Luke Evans – People Talking

Twofer Review – ‘Doctor Sleep’ and ‘Midway’ – One Sings, the Other Doesn’t

*Note: The title is just a metaphor; neither of these films are musicals.

Written, Directed, and Edited by Mike Flanagan, based on the novel by Stephen King
Cast: Ewan McGregor, Rebecca Ferguson, Kyliegh Curran, Carl Lumbly, Zahn McClarnon, Emily Alyn Lind, Bruce Greenwood, Jocelin Donahue, Alex Essoe, Roger Dale Floyd, Cliff Curtis, Zackary Momoh, Jacob Tremblay, Henry Thomas, Carel Struycken, Robert Longstreet, Catherine Parker, Met Clark, Selena Anduze, Danny Lloyd
Soundtrack: The Newton Brothers

I’ve said it before, and hopefully this is the last time I’ll feel compelled to mention it, but I’m not a big fan of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining.

Maybe that sounds crazy to you, but Stephen King isn’t a big fan either (to say the least), so I suppose I’m in decent company (not saying I’m right; it’s just my opinion, man).

Now we have Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep, which is based on the
2013 Stephen King novel of the same name, which itself is a sequel to King’s 1977 novel The Shining, but 2019’s film of Doctor Sleep is also a sequel to Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 film of The Shining.

So now that no one’s confused, let’s continue.

Doctor Sleep is one of the best films of 2019. Am I saying it’s an all-time great? No, but it’s plenty captivating, truly horrifying when called for, and overall it admirably juggles its multiple source materials.

The story is rather sprawling, and by that I mean it’s a movie that very much feels like it’s based on a novel; and if you’re totally unfamiliar with The Shining (which is hard to fathom given its cultural permeation) you may struggle to climb aboard, but, other than a touch of third act squiffiness, Doctor Sleep is a solid piece of intelligent entertainment from tape-to-tape.

If I have one substantial criticism (if you can even call it that), it’s that, I wouldn’t say anybody does a bad job in their performance, everybody is fine if not above average, but I didn’t feel like anyone in the cast was indispensable in their part. Perhaps it’s a huge credit to writer/director/editor Mike Flanagan, but I think he could have made this movie with a near-infinite combination of actors and we’d still have the same quality result.

If you’re a huge fan of Kubrick’s Shining, perhaps you won’t find Doctor Sleep to be up to the same standard that I do, but for me it’s very much a Blade Runner 2049 situation, where I respect the original but find the sequel more compelling.

Your mileage may vary, but I recommend it highly.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Directed by Roland Emmerich
Written by Wes Tooke
Cast: Ed Skrein, Patrick Wilson, Woody Harrelson, Luke Evans, Mandy Moore, Luke Kleintank, Dennis Quaid, Aaron Eckhart, Keean Johnson, Nick Jonas, Etsushi Toyokawa, Tadanobu Asano, Darren Criss, Brandon Sklenar, Jun Kunimura, Brennan Brown, Jake Weber, David Hewlett, Mark Rolston, Eric Davis, Peter Shinkoda, James Carpinello, Hiromoto Ida, Hiroaki Shintani, Russell Dennis Lewis, Geoffrey Blake
Soundtrack: Harald Kloser & Thomas Wanker

I probably should hate this movie.

Given that I was a history major, you might think that I should hate it, too.

For some reason though, I just can’t get that riled up about it. I think it’s because:

A. I had extremely low expectations going in (after all, it is a Roland Emmerich joint)
and
B. It might actually be more factually accurate than its 1976 predecessor (which is a fine film with a great cast, but I’m not going to pretend it’s some ultimate triumph of cinema, given how much footage it cribs from other sources), so, while I could quibble with the history of it, I always expect a certain amount of Hollywood exaggeration, so that’s not really what I take issue with.

The biggest problem is that I think the movie means to be taken seriously, but so much information is fed to my eyes and ears that is to the contrary that I can’t help but conclude that Midway is a $100 million cartoon.

Now, you read that and probably think I’m referring to the visual effects, which I am, but only partially. This movie could have been successful with the effects it has. What truly makes it cartoonish is a script with severely lacking dialogue, and a number of sub-par performances (Not to go full ‘Murica here, but can we get some Americans to play our American heroes!? Hugh Laurie playing Dr. House is the exception, not the rule).

Anyway, it’s not all terrible. Patrick Wilson in particular is extremely likable (as usual), and there are some sequences that are actually effective (there’s a submarine scene that might be the best set-piece in the film).

In the end though, Midway is essentially a big-budget Redbox movie. Not the worst thing ever made, but largely a waste.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

P.S.
I noticed as the film was starting that there were a couple of Chinese production companies with their names on Midway, and I wondered what impact that would have on the story told. Let’s just say they make sure the audience knows that 250,000 Chinese civilians were killed in Japanese reprisals for the Doolittle Raid. Sad? Yes. True? Yes. Did it need to be included in this film? Probably not.

Movie Review – ‘The Fate of the Furious’ – Stylistically Designed To Be That Way

Directed by F. Gary Gray
Written by Chris Morgan based on characters created by Gary Scott Thompson
Cast: Vin Diesel, Jason Statham, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, Charlize Theron, Kurt Russell, Nathalie Emmanuel, Luke Evans, Elsa Pataky, Kristofer Hivju, Scott Eastwood, Patrick St. Esprit, Olek Krupa, Tego Calderon, Don Omar, Helen Mirren
Soundtrack: Brian Tyler

I can’t imagine all the way back in 2001 when Rob Cohen was directing The Fast and The Furious that he had any idea his little “Point Break with street racing” movie would eventually evolve into a series of roided-out Italian Jobs (fun fact: the 2003 remake was also directed by F. Gary Gray), let alone whatever The Fate of the Furious is (not to mention F&F is the most successful franchise in Universal’s history). At this point we’ve gone past full-circle and have left orbit on an entirely new trajectory, one that, frankly, I’m not entirely comfortable with.

Again, “Most movies have problems unless you’re Ghost Busters or The Rocketeer,” but The Fate of The Furious has some deep issues.

First of all, I said in my review of Furious 7 that I hope the series doesn’t continue on without Paul Walker, and I now feel completely justified. His absence is painfully obvious, and a reference to him by the characters is only salt in the wound. It’s a tough spot to be in, but, I can’t help thinking it should’ve been handled better.

Secondly, this movie finally manages to go too far in a few places (in a bad way), namely shakycam, magical hacking, and scenes that just make you wonder, “How did we arrive here with this franchise?” I mean, I’ve looked the other way on certain square pegs being hammered into round holes to make these movies fit together, but there’s a limit, and F8 reached it. I don’t mind hand-to-hand combat and gunplay in my action movies, but there was an inappropriate amount of it for this crew.

Worst of all though, this movie got too dark for me (sometimes literally), at least in terms of what the franchise is. For sure, serious things have happened before in the F&F universe (characters have been killed, family members threatened, etc.), but, again, this one went too far. I’m a little tired of the dark, gritty Nolan-ization of Hollywood in general (not that I don’t love Christopher Nolan, but not everything has the be The Dark Knight), but I never expected Fast & Furious to go that hard in the paint. At a certain point, I actually said to myself while watching F8, “I’m not having fun anymore. Remember when these movies were fun?”

All that said…

Just when I thought I was out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN.

Despite all of its flaws (including a lackluster performance from Charlize Theron, though I don’t necessarily blame her), I think I did enjoy this movie overall. I certainly didn’t feel ripped off in the end. It’s obviously flawed, and it’s on the bottom end of Fast & Furious movies, but there’s enough total entertainment value (aka things that are over the top in a good way) for me to give it more than a non-recommendation, provided you know what you’re getting into going in.

Catch it on a matinee if you want to be safe, but I won’t talk you out of seeing it.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

Twofer Movie Review: ‘The Lobster’ and ‘High-Rise’ – Independents’ Day

Not everything that gets talked about here is action schlock. Some of it is more artsy.

The Lobster

Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos
Written by Yorgos Lanthimos and Efthymis Filippou
Cast: Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz, Jessica Barden, Olivia Colman, Ashley Jensen, Ariane Labed, Angeliki Papoulia, John C. Reilly, Léa Seydoux, Michael Smiley, Ben Whishaw, Roger Ashton-Griffiths, Ewen MacIntosh

I do my best not to spoil things here, and that’s particularly true of a movie like The Lobster, because so much of the enjoyment comes from discovering how its world operates as the story progresses. There are no title cards at the beginning like Red Dawn to explain how we got here, you just figure it out on the fly.

What I can tell you, because it’s in the trailer, is that The Lobster is the story of a man who goes to a special resort to find a mate, and if he’s unsuccessful in that he will be turned into an animal he has previously chosen. In the case of our protagonist, he has chosen to be a lobster should it come to that.

I will also tell you that the world of The Lobster is one of rigidity and harsh consequences, and it is this area in particular where the movie so deftly commentates on our own society in terms of the nature of relationships.

Tonally, the movie is a dark comedy, and a rather funny one at that. Colin Farrell turns in a delightfully awkward performance, John C. Reilly is his naturally humorous self, and Rachel Weisz delivers some absolutely absurd voice-overs completely straight, which is hilarious.

It’s a bit of a long, strange trip, and it may not end the way you like, but it’s one worth taking. Check out The Lobster if you’re up for something off the beaten path.

Rating: ★★★½ (out of five)

High-Rise

Directed by Ben Wheatley
Written by Amy Jump, based on the novel by J.G. Ballard
Cast: Tom Hiddleston, Jeremy Irons, Sienna Miller, Luke Evans, Elisabeth Moss, James Purefoy, Keeley Hawes, Reece Shearsmith, Enzo Cilenti, Sara Dee (voice)
Soundtrack: Clint Mansell

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” – Oscar Wilde

No doubt, High-Rise aspires to be great, but it’s no Brazil. Heck, it’s not even Snowpiercer.

Based on the novel by J.G. Ballard (which was, perhaps correctly, considered “unfilmable” for nearly four decades), High-Rise is chock-full of British classism, Seventies excess, and tons of actual garbage. Not having read the source material, I can’t tell you if the adaptation is too faithful, not faithful enough, or somewhere in between, but it does feel like it’s in a no-man’s-land of sort.

It’s hard to pin down exactly what High-Rise is missing, but it’s not thought-provoking enough, shocking enough, funny enough, or horrifying enough to make the impact it desires. At a certain point it becomes a bit meandering, but the core story is so simple that you never really lose track of who’s doing what and why. Perhaps it’s the fact that we’re not given anyone to truly invest in that makes High-Rise so muddled.

However, one thing I’ll give a lot of credit for is the production design. Rather than taking place in an uber-futuristic dystopia, High-Rise is set in a dystopian vision of the 1970s, which means lots and lots of period cars, costumes, hair, and carpeting. in addition to more fantastical elements like an 18th century costume party.

If you’re a hardcore fan of Ben Whealey’s films or J.G. Ballard’s books, then you’ll probably see it anyway, but, save for that, High-Rise is probably not worth your time.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

Movie Review: ‘The Hobbit’ – An Unnecessary Trilogy

The Hobbit
Directed by Peter Jackson
Written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro, based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien
Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter, Mark Hadlow, Graham McTavish, Dean O’Gorman, Peter Hambleton, Aidan Turner, Jed Brophy, John Callen, Adam Brown, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Bret McKenzie, Sylvester McCoy, Lee Pace, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, John Bell, Craig Hall, Benedict Cumberbatch, Billy Connolly, Thomas Robins, Antony Sher, Manu Bennett, Andy Serkis, Barry Humphries, Kiran Shah, Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Dan Hennah
Soundtrack: Howard Shore

Oh, my head.

Yesterday, I made the decision, perhaps foolish, to see all three Hobbit films in one sitting (at my old favorite, the Alamo Drafthouse Theater in Yonkers, NY).

I had not seen the previous two Hobbit films at all, frankly, because I wasn’t really interested in seeing another three movies about Hobbits and Dwarves and whatnot in Middle Earth, but, ultimately, the opportunity to see a complete trilogy, with fresh eyes, in a theater with plenty of food and drink at hand, was too enticing to pass up, even if I did have to take time off from work to do so.

Was it worth it? In the end, I suppose so, if for nothing else than it gives me something to talk about. It’s not often that I get to write about a movie (or series of movies) before most people get to see it, so here goes.

Now, when I first heard that J.R.R. Tolkien’s [roughly] 300-page novel, The Hobbit, was going to be adapted into not just one film, but a whole trilogy of films, I said to myself, “It’s going to be the Star Wars Prequels all over again,” in that a later-produced trilogy that takes place before the events of the original trilogy could not possibly live up to the original, and might even leave a black mark on the whole franchise.

Now, is Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit anywhere near as bad as Star Wars: Episodes I-III?

No, of course not.

Unlike the Prequels, which are almost completely irredeemable as films, there are many enjoyable aspects of The Hobbit movies, but there are a few themes, somewhat reminiscent of Episodes I-III, that run throughout these films and make it difficult for me to recommend them as presently constituted.

What am I talking about?

1. The Characters (aka “Who’s the protagonist?)

This is, in fact, a very minor complaint, and I don’t actually mind movies straying away from traditional storytelling and featuring multiple leads, but for what is essentially a nearly eight-hour long motion picture called The Hobbit, there are an awful lot of long stretches where the title character isn’t around, or, if he is, the story is not from his perspective. I get that Peter Jackson essentially raided the Tolkien library for any other unadapted source material related to Middle Earth to pad out the running time (which is the proper way to do so; add more STORY…we’ll come back to padding later), but, at times, it’s just a little tough to reconcile how much of The Hobbit is told without him, and how often it feels like the Dwarf or Wizard show.

2. Tone (aka “You’re making a movie for children, right?”)

One issue with the Star Wars Prequels, and it’s echoed almost perfectly by The Hobbit, is that the movies get darker and darker as the trilogy progresses, as if the filmmakers think they need to compensate for something. Now with the Prequels I think this was entirely intentional, as a response to the negative audience reaction to Jar Jar Binks and other such attempts at “comedy.” With The Hobbit one could argue that it’s part of the natural progression of the story, and at the end of the day I don’t specifically have a problem with Peter Jackson wanting to make an adaption for mature audiences, but at the same time he’s making an adaptation of a children’s novel, complete with lots of kid-friendly moments (like dwarves doing annoying dwarf things). Do we really need to also see decapitations and people burning and dead children? Again, who are these movies really for?

Which leads me to my next point.

3. Excess (aka “I may have gone too far in a few places.”)

Peter Jackson is a huge Tolkien fan.

He’s also arguably the most excessive director working today, and has been going all the way back to his schlock horror days with movies such as Dead Alive (aka Braindead) and Meet the Feebles. Now, excess can be good when properly channeled (think Quentin Tarantino), but a three-hour long King Kong movie that nobody wanted or needed, and fails to justify its own existence (unlike certain other ape-themed movies which are fantastic), is not what I had in mind.

The core problem with these movies isn’t just how long they are, it’s WHY they’re as long as they are; and while there are other Tolkien works folded into the story, the excessive running times are ultimately due to excessive action scenes, some of which look fine, and others of which look like cutscenes from videogames (and I don’t mean no PS4; I’m talking XBOX 360 at best). In fact, a great deal of tension is lost from our heroes actually physically behaving like videogame characters; with such speed, strength, and agility that they basically become unbelievable within their own fantasy universe.

You see, Peter Jackson and George Lucas both failed to realize that even in this amazing age of digital technology, just because you can dream something, and just because you can create it in a computer, does not outright mean you should commit it to film. And it also seems like both of them are in favor of pushing technology in the wrong direction: Lucas, to further his own laziness, and Jackson, well, I guess to make 48fps telenovelas about Middle Earth.

Anyway, I could more easily accept a Hobbit trilogy if it was three 100-120 minute films, or like a 6-8 part TV miniseries; but three two-and-a-half to three-hour long films is just insane, and I’m not just saying that because I saw all three in a row. Remember, this whole thing is essentially based on one 300-page children’s novel. The Rankin/Bass animated version from the late-1970s clocks in at a crisp 77 minutes, and while it does leave some story elements out, does Peter Jackson’s version really need to be over six times as long? I argue no.

Now I’ve spent nearly a thousand words hammering what I don’t like, and why I don’t recommend this trilogy as it stands, but I don’t want to end on a totally down note, because I don’t actually hate these movies. In fact, you could say I really want to like them, but overwhelming factors prevent me from doing so.

If you’ve already seen Journey and Smaug, going #OneLastTime to see Five Armies can’t hurt, but if you haven’t seen any of them before, I say don’t bother with them.

I hope there will come a day, after Five Armies is released on home format, that someone in the fan-edit community will take all the footage available and compile together a reasonable-length version of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit, because as I said before, there are plenty of gems to find: good performances; emotional moments; all the wonders of a fantasy world.

Right now, it’s just not worth 8 hours (474 minutes, to be precise) of your time.

But we can always dream.

Overall Rating: ★★½ (out of five)