Not counting the introduction, this entry marks the 200th post on my blog, which, conveniently enough, took place the same week as my birthday, which was Wednesday. (Happy birthday to me...) What with my going back to my older schedule, and my most popular format (articles on MWF, most revolving around older movies), I thought I'd do one last round-up of reviews of the newer movies I've seen over the last couple of months.
Obviously, I'd prefer to do longer ones, but I've been doing new stuff for some time now, and it's become clear to me, numbers-wise, that you all prefer my takes on the older stuff, which is fine. So, to that end, I'll only be doing reviews of newer stuff every once in a while, probably only for movies that I just couldn't help but comment on.
I've got some good stuff coming up, including more franchise reviews, and a planned review of Quentin Tarantino's entire oeuvre to celebrate the impending release of his latest film, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which, if rumors are to be believed, is the next-to-last film he'll ever make, with Kill Bill, Volume 3 possibly being the last. Hopefully, that's not the case, but we'll see.
Until then, here's one last round-up of reviews to tide you over until I get back to the business of reviewing my fave older flicks. On a side note, for obvious reasons, I won't be doing a column tomorrow, FYI. Look for the next one on Wednesday. Let's get started!
TBH, though I was a huge fan of the Harry Potter books and movies, I skipped out on the original Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them because it somewhat reeked of desperation. After all, if you were familiar with the book it was based on, you know it wasn't a book at all, but rather, a sort of "field guide" that was meant to be taken as a textbook used at Hogwarts by the students. In other words, it wasn't a proper book at all, but rather, a clever tie-in to the series that was kind of a lark on author J.K. Rowling's part.
When she finished off the HP series, she wasn't inclined to consider another one, save a script she wrote for a stage play, which was not something she optioned for the movies... yet. But when Warner Brothers picked up the rights to Beasts, she relented and agreed to write the screenplay to the movie version, on the condition that she be given creative control over the project and any subsequent films in the series. WB agreed and it was off to the races.
I actually ended up enjoying the first film- it was more fun than I thought it would be, especially given the somewhat lukewarm reviews it got at the time, which was another reason I initially skipped it in theaters, though it did just fine, as to be expected, at the box office. Be that as it may, the reviews for the follow-up were even worse, and the box office took a slight dip as well, so I ended up skipping it, too.
As it turns out, the critics weren't entirely wrong on this one. After taking some of the negative reviews of the first one to heart, Rowling clearly rethought the series and front-loaded it with way more fan service this time around- there's a return visit to Hogwarts, complete with a cameo from a young Professor McGonagall; a young Dumbledore (Jude Law) plays a major role this time around, serving in a similar capacity to main character Newt (Eddie Redmayne) as he did to Harry Potter; and the threads of the story laid in the first one are more clearly connected to the Potter-verse.
(If you really want a deep dive into Potter-related lore, check out the Blu-Ray bonus feature involving star Ezra Miller, who plays Credence in both films, and none other than Evanna Lynch, aka Luna Lovegood, as they break down some of the more subtle tie-ins to the so-called "Wizarding World." The two are just this side of annoying in their fan-geekdom, but then, so are a lot of hardcore Potter fans, myself included, lol.)
Unfortunately, the film is even more of a CGI fest than the last one, and often substitutes action for heart, leaving this viewer somewhat cold. But more devastatingly, there's so many characters this time around that many of our faves from the last one get the short shrift this time around, which is really unfortunate. Things do perk up once the old gang is reunited, but Queenie (Alison Sudol) is mostly kept at arm's length, and she never does really reunite with the entire team, which is too bad, as she was one of my favorite characters in the last one.
Even worse, Johnny Depp is front and center as the titular Grindelwald, and I'm just not a big fan of his anymore, not since the unfortunate turn of events IRL as of late (more on that later elsewhere, if you're not aware). Granted, he's playing a villain, so that actually helps, but his performance is really muted, as if his heart wasn't really in it. Given his recent money woes, which are hard to sympathize with, given his notorious spending habits- for instance, he once blew $3 million to blast Hunter S. Thompson's ashes from a cannon (!) - it seems like these films are little more than a quick cash-in for him, and it really shows in his lack of enthusiasm. Old-school Depp would have killed this- post super-stardom Depp, not so much.
The end result is okay, but the film could have used more light-hearted moments like the last one, and the series as a whole seems to be taking a turn for the dark at a much quicker speed than the Potter series, which is too bad, as this series had the potential to be just as fun before taking that hard right. Perhaps this is the direct result of Rowling initially planning to make this series a trilogy before changing her mind and deciding to make it a five-film series instead. Either way, I fear things may only get darker from here, without it being earned the way it was in the Potter-verse. We'll see.
Okay, full disclosure: I am not a huge fan of the Transformers franchise. I didn't play with the toys as a kid, watch the cartoon or animated movie, and, while I thought the first live-action film was tolerable, the subsequent ones have been migraine-inducing endurance tests that I would have walked out of if I hadn't had to review them- and I never walk out on anything.
That said, you can imagine my surprise when the latest one not only got solid reviews from critics, but featured one of my favorite current actresses, Hailee Steinfeld, who, for my money, is one of the best actresses of her generation. Even when the end results aren't the greatest (i.e. Barely Lethal), the films are just interesting enough, premise-wise, that you can see why she'd have been drawn to them in the first place.
Bumblebee was the first film she's made where I was genuinely puzzled by her motivations- why would an actress of her caliber do a bombastic giant robot movie? I had to find out for myself, so I rented it. At first, my fears weren't exactly allayed by the first 15 minutes, which were standard Transformers make-a-lot-of-noise-and-blow-shit-up-whenever-possible fare. But then Steinfeld's character enters the movie and a funny thing happens- the sort of thing you'd never expect, if you were familiar with these movies: it turns into a coming-of-age tale.
Basically, this is the most Spielbergian of all the series- lest we forget, Spielberg is the executive producer of all these movies- in that it's sort of an ET- The Extra-Terrestrial redux, complete with a script also written by a woman, Christina Hodson, who wrote the upcoming Birds of Prey flick, which bodes well for that film. Basically, it's ET by way of Short Circuit: Alien robot crashes to Earth, is befriended by a teen, who helps him evade the determined authorities.
But it's also a lot of fun, with a great 80's soundtrack- and yes, you better believe "You Got the Touch" makes an appearance- and even manages to get in a dig at the Smiths. (Sorry, not a fan- and neither is Bumblebee- as it turns out, he's more of an oldies fan.) Steinfeld, as ever, is fantastic, and even manages to make a movie about a girl and her robot downright touching- I damn near shed a tear here and there. Who'd have thunk it?
By all means, even if you don't typically like this sort of thing, check this one out- especially if you like Steinfeld or 80's teen movies, a la John Hughes, who also gets a shout-out here. (Bumblebee even does the air punch, a la Breakfast Club!) It's way better than it has any right to be, and pretty much single-handedly revives a franchise I'd left for dead years ago. Go figure.
While I didn't hate the last Jurassic World movie, I wasn't exactly clamoring for a follow-up, either. As such, I skipped this one in theaters, only to catch it on a free HBO preview recently. It was about what I expected, quite frankly; which is to say, more of the same, albeit with one great hook: this time, the dinosaurs make it to the mainland.
Unfortunately, just as with the last time they did that, in Jurassic Park III, it happens late in the game, and basically all takes place in one location, and it's an isolated mansion in the middle of nowhere. That said, it's a lot of fun once the dinosaurs get out and all hell breaks loose, but I would have loved to see them wreak havoc in a city or what have you.
We may still get our chance, as some of the dinos make a break for it at the end, and seem to be headed in that general direction. Guess we'll have to wait on the inevitable sequel for the good stuff. Until then, we have Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, which is a passable time-waster and not much else, with a patently ridiculous twist involving the little girl that is sure to make more discerning viewers roll their eyes and possibly quit while they're ahead. Can't say I'd blame them.
I had high hopes for Hotel Artemis- it stars Jodie Foster, who is one of my all-time favorite actresses, but who doesn't make movies that often anymore. On the rare occasions she does, her choices are almost always interesting, and this is no exception. Alas, the end result is like a sort of a warmed-over version of The Raid.
Basically, it's about a private hospital for injured criminals, sort of a futuristic mob hospital, as the film takes place in 2028. The futuristic angle doesn't add much to the proceedings, beyond making it marginally different from the movies and scenes in movies you've seen where a criminal is injured in the act of committing a crime and they can't go to a regular hospital, so they go to a "special" doctor that works off the books, typically because they, too, have a record and have been retained by the mob or the like.
This is the same exact thing, except, you know, in the future. On the plus side, Foster is great as usual, and the cast is impressive, including Sterling K. Brown, Brian Tyree Henry, Zachary Quinto, Jeff Goldblum, Dave Bautista, Jenny Slate and the always-welcome Sofia Boutella (Atomic Blonde, The Mummy), who kicks ass, also as usual.
But beyond that, it's nothing you haven't seen before, just with a better cast, maybe. Be that as it may, writer/director Drew Pearce, who wrote the story for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation and co-wrote Iron Man 3, is not without talent, and he might have a great movie in him somewhere. This, alas, is not it. But it's worth a rent or a one-time watch on cable or online or what have you.
I also had high hopes for this one. I was a big fan of writer-director Adam McKay's The Big Short- he's certainly come a long way from the wacky likes of Anchorman and Talladega Nights. That film managed the unthinkable: it made a movie about the housing market crash in 2007 interesting.
The coolest element of that one was the way the film would take breaks to bring on a "guest" celebrity, like Margot Robbie or Selena Gomez, to break down complex themes and ideas in a way everyone could understand. Vice applies similar ideas to the tale of Vice President Dick Cheney, with some clever fourth-wall-breaking along the way that almost, but not quite, redeems the film.
The problem is, as astonishing and immersive as Christian Bale's performance as Cheney is- you really do forget it's him pretty early on- the film is one of those movies where the director is almost constantly winking at the audience, as if to say: "See how clever I am?" That was not the case with The Big Short, but such things have been known to happen when a filmmaker receives a lot of fawning praise from critics and lets it go to their head.
Almost everything about this rings of liberal preening- and I say that as a liberal myself. It comes off as an obvious hack job on Cheney and the Bush Administration in general, and it's not like they don't deserve it, given all the horrific things they did (though it seems almost quaint in the light of the current administration, honestly), but McKay really comes off as self-serving and superior here, and not in a good way, obviously.
For once, it finally made me relate to why conservatives hate liberals so much- and that's not a feeling I ever want to feel again. Here's a note to all liberals: just because you're in the right doesn't mean you have to lord it over everyone. I realize it's frustrating and tantamount to bashing your head into a wall over and over again trying to talk to conservatives and make them see your point of view, but it doesn't help to patronize them, I can tell you that.
This film is like Exhibit A of an example of why conservatives hate us liberals, and as such, I can't in good conscience recommend it. We can do better. Hell, we have to, given how off the rails things are, as of late. But leaning into the way most conservatives see us is not the way forward- this film is why terms like "liberal elites" were coined. Ugh. Skip it.
I'm not a musical fan, to say the least. I was borderline dragged kicking and screaming to the first installment of this movie, and about the only thing that got me through it was my undying love of star Amanda Seyfried, who I would watch in just about anything. Well, save Les Miserables. Like I said, NOT a musical fan.
I'm also not exactly a huge ABBA fan, either. Back in the day, late Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain went on record about his love for the band, talking about how their songs influenced him as a lyricist because they were deceptively upbeat songs about topics that were actually sad- something that Nirvana was also known for. Curious, I picked up ABBA's greatest hits set, and I didn't hate it, but I don't find myself listening to it much, either. It's a little too shiny happy people for me, even if it really is deceptively so.
So, yeah, a musical based on ABBA wasn't exactly my thing. I never saw the Broadway show, and I probably would have skipped the movie, had an ex-GF not insisted upon seeing it. (Why she couldn't have gone with her friends escapes me- possibly because she didn't really have any, lol.)
So, you can imagine my surprise when I found myself watching the sequel on that same free HBO preview I mentioned earlier. This time around, it was late, and I had no intention of watching the whole thing, but I have this thing about watching anything complex while I'm eating, so I tend to gravitate towards sitcoms or cartoons or whatever when I'm doing so, which is how it happened.
Of course, I could have stopped after I finished eating, but I found myself into this one in a way I just plain wasn't the first time around. First of all, it also had Lily James in it, who I also have a major crush on, and perhaps more importantly, it learned a dire lesson from the first film: if you're going to do a musical, you should, you know, cast people who can actually sing.
By setting this partially in the past, and recasting all the roles with younger people with solid singing voices- save maybe that one British guy, who positively massacres "Waterloo" (again, lol) - the second installment redeems everything wrong about the first one, and I say that with due respect to the acting skills of all those involved, who were all solid in that respect.
I gather there are some plot holes from what I've heard from fans of the original online, but I wasn't paying enough attention the first time around to pick up on them, so that wasn't an issue with me. The point is, it's actually pretty entertaining. It's funnier, moves quicker, and the renditions of the songs are infinitely better. Plus, Cher's in it. Most everyone loves Cher, right?
The film didn't make me jump up and down, and I'll probably never watch it again, much less invest in the soundtrack- okay, I might download some of Amanda's bits (that sounded dirtier than I meant, lol)- but it was fun in the moment, and, as ever, the locations are to die for.
Also, I am a fan of watching people dance, even if I hate musicals- probably because I grew up watching MTV in the 80's and 90's, when that sort of thing was everywhere- and the choreography, which often involves a mess of dancers, is visually stunning. It's also highly amusing to see Preacher sing. (Star Dominic Cooper wasn't yet the titular character when the first film came out, so I wasn't really familiar with him then.)
So, much to my astonishment, this wasn't half bad. At the very least, it kept my attention to the end, which is saying something. It's no Across the Universe- probably my favorite "traditional" musical, if you don't count the decidedly not typical musical Pink Floyd: The Wall- but it's not too shabby for a musical revolving around a band I only mildly enjoy, if that.
If this sort of thing floats your boat, you'll probably dig it, too, and it's an absolute must for Seyfried and James fans, for sure, as both are just delightful and in fine form, musical or otherwise. It doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it was a damn sight better than the original, for my money.
And now for something completely different. I'm not a huge Nicole Kidman fan, TBH. Something about her has always left me cold. Possibly because Kidman herself radiates a certain "Ice Queen"-type quality. But as of late, she's been picking roles that are designed to make people rethink that. She was just fantastic- and highly sympathetic- as a battered housewife in HBO's Big Little Lies, and she was more kick-ass than I would have thought she had in her in Aquaman.
So, I decided to take a chance on this movie, mainly because I'm a big fan of director Karyn Kusama, of Girlfight, The Invitation and the lamentably derided Jennifer's Body, which deserves a second look for those who dismissed it the first time around. I was not disappointed. Not only does it fit neatly into Kusman's solid run of offbeat, left-of-center cult flicks, but it may well be the best thing Kidman has ever done. Too bad it didn't get more attention during awards season, as Kidman is just fantastic.
Indeed, I can't think of a movie in which an actress so thoroughly lost herself in a role since Charlize Theron's astonishing turn in Monster. Kidman is borderline unrecognizable here, even more so than she was in her Oscar-winning turn in The Hours. (She also has a prosthetic nose in this one, but it's nowhere near as distracting.)
This is Kidman as you've never seen her before- completely devoid of any sort of glamour, save maybe in the brief flashbacks, but even then, she's dressed down and her hair is a drab blackish-brown. She plays a cop that's been in a tailspin ever since the death of her former partner, who died when they were both undercover, and which she blames herself for- not without good reason, as we discover.
When a new case has a connection to the case her partner died on- complete with an invitation to go after the main guy the two were trying to take down once and for all, seemingly from the man himself, Kidman's character can't resist a second shot at putting this one to bed- perhaps even permanently.
If you thought Kidman was bad-ass in Aquaman, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait till you see her pistol whip Bradley Whitford in front of his kid! (He had it coming, trust me.) This is a down and dirty Kidman like you've never seen before and she is just plain riveting.
If you like cop dramas, this is a can't miss, with solid assists from Sebastian Stan (aka "The Winter Soldier," Bucky Barnes, from the MCU), Scoot McNairy (True Detective) and another near-unrecognizable turn from old hand Tatiana Maslany, who can do unrecognizable in her sleep, thanks to her turns on Orphan Black. This one would have made my Top 10 of 2018 for sure, had I seen it sooner.
Reportedly legendary star Robert Redford's final starring role- he did also shoot a brief cameo reprising his turn in the MCU for Avengers: Endgame- The Old Man and the Gun is a good, old-fashioned crime drama of the sort you rarely see anymore. Clearly inspired by similar types of movies from the 70's, the movie is also the rare one to be shot on actual film, as opposed to digital. As such, it even looks like the sort of film its emulating.
Of course, it being inspired by the 70's, that means the pacing may feel a bit slow to younger generations, but then, it's maybe not the type of movie they would seek out, anyway, given that the cast is mostly old enough to be their parents, if not their grandparents. But those who don't mind a movie that takes its time to unfold will certainly appreciate this, and it's hard to go wrong with a cast that includes old pros like Redford, Sissy Spacek, Danny Glover and, be still my heart, singer Tom Waits, who's just great.
There's also Oscar winner Casey Affleck as the cop in pursuit of Redford's aging bank robber, both of which are based on real people. Redford plays Forrest Tucker, who has spent most of his life in and out of jail when he wasn't going in and out of banks as he robbed them, sometimes alone, sometimes with a team (Glover and Waits play the other members of the so-called "Over-the-Hill Gang"). He also escaped from prison some 18 times (!), many of which are illustrated in the film.
Like I said the film is a little poky by today's standards, but it's great seeing the always-compelling Redford take center stage again, especially if you grew up with his films, as I did, thanks to my father. Indeed, some footage from his old films and old photos are incorporated into this one, for some added fun for fans. I'm kind of shocked this one didn't get more awards season love, but sometimes good films get overlooked when the fields are overrun, as was the case last year.
If you're a Redford fan, this is a must, and even if you aren't and you just dig a solid heist film/crime drama, you should like this. It isn't exactly action-packed- Redford's character doesn't really use that titular gun, as it's more of a prop to get the job done than anything else- but as a character study, it's a solid little film of the type they rarely make anymore.
Tarantino this is not, save the 70's fetishization and use of old film stock, maybe. But it is well worth a look for those with a love for old-school film and Redford in particular. I say check it out- if it seems like the sort of thing you might like, you probably will, and at ninety minutes and some change, it's a pretty low-term investment, slow-moving or not.
I opted to put a little distance between watching this and the avalanche of hype that accompanied its release, and I'm glad I did, because I probably would have been a lot harsher on it if I hadn't. Not that I'm one to buy into hype- quite the opposite, in fact- if anything, it just makes me all the more skeptical of something, which is precisely why I waited.
That said, it was fine. Nothing spectacular, mind you, and I definitely don't get what all the hype was about- I gather a lot of people took it upon themselves to walk around with blindfolds on, like idiots, to prove that they could also navigate "familiar" surroundings, and got themselves injured when they were proved decidedly wrong.
But it was a decent, one-time watch that I'm not sure there's anything to be gained from watching again, much like A Quiet Place, the film with which it was most associated, thanks to their similar types of hooks. Basically, if you've been living under a rock, the premise is this: out of nowhere, there's an alien invasion that causes people who look at it to kill themselves, and sometimes others, especially once people get wise to what's going on and start avoiding looking at said aliens. Hence the whole blindfold thing.
Another thing that got the film attention was the unusually high-profile cast, which would be impressive by big-screen standards, much less that of Netflix. Although since then, the streaming service has continually landed big name after big name, for not only their movies, but series as well, so it's less surprising now.
Whatever the case, this one boasts Sandra Bullock in the lead, in a role that arguably revived her career after a bit of an extended break, as well as such names as Sarah Paulson (really just a glorified cameo), John Malkovich, Jacki Weaver (The Fighter), BD Wong (Jurassic Park, Mr. Robot), Pruitt Taylor Vince (True Blood, Walking Dead), Parminder Nagra (ER, God Friended Me), Trevante Rhodes (Moonlight), Machine Gun Kelly (The Dirt) and Lil Rel Howery (Get Out).
If you're a horror fan, this is nothing you haven't seen before, and it isn't really scary, but it is occasionally intense, especially early on, when things start going sideways. Basically, it's just a less laughable version of M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening. If you're not a horror fan, then it might make you jump or even cause you a sleepless night or two, but most of us longtimers were like, meh. Been there, seen that. And be forewarned- the ending is a bit wonky.
I'm a fan of star Addison Timlin from various movies, including Odd Thomas, That Awkward Moment, The Town That Dreaded Sundown, and shows like Californication and Zero Hour, so it was cool seeing her front and center in this oddball drama that's kind of horror-adjacent. Timlin plays a wanna-be internet famous vlogger that films herself going on a crime spree, doing things like holding up convenience stores and humiliating the clerk, entrapping a hotel owner with the promise of underage sex and later kidnapping and torturing him, all of which she does on camera.
Basically, it's sort of like Natural Born Killers with a female loner YouTuber type, with lots of rapid-fire editing scattered throughout the film, just like NBK. How much you like it may come down to your tolerance for YouTubers and millennials in general. If they annoy the shit out of you, you'll probably hate this, but if you like the idea of one of them going batshit crazy, then you'll probably dig it.
On the plus side, it's short (only 80 minutes- less if you don't include the credits) and zips by pretty quick, thanks to that breakneck editing. I normally like Timlin in general, but even I have to admit her character is a bit grating at times, but I'm pretty sure it's on purpose.
To the film's credit, it also features an online troll type that's even more vile than she is, thus making her look good in comparison, and it isn't afraid to make one sympathize with a would-be child molester, to make the point that, just because you're in the right doesn't mean you have to be vicious and cruel.
It's kind of hard to explain, but consider that the main character actually isn't underage, but acts as if she is to "test" the hotel manager, then ties him up and proceeds to torture the shit out of him. Does he have it coming? To a certain extent. But then she kidnaps and continues to torment him and film it over the period of several days, so at what point does it go from understandable to just plain mean?
It's a puzzler, and there are no easy answers, which is why I can't just write this one off as standard torture porn fare or one of those crime rampage road movie thrillers. There's more going on here than meets the eye, and it should make for some fascinating conversations afterward- if potentially triggering ones. As such, view at your own risk with others, depending on how overly sensitive they might be.
One thing's for sure, though: Writer/Director Robert Mockler is one to watch out for in the future. Also, Timilin is riveting, and co-star Larry Fessenden, a talented writer/director in his own right (Habit, Wendigo), is pretty great, too. This may not be for everyone, but those who like this sort of thing will love it. Highly recommended for those who don't like "safe" art. 👿
I was even warier of watching this than the aforementioned Fantastic Beasts sequel, due to the fact that it was the last film Amber Heard and Johnny Depp made before their divorce, when things were getting really ugly. The reviews were dismal, the box office was the second lowest opening of a wide release film of all time (!) and both the director, Matthew Cullen, and star Heard sued the film's producers for, respectively, using a cut of the film he didn't approve of and not paying him, and for violating a nudity clause in her contract- the producers hired a body double to simulate nudity she didn't actually do. A settlement was later reached for the second one- Heard won hers and paid nothing and Cullen was able to put together a cut that was closer to his vision.
Alas, the damage was done, and Cullen admitted that the film was a failure that didn't live up to his vision and even Heard admitted she "failed the character" she played, the iconic Nicola Six, of lauded author Martin Amis' novel. (Amis also co-scripted, so he shares some of the blame.) Of course, given all the drama, it's a miracle the film was finished at all, much less made it into theaters.
Oddly, two different versions were shown as a compromise to the various parties: the director's cut and the producer's, but the former wasn't the one screened for critics, much to Cullen's chagrin. Unfortunately, it was also the producer's cut that made it to home video, with no plans to release the director's cut, which is reportedly much better than the other one, at least according to this review.
To be sure, it's a mess. Most of the performances are way over the top, with co-stars Jim Sturgess, a long way from the highs of Across the Universe and 21, and Depp- no shocker there- particularly bad offenders, seeming to be acting in a completely different movie from the rest of the cast. When Billy Bob Thornton comes off as the picture of subtlety, and the lone voice of reason, you've got problems.
Heard does her best, but she's clearly struggling with the material, and it's easy to understand why: her character arc makes no sense, to say nothing of the plot in general. (Full disclosure: I haven't read the book, but I would like to, if only to make sense of it all.) Why does she seduce all these men, and to what end does she set out to destroy them? Why does she come off as one person in one scene and someone completely different in the next? For that matter, why are there bombs going off all the time in London? It that supposed to be a metaphor or something?
I gather from what I read that Amis' original novel, long thought unadaptable- boy, were they right- was meant to be a send-up of old-school Film Noir, with the Nicola Six character meant as a satire of femme fatale types, but you'd never guess it from watching it, what with half the cast playing things relatively straight and the other half going completely off the rails. It's watchable, I suppose, but it also like watching a train wreck happening in real time.
To be sure, Heard is at peak hotness in the film- she's never looked better and she's sexy as all get out, though the film leans a bit hard on the whole "male gaze" thing- perhaps intentionally, given the intended satirical element, which apparently comes off a lot better in the director's cut. But knowing that Depp was apparently being abusive and controlling behind the scenes makes it seem a bit like she's trapped in a world of awful men (even when she's supposed to be ostensibly be tormenting them), making it a tough watch at times, as if we're watching a cry for help masquerading as a movie.
It certainly doesn't help that she was sued for refusing to do more explicit material, which wasn't the director's doing- she sided with him in the court cases- but the producer's, who wanted the film to be "sexier". That's pretty icky, and, as much as I love Heard- #TeamAmber all the way, insofar as the whole Depp mess is concerned- it was hard to enjoy the film, knowing that it was such a tormented shoot.
Hell, even beyond all that, it sucks when a director's vision is taken away from him- Cullen had to finance the Director's Cut himself, as the producers refused, and they're the ones who initially ended up suing him, along with Heard, for refusing to properly promote the film, when it wasn't even the "real" film they were expected to promote. Ugh.
As much as I sympathize with the director and adore Heard, I can't in good faith recommend this one, not in the least with those two deriding it themselves. Maybe one day the Director's Cut will be available and I can reassess the film. Until such time, it's a skip for everyone except the most die-hard of Heard fans, but be forewarned, it's not great, and her talent is done no favors here, by her own admission. Stick with her fearless, gritty turn in the underrated The Informers or her fierce, feisty roles in the likes of All the Boys Love Mandy Lane, Three Days to Kill, Drive Angry and Machete Kills instead. 😋
Finally, we have this intense indie drama that marks the directorial debut of British actor Alex Pettyfer (I Am Number Four, In Time). Based on the best-selling novel by Tawni O'Dell, who also co-wrote with the legendary Adrian Lyne (Fatal Attraction, 9 1/2 Weeks, Jacob's Ladder), it's the tale of a twisted family in which the eldest son (Pettyfer) is forced to care for his three sisters when his mother (Juliette Lewis) is arrested for killing their father, allegedly for abusing her- and possibly physically and/or sexually assaulting one or more of his kids.
The story picks up well into the events at hand, and rather than having a bunch of flashbacks, it instead slowly reveals what really happened in meticulous, novelistic fashion, which should please fans of the book, I imagine. For the record, I haven't read it myself, but I'd like to, even knowing what happens like I do- which is saying something, I suppose.
The cast is uniformly excellent, with co-star Nicola Peltz (of Bates Motel and The Last Airbender fame) a big stand-out, which is nice, as she was the major draw for me. This movie shows that she's more than just another pretty face, in spite of the fact that she spends a lot of the movie scantily-clad. I mean, not that I was complaining, mind you, but there is a solid reason for all that, so it's not just gratuitous for the sake of showing off Peltz' impressive curves- there's a method to the madness here.
The film also includes Jennifer Morrison (House, Once Upon a Time), Robert Patrick (Terminator 2) and an awe-inspiring turn from up-and-coming actress Chiara Aurelia (Gerald's Game and the upcoming TV series Tell Me Your Secrets), which may well be the best performance from a young actress I've seen since Thomasin McKenzie in Leave No Trace, one of my favorite movies of last year.
In fact, this almost certainly would have made my Best of 2018 list right alongside that film. I'll allow that it's a bit slow-moving at times, but the pay-off is well-worth it. By all means check this one out, especially if you like slow burn indie dramas with a mystery element or movies about twisted family dynamics. This is a great one, for sure, with fantastic performances all around.
Join me on Wednesday for a good, old-fashioned cult movie review, as we return to basics once again. (I know- it's about time!) As always, thanks for reading! 😊
No comments:
Post a Comment