THE FLASH Review

The dominance of the comic book movie over the last twenty-something odd years has admittedly brought me plenty of joy and moments of pure cinematic euphoria, but as we reach what is at least our sixth multiverse film in the last five years (and the second in the last three weeks) I think I've reached the acceptance phase of letting go. Letting go not necessarily because I want to, but because it has become more and more apparent that it is time. While it would feel easy to be angry, depressed, or even regretful about the direction of the genre and what super hero films have collectively become over the past few years it would seem simpler (and easier) to just accept that The Flash is a prime example of why these types of films have begun to feel like they're eating themselves and thus, as much as I hate to say it, why it's time to take a break. 

Letting go, not just of the possibilities that have both been fulfilled and lost, but of the individuals who pioneered these characters as flesh and blood. Listen, I get it, letting go is hard because it means freeing one's self from aspects of their past, things that have become such a big part of a person's life they may even define part of their personality and it's understandable why, rather than moving forward, one might want to remain in this state of familiarity - there's a comfortability in it - but director Andy Muschietti's The Flash is a watershed moment in the super hero genre not because it breaks new ground or re-energizes the kind of escapism these movies can provide, but because it brought upon the realization there is a difference in being comfortable and being resistant and that one can only resist change for so long before what was once a source of comfort becomes discomfort as the seeds of doubt and truth that what once was no longer is begin to grow and further, that a person can only tolerate discomfort for so long before admitting that change is necessary.

TULLY Review

There is a point in the first ten to fifteen minutes of Jason Reitman’s Tully where it’s fair to think this is going to be “one of those movies”. One of those movies that chronicles the small, but sometimes enormously stressful lives of middle-class suburbanites that have become increasingly difficult to feel sorry for in the climate of a world gone off the rails. Everyone has their issues, their problems, their struggles, and they come to be dealt with just as uniquely or just as commonly as the problems themselves might be, but there is no point in asking an audience, who is paying hard-earned money to be entertained, to feel sorry for someone who is going through some of the same experiences they've likely had. This is the key, the turning point really, for Tully in that the movie never asks the viewer to feel sorry for its protagonist and it never asks for forgiveness for her actions either. In fact, the titular character that comes to be embodied by Mackenzie Davis and who is described as a "night nanny", never passes a single judgement on Charlize Theron's Marlo thus encouraging the viewers to do the same; or to at least hold that judgement until we are delivered the entirety of the picture. And so, in many ways Tully simply asks the viewer to either sympathize or empathize with its characters plight, knowing that said viewers might be able to relate, rather than necessarily making a stand about opening up a hidden world beyond the greeting card society we all like to pretend we exist within. The film, written by Diablo Cody (Juno, Young Adult), is best when it gets specific and Cody is known for excelling at this. There are multiple moments of unfiltered truth that capture the essence of what it feels like to be a parent to a newborn that, given how tired and how on auto-pilot new parents are, it’s a mystery how Cody had the forethought to write examples of as much down or even find the humor in certain situations, but she does and it is in these small truths, these everyday instances and challenges where the movie consistently keeps it real and yet moves on as we all have to do that the viewer is able to appreciate what Tully is doing, what it is saying, and what it becomes rather than dismissing it as another in a line of narratives that purport to pull back the curtain on the middle.             

THE END OF THE TOUR Review

In the first frame of The End of the Tour, the new film from director James Ponsoldt (The Spectacular Now), we glimpse Jesse Eisenberg's David Lipsky sitting on a couch with his laptop and his dog. It is a simple setting, one we don't think much of upon initially seeing. In fact, if you know anything about the film prior to seeing it you know Eisenberg's character is a writer and therefore this setting is somewhat expected. As we better acquaint ourselves with David Lipsky over the next hour and forty-five minutes though, we learn more about him, about his time with author David Foster Wallace (played here by Jason Segel) and that first frame becomes all the more telling. The End of the Tour is, on the surface, a road movie about one writer doing a profile on another writer, but more than that it is a film of conversation and constant introspection. It's almost exhausting to constantly think in the way our two main characters presented here do, throwing out ideas and immediately reassessing those ideas or deep-diving further to find the root of where such ideas come from. The talking. It can be a bit much, it can feel overbearing even, but it ultimately captures so much of the soul that it can't help but feel soothing at the same time. It's strange, to be sure, but it makes perfect sense, especially when it's so elegantly and perfectly phrased in Wallace speak. Wallace speaks a lot in this film iteration of Lipsky's book, Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself, that was published two years after Wallace committed suicide. While much of the dialogue feels like a culmination of Wallace's philosophy or his verbal dissertation on the complex and mundane aspects of life and how they're one in the same it somehow manages to also be a genuine portrait of a conflicted mind. It should be noted up front that Wallace's trust has come out against Tour outright, but regardless of what is accurate and what is not (this is a movie, after all) The End of the Tour is still an insightful portrait not only of the male mind, but of the messiness of life and all the bullshit one has to sift through in order to even catch a glimpse of something real.

VACATION Review

It was something of a surprise this new sequel in the Vacation series that also intends to serve as something of a reboot or re-make, but isn't really, included the line from the trailer about how this Vacation will indeed stand on it's own. It seemed a piece of dialogue specifically designed for the marketing campaign so as to let audiences know the movie itself was aware of what it represented and the pressures it might face in convincing audiences it was worthy of the challenge. This line, when given in the trailer, almost made the film more endearing (hey, it knows it has a lot of work to do), but the fact they included it in the final product gave an entirely different impression-one of desperation even. Maybe desperation is the wrong word, maybe a lack of confidence is a better way to put it. The statement itself wants to impose a sense of confidence though, a bold statement of this particular film being it's own thing and being successful on it's own terms whether there was an original or not. Of course, if this were a world where the original Vacation didn't exist we would have (a slightly altered) We're the Millers and that would be it. Instead, as brand recognition and nostalgia are at an all time high thanks to social media and our heightened sense of self-awareness it would be wrong to not try and capitalize on every big brand of generations past. And thus, we have what is essentially a remake (but it's a sequel!) of/to the original film where Stu from the Hangover movies plays a grown-up Rusty with call backs aplenty just in case you didn't get that this was in the same timeline as the 1983 film, but that it's still supposed to stand on it's own. These call-backs are of course intended to make audiences familiar with the 1983 version recognize the correlation and laugh while those who aren't will hopefully just laugh because...the comedy is timeless? All of these particulars don't really matter though as this is little more than a ninety-minute comedy intended to make audiences chuckle. When taken on such simple terms, it does it's job well enough. My qualm is why couldn't we do something with these actors/directors/writers that maybe didn't rely on tapping into nostalgia? If we keep re-making and re-visiting old properties what are future generations going to reboot or re-make? Or even worse, be able to call their own?

PARKLAND Home Video Review

There has always been an intense amount of interest around the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and with good reason. It was a horrific event in which the President was murdered in front of countless people with any number of possible suspects, there was a race to get Kennedy to the hospital, the immediate man hunt for the suspected shooter and countless other avenues were followed that fateful November day. What writer and director Peter Landesman has attempted to do, in his directorial debut no less, is condense these events into a feature that runs a mere hour and a half long (including notes at the end and the credit sequence). There is not nearly enough time here to develop the several intriguing stories the film documents, much less get to know the the actual emotions felt by the people placed under these extraordinary situations. Parkland would be a film that justifies a run time of at least three hours, but it seems Landesman is keen on hitting the high points of these events and highlighting little more than small moments of that day in brief, almost news clip-like segments that intertwine to piece together November 22, 1963 and the subsequent days following as both the President and his suspected killer were laid to rest. I am a sucker for historically-based films and have read plenty on the JFK assassination, the investigations around this event and the countless conspiracy theories that continue to plague it nearly fifty years after it occurred. I also know better than to get my history lessons from the movies and so I approached this film with a sense of both optimism and caution as it seemed both ambitious while at the same time a balancing act of moments pulled straight out of the history books with little more intention that bringing to life how this death affected unsuspecting, regular citizens while adding nothing more to the story and having no particular point of view it was going to approach the subject matter with. Unfortunately, while the actual events of that day remain engaging as ever Parkland is only able to take us so far because it only gives its content so much attention before moving on and taking the audience, no matter if we have lingering questions or deeper interests, with it. I can admire the film for what it is trying to do and the dots its trying to connect, but ultimately this is more a failed experiment than anything else with an execution that doesn't come close to what it promised.

THE CONJURING Review

There is a difference between a film that meets the rules of its genre and one that is able to transcend them. What director James Wan (Saw, Insidious) does in The Conjuring is not to approach the film as if it were a horror film, but more a serious drama about a family in crisis. That he doesn't necessarily forget, but in a way uses the archetypes that make up the average horror movie in smaller ways, at least for the first act of the film, to imply what may or may not happen later. In setting up the expository information Wan is all the while creating his mood, but he is also giving us the tools to develop relationships with these people. He isn't simply going about setting up scares here and there that ultimately add up to nothing, but he is luring us in and making it unavoidable that we become invested in these characters that will ultimately undergo a life altering experience in the latter part of the film. What The Conjuring also does is to not look at itself as some kind of joke or take its material too lightly. It firmly believes everything it has to offer and doesn't intend to be anything but sincere about the subject matter. If it were to take on a nature of laughing at the Perron family or a sense of doubt in the main cast that is firmly planted in the conflict from the beginning it would lose all credibility immediately. A deal where if they don't take it seriously, why should we? The film does take itself seriously though and that is meant in the best of ways as it consistently keeps the tone and intensity any good scary movie needs to help convince the audience that what is going on on screen is as real and threatening as the mysterious sounds they might hear in the middle of the night and dismiss as nothing more than the wind knocking something against the window. It is all about atmosphere and mystery with today's horror audiences as most have grown accustomed to what kind of scares most horror films will throw at you. Wan uses those same kind of scares, but he executes them in a manner that is much more effective, much more chilling, and on the most important of levels, much more emotional.

First Trailer for THE CONJURING

I didn't see Dark Skies this past weekend, but I noticed it was heavily promoted as being from the producers of Insidious and Paranormal Activity. It is funny they mention these two as the last one I remember heavily touted as being from the producers of Paranormal and Saw was the wonderfully creepy Insidious. Director James Wan who crafted the original Saw film and 2011's best horror film, Insidious, has now returned to the genre with The Conjuring. Wan is a director I feel I can put a good degree of trust in when it comes to making a genuinely scary movie and if the trailer for The Conjuring is any indication it seems there is still no reason to doubt this. Based on the story of the Perron family who supposedly inhabited a haunted house in the 1970's Wan seems to have done what Ben Affleck did with Argo and is evoking the time period the film is set in by crafting the film in a way 70's horror was made and marketed. It is an interesting idea and though I don't know much more about the Perron case other than what has been provided in the synopsis I am anxious to find out more when the film hits theaters this summer. Apparently, the movie was originally scheduled to open this past January but after extremely positive responses from several test screenings Warner Bros. decided they might have a real hit on their hands and have placed the film up against Ryan Reynolds in both R.I.P.D and Turbo on July 19. The film stars Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston as the Perrons, Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson as psychic investigators and a supporting cast of Joey King, Mackenzie Foy, and Shanley Caswell. Hit the jump to check out the first trailer.