Cinematic Considerations

Year: 2019

  • The Hustle: Remake robs audience of classic comedy

    The Hustle: Remake robs audience of classic comedy

    Reboot: the act of taking an original property and reimagining it in a different context.

    Remake: taking an original property and making the same film over again with minor alterations.

    It’s important to clarify the difference between reboot and remake at the outset because these two words seem like synonyms, but the distance between them could not be vaster.

    Take for example movies like “Ocean’s 8” or the 2016 version of “Ghostbusters.” For better or worse, these films are gender-swapped reboots of highly successful features starring men that have been reimagined as an offshoot of existing storylines.

    “The Hustle,” the new comedy starring Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson, doesn’t reimagine the film on which it is inspired, 1988’s “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” with Michael Caine and Steve Martin.

    Director Chris Addison’s film is a rip-off: a beat-for-beat, scene-for-scene copy of a comedy classic, except in the case of “The Hustle,” everything is about 75 percent worse.

    Star and producer Wilson takes on the Martin role playing a two-bit con artist with an outrageous personality, while Hathaway attempts a British accent for reasons unexplained in the film as a way to honor Caine’s performance as the sophisticated con scheming older millionaires out of their riches.

    It’s a film that may seem cleverer for younger audiences, but this millennial version of “Scoundrels” lacks both the wit and sophistication of the original. This is an adaptation where cell phone applications play a large role, sex jokes are cruder and the women con arrogant men out of feminist revenge but only until it no longer serves the “Scoundrels” plot for them to do so.

    There’s a phoniness to Hathaway’s accent that undermines her performance, somewhat taking away from the good work she does comedically in the film.

    Hathaway appears to be as in on the joke in “The Hustle” as she was in last year’s far superior “Ocean’s 8,” but her homage to Caine doesn’t work cohesively with the rest of the film.

    As Penny, Wilson is up to her usual comedic hijinks which occasionally work, but often feel out of place within the highbrow humor the film strives for.

    Rather than put her own twist on the character, it feels like Wilson is almost trying to play a game of one-upmanship with Martin’s original performance, taking the broadest, most “look at me” stroke at every comedic turn.

    Hathaway and Wilson could have great chemistry in a film written to accentuate their talents, but “The Hustle” simply falls flat across the board.

    Aside from the two leads, the cast of “The Hustle” is littered with relative newcomers who don’t provide memorable moments. This partially may be due to mediocre casting and partially due to a condensed running time that thankfully shaves 20 minutes off from its predecessor.

    There are four credited screenwriters for “The Hustle,” though two of them – Paul Henning and Stanley Shapiro – are responsible for “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” and its predecessor, the 1964 Marlon Brando comedy “Bedtime Story” and a third, Dale Launer, was also involved in the writing of “Scoundrels.”

    This is important as large segments of dialogue in “The Hustle” are lifted straight from the pages of “Scoundrels,” while others might as well have been. The work new co-writer Jac Schaeffer did along with Launer to adapt and modernize the story muddles the comedy and infuses far too much pop culture that kills much of the timelessness of the original tale.

    For a heist film about robbing people blind, the only suckers in “The Hustle” are audience members who pay money for a streaming-service quality film. Studios are already finding themselves having to fight an uphill battle to get people off their couch and into the theater for something besides the next blow ‘em up, comic book action flick. This complete failure does not help.

    Audiences should wait until “The Hustle” can be seen in the privacy of their own home, or better yet, just watch “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” instead. It’s 10 times the movie at one-tenth the price.

  • The River and The Wall: Politics in perspective

    The River and The Wall: Politics in perspective

    Why build a physical wall when nature provides a beautiful, scenic barrier already?

    It’s one of many questions raised by director Ben Masters’ new documentary, “The River and The Wall,” an up-close, intoxicating feature about border security along the Rio Grande river in south Texas.

    Winner of the Louis Black “Lone Star” Award at the 2019 South by Southwest Film Festival and Best Documentary at the 10thannual Hill Country Film Festival in Fredericksburg, “The River and The Wall” views politics through the lens of a nature photographer, opting away from soundbites and towards a cinematic love letter to the beauty of Texas.

    The film is currently in limited release in theaters (the best way to view this vivid cinematic documentary) or can be rented from select streaming platforms.

    Joined by an ecologist, a wildlife filmmaker, Texas Parks and Wildlife representative and a river guide, Masters and his crew trek across the last untamed portions of Texas, a 1,200-mile stretch between El Paso and the Gulf of Mexico as close to the actual border as possible.

    The five-person team travel by bicycle, on horseback and on the river in canoes over the course of nearly three months over dangerous rapids and across harrowing terrain while shooting one of the most scenic, visually captivating documentaries in recent years.

    Masters’ film takes a highly complex political problem and removes partisanship from the equation, relying on common sense and a boots-on-the-ground vantage point to provide a fresh perspective to the debate.

    While the film makes a strong case against the construction of a continuous wall, Masters builds arguments practically by showing audiences how inefficient and overly burdensome a wall would be in some stretches logistically. Many segments of the natural border between the two nations are divided by large canyons where building a wall would be impractical and threatens to cut off wildlife from their natural habitat and/or access to fresh water.

    However, “The River and The Wall” does not argue for complete abandonment of a wall and in fact goes to great lengths to recommend strong border security and additional support for U.S. Border Patrol agents.

    To provide context along the journey, Masters interviews stakeholders on the border including landowners and law enforcement officials as well as Republican Congressman Will Hurd and Democratic Congressman Beto O’Rourke.

    The realities of illegal immigration aren’t forgotten by the documentary either. Two of the five travelers – Filipe Deandrade and Austin Alvarado – are the children of immigrants who crossed the border without permission and their stories provide context to the hardships faced by Central American refugees seeking asylum.

    Events late in the film provide a wonderful, unexpected counterbalance to those stories and leave audiences with complex questions to think about.

    What truly sets “The River and The Wall” apart from the typical documentary is the sweeping, grandiose cinematography that Masters’ team is able to capture along largely undeveloped stretches of the Rio Grande Valley.

    The film’s striking imagery comes through in panoramic wide shots that maintain the landscape as a primary character in the film rather than simply as a backdrop. These ultra-wide shots illuminate a wall’s current and potential future impact as well as ground the entire feature in nature.

    Scenes are vivid and crisp as if they were falling out of the pages of “National Geographic.” There’s no stronger argument for leaving this area untouched by man than the landscapes captured here.

    A thought-provoking documentary that blends current events with wildlife cinematography for one of 2019’s best features so far, no discussion about security along the U.S. border with Mexico is complete without having seen “The River and The Wall.”

  • Long Shot: A presidential balancing act

    Long Shot: A presidential balancing act

    The new Seth Rogen comedy tries to be two things at once.

    There’s “Flarsky,” the film’s initial concept about yet another out of his depth stoner miscreant who shockingly lands a perfect 10 woman. This movie is filled with raunchy set pieces involving self-pleasure and gratuitous drug use, a typical Rogen premise.

    And then there’s “Long Shot,” a witty political comedy about a career-oriented woman running to become the first female president who happens to fall in love at just the wrong (or right?) time. It’s a movie about climate change, a “West Wing”-era geo-political landscape and endless discussions of phone calls and meetings viewers never see on screen.

    These two films battle for the spotlight in the uneven, yet occasionally entertaining “Long Shot,” director Jonathan Levine’s R-rated romantic comedy hoping to fill the Marvel-sized void for moviegoers left in the wake of “Avengers: Endgame.”

    Rogen stars as Fred Flarsky, a hipster Brooklyn journalist without a paper to write for who reunites with his old babysitter at a party 20-odd years later. The babysitter, Charlotte Field, has gone on to become Secretary of State and hires Flarsky to punch up her speeches for a presidential bid.

    Structurally, “Long Shot” is a vastly unoriginal rehash of romantic comedies gone by, this time with an absurdly implausible political twist. Levine and Rogen press hard for the film to become “The American President” for a stoner generation but fail to find the right balance between the semi-serious and the humorous.

    Viewers are usually able to suspend disbelief in rom-coms, but Levine’s film wavers too much from genuinely charming moments of real chemistry between its leads and out-of-place, forgettable comedic diatribes about politics or pop culture.

    Rogen has done well in the past as the atypical rom-com leading man in films like “Knocked Up,” but here he floats Flarsky as an aloof journalist with moral principles whose backbone is grinded down over the course of the film. Surprisingly, Rogen is better in the genuine moments not played up for the camera than his typical on-screen persona marked by an eccentric, monotone belly laugh.

    For a film that is middling at best, Charlize Theron is an absolute powerhouse as Field, commanding attention with a layered performance too good for the rest of the movie around her. While Theron is a natural beauty who’s just as charming, her ability to move in and out of the film’s romantic, political and comedic moments with ease and authenticity overshadows many of the movie’s glaring weaknesses. It’s an effort that blends humor and class that elevates “Long Shot” into a watchable two-hour feature.

    Levine’s film takes numerous thinly veiled pot shots at Fox News as being a misogynistic propaganda machine, with a “Fox & Friends” look-alike program constantly deriding women as inferior, sexual objects in an attempt at comedy that’s more cringeworthy than accurate parody.

    This also extends over to Bob Odenkirk’s President Chambers, a much too on the nose Donald Trump stand-in who got elected by being famous on television and is incredibly aloof yet thrilled by wielding power.

    If you want your romantic comedies to try witty political commentary, “Long Shot” may be for you. However, the lackadaisical nature by which screenwriters Dan Sterling and Liz Hannah push the envelope to make a political point is woefully misplaced here.

    “Long Shot” is exactly the kind of film conservative thinkers will point to when they claim that “liberal Hollywood” is out to get them, and Levine’s film is neither clever enough nor well designed enough to invalidate such an argument.

    Casually enjoyable in the moment yet just as forgettable upon leaving the theater, “Long Shot” is a perfect date night on the couch, getting drunk off a bottle of cheap wine movie.

  • Knock Down The House: Celebrating the outsiders

    Knock Down The House: Celebrating the outsiders

    Documentaries change in the minds of viewers when they know the outcome before it happens on screen.

    Usually it’s the ends justifying the means, the result giving audiences a reason to watch a journey.

    Director Rachel Lears didn’t know that the 18 months spent chronicling the lives of four women running as outsider candidates in Democratic primary elections would turn into a Sundance and South by Southwest film festival sensation that would be snapped up by Netflix for a prime time May 1 national release.

    Enter Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a now-infamous spitfire politician making waves on national news and late night television.

    Lears’ film showcases the freshman Congresswoman before the phenomenon, hauling buckets of ice to bartend at a small New York restaurant making it paycheck to paycheck. Knowing what has become of “AOC” makes “Knock Down The House” even more entertaining and engaging, but the heart of this compelling film comes from the struggle.

    “Knock Down The House” follows four first-time political candidates – all women running against incumbent Democratic members of Congress – as they embark on a seemingly impossible task of taking on the establishment in hopes of representing the working class.

    For close to two years, Lears chronicles the journey of Amy Vilela – a grieving mother challenging for the 4th Congressional District seat from Nevada, – Paula Jean Swearengin – a coal miner’s daughter fighting for a Senate seat out of West Virginia, – Cori Bush – an African American woman taking on an incumbent for Missouri’s 1st Congressional District seat in the aftermath of the Ferguson race riots – and Ocasio-Cortez running for New York’s 14th Congressional District seat amid the political machine stacked against her.

    Somewhat surprisingly, “Knock Down The House” doesn’t pit liberals against conservatives. By focusing entirely on the 2018 Democratic primaries, Lears’ film is solely about a movement of political outsiders taking on the establishment rather than issue politics. It’s a challenge to the status quo for lower-case democracy rather than upper-case Democrats.

    Ocasio-Cortez best describes this in the film when she says of her primary race: ‘This is not just about Democrat versus Republican. In fact, it’s so far away from that. It’s not Left or Right. It’s up and down.’

    “Knock Down The House” does a terrific job of showing the uphill battle outside candidates face while taking down established politicians. Lears includes a number of dramatic moments to reflect this difficulty, most notably Ocasio-Cortez and her team needing to collect over 10,000 signatures from New York voters to help ensure she gets on the ballot despite only being required to collect 1,250.

    Lears occasionally struggles with keeping a wide focus to the documentary as the film routinely turns into the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez show. Balancing a rising star against the other subjects is a tricky endeavor for Lears to manage as Ocasio-Cortez is by far the most dynamic and compelling figure in the entire documentary.

    “Knock Down The House” could have very easily been Ocasio-Cortez’s story alone, but there are great moments with the other women running peppered throughout the film that inform and echo the primary story of the film, Ocasio-Cortez’s improbable win over longtime Democratic stalwart Joe Crowley of New York’s 14th Congressional District.

    Notable in their relative absence from the documentary are the subjects’ primary opponents, especially Crowley, who is often represented through television clips and a striking scene midway through the film where Ocasio-Cortez is forced to “debate” a Crowley representative at a Town Hall in the Bronx as Crowley is too busy to be bothered with campaigning for his own re-election.

    A phone call between Swearengin and Senator Joe Manchin also sets a real distance between the outsider candidates and their established opponents and helps frame for the audience just how distant these political newcomers truly are.

    Lears includes a note within the film’s credits that Crowley, Manchin and Bush’s opponent Lacy Clay all turned down opportunities to appear in the film, which also helps reinforce that establishment candidates do not regard their challengers as being on equal footing.

    The film occasionally ties the four women together, both by capturing them at meetings they all attend or in references to how their individual campaigns could help/hurt each other and future candidates in similar outsider situations.

    Though it follows progressive Democrats fighting for room in their own party, “Knock Down The House” could just as easily have been a story of conservatives trying to break into the Republican establishment.

    The fact that high-quality docs like “Knock Down The House” and the soon-to-be-released “Running With Beto” on HBO later this month are made widely accessible to the public is a great sign for strong independent filmmakers to increase their resolve amid the blockbuster-ization of big screen theaters.

    As political documentaries go, “Knock Down The House” is on par with films like “Weiner,” “Citizenfour” and “Get Me Roger Stone” in terms of both quality, compelling cinema and unparalleled, nuanced access to key figures affecting current events on a daily basis.

    If it is able to qualify for Academy Awards consideration, “Knock Down The House” is a sure-fire best documentary nominee that moviegoers can breeze through on a casual evening at home, well worth the time spent.

  • Avengers Endgame: A decade in the making

    Avengers Endgame: A decade in the making

    Finality.

    Whether it continues its stranglehold over the cinematic conversation for the next eight months or not, Marvel Studios’ latest feature has immediately become the film event of 2019. (Or at least until the next Star Wars chapter drops in December.)

    For many younger audiences, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has largely come to shape and define their movie going experience through 22 interconnected films spanning over a decade coming to a fitting and satisfying conclusion with “Avengers: Endgame,” which opened Thursday evening.

    Grossing more than a billion dollars worldwide in less than a week, this installment picks up on the heels of last year’s game-changing “Avengers: Infinity War,” with the world’s superheroes handling the fallout.

    There are over 25 credited stars littered across “Endgame,” all given a chance to shine over the course of three hours. But at its core, this bombastic, loud action film that spends a significant amount of time devoted to explaining quantum physics is a small two-handed drama.

    With super suits and indestructible shields, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man and Chris Evans as Captain America excel in “Endgame” carrying the emotional stakes of the film on their backs with true, quality acting, seemingly a rarity within the genre.

    Downey is especially compelling given the context of his status as Marvel’s first star, leading the way in 2008’s “Iron Man,” and evolving his character from billionaire playboy to emotional, battle-scarred father figure.

    Following the journey of Iron Man over the course of “Endgame,” Downey is on par with the nuanced work of Hugh Jackman in the character-driven “Logan” and Christian Bale in the “Dark Knight” trilogy.

    Among the other cast members, Chris Hemsworth continues to delight audiences with the unique comedic style he and director Taika Waititi brought in the third Thor film, “Ragnarok,” and his pairing opposite a CGI raccoon voiced by Bradley Cooper gives “Endgame” much needed levity.

    Co-directors Joe and Anthony Russo do a masterful job of balancing the film’s bloated cast with a complex plot and significant character development while also ensuring a pace that doesn’t place weight on a moviegoer like a typical three hour feature might.

    Large sections of “Endgame” whiz by in and out of battle, though a concerted effort to give time and space for intimate, emotional moments resonate across “Endgame,” especially during the film’s somber first act.

    The one element the Russo brothers could not pull off, however, is separating “Endgame” from the episodic nature of the MCU, making it nearly impossible for first time Marvel viewers to understand or enjoy.

    At a bare minimum, moviegoers would have to have previously caught up with the events of 2018’s “Avengers: Infinity War” and 2016’s “Captain America: Civil War,” although nearly all 21 prior installments are woven into the fabric of “Endgame” in such a fashion as to create a maximum amount of fan service and ensure multiple viewings on the big screen.

    With last year’s “Black Panther” breaking into the Academy Awards conversation for Best Picture and winning three Oscars, it’s no longer unfathomable that a film like

    “Avengers: Endgame” could remain in awards consideration so as to honor the achievement Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige has done shepherding the MCU to commercial and critical success. Best Picture winner “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” is an example of this kind of career achievement award.

    And yet, it’s still likely that the newly titled ninth episode of the Star Wars saga, “The Rise of Skywalker,” will take the place of “Endgame” at the Oscars.

    Closing the chapter on a defining era in the superhero genre, “Avengers: Endgame” is a satisfying, expertly made sequel in the franchise and combines with “Infinity War” to create the MCU’s best, most compelling storytelling.

    A film that has to be experienced at least once on the big screen, “Avengers: Endgame” crystallizes the comic book experience in theatrical form and pushes the bar even higher for what a superhero movie can or should be.

  • Breakthrough: Moved by faith

    Breakthrough: Moved by faith

    Every film has an audience.

    The good ones, the strange ones, the ones with big budgets, the ones shot on phones, even the downright unwatchable ones – to someone, those films matter.

    What film critics often don’t give credence to, however, are how movies make the audience feel.

    Technical merits can be thrown out the window if a film is entertaining enough. A heartwarming tale can still inspire regardless if an actor isn’t quite up to par.

    A film’s flaws can sink its credibility with those who care about the minutea, but “Breakthrough” has bigger things on its mind than accolades.

    Released just before the Easter weekend, “Breakthrough” follows the true story of a young adopted teen faced with little chance of survival after spending over 10 minutes submerged in a frozen lake.

    Although the film is ostensibly about John Smith, the true heartbeat of “Breakthrough” is his mother Joyce, a fierce Christian woman whose prayers of healing and unquestioned faith provide a touchstone for audiences.

    Chrissy Metz of TV’s “This Is Us” brings a fervent, almost aggressive energy to the screen as Joyce. It’s a forceful, impassioned performance seeping with melodrama that wouldn’t work in a strictly secular film.

    Yet somehow, Metz is able to make a character that could easily be a caricature into someone devout Christians can easily identify with and try to see themselves in.

    Coming off a vastly different, yet masterful performance in Spike Lee’s “BlacKkKlansman,” Topher Grace provides welcome counterbalance with a moderate tone as the Smiths’ pastor Jason.

    Grace offers a natural warmth in his performance that soothes opposite Metz’s demonstrative work and the callous, scientific approach by the medical staff in the film.

    The rest of the cast – led by Josh Lucas as Joyce’s estranged husband and Dennis Haysbert as the lead doctor – turn in relatively one-note efforts.

    From a strictly technical perspective, “Breakthrough” is largely unappealing with director Roxann Dawson and screenwriter Grant Nieporte not really bringing much to the table.

    The film struggles especially in terms of structure, with far too much of the two-hour feature establishing all the characters prior to the accident and far too little time spent on the events after the hospital.

    Better filmmakers could make a more compelling narrative out of the film’s final 15 minutes than “Breakthrough” does in its initial 100 minutes.

    But there’s more than enough to the unbelievably true story that gives Metz and Grace room to infuse a mediocre film with ample emotion and heart.

    It’s nearly impossible to walk out of “Breakthrough” without feeling something.

    A wonderful soundtrack that boasts everyone from Bruno Mars to Carrie Underwood to a gorgeous song from Taylor Mosby, “Oceans,” sung at a pivotal point in the film pretty much guarantees heart strings will be pulled

    This is not a good film cinematically. Faith-based features rarely are.

    That doesn’t matter here at all.

    Somehow, “Breakthrough” is exceptionally captivating and affecting for its intended audience.

    That makes it a great movie.

  • The Highwaymen: The long road to justice

    The Highwaymen: The long road to justice

    Movies aren’t allowed to take their time on the big screen anymore.

    Describing a film as slow and intimate has become a cinematic death knell as meticulous drama has ventured off the silver screen for greener pastures on television miniseries or streaming services.

    A tale about famed criminals Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, for example, has to have any number of shootouts, car chases and suspense in order to make an impact on audiences, right?

    Thankfully, director John Lee Hancock doesn’t seem to think so.
    His latest feature, “The Highwaymen” made for Netflix, is a deliberately paced, moderate film that keeps the infamous Bonnie and Clyde on the fringes.

    Audiences rarely get more than a glimpse of high heels and tommy-guns because for once, the focus isn’t on the criminals.

    Screenwriter John Fusco puts viewers squarely in the weathered shoes of retired Texas Ranger Frank Hamer, pulled back into the line of duty as a state-sanctioned vigilante put on Bonnie and Clyde’s trail two years into their cross country crime spree.

    As the film’s title implies, “The Highwaymen” becomes a road movie of sorts, positioning this modern Western of sorts as a slow journey towards inevitability and a hail of gunfire.

    As Hamer, Kevin Costner evokes early John Wayne mixed with late Clint Eastwood for a determined, yet introspective performance.

    Using as few words as possible, Costner maximizes their impact both in what Hamer says and, more importantly, how Hamer says it in a verbal and non-verbal sense.

    It’s easy to feel the road wearing on Hamer’s psyche as Costner carries the burden of being a sanctioned killer of men. There’s a quiet intensity to his performance that is striking the closer viewers grow towards Hamer.

    Costner is matched step for step by a wonderful turn from Woody Harrelson as Hamer’s partner in the hunt, Maney Gault.

    Harrelson is able to bring a modicum of levity to a film in desperate need of emotional release while still maintaining an equal footing with Costner dramatically.

    He is able to keep Maney’s bout with alcoholism a key part of the character without making it the entire character, and a key monologue late in the film may prove to be Harrelson’s best work in at least five years.

    While the film occasionally stumbles out of the starting block, “The Highwaymen” is riveting in its slow-burn once both leads are on the chase and their balance of comfort amidst unease with each other is remarkable.

    Hancock’s film also boasts a solid supporting cast led most notably by Oscar winner Kathy Bates as Texas governor ‘Ma’ Ferguson.

    Cinematographer John Schwartzman brings a vivid eye for the near-center frame, putting the action of a scene just off from where it would be traditionally to create an unique perspective on a familiar tale.

    The heightened palette of the cinematography is striking against the wonderful production design from Michael Corenblith and his team that firmly places “The Highwaymen” in the 1930s while keeping a modern aesthetic that’s reminiscent to Michael Mann’s similar, yet superior John Dillinger film “Public Enemies.”

    Fusco’s screenplay is often far too exacting for the tone Hancock has established, with a tell, don’t show style of dialogue that oversimplifies the narrative for its audience.

    When Fusco slows the tempo down to match the film’s moderate pace, Costner and Harrelson are able to deliver dynamic, compelling performances both on the surface and in the subtext.

    “The Highwaymen” is a testament to the great value two talented actors given the time and space to develop character can be to cinema.

    A somber, yet relentless film, “The Highwaymen” perfectly pairs Costner and Harrelson for a classic modern Western worth checking out.

  • Shazam: Superhero fatigue

    Shazam: Superhero fatigue

    There isn’t anything remarkable, groundbreaking or transcendent about “Shazam,” the latest in a never ending cavalcade of superhero movies “you just have to see on the big screen.”

    The latest offering of DC Comics films from Warner Brothers is invariably entertaining in the moment, but lacks a certain dynamic energy that will resonate with moviegoers after the credits roll.

    It’s got a clear, unique hook to draw audiences.

    “Shazam” follows foster kid Billy Batson, the prototypical well-intentioned delinquent who bounces from group home to group home until a wizard grants him the power to transform into an adult superhero in vaguely Superman-esque attire.

    This premise offers up some genuinely funny moments as Billy and his new foster brother test the limits of Billy’s Shazam alter-ego.

    But as with much of “Shazam,” scenes are dragged out well past the point of repetition as director David F. Sandberg proves well in need of some serious editing to trim the film’s bloated 132-minute run time.

    The success or failure of “Shazam” hinges entirely on the dual performance of Asher Angel as teenage Billy Batson and Zachary Levi as his adult alter-ego Shazam.

    Despite a lack in synchronicity between the two performances – Levi feels less like a strong Batson than an entirely new character – “Shazam” delivers on a pure entertainment level as both Angel and Levi grab the attention of audiences and rarely let go.

    Levi especially is well attuned to the heightened humor of the role and still conveys a convincing amount of comedic range to make Shazam less of a one-note caricature.

    Both actors display great chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer, who often steals scenes as Billy’s foster brother Freddie Freeman.

    Not all of the jokes land as much as Sandberg and screenwriter Henry Gayden would like, but “Shazam” hits much more often than it misses when some combination of these three actors are on screen.

    More in keeping with the majority of the DC Extended Universe movies, “Shazam” is significantly darker in tone than its relatively cheery trailer might suggest.

    The film’s villains include demonic personas of the “seven deadly sins,” grotesquely designed CGI gargoyles that terrorize and brutalize at will.
    “Shazam” also borrows quite liberally from irreverent, R-rated superhero flick “Deadpool,” mixing in that film’s subversive nature by poking fun at genre tropes and other DC movies as well as ramping up the innuendo to the upper limits of the PG-13 rating.

    As a result, “Shazam” occasionally feels derivative and may be upsetting for younger families who thought it may be more in the vein of “Wonder Woman” or “The Incredibles.”

    Where “Shazam” particularly grinds to a halt is in the extended backstory of the film’s primary villain, Dr. Thaddeus Sivana, featuring gritty and exceptionally brutal scenes that far overcompensate for the lighthearted tone of Billy’s journey to become Shazam.

    Veteran character actor Mark Strong has become notable for giving a series of solid performances in these blockbuster villain roles with films like “Sherlock Holmes,” “Green Lantern” and “Kick-Ass,” another film “Shazam” likens itself after much more than it should.

    With Sivana, Strong gets to the point where playing so many similar evildoers becomes repetitive and his Sivana suffers from a relatively muted, bland performance that belies just how much time is spent trying to build the character up.

    As superhero films continue to dominate the cinematic landscape, the sheer weight of quantity has begun to far exceed the quality most films in the genre can deliver.

    In a vacuum, “Shazam” is an exceptionally average film.

    Among superhero movies, and especially those outside the Marvel brand, there’s a lot to like about “Shazam.”

    It’s just not super.

  • Dumbo: Just an ordinary elephant

    Dumbo: Just an ordinary elephant

    A film about a flying elephant should not work, but it did once.

    Remaking an iconic Disney animated film about a flying elephant definitely shouldn’t work and certainly doesn’t here as director Tim Burton stumbles about the circus world for two hours in a clumsy, largely lackluster iteration of the 1941 film “Dumbo.”

    To be clear, this retelling of a Disney classic compartmentalizes the original into about 45 minutes of storytelling, trashing the musical elements and talking animals in lieu of extended commentary about capitalism that will soar like Dumbo himself far over the heads of the young viewers the film is intended for.

    The film follows the struggling Medici family circus who make it big when their lonely baby elephant begins to fly using his oversized ears. The novelty attraction perks the interest of entrepreneur V.A. Vandevere, who buys the circus to monetize little Dumbo at any cost.

    Despite a big name cast of talented actors, the performances in “Dumbo” are muted, one-note caricatures that fail to draw audiences in.

    Colin Farrell is decent as Holt Farrier, a returning war veteran who trains Dumbo with his two children, and Danny DeVito has his moments as circus owner Max Medici.

    When Oscar nominee Michael Keaton strolls onto the scene as Vandevere, however, “Dumbo” begins a long stumble as Keaton can’t seem to get out of his own way. His charming snarl of a character feels out of touch and forced.

    Burton’s “Dumbo” lacks a dynamic energy and scenes often fall flat when the titular elephant is off-screen. It’s difficult to connect emotionally with the thinly constructed characters whipping by at a breakneck pace.
    “Dumbo” is adorably boring and immediately forgettable.

    Iconic flying scenes should have a sense of awe to them and yet in “Dumbo,” the magic simply isn’t there.

    Screenwriter Ehren Kruger, the mind behind three “Transformers” sequels, fails to be a competent choice to pair with the eccentric Burton for a “Dumbo” retelling as the result is a clunky mishmash of the 1941 original and an absurd caricature of corporate greed that subtly reeks of a takedown of Disney’s business model.

    It isn’t just that a $170 million budget for such a bland movie feels exploitative to audiences. There’s a lot of quality artistry to make Dumbo the CGI character a vivid, dynamic work of art on screen.

    Rare moments throughout the film, usually in the big top with flying elephants and animals made from bubbles, are genuinely entertaining and yet don’t linger with viewers.

    But this is also a film where Farrell’s father figure refers to Dumbo as “Big D” and famed boxing announcer Michael Buffer urges the crowd on with a hearty “Let’s get ready for Dumbo!!!!”

    Deliberate, conscious choices like these by Burton and company beg the question if the filmmakers were truly invested in the work or simply as tired of their corporate bosses as the Medici family circus.

    The fact that everything around Dumbo, from the underwritten characters to the lack of musical numbers to the grim final third of the movie, is just exceptionally underwhelming makes it easy to question why a film like “Dumbo” got made in the first place.

    There’s an obvious intention on Disney’s part to revitalize all their classic animated films with live-action stories.

    Audiences have already paid a pretty penny for reboots of “Cinderella,” “The Jungle Book,” “Beauty and the Beast” and an underappreciated “Pete’s Dragon” with “Aladdin,” “The Lion King” and “Mulan” all slated to hit the big screen in 2019.

    “Dumbo” could quite easily be the worst of all of these.

    Entertaining in a “get the kids out of the house” sort of way, “Dumbo” is exactly the kind of low-energy, simple cash grab that smart audiences will avoid in theaters and wait for its inevitable release as part of Disney’s upcoming streaming service.

    “Dumbo” may fly, but there’s simply nothing special about this reboot.

  • Us: The terror within

    Us: The terror within

    Are we our own worst enemy?

    Jordan Peele’s latest film, “Us,” contemplates deeply personal, introspective ideas through the lens of horror.

    The film’s main conceit, an ever precarious internal balance between good and evil, is pushed to the surface quite literally as a family on vacation are confronted by ominous doppelgängers of themselves, the violent opposite of their seemingly normal existence.

    Peele’s second feature gives ample room for a talented cast to sink their teeth into multiple roles, with Oscar winner Lupita Nyong’o shining in the lead role of Adelaide Wilson, the matriarch increasingly fearful of a return to the beach where she faced a childhood trauma.

    Nyong’o also astounds as Red, the matriarch of the doppelgänger family described as “the tethered,” where the talented actress is able to delve deeply into the fractured psyche of horror’s most unique female character.

    “Us” is a heady, thought provoking horror film that relies on thematic terror as much as, if not more so, than traditional jump-scares.

    The less that is known about “Us” prior to a first viewing the better, though repeat screenings will help audiences fully understand Peele’s complex allegory.

    The profound thing about “Us” is that the imminent danger comes from the duality of each lead actor’s performance both in a mirrored and parallel sense.

    This especially rings true with Nyong’o’s mesmerizing turn as both Adelaide and her doppelgänger Red.

    The ways in which Nyong’o separates Adelaide from Red to heighten tension, but simultaneously reveal a deeper connection beyond the physical is truly nuanced, inhabited work.

    If either Adelaide or Red feel false to the audience, the whole feature comes tumbling down like a house of cards, yet Nyong’o is profoundly present in both the unhinged Red and more reserved Adelaide.

    How Nyong’o evolves both characters slightly over the course of the film as the plot reveals more about “the tethered” helps solidify Peele’s allegory. Taking on two complex characters in the same film and putting them on an equal level is incredibly difficult, beautiful acting from Nyong’o.

    The other leads of “Us” – Winston Duke, Shahadi Wright Joseph and Evan Alex – also play their dual roles to perfection, with Alex especially shining in intimate moments between young Jason and his doppelgänger Pluto.

    Cinematically, “Us” works best in its darker moments – at night and at the film’s most terrifying – as Peele collaborates with cinematographer Mike Gioulakis to create interesting, engaging shots that stimulate and accentuate the horror elements without become too gaudy.

    This is especially effective in the family’s initial contact with “the tethered” as intimate shots of the family pressed against their doppelgänger build the suspense exponentially.

    As easy as it would be to compare “Us” with Peele’s 2017 Oscar winning horror-comedy “Get Out,” this latest feature is a completely different animal that trades overt political statements for thematic allegory.

    “Us” is the thinking man’s thriller, a film where Peele will point audiences in a direction and then push them to interpret the narrative of “Us” in their own way.

    Some will see “Us” as a synonym for U.S., continuing a political motif from “Get Out” whereas others may dismiss this as a red herring designed to obscure what’s really going on.

    Regardless, “Us” works as a singular genre film but should best be examined as an artistic interpretation of intentionally vague larger themes in much the same way Darren Aronofsky’s controversial “Mother” provided deeper allegory than a typical Friday night at the movies.

    Though it’s much too early in the year to guarantee awards season acclaim, “Us” certainly has the potential to remain in the larger film conversation in the months to come, much like “Get Out” and “Black Panther” before it.

    “Us” deserves strong consideration in the Best Picture and Best Director race as well as Michael Abels’ haunting score that lingers with audiences long after they’ve left the theater.

    Acting performances in horror films rarely make waves in Oscar voting, but Nyong’o delivers the sort of layered, engulfing turn in dual roles that should break through the noise and potentially lead to her second Academy Award win following 2013’s “12 Years A Slave.”

    More psychological thriller than outright terror, “Us” isn’t as scary as it is fear inducing and the film’s complexities will resonate with audiences long after they leave the theater.