THE FATHER Review

What do you do with the people you love when they no longer know who they are? Writer/director Florian Zeller's film adaptation of his 2012 stage production, The Father, attempts to find solace in the answers to this question. What's so striking about this feature directorial debut though is not how assured it seems (which it absolutely does), but more how well-balanced and complete it is despite the narrative and its origins suggesting a rather small, narrow window through which the material might view the world. The confined setting certainly gives way to the roots of the piece, but there is also something distinctly cinematic to the film as if Zeller was intent to not simply exercise his skills as a first time filmmaker, but justify why this piece of writing was worth being adapted to the screen (one possible reason for this being this is actually the second time Zeller's work has been adapted after the 2015 French film, Florida). This is almost laughable though, as the structure and quality of writing alone make Zeller's work more than worthy of being told time and time again. That said, it's not simply the insight garnered through the elegant prose, but more it's how Zeller is able to both take the viewer inside the mind of an individual experiencing the aggressive progressions of dementia as well as simultaneously lend awareness and understanding to the roles closely associated with this disease and how those who must go through this experience with a loved one are equally impacted by it. 

Needless to say, Zeller is a master storyteller and in his directorial debut (I keep repeating it because I can't believe it) he carefully - and probably meticulously, as re-watches will undoubtedly assure - creates this ever-shifting and insular world in which Anthony Hopkins' Anthony is trapped. The awareness of every facet of his film is what creates this environment for which we, the audience, immediately buy into completely. Zeller has purposefully paired his protagonist with this somewhat stuffy yet still pristine London flat where the green of trees can be seen through the window, children can be heard running along the sidewalks outside, and classical compositions largely dominate the sound waves within the apartment. It's a context that feels familiar and thus the reality of it is without question, but as the severity of Anthony's diagnosis becomes more apparent it's clear Zeller is not simply conducting this film as a shared experience for the characters and the audience, but as a piece of art in which the audience willingly plays an active part; we're participating. As eye-rolling as that may sound, it becomes true the further one follows The Father down its path as the fundamental choices of the film not only invest the viewer in these people, but put us inside their heads and help us understand the fear and the confusion - among other things - constantly enveloping them. 

GODS OF EGYPT Review

Gods of Egypt is one of those movies that is so bad that even the inherent campiness of it can't make things the slightest bit fun. At the very least, given the extravagance of the visuals and the outlandish reaches director Alex Proyas (I, Robot, Dark City) goes for here I expected the film to be a good ole' slice of pure entertainment value for the sake of nothing else, but even under these minimal expectations Gods of Egypt fails to be anything but conventional; which is saying a lot for a film that has gigantic flying beetles and Egyptian God transformers dismantling one another. There is seemingly no point to the construction of this universe as far as financial reward goes and the idea of whitewashing these ancient mythological idols is the least of the films problems. Sure, we have Gerard Butler, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, and Geoffrey Rush all doing variations on their European accents, but none are as distracting as the fully CGI backdrops that look as if they were "completed" in a rush two days before the film's release. Beyond all of the obvious complaints there are to make about this movie though, there was certainly some ambition behind the attempt as well. Unfortunately, these strides end up counting for very little. Still, there are risks taken in the way the Gods are portrayed as being larger and more looming than the mortals who worship them, there is an effort to take the historical context of the film and blend in elements of weird science fiction and fantasy, and the actual world building of this strange universe can be immersive, but more times than not these attempts fail to be what they should be and that is to be cool and appealing. Instead, the ugliness of the shiny yet granular images and the fight scenes that look as if they were ripped from a video game circa 2001 reek of a director out of touch and a storyteller too far removed from these adjectives that everything going on here feels as if it's trying too hard to please too broad an audience. Proyas has always been one to try something outside the box or at least be up for going after the unexpected, but with Gods of Egypt there is no amount of CGI that could cover up the scars it leaves.

Full Trailer for GODS OF EGYPT

While I was never excited for Alex Proyas' big popcorn flick that would take Geroge Lucas' approach to the Star Wars prequels and extend them to ancient Egypt, I didn't think it would look as bad as this trailer indicates. I've always enjoyed Proyas' films, no matter how goofy they've seemed to get over the years. Granted, I was too young to really appreciate either The Crow or Dark City on my first, but culturally late viewings and was more a fan of Will Smith than anything else which gave I. Robot a pass (I need to re-visit that flick). It was in 2009 with Knowing that I could see the potential for what Proyas was going for, but the casting of Nicolas Cage in the lead role seemed to stunt it's potential and need to be taken seriously. Almost seven years after the release of that film though, Proyas has returned to the big screen with an epic Hollywood production that will certainly encounter (if it's not already) many of the same issues that faced Ridley Scott's Exodus film in that he's cast mostly white actors in a film set in Africa. Whatever that might bring, the biggest fight the film will have to face is that of being an original blockbuster with no brand recognition or previous films to lend it any hype. The star power is minimal (unless you were really aching to see some form of Gerard Butler's Leonidas again), but the visuals seem to be the main selling point. I can't pretend I was impressed by the trailer as it looks like more of a video game than that Warcraft trailer, but also like that film the director intrigues me and so I'll stay tuned in to see how things turn out. Gods of Egypt stars Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Chadwick Boseman, Gerard Butler, Elodie Yung, Brenton Thwaites, Courtney Eaton, Abbey Lee, Rufus Sewell, Geoffrey Rush and opens on February 26, 2016.

HERCULES Review

Twelve years ago the Rock "arrived" with The Scorpion King in full swords and sandals glory. In the summer of 2014 he has returned to that well-worn genre that has lost much of the interest that Gladiator garnered for it in 2000. If anyone could bring films based in this type of world or adaptations of the stories in Greek mythology back into the casual movie-goers field of vision it would surely be the reigning king of action flicks, right? Over the past three years Dwayne Johnson has re-vitalized the Fast & Furious and G.I. Joe franchises while bringing new life to the Journey To... movies. In many ways, Hercules, was the test of just what Johnson could attract and handle on his own with only the significance of brand recognition assisting him. Sure, he's had flicks like Snitch and Faster that cast him as the sole marquee star, but this was an all-out Summer B-movie with a big budget, sprawling scope and, as the trailers would have you believe, large amounts of CGI fantasy. While I am happy to report that Hercules is both varied in scope and is quite expansive while offering genuine thrills it isn't the CGI-heavy bonanza of easy-outs that the trailers advertised and made me cautious in getting too excited for the film. About twenty minutes into the movie I began wondering whether the film would add up to anything more than escapism or if there might be something here, something deeper they were going for. I say the previous sentence not in the line of thought that I think everything necessarily has to be about something, but more in a curious fashion as to if director Brett Ratner would aspire to something more than what was expected. It was with something akin to a sigh of relief that when the credits began to role on this latest incarnation of the Greek demi-God that I felt wholly satisfied. Maybe expectations play a certain role in that, maybe this movie won't hold up after multiple viewings, maybe Johnson needs to stick to strong supporting roles that don't require so much heavy lifting and maybe Ratner shouldn't get the opportunity to do anything outside this wheelhouse again, but for what it is intended to be Hercules is good, if not forgettable, fun.

First Trailer for HERCULES

I've never been one to join in on the hate-train that seems to follow director Brett Ratner around every turn he takes with each film (I liked Tower Heist well enough and X3 was never as bad as people claimed). That said, I expected a certain something from his Hercules epic starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as the titular Greek God. The stills Johnson released via his twitter and other social media outlets throughout production are not justified by this first trailer as it looks much more in the vein of something like The Scorpion King than the Chris Nolan version of mythology (which is kind of what I anticipated). The over-abundance of CGI is never a good sign and it looks especially in bad judgement here given that every other shot is Hercules facing another computer generated monster while voiceover builds up to what may as well be just another reason for people to make fun of and doubt the credibility of this movie as a good or even fun product. I'd like to believe Ratner has done something interesting given the source material he is drawing from, but as far as first impressions go, this is not a promising one. All of that being said, The Rock has proved himself a valuable commodity over the past few years being able to breathe new life into dwindling franchises (Fast & Furious, Journey to..., GI Joe) and starring in interesting flicks like Pain & Gain, Snitch and Faster none of which ever seemed to get the credit they were due for what they represented, but all of which I enjoyed more than I probably should have. The point being he could very well bring something unexpected to this new telling of a story we've all heard, read and seen before so I go forward with a sense of cautious optimism, though I won't be surprised if I'm let down. Hercules also stars John Hurt, Ian McShane, Joseph Fiennes, Peter Mullan, Rufus Sewell, Robert Maillet, Irina Shayk and opens in 3D on July 25th.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER Review

The expectations I was holding for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter were likely way too high. I wanted so bad for it to defy all those dismissing it and doubting it as nothing more than a piece of camp without an ounce of intelligence. That is not what the book was, it followed the historical facts down to every detail and was smart enough to justify its ridiculous premise through twists of truth on those real, historical occurrences. The movie on the other hand plays fast and loose with these facts and makes so many amends to its source material it can hardly even be called an adaptation. This might as well have been a slapdash effort thrown together by Robert Rodriguez and pushed off on an amateur director allowing them to get their toes wet on a studio production. Its obvious the studio behind Vampire Hunter doesn't hardly believe in it though and despite a few inspired sequences of intense action the movie ends up feeling more like its villains than the complex icon it has positioned as its protagonist. The film is cold and heartless with hardly an ounce of real human emotion being divulged from the actions taking place on screen. Despite the whole motivation for Linclon's hatred of vampires being the death of his mother you would be hard pressed to find an ounce of real conviction or substance in the character that stage actor Benjamin Walker has brought to the screen. I knew not to expect a carbon copy of what happened in the book, I expected things to be changed and condensed but I did not expect to see something less than a cliff notes version of Seth Grahame-Smith's interesting and much more entertaining novel.

Benjamin Walker portrays our 16th President over a
span of 45 years in the film.

Granted, the whole point of this novel, of its premise was to see our 16th President as an action hero. Still, I didn't think the man who crafted such a brilliantly twisted piece of contradictions that ended up melding so nicely would turn his clearly well researched novel into a standard action flick of a film. That is more or less what we have here though with the twist that Lincoln is in the hot seat to carry out the revenge tale. What is so disappointing about the film is that they don't seem to take advantage of this. Lincoln was clearly a complex individual with a lot of struggles through his life. He really did lose his mother at a young age and it was a devastating loss, he and Mary Todd had four children only one of which survived to adulthood and he is the President who went against the wishes of his cabinet, his people even for the betterment of the country.  This belief in what he knew was right served him well in getting re-elected for that second term and this telling of his story uses his presidency well to justify the cause of such a man in such a position. In the novel he becomes allies early on with a vampire named Henry Sturges played here by Dominic Cooper, one of the few bright spots in the film. Sturges guides a young Lincoln on his monster hunting sprees as Abraham tries to quench his thirst of revenge on the things that took his mother. He also puts him in office so that he can do away with the main source of food vampires thrive on: slaves. It all works very nicely but for some reason Grahame-Smith thought it better that the movie version needed to show Lincoln and Henry at odds with one another while Abraham obtains the coveted title through his own free will. Not only does it make less sense, give the whole point of the premise less credibility but the film fails to even acknowledge key points in his life like that of him winning the election or the birth of his child. They throw in the Gettysburg address and focus on the love story between he and Mary Todd though which I guess is supposed to make up for everything else.

Adam (Rufus Sewell) is a bad vampire who means to
stop Mr. Lincoln.

That Grahame-Smith adapted his own book into this resulting screenplay gives me the feeling he had some serious pressure on him to turn the promising title into the most standard of fare so as the studio wouldn't be at too much of a risk. If you're gonna do it though, go all out. In what is the most disappointing aspect of the transition from page to screen is the fact the author felt it necessary to culminate all of the vampire enemies Lincoln has in the book to one bad guy inparticular. While Rufus Sewell is more than capable of handling these duties it came off as just another piece of evidence that the qualities so commendable about the book were squandered here. As Adam, Sewell is the leader of his kind and is a wealthy plantation owner in the south that has a certain intertwining history with Lincoln's mentor Henry. While Lincoln becomes rather good at his vampire killing skills he naturally gains some recognition by their head honcho. That Lincoln becomes President leads Adam to instigate the Civil War as he knows Lincoln is out to rid the country of the undead. This all fits into place nicely and director Timur Bekmambetov takes advantage of the action pieces by staging inventive and different fight scenes but he falls flat on the stuff that happens inbetween. Any scenes containing dialogue are rushed and feel more like chopped together bits of a montage rather than one coherent film. He literally caused the editor to fade out of every scene even if it was a few minutes long. The tone is way off which makes you wonder how he pulled off a nice piece of cheeky filmmaking like Wanted a few years ago. If he would have applied the same tone to this film as he did that one we would have at least been watching a film that has style and purpose. Instead what we have been served is a film floating on the promises of its great name. It thinks it can get away with not being that great, being absolutely standard because of the time period and people it involves mashed up with something as crazy as bloodthirsty vampires. Too bad it's not fooling anyone.

Will (Anthony Mackie) and Abe try to stop the blood-
suckers on their way to Gettysburg.

I hate to think that I only disliked the film so much because of the fact I read the book, but I have no doubt that certainly added to my disappointment. Still, even if I had not given the book a chance I feel that the end result would not have lived up to my optimistic expectations for it. Though critics and audiences alike seemed to dismiss it I rather enjoyed Dark Shadows earlier this summer. Directed by Vampire Hunter's big name producer Tim Burton and also scripted by Grahame-Smith I found it to be funny and entertaining with a nice twist on the vampire lore. I expected to enjoy this twist on it much more, but unfortunately I can't even recommend this to those who aren't familiar with the source material. That hurts because I wanted so bad to be proven right by the naysayers who laughed at the trailers for this. I thought I "got it" and with the author behind the movie version I believed it stood a chance of getting a fine interpretation. A fine enough cast has been assembled as with the aforementioned Cooper as well as the likes of Anthony Mackie and Jimmi Simpson playing Abe's lifelong friends Will and Speed. Mary Elizabeth Winstead turns in a passable performane as Mrs. Lincoln though her filmography only drags down the credibility I was hoping the film would carry (except for you Scott Pilgrim, you were great no matter what). Is it worth spending two hours on? Probably not unless you just want to see Bekmambetov's well staged action pieces, but it certainly isn't worth shelling out extra bucks for 3D or large screen formats. It takes about as much advantage of these aspects as it does the fact it has Abraham Lincoln killing vampires. Not much.

 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER Review

The expectations I was holding for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter were likely way too high. I wanted so bad for it to defy all those dismissing it and doubting it as nothing more than a piece of camp without an ounce of intelligence. That is not what the book was, it followed the historical facts down to every detail and was smart enough to justify its ridiculous premise through twists of truth on those real, historical occurrences. The movie on the other hand plays fast and loose with these facts and makes so many amends to its source material it can hardly even be called an adaptation. This might as well have been a slapdash effort thrown together by Robert Rodriguez and pushed off on an amateur director allowing them to get their toes wet on a studio production. Its obvious the studio behind Vampire Hunter doesn't hardly believe in it though and despite a few inspired sequences of intense action the movie ends up feeling more like its villains than the complex icon it has positioned as its protagonist. The film is cold and heartless with hardly an ounce of real human emotion being divulged from the actions taking place on screen. Despite the whole motivation for Linclon's hatred of vampires being the death of his mother you would be hard pressed to find an ounce of real conviction or substance in the character that stage actor Benjamin Walker has brought to the screen. I knew not to expect a carbon copy of what happened in the book, I expected things to be changed and condensed but I did not expect to see something less than a cliff notes version of Seth Grahame-Smith's interesting and much more entertaining novel.