Also, as I've been doing for the last few months, I'll cover both episodes of Into the Dark's first two seasons that have a Christmas theme, as well as the ones with a New Year's Eve/Day theme towards the end of the month. I'll likely hold off on any Best of the Year-type stuff until January, but I've already decided, just to make things easier on myself, as well as be more timely, that I'll be compressing the amount of articles I do regarding those sorts of lists.
Basically, this time around, I'm just gonna do a Top 20 or so for music and movies alike. Then a few months later, I'll do a secondary best of list for movies, in which I cover movies I didn't see in time to make my list the first time around. That way, the lists come out in a timely manner, and I still get to address also-rans at a later date because we all miss the occasional films in a given year, and doing it this way gives me a few months to play catch up, without postponing the initial list.
Last but not least, I probably won't be doing any franchise reviews until next year, but I have a pretty good idea of what I'll be doing and when. (Hint: at least one of them will involve a TV spin-off, as well as the movies.) I also noticed that I unintentionally abandoned several lists I was planning to do about my favorite actresses which I already had started compiling. My New Year's resolution will be to finish those sooner than later.
I think that about covers it! I'll get into the Xmas stuff before too long, but I wanted to finish off covering the movies I watched over November that I didn't review in my previous article, so here goes, beginning with...
I would consider myself a moderate Elton John fan at best. I've got a few Greatest Hits comps and the album "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road"- my mom used to play that one around the house when I was a kid, so it's easily my favorite of his proper albums- and I've listened to a few of his other albums online, but that's about it.
Be that as it may, the idea of a biopic about him sounded fun, and, like a lot of people, I quite enjoyed Bohemian Rhapsody, in spite of its myriad of flaws. As with that film, Rocketman had the benefit of being able to draw upon the memories of some of the actual people involved, but with one notable plus that Rhapsody didn't have going for it: the participation of the main focus himself, Elton John, who, unlike Freddie Mercury, is very much still with us. Somewhat miraculously, given the kind of lifestyle he used to indulge in.
I suppose it wouldn't have done justice to the man to have a proper biopic of John's life, but boy oh boy, what a spectacle this film is, to say the least. Not since the likes of the 70's films Tommy and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts' Club Band have I seen a rock musical this over the top and border(song)-line insane. Okay, maybe Across the Universe- but that one lacks the camp value of those other films, which is probably why it works where Sgt. Pepper's doesn't, in respect to doing the Beatles' songs justice, IMHO.
Likewise, Rocketman doesn't quite work, either, but like those aforementioned camp-fests, it's so self-indulgent and bonkers, you probably won't care that much. Rather than being a straight-forward biopic, it's kind of a fantasy-turned-nightmare fever dream which incorporates plenty of actual facts into its crazy mélange of John's life and fast times, when it's not bombarding us with over-the-top new arrangements of his classic songs.
TBH, I wouldn't have minded the approach as much if the new versions of the songs didn't stray so far away from the original material, but such is the case with most of these sorts of films, I suppose. For the record, I don't care much for the arrangements of most of the songs in the Tommy and Sgt. Pepper movies, either, so your own mileage may vary, according to how you feel about those films. If you haven't seen those films, just know going in that a lot of the songs are radically different here, so if you're a purist or a traditionalist, you might be a little taken aback by the approach here.
On the other hand, unlike Rhapsody, the film doesn't at all shy away from John's homosexuality or his hedonistic lifestyle- it's a hard "R," in comparison to that film's mainstream-audience-seeking "PG-13." As such, you might not want to watch it with your more homophobic relatives (two words: choreographed orgy) even though a lot of them probably love his music anyway, in spite of his personal proclivities. That's the power of music for you- sometimes such things don't matter.
Be that as it may, it definitely kept the film from scaling the heights of Rhapsody at the box office, which grossed an astonishing near-billion in theatres on a approximately $55 million budget. In comparison, Rocketman only grossed $195 million on a $40 million budget- not too shabby, to be sure, but hardly Rhapsody-style numbers, that's for sure. Still, there's something to be said for sticking to one's guns and going for reality over playing fast and loose with the facts.
Granted, a funny thing to say about a movie all but drenched in fantasy, but still, in between all the flights of fancy, there's a lot of hard truths to be found here. The film doesn't at all shy away from John's strained relationship with his parents, and his struggles with his sexuality, nor does it gloss over the fact that John could, in fact, be a bit of a dick, treating people harshly at best during the height of his career, and like glorified employees at his worst (see his tumultuous relationship with songwriter Bernie Taupin, to whom John owes a great deal of his success, by his own admission).
I guess my main problem with the film is that it somewhat undercuts what should be heart-wrenching and emotional moments by rendering a lot of them almost a punchline within the given rendition of one of his songs. Put another way, the songs don't always fit the moment at hand. Across the Universe, as much as I love it, also struggled with this. Unlike a proper Broadway play, where the songs are written expressly to state a certain story element or emotion or what have you, these songs weren't meant to tell a cohesive story. So, like Sgt. Pepper's before it, it struggles to use the songs in such a way.
I mean, don't get me wrong, it isn't a train wreck like Pepper's by any means, and it helps that John's material is more grounded in reality than some of The Beatles, but still, fitting some of these songs to certain scenes is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. That means, as riveting as some of the personal material is, it's undercut a lot of times by the fact that the songs used to underscore these moments don't make a lot of sense. For instance, the use of "Pinball Wizard"- actually a Who song, not a John one, though he did indeed cover it for the aforementioned Tommy movie- makes no sense whatsoever in the context its used here, while "I'm Still Standing" works like a charm as it's used, as a declaration of perseverance in the face of addiction and fading success.
So, yeah, when such juxtapositions work, they work well, but there's an awful lot of scenarios in which they don't, which may hinder the film's overall success in the eyes of some. It's never less than a spectacle, and it's certainly never boring, but it is a bit much, as they say, at times. Kudos, however, to star Taron Egerton (best-known for the Kingsman films) for somehow managing to radiate the heart and soul of John in the midst of all this general insanity. His voice may not be in the same league as Elton's- which is not to say it's bad, just in an altogether different register- but boy, does he nail the character and the look.
It remains to be seen whether this film will clean up at the Oscar and the Globes like Rhapsody did, but I will say, even amongst its bluster, it does manage to pull at the heart-strings a fair amount of the time, which is a testament to both the power of John's story and his music, which has endured for decades for a reason. Whether it connects with the viewer is another question altogether, but for this one, it got the job done, in spite of its flaws.
But will it be a film I come back to? Hard to say. It is telling, though, that, in spite of all its factual inaccuracies, I can definitely see myself re-watching Rhapsody time and again- but I'm not so sure about this one. To be fair, I'm not a big musical fan, and this is for sure a much more Broadway musical-type film than Rhapsody, so that may have more to do with personal preference.
If you like that sort of thing, though, you might just find yourself loving this. As it stands, it's worth a look if you're a fan- just know that it's WAY over the top. You'd expect anything less, really? Check it out- but only if you're a fan. All others need not apply, but I suppose that almost goes without saying.
And now for something completely different- save maybe for the occasional flashy costumes- there's Shazam! I took a hard pass on this one in theaters, and quite frankly, had no real inclination to see it in the first place, being as how I've been suffering from a bit of superhero burn-out as of late. But we had free movie channels over the holidays, and there it was, so I figured, what the hell?
I have no connection whatsoever with the character. I've never read the comics, never seen the shows, and I didn't even know Shazam's alternate name was Captain Marvel until I read about it online in doing research for this review. About the only thing I knew about him was that he activated his powers by literally yelling "Shazam!" So, yeah, to me, it just seemed like another also-ran character that Marvel had hauled out of mothballs to make another quick buck while the world still has superhero fever. I gather some of you who grew up with the character may feel otherwise, so respect where it's due to those who feel differently.
For what it's worth, though, consider me a bit of a convert, in light of having seen the movie. For the most part, as a critic, like most critics, I tend to review these things by the level of quality of the writing, direction, cast and special effects. One thing that often gets a bit slighted is how well these movies make an adult reconnect with his or her inner kid. It's rare for one of these movies to connect with me in that way, as I wasn't a massive superhero comics fan in the first place.
I did read comics and graphic novels, just not the typical ones revolving around the more famous characters, like Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc. For instance, I read stuff like Watchmen, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Danger Girl, Fathom, Spawn, Hellboy and various horror comics (the EC reprints, Creepy, Eerie, Unexpected, etc.), as well as alternative efforts like Ghost World, Maus and Persepolis and the magazine Heavy Metal.
That said, like a lot of people my age, I absolutely did see all the big films, such as the initial Batman series, the Superman series and so on and so forth. Of the slightly newer crop of superhero flicks, Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies were a lot of fun, and I just adored Nolan's Batman trilogy. After that, things have been a bit hit or miss for me. For every, say, The Avengers, there's several other comic book films that have left me cold, like Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, and The Green Lantern. Few, however, have captured the elusive feeling of being a kid again, but damned if Shazam didn't do the trick.
For one thing, the very premise lends itself to such a thing. Basically, we've got a kid who stumbles into superpowers which, by uttering the titular name, he can turn on or off at will. As the character of Shazam, he's an adult, with a host of superpowers, and played to perfection by Chuck-star Zachary Levi, who does a great job of capturing the whole little-kid-made-into-a-big-kid vibe that he did so well as his former character, Chuck, who was an adult man-child who also stumbled into becoming a spy.
Here, Billy Batson (Asher Angel, in another winning performance) is likewise just a normal kid, albeit one with more baggage than most, being a foster child all but abandoned by his mother as a child. It's this emotional core that helps make the film work as well as it does. By connecting with the main character as a kid, we also reconnect with our own inner child, and, as such, we also experience the highs and lows of gaining superpowers along with him.
Now, don't get me wrong- the film isn't without its faults. Like a lot of these films, it gets way too bogged down in special effects-laden battles, with the last thirty minutes or so all but devoted to them. Also, as with most of these films, it's way longer than it needs to be, with lots of stuff that is unnecessary to the plot at hand that could have been jettisoned altogether.
But the first half or so of the film is a lot of fun, and perfectly encapsulates what attracts kids to these movies and comics in the first place. It's basically the answer to the age-old question: what would you do if all the sudden you had superpowers, just like your favorite characters? In this case, the boy in question simply has fun with it- pulling off a lot of YouTube-style stunts while his friend films them for public consumption.
But, of course, a superhero is only as good as his direct competition, and herein lies part of the problem. Mark Strong is an excellent actor, and this isn't his first superhero rodeo, having previously been in the Kick-Ass series, but he makes the mistake of taking this all too seriously in a film that, for the most part, doesn't. I suppose you could say that's sort of the point- as in, it's all fun and games until it isn't.
But still, once Shazam, the character, and Strong's villain, Dr. Sivana collide, it all goes somewhat downhill. Sivana not only willfully choses the dark side, he comes equipped with no less than the seven deadly sins, represented by seven Lovecraftian creatures that aid and abet him in committing general mayhem, beginning with revenge against his always-disapproving family. This leads to some surprisingly gruesome kills, which may send some younger kids under the covers- if they have any at their disposal.
Now, the horror fan in me was initially delighted by all of this, but, like many a superhero flick before it, it soon becomes a bit of a slog in the back end of the film, which was a lot of fun up until that happened. It gets back a good bit of its mojo with a late-in-the-game development that makes sure that Shazam's foster family gets in on the action in a fun way, but still, a lot of that back half is a grind.
Overall, though, it's a fun little film that did indeed engage my inner kid and made me not at all reticent to future films in the series, which reportedly includes a Black Adam spin-off starring The Rock. Color me more curious about that than I was previously about this film- though I'm not entirely sure it will be enough to get me into theatres the next time around, either. Still, I was pleasantly surprised by this one, so you never know- my mind could be changed.
As it stands, the film is worth a look, even if you were a bit skeptical like I was going in. It's basically a superhero version of the movie Big, and I do mean that as a compliment. Has DC finally cracked the "fun" superhero code? Maybe. Check it out, even if you, like me, were a little dubious of yet another superhero flick. In spite of its faults, it's a good time, for the most part.
Speaking of The Rock, another film I had little to no interest in seeing was Rampage, which looked like just another typical Rock action flick, but it turns out, is also a lot of fun, especially if you go in not expecting much, like I was. The plot is pretty straightforward- it's basically a kaiju flick, in which ordinary animals, like a gorilla, wolf and crocodile, are made big by a bunch of scientific whatever- something to do with rewriting genetic code or the like.
Forget all that. It's basically just an excuse to watch The Rock and others battle big critters, and, of course, to watch said critters battle each other, like in any given kaiju effort. Along the way, there's lot of destruction, and plenty of one-liners and wry asides from the Rock and others, including the likes of Jeffrey Dean Morgan (aka Negan from The Walking Dead), Joe Manganiello (of True Blood fame, making his casting a bit of an in-joke: there he WAS a wolfman, here, he battles the mother of all wolves), Naomie Harris (aka Miss Moneypenny, from the recent spate of Bond films), Malin Akerman (Silk Spectre II in Watchmen) and Jake Lacy (The Office).
Mind you, it won't win any awards for subtlety, but then again, it wasn't aiming to. It's just a fun little movie that delivers on its premise, with some good laughs along the way. As with Shazam, I don't know that I would have watched this if it hadn't been courtesy of a free movie channel preview, but watch it I did, and I regret it not a little. Also, it's worth noting it knows when to say when, clocking in right around an hour and forty-five minutes. It's a perfect little popcorn flick, and doesn't aspire to be anything else. I can live with that.
Likewise, Annabelle Comes Home, the latest in the ongoing Conjuring-verse spin-off library, is just looking to show viewers a good time, and if it isn't quite as good as its predecessor, Annabelle: Creation, I would have to say at the very least, it's on par with the first film, if not slightly better than that. For one thing, it finally delivers on what a lot of us fans have been clamoring for: a meltdown at Chez Warrens.
The premise is basically this: the Warrens (Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson) pick up the titular Annabelle from nurses seen in a previous installment, and transport her to their home (not without some incidents), where she is promptly blessed and placed into a glass case, which is where she resided when we viewers first made her acquaintance in The Conjuring- hence the whole "comes home" thing. The film takes place in between The Conjuring and The Conjuring 2, timeline-wise, with the intro taking place before the first film, and the rest of the film taking place before Part 2. Got all that?
After the intro, the film fast-forwards a bit, as the Warrens go off to investigate another case, leaving their daughter, Judy (McKenna Grace, of The Haunting of Hill House) in the care of teenager Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman, of Goosebumps 2). Bad move. Around the time the Warrens leave, their occupation is becoming front-page news, meaning that the locals are wise to what they're up to, which in turn trickles down to Judy, who is tormented by her peers in school. This matter isn't helped by the fact that Judy possesses some of her mother's abilities, meaning that she can, to quote another movie, "see dead people."
Even worse, Mary Ellen's best friend, Daniela (Katie Sarife, Supernatural), who just lost her dad in a tragic accident that she blames herself for, has inclinations to go snooping on the Warrens' premises, in hopes of finding something that can help her contact her late father for closure. What she finds is a way into the Warrens' secret "museum" of haunted relics and the like, including, of course, Annabelle, who she sets free, as it were, because of course she does, or we wouldn't have a movie. In the process, Annabelle takes charge of as many relics as she can and all hell soon breaks loose. (As does a lot of potential spin-off franchises' subject matter, no doubt.)
The end result is dopey as hell, naturally, but still a lot of fun. I mean, don't even get me started on the many plot holes at hand here, not the least of which is the fact that a group of kids is basically able to wrest back control from a host of powerful supernatural foes over the course of a decidedly brief period of time, in spite of being outnumbered and with little-to-no experience in wrangling such things, save a little paranormal know-how by Judy from observing her parents. Yeah, right.
Still, if you can suspend your disbelief at the usual dumb horror movie tropes, the film is an entertaining enough rollercoaster ride for non-discerning fans, especially those that have seen all the films in the Conjuring-verse to date. If you hate these films, it certainly won't change your mind, but it you've enjoyed them more often than not, this is one of the more purely diverting ones in the series, being as how it revolves around the Warrens' museum, which makes it a boon for fans wanting to know more about that.
Granted, we'll have to wait until the inevitable spin-offs to know more than we get here, but still, there's just enough craziness going on here that it's certainly never boring, even if it's all pretty hard to believe. Even by these films' standards, it's hard to say that much of this, if anything, actually happened, which is more than can be said from some of the earlier films, many of which do have some basis in reality. Not so much this one, beyond the existence of the museum itself and the fact that the Warrens do have a daughter.
Indeed, Judy was already a grown woman that had left home when the Warrens brought home the real Annabelle (which is actually just a Raggedy-Anne doll, BTW), so her being let loose by their daughter, much less nosy friends, was a non-issue, nor did anyone else "set her free" at any time, so yeah, a whole lot of this is pure BS. Of course, a lot of people would say ALL of the Warrens' shenanigans are completely made up, and that they just preyed on troubled people, but I digress- even if you are among those who believe, or want to, this one is complete fantasy.
I had fun with it, though, and I liked that it wasn't just Annabelle this time around, but a lot of other supernatural stuff going down, from a haunted suit of samurai armor to a werewolf to a haunted wedding dress that possesses anyone who wears it, turning them into a murderous psychopath- though some might say that Bridezillas in general are nothing to mess with, lol. I found myself actually looking forward to what the Conjuring-verse spits out next, as much as a lot of it will likely be sheer nonsense. What can I say? Us horror fans are gluttons for punishment.
That leads me to our final selection, Down a Dark Hall, the latest movie to be adapted from a Lois Duncan novel. Duncan is primarily a Y/A author, perhaps best-known for writing 1973's I Know What You Did Last Summer, which, of course, became a hit movie in the late 90's, helping to revive her career considerably, even though Duncan herself wasn't a huge fan of the movie, which diverted quite a bit from its source material. It's been a hot minute since I last read this one, but as far as I can tell, she shouldn't have a reason to be upset with it this time around.
The story revolves around five teenage girls headed down a dark path that are given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to redeem themselves at an ultra-exclusive boarding school in the middle of nowhere that caters to exactly that sort of clientele. Why? According to mysterious headmistress Madame Duret (Uma Thurman)- herself once one of those very types of girls- it's because she believes in second chances, and that no one is worth giving up on. But is there more to the story? Of course, or we wouldn't have a movie.
Sure enough, in near record time, each girl starts showing promise in particular areas: music, math, painting and writing- all but one, that is- the most troubled of them all, Veronica (Victoria Moroles, Teen Wolf), much to her chagrin. Needless to say, the girls begin wondering why they have shown such aptitude in areas they never had before, and they eventually realize that it may have something to do with their location. Could it be that famed luminaries of the past are guiding them in their efforts? If so, what do they want in return?
This being a horror movie, albeit more of a Gothic one, the answer is: nothing good. Spearheaded by Catherine, aka "Kit" (AnnaSophia Robb, The Carrie Diaries), the girls try to get to the bottom of things before it's too late and the spirits at hand take them over permanently. One problem: they don't have access to phones and have no way to call for help. As such, Kit seeks an assist from Duret's son, Jules (Noah Silver, Tyrant), who helps the girls get to the bottom of things and figure a way out. But can he really be trusted?
Also cropping up are genre favorites Isabelle Fuhrman (Orphan, The Hunger Games), Kirsty Mitchell (The Acid House, Lake Placid 3), Rosie Day (Howl, The Convent), Taylor Russell (Escape Room, Netflix's Lost in Space), Pip Torrens (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Preacher), Jodhi May (The Turn of the Screw, Game of Thrones) and Rebecca Front (Humans, Psychobitches).
The end result is a decent enough thriller that I think Duncan would have been just fine with- it's not overtly modernized (not that Duncan objected to such things- she herself updated some of her books for modern generations a few years back), there's no sex, nudity or overt violence, and only a little cursing. Of course, that also means that if you're of the mind that PG-13 rated horror thrillers suck, then this probably isn't the film for you.
But I haven't seen a decent Gothic thriller since The Lady in Black or Crimson Peak and I'm a big fan of the subgenre, so I was in from the jump, TBH. I also really dug the cast- it was particularly fun seeing Thurman get her evil headmistress on- so I actually quite enjoyed it for what it was. Also, as you might have guessed, I was a huge Duncan fan growing up, so any new adaptation is cause for celebration in my book, so to speak.
It's a bit slow-moving at times, and some of the girls aren't particularly well-etched out as characters- Fuhrman's character in particular comes to mind. I'm a big fan of hers, so it'd be nice to see her get a role as half as juicy as her titular turn in Orphan at some point. But overall, I really liked the movie, so I'd definitely recommend it to fans of Gothic thrillers, and most certainly for fans of Duncan. Check it out!
Well, that about does it for now. Join me soon as I delve into the wild world of Xmas horror! 🎅🎄😱
No comments:
Post a Comment