stranded on the island Kong inhabits and more or less took up with the indigenous people. That is, until the likes of a new batch of explorers show up (headed by John Goodman and Straight Outta Compton's Corey Hawkins) to mess things up. Again, director Jordan Vogt-Roberts (The Kings of Summer) has delivered a visually pleasing trailer that contains not only a solid amount of action and spectacle, but through Reilly he has also mixed in a fair amount of humor and so I'm even more interested to see what the director has done as I've probably watched his debut feature a handful of times and think his temprement could play will in the blockbuster arena. That said, Vogt-Roberts has already entered the franchise world as Skull Island is seemingly Warner Bros. and Legendary's attempt to bring King King and Godzilla head to head after establishing the latter in director Gareth Edward's 2014 Godzilla film. No matter the future plans though, I'm excited to see what Vogt-Roberts has in store for us in just a few short months. Kong: Skull Island also stars Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, Tian Jing, Jason Mitchell, John Ortiz, Thomas Mann, Shea Whigham, Toby Kebbell, Eugene Cordero, and opens on March 10, 2017.

First Trailer for KONG: SKULL ISLAND Starring Tom Hiddleston

Well, Warner Bros. is certainly knocking it out of the park today in terms of quantity as not only have we seen trailers for their upcoming DC slate, but now they have released the first look at their re-imagining of the King Kong myth that they intend to make a part of another extended universe by pairing the King of the Apes up with the Godzilla from the 2014 film. While it has been just over a decade since Peter Jackson's three-hour epic that brought Kong back to the big screen WB has now pulled in Kings of Summer director Jordan Vogt-Roberts (in the tradition of Marc Webb, Colin Trevorrow, and Gareth Edwards) to once again launch a franchise of sorts by hopefully bringing some of his independent mentality to large scale blockbuster filmmaking. While it feels odd that something as big as this trailer makes the film look will be opening in March rather than the middle of summer that is also something of a compliment in that the film looks like a full throttle action/popcorn flick that will be easy to enjoy and difficult to dislike. With this first trailer for the film largely being a sizzle reel of sorts (it's absolutely stunning by the way) we get very little indication of what the story will be other than the standard "team of explorers ventures deep into uncharted territory," and that we get little to no dialogue from any of the principal cast gives very little sense of what types of characters we'll be dealing with as well, though Samuel L. Jackson certainly seems to once again be enjoying himself by hamming it up in another (see Tarzan) action tentpole that ironically feels like something from a bygone era. Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, John C. Reilly, Tian Jing, Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell, John Ortiz, Thomas Mann, Shea Whigham, Toby Kebbell, and Eugene Cordero join Jackson for the ride as Kong: Skull Island opens on March 10th, 2017.

THE LOBSTER Review

Note: This is a reprint of my review for The Lobster, which originally ran on September 13, 2015 after seeing it at the Toronto Film Festival. I am publishing it again today as it hits theaters this weekend.

Most will likely walk out of The Lobster either loving or hating it. It's easy to see why this will be something of a divisive film given it's weird as hell. With all its observational humor conveyed in static, dry tones and cynical quips that paint the internet culture into a real-world society it will surely have its fans. Undoubtedly, there is much to like and appreciate here, but while I laughed several times and found the overall sentiment of the film to be a rather sweet one that is conveyed in a ridiculous yet inventive way I couldn't help but feel that it was trying too hard to be as much when the coolness factor of its unique ideas should have been effortless. The strangeness of the set-up to this world is so out there that it can't help but feel weird solely for the sake of being weird. Weird is fine and all, but The Lobster is pushing it. Some will find this endearing, others will see it as straining and unfortunately by the time the film concluded I was more in the latter category than the former. Writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos, in his English-language debut, certainly has a lot to say with his high-concept comedy, but up until the last half hour or so of the film things are more about the concept than they are the ideas he's attempting to discuss. Lanthimos spends so much time trying to make sure his audience will understand this world without blatantly spilling tons of exposition that all of the dialogue in the first hour feels like a sly way of explaining the rules of this world where one checks into a resort to find a mate and if failing to do so in forty-five days, facing the reality of being turned into an animal. So, yes, the film is conceptually striking given it is all a large metaphor for the way in which society tells us our lives are better when lived with a partner, but never does it transcend this gimmick until the moving final shot.

TIFF 2015: THE LOBSTER Review

Most will likely walk out of The Lobster either loving it or hating it. It's easy to see why this will be something of a divisive film given it's weird as hell. With all its observational humor conveyed in static, dry tones and cynical quips that paint the internet culture into a real-world society it will surely have its fans. Undoubtedly, there is much to like and appreciate here, but while I laughed several times and found the overall sentiment of the film to be a rather sweet one that is conveyed in a ridiculous yet inventive way I couldn't help but feel this just wasn't my thing. The strangeness of the set-up to this world is so out there that it can't help but feel weird solely for the sake of being weird. Weird is fine and all, but The Lobster is really stretching it. Writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos, in his English-language debut, certainly has a lot to say with his high-concept comedy, but until the last half hour or so of the film things are more about the concept than they are the points he's trying to make. Lanthimos spends so much time trying to make sure his audience will understand this world without blatantly spilling tons of exposition that all of the dialogue in the first hour feels like a sly way of explaining the rules of this world where you check into a resort to find a mate and if you don't successfully do so in forty-five days, you're turned into an animal. So, yes, the film is conceptually striking given it is all a large metaphor for the way in which society tells us our lives are better when lived with a partner, but never does it transcend this gimmick until the moving final shot.

LIFE AFTER BETH Review

Life After Beth gets off to a strong start. From the trailer or even the awkward glare of Aubrey Plaza (Parks and the Recreation) on the poster that features the pun of a title there was a glimmer of hipster cool to this play on the zombie genre. Besides the casting of Plaza the inclusion of Mr. Indie himself at the moment, Dane DeHaan (The Amazing Spider-Man 2), speaks volumes to the kind of tone and atmosphere that first time writer/director Jeff Baena (who is Plaza's boyfriend) was attempting to capture in order to convey his attitude on this somewhat satirical, somewhat personal account. The sardonic aspects of the film are meant to function solely as a method of heightening the rather typical main narrative that follows the relationship of a boy and a girl and their break-up and how sometimes the saying "you don't know what you got till it's gone" is a bit of a false heading. I sound a little jaded though, I realize, which mainly comes from the fact that Life After Beth seems to believe it's both smarter and hipper than it actually is while almost counting on the public persona of its two leads as a way to convince audiences of both its intelligence and cool factor. In truth, the film feels oddly flat and struggles to collect any kind of coherent tone as the story goes off the rails early and is never able to find its way to anything resembling substance. Let's get back to that strong start though, because things certainly looked promising when the films score by the Black Rebels Motorcycle Club roared into play as the title card filled the screen and we are then taken into a small, often forgotten little moment that perfectly encapsulates the types of moments this film should be filled with. DeHaan's Zach Orfman stands in an aisle of a grocery store looking at the paper plates and napkins trying simply to find black napkins. He has been to a number of stores, that is clear, yet has failed to come across the only color napkin that might be suitable for a post-funeral gathering. When an uninformed employee suggests he try a party store as that color napkin is more of a seasonal item for Halloween we understand the confliction Zach is feeling and the dark humor in the observation. It is a moment we don't think of until we experience it ourselves or see it unfold in this fashion. We understand what is being reached for, but the remainder of the film fails to live up to these small, simple hopes I held after this gem of a moment.

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Review

In the late summer of 2006 a friend and I went unsuspecting into our local dollar theater to see a few movies we'd missed earlier that year. One we had no idea of what we were getting into, but were interested in due to the fact it featured Elizabeth Banks in a starring role was Slither. It was one of those experiences you walk away from as a nineteen year-old kid and wonder what the hell you just watched. At that age everything needs to fit squarely into a category, it has to have some semblance of order for you to think it is acceptable in the adult world and this was an R-rated horror film so that was what we expected, or at least that is what had been advertised. What Slither actually turned out to be was a literal gross-out comedy that played on the several homages it contained to horror films of days past and was more in the vein of Evil Dead than anything else. I say all of this not only to reference my introduction to the work of director James Gunn, but more to put into context the kind of non-expectations I'd set for Guardians of the Galaxy. I didn't want to know what to expect, I didn't want to understand the universe and I certainly didn't want to have any preconceptions about who these characters were given their ridiculous appearance. I'd walked into Gunn's strikingly strange Slither with zero expectation and walked out fully appreciating it for its wackiness and ability to transcend genres while clearly doing whatever it wanted. I hoped for the same thing from Guardians despite the fact Gunn had submitted himself to the powers that be at Marvel. I don't look at Marvel as this monster who assumes creative control and only hires directors willing to do their bidding because it is clear they have a plan for where they want all of this to go and they are looking for those willing to work with them on that ultimate goal, which anyone should be able to appreciate. What I do worry about with each Marvel film is the lack of any original voice coming through in conveying these necessary stories. The stories can be cohesive without the tone or style being the same and while the earth-bound Avengers began to feel more serialized in phase two, Guardians is able to break that mold not only by taking place in the cosmos but by brimming with creativity in every scene of its execution.

First Trailer for GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

In what has become increasingly more interesting and all the more mysterious as time has passed, Guardians of the Galaxy stands to either be a massive hit and a step in a new (likely right) direction for Marvel studios or a tragic misfire that may only give caution for the studio to regress back towards more mainstream heroes. As Marvel is a studio that likes to make plans well enough ahead of time though, I doubt they'd be putting as many eggs in the GotG basket if they didn't have a good amount of trust in it. Personally, I am really excited to see both what director James Gunn (Slither, Super) does with a big budget action flick and how comic book movies may change with this release. While Marvel has ventured into the cosmos before with Thor, this will be the first time we have a film taking place completely outside of our own planet with a scale all its own. The sequels as of late have felt more like additions to a long-running mini-series than feature films and have given us beats where we know what to ultimately to expect each time out. What is exciting about GotG is the opportunity it has to re-define the super hero film and turn an unexpected corner. I have never been a big comic book reader, but have always enjoyed films adapted from them and while I've never read a GotG story (I hadn't even heard of them until the film was announced) I am very much looking forward to what this swashbuckling team of space explorers bring to the table. As for the trailer itself, Gunn has assembled an all-star cast that look to be in fine form and while the visuals are stunning I was interested to see how they would pull off making a gun-toting, talking raccoon legit: so far, all looks well. Guardians of the Galaxy stars Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Lee Pace, Karen Gillan, John C. Reilly, Glenn Close, Michael Rooker, Djimon Hounsou, Peter Serafinowicz, Benicio Del Toro with the voices of Vin Diesel and Bradley Cooper and an opening date of August 1st.

WRECK-IT RALPH Review

Look at Disney animation upping their game and pulling out all the guns for a full on challenge with their subsidiary Pixar. Whereas the former flourished in hand-drawn animation for years and years (obviously) they haven't had as much luck with their transfer to full on computer animation. Though many would like to think projects such as Chicken Little, The Wild, or Meet the Robinsons (though I've heard good things about this one, but never seen it) are properties of Pixar as well, the fact is they are as much a Pixar production as Cinderella or The Fox and the Hound, they aren't. Lately though, beginning with Bolt and continuing on to Tangled, the Disney animation studio has shown they have a good amount of juice left in the tank. It all comes down to that concept, what hooks people? What is relevant and cool? What is an idea that, as a kid, you would have loved to think could really be true? Like Toy Story, Wreck-It-Ralph is about what happens after the kids are done playing (though to its credit it doesn't play up this angle) and the characters in these games have to go on with their lives. It is a great idea to play around with and where much of the charm comes from within the actual storytelling is in all the referencing and characterization of some recognizable folks that most of the audience will have played as one time or another in the past thirty years. As you can tell from the trailer the standard uplifting tale will be at the core of the story and the formulaic arc is nothing to be shocked at or hold against the film for that matter because the makers have surrounded it with such a great world and great characters to play in it. As I get older I find it increasingly hard to sit through animated films without them beginning to feel redundant, but you know it's a good one when you truly feel like a kid again.

CARNAGE Review

As far as ensemble pieces go it always seems tougher than expected to keep the wide range of characters in close relation to one another. I always found this funny because people seem to respond to these big ensemble casts especially when each role is filled with someone really famous. The thrill being to see all these famous people work side by side but rarely does that ever turn out to be the case. While the ensemble is cut to four players here each role is filled by an actor or actress that could bring more characterization and heart to a role than the entire roster of "New Year's Eve" (No, I haven't seen it but I feel confident in saying that). The cast of "Carnage" may not all be considered super famous but they are certainly nothing short of credible and with Roman Polanski at the helm what we have here is a delicious dissection of society that exposes the types of people we have become and the types of people we have to deal with. What starts out as a polite discussion that is itself an attempt to resolve an issue maturely between two sets of parents, one played by Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz with the other by Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly, the conversation quickly shifts from the main objective and the way it is handled to each couple analyzing one another and what each statement they make means and soon enough it turns into married couples doing the same thing to one another and eventually a battle of the sexes.

The Longsteets (left) and teh Cowans (right) decide how to
best describe their predicament on paper.

The initial meeting is set up by The Longstreets (Reilly and Foster) who are immediately recognized as the more progressive parents. Foster perfecting her way of making everything she says sound academic and more important and groundbreaking than anything you could even think. Reilly on the other hand feels slightly miscast for the first half of the film before exploding into blurts of logic that satisfy his own outlook on life. Foster and Reilly are mismatched from the get go and though it may be jarring for a bit it only seems to make more sense as the story moves along. In many ways what Polanski has done is to take the roles he was given seeing as the film is based on Yasmina Reza's Broadway hit "God of Carnage", and filled them with actors who we already have pre-conceived notions of from their previous work. He uses these reputations in force once the conflict of the movie moves from the two couples children to the couples themselves. Having Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz handle the Cowans, a more type A couple with a more traditional outlook on parenting. In saying traditional I mean that since their child hurt the Longstreets on a playground and though they find it a bit strange to be invited over to try and pacify the situation they take it as a sign of promise and hopes that this will blow over with no real harm done. The Longstreets are the kind of people though that outwardly try to look as if nothing is wrong when behind closed doors they seem to have the most turmoil. In that case the Longstreets prove to be the more interesting and dynamic of the pairs while Winslet seems to be constantly searching for a particular characteristic to make her character stand out and Waltz just steals the whole show with an effortless air of snark throughout the entire process.

Alan (Christoph Waltz) ad Nancy (Kate Winslet) become
somewhat disgusted by the Longsteets.

When the film opened with the Cowans leaving the comfortable and classy Brooklyn apartment of the Longstreets I had to wonder how they would continue to have the self-conscious, society mocking conversations for another hour and and fifteen minutes. Clearly this type of set up works on a Broadway stage and can play out quite simply with the level of sharp written dialogue we have here, but this no doubt presented a filmmaker with some issues. In order to keep the audience engaged in four people sitting around talking without that extra dimension of seeing it live, Polanski focuses more on the individual ticks of each individual. The one thin film can offer that stage can't is to show the little things. That is where the film really succeeds. Sure, the dialogue is great and the observations are all golden and ring true as we think of people we know like that when a certain description or trait is tossed out, but it is when the camera stays focused on a face (mainly Foster's) that we see past the witty outer layer and into the person that is really in this situation. We acknowledge why they are here and what brought them to this point where they are ready to abandon all civility and discover who they really are, or really want to be, as a human being. The fact that all of the action in "Carnage" is confined to one location and as we watch these four very different people duke it out with verbal insights and insults makes the whole experience feel even more personal and claustrophobic.

Penelope (Jodie Foster) and Michael (John C. Reilly)
begin to reconsider inviting their guests over.

In the end what we realize is how pointless it all seems to be. "Carnage" is an actors film that groups four talented people with a veteran director who knows the ropes. I have never been a huge Polanski follower and know that as a fan of cinema I should have, by now, seen "Chinatown". I will get around to it, but from what I have seen it is evident that he is just as interested in how his characters tell the story as he is in how he tells it. It almost seems that he is inspired by the actors and how they choose to portray a character that sets a tone and a style for his films. His muse here clearly seems to be Foster as she is the one who anchors this entire predicament, it is her Penelope through which we strive for a goal and though Polanski could have just as easily set his film up by watching another actor play that role on stage he took Foster's whole demeanor and slowly introduces us to the rest of the people around her giving us her impression of them. What this does is set up what we take away from the film, it exposes that theme in a very subtle but inescapable way. The idea of how there will always be a different way to see things and that some other person might gain something from which you took nothing. There is no purpose in fighting because no matter how convincing the argument we each have our own interpretation. Polanski paints his point with parental differences but the theories go much further.

CARNAGE Review

As far as ensemble pieces go it always seems tougher than expected to keep the wide range of characters in close relation to one another. I always found this funny because people seem to respond to these big ensemble casts especially when each role is filled with someone really famous. The thrill being to see all these famous people work side by side but rarely does that ever turn out to be the case. While the ensemble is cut to four players here each role is filled by an actor or actress that could bring more characterization and heart to a role than the entire roster of "New Year's Eve" (No, I haven't seen it but I feel confident in saying that). The cast of "Carnage" may not all be considered super famous but they are certainly nothing short of credible and with Roman Polanski at the helm what we have here is a delicious dissection of society that exposes the types of people we have become and the types of people we have to deal with. What starts out as a polite discussion that is itself an attempt to resolve an issue maturely between two sets of parents, one played by Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz with the other by Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly, the conversation quickly shifts from the main objective and the way it is handled to each couple analyzing one another and what each statement they make means and soon enough it turns into married couples doing the same thing to one another and eventually a battle of the sexes.

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN Review

"We Need to Talk About Kevin" is a weird flick. You should be ready, something I wasn't, before watching the film. It appears rather normal in the trailers. A nice, credible cast taking on a genre that doesn't get a whole lot of serious thought. Besides all the festival fodder attached to it I actually expected more of an Omen/Damien kinda feeling in that this kid was evil and we were going to see the results of that. Funny thing about "Kevin" though is he actually doesn't develop much in front of our eyes. No, what we see is his evolution through the eyes of his mother Eva and how from birth there is simply something unsettling about the kid. I have never been a huge fan of Tilda Swinton, I guess I just didn't get it; especially a few years ago when she blew onto the scene and had a part in every awards contender on the block. Since, I haven't heard as much from her but she lives up to the acclaim with this performance. The whole film hinges on what we think of Eva. From the outside she could be viewed as the parent who did all the wrong things, but as we get to experience first hand the pain she endured and will endure for a lifetime we know she is nothing more than a woman that constantly wonders, "why?" In the nearly two hour run time Swinton hardly speaks. It is almost jolting when we do in fact hear her voice but it is also an affect director Lynne Ramsey doesn't take for granted in the script. Instead she uses the combination of Swinton's performance and the slow burning revelation of what exactly Kevin did to entice us by making us want to look away, while knowing it is impossible to do so. Focusing her camera on Swinton's face and guiding us effortlessly through different time frames, Ramsey has concocted a truly terrifying psychological drama that only suffers because for all its great performances and genre bending style, at the end of the film we still don't have an idea of who Kevin is to really continue talking about him.

Eva (Tilda Swinton) and Franklin (John C. Reilly) wait
at the hospital for news of their daughter.

I have not read the 2003 novel from which this film is based, but after watching the film I can imagine it to be an insightful piece of horror. I wonder whether or not the structure of the book is similar to that of the film because for me, that is the definitive characteristic of this movie. The way in which Ramsey is able to manipulate her audience through different points in Eva's life is flawless and though the default signal is Swinton's hair length, we don't even have to notice that because it is clearly painted all over Eva's face at where she is at in her life. In what could be called flashbacks I guess, it would seem more fitting to refer to them as memories in this case (that's just how the movie makes you feel) we see Eva meet Franklin (a suppressed John C. Reilly) as they form a relationship and create a child. It is with their first born child, the creepily demonic yet calm Kevin, that we begin to understand what we have seen previously in more present versions of Eva. The film covers over fifteen years of Eva's life as she deals with her son and his at times pure hatred towards her. It is both irritating and scarily engaging to watch as Kevin begins as a baby who never stops crying around his mother. We see him grow to what looks like a three or four-year old child who doesn't speak and won't respond to the activities his mother tries to interest him in. It is here we begin to catch glimpses of a more mature Kevin, as a high-schooler played with no obvious issues but an immediate creepiness by Ezra Miller. As said in the beginning though, we are never as closely linked with the character in the title as we are with his mother. The film is a study of a mother and how she deals with her grief and the feelings of responsibility for what her son did. It is a movie that for most, might be hard to watch, but is certainly worth your time and attention.

A family dinner doesn't happen to often. And as usual
Kevin (Ezra Miller, center) does something to ruin it. 

The biggest theme the movie explores, and what I'm sure the basis of the book was, is the oldest debate in psychology: nature vs. nurture. What the film doesn't do is define what side it is taking; though the obvious choice would seem to be that of at least certain traits being inborn. The idea that certain things simply occur naturally regardless of environmental influences. "We Need to Talk About Kevin" certainly doesn't go along with the ideas that we are born as a blank slate and everything that we are, everything we become is determined by our experiences. No, what is in Kevin is an innate evil. Still while I personally think there are aspects of everyones life that are of course influenced by our surroundings I also think that we do have traits that are what you might call genetically predisposed. The movie offers an exploration into this issue by giving us that protagonist's view of Eva. She is a caring, sweet mother. We see that when there is a glimmer of hope in Kevin and in the way she loves and cares for her daughter Celia. Through this perspective we see no reason as to why Kevin turns out the way he does or even why he thinks in the terms he does. He is a completely different person around his father than he is his mother. If anything that proves an intent. We immediately are given the impression Kevin is a smart child, that there is something different though he appears normal in the most average sense of that word. That he does these things with an instinct to hurt others and that we never see him playing a video game or listening to metal supports the idea Kevin was genetically determined to turn out the way he did. What we do see is very little in the way of his father getting him a bow and arrow when he is a young child. To anyone else it would be a toy, a fun hobby, to Kevin it is the answer to all the desires he needed to accomplish.

Eva and Kevin's relationship has always been a bit strained.

I can understand Ramsey's reasons for not letting us more into the head of Kevin as she was most likely staying as true to the novel as possible, but even in that sense I think at least some chapters might have been more engaging, more eye-opening had we seen the grief, the memories, the reasoning of what is happening through Kevin's own mind. If we could read or visually see his thoughts it would have lent the film a deeper resonance with what happens in the conclusion. Instead we have a film that leaves us as clueless about "why?" as it does our main character. It is the last question, the last piece of dialogue Eva mutters in the film and it is what we have been waiting for the entire movie. What Kevin reveals is nothing short of a let down and thus gives me my only real complaint about the experience. There were certainly slow parts throughout where the change from Eva's memories to those of Kevin's would have benefited the pacing, but again, I understand where Ramsey is coming from and why she chose to stick with her one point of view. It is still a haunting one, and naturally a more painful interpretation of the events whereas Kevin's would no doubt have been more blunt and heartless. The film overall is generally effective but it is Swinton's performance that catapults it above to something of a higher level. A movie that is not just a piece of entertainment, but a study of a role that more people play than any other in the world. It is completely relatable, completely possible and in that is the most terrifying truth the film brings to the surface.

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN Review

"We Need to Talk About Kevin" is a weird flick. You should be ready, something I wasn't, before watching the film. It appears rather normal in the trailers. A nice, credible cast taking on a genre that doesn't get a whole lot of serious thought. Besides all the festival fodder attached to it I actually expected more of an Omen/Damien kinda feeling in that this kid was evil and we were going to see the results of that. Funny thing about "Kevin" though is he actually doesn't develop much in front of our eyes. No, what we see is his evolution through the eyes of his mother Eva and how from birth there is simply something unsettling about the kid. I have never been a huge fan of Tilda Swinton, I guess I just didn't get it; especially a few years ago when she blew onto the scene and had a part in every awards contender on the block. Since, I haven't heard as much from her but she lives up to the acclaim with this performance. The whole film hinges on what we think of Eva. From the outside she could be viewed as the parent who did all the wrong things, but as we get to experience first hand the pain she endured and will endure for a lifetime we know she is nothing more than a woman that constantly wonders, "why?" In the nearly two hour run time Swinton hardly speaks. It is almost jolting when we do in fact hear her voice but it is also an affect director Lynne Ramsey doesn't take for granted in the script. Instead she uses the combination of Swinton's performance and the slow burning revelation of what exactly Kevin did to entice us by making us want to look away, while knowing it is impossible to do so. Focusing her camera on Swinton's face and guiding us effortlessly through different time frames, Ramsey has concocted a truly terrifying psychological drama that only suffers because for all its great performances and genre bending style, at the end of the film we still don't have an idea of who Kevin is to really continue talking about him.