Year: 2018

  • Blaze: Behind the music

    Blaze: Behind the music

    Biopics are movies made about stars.

    Blaze Foley was never a star, simply a mythical folk hero who played with Townes Van Zandt and had his songs covered by the likes of John Prine, Merle Haggard and Willie Nelson.

    It’s fitting then that the independent film telling his story isn’t a traditional paint-by-numbers biopic.

    Filled with raw grittiness and passion, “Blaze” is a cinematic work of art on par with films like “Inside Llewyn Davis” and “Crazy Heart,” an ode to a musical legend.

    “Blaze” also happens to be a terrific achievement for the film’s director and co-writer, four time Academy Award nominee Ethan Hawke.

    His best directorial work to date, “Blaze” is ethereal and emotional, visually captivating and scored with an alluring array of Foley’s own tunes sung by musician Ben Dickey who stars as Blaze.

    Unlike a traditional music film, “Blaze” does not follow a “cradle to grave” plotline. The movie opens with Blaze at his most wild, hopped up on drugs and banging away at a drum set while ranting about Cesar Chavez.

    Almost immediately, viewers are transported to what feels like a different world entirely, a melancholy love story between a young Blaze and the Jewish actress he would run away with to live in a treehouse in the woods.

    Whether intentionally or not, Hawke gives viewers momentarily glimpses into Foley’s fragile psyche and these fragments, however fleeting, linger throughout the two-hour running time that becomes a visual tapestry for Blaze’s music.

    Dickey embodies Blaze in a way that feels immensely lived in, much in the same way you might describe an inhabited performance from the likes of Gary Oldman or Daniel Day-Lewis.

    This is especially stunning considering Dickey makes his acting debut for longtime friend Hawke, who pulls out a sobering, bittersweet turn from the novice actor.

    What Hawke and Dickey understand about Foley, it seems, is how theatricality and musicality intertwine into his on-stage performances and Dickey is able to extend that emotion over to the character’s talking voice.

    It doesn’t hurt that many of Dickey’s best scenes are paired opposite a riveting, beautiful performance from Alia Shawkat as Sybil Rosen, Foley’s first love and muse.

    Shawkat carries the weight of Sybil’s emotions right on the edge of her lips, in the pupils of her eyes, in such a way that feels both effortless and demonstrably difficult.

    Dickey and Shawkat have magnetic chemistry not in the traditional physical sense, but with deep emotional bonds that push and pull back and forth as Blaze and Sybil fall in and out of love.

    It’s a true testament to how perfectly cast they are as well as to Hawke’s commitment to making the whole film feel rich and authentic.

    This extends to his ensemble cast, which could have easily been littered with star power.

    Hawke’s relentlessness to capture the essence of Foley and his era of country music necessitated the casting of pitch-perfect secondary leads that push Dickey’s Blaze forward.

    To that end, Charlie Sexton is a revelation as Foley’s friend and musical contemporary Townes Van Zandt, bringing gravitas and quiet confidence to the role of primary storyteller. Sexton has such command of the screen that draws audiences further into the story, while still keeping viewers locked in on Dickey’s Blaze.

    Josh Hamilton continues an impressive year of performances, pairing his work here as Blaze’s close friend Zee with a poignant supporting turn in Bo Burnham’s “Eighth Grade.”

    Stars do come out in smaller roles with the legendary Kris Kristofferson crushing an extended sequence as Blaze’s father, while recent Oscar winner Sam Rockwell and frequent Hawke collaborator Richard Linklater join the cast as record executives.

    Music drives the film from start to finish, wandering from place to place tangentially as if an improvised jazz solo, or perhaps more appropriately, one of Blaze’s long-winded monologues that serve as preamble to his songs.

    The visuals Hawke and cinematographer Steve Cosens are able to achieve in “Blaze” provide a wonderful backdrop for the whole affair.

    Drenched in natural light, “Blaze” can meander from the sepia-tone haze of Foley’s wooded escape to the dank, dark haunts of the Austin Outhouse bar where he played his final show.

    It’s in these scenes that Hawke shows true artistry as a director, following random patrons and Blaze himself around the bar, inside and out, without missing a beat. The look of Foley recording his live album covered in red neon with a wall-sized American flag behind him is the kind of cinematic iconography rarely seen on the big screen.

    It doesn’t really matter if audiences have heard of Blaze Foley prior to watching the film. There’s enough of his life and free-flowing personality seared into the film to satisfy the curiosity of any moviegoer.

    At worst, “Blaze” will have audiences downloading Foley’s music before leaving the theater.

    A gorgeous portrait of a man who preferred the anonymity of legend over the notoriety of stardom, “Blaze” revels in artistic homage of a subject truly dedicated to the poetry of love and songwriting.

    This is the Ethan Hawke film you have to go out of your way to see as soon as possible. It will be well worth the journey.

  • Like Father: The perfect Netflix movie

    Like Father: The perfect Netflix movie

    Netflix has always been a great source for binge-watching television programs you need to catch up on or seeing a movie you missed in theaters.

    Their dive into original programming started with successful miniseries like “House of Cards” and “Orange Is The New Black,” shows that helped popularize the mantra, “Netflix and chill.”

    An initial foray into becoming a full-fledged movie studio resulted in the purchase of critically acclaimed films like “Beasts of No Nation” and last year’s Oscar-nominated “Mudbound.”

    Ever expanding their empire in hopes of competing with the movie-going experience, Netflix has sought in recent months to corner the market on romantic comedies with films like “The Kissing Booth” and “Set It Up” hitting the streaming service.

    The latest big feature on Netflix, writer/director Lauren Miller’s “Like Father,” is the definition of this new breed of filmmaking, a modernized version of 90s rom-comes popularized by Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan.

    In this not romantic rom-com, Kristen Bell plays Rachel, a work-a-holic New Yorker ditched on her wedding day for being too committed to work.

    Amid the ensuing drunken stupor, Rachel invites her estranged father Harry (Kelsey Grammer) to join her on the week-long cruise intended to be her honeymoon.

    Bell and Grammer have solid on-screen chemistry and their scenes occasionally pack zip, but much of the time the actors themselves show as much disinterest in the film themselves as their characters are expected to have about their awkward vacation in the first place.

    In fact, the only performer who looks genuinely excited to be in the movie is Seth Rogen, box office success and perpetually stoned funnyman who simultaneously feels too good and not good enough for “Like Father.”

    Cast because of (or in spite of) his marriage to the film’s writer/director, Rogen pops on screen as a recent divorcee and potential love interest for Rachel.

    But because Miller either doesn’t know what lane she wants her film to go down or she wants to include everything she’s thinking and feeling, her film wanders aimlessly for much of the 95-minute running time.

    Occasionally, “Like Father” will work its way through a cookie-cutter list of familiar relationship comedy tropes that work as boxes to check off rather than crafted plot points.

    At times, “Like Father” feels less like a feature film and more like one gigantic advertisement for the Royal Caribbean cruise line. Extended montages both on and off the ship have a distinct “come sail away” vibe with that signature buttery shine you’d come to expect from discount travel agencies.

    Even the three couples Rachel and Harry dine with — an adorable older couple on their 50th anniversary, a middle-age African American couple each on their second marriage and a hip, attractive gay couple — reek of focus group casting.

    Everything hits a little too on-the-nose from visual cues to character development to overall storytelling. Rachel and Harry watch Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn in “Overboard” because of course they do.

    Viewer expectations will be met at a very tolerable, mediocre level and for a film with an unknown budget and hidden audience numbers, “Like Father” serves its purposes well.

    Like many of the recent stream of Netflix “original” films, “Like Father” is pleasantly unremarkable cinematically, which plays well for the majority of Americans who will wind up watching it on their cell phones.

    Its almost painstaking mediocrity makes it an ideal movie for the streaming service’s casual audience looking for something low-key to watch with some microwave popcorn on a Tuesday night on the couch.

    Inoffensive, passable movies like “Like Father” have a real place in cinema and moving them off the big screen and onto streaming services is a great way to revitalize the relationship comedy genre that’s largely missing from theaters.

    While the streaming service’s recent hit”Set It Up” is better as a whole, there’s enough good in “Like Father” to add to your Netflix queue and give a chance to on a rainy day.

  • Eighth Grade: The R-rated lives of teenage girls

    Eighth Grade: The R-rated lives of teenage girls

    Nine times out of 10, movies are for escapism, a chance to remove yourself from the cares, worries and needs of the day.

    To simply be transported elsewhere.

    “Eighth Grade” isn’t one of those films.

    From first time writer/director Bo Burnham, a 27-year-old stand-up comedian, this searing, unexpected tale of a 13-year-old girl’s final days in middle school is every bit of life in 2018.

    The expectation is that introspective, philosophical films are centered around pensive, wistful older men. “Eighth Grade” subverts that tradition by following 13-year-old wallflower Kayla in the final moments before middle school ends.

    Being popular, liking a boy and hoping he likes you back, the life or death tragedies of someone too young to know true life or death tragedies are genuine in a way cinema doesn’t normally approach middle school drama.

    There’s a raw, flawed quality to “Eighth Grade” that permeates from start to finish with “actors” taking Burnham’s script and becoming hyper-realized versions of themselves. The magic of the movie comes from how little movie magic there truly is.

    Dialogue lacks refinement, scenes flicker in bouts of light and darkness, zits; the flaws are celebrated through the simplicity of acknowledgment.

    Burnham’s greatest success as a writer/director isn’t found in a single moment or in the terrific performances he captures from real eighth graders. “Eighth Grade” works because Burnham envelops the entire film in reality, flaws and all, and doesn’t get in his own way by doing too much.

    The same can easily be said of the dynamic 15-year-old actress who stars as Kayla, Elsie Fisher. Filming just a week after finishing middle school herself, the then 13-year-old Fisher channels the awkward shyness that comes from a young person wanting to be more outgoing than they truly are.

    Because she’s obviously lived in these moments so recently, there’s a natural, effortlessness to her performance, which changes on a dime when Kayla is at the dinner table with her single father, at school surrounded by the same kids she’s spent eight years with or alone in her bedroom where no one is watching.

    “Eighth Grade” is a fictionalized portrait of hope and existential crisis all smashed up into one messy heap of emotions. It requires the genuine, humble performance Fisher excels at bringing to the screen at every turn, making her experiences infinitely relatable even for those who — like the filmmaker — have never been a 13-year-old girl.

    “Eighth Grade” revels in the uncomfortable, pressing audiences to squirm in their seats lightheartedly as Kayla attempts to flirt with a crush and then in more serious, compromising situations as well.

    Burnham pulls no punches in the film, opting to press into subjects like depression, sexual experience (or lack thereof) and school violence rather than skirt the issue.

    A visceral, gripping tale, “Eighth Grade” captures an innate authenticity and sense of place within modern culture for teens and pre-teens both cinematically and emotionally.

    Social media — Snapchat and Instagram, rather than dated apps like Facebook and Twitter — provide context into Kayla’s inner thoughts through visual storytelling. Audiences are able to ride the emotional roller coaster of a 13-year-old girl by watching her angst over taking the perfect selfie.

    The YouTube vlogs she makes over the course of the week also greatly enhance viewers’ understanding of existential crisis among early teens while simultaneously wrapping the film in a neat little bow of movie magic.

    Sadly, this “indie darling” probably won’t gain enough positive momentum from an early August release to break into awards season consideration, though “Eighth Grade” will be sure to play a prominent role in a large number of critics’ top 10 lists at the end of the year.

    Smaller groups, such as the Film Independent Spirit Awards, will likely honor Burnham for his terrific debut as a filmmaker and Fisher on her breakout lead performance.

    Viewers may cringe more than once for Kayla. “Eighth Grade” is intended to be an unsettling experience.

    At the same time, Burnham has crafted a film that stays with its audience long after the credits roll.

    Parents may not want to bring their pre-teen or teenage children to see “Eighth Grade,” but there’s simply nothing in the R-rated film that doesn’t already happen in middle schools across the country.

    It’s a conversation starter to be sure, but “Eighth Grade” proves the need for honest and open communication with families and friends.

    A singular experience unlikely to be matched this year, “Eighth Grade” is 2018 both cinematically and in reality.

  • Mission: Impossible – Fallout: The last Blockbuster

    Mission: Impossible – Fallout: The last Blockbuster

    Love him or hate him, there’s no denying Tom Cruise is a movie star.

    His latest film, “Mission: Impossible – Fallout,” cements Cruise as the last true Movie Star in capital letters, someone whose talent and charisma transcends box office success, critical acclaim and award season notoriety.

    Cruise is a generational talent that has defined true stardom, that collaboration between cinema and celebrity people only talk about in past tense terms referencing Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe or Humphrey Bogart.

    He puts his rubber stamp on modern moviemaking with “Fallout,” an action film that simply shouldn’t work as well as it does.

    There’s nothing revolutionary about the plot, which follows the same basic format as the classic television show of the same name upon which it is based. Ethan Hunt and his team of Impossible Mission Force (IMF) agents must stop a psychopathic arms dealer from obtaining a Macguffin and causing international catastrophes.

    This time, the Macguffin is a case of three plutonium balls intended for trade to a vigilante dead-set on detonating nuclear weapons for maximum global conflict.

    The plot doesn’t entirely matter to the success of “Fallout.” It’s more of a means for propelling Cruise forward at breakneck speed.

    There’s about 10 minutes at the outset of the film that orients the audience and establishes the most clear emotional stakes in the history of the franchise.

    Then writer/director Christopher McQuarrie cranks the dial to 100 and sets Cruise loose for the next two hours in the most dazzling thrill ride you’re likely to see this year.

    None of it works without Cruise.

    In a world where over-reliance on computer-generated images have made the outrageous seem matter-of-fact, what Cruise does in his sixth turn as Hunt feels almost too possible given how easy movie magicians at a desk could make it look.

    And yet, “Fallout” sees Tom Cruise, Movie Star, literally jump out of airplanes 25,000 feet in the air and choreograph a mid-air rescue that works like a stunning dance of fear and tension.

    Cruise spends months learning to fly — and then actually piloting — helicopters in dazzling dogfight sequences. Incredibly, this doesn’t feel authentic in the moment on a first viewing.

    Yet somehow more incredibly, it is.

    The cinematic precision and practical stunt work at play in “Fallout” reveal itself in staggering fashion on a second, third or fourth trip to theaters.

    Oscar winner “Mad Max: Fury Road” was lauded several years ago for its dynamic practical effects and movie magic featuring stunt men.

    “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” takes things to the next level.

    Cruise could have, and almost certainly should have, legitimately died five different times over the course of filming.

    The fact that he only broke his ankle and delayed production eight weeks is simply astounding.

    There’s a real emotional depth to his performance, too, given the daredevil nature of his stunt work.

    Because everything audiences see is really happening, the hesitations we see on Cruise’s face are genuine. We can find ourselves churning our minds alongside him during these moments of peril.

    Suspending disbelief isn’t necessarily because it’s the disbelief that makes the impossible happening in front of you even more incredible.

    It certainly doesn’t hurt to have a talented and diverse supporting cast including a stoically serious Ving Rhames, relatable and hilarious Simon Pegg and alluring Rebecca Ferguson to pair with Cruise while Angela Bassett and Alec Baldwin provide sizable resistance and gravitas.

    While Jeremy Renner had firmly planted himself in the “Mission: Impossible” franchise the last two outings, his absence here doesn’t feel missed.

    McQuarrie helps carry the weight by stepping up considerably in the director’s chair, taking lessons learned from his last outing in “Rogue Nation”and pairing it with real stakes moment to moment you’d find in the more grounded Jason Bourne franchise or the recent James Bond films.

    The thing that truly sets “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” apart from your average action film is its unwavering commitment to relentless, dynamic fun. Cruise and McQuarrie rev the engines from moment one and take off on the cinematic Autobahn.

    Though a trip down memory lane watching the prior films of the franchise (especially the first, third and fifth) will help inform viewers, you don’t have to know a lot going in to enjoy the heck out of “Fallout.”

    You have to see this film on the big screen.

    They don’t make movies like this anymore.

  • Sorry To Bother You: Real life in comedic absurdity

    Sorry To Bother You: Real life in comedic absurdity

    A good movie trailer will entice you to watch a film and hopefully not spoil anything.

    A great one will get you in the theater and leave you baffled when the world of the film becomes so much deeper and unexpected.

    Such is the case with “Sorry To Bother You,” a hit film at this year’s Sundance Film Festival now making its way to larger audiences across the country.

    Watch the trailer if you’d like, but be prepared for just about anything.

    At first glance, writer/director Boots Riley seems to have made a stylized, yet mundane feature about office life in Oakland.

    But to hear him tell it, his debut feature comments on a plethora of social and political topics over the course of 105 minutes because any story that’s merely about one idea isn’t worth telling.

    Structurally, “Sorry To Bother You” maintains a traditional, easy to follow plotline led by Lakeith Stanfield’s Cassius Green, an unemployed man who takes up work at a telemarketing firm in order to move out of his uncle’s garage.

    As he climbs up the ladder of success by mastering his “white voice” to increase sales, “Sorry To Bother You” begins a rollercoaster ride of original, cinematic grandeur that will shock reserved audiences and invigorate viewers looking for fresh perspectives.

    Stanfield, known for the hit TV show “Atlanta” and last year’s Oscar winning “Get Out,” breaks out as a lead actor in a major way here as Cassius, a good-hearted man of the people conflicted by the power of money versus social justice.

    Stanfield builds Cassius’ growth over the course of the movie, slowly and organically as if he is learning about himself simultaneously to Cassius. This allows the highs and lows Cassius faces over the increasingly absurdist comedy to feel authentic and grounded.

    Conversely, Tessa Thompson has a decidedly less dramatic character arc as Cassius’ fiancee Detroit, though the power of her character evolves significantly over the course of the film.

    The supporting performance pack comedic punch with notable turns from Danny Glover as a veteran coworker of Cassius and Patton Oswalt and David Cross in off screen roles as “white voices” for some of the most pivotal characters.

    Armie Hammer takes the most chances — most of which pay off — as a playboy CEO that’s one part Mark Cuban, two parts “Wolf of Wall Street” and 100 percent out of his mind.

    Unlike anything Hammer has done before, the “Call Me By Your Name” really goes for broke here in a performance that leans towards caricature without completely tipping over the edge.

    Visually, “Sorry To Bother You” is a cavalcade of hues clashing and smashing against Riley’s anarchist screenplay with reckless abandon.

    Like the film’s script, there’s so many hidden layers within shots from the obvious costume alterations of Thompson’s Detroit to the more subtle, emotionally calculated photo Cassius hangs everywhere he goes.

    Once viewers are bombarded with the cinematic spectacle that is the first viewing, Riley’s nuanced examination (and almost entire rejection) of cinematic and political convention leap to the forefront.

    The eccentricities and stylistic barrel rolls “Sorry To Bother You” grinds into audiences shouldn’t work on any plausible level, technically or theatrically.

    Riley, a storytelling hip-hop artist by trade, defies the odds with captivating flair, taking the mind’s eye of a pre-teen boy and cramming modern societal commentary for one of the decade’s most outlandishly wonderful films.

    Though ardent support will be given to make “Sorry To Bother You” a contender for award season nominations, the film is far more likely to garner recognition from independent filmmakers than more mainstream groups despite the Academy’s concerted effort to diversify the Oscar voting base.

    Considerable acclaim for Riley’s unique style and direction as well as terrific lead performances from Stanfield and Thompson could easily see the trio earn acclaim regionally as well.

    “Sorry To Bother You” is a film that strives and intends to bother audiences.

    Fight the urge to dismiss the unorthodox filmmaking and indulge in a cinematic adventure unlike anything you’ve seen for a long time.

  • Skyscraper: Hanging by a thread

    Skyscraper: Hanging by a thread

    “Skyscraper” is a film made in the wrong era.

    If it was made in the 1990s, “Skyscraper” would fit right in during the heyday of gloriously terrible action films that would pick up a second life on basic cable like “Dante’s Peak” or “Cliffhanger.”

    A clear homage to unfiltered, low-budget, high-octane thrill rides of the past, this is a movie every Steven Seagal and Jean Claude Van Damme fan will love and a film both Seagal and Van Damme would dream of starring in.

    In their stead, “Skyscraper” boasts bankable action star Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, an actor who has surpassed the need to reference his professional wrestling past in most performances. Yet here, Johnson’s long standing fighting credentials in and out of the ring are an asset throughout.

    Johnson stars as a man who must rescue his family from a tall building while Eastern European villains attempt to steal something from behind the locked vault doors of the building’s Asian owner.

    That it comes out on the 30th anniversary of “Die Hard” is by no mistake.

    “Skyscraper” is a film that tries so hard to replicate the magic of John McTiernan’s 1980s classic that homage seems a trite, simplistic description.

    The cinematic lovechild of the Bruce Willis action flick and Steve McQueen’s 1974 thriller “The Towering Inferno,” “Skyscraper” pulls no punches as it slingshots, fisticuffs and duct tapes its way into the hearts of 17-year-old boys and men who used to be 17-year-old boys across the country.

    If this were in the hands of any other action star, “Skyscraper” would likely be found in the bargain bin of the straight to DVD section of your local grocery store or gas station. With Johnson, however, the ridiculous plot and borrowed action sequences have at least some semblance of originality.

    The natural charisma he brings from his wrestling persona “The Rock” combined with Johnson’s humble humanity from his personal life meld into a convincing enough portrait of a man trying to save his family with little bloodshed. While other action heroes would rely on firearms prowess, the physicality Johnson delivers feels plausible in spite of how incredulous the circumstances get.

    When he needs to be, Johnson becomes our last true action star.

    The film is littered with an array of instantly forgettable performances that are quintessential action movie tropes.

    What sets “Skyscraper” apart, even if just slightly, is a welcome return from 90s television star and “Scream” queen Neve Campbell, who impresses in limited screen time as Johnson’s wife, a former combat medic who can hold her own when called upon.

    Writer/director Rawson Marshall Thurber has made a living comedically with films like “Dodgeball” and “Central Intelligence,” but capably manages to craft a fun, albeit derivative popcorn flick with “Skyscraper.”

    Certain moments within the film have real tension, especially as Johnson dangles from staggering heights time and again. Though action sequences lack the practical effects of the “Mission: Impossible” franchise or the visceral quality of the Jason Bourne films, there’s no shortage of entertainment value to be found.

    To be sure, “Skyscraper” isn’t a good movie. In fact, the latest movie from “The Rock” is downright terrible.
    ….in all the best ways.

    Infinitely re-watchable and a lighthearted spectacle of amusingly terrifying heights from start to finish, “Skyscraper” defines the notion of a film that’s far better than it has any right to be.

    Whether we like it or not, it’s a film whose cinematic shelf life will far exceed a month-long stay at the box office.

    Odds are good that televisions across America will stop down to make “Skyscraper” appointment viewing when it inevitably becomes a staple of a station like TNT or FX.

  • Ant-Man and the Wasp: Scaled down super heroism

    Ant-Man and the Wasp: Scaled down super heroism

    There are 20 official Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

    Let that sink in for a minute.

    That’s almost as many as there are James Bond flicks (24), seven more than “Star Trek” (13) and more than “Star Wars,” “Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit” movies (16 total) combined.

    Somehow, Marvel continues to be at the top of their game with critical and commercial mega-hit “Avengers: Infinity War” pushing the Disney off-shoot studio bigger than ever.

    It’s little wonder, then, why the next step in studio president Kevin Feige’s grand plan would be to go small, this time with the pint-sized sequel “Ant-Man and the Wasp.”

    Figuratively and literally, everything about this latest hit sees the superhero franchise scale things way back. The heroes are smaller, the bad guys are tamer and the problems less cataclysmic.

    The film, while not quite on par with director Peyton Reed’s 2015 original, is still a lot of fun.

    Scott Lang is forced to hang up his Ant-Man suit while on house arrest after the events of “Captain America: Civil War” when a dream links him to his mentor Hank Pym’s wife, presumed dead after shrinking to a sub-atomic level.

    A quintessential “Average Joe,” Paul Rudd reprises his role as do-gooding thief Lang and gives Ant-Man the wry, affable charm audiences have grown to love in Rudd’s performances over the years.

    The light-hearted, “guy you’d want to have over for poker night” persona Rudd cultivates in Lang drives the heart of the film and cuts through a lot of the minutiae the science-heavy plot requires. Rudd excels at the adlibbed one-liners needed to keep the film flowing smoothly.

    A title like “Ant-Man and the Wasp” implies equal importance for two major characters, especially when the film serves as a direct sequel to a self-titled “Ant-Man” movie.

    Yet somehow, Rudd’s Ant-Man plays the secondary, goofy sidekick to Evangeline Lilly’s Wasp, the least developed character and worst part of the original film.

    Lilly’s work is better here as her chemistry with on-screen father Michael Douglas is quite good, but overall, her Hope remains the flat, uninteresting character on a second go-round, just with more screen time. Douglas gets more to work with on a second outing as Pym, with a noticeable reduction in jargon-heavy dialogue and more quips for him to sink his teeth into.

    The film also boasts a quality supporting cast of Marvel newcomers including Lawrence Fishburne as an old colleague of Pym, Walton Goggins as the requisite Mafioso boss and the iconic Michelle Pfeiffer in a small turn as Pym’s wife and Hope’s mother Janet that should develop more fully in future installments.

    Where the film shines brightest are in small comedic moments from Rudd or scene-stealer Michael Pena and the well-crafted action sequences that take special advantage of all the shrinking and growing that Ant-Man and The Wasp can do. It’s here that Reed improves the most over the original film as the set pieces are more cleverly designed and engaging.

    Tonally, “Ant-Man and the Wasp” serves as an important palate cleanser following the highly dramatic, darker tone of “Avengers: Infinity War.” The trademark humor of the “Ant-Man” films brightens the viewing experience and makes lengthy, complicated exposition about sub-atomic realms and quantum physics seem less tedious than it actually is.

    Reed and his team smartly opt to separate themselves almost entirely from “Infinity War” and create a no-frills, just fun popcorn movie that will have kids ages eight to 80 laughing throughout. Completely on its own, the 20th Marvel movie lacks pizazz, becoming a tad too convoluted for its own good with myriad storylines and secondary characters.

    Given its place within “Ant-Man” lore and in the larger context of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it’s a solid film bridging the gap to what is surely to be better, more impactful movies. In essence, “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is a rich man’s “Thor: The Dark World,” a film that serves as much an episodic purpose as a cinematic one if not more so.

    First time audiences to a Marvel movie won’t be too far behind as only the original “Ant-Man” provides necessary context to fully understand the plot.

    However, “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is targeted at ardent Marvel fans who will overlook minor shortcomings and incomplete storytelling in this fun, yet flawed film as a small piece of a much larger picture.

  • First Reformed: A question of faith

    First Reformed: A question of faith

    There’s an immense freedom in small, independent filmmaking that comes across on screen in high quality art-house cinema.

    Writer/director Paul Schrader has spent a lifetime fighting against modern Hollywood convention. His latest film, “First Reformed,” is a calculated, uncompromising examination of inner turmoil slowly churning in a stoic man of faith and represents the pinnacle of his directorial career.

    If you’ve never heard of Schrader, it’s probably because you associate his most famous work — the screenplay for “Taxi Driver” — with director Martin Scorsese or star Robert DeNiro.

    “First Reformed” harkens back to the 1976 psychological thriller, almost unintentionally serving as a companion piece or coda.
    Slow and deliberate, Schrader composes a piece of cinema that will arrest some audiences and disenchant others. It’s a film that constantly asks characters, and by proxy its audience, “can God forgive us what we’ve done to His creation?”

    Part theological wrestling, part existential crisis, Schrader’s powerful slow-burn of a film follows former military chaplain Ernst Toller, a somewhat broken man still mourning the loss of his son in Iraq and the subsequent end of his marriage.

    To process his grief, he catalogues his every thought in a small journal he keeps while serving a rural “tourist church” in upstate New York. His world is forever changed when a young pregnant woman in his parish asks him to counsel her eco-obsessed, depressed husband.

    “First Reformed” doubles as the name of the church featured prominently in the film, but it also aptly describes the weary pastor shepherding it.

    Academy Award nominee Ethan Hawke gives the most dazzling performance of his career as Toller, putting up a facade of strength for those around him while slowly crumbling inside mentally. The quiet desperation within Hawke’s Toller appears subtlety at first and builds gradually throughout “First Reformed” in a beautiful crescendo of pain, grief and self-doubt.

    Portrayals of men of the cloth are rarely this complex and it’s only upon leaving the theater that the true impact of Hawke’s searing work takes control.

    Hawke takes great care to ensure that audiences understand just enough about Toller’s physical and mental anguish, while leaving events in the film open to interpretation. Schrader insists viewers decide on the meaning of “First Reformed” as a painter would for abstract art with Toller’s inner psyche being the canvas. The film showcases the unique synergy between writer, actor and director with Hawke melting into another world flawlessly.

    The tiny cast has a number of solid actors filling the minute details of Toller’s life, but two familiar faces stand out among the crowd.

    Amanda Seyfried wavers terrifically between coquette and demure housewife as the pregnant wife of a man Toller counsels. Hawke and Seyfried excel at this distant, yet magnetic symbiosis that draws and repels Toller and the young wife.

    It’s an wonderful contrast with the excellent Cedric Kyles playing against type as head of a mega-church that sponsors Toller’s small parish. In limited screen time, Kyles transforms into a “faith-as-a-commodity” style pastor without feeling caricature, which is especially astonishing given his film history as Cedric the Entertainer.

    Visually, Schrader frames “First Reformed” in 1.37 ratio, a near square picture that squeezes the audience’s collective eye and forces closer examination of smaller, nuanced details. A twitch of the eye, curl of the mouth, every choice made by the actors or by Schrader himself is put under the microscope.

    From the first frame, it’s a visual pronouncement that “First Reformed” isn’t a typical drama and refuses to play by cinematic convention. Each moment delicately cultivated by Schrader is artistically captured by cinematographer Alexander Dynan whose visual palette is largely as demure as Toller, yet heightens for effect as the script and performances require.

    Though a mid-summer release is often far too early for serious awards consideration, Hawke is just too good as Toller not to be a serious threat for a Best Actor next spring. It’s a poignant, gripping performance that should still resonate long after “First Reformed” leaves the big screen. Accolades for Schrader, Seyfried, Kyles and the film as a whole are more likely in smaller ceremonies with a limited pool of contenders, such as the Film Independent Spirit Awards.

    Engaging from start to finish despite its slow-burn pace, “First Reformed” will likely be one of 2018’s best independently made films with a career-best effort from Hawke that needs to be seen on the big screen.

  • Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom: Invasion of the dinosaurs

    Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom: Invasion of the dinosaurs

    If who directed blockbuster movies didn’t matter, than any average filmmaker with a script outline, sizable budget and the filmography of Michael Bay on DVD could make a good popcorn movie.

    Thankfully, Spanish auteur J.A. Bayona took the helm for “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom,” a dinosaur film much better than it probably has any right to be, with Bayona and stars Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard doing much of the heavy lifting.

    It also happened to make $150 million domestically at the box office this weekend with more stories of Tyrannosaurus Rex, raptors and other prehistoric creatures sure to follow.

    Despite a brief appearance from original star Jeff Goldblum, “Fallen Kingdom” take steps further and further away from Steven Spielberg’s iconic “Jurassic Park.” An expansion — in all sense of the word — of the 2015 blockbuster “Jurassic World,” this sequel to a sequel reunites raptor trainer Owen Grady and dinosaur advocate Claire Dearing in a high-stakes rescue mission to save the remaining dinosaurs from an impending volcano eruption.

    Pratt once again shines as Grady, an Indiana Jones-esque adventurer with a quick wit and deep connection to the raptors he trained in “Jurassic World.” He displays an ease in playing the relatable hero, which gives authenticity to the thinly-crafted character and overshadows the increasing implausibility of events.

    Continuing her most prominent role, Howard wavers between damsel in distress and can-do adventurer as the screenplay calls for, though aside from the ample screen time, her performance doesn’t particularly stand out in any way.

    The ensemble cast works to varying degrees of success with veteran character actor James Cromwell virtually wasted as an aging billionaire and Rafe Spall playing the requisite mustache-twirling villain in a matter to be expected.

    While a trio of newcomers play heroic roles in “Fallen Kingdom,” it’s the film’s most prominent dinosaur — Owen’s trained raptor Blue — that stands out memorably. Surprisingly, the raptor shows the most character development over the course of the film and Pratt has more chemistry with the CGI character than love interest Howard.

    There’s also a deceptive amount of humor hidden within “Fallen Kingdom” and the film’s plethora of exotic dinosaurs get just as many well-earned laughs as perennial funnyman Pratt.

    “Fallen Kingdom” is vibrant and broad, but lacks the emotional depth and message Bayona attempts to infuse. Most of the film’s beats are telegraphed far too easily, though Pratt’s charisma allows audiences to ignore the bland script and enjoy the ride.

    Midway through, the style takes a hard left turn from grandiose blockbuster to more cerebral monster movie. Bayona is able to flex his cinematic muscles, transitioning out of bright colors and vivid landscapes to haunting darkness and claustrophobic intensity.

    The film gets bogged down in a lot of minutiae, which spread the action sequences a little too far apart. A tighter cut — or more correctly, a better screenplay — could have easily cut 10 to 15 minutes off the running time without losing anything of consequence.

    For the most part, the CGI used in the film in large sequences flows quite nicely with intimate animatronic scenes that occasionally evoke the technical style of Spielberg’s 1993 film.

    Bayona creates small moments within “Fallen Kingdom” where audiences will truly feel transported, visually iconic scenes that are trademarks of the director’s unique style. This beautiful and transformative directorial vision are even more definitely on display in Bayona’s wonderful and underseen 2016 film “A Monster Calls.”

    Unfortunately, it’s almost more important for audiences to see “Fallen Kingdom” as preparation for the inevitable third film in the “Jurassic World” offshoot trilogy than it is to see the film on its own merits.

    If it allows Bayona to earn the capital to more closely develop his original work and gets more attention to his other films, then “Fallen Kingdom” will have been well worth it.

    On its own, this is a film that simultaneously takes itself too seriously and not seriously enough, making for an occasionally puzzling, yet largely entertaining outing at the movies.

  • Incredibles 2: The art of sequel-izing

    Incredibles 2: The art of sequel-izing

    Maybe we’ve forgotten what it takes to make a truly great sequel.
    In our lasting obsession with more, more, more and now, now, now, audiences have been demanding instant gratification and ever expanding cinematic universes.

    Money hungry studios are more than willing to oblige.

    It’s gotten to the point where the two-year average from box office hit to follow-up film feels like too long.
    Thankfully, Brad Bird didn’t feel the pressure.

    Moving on to other projects, Bird let a simple story idea gestate in his mind for 14 years, evolving the project creatively to craft the best possible movie.

    That film, a follow-up to the 2004 Pixar sensation “The Incredibles,” rode the wave of anticipation and word-of-mouth to $180 million domestically in its opening weekend, breaking records as the highest grossing animated film of all-time over its first four-day stretch.

    But what sets “Incredibles 2” apart from the rest besides its box office dominance is its quality, instantly vaulting into the top five of Pixar Studios’ illustrious filmography rivaling “Up,” “Wall-E” and the “Toy Story” trilogy.

    Richly developed and cultivated by writer/director Bird, the script layers thoughts on family, tolerance, the world’s growing obsession with digital technology and much more into a witty two-hour film that will keep young viewers entertained and older audiences engaged by the mature themes and banter.

    Set in the moments immediately following the conclusions of the first film, “Incredibles 2” finds the Parr family – superheroes living among average citizens – out of work after heroes are outlawed by the government. Unemployed and homeless, Mr. Incredible becomes a stay-at-home father to the children while Elastigirl fights for the rights of “supers” while battling crime illegally.

    The talented voice cast from the original film returns, including Craig T. Nelson as Mr. Incredible, Holly Hunter as Elastigirl, Samuel L. Jackson as Frozone and Bird himself voicing fan-favorite Edna Mode. They’re joined by “Better Call Saul” star Bob Odenkirk and “Get Out” actress Catherine Keener to bring vibrancy and life to Bird’s screenplay and Pixar’s dynamic computer-generated animation.

    Pretty much everything about “Incredibles 2” is superior to its predecessor, from the storyline to the character development, the humor to the heart.

    But from the outset, what is most striking about the differences between the two “Incredibles” films are just how much further Pixar’s animation team has come in 14 years.

    There’s a deep richness to every frame and characters are given depth in curves that creates the appearance of three dimensions with on a flat screen.

    Visually, the most exciting and stunning scene is also potentially the most problematic for audiences. Midway through the film, Elastigirl faces off against the villainous Screen-Slaver in hand-to-hand combat inside a room filled with strobe lighting that may trigger reactions from photosensitive or epileptic viewers. Framed in rapid fire blasts of alternating white light and darkness, it’s a mesmerizing, iconic sequence and one of the film’s best moments.

    As all the top Pixar films seem to do, “Incredibles 2” will likely be a strong contender for an Academy Award nomination for Best Animated Film, though Wes Anderson’s outstanding “Isle of Dogs” should prove to be stiff Oscar competition.

    The film is preceded by the slow-paced, yet rewarding short “Bao,” directed by Domee Shi, a story of a mother struggling in her relationship with her son that could also earn an Oscar nod in the animated short category.

    It took Bird and company 14 years to bring “Incredibles 2” to the big screen because they wanted to make sure they got it right.

    And they did in a big way.

    Sure to play to packed crowds for weeks to come, “Incredibles 2” establishes a new high in sequel filmmaking, especially among its animated peers. It’s a film that may prove to be a difficult ticket, but more than worth the price of admission for viewers under six to those well over 60.