New and Old Twofer – ‘Venom’ and ‘The Blob’ (1988) – Oozing on Through

Venom

Directed by Ruben Fleischer
Written by Scott Rosenberg & Jeff Pinkner (screenplay and story), Kelly Marcel (screenplay), and Will Beall (screenplay), based on the Marvel comics by Todd McFarlaneDavid Michelinie
Cast: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Riz Ahmed, Scott Haze, Reid Scott, Jenny Slate, Michelle Lee, Mac Brandt, Sope Aluko, Wayne Péré, Scott Deckert, Marcella Bragio, Christian Convery, Sam Medina, Ron Cephas Jones
Soundtrack: Ludwig Göransson

Another week, another Riz Ahmed movie, and another big surprise.

I will admit, as I did last month, that it’s been such a down year for movies that I may well be grading on a curve at this point, but I will say unequivocally that in terms of new releases, Venom is the most fun I’ve had in a theater in 2018.  Big time critics may not value that (or even experience it), but I do.

The film is a horror-comedy-action-sci-fi mash-up that won’t work for everyone, but it won me over early and never betrayed my trust.  It’s certainly the best thing Ruben Fleischer (who I’d say I generally like) has done since Zombieland.

Now, you may ask, “Is there a lot of CGI in this movie?” and the answer is yes, there is, but, there is also a noticeable commitment to keeping things practical where they could.  For example, at the beginning of the film, there’s a spaceship that crashes, and when you see a response team at the crash site, they’re not looking at a blue screen, they’re looking at, as Daniel Craig’s James Bond might say, “A bloody big ship,” and that warmed my heart immediately; not to mention there’s some lovely use of San Francisco as a location.

As far as performances go, I’m not sure you can call whatever Tom Hardy is doing good or bad, it just kind of is, and since this isn’t Citizen Kane, I was fine with it; and, frankly, he pulled off the humor much better than I would have expected.

Beyond that, I like the way the Venom story and characters have been updated to present day-sensibilities (making Eddie Brock essentially a VICE reporter is particularly choice), and, even though the studio opted out of going for the R-rating (despite the success of Deadpool and Logan), it’s clear to me that the movie owes something, at least in spirit, to the 80s splatter films of Frank Henenlotter and Stuart Gordon (as well as Chuck Russell’s The Blob, which we’ll get to shortly), perhaps even Devil’s Express.

It’s not the most original screenplay in the world in terms of plot (hello, Iron Man), but it at least tries to do it’s own thing tone-wise.

As I said, it won’t work for everyone, but it’s certainly better than the critical reception would have you believe; perfect for a Halloween season comic book fix.

Rating: ★★★★½

 

The Blob (1988)

Original Release Date: August 5, 1988
Directed by Chuck Russell
Written
by Chuck RussellFrank Darabont, based on an earlier screenplay by Theodore Simonson and Kay Linaker, based on a story by Irvine H. Millgate
Cast: Kevin Dillon, Shawnee Smith, Donovan Leitch, Jeffrey DeMunn, Candy Clark, Joe Seneca, Del Close, Paul McCrane, Robert Axelrod, Beau Billingslea, Michael Kenworthy, Douglas Emerson, Jamison Newlander, Judith Flanagan, Art LaFleur, Sharon Spelman, Billy Beck, Jack Nance, Bill Moseley, Erika Eleniak, Ricky Paull Goldin, Frank Collison, Jack Rader, Clayton Landey, Noble Craig, Julie McCullough
Soundtrack: Michael Hoenig

Full disclosure, I saw this in a double feature with the 1958 original, which gave me an appreciation I might not have otherwise had (not that I hadn’t seen both versions before).  I’d give the original a review as well, but it was on a pretty faded archival print and I just don’t feel right about judging it in that way.

Anyway, in terms of 80s horror (and remakes in general), Chuck Russell’s The Blob is definitely up there.

It’s essentially a sliced, diced, sauteed, and smothered (get it?) version of the original (Blob comes to Earth in a meteor, eats a hobo, wreaks havoc in a small town, etc.), with more than a dash of Stephen King mixed in for flavor (no surprise there given Russell co-wrote the screenplay with Frank Darabont), and a refreshing attention to detail (no joke, I think even the cliche jump-scare cat is set up).  Seriously, if you like structure in your plot, this is the movie for you.

And, it’s properly gooey and gory and gross, although it’s amazing how some of the practical effects don’t look all that different from their counterparts thirty years earlier.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s not the best-acted movie I’ve ever seen (although that aspect is still an upgrade over the original), but I can forgive that based on the strength of the visuals and the story.

Overall, 1988’s The Blob certainly isn’t as strong as Philip Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers or John Carpenter’s The Thing, but, for the genre and the time it was made, it deserves to be in the conversation of more-than-worthwhile remakes.

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie Review – ‘The Sisters Brothers’ – The Edge of Modernity

Directed by Jacques Audiard
Written by Jacques Audiard & Thomas Bidegain, based on the novel by Patrick DeWitt
Cast: John C. Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal, Riz Ahmed, Rutger Hauer, Carol Kane, Rebecca Root, Ian Reddington, Richard Brake, Allison Tolman, Creed Bratton
Soundtrack: Alexandre Desplat

Another week, another pleasant surprise (and another cameo from Richard Brake).

A darkly comic yet also deadly serious film, the trailer I saw for The Sisters Brothers (which is not the one attached to the above poster) highlighted the comedy more so than the dark, which is a bit misleading.  To be fair, there are a number of laughs throughout the film, but, while I would not compare it in overall style or tone, in many ways it’s as ruthless and frank as another recent western, that being Scott Cooper’s Hostiles.

Still, the movie is of a quality worthy of comparison to the upper-mid-tier works of the Coen Brothers, as well as Martin McDonagh’s brief filmography, as while it may be brutal at times, it certainly does not lack in humanity.

If I have any two criticisms, for one, I was rather confounded by Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance (maybe his accent is actually completely period appropriate and I’m just ignorant, but it just seemed stilted to me), and, secondly, Alexandre Desplat’s score didn’t feel quite right, either as a reflection or a juxtaposition.

Other than that though, John C. Reilly (who also has a producer credit) and Joaquin Phoenix are absolutely terrific as the titular brothers, and Riz Ahmed, though not at first, eventually threatens to steal the movie outright.

Lastly, one rather fun aspect of the film is the characters finding amazement and bewilderment at things that are not only commonplace, but completely taken for granted in contemporary American society.  In a time when many people casually long to have been born in another time and/or place, these moments are a stark reminder of how harsh merely existing used to be in this country.

Despite its coarse nature, I very much enjoyed The Sisters Brothers and definitely found myself surprised at how heartfelt it is.

And I loved that it literally started with a bang (a number of them, actually).

Rating: ★★★★☆

Movie Review – ‘Rogue One’ – A Star Wars Problem

You may be wondering why this review is two weeks late.  Well, frankly, I needed to see the movie a couple of times in order to get a proper handle on how I really feel about it; not to mention I am bending (if not out-and-out breaking) certain core People Talking principles, because this isn’t going to be very positive, and it’ll likely be more spoiler-y than I’m accustomed to writing (with proper warning).

Also, I haven’t published anything new in over a month, so I’m a bit out of practice to begin with.

Anyway, here we go…

Directed by Gareth Edwards
Written by Chris Weitz & Tony Gilroy (screenplay), John Knoll & Gary Whitta (story), based on characters created by George Lucas
Cast: Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Alan Tudyk (voice/motion capture), Donnie Yen, Wen Jiang, Ben Mendelsohn, Forest Whitaker, Riz Ahmed, Mads Mikkelsen, Jimmy Smits, Alistair Petrie, Genevieve O’Reilly, Ben Daniels, Ian McElhinney, Jonathan Aris
Soundtrack: Michael Giacchino

Let me get this off my chest right away.

Rogue One is a boring, miserable mess, and the fact that so many “Star Wars Nerds” love it is evidence that fanboys in general lack critical discernment.

Whoa.

Now, I wouldn’t say this movie is as big of a disaster as, say, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, or Revenge of the Sith.  Nor would I call it “entirely joyless” (there are a few good laughs sprinkled in).  But, there’s a lot wrong with it.

First of all, and I brought this up when discussing X-Men: Days of Future Past a couple years ago, every movie, regardless if it’s a sequel, prequel, remake, re-imagining, soft reboot, or whatever, needs to work as its own movie, at least to a certain degree.  I can tell you straight away that somebody who knows nothing about Star Wars would be utterly baffled by Rogue One.  I love Star Wars and I’m still confused about certain elements (but we’ll get to that later).

Secondly, good characters, and, by extension, good performances, are few and far between.

Here’s a list of primary actors who acquit themselves well in this movie:

Ben Mendelsohn

 

I do need to throw in some caveats.  For one, Mads Mikkelsen is fine, but he has so little to do it doesn’t really warrant grading.  Alan Tudyk is adequately charming as the Droid du Jour, but it’s a voice over/motion capture performance, so that’s something of an incomplete grade as well.  I’ll also positively mention Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang, who do okay with what they’re given, but it’s not much to write home about either.

Other than those folks, however…

Felicity Jones?  Flat.
Diego Luna?  Completely miscast.
Riz Ahmed?  Aimless.
Forest Whitaker?  I have no idea.

Again, I don’t necessarily blame these people individually for their underwhelming performances, because they are determined in large part by the script and direction (and editing), but the point is this: If I don’t care about the characters (because they’re boring), and I don’t care about the story, then I really don’t care about the action, no matter how “gritty” it is.

(Honestly, people defending this movie as “gritty” reminds me of people defending Revenge of the Sith as “dark.”  The second time I saw Rogue One, I was ready to leave halfway through the finale, because I just didn’t care anymore.  It’s Star Wars, people; give me interesting characters and go from there.)

But let’s talk about that story, and how it’s wrong.

I was about to try to give a brief, but thorough, plot synopsis, but it’s so much more convoluted than it needs to be that I doubt a single paragraph would suffice, so I’ll just say the Rebels need to steal the plans to the Death Star, which was designed by one of their fathers, and there’s an extremist guy who’s causing problems for the Rebellion.  Allegedly, this father/daughter relationship is important, but there’s no appreciable backstory, so we don’t really care.  For crying out loud, does everybody in the Star Wars universe need to be related?

For reference sake, let’s pull up most of the opening title crawl from Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, which Rogue One is intended to lead into:

“It is a period of civil war.  Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.
During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire’s ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.”

I guess you could say Rogue One matches this description, at least the third act of it does, but let’s break it down.

“It is a period of civil war.”
True, but I wouldn’t say you get an explicit sense of this outside of the end battle.

“Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base,”
True, but it’s not really planned out like you think it would be.

“have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire”
You call that a victory?  Maybe a Pyrrhic victory, but I don’t know that I’d even go that far.

“During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans…”
True, but it’s more like one actual spy and a ragtag group of people who mostly do commando-type stuff.

Maybe I’m quibbling, but from what I can gather, this movie needed to have a space battle and an espionage element of stealing plans, which it does, but the whole father/daughter/other Rebel extremist plot preceding it is so boring and pointless that I can’t not look at this movie as a huge missed opportunity.

If you ask me, Rogue One would have been much better off in one of three ways:

A.  Essentially a Star Wars version of Mission: Impossible, where it’s like a fun spy movie with the end battle serving as a diversion to allow our protagonists to finish the job.

B. Essentially a Star Wars version of The Dirty Dozen (or Inglourious Basterds, which I think they may have been trying to go for a little bit), where you intentionally assemble a specialized squad to steal the plans during the end space battle.

or…

C. More generically, follow a group of soldiers.  Show them in a battle or two where they get their butts kicked, and they start to become disillusioned, but then they get an opportunity to do something special.  “This is your moment to strike back.”  Something like that.

Point is, keep the story simple and beef up the characters, which, in turn, strengthens the emotions, and allow the film to be strong enough to truly work as a “standalone movie” without relying on embarrassing fan service and nostalgic cameos to maintain the audience’s interest.  I’ve had people tell me that Rogue One relies less on nostalgia than The Force Awakens and I couldn’t disagree more.  Yes, The Force Awakens is a soft reboot of A New Hope, and, yes, it has the key original cast back, but, by-and-large, the nostalgic elements and characters are actually worked into the story, rather than being mere distractions.

***THE NEXT PARAGRAPH CONTAIN EXPLICIT SPOILERS***

Here’s a list of things in Rogue One that shouldn’t have been in it: the actual Death Star (should be a looming threat, not a real threat yet), Mon Mothma (superfluous), CGI Grand Moff Tarkin and Princess Leia (I mean, do I really need to explain this?), Darth Vader (superfluous), Darth Vader using a red lightsaber and the Force to kill Rebel guys (fanboy schlock), Ponda Baba and Dr. Evazan (aka “You’ll be dead” guy) (superfluous), C-3PO and R2-D2 (unnecessary), and Red Leader and Gold Leader (see: Tarkin and Leia).  Also, why does Director Krennic visit Darth Vader to go over Tarkin’s head when Vader clearly reports to Tarkin in A New Hope?  That’s Prequel-level character inconsistency.

***END OF SPOILER PARAGRAPH***

On the other side though, if this movie takes place in the Star Wars universe right before A New Hope, then why are there so many smaller spaceship models we’ve never seen before?  Keeping things consistent in that regard wouldn’t be needlessly nostalgic at all; it would just be maintaining visual consistency, which would be laudable.

Anyway, I’ll be honest, I had doubts about this movie from the moment I heard that Gareth Edwards (director of that giant turd of an American Godzilla movie) was at the helm.  I hoped I would be wrong, but I ended up being more disappointed than I could have imagined.  And not that it’s all on Edwards’ shoulders.  After The Force Awakens, I thought the Star Wars franchise was in good hands with Disney, especially given how they handle the Marvel universe.  But, in light of Rogue One, my faith has been shaken.  Hopefully this will be an aberration; perhaps merely an experiment gone wrong, but given how well it’s already doing at the box office, I doubt critical opinions will be given much thought by the studio.

Again, I love Star Wars.  It’s an indelible part of my life, and I wish everybody loved it as much as I do, but I care more about whether these movies work as movies and whether or not they’ll hold up decades from now than whether or not we ever get to see Darth Vader’s residence.

In the end though, does Rogue One deserve your hard-earned money to see it theatrically?  At first, I thought so, despite my internal conflict, but now, I’m saying no.  Rent it in a few months from now if you want; if you’re a Star Wars fan you’ll get a little something out of it.  As for me, I’m never watching it again, that’s for sure.

ADDENDUM (01/01/17):
One thing I forgot to mention: In a movie full of issues, the music is another problem.  Flat out, Michael Giacchino’s score for Rogue One is unsatisfactory (especially compared to The Force Awakens), and emblematic of the film itself, paradoxically being safe and risky at the same time and ending up a middle-of-the-road mess.  I can’t imagine what it must be like to stand in John Williams’ shadow, but given how this movie was supposed to be a standalone adventure, I think it would have been appropriate to take the music in a whole different direction, perhaps something more electronic/synth based rather than a traditional orchestra.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

P.S.
As usual, thanks to Alamo Drafthouse [Yonkers] and Mondo for the swag and for getting into the spirit of the thing, even if the movie was a disappointment (honestly, it was all about the pint glass this time anyway).

Movie Review – ‘Jason Bourne’ – Enough is Enough

Directed by Paul Greengrass
Written by Paul Greengrass & Christopher Rouse, based characters created by Robert Ludlum
Cast: Matt Damon, Tommy Lee Jones, Alicia Vikander, Vincent Cassel, Julia Stiles, Riz Ahmed, Ato Essandoh, Scott Shepherd, Gregg Henry
Soundtrack: David Buckley and John Powell

More like Jason Bore…

I had originally intended to start this review by talking about all of the many stars who have appeared in these movies (the list is long and distinguished), and maybe give something of a retrospective on the series as a whole, but, it doesn’t matter; none of this matters.

It may not presently occur to you, because it’s not as actively corporate on the surface, but Jason Bourne might be just as much of a cynical cash-grab as Ghostbusters.  Despite bringing back series lynchpins Matt Damon and Julia Stiles, and Paul Greengrass to direct (although people seem to forget that Doug Liman directed the original, and still the best), Jason Bourne is little more than an extremely predictable (aka Boring) rehash of things you’ve already seen before done better.

Not only that, but everything is less interesting and less intelligent.  The heroes, the villains, the other side characters, the plot; everything feels like it was just cobbled together as an excuse to make another Bourne movie, as opposed to a smart story that needed to be told (or at least someone really wanted to tell).  In all honesty, it’s worse than The Bourne Legacy, because say what you want about that movie, at least they tried to do something different, if only moderately.

And, do I even need to go into the Shakycam at this point?

Seriously, Paul Greengrass and Christopher Rouse, please stop.  Please stop shooting and editing action sequences that are not meant for human consumption.  Your impact in this regard has been indelible in the worst way, perhaps the most infamous example being Quantum of Solace (co-edited by your former colleague, Richard Pearson).  I mean, have any of you ever heard of the Steadicam?  It’s a wonderful invention.

You see, I could have found this movie at least mildly entertaining if the action scenes had been enjoyable, but they’re not; they’re a chore.  I understand that the Bourne franchise has always been more serious than Bond or Mission: Impossible, so I wasn’t expecting out and out “fun” along those lines, but, I also wasn’t expecting Jason Bourne to be entirely joyless, which it is.  Boring and joyless; a lethal combination, to be sure.

I hate to say it, especially because I didn’t think I’d be in this position, but stay far away from this one, my friends.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆

P.S.
I’m not mad, I’m just really disappointed, and that is worse.