Multiplex Madness
Goodrich
⭐️⭐️1/2
Genre: Comedy
Director: Hallie Meyers-Shyer
Starring: Michael Keaton, Mila Kunis, Carmen Ejogo, Michael Urie, Kevin Pollak, Vivien Lyra Blair, Nico Hiraga, Danny Defarrari, Laura Benanti, Andie MacDowell
Michael Keaton plays an aging art dealer who is struggling to keep his business open while also coming to terms with his second marriage going down the toilet, as well as managing his both adult and grade-school-aged children. Quite a mouthful to explain, though Goodrich is more about emotional state than plot. It's a movie about a crisis of change, as Keaton's world shifts around him and it's kind of pissing him off. He does his best to understand why and tries to keep positive in hopes that he can maintain a semblance of a status quo, while also learning just how much of the issues surrounding him are his fault. It's a lot of Michael Keaton basically playing a Michael Keaton persona in amusing contemplation, though very little of it is laugh-out-loud funny. The film's theme seems right on the tip of its tongue. It struggles to express its own feelings, hoping the audience will get the idea if it runs on its tangent long enough.
Rumours
⭐️⭐️
Genre: Comedy, Horror
Director: Guy Madden, Evan Johnson, Galen Johnson
Starring: Cate Blanchett, Alicia Vikander, Charles Dance, Roy Dupuis, Denis Manchester, Nikki Amuka-Bird, Rolando Ravello, Takehiro Hira
Stop me if you heard this one. A group of world leaders get lost in the woods. They argue and find a giant brain. Oh, you have heard this one? That honestly frightens me. Rumours is a bizarre satirical work made so actors can go full theatrical with their scenery chewing while also trying to provide a commentary on the facade of "strength in leadership." There's probably more on its plate, but I found the film difficult to work with. It's not very amusing nor is it engaging. It's a an aimless, goofball attempt at satire. Distant and drifted off, not particularly interested in impressing anyone, instead pushing quirky abstractness and hoping it works in some manner. The idea is kinda funny, as we watch a group of world leaders practically wander into an apocalypse and lose both their wits and their minds, but the movie soils itself in trying to outpace the viewer and keep them with their eyebrow raised. This project feels like someone thought hard about the script they wrote and the movie they created, yet it just fumbles around with nonsense instead of crafting something whole out of it.
Smile 2
⭐️⭐️1/2
Genre: Horror
Director: Parker Finn
Starring: Naomi Scott, Rosemarie DeWitt, Lukas Gage, Miles Gutierrez-Riley, Peter Jacobson, Raúl Costillo, Dylan Gelula, Ray Nicholson, Kyle Gallner
Cards on the table, I firmly believe the original Smile is one of the best horror movies this decade and is probably a contender for an all-time masterpiece, not just of its genre, but in filmmaking period. I find that movie to be an absolute work of art, crafting a thematic tale of trauma, stress, and anxiety that also manages succeed as a work in its genre, creating those feelings within its audience with ease. It's amazing how a story that dark could somehow wind up that beautiful.
Flash-forward to Smile 2, because if a horror movie succeeds, that means a franchise is around the corner. The entity of the previous film has spread to the life of a pop star, who is still recovering from drug addiction and the death of her boyfriend. As the ghoul haunts her, the outside sees her as having a public meltdown. Word on the street said this film is just as good as the first one, though I'm inclined to whole-heartedly disagree. It's bigger, bolder, and more ostentatious than the original, though it's not nearly as unnerving or as pure in its metaphorical expression. Taking the theme of traumatic reaction and adding substance abuse relapse could be inspired, but winds up undercooked. There are characters in the story that feel anemic, brought forth as an idea to give the main character something to do, while underwhelming with actual substance behind them as they don't have much meat on their bones. The original film didn't succumb to this. It was a film that felt lived in and the people had established and easy-to-understand relationships. There are characters in this film just tend to exist without context.
The saving grace of Smile 2 is its main star, former Power Ranger Naomi Scott. Scott is a power player throughout this entire movie and it's very easy to get invested in her performance. The same can be said for Sosie Bacon, who starred in the first movie, who was benefited from a project that was more fully formed around her. But if Smile 2 is worth seeing through to the end, it's because Scott is captivating enough to keep this franchise's blood pumping. Director Parker Finn is also solidifying himself as one of the most effective horror visualists in the industry, willing to not just startle, but jarr and get under your skin. Effective horror sequences are in less supply compared to the original, though he manages to pull of several exceptional sequences leading toward the climax. Unfortunately, said climax is a bit of a disappointment, as its twisted in mindgames to the point that it's difficult to really tell what the fuck actually happened. I'd give it a soft recommend, though horror audiences are more likely to go crazy for it than moderates. Time will tell if the Smile demon becomes the next Freddy Krueger, but it seems like an unavoidable fate at this point.
We Live in Time
⭐️⭐️1/2
Genre: Drama
Director: John Crowley
Starring: Florence Pugh, Andrew Garfield
Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh are in love. Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh are having a baby. Florence Pugh is battling cancer while Andrew Garfield supports her. Now stick it all in a blender and see what comes out. This love story is told in fragments, chopped up in an editing room and stitched together in little context chunks that unveil as the movie goes on. It doesn't not work, but it's also hard to care about. It's like watching a compilation of Lost flashbacks squeezed into a greatest hits reel. I spent most of the movie trying to figure out what the nonlinear narrative added to it. The only thing I could figure is that the love story would be basic and uninteresting without it. Its only selling point would be two appealing leads, who are admittedly both very good in it. There are worse justifications for a movie's experimentation than "Just because we can," though that doesn't quite mean it succeeds at it. It's something that just is. I think I would be further behind this movie if Andrew Garfield had more to do in it, because his role is mostly reactionary. A lot of stuff happens to Pugh in the story, while he is a bystander that it winds up affecting by default. If the movie maybe had shifted one of these storylines to him, it could probably even things out. Instead it's just a story of Pugh weathering a lot of shit and Garfield off to the side trying not to cry. I think perhaps the point is supposed to be about her impact on his life, whereas I'd be more invested in a movie that shows how they impacted each other.
It Ends with Us ⭐️⭐️
Joker: Folie à Deux ⭐️1/2
The Nightmare Before Christmas ⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2
Piece by Piece ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Saturday Night ⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2
Terrifier 3 ⭐️⭐️⭐️
Transformers One ⭐️⭐️
The Wild Robot ⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2
New To Digital
Alien: Romulus ⭐️⭐️1/2
Bagman ⭐️
Lee ⭐️⭐️1/2
Never Let Go ⭐️⭐️1/2
Reagan ⭐️
The Wild Robot ⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2
Coming Soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment