MovieReview

Darke Reviews | Inferno (2016)

Posted by

2

So, I’ve watched all of the Dan Brown movies before watching this. I rather like The Da Vinci Code. I felt the acting was on point, enjoyed the mystery, even if there were a few contrived points. It probably comes from an absolute love and fascination with history. In addition a passion to ask the question, “What if?” These types of stories that are just a touch off the history, just a touch off the real thing that they create a fully enriched and believable mythology are fascinating to me. The mystery presented there was small(ish), and self-contained which allowed it to work as well as it did. The consequences were interesting, but at a specific scale that was relatable to the audience. History and Religion intertwined.

Then came Angels & Demons. Physics and Religion.  The mystery was curious, and while my love for physics and the sciences there is not nearly as strong as my love of history, it was engaging. Then the third act came along and left me feeling generally annoyed. A lot of goodwill for the movie was lost in short order and while again it was well made, it was annoying and too convoluted. While my memory can recall most of DVC pretty accurately, I can maybe recall 50% of Angels & Demons. It was an “ok” after a solid opening.

Now we have Inferno.

The question remains did I get stuck in the Inferno, Purgatorio, or Paradiso watching this?

First, let me say I have a early 1900’s print of The Divine Comedy in my library, so again I say History geek. Not that it comes into play much in this screenplay. In short, its a mess.  I cannot speak for Dan Brown’s novel, but David Koepp (Mission: Impossible, Jurassic Park, War of the Worlds) either was faithful and the novel is a mess, attempted to salvage it and failed, or took something good and gave it anxiety. Now, looking at his filmography he tends to work with pretty decent directors and the films themselves generally are well received. But there have been flaws since 2002. Secret Window, then in 2005 War of the Worlds, 2008 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, he did work on Angels & Demons as well. I am not sure what is going on here, but…this movie is a bloody mess.

The narrative is hard to follow and the parts that should be interesting are glossed over with such a wide brush I could paint the deck of the USS Enterprise with a single stroke. It takes a normal man who at least in the first movie was relatable. Now he is immediately thrust into the story of a super spy better fitting a Mission Impossible or Bourne movie without the physicality of either.  Every line is said, but they are just small quick beats that serve little point beyond getting to the next in something that is too large and ultimately meaningless.

I’ve been seeing a lot about risk show up in Superhero reviews. There are no risks. The dangers are too big to comprehend, thus you do not care. Ultron is going to destroy the world in some vague plan. Loki destroy the world, but to no particular real end.  The villain of Suicide Squad, destroy the world for reasons in some vague way. The stakes are TOO high. Too much. Constantly too much. This time, the trailers tell us we are at threat from something that will somehow wipe out only half of every living human. I admit my biochemistry and virology game are a bit weak, not really studied in over 20 years aside from a few journals reviewed from time to time and keeping an eye on the newest advances in medical science. That said, the science begs the incredulous here. A pathogen that will only take half the population because reasons? A race against the clock to stop it or the world dies in some vague way. It’s too big to care about or buy into. Unless…..

Unless you have the directorial fortitude to make the 12 Monkeys, Planet of the Apes, or 28 Days Later call; which would surprise everyone. The mystery and the race have no weight because we all know this isn’t going to happen. The first movie it’s about uncovering the Grail, something big but stays personal and the ramifications to the world are mostly philosophical in nature. Angels & Demons….would affect a single religion and how it affects the world, but in this day and age we see that even the faithful will turn against the faith if a message is sent they don’t agree with. It’s still a personal, theological, and philosophical outcome; but also was the first to have a McGuffin level body count on failure. This, from the trailer alone is a 4 billion people body count on failure. A failure you know won’t happen. So why care?

That is not the directors only failing here. The opening credits tried to mimic things like 12 Monkeys or I Am Legend, and other staccato style openings with dialogue that has no context to us at this opening. After that we begin in media res; in the hopes that we will dive right in and be brought along on the confusing journey of Dr. Robert Langdon. The trick to bring us along? Just tell the story. Let Hanks act. You do not need to cut every 2 to 4 seconds. You don’t need to blur the camera or lens flare it or wobble it to make us realize he’s confused. The man can act, at least based on 5 Oscar nominations and 2  wins of the golden statue. We don’t need camera tricks.

I really need to go to the story about Marathon Man, with Dustin Hoffman and Sir Laurence Olivier

During the filming of “Marathon Man,” Dustin Hoffman was supposed to play a man who had been up all night. And method actor that he is, he spent the night before shooting the scene awake. When he arrived on the set, his co-star Laurence Olivier asked why he looked so tired. Hoffman explained his approach. Olivier paused and then said, “Try acting, dear boy . . . It’s much easier.”

Director Ron Howard just out and out fails this movie. Let your bloody actors act. If you want to keep a mystery don’t focus on things that most audiences these days will pick up on. Don’t go to generic footage with bad CGI to show a plague scene. Interspersing so called Hallucinations of a battle just breaks the moment rather than enhances it. I really want to keep railing on the bad directing here, but the list would go on too long and I would need to have spoilers.

The final word on the directing is cutting the shot after no longer than 4 seconds the entire movie is a horrible way to make a film. It was noticeable, in such an excruciating way the guy next to me started counting along with me, even though I was just using my fingers. Just stop. Long takes are Ok.

*grumble* I didn’t expect this review to be this long.

Acting? Hanks sleep walks through the role, trying his best to play someone who has brain trauma. He’s uninvested the entire movie and has absolutely no chemistry with anyone at all, even himself. He doesn’t even manage chemistry with his suit. There are three bright spots however, Omar Sy (Bishop in X-Men Days of Future Past)  as a WHO operative on the trail of the plague. He is in the top three most memorable characters and enjoyable to watch, even if you see it all coming a mile a way since the movie opening (and trailer) spoils him. I finally have a line on Felicity Jones, having only seen her in Amazing Spider Man 2 as Felicia – which as I recall her being a bright spot in the movie. I am now looking very forward to her in a more action oriented role in Rogue One this December.  She does everything she can to elevate the poor material she was given and directed on. I can’t say she always succeeds, but I lay that on Howard not her performance.  Side note, I think she would make a great companion on Dr. Who. The brightest star goes to Irrfan Khan (Jurassic World, Life of Pi). He made me smile and laugh a few times (intentionally!!). It was needed. The man exuded charisma on screen and was so just casual and easy going that I wanted to watch a movie about him. Yet another failing on the material and director that a third string character (not actor) is so much more interesting than your main.

TL;DR?

This marks one of my larger reviews coming in at almost 1500 words at this point.

I didn’t expect to go off on such a rant above, but dear powers that be this movie fails on so many basic levels that I needed to use this gif.

While not an abomination like Die Hard 5 or other movies, this one is just such a remarkable disappointment. It is a dismal failure in my opinion on the career of Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. It isn’t deserving of hate, but instead pity. Sadly that pity means I think it needs the Old Yeller treatment and to be never spoken of again. I come here to not praise this movie, but to bury it.

Should you see it?

I wish I hadn’t. So no.

Will you buy it?

Honestly I am hoping it bombs enough that the studio decides against putting it on BluRay. We should never speak of this again remember?

Is it really THAT bad?

Probably not, but unlike some movies which I can ignore the flaws for a greater narrative, performance, or filming technique there’s not enough good here to allow me to ignore the flaws.

Ok, so let’s talk Dr. Strange!

Let’s…not today. I would not be kind. Look for something on next weeks release soon though.

Darke Reviews | Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

Posted by

1

There are times I know I am glad I almost never read the books for the movies I watch. Take for instance Jack Reacher, the 2012 movie I consider a near perfect film in its craft. The mystery is solid, well paced, the action while limited is view able and visceral. The acting is top notch and it has one of the best openings to a film probably in the last decade. It probably deserves a review of it’s own and I may have to get to that; actually a little sad I didn’t have one already. But that’s the movie. People RAGED over the casting of Tom Cruise as someone who is by the book supposed to be a mountain of a man. I suppose if I was a fan of the character in that way I might be upset, actually I know I was when Vampire Diaries came out and some of the characters I liked were changed. So I get it, but without that baggage I went in to an unknown property that I didn’t know was based on a book at the time and really enjoyed it.

The question is does the Hollywood mandated sequel meet the bar?

The movie of course is based on the book Never Go Back by Lee Childs, to which I have no idea the accuracy of said material (beyond his size). It was then adapted under my three writer rule by Richard Wenk, Edward Zwick, and Marshall Herskovitz. Wenk has shown up in my reviews before as the writer of The Magnificent Seven and the Equalizer. He also was the writer on one of my favourite guilty pleasure vampire movies, Vamp. Herskovitz was a producer on the amazingly underrated The Last Samurai (also with Tom Cruise) and additionally working on the screenplay there. Leaving us with Edward Zwick, who was a writer on The Last Samurai, but also directed this movie. His directorial credits also include little films no one ever heard of such as the Civil War movie “Glory”, a little movie with Brad Pitt called Legends of the Fall, oh yeah and director of Blood Diamond and Last Samurai.

You may wonder why I go into this much detail on their prior works. I find it important as you can begin to see patterns in behaviors, styles of shots, dialogue, lighting, blocking everything. These guys have a pretty good pedigree. Which leaves me wondering what happened here? It has moments where the brilliance wants to shine. Don’t get me wrong, the movie is Ok. Good even, but its like diet low salt popcorn. Ultimately unsatisfying when it could have been so much more. The camera work, including some interestingly used Dutch angles, is ok. The mystery is ok. The…everything is ok. Why? Why is it just this? These guys have the skills to elevate it. Cruise is a producer, Christopher McQuarrie director of the superior first movie is a producer. There’s no excuse.

The story picks up with Jack Reacher (Cruise), former Military Police Major, doing his best A-Team impression drifting in and out of towns and uncovering things that offend his sense of justice and morals. He begins phone flirting with Major Turner (Cobie Smulders) and is intent on meeting her. When he arrives he finds she’s been arrested on espionage charges. He also finds, that someone has filed a paternity suit against him while he’s been doing the drifting thing, and that he may have a 15 year old daughter (Danika Yarosh). She of course is drawn into the plot of murder, betrayal, and corruption as a potential pawn to use against Reacher.

This is just lazy. I mean I went to see an action crime thriller and ended up with what, the most awkward family outing? I mean it was a joy to see Reachers misogyny. I can’t tell you how thrilling it was to see him be “a mans man” a few times and just try to blunt force trauma his way through social situations. Every beat is neatly telegraphed or otherwise rehashed from the first movie. There’s flat out lazy filmmaking choices to ‘show us’ that Reacher has a good memory. Directorial choices make it so painfully obvious how he’s observing everything around him. It was absolutely aggravating because it should have been better.

The actors are fine, though it appears unlike the first movie someone added leg day back into Tom’s contract. I counted three scenes of him running, maybe 4. I stopped caring. This isn’t to say Cruise did a bad job. Quite the contrary, and despite my earlier protests, he’s fantastic. It is GOOD to see your hero has flaws. It is good to see your hero can be wounded. Even little things like his fingers twitching after the in media res diner scene. That’s what happens as you come down from a fight. It’s again what makes me think there’s a better movie that wanted to come out. Cobie Smulders (Avengers, How I Met Your Mother) is excellent. She matches Tom Cruise quite well and is absolutely believable in her role. I think there’s a long term action star here if she wants it. She did all she could do with the script she was given and more, which puts her a leg up on a lot of other actors as she was able to elevate a few scenes beyond how basic they were. She has good chemistry with Cruise as an actor even if the characters are in conflict. Danika Yarosh (Heroes Reborn) is also good. She’s honestly believable as kid who has been in and out of the system a few times and treads carefully the line of the stupid teenager by both script and directing. I repeat myself, the fact that her performance and character is as good as it is is in direct opposition to the overall emotion I felt at the end.

The fight sequences up to the climactic one are a hair too dependent on cuts and camera motion; a detractor. Just a few seconds longer, just a bit more stability and Just Ok fight sequence would have been good ones. The climactic one was pleasing even if the beat leading up to it was…*sigh* The action was GOOD, if you could see it. The fights were visceral and brutal and seeing the hero hurt was good, but they lacked something – at least until the climax. That one felt Excellent. Again…annoyance at what should and was trying to be better.

TL;DR

I had my hopes up for this one. That may have been a mistake. It was a simple paint by numbers action mover, with a lackluster mystery. Everything was just a few shades, a few beats, or few cuts from being really incredible but just ended up on the right side of mediocre.

I don’t hate the movie, I am just disappointed in it. I am disappointed in the director and writers who I’ve seen enough body of work to know what they are capable of and could have given something richer. I am annoyed by some very lazy choices in film making that are undeserving of what this should have been.

So what would you rate it?

Somewhere between an Ok and a Good. It’s serviceable and has enough moments of entertainment that it is absolutely watchable. I just found that there’s enough detractors that I couldn’t ignore despite wanting to. Audiences will find it ok and a lot of dudes will be going Reacher is a bad ass.

Should you see it?

If you’ve got a spare ten bucks and aren’t seeing the superior film The Accountant? Sure. Just matinee…or with Beer or something. But really go see The Accountant.

Will you buy it?

Eh probably? I just won’t be rushing out to get it or pre order it.

So you didn’t do the review a day after all?

No. Heart wasn’t in it. It’s also tiring. If you watch web reviewers, they generally limit themselves to once a week. It’s harder than it looks to do these and do them well. Giving every review for 31 days the right attention and credit is draining. I might do another run in the future. Maybe random ones. I do owe someone a review of either Dungeons and Dragons or the Core.

Next week, Inferno. Because I hate myself, but mostly so I can get a sense of Felicity Jones before Rogue One.

 

Darke Reviews | Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

Posted by

0

Yes, this review is incredibly late. Vacation, then robbery, then some scheduling conflicts with my friend who wanted to see it with me. As we go into this review please understand that Burton is on his last legs with me. I have not really enjoyed anything he has done as a writer, director, or producer since 2003’s Big Fish. In fact there are some works of his I absolutely hate with a burning passion that cannot be described in the english language. Dark Shadows, I am looking at you. I won’t even taint my site with a review of that rancid nay putrescent pile of celluloid trash. If that does not make it clear my expectations for this film little will. What I did look forward to was some decent fantasy and the generally engaging Eva Green.

Did I go deeper in or desire to escape the fantasy?

The story is based on a series of YA/Childrens fantasy book by Ransom Riggs, yes that’s his real name as near as I’ve been able to find. Originally crafted to be based on an odd collection of photographs it’s clear the story evolved into so much more. It was adapted to screen by Jane Goldman, who worked on some amazing films such as Stardust, Kick-ass, X:Men First Class & Days of Future Past, and Kingsman. The story is ultimately a fantasy in which our hero Jake (Asa Butterfield) finds out his grandfather’s stories may not have been. He journeys to Wales to uncover the mystery of the stories and is introduced to Miss Peregrine and her home. Of course such stories are nothing without conflict and for that we have The Hollows who well are the bad guys. In usual fashion I have simplified the story so as to avoid spoilers.

There are precisely three directors who could make this film that come to mind. Tim Burton, Matthew Vaughn, and Guillermo Del Toro. You need someone who gets the nature of world building and creating a fantasy world that we can both relate to but is different and one that is tangible. That is the problem so many other directors have, they don’t give us tangible worlds. Think of the first Harry Potter films or the first Lord of the Rings films. The worlds created were high fantasy but very real and touchable.  Most films lose that in a swath of CGI, this retains its realistic physicality even though there is a distinct separation from between our world and the next. For fans of White Wolf Publishing/ Onyx Paths games this reminds me of either a small pocket realm from Mage the Ascension or a lost trod from Changeling the Dreaming. What it did was give me a sense of the surreal, a sense of magic. If you know anything of me, that automatically engages me if done right.

Burton did it right….mostly. Vaughn may have gone too far to the unreal. Del Toro probably would give someone nightmares (*stares at Pans Labrynth*). Burton is a visionary director who for the first time in a long time showed that he can move beyond the tired cliches of his other productions. While there are echoes of his style, this doesn’t quite feel like a Burton film that we’ve become accustomed to. It is beautifully early 20th century and at the same time shows the banality of the modern suburb. The colour palette is normalized for the majority of the film with the colours used to add to the story and are neither too far in either direction of the saturation scale. Where he fails us is tone. The movie is inconsistent. There are moments of “wow that’s intense” with moments that positively eject you from the movie due to tone, dialogue, and music. This is a problem he has had overall and how in the end I know it’s his. It just cannot decide where its lines are and how to stay within them or when not to appropriately.

Asa Butterfield (Enders Game) does sufficiently well in the lead role, mostly getting to stare wide eyed or longingly depending on the moment. The longingly is for Emma Bloom the girl lighter than air, (Ella Purnell) who pretty much has the same queues. I can’t say if they have chemistry or not, but their performances together tend to repeat so much of previous scenes I’ve seen a skipping records with less recycling of a moment. Both do act well, but the direction and or script do them no favours. Eva Green looks and acts fabulous as Miss Peregrine and has a major departure from most of her other works, though I think her time on Penny Dreadful helped a bit. Everyone else in the movie is “Good”. Nothing to write home about, no particular show stealers, but nothing that made me wince either.

I want to talk about production for a moment. The costuming, hair, and make up is stellar. The attention to detail is incredible. It is really well done and I do not believe a dollar of its $110 million budget was wasted. Sad that it’s only made $57 million so far. At best it will top out at $65, ensuring we do not see a sequel unless it screams to life on DVD. The creature designs were incredible and original and I wish I could find who specifically designed them. They were really well done and this person needs more work. As always though, no one has quite figured out creatures and purely CGI in daylight that doesn’t look wrong. It was glass breaking, at times, but otherwise really well done.

TL;DR?

This is an ok movie. It could have and should have been better. I was invested in the world and wasn’t quite sure how it would end and that’s refreshing. As with a lot of YA works, I love the worlds built and most of the characters, but something fell off in the execution that created a sense of being disjointed. Like I know I liked it and I would even say good, but there’s just enough wrong that it keeps the movie from being elevated into me not having to hem and haw on the good factor. Maybe I am being kind because I want to be peculiar, because I want to escape into this world so much. Maybe they just did it right.

If this is the Burton we are getting in the future, I am glad. He still needs to fix his tonal shifting and pick a theme, but this felt good. This felt original and new from him. More please. You are better than you have been, and this could be better. Maybe it was stretching off old muscles, but you did good here. On your next do more and we will all be happy.

Should you see it?

If you enjoy fantasy yes. It has some pacing issues but otherwise you will be fine. I was successfully invested and that makes it worth a recommendations.  Just measure your expectations.

Will you buy it on BluRay?

Without a doubt.

What Next?

Haven’t quite decided if my week will allow me to see The Girl on the Train, but at a minimum you are getting the next Jack Reacher film next week. I hope it’s as entertaining as it’s predecessor.

Darke Reviews | The Accountant (2016)

Posted by

1

Miss me? I know I know, just been a helluva week I would rather forget since returning from the vacation. I wish I could forget things, but my memory says no to that. I came across a trailer for this a few weeks ago, and this largely seems to be slipping under a lot of peoples radars.

“I’m going to see the Accountant.”

“Didn’t you do your own taxes?”

*heavy sigh*

It has a pretty tight cast, an intriguing trailer, and what by appearances seems to be a ‘semi-positive’ take on Autism.

But how was it?

The script, written by Bill Dubuque (The Judge), follows a few interlacing threads most of which center on The Accountant (Affleck) and his ties to various organized crime as well as his skills in reviewing and cooking books for his clients, both legitimate and illegitimate. I would classify this as a thriller-action in that particular order, as the action pieces are few and far between and used to move the story forward as the mysteries of the movie and motivations of each of the characters unravels for the audience. The story itself is original, with beats recycled from a dozen other movies; but done so in a way that tells something I haven’t quite seen but is familiar and relatable.  If anything is a miracle here, Dubuque made filing taxes and reviewing spreadsheets look and sound amazingly interesting. Truth be told, forensic accounting *is* amazingly interesting, but this is from a girl who loves spending her days trying to uncover what’s actually happening in scenarios she’s presented.

Granted to take the otherwise solid material and make it pop takes a decent director, which we have Gavin O’Connor (Warrior, Miracle). He does a rather good job with alternating between medium length stationary cameras and moving them with the on screen motion. The work there kept the movie interesting as the story unfolds for us as did his direction for the actors. Each performance felt particularly earnest, with one exception which wasn’t quite adding up with the others, but was still good acting. I was not a fan of the diluted palette of the film as it didn’t seem to serve a purpose to me other than washing out the colours of the overall work. Going back to the subject of camera work the “wobbly cam” while not as painful as full on shaky cam was a distinct departure from otherwise good camera work and distinctly noticeable when used. I feel he was inspired by the amazingly shot John Wick for a lot of what was executed here.

Acting wise Affleck turned out a good performance, but I have to lean to my friends who are on the spectrum or have children on the spectrum to tell me if it was accurate. They seemed to treat it well, but that isn’t for me to judge. Anna Kendrick as forensic accountant Dana Cummings is charming as usual and is actually a really rich character; but even the hint of setting her up as a romantic interest for Affleck is a touch annoying. Yes, in real life people with 13 year age differences get together all the time and its fine. In movies, in Hollywood, they generally refuse to cast actresses near the leads age or older for romance….for reasons. No good reasons, just reasons. Again the fault here isn’t on the actors who both do really well, just the nudge in the direction of romance didn’t need to be there for this to work.

J.K. Simmons is not demanding pictures of Spiderman here, but instead a member of the treasury department looking for the Accountant for his own mysterious reasons. Aided by a member of his division, played by Cynthia Addai Robinson (Amanda Waller from Arrow) they try to piece together who he is and what he is. Both performances and characters were everything I needed from them and were absolutely engaging. We also have the addition of Jon Bernthal (Netflix Punisher, The Walking Dead) as a contractors whose job intersects with the accountant; who does just as well and made me smile with his delivery and just general character performance.

TL;DR

This is the Batman movie we deserve. Seriously. The Accountant must be detective and bad ass. I found myself really enjoying the film end to end with only a few sighs at some of the beats.

As I stated before, I can’t speak on the treatment of autism within the narrative, but from what I do know it seems to be treated respectfully. Yes, its a plot device to a point but isn’t the sum of the parts. The dialogue describing the condition late in the film seems to be on par with what I have heard from more progressive medical experts. I really would like some of my friends out there who do have  a point of view to share it if they see this.

Overall, this is a really good movie with only a few flaws to it, but none so grievous as to say no or reduce my enjoyment. It does have less action than you might think, but it has a really good paced structure to it and I didn’t notice the time passing.

Should you see it?

If you like thrillers or thriller action? Yes. Ben Affleck – yes. Honestly, its just a solid movie that absolutely met expectations (which I thought would be good/interesting) and I think it needs some credit.

Will you buy it on BluRay?

Yep. It has some good rewatch value.

Any other reviews coming?

I should be seeing Ms Peregrine this weekend, possibly Little Sister and Girl on the Train, but Ms Peregrine to be sure.

What about Dr. Strange in November?

There’s a whole post coming on that one.

Darke Reviews | The Magnificent Seven (2016)

Posted by

3

The Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa is a masterpiece. There are people who may try to argue this, but they are simply wrong. Kurosawa painted a tale of modern mythology that all others would try to follow. Then they did six years later in 1960 with an American version of it, a western of course as was the course for the day, with an established director John Sturges at the helm. He put together a cast of what we think of now as legends of the industry Yul Brenner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn, James Coburn, and Eli Wallach. The story is the same, the beats are the same, the setting is different. While it is a silver age representation of how we take great films from other countries and remake them (I am looking at you Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Let the Right One In), in and of itself it is just as iconic. Needless to say when the first trailer released only a few months ago for this version some 50+ years later many were dubious of someone messing with a classic.

So do we need to have a showdown at high noon?

The movie appropriately gives credit to the original with screenplay credits for Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto, and Hideo Oguni; but then gives us screenplay credits for Richard Wenk and  Nic Pizzolatto. Wenk has shown up in my reviews before for his work on Vamp and The Equalizer. We will also see him behind the ben on the Jack Reacher sequel. Pizzolatto comes from the world of TV where he worked on the critically acclaimed True Detective and a few episodes of The Killing. They make the required changes for what we know now and do little more to enhance the story or alter it in any significant way. Some of the alterations seem to be detractors from otherwise solid but simply ok material. Once again the story changes little, with a town in peril paying for seven drifters with pasts …and presents as warriors to defend them. This is not just the last stand for the town, but the last chance for …peace, redemption, revenge, or mayhaps even to be legendary themselves.

Director Antoine Fuqua was the right man for this role. I saw his name on the original trailer and was pleased, despite the musical choices. There is absolutely not a single film of Fuqua’s I don’t like (that I’ve seen). King Arthur (2004), Shooter, Olympus Has Fallen, The Equalizer, and most would call out Training Day. The man can shoot a film. He has an excellent sense for blocking, pacing, and how to get the most from his actors. His action scenes are visceral in their brutality yet tame enough and safe enough for easy consumption. The same holds true here. The tension as one of the gunfights prepares to break out is palpable. When the cord snaps, we are treated to a fast moving but accessible, more importantly, watchable series of events that tell you everything you need to know about who you are dealing with.

The actors are great. Denzel doesn’t Denzel too much and does well as Chisolm. Chris Pratt as Josh Faraday our Gambler shows he can do a special intensity that was appropriate but sadly lacks some, but not all, of his usual charm. Ethan Hawke’s Goodnight Robicheaux is amazing and it is a bit weird to think of Ethan Hawke being one of the older men in the group. His companion Billy Rocks played fantastically by the criminally under used (in other projects) Byung-hun Lee (Red 2, both GI Joe Movie) has such wonderful chemistry with Hawke, I buy these two as good friends. Vincent D’Onofrio (Jurassic World, Daredevil) completely vanishes into Jack Horne, the old tracker brought along. Haley Bennett plays our woman seeking revenge on the man (Peter Sarsgaard’s Bartholomew Bogue) who killed her husband and delivers as well as everyone else. It’s nice when a competent director gets all good actors! Manuel Garcia Rulfo (born in Mexico) and Martin Sensmeier (Heritage: Tlingit and Koyukon-Athabascan) round out our unlikely group. Now you might be asking why I don’t list their credits, but their heritage. It’s a fair question, but in my small war against white washing, it’s important to call out when the right people are cast for the right roles, as in this case both men are cast to play a Mexican and a Native American. It is that rare that it deserves mention – Representation is important!!!  Cast diversity is some of the widest non token characters I have seen in some time.

Sadly, the movie does have flaws that need to be called out. Bennett’s a single stumble or trip away from a wardrobe malfunction for reasons we cannot fathom and sporting a shade of red hair that doesn’t come naturally from roots. It’s a lovely shade but jarringly noticeable as they keep calling attention to it with the light. The normally on point James Horner, working with Simon Franglen, fails the movie musically. This isn’t to say the music is bad. It’s just generic western. There are several beats of the movie where you would want or expect the music to take a different tone or just be different, but it’s a little too loud, little too wrong, and just not right. Again, it isn’t bad! It just is wrong for the movie and doesn’t resonate as well as it should. The music should bring you in more and tell a story its own and tell you what to feel. Sometimes it does, but too many noticable times it breaks the mood in a wrong direction.

I wish I could say that the costuming on Haley and Horner’s music were the only flaws.

I want to know what…no I demand to know what is going on in Hollywood. The movie editing on some of these pictures this year is horrendous. Some of it is the studio (Batman V Superman) others are totally inexplicable. Ghostbusters and Suicide Squad come to mind. There’s a better film on the editing room floor. Too many scenes cut short. Too many scenes that needed 3o seconds more of dialogue or a minute longer of the right people connecting and talking. The actors did well, but the editor didn’t do them any favours. It made it hard at times to connect to them the way you are intended, and while many moments are earned by inference they are not earned on the lens and in the frame. Conversations between old soldiers, old friends, and even old enemies could have happened and were missed or otherwise cut. This is why I say the actors did well, but I think they could have been even better (as good as they were!). That is disappointing.

TL;DR

The Magnificent Seven is a solid good. It will never be the classic that either of the films it drew from are. It didn’t earn that, but it could have. There’s a better movie somewhere in here. Somewhere on an editing room floor and I want to see that movie. It might be three hours, but it would be a worthy three hours. There’s intensity here that works in a lot of scenes, but other parts just are off enough that what should be important isn’t. Others are something that could be studied by other lesser directors.

I have a sense some studio interference happened here. I can’t say why, but I am 99% sure it did. The film could have been so much better and I regret we may never see that movie.

Should I see it?

The movie is good. It’s watchable. I enjoyed it. There are a lot of people who will and should see it this weekend. I can easily recommend it to them without doubting it.

Do not dare compare it to the original (either of them). It will disappoint.

Will you watch it again?

Matinee maybe? Not full price.

How about BluRay?

Absolutely.

What’s next?

I am on vacation and it will span over the next two thursdays. Which means I may not get to Miss Peregrine for a bit and that makes me sad I am looking forward to it, but it feels weird to go on vacation and sit in a theatre when I could be out “doing”

That also means I may not do a review a day this October as the first 8 days I won’t be home and at times won’t have internet. Yes, I am going to a place without net. I am not sure if you should cheer or weep.

We will see what happens. Don’t begrudge me the vacation…please?

Darke Reviews | Blair Witch (2016)

Posted by

0

Little known, not so secret. I have never watched The Blair Witch Project. It didn’t interest me enough when it came out, despite being filmed not too terribly far from my old stomping grounds in Maryland. Ok that isn’t saying much. If you make the wrong turn or get lost in Maryland you end up in another state. It isn’t that hard. I have however watched the more Hollywood style sequel that came out a few years later Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2. It was…*sigh* maybe I will review it. But I do recommend GoodBadFlicks review of it to understand why it is the way it is. If you’ve read my other reviews, you know I am not a fan of the shaky cam so I really do not know what I was thinking going into the theatre tonight.

Was it the curse of the witch that drew me in or a masochism streak the size of the Chesapeake Bay?

Written by Simon Barrett, after successes of segments of the V/H/S movies and more notably You’re Next. I have to say I can see some of his stylings from those films here as well. His protagonists are prepared, they are smart, and react well to the strange.  It’s important to note that yes the characters here ARE smart. What happens to them in the film is only rarely due to raw stupidity. I am also not talking Final Girl Trope smart. They go hiking in the woods with batteries, cameras, GPS, a solid first aid kit, and most importantly a plan. That said the premise itself is straight-forward and enough to get it going but with mild stupidity required. A video surfaces with the protagonist , James, sister in it who went missing when he was 4 in the Black Hills Forest just outside of Burkittsville Maryland. He wants to find out what happened to her and brings his best friend, his not girlfriend, and best friends girl to help him. The reason for the camera work is of course one of them wants to film a documentary. Of course things do go wrong…

I appreciate the logic this time of the documentary portion as you have multiple events that have happened here. There is a passing reference to the original mythology, the original movie, and even a single line acknowledging the second. Some of the credit has to go to Barrett’s collaborator and the director Adam Wingard. These two work well together and I hope to see more from them in the future. Wingard has a gift here and brings real tension with a few well placed jump scares that didn’t annoy. Unlike Don’t Breathe a few weeks ago I did feel the tension build as I knew *something* was coming but not sure what. How he decided to have them shoot the woods, the house in the trailer, it’s done rather well – especially as the movie builds. My only technical peeve with it is voices don’t echo in the woods like that and the animal howls used were coyotes…I know because I am listening to them outside my window and down the street right now. They found a meal.

All the actors do a fine job. James Allen McCune (Shameless) as James is the boy with the lost sister and while the concept requires his IQ to drop significantly to execute, he lets it show the rest of the time with otherwise good decisions and solid reactions to the terror of the hills. Callie Hernandez (Alien Covenant) plays our filmmaker, Lisa. Again tech savvy, well planned, well done. Corbin Reid, Brandon Scott, Wes Robinson, and Valorie Curry (Detroit: Become Human) all deliver equally well and are believable in their roles.

Technically, I’ve discussed some of my issues with the sound and irritation at that. Other sound is fantastic, as is the distinct lack of soundtrack. Lighting, such as it is, performs it’s task equally well and helps add to the claustrophobia of the woods. Think about that sentence for a minute, but it works. The jump scares only are annoying once or twice as I found a few of them just a bit much and others…they work. They did know how to use steady cam hiding it in the other technical details of the camera, but there is of course shaky cam and built in static as the movie goes through. It isn’t bad, but could be for some people. It does make me sad they didn’t film in Maryland again, while they may not have been able to film in Burkittsville, there’s a lot of Maryland that looks like what they needed. Yes, I could tell they weren’t there.

TL;DR

I rather enjoyed the movie. I did feel the tension in the places I was meant to. I was oddly invested in the story and overall didn’t find myself annoyed with the main characters. I noticed a lot of little details that should make you question what you see and what you believe. The movie succeeds intelligently in creating a haunted wood and you are left to decide what happened, what didn’t, what you saw, what you didn’t at the end. I like that question. I like the answers I received and the questions I had.

Should you see it?

If you are a fan of the series? Yes. A fan of horror yes. You don’t need XD or anything special. It also may be better to see it in a a near empty theatre as the sound works and excess background noise can detract.

Will you buy it Jess?

The magic 8 ball says uncertain and ask again later.

What’s next?

Magnificent Seven and Miss Peregrine!

Darke Reviews | Morgan (2016)

Posted by

4

Yes, I saw this last night and am just writing the review now. Based on the fact no one I talked to at work today even knew this movie was coming out tells me a lot about it’s marketing. The poster (see title image) was entirely uninspired and did little to tell you what the story was. The official trailer did not really tell you much more and I am unsure now if it was a trailer that lied or aspects of the movie that were cut. Possibly both? The trailer of course, is here for your perusal if you should wish to see what the bill of goods we were sold on this was.

 

Sure we see the Scott Free Logo, which means of course the master of Replicants and Xenomorphs, Ridley Scott. He too has stumbled in recent years with projects such as Exodus: Gods and Kings (Prometheus is up for debate), and even in the past (1492: Conquest of Paradise). Though this time he sits in the producer’s chair not director…but does it matter?

Should they not have let Morgan out of the editing room?

Well to the first question – not really. The film is directed by his son Luke Scott with this as his debut to the general public. He did work as Second Unit Director on Exodus, but never the big chair himself. I can see the inspiration he has gained from his father. There are a lot of brilliantly directed shots in this movie where the blocking, camera work, and imagery tells a story all on its own. He also has a flaw of his father where sometimes a scene goes just a hair too long, but has also a flaw of his own in which scenes that really should be longer are broken by a cut or another event. Something that I feel took away from the effectiveness of the storytelling going on. There were so many very clear intentional choices being made in so many aspects of the film that I know there’s a good director there. He just didn’t really communicate some of the decisions well enough in action or word to let you know why it was made.

I have to blame the script for some of this though with only the indy film Peepers to his writing credit  back in 2010, there’s not a lot to discern his choices. I think, but I cannot prove, that he watched Ex Machina and got an idea. The problem is he didn’t know how to execute on the idea. He wanted to do a story about synthetic life (Replicant prototypes?) and make it an American-ized thriller. The problem with this is you have to have the dialogue to support it. You have to have the flow of logic to reach ideas and to understand the underlying objective of the science. Ex-Machina is a Turing test to the next level. This lacked that. They went for an almost slasher vibe by the trailer, which the movie doesn’t support. It also requires more bad science and scientists than I can bear. I don’t mean the scientific aspects itself, they work within the context as the movie follows it’s own rules fairly well. I mean the scientific and lab procedures themselves were bad. This wasn’t a lab. It was a daycare center with an observation window.

So while the script and overall plot required stupidity to function, the actors themselves played their parts as best they could. Anya Taylor-Joy delivers a fantastic muted performance, which I am starting to wonder if they are getting too easy to play? Her work in The Witch was one of passion and emotion, while this required the reverse and again I blame the script for not giving her all the room to explore that. I really want to see more work from her in the future as this was a solid performance that sadly the request of the role is quickly becoming typical enough to have a checklist.

  • Thousand yard stare – ✔
  • Stilted communication – ✔
  • Quirky and alienesque body language – ✔
  • Muted or Manic Emotional Responses – ✔

The role itself is uninspired, even if the actor in its place acts their butt off. I think of Soldier with Kurt Russell – which is an amazing performance and more rare then than it is now. This just comes across as another creepy child and there is little Taylor-Joy can do to make it more with what she has. Kate Mara (Shooter, The Martian, Fan4stic) has a similar problem. She is quite literally asked to do little with her performance, which she does marvelously. I suppose that is the sign of talent. To have someone who can deliver complex emotions and is good at it and ask them to deliver little and be stoic despite their urges to want to deliver more.

I would talk about the rest of the cast, Jennifer Jason Leigh (Hateful Eight), Rose Leslie (Game of Thrones, The Last Witch Hunter), Toby Jones (Captain America), Paul Giamatti (San Andreas, Sideways), Michelle Yeoh (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon), who all try to bring their characters to life. Try, but the characters were stillborn. The actors do what they can with characters told with so broad a stroke the brush is the size of an aircraft carrier. They don’t even reach caricature status and are so plagued by inherent stupidity that I wonder how they got their jobs. The actors are fine. The role itself – not so much.

From a technical aspect, I wish I could talk about something innovative here, but the movie was shot on the very cheap with an 8 million dollar budget (of which it made back only $2.5). With that understanding it seems to me the studio itself wanted to try the current trend of low budget supernatural horror with sci fi; again inspired by the masterpiece of Ex Machina.

TL;DR

It’s…ok. It’s not bad, but it is annoying with the scientists. I’d like to say it was good. I’d like to say I cared. I just can’t. I have to lay the blame entirely on the script as I can see everyone and their mother trying to do more with what they have and not being able to do much. I really wish someone had taken another pass at this and made a decision on the tone of the movie. Do you want horror? Do you want thriller? Do you want slasher? Do you want sci fi? I really don’t care, but pick one. Not all of them.

I wish they had gone further. I wish they had explored some of the ideas…any of the ideas. I wish they had done something…at all.

In the end there’s a lot of neat concepts and half hearted ideas but none of them click. It isn’t thought provoking at all.

I wish it had been. This could have been so much better than an “ok”.

Should you see it?

Y…no. Not really.

Will you buy it on BluRay?

Nope.

Are you seeing Sully this weekend?

No. I am tired of movies about events I watched on the news within the past decade and a half. They are well made films no doubt, but I just am tired of Tom Hanks playing captain savior and survivor. He’s good at it. The movie is good I am sure, but I cannot bring myself to care when we had 24/7 news coverage of Captain Phillips and Captain Sully.

Darke Reviews | The Mechanic: Resurrection (2016)

Posted by

1

I checked in on my phone at the theatre a few hours before seeing this one as I did a double feature tonight. On my facebook page, I asked “why does this exist?” In the realm of sequels out there, there are ones we deserve, ones we want, ones we earn, and ones we go – how did this even happen? The remake of the Charles Bronson, Jan-Michael Vincent classic hitman caper debuted in January of 2011; with a production budget of $40 million and a total domestic haul of $29 million ($62 worldwide). It didn’t do much better in DVD sails with a mediocre $17 million total. Yet…here we have a sequel. We have a sequel to this thing when Ghostbusters (2016); which has earned $208 million on it’s $144 million budget and is still showing is being lambasted as a “flop” and sequel plans cancelled.  So 5 years later, we get this film, but Jason Statham is usually good for an action sequence.

The question is should the Mechanic have been resurrected?

The story and screenplay are brought to you by Philip Shelby (Survivor)  and Brian Pittman (A Haunting At Silver Falls, Dawn Patrol), with screenplay by Shelby and Tony Mosher (just this..); I am left wondering if they know how to tell a cohesive narrative. They introduce points that mean nothing, jump locations as if they are nothing, fail to create dramatic tension, and quite honestly just get to the edge of farcical but take themselves too seriously to let the audience feel comfortable to laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. I feel like there may have been a man with a gun in the writing room waiting for the first draft and taking that as the final copy despite protests to the contrary. There are leaps of logic, decision making, and plot points that left me scratching my head and scrunching my face in confusion.

Some of that blame might go to director Dennis Gansel, who provided me one of my favourite vampire films in the past few years We Are The Night (look for a review in October). He failed on this one and failed big, I can see all the marks of the European shooting style and sensibilities in how many of the shots were blocked, how the camera was used, and actors positioned. But he, or someone in the production, should have watched the dailies and realized something wasn’t working. Ok…nothing was working. Chemistry, the Camera, the action, none of it worked.

Jason Statham clearly was in it for a paycheck and must have been doing this while rehearsing for Fast 8. His attention isn’t here nor is any of the charm he can manage. This is just generic Statham. A generic movie with him that I think they rewrote to make it a sequel to the Mechanic because they couldn’t do anything else with the concept to make an attempt to sell it. I spoke of chemistry and there is none. If someone buys the relationship and so called emotions between Jessica Alba’s Gina, and his Arthur Bishop tell me what I missed. There’s precisely one scene where they are drinking beer together that I bought and I think it’s because both actors realized the mistake they made signing this and needed the drink. Alba emotes with all the force of Jai Courtney in this movie. The writers didn’t do her any favors when they tell me she’s supposed to be ex-military and she’s entirely relegated to damsel. I am not even bothering to talk about the villains; there isn’t a point – much like this movie.

I may have cared more if I could see a shot. Some shots linger too long or have no point. I mean Jessica has a lovely body, always has, but there’s really no point to watching her dolphin kick in the lovely blue waters of Thailand for 30 seconds. Other shots cut so quickly from one angle to the other I think there may have been two editors playing a nasty game of tug of war with the audiences attention span as the flag in the middle of the rope; and we suffer for it. It’s so choppy and bouncing (not quite shaky) that a love scene in the film comes across as two blocks of wood trying to figure out how this kissing thing and sex thing work. They even kept a shot of Alba laughing in the scene, not a smile, I mean a laugh. It is not good to have the lady love laugh during sex. Just sayin’. The kills are patently ridiculous…beyond the pale.

Oh and I get you are on a budget. I totally do. You could try just a bit…bit harder to make me not realize you are on a set and the image is composite. Maybe make the lighting look less like a studio? Maybe not use something that’s obviously a miniature. There’s even a scene near the beginning where Statham is in a small boat and you can *tell* it isn’t on the water. It looks like a students first film and I expected to see someone’s hand moving the underside of the boat. You can almost..almost see someone throw water in the air as he ‘jumps in’. It’s THAT bad.

TL;DR?

This is bad.

That’s it. Just bad. You can’t even MST3K it because it’s that bad. There are absolutely no stakes. No concern. No real threat. Plot armor of the gods.  The action is mediocre and nothing new. This is like bad fanfic (and there’s a lot of good fanfic, this isn’t it!)

Should you see it?

Really, you need to ask? No. No you shouldn’t. I shouldn’t have either, but I have to live with that choice. You don’t.

Will you buy it on…?

Stop. I am done writing about this. It isn’t worth a single other word.

Fin.

Darke Reviews | Don’t Breathe (2016)

Posted by

3

I don’t see as many horror movies as I once used to, I just don’t find the concepts that riveting. I don’t see how many Paranormal Activities, Purges, or Haunting of , Exorcism of before it’s the same thing over and over with different casts, or even sometimes the same cast. How and why folks find some of these enjoyable in repetition I do not fully understand but I commend them. Then again I am the girl who watches all of the Underworld films so…who am I to judge?

So tonight I took the opportunity to watch Don’t Breathe. Should I have held my breath and waited for different movie?

Directed by Fede Alvarez, best known for his critical and financially successful remake of the Evil Dead; it tells the story of a group of Detroit street kids who dream of a better life for themselves and see home invasion and robbery as the only way to achieve that dream. They go looking for one big score and decide to pick the house of a blind man as their prey. Of course it wouldn’t be a horror movie if the tables didn’t turn on them.

The script was penned by Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues, who worked on Evil Dead as well. I am going to tell you the story concept is interesting. The idea of dealing with a blind target who then uses the dark as a weapon is an interesting one. It just is never fully realized. On paper this should have worked as the tension building for Act I and Act II delivers nicely, if not getting a bit repetitive at times. Act III takes you to a place where Fede y Royo control the horizontal and the vertical and left me going “is that really where you are going with it?” Then it continues to drag on….and on.

Steven Lang (Avatar) services well with his physique and physicality as The Blind Man, and does feel like a threat through the movie. Jane Levy (Evil Dead, Suburgatory) turns in decent performance as Rocky, one of the would be robbers; as does Dylan Minnette (Let Me In, Goosebumps). Their characters are pretty typical and about as thin as typical horror fare. The performances are fine, but everything you’ve seen before.

From a production standpoint, the editing is ok, but the use of sound is near perfect. It’s clearly shot on a tight budget and very little is wasted. There’s some fetishistic aspects that are clearly coming from Alvarez that I have to wonder about, but don’t particularly take away from the film. That being said the blocking and character movement makes me think at least someone can Bamf from place to place. Then there’s the final act which not only did I think it, I quite literally said “Seriously?”. Then it just…would …not….end. For no reason I could find. It didn’t add tension because at that point I didn’t care.

TL;DR?

The movie started out with promise and then the first jump scare annoyed me. The movie did recover, but then entirely lost me with the final beats. It is a satisfactory movie in that it is at least original, but giving us no one to really root for (The Robbers or the Deranged?) left you not caring. The final climax of the film and I once again asked “why do I care?”.

The opening shot also takes a deal of tension from the move because you spend the rest of the time waiting for it to happen, since you know it has to.

Should you watch it?

If you are drunk and have an extra 10 bucks and have nothing better to do with 90 minutes of your time. You might get something out of it.

Will you buy it though?

No. No I will not.

Anything else?

There were like 7 trailers in front of it? I guess to pad the theatre time. It’s also not good when you have a 90 minute movie and the last 20 feel like 30 or more.

G058r

 

I go out of my way to avoid other reviews prior to writing my own. Since I wrote this a few hours ago, I happened to see some comments online. This is currently trending at 89% on RT with 87% audience likes. I am reviewing some of these comments and what I am taking as eye rollingly painful others are enjoying. I didn’t feel the suspense. I don’t feel that the imagery is *that claustrophobic* nor particularly tension building. I may not be cut out for movies like this…or they aren’t cut out for me.

Darke Reviews | Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

Posted by

5

It’s no secret August is the month where studios send movies they aren’t sure about to die. Sometimes they are surprised, Guardians of The Galaxy but usually they hold true. Even Suicide Squad is a victim of this, though they were really trying to capitalize on the GotG effect to….mixed success. This time through the end of September only gets worse the longer it goes. Which surprises me each year as Laika Animation releases their films in this period, with Coraline (2009) being the only February release – which is also the highest grossing at $75 million. This is the same studio who gave us Tim Burtons the Corpse Bride (2005), The Boxtrolls (2014), and the criminally under rated ParaNorman in 2012. They more or less break even domestically with each film running in the $60 million range each, and getting close to that domestic with a world wide total usually breaking it.

So why do they keep making movies? How do they keep making movies, and more importantly should you see this one?

For those unfamiliar, allow me a trailer.

 

The trailers for this looked amazing, but I have a weakness for good animation and stories that feel like myths and legends. Hell, the stories I want to write and lean into have that feeling. So how did they do on it?

The movie starts off in the dog house with the three writer rule, but seems to be an exception. The story is by Marc Haimes (a studio exec on films like Transformers, and Collateral) and Shannon Tindle (a character designer for multiple smaller films, and Coraline) . It was migrated from story to screenplay by Haimes and Chris Butler (Paranorman). So based on this, none of them have any writing experience. The movie isn’t based on *anything* and it doesn’t even have beats that are – “oh they got this from that”. This is a completely original property by people with no published writing work in the industry.

Maybe this should happen more often? The story here is tight. It is original. Very little is wasted, some things are telegraphed but you don’t care because it is earned. These three people need to become consultants for the rest of Hollywood as the movie spends a lot of its time in the “Show don’t tell” school of storytelling. They don’t over explain and don’t treat the audience like idiots. They expect you to either figure it out on your own or otherwise accept the world they’ve created. You can do this. They made it accessible. It’s endearing, and even surprising at times.

Please Hollywood take note of good, even if it is basic, storytelling and how it works. These guys did it right.

To pull the words off the page, you need a man with a vision and that man is Travis Knight, who served as lead animator on Coraline, Paranorman, and The Boxtrolls. This is first time in the directors chair; which isn’t bad for the guy who is CEO of Laika. Between that dual position and the indicators from the writers. This is a project of passion. So to answer the question from earlier of why? They love it. This is what they do and they do it well. The love and passion for this kind of film making is evident as the movie really does have soul.

You have writers, a director, a talented staff of animators, but now you need to give your characters a voice. Charlize Theron voices Monkey, with Art Parkinson (San Andreas and Rickon Stark from Got) as Kubo. Matthew McConaughey is Beetle. They and the rest of the voice cast complete the work. They breath the final bits of life into these characters and make them more. Not surprisingly they deliver.

From a technical standpoint the stop motion is best in the game. There are some interesting flaws in it, but I have a feeling this is an aesthetic choice or purely a stylistic one that they accepted as part of their designs. Just consider for everything you see move, someone had to make it move. Take a picture, move it again and take another picture. It really is impressive and seeing a shot of how they did a fight in the post credits was even more so. It is cut near perfectly with a pacing that is just right. Musically it is powerful thanks to Dario Marianelli’s score.

TL;DR?

I really love this movie. It made me laugh. It made me cry. It was everything I hoped it would be and more. It avoided a lot of potential tropes and pitfalls with the grace of a crane. It is everything *not* wrong with Hollywood today. It is everything it should be. I really, desperately wish the other executives would visit Focus Pictures, or Laika Animation in Oregon and ask them how they got it so right.

It absolutely captures the largeness of what a legend in the making should be, but makes it a very small personal story at the same time. It has the grandeur of myth but there’s something so tangible and good in it that it wraps you up comfortably for the two hour run time.

Should you see it?

Yes.

Wait..thats it?

No. I just wanted to be clear. You should see it. I debated about the kids aspect, but I remember I grew up with The Black Cauldron and I turned out ok. It does have some ‘scarier’ moments for the really young, but nothing too terribly intense. There’s a lot for adults to appreciate in this  in craftsmanship alone.

I saw it in 2-D but if you can handle 3-D I think it might be better.

Buying it Blu-Ray?

When can I preorder? Think Laika would send me a copy?

Anything else?

I really want this movie to do good this weekend. I want this studio to succeed and be appreciated. I want this film to be appreciated. Yes, this might be one of the best movies of summer in the all around competition.