Grade: C Directed By: Ridley Scott Release Date: May 19, 2017 Starring: Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, Danny McBride, Billy Crudup Since kicking off all the way back in 1979, the Alien franchise has definitely had its ups and downs. While Ridley Scott's original film and James Cameron's 1986 follow-up Aliens are undeniable classics, and David Fincher's Alien 3 is an imperfect but still enjoyable entry, the series really took a hit with 1997's colorful but pointless Alien: Resurrection, which lowered the bar enough for the two Alien vs. Predator films (released in 2004 and 2007) to swoop in as an attempt to revive both franchises only to stumble and lower said bar even further.
All this is to say that by the time Prometheus arrived back in 2012, the series seemed creatively tapped. Like all popular horror icons of our time, whether it be the Predator or Freddy Krueger, there comes a point where overexposure in pop culture robs a given figure of its strength, and for the titular creature audiences first met nearly four decades ago - known as the Xenomorph - that point has long since passed. Outside of the Alien movies themselves, other media, from comic books to video games, have only diminished the terrifying allure of the vicious extraterrestrial, meaning that anyone attempting to make the Xenomorph genuinely scary again to the masses has their work cut out for them. For all of its faults, Prometheus - a distant prequel to the original film - at least promised something fresh, attempting to answer questions about the franchise's mythology that arguably didn't need to be answered while also allowing the franchise to move in a new direction unshackled from the expectations of simply being "another Alien movie." While I personally appreciated many of its pieces - the visuals, some of the heavier themes it was attempting to explore, and Michael Fassbender's performance as the synthetic David - it didn't all gel together as a whole as smoothly as I would've liked, and it's a film I've found hard to revisit in the five years since despite an ending that actually left me optimistic about where it could go next, wherein David and Noomi Rapace's Elizabeth Shaw set out into space, seemingly set for an adventure that no longer had to worry about establishing itself as a clear prequel. Which brings us to Alien: Covenant, a sequel that doubles back on Prometheus' promise to explore new territory in order to shift back into franchise mode, the end result being exactly what I feared it would be from the moment marketing started: Just another Alien movie.
Comments
Grade: B- Directed By: Greg McLean Release Date: March 17, 2017 Starring: John Gallagher Jr., Tony Goldwyn, John C. McGinley, Adria Arjona, Melonie Diaz Imagine going to work one day only to find yourself trapped inside with all your fellow coworkers, with no way out and a seemingly-omniscient voice speaking to you all on the intercom with a simple mandate: Two of you must be killed or others will die. For the 80 multinational employees working at the Colombian branch of Belko Industries, this is exactly their day, and what initially seems like little more than an elaborate prank ultimately reveals itself to be something far more sinister, as the mysterious voice's increasingly twisted requirements and machinations breed paranoia that sends many spiraling into madness with the sole desire to survive no matter the cost. This is the basis for The Belko Experiment, which has been delivered to the world by director Greg McLean (Wolf Creek) from a script by James Gunn (Guardians of the Galaxy, Slither, Super). Were you to take elements of films like Saw, The Mist, and Battle Royale, with a little dash of Cabin in the Woods thrown in for good measure, and mix it all in one big cinematic blender, the result would be The Belko Experiment, a film that definitely lives up to its premise while simultaneously stumbling to bring that little extra something to the table that could've made it truly satisfying. The film is populated by a game cast that includes John Gallagher Jr., Adria Arjona, Tony Goldwyn, John C. McGinley, familiar Gunn veterans like his brother, Sean, and Michael Rooker, and many more, but the focus is spread so thin across all of them that there really is no chance for deep characterization. Gallagher's Mike is the decent guy trying to find a way to do the right thing. Arjona's Leandra is his girlfriend. Goldwyn's Barry, everyone's boss, views all of them as expendable when they don't suit his needs anymore. McGinley's Wendell is the office creep. And so on. Of course, some actors shine brighter than others - McGinley, for instance, does play a good creep - but ultimately everyone is left to fend for themselves with what little they've been given, much like the actual characters they're playing, the end result being that when bodies start dropping, it's hard to really care about the fate of most of the group. Even further, the paper thin characterization actually only goes to hammer home a sense of predictability about the entire affair. It doesn't take long before you can start figuring out who's going to make it to the final act or not based on how much screentime they're getting, and save a decent twist on a standard horror trope involving a character who spends much of the film in hiding, there's nothing about the story that really plays out in an unexpected way, which is pretty disappointing, especially when Gunn has more than proven he can subvert certain genre expectations in the past with his stories. Grade: A Directed By: James Mangold Release Date: March 3, 2017 Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Dafne Keen, Stephen Merchant, Boyd Holbrook I'm going to keep this short and sweet - or as short as possible, at least - and get right down to it: Logan is the movie that fans of the X-Men series and the character of Wolverine have been waiting for. Since Hugh Jackman first stepped into the shoes of everyone's favorite adamantium-clawed mutant back in Bryan Singer's original X-Men film in 2000, he's turned up in every single X-Men movie since in big parts and cameos, with two of those films - 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine and 2013's The Wolverine - being entirely his to own. For 17 years now, Jackman has lived and breathed this character, shining bright even during the franchise's lowest points, and it's a testament to just how beloved his performance has become for so many people that even brief appearances, like in last year's X-Men: Apocalypse, can elicit a visceral reaction of excitement from audiences nearly two decades on. From the very beginning, Logan was constructed as Jackman's last outing as the character, and expectations have always been high that it could overcome the previous Wolverine movies - The Wolverine was good, but Origins was a disaster - and stand up alongside the franchise's best entries, like 2003's X2 and 2014's Days of Future Past, to give both character and actor the sendoff they deserved. And with the success of Deadpool last year proving that there's a market for solid R-rated comic book movies, Logan was given the chance to follow suit, allowing for Jackman, director James Mangold, his fellow writers, Scott Frank and Michael Green, and everyone involved to let loose and unleash the Wolverine in a way the franchise has only scratched the surface of over the years. As any fan of the X-Men franchise can attest, continuity isn't the series' strong suit. After the conclusion of the original trilogy back in 2006 with X-Men: The Last Stand, the films that followed have never been able to maintain any sense of true cohesion, making it a nightmare for perfectionists who like every little detail to click into place while giving the franchise a bit of freedom to change things it deems fit - no matter how contradictory they are with past events - in the pursuit of making each new film the best it can be. Whether it's worked is something that can only be discussed on a film by film basis, but Logan on its own is no exception to this unspoken rule, cherry-picking elements from its predecessors to tell the story it wants to tell, all to successful effect. Aside from Patrick Stewart's Charles Xavier, no other familiar faces from the franchise turn up here. This is Wolverine's ride, not theirs, which is fitting for a character who has long been defined by his agelessness and resulting loneliness. At the outset of Logan, Logan himself is working a thankless job on the U.S./Mexico border as a limo driver to scrape up money to buy a boat so that he and Xavier - whose senility has long since made him unbalanced, prone to seizures that can, and have, hurt anybody unlucky enough to be around when he has one - can live out their days on the ocean, away from society. With mutantkind having nearly been eradicated, with no mutant births occurring in a long time, and all his friends gone, Logan is simply counting down the clock, his own body beginning to fail him, too, his age finally catching up, his claws popping out slower than they used to, and his wounds taking longer and longer to heal. And then, one day, his past catches up to him, and he finds himself unwillingly tasked with protecting a young mutant girl named Laura - who bears more than a few striking similarities to him - from a shady company seeking to reclaim her as their property. Along with Charles, the two set out on a roadtrip to deliver her to a safe haven known as Eden, pursued by their enemies and haunted by the ghosts of their past. Grade: A Directed By: Jordan Peele Release Date: February 24, 2017 Starring: Daniel Kaluuya, Allison Williams, Bradley Whitford, Catherine Keener Some films have to sit with me for a while after my first viewing of them for me to fully work through and process exactly what my thoughts are and how I feel about them beyond that initial, basic reaction one has when coming out of theater once it's over. This weekend, I had to do just that for Jordan Peele's horror/comedy Get Out, a film I had a blast seeing Thursday night after looking forward to it for quite some time but one that I wanted to hold off writing anything about so that it had time to really sink in.
Get Out is the story of a young photographer named Chris (played by Daniel Kaluuya) who accompanies his girlfriend Rose (played by Allison Williams) on a trip to meet her parents (played by Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener) at their rural estate. Initially concerned about the fact that Rose hasn't informed her parents that he's black, Chris sets his worries aside and heads out with an open mind, and though Rose's parents are slightly awkward, they welcome him with open arms into their home. Of course, not everything is as it seems, and the more time Chris spends around Rose's family, the more obvious it is that something is wrong: From the family's robot-like maid and groundskeeper to an odd friend of the family, Chris notices that every African-American in the vicinity seems to be under some kind of trance, and as the weirdness only continues to escalate as part of a larger mystery, it may just be too late for Chris to escape from what he's been caught up in. On paper, Get Out seems like quite the departure for Peele, who I liked back in his MadTV days and various other things he's popped up in over the years but really came to appreciate for his work on Key & Peele and his few episodes in the first season of Fargo. Up until now, Peele has really been known for his comedic efforts, but as anyone who's seen even just Key & Peele can testify to, all kinds of film genres beyond comedy have inspired and informed his work over the years. Get Out proves beyond a doubt that Peele knows his stuff when it comes to horror - after all, he also wrote the film - and the fact that it's such a solid piece of work despite being his directorial debut only serves to hammer that fact in. When it comes to films like this that rely on all kinds of narrative twists and turns to power their fundamental narrative, I'm a firm believer in the idea that the less one knows about it going in, the better, and Get Out is no exception. And while I won’t spoil the specifics of the story, if there's any true fault about the film, it's that there is some predictability in terms of how it plays out, particularly during the final act; we've seen some of these beats play out in other thriller/horror films before and will continue to until the end of time. But what separates Get Out from the generic works we seem to get every few months is the overall package Peele delivers it in. Though this is a horror movie that wears its inspirations on its sleeves - echoes of films like The Stepford Wives or The Wicker Man unmistakably reverberate throughout, for instance - Peele still manages to bring his comedic sensibilities to the table, imbuing the film with actual personality and character that so many of these types of films fail to deliver. Grade: A Directed By: J.A. Bayona Release Date: December 23, 2016 Starring: Lewis MacDougall, Liam Neeson, Felicity Jones, Sigourney Weaver It takes a lot to move me. I've seen countless films over the last three decades, and I've been subjected to so many projects that feel manipulative, their efforts to make audiences feel something too obvious to come off as genuine. That said, for as many times as that has happened, I have no problem coming across films that do succeed in engaging me emotionally, intellectually, or otherwise, sucking me right in, but rarely does a film strike at something so deep within me that I'm brought to tears. To say that I've been looking forward all year long to director J.A. Bayona's A Monster Calls would be an understatement. Back in 2007, I went to see The Orphanage with little to no expectations, and came out of it having seen one of the best horror films of the modern era. Bayona became an artist I wanted to keep an eye on, and I'm thankful I did, as 2012's The Impossible was great and his work directing the first two episodes of Penny Dreadful helped pull me into the world of that series immediately. To put it lightly, A Monster Calls couldn't get here any sooner. The film is the story of a young boy named Conor, played by Lewis MacDougall. Conor's mother, Lizzie (Felicity Jones), is battling an undefined terminal illness, which has forced Conor to deal with a situation no one his age should ever have to go through. His father (Toby Kebbell) lives in the U.S. with his own family, his grandmother (Sigourney Weaver) isn't a woman he can find any connection with, and - to top it all off - he's bullied at school, where he has no friends, effectively leaving him alone in the world to watch as the one thing he truly loves slowly fades away. And then, late one night - and living up to the film's title - a monster (voiced by Liam Neeson) calls, showing up with a mandate for Conor: The monster is there to help, and to do so, he will return to tell Conor three different tales. Once finished, Conor will in turn tell him a fourth, even though Conor has no idea what purposes the stories serve or what exactly the monster is expecting to hear from him. Grade: A Directed By: Ron Clements & John Musker Release Date: November 23, 2016 Starring: Auli'i Cravalho, Dwayne Johnson There's a sequence that occurs late in Moana where I realized that the film's titular character had already earned her spot among some of Disney's best characters over the last hour and a half. Abandoned, adrift on a damaged boat, and presented with the option of giving up on her quest and returning home, Moana instead steels herself to keep pushing forward alone, patching up her boat and putting to use all the lessons she'd learned up to that point about sailing to tackle what could quite possibly be a suicide mission on her part. To call Moana a great addition to Disney's long list of princesses would almost be, in my eyes, a disservice to her character, as the fact that she's a princess really has no bearing on her development throughout the film, nor does the simple fact she's "a girl." Though the film breaks the fourth wall a bit via a few lines from the demigod Maui, who points out these things, neither her gender nor her status defines Moana or her goals. Manufactured conflicts like arranged marriages or themes of finding love present in past movies involving princesses are nowhere to be found in Moana, which instead wisely fixates on the idea of listening to that little voice in the back of your head whispering that the world is at your fingertips if only you dare to live a little and discover it for yourself. From the start, Moana dreams of sailing beyond the reef around her home, the tropical island of Motunui, a paradise that the film never suggests is a bad place for Moana, who truly loves the people of the island - who love her back - and is torn between doing the "right" thing and staying to lead them and following her heart out beyond the sea. After coconut crops begin to wither and the fish supply seemingly vanishes, Moana sets out to solve the problem, which involves finding Maui and forcing him to return the heart of an island goddess named Te Fiti that he had stolen long ago, the negative consequences of which are beginning to be felt by Moana's people. Without going too much further into narrative spoilers, Moana's adventure is filled with the expected level of wit, adventure, and emotional depth that has defined some of Disney Animation's best films, anchored by an excellent lead character unshackled from gender expectations. Moana - both the character and the film itself - is a breath of fresh air, and that's all you really need to know before I get any deeper with this review. Disney's on a hot streak this year; Moana is no exception, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it nab a win for Best Animated Feature when the time comes. Grade: B Directed By: David Yates Release Date: November 18, 2016 Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Dan Fogler, Colin Farrell, Katherine Waterston, Ezra Miller Related Reviews: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001), Chamber of Secrets (2002), Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), Goblet of Fire (2005) It's 1926, and names like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort are decades away from being known throughout the Wizarding World. Instead, the wizarding community fears Gellert Grindelwald, a Dark Wizard with evil ambitions whose sudden disappearance has sparked concern across the globe about what he could be up to. Against this backdrop of growing danger, magizooloist Newt Scamander arrives in New York with a suitcase full of all kinds of magical creatures, and it doesn't take long before some of them get out, threatening to expose the Wizarding World to the muggle - or No-Maj, as the Americans refer to them - community. For Harry Potter fans, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a dream come true. It's been nearly a decade since J. K. Rowling's groundbreaking series came to a close and five years since the final film adaptation of it hit theaters, and though it has continued to live on in various ways via things like the Wizarding World at Universal Studios parks or the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child stage play, we haven't really been given something to truly sink our teeth into. As a breeding ground for unlimited storytelling potential beyond the adventures of Harry Potter, the Wizarding World has remained relatively untapped up until now, and Fantastic Beasts - written by Rowling herself, no less - serves as an introduction to a wonderful new era for the franchise that will, hopefully, prove fruitful for years to come. As I covered in my Retro Reviews for the first four Harry Potter films, I absolutely love the books and respect the films, and while I wanted more stories out of the Wizarding World, I was also reluctant, as the idea of there being too much of a good thing exists for a reason. When Fantastic Beasts was announced, I was excited, especially for the fact that Rowling herself would be penning it, but I couldn't keep that niggling voice in the back of my head completely silent from whispering that it could fall apart, underwhelm, or fail to live up to all that Potter provided. All this is to say that I went into Fantastic Beasts on Thursday evening with my hopes high but expectations in check. Fortunately, I came out the other end of the film relatively satisfied with what I had seen and curious now that the table has been set for a much larger course over the next few years via four planned sequels, even if I have some minor issues with Newt Scamander's first adventure. Retro Reviews are frequent looks back at films I've already seen to conclude whether or not they still hold up, taking into consideration both the time period and circumstances during which they were made and how they work in the modern day to offer a more in-depth exploration of the film itself than those found in my standard first-time reviews. Related Reviews: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001), Chamber of Secrets (2002), Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Retro Reviews are frequent looks back at films I've already seen to conclude whether or not they still hold up, taking into consideration both the time period and circumstances during which they were made and how they work in the modern day to offer a more in-depth exploration of the film itself than those found in my standard first-time reviews. Related Reviews: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) Grade: B Directed By: James Wan Release Date: October 29, 2004 Starring: Cary Elwes, Leigh Whannell, Tobin Bell, Danny Glover Two men - Cary Elwes' Dr. Lawrence Gordon and Leigh Whannell's Adam - wake up chained to opposite sides of a grimy bathroom with no memory of how they got there, only to discover that they're now part of a game designed by the mysterious Jigsaw Killer, a psychopath under the belief that he's teaching his victims to appreciate their lives by putting them in life-or-death scenarios. Under the gun of a ticking clock, the goals they are tasked with are simple: Adam's aim is merely to find a way to escape, while Dr. Gordon's is to kill Adam before time runs out or let his kidnapped wife and daughter die if he fails to do so. Such is the simple premise for James Wan's little horror film Saw, and I don't think anyone could've anticipated the pop culture phenomenon it went on to become when it was released back in 2004. Aside from spawning six sequels - with a seventh on the way next year, bringing the series back to the big screen for the first time since 2010 - it gifted horror fans with a new genre icon on par with Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, and Freddy Krueger in Jigsaw, the series' devious mastermind. I have to admit off the bat that I have somewhat of a soft spot for the Saw franchise. I didn't see the original film until several months before the release of Saw III in 2006, but once I did, I immediately consumed Saw II in order to prep myself for III. After that, it became a yearly tradition among my friends and I to binge the entire series in anticipation of the next sequel. In many ways, the Saw franchise, with its tightly-knit narrative continuity and annual releases, was our modern day Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street series; that is, a yearly horror event to look forward to to see what would happen next with Jigsaw and all those caught up in his grand design. Though the series only became increasingly ridiculous the longer it went on, particularly in terms of the over-the-top traps most people undoubtedly associate with the franchise, I can't say I wasn't entertained for most of it. That said, my interest in the series still rests more with the earlier films, which often embraced the power of psychological tension more than the violence inherent in elaborate traps, a fact no better demonstrated than right here in the original installment. Retro Reviews are frequent looks back at films I've already seen to conclude whether or not they still hold up, taking into consideration both the time period and circumstances during which they were made and how they work in the modern day to offer a more in-depth exploration of the film itself than those found in my standard first-time reviews. Related Review: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone Just a year after Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone hit theaters, Chamber of Secrets arrived, free of the burden of launching the film franchise. Sorcerer's Stone had a lot of ground to cover in introducing the Wizarding World to audiences, and thankfully it satisfied many book readers and appealed to many non-book readers to get the franchise started on footing that, while not entirely perfect, remained solid. In contrast to its predecessor, Chamber of Secrets is a much more confident film, one that immediately feels as comfortable with itself as the returning actors do slipping back into their characters. Harry's return to Hogwarts is just as welcoming for viewers as it is for the Boy Who Lived himself, and the film - just like the book - benefits from being able to hit the ground running now that so many core concepts are in place and characters are established. Whereas the first film had elements that were "scary," such as the very notion of Lord Voldemort's existence, the sense of danger was still very restrained, particularly when put up against some of the later films. Chamber is really the film that starts pushing the idea that there's more to fear in this world than Dark Wizards and that the existence of magic doesn't mean safety is a guarantee. It's not an overtly grim film by any means and (appropriately) doesn't deal in death yet, but it's a far more mature story than what came before, a natural next step along Harry's journey that starts to bridge the gap between the wide-eyed innocence of these younger years and the darker aspects of the ones that followed. Continuing along in my trip down memory lane with the films in advance of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, I invite you to come along with me again as I reopen the Chamber of Secrets and sort out whether what's contained within still holds up nearly 14 years later. Let's find out! Grade: A- Directed By: Bruce Timm & Eric Radomski Release Date: December 25, 1993 Starring: Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, Dana Delaney Over the years, no comic book character has quite had the media presence that Batman has had. From TV shows to film, both live-action and animated, the character - along with all his friends and foes, of course - has never been far from the public eye. In the past few years alone, we've seen Christian Bale finish off his run as the character only for Ben Affleck to pick up the mantle for the budding DC Extended Universe; gotten the staggeringly popular Arkham video games; received a season of the animated Beware the Batman; and witnessed the debut and continuing run of Gotham on Fox. All this is to say that Batman's popularity is undeniable, so much so that he has managed to endure and overcome a number of stumbling blocks - like 1997's Batman & Robin - only to find himself repeatedly embraced by audiences the world over. With so many different interpretations of the character past, present, and future to choose from, it's no surprise that the debate continues to rage among fans as to who their "favorite Batman" is and which movie or show has done the character and his world the most justice. One thing many seem to agree on, however, is that Batman: The Animated Series, which premiered in 1992, the same year as Tim Burton's Batman Returns, is a gold standard by which any and all adaptations since have been measured. Often considered one of the greatest animated series of all time thanks to its incredible level of maturity and decision to not shy away from the level of freak show darkness 1989's live-action Batman thrived in, Batman: TAS went on to have a long lifespan, kicking off a whole animated universe - collectively known as the DCAU - that spanned a number of series and spawned a handful of movies. The first and, perhaps, most important of the films it gave rise to was Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, which skipped a direct-to-video release and dropped quietly in theaters in 1993. Recently, I began going through the DCAU in its entirety, and though I was more than happy to revisit Batman: TAS, I was arguably more excited to finally see Mask of the Phantasm, a film which I've always been meaning to watch but never got around to, mainly because I wanted to watch it in its full context in continuity with the show. Retro Reviews are frequent looks back at films I've already seen to conclude whether or not they still hold up, taking into consideration both the time period and circumstances during which they were made and how they work in the modern day to offer a more in-depth exploration of the film itself than those found in my standard first-time reviews. It's hard to believe, but nearly 15 years have passed since the first Harry Potter film hit theaters in November of 2001. At the time, the anticipation for it was tremendous, with a staggering set of expectations set on its shoulders by fans the world over who'd spent the years since Harry's first adventure was published in 1997 falling in love with J. K. Rowling's incredibly accessible storytelling and endearing characters. It's a testament to the franchise's popularity that it has continued to endure. A decade after the first film released, fans said goodbye to the series by making the final film - the second half of Deathly Hallows - not just the highest grossing entry in the franchise but the highest grossing movie of the year. The stage production of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child - a canon sequel, of course - continues to draw in fans, as does the franchise's theme park presence at Universal Studios. Not to mention, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is on its way to theaters in just a matter of weeks, the inevitable success of which will blow open the doors to further cinematic expansion of the Wizarding World for years and years to come. All this is to say that Harry Potter and everything that comes with him is important on both a grand cultural scale and on an individual basis, and I'm a part of that. I began reading the series in 1999, the year Prisoner of Azkaban was published, and haven't stopped since; not a year has gone by where I haven't revisited the books, and I'll continue to look forward to whatever's to come, whether it be for the characters who I grew up alongside or for the Wizarding World at large. In 2001, I - like everyone else - was looking forward to seeing the series brought to life on the big screen, and spent the next decade being both thrilled by and disappointed with the various film adaptations. In honor of the original film's 15th anniversary and our upcoming return to the Wizarding World via Fantastic Beasts, I'll be taking a look back at each film in the series to examine how they've held up, and I invite you to come along with me as I do. Grade: B Directed By: Gareth Edwards Release Date: October 29, 2010 Starring: Scoot McNairy, Whitney Able Between the United States and Mexico, there sits the Infected Zone, a quarantined area inhabited by extraterrestrial life that hitched a ride on a NASA probe that had once crashed in the area. For those south of the quarantine's border, the threat of attack by these creatures, which have grown into towering, octopus-like beasts, is always looming, while those located north - in the U.S. - are seemingly protected by a large wall keeping the monsters out. Though soldiers from both countries work tirelessly to both keep the creatures contained and destroy them, life must go on for everyone else, including Andrew Kaulder, a photojournalist from the U.S. in Mexico seeking to document the lives and environment of those living south of the zone. But before he can really get started, he's tasked with finding his employer's daughter, Samantha, and getting her safely back to the U.S., a mission that becomes anything but easy as the two wind up with no choice but to put their lives on the line and travel directly through alien territory to make it back home. From its basic premise and general setup, I went into director Gareth Edwards' Monsters expecting one thing and getting something completely different. Monsters was Edwards' first feature film, a project that landed him 2014's big Godzilla gig and the upcoming Star Wars film Rogue One, and while I still haven't seen the former yet, I can't deny that much of my motivation to finally watch Monsters stemmed from what we've seen so far of his Star Wars effort. And because both Godzilla and Star Wars are both hugely popular science fiction properties designed for the masses, I can't lie that I had certain expectations about Monsters; that he had to have done something with it in a big, bold, action-focused way that made his selection to helm two big, bold, action-focused blockbusters make sense. As with (mostly) all films, I try not to let my personal expectations guide my ultimate enjoyment of what I actually experience. If a film veers off in a different direction than I anticipated, I'm all for it, so long as it remains good. With Monsters, I went in expecting the type of genre movie we've seen before, where the two unassuming leads are put through the paces, with action beat after action beat turning them into warriors in advance of one final showdown against the very creatures they've been harassed by throughout the runtime. Fortunately, the narrative and characters of Monsters never fall in line with that, resulting in a film that pleasantly surprised me even if it has and will continue to disappoint newcomers who can't let go of such expectations. |
TopicsArchivesPick a Month:
August 2022
|