Mentions: moviesmarkus

It took me a couple minutes to wrap my head around the plot, but once the Trap music started, I knew this was going to be good.

“Black Panther” focuses on the story of T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) the Black Panther superhero, as he takes his place as the king of the fictional African nation of Wakanda, after the death of his father.

With vibrant and wonderfully Afrocentric performances from co-stars Lupita Nyong’o, Letitia Wright (who plays the Alfred character to this African Batman) Daniel Kaluuya, Danai Gurira, Michael B. Jordan (who is a powerful representation of the “forgotten African-American son” and a couple of white guys, Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis (I say this in jest. These are two of the most talented actors working today) this isn’t just another Marvel episode telling the story of an arguably lesser known character. As a film, “Black Panther” is a force that demands its own place at the table right alongside the heavy hitters and box-office kings of this thematic superhero kingdom. And I’ve yet to even touch on what Ryan Coogler brought to the table.

Aside from a superbly written script, and visuals, including fight scenes that rival films in the Mission Impossible and current 007 franchises, it must be said that writer/director Ryan Coogler (Fruitvale Station, Creed) keeps “Black Panther” culturally focused more than any other in the Marvel universe. Meaning, “Black Panther” is a movie that is 90% focused on just African/African-American culture (real and fictional alike) first and foremost, rather than doing the more conventional “guy in a suit that saves people” thing (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I liken this to a Wonder Woman movie where Diana never leaves her island. But what Coogler did by making this a Black movie first and superhero movie second, much as he did with “Creed” (Black movie first; Rocky movie second) comes off as so new and innovative compared to what has become more and more a blur of Avengers theatrical releases.

True, Marvel Studios is likely to hit box-office targets no matter what movie it puts out, but much like “Deadpool”, “Black Panther” should revive an interest in the Marvel theatrical universe for the group that has become bored with the more conventional superhero stories. This is important, not only monetarily (because, Disney is gonna make its money) but also for the inclusion/diversity argument. In other words, it’s great to see this studio (in particular) continuing to put forth the same effort to appease multi-cultural audiences as they do everyone else.

Final Thought: Is this the best Marvel superhero movie of all time? Well…Marvel superhero movie rankings aside, “Black Panther” is simply an excellent example of grade A writing, meets grade A direction, meets grade A actors doing grade A work…but if you must know, in my opinion this is the best superhero movie to come out the Marvel cinematic universe; and I’m not just saying that because I’m Black.

Follow me @moviesmarkus

Call me a poor sport or a fun killer or someone who takes movies too seriously or even a film critic, but as a movie-goer I found this live-action remake to be completely unnecessary and all together forgettable, just like that 2015 live-action Disney adaption of Cinderella. Remember that one?…I didn’t think so.

Synopsis: This “tale as old as time” (adapted from Disney’s 1991 animated Beauty and the Beast) once again tells the story of a vain prince who is turned into a hideous beast, until he can find a young girl who is able to see his inner beauty and fall in love with him.

This “Beauty and the Beast” does have some entertaining moments of its own creation, mainly when Cogsworth and Lumiere (played to perfection by Ian McKellen and Ewan McGregor) take center stage. But that’s about all. Basically everything else I enjoyed about this movie was plucked directly from the 1991 animated version; a version which is arguably one of the greatest Disney films/musicals ever made. Now while I usually hate when people compare remakes to their originals, since when critiquing a film you really want to take that singular film experience and analyze it in as much of a “bubble” as humanly possible, in regards to Disney’s live-action “Beauty and the Beast”, this is simply impossible since it’s pretty much a 80-90% shot for shot remake (obviously there are going to be things that must be altered when adapting straight from animation, i.e. you can’t possibly show Luke Evans who plays Gaston, eating five dozen eggs unless you want him dead). The main alterations being:  the live-action element (or course) the addition of a few new and completely forgettable songs and (spoiler alert) LeFou (played by Josh Gad) is gay now, which probably would have been seen as a more progressive move by Disney if he’d been in more than four scenes.

Bill Condon’s direction was serviceable, highlighted only by the set design and choreography during the musical numbers, but the CGI was cartoonish to the point of sloppy at times.  As for the other performances, Emma Watson as Belle was fine (undoubtedly this would’ve been my very same critique if she’d starred in “La La Land”) and so was Evans as Gaston. And even though as an actor Dan Stevens, who plays the Beast, usually annoys me because I believe his acting to be 99% facial expression, this facial recognition based CGI character seemed to suit him quite well.

Final Thought: I’m still giving this movie a minimal recommendation only because it’s not a bad film. As I said, there are entertaining moments, and the songs brought over from the 1991 version are always a pleasure to hear. But if you’re going to pay money and take your kids to see “Beauty and the Beast”, why not just stay home and watch the better version?

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus

Featuring a cast riddled with amateur actors (aside from Shia LaBeouf and Riley Keough (granddaughter of Elvis Presley)) “American Honey” is more than just another Cannes Film Festival calling card for writer/director Andrea Arnold, it is a gritty, startling master-class example of “slice of life” direction, the likes of 2016’s “Manchester by the Sea” or “King Jack”.

Synopsis: A teenage girl, living in extreme poverty, is recruited into a traveling sales crew filled with other teens in her same situation. The group travels cross-country, scamming people into buying magazine subscriptions by day and partying incredibly hard by night.

Arnold’s handheld camera work only helped immerse me into this lesser known subculture, watching these economically disadvantaged teens make sketchy life choices as they come of age inside a van sized commune of their peers. But it’s the stellar performance from newcomer Sasha Lane which gives major credibility to this film and justifies some of its more minor flaws as well as the run-time. Much of the satisfaction I received from “American Honey” came from watching Lane’s character evolve throughout.

Final Thought: There are a few misplaced lines of dialogue, which seem to force-feed a bit more than I would have liked, and at a nearly three hour run-time, this Indie will be perceived as an intimidating venture for some, but boy is it worth your time. The genuine atmosphere of “American Honey” speaks to this generation like not many movies do, and will stay with you for days after viewing.

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus

Rated R for strong sexual content, graphic nudity, language throughout, drug/alcohol abuse-all involving teens

 

Writer/director Jon Watts made a little low-budget drama called “Cop Car” which received fair reviews from critics. “Clown” was his other film; a film universally panned by critics as something akin to hot garbage and produced by Quentin Tarantino’s forgotten stepchild, Eli Roth. That said, is it an absolutely disgusting notion that I liked a movie about a clown who eats children?

Synopsis: A man finds an old clown costume and wears it for his son’s birthday party. In the morning he can’t seem to get it off. And when he tries, things get bloody. Layered atop this plotline is a really creepy eastern European clown origins story, which is actually more frightening than most monster movie horror origin stories.

“Clown” isn’t without flaws (shocking, I know). Basically everything Roth touches tries to be funny and just isn’t. And much like many B-movie horrors, this film suffers from a reaction problem from the people being perused by the titular monster (in this case, the reactions from friends and family are curiously calm) but that can be attributed to the level of actor used in this.

On the plus side for novice horror fans, much of the violence here is not as gratuitous as I would’ve imagined (as far as violence towards children is concerned) but more importantly, every kill is extremely well choreographed; not overly campy or silly, even with visible budgetary constraints. In fact the direction is the best aspect of this film by far, really elevating the more unbalanced and underwhelming melodramatic material in the 2^nd Act into something visually disturbing and half-way scary.

Final Thought: Not going to lie, there were some quite disturbing and morbid sequences involving suicide (the best filmed suicide of 2016) and child consumption, which I rather enjoyed.  But all that is an acquired taste.

Rated R for horror violence and gore, and for language

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus

Whenever I hear about an acclaimed horror short  film being made into a feature, what I fear most is that it will be elongated in such a way, that a convoluted storyline will replace what I’d originally found scary about the short to begin with.

Synopsis: A young boy named Martin is discovered to have a fear of something in the dark, by his older sister, Rebecca. Soon Rebecca traces this fear back to their mother who has randomly quit taking her meds and to a monster that talks to the mom and can only survive in the dark.

Rather than do a long write-up of why “Lights Out” isn’t worth your time, let me fast-track it for you. Here are the top 15 reasons why “Lights Out” is a bad movie:

1. Once the first death occurs, the movie’s timeline goes out the window.
2. Nobody is as scared as they should be. Example: It is established that someone can only be attacked in the dark. Yet people in this movie spend a weird amount of time shuffling through drawers in a dark house and are shocked when they are attacked.
3. The rules of this particular world vary by situation. Example: The monster has the power to turn off lights…well, only sometimes. Sometimes when the main character is vulnerable in a bathroom, it can only make the lights flicker, but other times it can shut off power to the entire street. Another example of rule-bending: Said monster can only survive in the dark, but somehow travels during the day from building to building. Wait…what?
4. The makers of this movie don’t seem to know anything about how CPS (Child Protective Services) works.
5. Awful cornball dialogue (especially the dramatic bits). “Lights Out” was elongated for the big screen by writer Eric Heisserer (Final Destination 5).
6. Characters make a ridiculous amount of stupid horror film mistakes. Example: When you are trying to get away from a monster who can only attack in the dark, you obviously run into the basement; the only room in the house with no windows.
7. The only reason this story fulfills its 81 minute runtime is because of the line: “she’s still our mom.” While this excuse works for a little bit, when mom begins to blatantly put her children in harm’s way (i.e. making them live in a house with a monster in it) why continue to defend her? Because the movie would have ended, that’s why.
8. If the mother takes her medicine, the movie is over.
9. While there are attempts at scares within this film from director David F. Sandberg (he directed the original short) none of them are actually effective. Thus, there is not one scare in this horror film.
10. No scares.
11. No scares.
12. No scares.
13. No scares.
14. Not scary.
15. No scares.

Final Thought: The one aspect of this film which I didn’t totally hate was its resolution, which while predictable, did follow some form of movie logic. But listen, you can’t have a horror movie without scares, in the same way you can’t make chocolate chip cookies without chocolate. It’s (by definition) impossible! So tell me why I’m still seeing reviews from “Lights Out” apologist using the phrase “not scary, but still good” when talking about this horror film. “Good”? A “Good” what? A “Good” movie? Anyone who sat through this elongated mess of a story could see that “Lights Out” wasn’t a good movie. And with its lack of any scares, it can be neither considered a horror movie. What does that leave us with? A nondescript cookie.

Rated PG-13 for terror throughout, violence including disturbing images, some thematic material and brief drug content

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus

Paul Feig’s “Ghostbusters” remake was actually pretty good…until it wasn’t. With a runtime of nearly 2 hours, filled with tons of laughs, great cast chemistry and a healthy dose of fun creepiness, the first 90 minutes seemed like 60, but shockingly the final 30 seemed like 90; for some reason losing all momentum during its final “action-packed” sequence. That said, this was still better than “Bridesmaids”.

Synopsis: A comedic ragtag group of scientist/paranormal enthusiasts (Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon) and one non-scientist (Leslie Jones) team up to stop a city-wide malevolent ghost invasion.

The cast, which was the most important aspect (no matter what anybody says) of remaking the 1984 original (simply because it was the most contentious) was almost solely responsible for transitioning the first 90 minutes of this fairly thin storyline into the realm of visual entertainment. With Wiig (arguably the best comedic actress working) leading the way and McCarthy acting as a formidable side-kick (where she tends to shine the brightest) director Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, Spy) and producers come out looking like  geniuses for pushing forward with this powerhouse female lead cast, under heavy scrutiny. Well, except for Kate McKinnon; she was just plain unfunny here. And when push came to shove, she becomes rather annoying. Whoever hired her made a mistake.

Final Thought: Full disclosure, I’ve never seen the Ivan Reitman original, which to some is considered a blasphemous statement and would furthermore totally negate my opinion on this remake. And to those who think this way, I say: WHO CARES! Like I’ve always said, movies should be reviewed on their own individual merits and any good critic should avoid comparing remakes to the originals, to the point where it mutates the integrity of the criticism of the remake. End of story.

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus

This wanted to be “Guardians of the Galaxy” so bad!

As the most teased and advertised movie of the year, even with a tsunami of negative early reviews, the “Suicide Squad” hype train was not to be derailed; which meant: No matter what the reviews said, I was still going to see this movie. That said, does this film live up to the hype?

Synopsis: Telling the story of a group of incarcerated supervillains who are rounded up (for reasons unknown) by the government (instead for recruiting actual soldiers; again, “for reasons unknown”) and made to battle a villainous witch (who wasn’t even a threat until after said villains were “rounded up”). Now if that sounds like a movie you want to see, then read on and let’s see if I can’t break your spirit.

Director David Ayer’s style (Training Day, End of Watch) is completely lost in a movie that looks like it was edited by producers into a mishmash of nonsensical cuts, flashbacks and one on-the-nose song after another.  This outcome results in a lackluster plot jumble in conjunction with nonsensical character motivations, in equal amounts. I get why a supervillain would be forced to help the government, but (spoiler alert) there comes a point when they don’t have to, BUT DO IT ANYWAY! (insert head-scratching emoji here).

While Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) do work as entertaining leads, the Joker (played by Jared Leto in an absolutely forgettable performance) is made to look like a Juggalo electronic-dance DJ inspired pimp, whose motivations include wearing purple fur coats and running around the city with no shirt on, showing off his abs. The Joker I KNOW was all about chaos. That’s what makes him scary; the fact that he isn’t much for “feelings” and doesn’t wear a frightening amount of bling-bling. But I guess it’s 2016 and this is what we get; a Joker feat. Skrillex. As for all of the other B-side villains, they are complete throwaways.

Final Thought: As much as I enjoyed “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (I know I’m in the minority here) “Suicide Squad” may be looked back upon as the beginning of the end for this particular cinematic DC universe. So, let me be the first to say it: RIP DC.

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus

James Wan is back to direct a second tale depicting paranormal researchers/ghost hunters Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine (Vera Farmiga) Warren. But is it as scary as “The Conjuring”?

Synopsis: In the 1970’s Ed and Lorraine travel to England to investigate a haunting which locals refer to as London’s Amityville.

The Good: For the first hour, “The Conjuring 2” does almost everything right. Even though director James Wan essentially uses the same horror buildup’s, which lead to the same jump-scares and thus the same cranked up to 11 horror musical cues, that he always does; he does it all so well many may argue that Wan has created his own official horror style; a style which holds the highest rate of effectiveness in the genre. It’s as though with every movie he’s teaching a master-class in cookie-cutter horror direction, but does it better and more effectively than anyone working today.

The Bad: Little by little, there emerges this love story aspect between Ed and Lorraine. This love story is pushed along by some of the worst dialogue I’ve heard outside of a Harlequin romance. As this aspect moves to the forefront of the story, it becomes more cringe-inducing, reaching the point where every time Ed and Lorraine pause, turn and tell each other something unbearably lovey dovey, I couldn’t help but imagine that the latter half of “The Conjuring 2” would essentially be the movie Nicholas Sparks would make if he tried his hand at the horror film genre.

Along with said love story, there also emerged another questionable aspect which stops this film dead in its tracks time and time again. “The Conjuring 2” becomes a religious film; or at least contains a very religious undertone. I understand that movies dealing with hauntings and exorcisms go hand in hand with priest and bible verses, but this is different. I would almost liken the religious undertones this film takes on to movies like “Do You Believe?”, “Fireproof” or “Courageous”; films which seem like dramatic genre pieces, but end up morphing into Sunday School lessons. This aspect isn’t a bad thing, on face value. But much like the love story aspect, wholesome religious rhetoric seems way out of place in a film of this nature.

That said, there will be many who will be able to look past the sappiness and the Sunday School level preaching. But even if that’s the case, screenwriter Carey Hayes has one more surprise in store for those who reach the 2 hour mark; an ending which in its own right is idiotically simplistic, but whose explanation is so convoluted that as it begins, I looked down at the time and recoiled in horror at how long I’d been sitting there.

Final Thought: Do you remember “Insidious: Chapter 2”? I don’t and (looking back on my article) I gave it a positive review. That’s what “The Conjuring 2” is. Even if you enjoy this overlong British version of its predecessor (just with more religious asides and a painfully sappy Hallmark inspired love story crowbarred in) at the end of the day it’ll still be a forgettable film.

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus

Maybe after watching “Snowpiercer” and the Terry Gilliam canon, director Ben Wheatley decided to make a movie about people in a confined location, broken down into class systems, until all hell breaks loose (adapted from a novel by J.G. Ballard).

Synopsis: In a future where dogs are consumed and drowned, a bunch of people live in a high-rise and act peculiar. There are meant to be five buildings with a grand lake in the middle, acting as a palm of sorts (and the buildings are the fingers). This particular high-rise is the first one to be completed and seems to be all encompassing; there is a supermarket on the 15^th floor, an entire floor dedicated to playing squash on, etc; with the wealthy living on the upper floors and the working-class on the lower. A doctor (played by Tom Hiddleston) moves in, but seems like a fish out of water within the upper class. It doesn’t help that everyone seems to know his business before he opens his mouth and that he begins to be put into very awkward Gilliam-esque social situations, time and time again.

With the best cinematography I’ve seen in any film all year, at many times “High-Rise” displays storytelling that can only be described as “incoherent”; except for every establishing shot, which shows Wheatley’s eye for spatial recognition (you are always aware of how high in up in the building you are at all times). But if you’re looking for a coherent storyline, then look elsewhere.  And if you make it to the second hour, you will only become more frustrated and more visually put-off by the nonsensical plot developments.

Final Thought: “High-Rise” seems to have a point about class systems being evil, but I don’t know what it is saying that hasn’t been said before, with much less “abstract meaning within the meaningless” sequences. Thus, the overall issue comes down to the fact that without a doubt 90% of audiences either  won’t grasp onto the odd little eccentricities that moves this story forward or won’t care enough to do so; basically giving up on this beautiful looking train-wreck, eventually.

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus

There are all sorts of ways to tell someone’s story. But by far, a by-the-numbers type biopic is the most boring. Far too plain to pay homage in any kind of impactful way, “I Saw the Light” is deserving of little more than a spot on the Lifetime Channel.

Synopsis: The life and times of country-western singer, Hank Williams Sr.

Problem is (aside from the vanilla handling of the live fast, die young material) for the most part this movie flies though certain aspects of the story without explanation or exposition. I really never got to know who Hank Williams Sr. truly was. And it is my opinion that no matter how famous the subject, if one has to be a diehard fan or have read a book to grasp onto what they are watching, the director and/or screenwriter(s) (in this case, Marc Abraham) have failed their audience.

The performances from Tom Hiddleston (Hank Williams Sr.) and Elizabeth Olsen (Audrey Williams, Hank’s first wife) are more than serviceable, as these are two emerging powerhouses in their field. And at the end of the day, no matter how much I believe Abraham mishandled this story, “I Saw the Light” was always going to live and die on Hiddleston’s singing abilities (as Hiddleston’s actual singing voice is used in this film); an aspect which Abraham wasn’t afraid to put into the forefront of his feature. And the results are…well, he’s no Joaquin Phoenix.

Final Thought: It is impossible not to draw comparisons to James Mangold’s “Walk the Line”, as the both are bios of legendary country-western singers set within a decade of one another. But when you realize that “I Saw the Light” shows its hand within the first 20 minutes (meaning: this film was all it was ever going to be within the first 20 minutes) you may find yourself sinking in your seat, as the comparison will become so distractingly overwhelming, that it should find a majority to perceive “I Saw the Light” as instantly forgettable.

Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus