Grade: A Directed By: Ron Underwood Release Date: January 19, 1990 Starring: Kevin Bacon, Fred Ward, Michael Gross, Finn Carter, Reba McEntire Where do I begin in talking about Tremors, the 1990 horror-comedy movie about giant, subterranean worm monsters called graboids terrorizing the quiet, barely-populated town of Perfection, Nevada? For starters, it's a movie that I've seen countless times throughout my life, and I have fond memories of many evenings watching it on the USA Network or The Sci-Fi Channel, spellbound by its goofy charm in a way that has ensured that it'll always have a special place in my heart. Yet for nearly three decades, I'd never had the pleasure of seeing it on the big screen, surrounded by other people; that is, until last week.
Now, before I get into both that experience and the movie proper, I have to acknowledge something straight out of the gate, which is the fact that Tremors, despite being almost thirty years old, launched an entire franchise that is still going to this day. In 1996, it received its first sequel, Tremors 2: Aftershocks, a direct-to-video film that I've seen just as many, if not more, times than its predecessor. It's an underrated and underappreciated gem, one that I'll hopefully cover on here one day, and the one-two punch of Tremors and Tremors 2 in the '90s ultimately gave way to Tremors 3: Back to Perfection in 2001, the short-lived Tremors: The Series in 2003, Tremors 4: The Legend Begins in 2004, and Tremors 5: Bloodlines in 2015. And that's still not the end of it, as another sequel, Tremors: A Cold Day in Hell, is arriving later this year, while a second TV series is being developed with Kevin Bacon set to lead, the actor returning to the franchise for the first time since appearing in the original film. It is, quite simply, stunning that the Tremors franchise has lasted this long, and though the subsequent films that followed Tremors 2 stumbled in quality, in my opinion, they've mostly gotten by purely on their charm, taking the original film's cue in being self-aware enough to not take the goofy premise at their core too seriously. I say all of this because it is important to note that outside of the first film, the Tremors franchise has been relegated entirely to the small screen, and when I had the opportunity to finally see Tremors on the big screen last week, I was pleasantly surprised that the house was nearly packed, with an audience turnout that was evenly balanced across all ages. Before the film even began, I was able to hear an elderly couple talking about how they had seen the film back when it had first been released, a woman my age excitedly telling her partner how she, like me, had grown up watching the Tremors movies on TV, and a father convincing his young children that they were going to have a blast. And throughout the course of the film, it was easy to see just how deeply Tremors has resonated with the people who came out to see it for the hundredth time and how effective it still is for people experiencing it for their first, as every well-placed joke had everyone laughing, every clever reveal garnered an audible "Oh, no!" from several people, and every big, crowd-pleasing moment, like the show-stopping rec room scene or the moment when we learn whether graboids can fly or not, earned applause.
Comments
Grade: C Directed By: Roar Uthaug Release Date: March 16, 2018 Starring: Alicia Vikander, Walton Goggins, Dominic West, Daniel Wu Nearly 22 years have gone by since the world was first introduced to Lara Croft in the video game Tomb Raider, and the British archaeologist - then gaming's female answer to Indiana Jones - has long since become a gaming icon, backed by a legacy of ups and downs that have led to where we are today, with the arrival of Roar Uthaug's Tomb Raider. The new film takes its inspiration from 2013's critically-acclaimed Tomb Raider, a game that served to wipe the slate clean of two decades' worth of franchise baggage in order to give Lara – and fans – a fresh start in an origin story that showcased a young, inexperienced version of the character discovering who she's destined to become.
The script for Uthaug's film, delivered by Geneva Robertson-Dworet and Alastair Siddons, follows a similar path, with Alicia Vikander stepping into Lara's boots, her characterization far from the gun-toting, globe-trotting superheroine that Lara had been for years following her introduction (and how she was presented the first time Hollywood attempted to bring Lara to the big screen with Angelina Jolie's two outings in 2001 and 2003.) In this interpretation of the character, Lara Croft lives a life getting by as a bike courier several years on from the disappearance of her father, Richard Croft, but after events unfold that lead to her discovering a clue as to where her father may be, she finds herself traveling to Hong Kong. From there, she hooks up with a ship captain named Lu Ren, played by Daniel Wu, whose father also went missing with Richard when the two men set sail into the Devil's Sea, a dangerous expanse of ocean home to the island of Yamatai. It is there that Richard believed he would find the tomb of Himiko, a queen who may or may not have had supernatural powers, and for the sake of answers about whether or not their fathers are alive, the two head off together to find Yamatai. Now, before I go any further, I have to make a quick comparison to the 2013 game that the film attempts to emulate. That game picks up with Lara and a roster of allies already aboard a similar ship, and it's not long before Lara is stranded on an island and thrust into action. Understandably, the film attempts to turn back the clock a bit in an effort to relay Lara's story chronologically without having to heavily rely upon flashbacks in its own narrative to explain how and why she’s on a ship, but in doing so, the film stumbles right out of the gate with languid, almost interminable pacing, its first act and a chunk of its second weighted down so heavily by needless moments like an extended bike chase sequence that feel more like wheel-spinning than necessity. We're shown important things about Lara's character, like the fact that she practices fighting - something that comes into play later in the film - but it's couched in filler that slows everything to a crawl on its way to get to where the game picks up, wasting nearly half the film before the ball gets rolling. Grade: B Directed By: Steven Spielberg Release Date: March 29, 2018 Starring: Tye Sheridan, Olivia Cooke, Ben Mendelsohn, T.J. Miller, Lena Waithe, Mark Rylance The year is 2045. Five years have passed since the death of James Halliday, the man responsible for the creation of OASIS, a virtual reality world designed for everyone in the real world to escape to, take part in, and become anyone and anything they want to be. Since Halliday's death, a number of players have been chasing an Easter egg at the heart of a game he designed requiring players to obtain three keys hidden somewhere within the OASIS, among them being the young Wade Watts (Tyler Sheridan), known in the OASIS as Parzival, a mysterious female player known as Art3mis (Olivia Cooke), and Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), the CEO of a shady organization called IOI, the ultimate prize for finding the Easter egg being granted complete control of the OASIS. When Watts becomes the first person to find a key, the race is on to follow the clues hidden in Halliday's past and across the pop culture he was obsessed with to keep the OASIS from falling into IOI's hands.
On the surface, Ready Player One seems like a film designed for someone like me. It references a staggering amount of films, television shows, games, and so on from the '80s, '90s, and beyond from beginning to end that have been a part of my life, proudly wearing its influences on its sleeve, and it's directed by none other than the man responsible for a lot of those very influences, Steven Spielberg, my favorite director of all time. In fact, it's easy to argue that no other director could've been able to tackle a project like this in the first place, as Spielberg's decades-long status and pull in Hollywood undoubtedly played a hand in getting the rights cleared from all the various studios and so on to give us a movie that features the chestburster from Alien emerging from a Mortal Kombat character's chest and the DeLorean from Back to the Future racing around a battlefield as the Iron Giant fights Mechagodzilla. Unfortunately, though, there's a spark missing. Unlike, say, the Harry Potter films or The Dark Tower that I've reviewed before, I haven't read the book by Ernest Cline that Ready Player One is based on, so I won't be analyzing how his novel and its adaptation compare, but I would hope that the novel has more meat on its bones than this. Despite Spielberg being in the saddle, Ready Player One feels as though it was made by someone with a love of the era he reigned in trying to make a Spielberg movie but missing the mark, as odd a thing that may be to say. Spielberg has always excelled, in my opinion, at making the characters that populate his films in the action/adventure realm relatable, and that's something that has made most of them timeless and worth revisiting again and again as a result. We enjoy the man versus nature element of Jaws, the serial pulp of the Indiana Jones series, or how life finds a way in Jurassic Park, but those films have earned their staying power because spending time with characters like Chief Brody, Hooper, Quint, Indy, and Ian Malcolm is akin to revisiting old friends. And that's not to mention the type of inner wonder Spielberg has had an uncanny ability to tap into that bridges the gap between childlike innocence and the realities of adulthood and all that we forget when we grow up that gives films like E.T., A.I., or even the underrated Hook big, beating hearts. Say what you will about Spielberg's sentimentality, but no one else delivers it with such tangible sincerity, which is why Spielberg's works and the characters that reside in them have resonated with so many people for decades. Grade: A Directed By: Ryan Coogler Release Date: February 16, 2018 Starring: Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan, Danai Gurira, Lupita Nyong'o Related Reviews: Thor: Ragnarok (2017) It's hard to believe that nearly ten years have passed since the release of Iron Man, which marked the birth of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but here we are. After making his debut in 2016's Captain America: Civil War, Chadwick Boseman's T'Challa, aka the Black Panther, has finally gotten a film of his own, the eighteenth entry in the MCU - let that sink in for a moment - that proves, once again, that this massive, groundbreaking franchise is far from running out of steam after all these years. At this point, it's almost impossible to not be aware of the hype that has surrounded this movie, especially in recent months as its arrival has drawn closer. Compared to last year's releases - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Thor: Ragnarok - Black Panther is facing a wave of expectations as something more than just another high note in the MCU; it's a cultural event, and an important one to be celebrated at that. And though the Ryan Coogler-directed film makes some missteps, which I'll get into in a bit, I personally couldn't be happier to say that Black Panther is a winner, through and through, setting up a solo franchise with a massive, tantalizing future ahead of it that never sacrifices making itself a solid piece of entertainment in the process of doing so. Black Panther isn't a film about chasing Infinity Stones. It's not a film about fighting aliens and robots and saving the world. It's not a film where anyone cares about what the Avengers are up to. This is a film about a boy becoming a man, a man becoming a king, and a king finding not just who he wants to become but his place, and the place of his own people, in a much larger world. It's a tale of family, of the line between holding dear to tradition or letting go to embrace a future, and of sins of the past coming home to roost. It's a film that picks up only a week after the events of Civil War to keep putting T'Challa through the fire so that he can become who he is destined to be, both as a leader of Wakanda and as a permanent fixture in the world he's now irrevocably a part of it. As you'll remember from Civil War, T'Challa's father King T'Chaka (John Kani) was killed early in the film, his death thrusting upon T'Challa a mountain of responsibility that only pushed him down a path of vengeance, but by the end of it, he learned to not let that narrow-minded focus consume him, a lesson that colors in his actions throughout Black Panther. His ascendancy to the throne is not a straight path, however, as he's challenged by forces internal and external, and the meat of the film's narrative is devoted to T'Challa fighting for and proving both to himself and to the people of Wakanda that he truly deserves to be their king. Grade: A Directed By: James Franco Release Date: December 1, 2017 Starring: James Franco, Dave Franco, Seth Rogen, Alison Brie, Ari Graynor I'm going to keep this simple. James Franco's The Disaster Artist is one of my favorite movies of 2017. An adaptation of Greg Sestero and Tom Bissell's book, The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room, The Greatest Bad Movie Ever Made, its story chronicles the real-life events surrounding how Sestero met Tommy Wiseau, the tipsy-turny friendship that followed, and, of course, the eventual production of Wiseau's The Room, a film so bad that it's managed to sidestep simply fading into obscurity and transcend into something of legend, a curiosity among a legion of fans who still turn out in droves to attend screenings and know every line of dialogue by heart.
The Room is an anomaly, one whose infamous production is just as fascinating to hear retold as cracking open the enigma that is Wiseau is, and Franco and writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber are all acutely aware of this. The Disaster Artist could have easily been made for a very specific crowd, pandering solely to fans who have seen The Room or treating the whole thing as a joke, but those involved ensure that everybody feels welcome here. You need not have seen The Room or know anything about Wiseau going in to appreciate what's on display in The Disaster Artist, though certainly lacking that knowledge will make one wonder how such a story and human being can actually exist, and that's what helps make the whole endeavor more successful than it had any right to be. This is a story about dreamers. In 1998, a teenage Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) watched Tommy Wiseau (James Franco) drop an off-putting bomb of a performance on their acting class only to ask him afterwards to perform a scene with him. From there, the two develop a friendship that brings them to Los Angeles to chase their dreams of making it big. It doesn't take long for things to start falling into place in Greg's life, getting an agent and a girlfriend and putting his nose to the grindstone, but for Wiseau, with his indiscernible accent and generally weird behavior, nothing goes right. In time, though, Greg learns how rough Hollywood can be, and when both men are at their lowest, Wiseau takes to heart an idea Greg throws out: To take charge of their own fate by making a movie of their own. And thus The Room was born, the production of which tests the limits of the two men's friendship and the sanity of everyone else who gets sucked into its orbit. To be fair, The Disaster Artist tiptoes around some of the darker aspects of the story its telling for the sake of being a little more optimistic, more often than not backing away completely from diving into truly strange territory. When Greg met Wiseau, for instance, Greg was 19, while Wiseau - clearly far older - always claims to be Greg's age. Wiseau calls Greg "Babyface" and convinces him to move to Los Angeles with him, and while this concerning issue is touched upon through Greg's mother (played by Megan Mullally) desperately trying to talk Greg out of uprooting his life on the insistence of a strange man he'd only just met, it's never really played up again as anything more than a peculiar joke. Wiseau gets jealous of Greg's successes and often reacts like something akin to a scorned lover, such as when Greg decides to move out to be with girlfriend, but whether it's because Wiseau is simply overly-attached and envious or because of something far deeper is left up to the viewer rather than attempting to provide any concrete explanation. Grade: C Directed By: Zack Snyder Release Date: November 17, 2017 Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Henry Cavill, Jason Momoa, Ezra Miller Related Reviews: Suicide Squad (2016), Wonder Woman (2017) If there's one point I want to emphasize about Justice League right off the bat, it's that it's a film that falls victim to squandered potential, not just its own but everything that has come before it. This is now the fifth entry in the DC Extended Universe - Warner Bros. and DC's own cinematic universe akin to what Disney and Marvel Studios' have been cultivating since 2008 - and yet it feels like it's constantly wrestling with the legacy of its predecessors and what it wants to be on its own merits, all to its own detriment. Like The Avengers back in 2012, Justice League is meant to serve as a milestone event, one that brings characters and plot threads together for the first time in order to kick the door open to a bigger, brighter future, but unlike The Avengers, which had the benefit of a solid foundation with films like Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger, Justice League has been built on a rocky one. To be honest, I enjoyed 2013's Man of Steel, our introduction to Henry Cavill as our modern Superman, and even though it had its faults, there was nothing that couldn't be corrected going forward. Instead, what followed was Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice in 2016, a film whose few high points (Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and Ben Affleck as Batman, for example) couldn't overcome the fact that, to me, the film was an interminable slog, a film that failed to truly live up to or even want to celebrate the fact that it was the first time in cinema history we had DC's Holy Trinity on the big screen. It was, quite simply, a misfire, and coupled with Suicide Squad later in the year, this budding universe stumbled right out of the gate. Fortunately, Wonder Woman proved there was hope earlier this year, which made me think that maybe, just maybe, Justice League stood a chance at learning from how and why that film clicked with people the world over and Batman v Superman didn't. Unavoidably, Justice League has to pick up where Batman v Superman left off, with Superman dead and Batman and Wonder Woman ready to honor his memory by keeping up the good fight. Nowadays, Batman is investigating the emergence of alien scouts known as Parademons, who have come to earth looking for Mother Boxes, three objects that, when put together, wield boundless power that can destroy worlds. The Parademons are searching for them on behalf of Steppenwolf, an alien being who once controlled the Mother Boxes but lost them thousands of years earlier in a conflict with the people of Earth and is now ready to recollect them and try decimating the planet again following the death of Earth's Kryptonian protector. As Steppenwolf begins to achieve his goal of collecting the objects, Batman and Wonder Woman reunite to put together a team in order to stop him, bringing together The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) in the hopes that they alone can stand between Steppenwolf and victory in a world without Superman. Considering its status as a big team-up event that fans have been waiting decades to see happen, it's hard not to draw immediate comparisons to The Avengers for the sake of highlighting why Justice League both works and doesn't work. On a narrative level, on a character level, and even on a thematic level, The Avengers earned its team-up. By 2012, we'd spent time with Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk and Thor and Captain America individually; we knew their quirks, their personalities, and their backstories to the point that The Avengers could start rolling straight out of the gate. We'd seen what the Tesseract - the "weapon" of the film - was capable of in The First Avenger that when it showed up in The Avengers, there was a quantifiable danger surrounding it. And, of course, we'd spent time with the film's villain, Loki, in Thor, whose return in The Avengers carried with it real weight for both what we knew he was capable of and for the personal connection he had to the team via his brother. To put it simply, all of this added up gave The Avengers real stakes; these were characters we'd come to know and love coming together to face a threat we could invest in to protect a world that had sucked us in over the course of several movies. Grade: A Directed By: Taika Waititi Release Date: November 3, 2017 Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Tessa Thompson, Mark Ruffalo It's been two years since we last saw Thor (Chris Hemsworth) in Avengers: Age of Ultron, and a lot has happened in the Marvel Cinematic Universe he's a part of while he's been away. His friends clashed with one another in last year's Captain America: Civil War, the Guardians of the Galaxy had another adventure, and franchise newcomers got their own solo films in the form of Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, and Spider-Man: Homecoming. The world of the MCU continues to get bigger and bigger, but outside of his relatively small role in Age of Ultron, the franchise's God of Thunder hasn't really been a focal point since 2013's Thor: The Dark World. Now, I have to admit something off the bat. I'm a huge nut for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Including Thor: Ragnarok, I've seen all seventeen films, all five One-Shot short films, and every single episode of every television series to date, from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agent Carter to the various Netflix entries to Inhumans. To put it mildly, I love the MCU, what it has already accomplished, what it's doing, and where it's going, though not blindly, as I can acknowledge when it stumbles, as seen with the currently-airing first (and likely last) season of the critically-derided Inhumans. Back in 2011, long before the MCU would become what it is today, the original Thor had the unenviable task of following up Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and Iron Man 2 and introducing audiences to the idea of literal gods and the cosmic weirdness of Thor's world without alienating viewers, all while setting up The Avengers. Had Thor failed to click with critics and audiences alike, the MCU most likely wouldn't have gone on to become exactly what it is today, and I think it's easy to take for granted just how much was riding on its success (and, for that matter, its direct follow-up Captain America: The First Avenger, a pulpy period piece that had a similar job of making its star-spangled WWII hero palatable for modern audiences soon after). Fortunately, Thor worked, its fish-out-of-water elements of its titular hero having his first experiences on Earth blending well with the Shakespearean vibe of Asgard, and deserves a lot more credit than most people seem to give it. After The Avengers blew open the doors for the MCU to keep going bigger and expand its scope, Thor got his inevitable sequel in 2013, Thor: The Dark World, which proved to be entertaining but underwhelming. Taken on its own, it's an enjoyable adventure, but one that's nearly crushed by a lack of identity and an unwillingness to really dig deep in the potential inherent in its characters and ability to explore the universe beyond Earth, and it was quickly overshadowed the following year by Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Captain America's first sequel that proved to be everything The Dark World wasn't in terms of mixing things up for its own hero and taking risks, as well as Guardians of the Galaxy, a film that audiences and critics loved that actually developed and explored the universe in a way The Dark World had every opportunity to do first yet squandered. All this is to say that, in comparison to the solo series of his fellow Avengers, like Iron Man and Captain America, Thor's hasn't lived up to its inherent potential yet, the character in dire need of his own The Winter Soldier to bring his slice of the MCU to the next level. Thankfully, under the guidance of director Taika Waititi – who has earned my eternal admiration for his work with films like What We Do in the Shadows and Hunt for the Wilderpeople - Thor has finally gotten the movie he deserves in Thor: Ragnarok, a sequel that essentially pushes the reset button to give the character and his corner of the world a new start, one filled with an abundance of heart, humor, adventure, and charm that - should Thor survive the events of the next two Avengers movies - hopefully won't mark the end of his solo series. Grade: C Directed By: The Spierig Brothers Release Date: October 27, 2017 Starring: Tobin Bell, Callum Keith Rennie, Matt Passmore, Laura Vandervoort Related Review: Saw (2004) Seven years after the Saw franchise seemingly ended with its seventh entry - dubbed at the time as The Final Chapter, but now just referred to as Saw 3D - the successful series is finally back for another go-round with Jigsaw, an eighth installment designed from the ground up as a way to revitalize Saw in a much-changed horror landscape. Though some familiar names return to take part behind the scenes in this film, like series composer Charlie Clouser and editor Kevin Greutert, who also directed both Saw VI and Saw 3D, the Saw franchise is, essentially, under new creative management with Jigsaw thanks to a script from Josh Stolberg and Peter Goldfinger (Piranha 3D) and the direction of The Spierig Brothers (Daybreakers). Rather than pick up directly from where Saw 3D left off, Jigsaw forges its own path, setting up a new mystery set ten years after the events of Saw III, which featured the death of the series' main character, John "Jigsaw" Kramer. Bodies have begun turning up throughout the city fitting the late serial killer's MO, baffling police, whose theories of a copycat are put into question when fresh DNA evidence links the victims directly to the late Kramer. While they work to solve the case, and as the news runs with the idea that Kramer may actually still be alive, five people find themselves waking up in a secluded barn as part of a game designed to force them to face the sins of their past. Now, before I start to get any further into this, I have to acknowledge that I have a soft spot for the Saw franchise. With no expectations or knowledge about Saw or Saw II, I saw the two films back to back for the first time back in 2006, their twists alone enough to get me excited to see Saw III, which was coming out several months later. After that, I saw every Saw film at a midnight showing with friends, each new installment being greeted with legitimate excitement. The franchise has always had a reputation for its gore and violence, which is regrettable considering the early films don't indulge too much in it, but that's not what we (or I) ever looked forward to with the series. Unlike many other long-running horror series, Saw has an incredibly tight continuity, with minor characters from one film turning up in another down the line for cameos or even elevated roles and plot threads and mysteries weaving their way through the entire series. Each new film tended to illuminate past films, the series constantly recontextualizing its own legacy in a way that was, quite simply, fun to see play out year to year. That said, that doesn't mean that I think that Saw as a franchise is a horror masterpiece, but few, if any, iconic franchises as a whole, whether it's Halloween or A Nightmare on Elm Street, are. Without a doubt, Saw's best entries are its first three films, and each sequel after that had to deal with the consequences of the fact that the series' main character had died at the end of Saw III. Sometimes it worked, like Saw IV and VI, and others times it didn't, like the relatively boring Saw V or the truly disappointing Saw 3D. It's a series of highs and lows, like any franchise, but I enjoyed its original run for what it was, each film serving as a seasonal piece of a bigger puzzle, even if I can acknowledge that it's not high art. Grade: D Directed By: Victor Salva Release Date: September 26, 2017 Starring: Jonathan Breck, Stan Shaw, Brandon Smith, Gabrielle Haugh It's never fun when a sequel comes out after years of setbacks only to disappoint instead of surprise. Arriving over 14 years after Jeepers Creepers 2 was released, the long-delayed Jeepers Creepers 3 is one such film, a sequel that had every opportunity to overcome the fact it's arguably a decade too late and capitalize on the potential left open by the ending of the last film only to squander it instead. Rather than serve as a follow-up to where its predecessor left off, with the Creeper's hibernating corpse mounted to a wall with a harpoon pointed at it overseen by Ray Wise's vigilant farmer, Jack Taggart, Jeepers Creepers 3 bafflingly turns the clock back, with the majority of its narrative set directly in the aftermath of the first film and right before the events of the second. As you may recall, the Creeper wakes up every 23 years for 23 days to conduct its reign of terror, and plot-wise there's little more you need to know if you've seen the first two films, as this is just more of the same, with another group of people caught up in the Creeper's cycle and that's about it. To its detriment, Jeepers Creepers 3' status as an interquel robs it of any tension, as we know that the Creeper survives for the events of the second film to occur. To balance that fact out, new wrinkles to the mythology are laced into the film, including the introduction of a group of hunters made up of people who have lost loved ones to the Creeper whose goal is to destroy it, revelations about the supernatural capabilities of the Creeper's signature truck, and the suggestion that the Creeper is less a conventional monster and something far more ancient. However, despite being interesting in concept, all of it is thoroughly underwhelming in execution. Before I can explain why, I have to emphasize that the film's biggest mistake is its constant teasing of what's to come. The film ends on a note that reintroduces a familiar face to the franchise while leaving off with the promise of the same exact film Jeepers Creepers 2 did, but considering that it took 14 years for this film to even get off the ground, who's to say when - or if - a fourth one will ever materialize. Everyone involved here seems to be certain that the future of the franchise is guaranteed simply by virtue of the fact Jeepers Creepers 3 exists at all, meaning that the film feels more like wheel-spinning setup than something that truly moves this franchise forward. Grade: A- Directed By: Andy Muschietti Release Date: September 8, 2017 Starring: Bill Skarsgard, Jaeden Lieberher, Finn Wolfhard, Sophia Lillis It's pretty amazing that only a few weeks after the release of one of the most disappointing adaptations of a Stephen King work, The Dark Tower, we get one of the better ones with Andy Muschietti's It. This isn't the first time King's novel has been adapted, of course; in 1990, the world was treated to a TV miniseries that showcased an iconic performance by Tim Curry, who left such a strong mark on pop culture with his turn as Pennywise that most people forget that the rest of the miniseries itself around him isn't too great. But now here we are 27 years on and the story of a group of kids who live in the fictional town of Derry, Maine known collectively as the Losers Club is being retold properly. After a series of disappearances, including that of the Losers' leader Bill's own little brother, Bill and his friends, a motormouth named Richie, a hypochondriac named Eddie, and the neurotic Stan, set out to find out what's going on, as none of the adults in town seem to care, each missing kid quickly forgotten about as soon as the next one has gone missing. Along the way, they're joined by the new kid in town, Ben, an outcast girl named Bev, and the home-schooled Mike, each one of them finding solace in the company of each other and the strength to face the evil lurking in their town: It. I spoke in my review of The Dark Tower about how that adaptation missed the mark by shying away from its source material, watering it down for the sake of making it as generic as possible in a way that became unappealing to newcomers and fans of King's epic series of books. It, thankfully, doesn't do that, embracing the book in an honorable way. Though it makes changes I'm on board with, like wisely shifting the action from the 1950s to the 1980s, and some I'm not, which I'll get into in a bit, what differentiates It from a failure like The Dark Tower is that the film captures the spirit of the book even with the liberties it takes, which is that of a coming-of-age journey for the kids who happen to be running through a gauntlet of horror. It takes on many physical forms in its pursuit of children, including, obviously, everyone's favorite, Pennywise the Dancing Clown, but It's also much more than that. It preys on the kids' fears - Bill's grief, Eddie's hypochondria, Bev's emergence into womanhood, and so on - but in doing so, It allows, albeit completely unintentionally, the various Losers to overcome their individual issues. It represents the challenge of growing up or having to let things go in order to move on and get better, that intangible, indescribable "it" feeling we've all felt at one point, and if these kids can overcome the physical manifestation of It, then they can conquer anything. It's that focus on giving most of the kids room to grow throughout the story that's the film's real strength, rather than simply going full-tilt horror. That's not to say the film has a shortage of scares, though. It is an excellent threat, and Bill Skarsgard's performance as Pennywise is stellar. It takes on a number of forms throughout the film, like a leper and a group of zombies, but Pennywise is, unsurprisingly, the real treat, so effective to the point it feels that we weren't given enough of him (which is usually not the case in horror films). His appearance is unsettling, his physicality is deliciously, playfully predatory, and even the way he taunts the kids, like mock crying in the face of a child breaking down or waving from the bushes with a hand he's chewing on as he spectates someone getting beaten up, is incredible. Skarsgard really makes the role his own; never once did I wish I was watching Curry instead, and I'm glad the two performances can go side by side for being such uniquely different yet perfect portrayals of such an evil character. Grade: A- Directed By: Colm McCarthy Release Date: September 23, 2016 Starring: Glenn Close, Gemma Arterton, Paddy Considine, Sennia Nanua I've mentioned it before, but it bears repeating here: I love a good zombie film. The subgenre more often than not pumps out dreck that's tough to get through, but I don't tend to mind wading through the muck to find a gem. They may be few and far between, but they're worth waiting for, as they're typically creative and engaging enough to prove that there is more than enough life left in the subgenre for passionate filmmakers to mine. Colm McCarthy's The Girl with All the Gifts, an adaptation of M.R. Carey's 2014 novel, is one such film, one that caught me by surprise for its remarkable restraint. When George A. Romero defined the genre back in 1968 with his seminal Night of the Living Dead, he set a simple precedent that the best zombie films work less because of a preoccupation with shoving the undead down our throats and more because they put characters, stories, and messages first, and The Girl with All the Gifts lives up to that, using the "zombie apocalypse" as a backdrop for real human drama. The setup is simple: The world has been devastated by a fungal disease that has turned most of mankind into "hungries," the film's version of zombies. In England, a group of survivors holed up at a military base, including Paddy Considine's Sgt. Parks and Gemma Arterton's kind-hearted teacher, Helen Justineau, keep watch over a small group of hybrid children who are infected by the disease to the point where they still hunger for fresh meat but otherwise present, physically and mentally, as human. Through studying these children, Glenn Close's Dr. Caldwell believes she can discover a cure for the disease, but when the base is inevitably overrun by hungries, Caldwell, Helen, and Parks and his men find themselves tasked with getting the last hybrid to safety: The smart, inquisitive Melanie, played by newcomer Sennia Nanua. In broad strokes, it's easy to pass off the film's narrative as another saving the world story, but digging deeper, it's more about Melanie's own journey to figure out who and what she is in a world she's told is defined by only two sides: Humans and hungries. She is a true outsider, unable to exist among the braindead hungries but always kept at arm's length by the humans around her because of the risk she poses of slipping into her violent tendencies. Her hands are kept tied and she's fitted with a Hannibal Lecter-esque face mask as the group travels in search of safety, and the more she interacts with those that are both her captors and her saviors, as well as a world she's experiencing for the first time, the more her sense of self and identity solidify. Grade: C- Directed By: Nikolaj Arcel Release Date: August 4, 2017 Starring: Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Taylor I've covered it in a handful of reviews I've written before, but this bears repeating: Just because a film adaptation of a book isn't an exact translation of its source material doesn't immediately make it terrible by default. Jurassic Park, my favorite movie, has huge differences from Michael Crichton's novel, but I love them both equally. The Harry Potter films, as another example, take decent liberties in adapting J.K. Rowling's series that don't always succeed, but never once do they feel like they're actively spitting on her work or why fans love those books. As long as an adaptation can capture the spirit of any given book, the passion for the material is clear by all those involved, and the end result is a solid movie that can stand on its own despite the changes, I'm more than happy to separate the two products and respect each for what they are. Now, Stephen King's The Dark Tower series has been something I've been a fan of for nearly two decades now. When I first read The Gunslinger - the first book - I was immediately sucked into its straightforward story of a world that had moved on, where a mysterious man in black fled across a desert and a determined gunslinger followed, the latter driven by the desire to kill the former. It blended Western tropes with a dash of fantasy in a uniquely King way, and the series only got bigger, bolder, and weirder from there, playing with even more genres, introducing all types of larger-than-life characters (including a riddle-speaking train), and tying in with numerous other King works. For many fans of the author, including yours truly, The Dark Tower is central to everything he's done, an important, decades-long journey that deserved the right care and the right treatment were it to ever be adapted to film. For years, numerous people have struggled to get an adaptation of The Dark Tower off the ground, and here we finally are with a product directed by Nikolaj Arcel that feels like anything but the adaptation King's series deserves. Rather than spend its time adapting The Gunslinger, The Dark Tower pulls elements from several of the books - along with a bunch of added things - to tell the story of young Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor), a gifted boy living in New York City with visions of the evil Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) and a gunslinger named Roland (Idris Elba), as well as the titular Dark Tower, which rests at the heart of the universe, keeping countless worlds connected and safe from evil that rests beyond the universe itself. The Man in Black is attempting to use other gifted children to destroy the tower so that he can rule over a post-apocalyptic universe, eventually setting his sights on Jake, who travels through a portal and into Mid-World, Roland's home and the realm in which the tower resides, and teams up with the gunslinger to help stop the Man in Black once and for all. Grade: A Directed By: Matt Reeves Release Date: July 14, 2017 Starring: Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn, Karin Konoval I have to admit something about my relationship with the Planet of the Apes franchise before I get into talking about War for the Planet of the Apes. Of the five original movies that spanned between 1968 and 1973, I've only seen three in full, and though I respect them, particularly the iconic first entry, I've never been thoroughly enamored with the franchise in the way that, say, Star Wars grabbed me. As a result, when Tim Burton attempted to update the series for the modern day with the Mark Wahlberg-led Planet of the Apes back in 2001, I wasn't as thoroughly let down as many fans were with it, though that's not to say I was in love with it, either, at least not enough to be disappointed - or even care - that nothing more ever came of it. When Rise of the Planet of the Apes arrived in 2011 to critical acclaim, I missed it, and when its sequel, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, hit in 2014, I missed that, too. A part of me knew better, especially because all I ever heard from anyone was about how great the two films were and I have an undying respect for Andy Serkis, but I fell victim to not having enough nostalgia or love for what had come before to have the motivation to see them. But now here we are in 2017, with the third entry in this relaunched and reimagined series in theaters, striking gold at the box office yet again and basking in critical praise, and I finally watched Rise and Dawn ahead of seeing War. To say I regret having not seen the two films in theaters now would be an understatement, as both films are not just technical marvels but great feats of storytelling, world-building, and character work in which I found myself completely invested in a way the franchise up to this point had never gotten me to be, coming out the other end eagerly awaiting to see where War could take the series - and, in particular, its protagonist, Caesar - next. War picks up several months after Dawn, with Caesar and his fellow apes locked in battle with the military force that had been called down during the events of Dawn to help wipe out the apes. It's a war Caesar doesn't want, but one that he's stuck with thanks to the actions of his former ally Koba, and after several human troops are captured, Caesar spares their lives to send a message back to their leader - the mysterious Colonel (Woody Harrelson) - that the fighting can end if they just leave each other alone. Unfortunately, the Colonel ignores the olive branch, and after a tragic attack on the apes' home, the apes are forced to flee to find a new one while Caesar becomes hellbent on killing the Colonel, going so far as to leave everyone he knows behind so that he can end this war on his own. Grade: A Directed By: Patty Jenkins Release Date: June 2, 2017 Starring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Danny Huston, Robin Wright, David Thewlis, Lucy Davis Related Reviews: Suicide Squad (2016) It's impossible to discuss exactly why Wonder Woman - the latest entry in the budding cinematic franchise known collectively as the DC Extended Universe - is a resounding success without first diving into what has come before it. And before I do, let me make it clear: Wonder Woman really is that light at the end of the tunnel for those of us who have been frustrated with the DCEU's failings so far, stuck watching helplessly as so much potential has been squandered. The DCEU kicked off in 2013 with Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, a film that introduced the world to its newest Superman while dividing audiences and critics. Personally, though it's far from perfect, I enjoyed it, and up until last night, it was my favorite of the DCEU films if only because its two successors - last year's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad - were tough experiences to get through, let alone enjoy. Both films have their moments and merits, but there's just too much wrong with both of them that those few bright spots are almost completely hidden in the shadows as a result, and their genuine inability to be entertaining (or even engaging) from beginning to end meant that any excitement I should've had over the future of the DCEU, which includes a Justice League movie later this year and future solo outings for characters like The Flash and Aquaman, was immediately tempered. When the first trailer for Wonder Woman was released, I was genuinely surprised, but still didn't want to get my hopes up, "just in case." As played by Gal Gadot, the character was one of those aforementioned bright spots of the otherwise boring Batman v Superman, and as a cultural icon, Wonder Woman herself has been long overdue for a big screen adventure all her own. It's amazing that after decades of existence as one-third of DC's Holy Trinity - a mantle shared with Batman and Superman - the character has never headlined a film of her own, while her two counterparts have been brought to life time and again. To put it simply, a solo Wonder Woman film needed to be more than just another entry in the DCEU franchise. It needed to pay off years of patience from fans who have waited far too long to see Diana Prince where she belongs, and - more importantly - it needed to do justice to such a strong, storied female character that doesn't deserve to have her first big screen outing lumped into a category where films like 2004's Catwoman or 2005's Elektra exist. It truly feels amazing that director Patty Jenkins and everyone involved in bringing this film to the big screen have succeeded on all fronts. Hands down, it is the best DCEU film yet, finally capitalizing on and embracing the potential of the universe's characters, mythology, and history in a way the past films simply haven't. This is a film full of color; a film where warriors leap into battle and are framed as though they're leaping straight out of a comic book panel to do so. It's a movie where Gods like Zeus and Ares actually exist, where positive ideals are cherished instead of buried under pessimism, and where storytelling and character work mostly triumphs over spectacle. Grade: C Directed By: Joachim Rønning & Espen Sandberg Release Date: May 26, 2017 Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Javier Bardem, Kaya Scodelario, Brenton Thwaites Back in the summer of 2003, my father and I went one day to go see two movies back to back: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, which I had been excited for at the time due to my love of its two predecessors, and Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, a film neither of us had any expectations for that had come out the week before T3. To this day, I haven't forgotten our mutual surprise and elation on the way out about just how good Pirates turned out to be, with T3 almost an afterthought, and no matter how far Disney has gone (and will go) to stretch out the franchise, nothing will dilute the sheer entertainment value of director Gore Verbinski's original work. In the years that followed, three sequels followed: Dead Man's Chest in 2006 and At World's End in 2007, both directed by Verbinski, and On Stranger Tides in 2011, which saw Rob Marshall (Chicago) take the reins of a film that featured only a handful of returning cast members. Each sequel was immediately faced with criticism to varying degrees, and rightfully so, but even for their excessive narrative bloat, I still enjoy Dead Man's Chest and At World's End for their over-the-top grandiosity, even if they pale in comparison to the first film. The only entry I've truly hated was On Stranger Tides, a film so depressingly mediocre that it effectively killed my enthusiasm to see anymore films out of the franchise. It's been six years since that film came out, and nearly 15 since this whole franchise started, and there's little we haven't already seen. We've seen characters battling on a water wheel as it rolls through a jungle and a naval battle set in the mouth of a giant whirlpool. We've seen Krakens and tentacled villains and undead pirates (and an undead monkey!) and sea goddesses. We've seen love stories and double crosses and triple crosses and Jack Sparrow wisecracking his way to victory. In short, it feels like we've seen it all at this point, which made my personal trepidation about Dead Men Tell No Tales - the latest entry in the series - pretty high ever since it was announced, especially in a post-Tides world where it seemed like the franchise was going to run the risk of simply surviving on the goodwill left over from Verbinski's films. Dead Men picks up several years after Tides, with Jack Sparrow still carrying around the bottle containing his beloved Black Pearl and incredibly down on his luck. What few crew he has left by his side in his life - including familiar faces like Gibbs (Kevin McNally), Scrum (Stephen Graham), and Marty (Martin Klebba) - inevitably find themselves abandoning Jack after a staggeringly unsuccessful job, leaving Jack to reach his lowest point in an act that inadvertently frees Javier Bardem's pirate-hating Captain Salazar and his crew, members of the Spanish Navy who have spent years trapped as ghosts in the Devil's Triangle thanks to Jack, who have one goal: To make Jack pay for what he did to them. Of course, it wouldn't be a Pirates movie without a number of other threads, and caught up in all of this are Brenton Thwaites' Henry Turner, son of the original trilogy's William Turner and Elizabeth Swann, and Kaya Scodelario's Carina Smyth, an astronomer accused of being a witch, both of whom are looking to find Poseidon's trident - this entry's MacGuffin that allows its wielder to have complete control of the sea - for their own purposes, as well as Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbossa, who has been living the high life ever since becoming the captain of the Queen Anne's Revenge in Tides and, fittingly, decides to join the quest to claim the trident for himself.
For the most part, Dead Men feels less like a continuation of where Tides left the series - outside of the unavoidable things, like Sparrow and Barbossa's different circumstances after that film's events - and more like an ode to the original trilogy. A slew of familiar faces from those three films return, big and small, that will surely delight fans, and even composer Geoff Zanelli's score often recalls old themes, including one of my personal favorites, the "One Day" love theme for Will and Elizabeth. Even further, there's a sense of closure the end of this film provides for certain story threads that have been dangling over the decade since At World's End released, and as someone who enjoys the original trilogy, I was happy to see things come together, if even for nostalgia's sake. The film also gets what Tides got wrong right about Jack Sparrow. In the original three films, particularly the first, Jack was never really the lead; he was a supporting player first and foremost, which helped lend him an air of dangerous unpredictability that worked in the character's favor, while Elizabeth, Will, and other characters helped carry the brunt of the narrative. In Tides, Jack was pushed to the forefront, forced to carry the film almost entirely on his shoulders, which simply didn't work. Less Jack is a good thing, as he's at his best interfering with or traipsing through the stories of others, and while there's still a heavy focus on him in Dead Men - which feels unavoidable at this point considering the character's sheer global popularity - the fact that there are other characters around this time with actual stories of their own helps the film feel like it understands what worked best last decade. As always, Depp has a lot of fun with Sparrow, even if he's a bit more of a buffoon than secret genius this time around, and there actually seems to be a spark in his performance that was missing from Tides. There are some genuinely funny moments throughout the film that take advantage of his talent as a physical performer, like a sequence involving a guillotine, and scenes like a bizarrely unnecessary impromptu wedding scene are made worth it and sold almost entirely thanks to his line delivery. There's been a noticeable (and disappointing) dumbing down of the character ever since he was introduced back in 2003, but Depp proves he can still deliver an entertaining performance nonetheless. As for the new faces, Henry and Carina are no Will and Elizabeth, but they're leagues better than the missionary and mermaid duo forced upon audiences in Tides, with a semblance of actual personalities that could be built upon in future films. And, fortunately, Javier Bardem isn't entirely wasted here as Salazar in the way that Ian McShane was as Blackbeard in Tides, clearly relishing every second he's on screen even if the character himself is a bit underserved in the narrative. As a villain, he never comes close to hitting the heights of Barbossa - whose return here even overshadows him thanks to another solid performance by Geoffrey Rush - or Davy Jones, and it feels like half his dialogue consists of saying Jack Sparrow's name aloud, but he works within the context of the film anyway, effective while watching it despite being relatively forgettable afterwards. Of course, what most people are going to come to a film like this for is a sense of fun and adventure, with some good action sequences to go along with the antics of Jack Sparrow. Outside of the aforementioned guillotine sequence, there's a number of pretty slick scenes that definitely entertained the audience I was with, like an opener involving an entire building being pulled by horses through a town and an attack on a rowboat by undead sharks, and thankfully the film even brings actual naval battles back to the franchise after Tides didn't feature a single one. Nothing ever quite stands out like some of the action sequences from the original trilogy here - nothing ever carries the weight of that final cave battle in Black Pearl or the sense of electric creativity like the three-way beach/water wheel fight in Dead Man's Chest, for instance - but there's something to appreciate about their simplicity and back-to-basics approach. That said - and you may have noticed this as a recurring idea throughout this review so far - Dead Men still never reaches the heights of the original trilogy, let alone the well-oiled perfection of Black Pearl. Though the directing duo of Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg and writer Jeff Nathanson, who took over scripting duties from franchise vets Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, come far closer to capturing the essence of what was once so appealing about the franchise and its potential than Rob Marshall did, they still come up short of hitting the mark. Say what you will about the first two sequels, but Gore Verbinski's visual touches alone were stellar, and despite some cool moments of its own, there's nothing in Dead Men that lives up to the precedent he set. It's beautiful, yes - who can complain about sandy beaches and lush jungles? - but there's just a spark missing that's hard to put a finger on, and that's an idea that reverberates throughout every element of the film, not just the visuals. The longer this franchise goes on, the more clear it becomes that The Curse of the Black Pearl truly was lightning in a bottle. With each new sequel, the series becomes less and less fresh; after all, as I mentioned earlier, once we've seen undead pirates and Krakens, what's so great about vengeful ghosts? However, this is a franchise that does still have potential, whether through the inevitable sequel - yes, there’s a post-credits scene that tees one up - or a reboot somewhere down the line, to truly return to form with a creative team not forced to fixate on spectacle first, story second. As it stands, Dead Men Tell No Tales at least attempts said return to form compared to On Stranger Tides even if it isn't completely successful in doing so, and that counts for something. What it lacks in delivering something new to the franchise to truly justify its existence beyond its ability to print money for Disney it makes up for in simply being fun. If you've liked all the films up to this point, faults and all, you won't be let down, and if you were let down by On Stranger Tides, it wouldn't hurt to give Dead Men a chance. I went in expecting to be thoroughly disappointed (again) and came out pleasantly surprised, and sometimes there's just nothing wrong with sitting back on a summer day to go on an imperfect but entertaining adventure with characters we've known for years. |
TopicsArchivesPick a Month:
August 2022
|