The Mummy

Score:  C-

Directed by Alex Kurtzman
Starring Tom Cruise, Sofia Boutella, Annabelle Wallis, Russell Crowe
Running time: 107 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Mummy is a reboot of the famous franchise as well as the potential start of a whole series of monster movies.  If this is the best they can do, though, any plans for a new series are DOA.  Tom Cruise headlines, and he's one of the best action actors we've got, but he's just not a good fit here and can't pull the rest of the film up.  There are admittedly a few good scenes, but everything's smushed together in such a generic, nonsensical (and ultimately boring) way that it doesn't matter.  Skip.


A pair of rogue military officers, Nick Morton (Cruise) and Chris Vail (Johnson), enter an isolated Iraqi village hoping to pillage artifacts, only to come under attack by insurgents.  An airstrike saves them, and also reveals a buried tomb.  The military calls in archaeologist Jenny Halsey (Wallis) to examine the find, and the team carries away a mysterious sarcophagus.  En route to England, a series of bizarre events causes the plane to crash; while Halsey parachutes out, Nick and Chris are apparently killed.  Except that Morton somehow wakes the next day without a scratch.  Jenny and Nick investigate the crash site, finding that the sarcophagus's inhabitant, Ahmanet (Boutella) has been resurrected and seems particularly intent on getting to Nick.  The pair desperately flee Ahmanet, with the help of some new friends, as they try to figure out what is going on - and how to put a stop to the supernatural threat.

The Mummy has a talented cast, but many of the roles are poor fits and the performances are adversely affected.  Tom Cruise plays the lead, as dependable an action star as there is.  However, he isn't nearly as good as usual here.  He is what he is at this point in his career; while he awkwardly attempts to add some humorous mischief to the part (at least early on), it just isn't a good fit and so his character isn't as fun as usual.  His partner in crime, Annabelle Wallis as Jenny, is even worse, unfortunately.  I haven't seen her in much else so I don't know if this is an anomaly for her, but Wallis's personality is so generic and bland, and even her basic reactions to situations so off, that she is essentially just a drag on the movie.  Russell Crowe is fine in a small role, but the part itself is mostly a distraction (more later).  Sofia Boutella comes out the best of the main cast, a convincingly creepy, menacing, but occasionally even seductive, villain.  Her success with the physicality of the role is a major reason for it.  Not much else to speak of, but Jake Johnson, normally a reliably hilarious comedian, just does not do a great job here with his role as a (temporary) sidekick.

The Mummy is a failure of an action-adventure film - not truly terrible in any one way, but successful only in a very few.  I haven't seen the old-school Mummy films, but I couldn't stop myself from comparing this to the Brendan Fraser-led version from 1999.  This version attempts the same goofy-serious split that the 1999 version succeeded at so well, but it fails pretty badly early on and essentially quits trying after that.  While The Mummy is the definition of a monster movie, it's still important to have some connection with the characters and plot.  Unfortunately the characters are hampered not just by poor casting fits but also by lack of time to learn about them or reason to care about them.  It's just one action set piece leading to the next, by varying degrees of inexplicability.  Then a "universe" concept springs in the middle of the film, as Crowe's character, Dr. Jekyll (...), shows up as the man in charge of investigating monsters like Ahmanet.  This both doesn't really go anywhere yet also messes up any remaining focus in the movie.  While there are some reasonably entertaining scenes in the first half of the movie - the plane crash, Nick and Jenny's first encounter with Ahmanet in England - it all ends in a big, dull, predictable blockbuster finale.

***

The Mummy is a dud of a summer popcorn film, and is particularly disastrous as an attempted first step in a new monster movie "universe".  Usually the presence of Tom Cruise provides a decently high floor for the entertainment level of a movie, but even he can't save this.  While the remaining casting was even more middling (at best), the true fault is in the overall story, script, and directing (all of which can seemingly be blamed on Kurtzman, but I wouldn't be surprised if the studio brass had a hand in it).  They didn't find anything interesting to focus on, or even a particular tone or style, to separate itself from others or justify its existence.  The filmmaker tries to hide this (intentionally or not) by ramming all its loosely related components together and hoping that you won't think about it too much.  Well, I certainly won't be thinking about going to any sequels to this flop.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53652377

Wonder Woman

Score:  A-

Directed by Patty Jenkins
Starring Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright
Running time:  141 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Wonder Woman is the highly anticipated debut film for the most famous female superhero, and it exceeds expectations.  For all intents and purposes, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman, a beautiful, strong, feminine actress who owns this film just as she needed to.  There's plenty of fun action and humor, and even some intriguing exploration of larger issues than what's normally seen in this kind of film.  Highly recommended, all audiences.


On a hidden island, Diana (Gadot) is raised by her mother, Queen Hippolyta (Nielsen), leader of the island's Amazon women, and trained by General Antiope (Wright).  The Amazons continue to prepare for the eventual return of Ares, god of war, to Earth, when a plane crashes on their island.  Diana rescues the pilot, Steve Trevor (Pine), and takes him to the other Amazons.  They discover from him that the "war to end all wars" (World War I) is raging.  Queen Hippolyta prefers to leave mankind to its fate, but Diana sees the influence of Ares in the struggle and leaves the island with Steve to find and kill him.  Steve takes Diana to London, where he reports another discovery to his superiors: the Germans are developing a new, incredibly powerful and lethal chemical weapon.  However, the Allies are negotiating an armistice to end the war, and don't want to risk its success by launching an attack to destroy the new weapon.  Frustrated, Steve goes to Europe anyway with Diana and a small team.  Determined to destroy Ares and end the plague of war once and for all, Diana must first find her own strength in battle - and experience the very thing she hopes to end.

Wonder Woman has an impressive cast, and it is boldly led by its main heroine.  Gal Gadot provided audiences a glimpse of her Wonder Woman in last year's Batman v Superman, but here in her own movie she proves the brilliance of her casting and excellence in portraying the famed heroine.  In superficial terms, Gadot is perfect: she is as convincing, athletic and tough in battle sequences as she is beautiful.  However, she also inhabits and develops the character exceptionally well.  Gadot exudes  Diana's core goodness and strength naturally, but she also is no humorless stoic; she always counters her co-star's sarcasm, and frequently displays her own sense of fun, even mischievousness.  Somehow, Gadot's Wonder Woman is both a feminine ideal and yet also easily relatable.  Chris Pine is a lot of fun, too, as Steve Trevor, but for all his charisma, it's a testament to Gadot's presence that he is always playing second fiddle here.  The remaining roles are strictly supporting.  Diana's Amazonian family, played by Robin Wright, Connie Nielsen and others, is fine, as are Trevor's ragtag band of friends from the war.  Although the villains don't get a lot to work with, Danny Huston as Gen. Ludendorff and Elena Anaya as Doctor Poison are impressively menacing.

Wonder Woman is a very well done if mostly standard superhero film, but it also nicely incorporates some larger themes.  The film's first fifteen minutes or so serve as Wonder Woman's origin story, one much different than other superheroes' yet framed as a familiar mythological background.  The main story combines Diana's seemingly simple mission to destroy a villain with Trevor's determination to stop the chemical weapon.  In essence, Diana is trying to stop a fantasy villain of sorts while Trevor focuses on the practical - sometimes these efforts intertwine, and at others they clash.  There is plenty, though not too much, action, and most of it is well done.  Particularly good is Wonder Woman's debut battle - which contrasts a spectacular showcase of her unique fighting style with the grim but realistic setting of WWI trench and city battles.  The film also has a lot of humor - not quite at the level of Marvel's better films, but still fresh whether from Diana and Steve's banter or Diana's fish-out-of water introduction to 20th century London.

It is in London, the least action-oriented part of the film, where some interesting themes start to emerge.  As appropriate for the first major movie about a female superhero, there is commentary on gender roles.  This is not awkward, forced, or sermonizing, but rather comes naturally from the situation.  Diana is raised with all women - and thus women there take on all the roles of a society.  When she arrives in London she is shocked by other women's experiences, from work as a "slave" (her interpretation of a secretary) to subjugation with battle-restricting "fashion" wear.  Also at issue is war itself.  This is powerfully illustrated (cleverly combined with more gender commentary) when Diana rages at a group of old military generals for their seemingly noble but in fact cowardly efforts to secure an armistice at any cost.  It is also present in Diana's mission to destroy Ares, which she believes in turn will end war itself.  Here, the film unfortunately misses an opportunity to go against the grain of normal blockbusters with a much more subdued yet ultimately more powerful and shocking ending.  Instead we get the usual climactic battle - which is fun, but disappointing.

***

Wonder Woman is a very well made film, saving DC from a streak of critical flops.  More importantly it is a resounding success as a female-led superhero film.  The filmmakers neither cynically pandered to any particular audience, nor did they make a movie that was just like any other superhero film only with a woman as the lead.  It was potentially a very difficulty needle to thread, but the film created (thanks largely to Gal Gadot herself) a true heroine, a feminine character within a world just like Batman or the Avengers'.  For now I'm pulling up just short of a straight "A" score - due to its not embracing the clear opportunity it had for a powerful, unique ending as well as for some choppiness throughout the script (wasn't as smooth and consistent as Marvel has shown superhero films can be).  I may well upgrade this later, and hope to see it again in any case.  And by all means:  if you're looking for a fun film, Wonder Woman is far and away the best film of the summer so far.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51137764

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Score:  ** out of ***** (D+)

Directed by James Gunn
Starring Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, et. al.
Running time: 136 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 swoops into the prime opening weekend of the summer, following the first hit film's opening in the garbage heap of summer.  Just as the openings are reversed, however, so is the quality of the two films.  A horrifically bad script is largely to blame for its myriad problems - bloated, dumb plot; loss of interest in its quirky main cast; and mostly poor attempts at humor.  Skip it.


After saving the universe from the evil schemes of Thanos, the so-called "Guardians of the Galaxy" - Star-Lord (Pratt), Gamora (Saldana), Drax (Bautista), Rocket (Cooper), and Groot (Diesel) - have become interstellar superstars.  Their services are in high demand, and one such mission finds the Guardians protecting highly valuable... batteries from various would-be thieves.  In payment, the batteries' owners, known as the Sovereign, release Gamora's sister, Nebula (Gillan) to them.  Unfortunately, Rocket's old habits have yet to wear off and he pockets several of the batteries.  The Sovereign quickly discover the treachery, and soon the Guardians are forced to flee to a distant planet for shelter.  Even there, the Guardians find themselves sought by other forces - one a mysterious being from Star-Lord's past, who takes him and part of the team to another world.  Another, led by pirate Yondu (Rooker), confronts the remaining Guardians.  Although allegiances seem apparent - those who want to help the Guardians, and those who hunt them - the team must rely on each other more than ever before in a quickly-changing galaxy.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 features most of the cast from the first film, and significant roles for several newcomers.  The main quintet remains, of course, but in almost every way is not as interesting or as fun as in the previous adventure.  Chris Pratt as Star-Lord is the de facto leader of the group, but is largely prevented from unleashing his new age Han Solo act again.  There are just too many other active parts given screen time, and most of his time is stuck in serious, plot-based stuff rather than the silly or casual scenes at which he excels.  Zoe Saldana's Gamora is even worse off, mostly dealing with a boring sibling rivalry/war.  She is a generic side part here, rather than the intriguing tough-as-nails assassin from the first.  Dave Bautista's Drax is about as annoying as last time, although he benefits from his relationship with one of the new characters.  Groot, now a tiny version of himself, is basically the cute pet of the film, to hit-and-miss effect.  But among the group, Rocket is by far the worst off; Cooper is forced to spit out some pretty terrible lines.  Among the many newcomers, Kurt Russell has the biggest part as Star-Lord's long lost father.  He's a welcome presence, fitting in with his zany colleagues, although a brief digital youth transformation is a little disturbing.  And Elizabeth Debicki, leader of the Sovereigns, is by far the most interesting character in the film; unfortunately, it's a pretty small role.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 retains many of the explicit elements of the first film, but has been blockbuster-ized, spoiling a lot of what made the first so much fun.  Things start promisingly and cleverly, focusing on a dancing, oblivious baby Groot with a battle raging around him as a great 70s pop song plays.  After that, though, much of the premise is not very interesting and has way too many threads, both major and minor.  Added to this is a horrendous script, likely the worst I've seen from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  This weakness is immediately apparent after the introduction, and dooms at least a few scenes that could otherwise have been interesting.  The script is most glaring in much of the attempted humor - it is far more infantile, seemingly designed to please five-year-olds rather than adults.  Sure, there are some funny bits (particularly the Sovereigns, which pilot their ships from afar in essentially a massive arcade game, and their absurd self-seriousness), but it lacks almost any of the first film's mischief.  Despite being "cleaner", this film has some rather shocking amounts of cold-blooded violence.  This is coming from a reviewer not bothered by John Wick, but I found an entire ship's crew being stabbed, one at a time, by a guided arrow to be a bit much.  To cap it off, the film is too long with a final act that sees the chaos of the past two hours collapse into one final jumble before limping on for another fifteen minutes.

***

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is the first big belly flop of the otherwise-impressive Marvel film universe.  The first film was a gamble that paid off spectacularly, following a group of not-so-super (or willing) heroes - without a single superstar character or actor - in space.  It's not so much that Marvel made it into a Serious Franchise (although its convoluted plot did it not favors) with this one, but rather that it became generic, overcrowded, and despite all the money spent on effects, the pitiful quality of the script put it in a league with films like *gulp* the Fast and Furious franchise.  There are a lot of promising elements in this franchise still, from its characters to the irreverent tone (at least the first film's).  But there needs to be a major, major rethink at Marvel headquarters for the next one.  Are they going to boldly continue into new, interesting territory as they've proved they can do successfully - or will they simply use these now-familiar faces as a front for a boring franchise with eyes only for box office rather than artistic success?  For this installment, give it a try at home if you are curious, but please avoid it in theaters.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52041243

The Circle

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Directed by James Ponsoldt
Starring Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, John Boyega, Karen Gillan, et. al.
Running time: 110 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The Circle, based on the novel by Dave Eggers, tells the tale of a young woman who joins a huge social media tech company and quickly becomes the public face placed in front of its private ambitions.  Emma Watson and Tom Hanks provide watchable, intriguing characters but the plot is obvious and its message and direction inconsistent.  Still, there are plenty of good moments throughout, making it worth viewing at some point, if not an essential theater experience.


Mae Holland (Watson) is a young woman struggling to get by day to day, let alone launch a fulfilling, exciting career.  One day she gets her lucky break, though, when a college friend, Annie (Gillan) sets her up with an interview at the world's largest tech company, the Circle.  Mae gets in, and is dazzled as Annie takes her on a whirlwind tour of the Circle's massive, utopian campus.  Although she is thrilled with her new job, Mae returns home regularly to spend time with her parents and others, including childhood friend Mercer (Coltrane).  She is taken aback when the Circle shows a desire to be more than just her place of employment, but also like a second family.  Mae finds herself drawn closer and closer, to everything from the cheerful atmosphere to Circle leader Eamon Bailey's (Hanks) vision.  As Mae's own family grows worried about this closer connection, Mae herself is becoming an essential part of the Circle's mysterious mission - as millions around the world follow her every day life.

The Circle has an impressive cast, one not fully utilized but which still gives the film some of its strongest elements.  Emma Watson is the lead as Mae, a young woman drawn quickly from obscurity into a prominent position at a powerful tech company.  Watson does a good job and was a wise choice for the role.  She is particularly convincing as the unprecedentedly visible symbol of the Circle; as one of the (real) world's most famous actresses, she knows all too well both the adoration of a crowd but also the personal consequences of that attention.  Watson struggles a bit more with her early start as a "nobody", and her development is inconsistent, but this has at least as much to do with the script as her performance.  Tom Hanks is very impressive in the Steve Jobs-like role of Circle leader Eamon Bailey.  As always, he is quite charismatic, and easily makes Eamon seem a comforting presence even as the words he speaks become more and more disturbing.  Unfortunately, John Boyega is wasted in a small role that serves only as an unnecessary plot device.  And Karen Gillan and Ellar Coltrane, both fine actors, seem thrown off by the poor script and respond with equally poor, overacted performances.

The Circle is a thriller that, while largely failing as a drama, has its fair share of interesting moments and observations on the modern world.  The overall structure of the plot is familiar: a naive young person joins a massive, apparently benevolent yet mysterious organization, which uses her until she realizes its true intentions.  Unfortunately, this structure is rapidly apparent, removing much of the mystery.  On a related note, the film is too often both unsubtle and exaggerated in showing the motives or background for various developments; yet at other times, decisions (particularly from Mae) are jarringly inexplicable.  Boyega's character, a former Circle leader disillusioned by the company's direction (yet still always hanging out on campus for some reason), meets Mae at random times throughout to bluntly point out the obvious dangers to her.  Yet Mae continues on her path, if for no other reason than to keep the film going, right up until a very sudden and unconvincing ending.

Still, there are good elements in this film, too.  Hanks's very performance helps show how the Circle's omnipresent surveillance - while obviously extreme - could in fact appeal to both those in power as well as the masses in a variety of ways.  As for the Circle's culture, it is a clever exaggeration of the Google or Facebook utopian stereotype.  One particularly good scene has Mae confronted with two smiling Circle employees forcing her to get with the program - in the most passive aggressive way possible.  Later, when Mae becomes the face of the company, scenes depicting her comings and goings are made fascinating by a constant stream of social media posts that float around her on screen.  And the film's most emotional scene, involving Mae's childhood friend, may strike some as unrealistic, but was both effective and all too plausible to me.

***

The Circle had a lot of promising elements going for it, and while its failures make it an overall disappointment, it's still an intriguing film.  Social media is with us constantly, and news reports about the dangers of this are regular, yet seeing it put on film is still valuable.  The Circle proves the danger of it as well, falling prey to certain cliches and not presenting the most subtle, effective warnings about - and possibilities of - the technology.  With some impressive performances, particularly Tom Hanks's, and some well done parts here and there, it's not difficult to accept the failings yet focus instead on both the entertaining and enlightening features.  Certainly not an essential theater viewing option, The Circle will make for a nice change of pace choice at home.



By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52503603

Logan

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A-)

Directed by James Mangold
Starring Hugh Jackman, Dafne Keen, Patrick Stewart
Running time: 137 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Logan is the third "solo" film for Hugh Jackman's iconic superhero character, likely also his final.  This film is darker than others in the X-Men franchise, not just because of the increased violence due to its R-rating, but also because Logan and others are confronted with heightened personal crises.  While therefore not a cheerful one, this is a more emotionally powerful superhero film than most, and thoughtfully made.  Highly recommended.


In 2029, few mutants remain in comparison to the heyday of the X-men; none have been born for twenty-five years, and the remaining population barely struggles on.  Among the survivors is Logan (Jackman), once known as Wolverine.  With his mutant powers in decline and his old friends almost all gone, he quietly works as a chauffeur.  He also cares for his old mentor, Professor Xavier (Stewart), who has begun to lose control of both his formidable mind and powers and must be kept at a safe distance from society.  Logan's routine is interrupted, however, by a woman who is desperate for his help.  She begs him to take her and her daughter to the Canadian border where they can find a safe haven - and he must be the one to do it, or so she insists.  When Logan confronts the forces seeking this woman, he reluctantly decides to help her, taking the dependent Xavier with him.  Although Logan wishes to spend the rest of his life in peace and quiet, he is forced to once again confront duty to his people - both past and future.

Logan has relatively few familiar faces for an X-Men movie, but the cast is solid all around.  Returning for a seventh film in the role of Logan, aka Wolverine, is Hugh Jackman.  There is no question that Jackman knows the character; at this point, he is Logan, however similar that may or may not be to the comic book version.  Jackman brings a familiar sense of weariness and moral heaviness, but it is also very clear that he is at the breaking point here.  His acting conveys the passage of time - mainly, that it's been a long time since fighting with the X-men, but also simple aging - both through a more subdued yet mature demeanor as well as a still-impressive yet ravaged physique.  Patrick Stewart is equally affecting in his return as Professor Xavier.  He is even more clearly on the edge, portraying a physical suffering and exertion as he never has before in playing the wheelchair-bound leader of mutants.  Joining them is one final mutant, a young girl played by Dafne Keen.  She does not speak for most of the film, but still conveys a wild, sometimes frightening fierceness while also being a shy, very human child in need of a guiding figure.

Logan is a fairly thoughtful, though also brutal, superhero film that - there's no point in beating around the bush here - likely will serve as the final chapter for Hugh Jackman as the Wolverine.  The mood and look of the film is immediately more desolate than other X-Men films - from the desert environment to the jarring sight of Logan as a chauffeur.  For Logan, however - always the outsider on a team of outsiders - this is perfectly appropriate.  The fortunes of mutants, even as powerful as him and Xavier, have soured, not due to any apocalyptic events or enemies but rather simple time and the curse that their once world-saving abilities have become.  This allows the film to focus on a familiar choice for Logan, though this time with finality: to eke out the most dignified, quiet retirement he can from the world and all its troubles, or to put everything he has into a service greater than himself.  As he joins the fray again, and the film turns into essentially a chase scenario, the heaviness is relieved by an unexpected but touching detour into "normal" life that rewards both Logan and the audience.

Just as quickly, events turn more bleak and brutal than ever before, accentuating the urgency of Logan's mission.  The villains and their plot are not all that new and exciting, but that doesn't end up being a big problem.  The good guys - both familiar and new - are clearly more vulnerable this time around, and so their mission and very survival is the main source of tension.  This is made all the more gripping by the aforementioned brutality, which mainly serves not to shock (though that it does) but to illustrate the depths Logan must go to and the psychic damage all this must have done to him over the years.  After one last bloody, slicing-and-dicing battle, Logan gets the ending he deserves.  His sacrifice is not for those in his past, but for those - including the young girl mutant - who now have a future.

***

Logan is a very good superhero film by itself, but it also represents how franchises can be brought to a close in a satisfying and - hopefully - truly final way.  Made possible by the success of Deadpool, this film takes the license for an "R"-rated superhero film and uses it not gratuitously but to finish the theme and tone of the Wolverine character as it should be.  While the X-Men can be overshadowed at times by the more famous and popular comic pillars like Batman, Superman and the Avengers, Hugh Jackman's achievements in longevity and quality are arguably greater than any other.  Even as the faces and styles changed around him, Jackman's Wolverine was the anchor for the entire franchise - someone who could kick butt as well as any other hero, but also provide character depth and growth in the puzzle of his past as well as intriguing relationships (particularly with Professor X and Jean Gray) and his outlook on the world itself.  Bravo, Mr. Jackman, and thank you for creating such a great character to watch over the course of seven films.  If you, too, have seen the other X-Men films, Logan is a must-see.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50496657

Get Out

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Jordan Peele
Starring Daniel Kaluuya, Allison Williams, Bradley Whitford, et. al.
Running time: 103 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Get Out is Jordan Peele's first movie - not a comedy, but a horror.  Peele's insight and intellect clearly guides this film beyond typical genre material by using race, which accentuates the horror and vice versa.  Daniel Kaluuya gives a great performance as the intriguing surrogate, through whom we feel the chills and dread of race relations, mortal danger - and sometimes both at once.  Highly recommended.


A young couple in love, Chris (Kaluuya) and Rose (Williams) go to her family's home in the country for the weekend.  Before they leave, Chris discovers that Rose has not told her family that he is black, making him more nervous about meeting the family.  When they arrive, Chris feels a little more at ease; Rose's parents embarrass her and they seem to like Chris, even if they are a little naive.  There are also several black staff members who work at the house, although they are mysterious.  Soon Chris meets more of Rose's family, including her odd brother, and a whole gathering of older relatives at an annual get-together.  Despite suffering the type of slights and affronts that Chris is accustomed to, all seems relatively normal: except that the more time he spends with Rose's family, the more her family seems to be interested in him...

Get Out has a good cast that effectively transitions from ordinary drama to wacko horror stuff.  Leading the way is Daniel Kaluuya, who is fantastic.  This is a horror film, so there's not a lot of character development here, but he is a very effective and charismatic surrogate for the audience.  And I'm not talking only about the horror elements, but also the everyday drama.  Kaluuya shows how Chris patiently weathers some of the milder (often unintentional) racial moments, but the overall impact of Rose's family's behavior affects him in a variety of ways, both when he is with others and when is by himself.  And he does the horror elements just as well, particularly several scenes of extremely unsettling hypnotism.  The focus of the film is almost entirely on Chris, but others fill out supporting roles admirably.  Allison Williams is his steadfast defender as girlfriend Rose, though love for family does eventually pull her in different directions.  Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener are both perfectly believable parents as well as - I doubt this is too spoiler-y - creepy horror villains.

While Get Out follows many horror genre conventions, it stands out for being driven by - and effectively illustrating - race relations, both everyday and more broadly.  Like many horror movies, it starts "normal", just a few young people taking an average trip; with the exception of some eerie, lingering shots and foreboding music.  And by the end of the film, little mystery remains while a considerable amount of blood has been shed.  Both the early and the later parts do their jobs well without being too terrifying (thankfully, IMO).  The film also has some good humor in it, particularly with Chris's friend Rod, a TSA agent (usually participating on his phone), although there isn't as much as I would have expected in a work from Jordan Peele - he of Key and Peele.

The formula stuff is fine and entertaining, but the social commentary is truly interesting and well done.  It's a simple idea, yet gets at some complex, nuanced realities.  A young black man is meeting his white girlfriend's family for the first time, and they are a regular, modern - even liberal - group.  Thus, Get Out uses its early scenes not just for horror build-up, but actually more to illustrate common interracial interactions.  Chris withstands everything from overcompensating niceties, to blatant, ignorant remarks from older family members that set his - and the audience's - teeth on edge. And Chris himself is observer, too, as he looks on the subtly yet significantly different ways that the family treats their black staff than they do him.  The racial component builds in parallel with the horror, and you get a sick feeling as you think you know what's going on but don't want to believe it.  Sure enough, the master plot behind it all is a disturbing allegory for race and society.  All is not lost, though:  for a horror movie, it has a pretty good, "happy" ending.

***

I had not even heard of Get Out until just before its release, and then I quickly dismissed it since it is a horror movie.  However, great reviews came in (99% on RT!!!), and I learned more about it - the social commentary and Peele's involvement.  The horror genre is still one I'm going to stay away from most of the time, but I'm definitely glad I saw this one.  Daniel Kaluuya is so fun to watch here, and thus makes all the social commentary more meaningful but not the least bit preachy.  So even if you're not a fan of the genre, I'd give this a try - though I recommend seeing this either in a packed theater or at least with a group of friends to get the most out of it.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53245463

The Lego Batman Movie

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B)

Directed by Chris McKay
Starring Will Arnett, Michael Cera, Rosario Dawson, Zach Galifianakis, et. al.
Running time: 104 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  The Lego Batman Movie is the follow-up to 2014's smash hit The Lego Movie.  This time we move into the superhero world - and meet nearly all his friends and enemies along the way.  Lego Batman is very similar in style and structure to The Lego Movie but is a far cry from that gem. Still, it's a worthwhile, entertaining option for most - especially families with young children - whether seen in the theater or later at home.


Gotham City is home to an infestation of criminals, but luckily it also has Batman (Arnett).  When the Joker (Galifianakis) hatches a plot to destroy the city, helped by a team of fellow do-badders, the Dark Knight is there once again to stop him - in style.  Unable to capture his foe, Batman still delivers him a devastating wound when he tells the Joker that he holds no special place among the gallery of Gotham's criminals.  The caped crusader returns to his impressive home, attended only by Alfred (Fiennes), and seems to enjoy a quiet break of solitude.  He returns to the city, as Bruce Wayne, to attend the retirement ceremony of Commissioner Gordon.  There he meets a young man named Dick (Cera), who in his awe for Wayne soon becomes attached.  The two listen as Barbara, the commissioner's daughter, announces that the police plan to start fighting crime without Batman.  The plan soon comes to fruition: the Joker launches another attack and this time Batman puts him and his partners away for good.  As Batman grapples with his sudden obsolescence, an evil plot is underway that may require not just his return to action, but an entirely new method of fighting crime.

The Lego Batman Movie has a very fine voice cast, although it doesn't quite take full advantage of its wealth of talent.  Will Arnett reprises his role as Batman from The Lego Movie, this time taking the spotlight.  He does a fine job, taking on the deep, gravelly style made famous by Christian Bale; although since it is much more heavily used here, it does get a bit tiring as the film goes on.  The focus of the Batman character is on his independence and narcissism, which is particularly effective (and humorous) early on.  Joining Batman is the team of Dick Grayson/Robin (Cera), Barbara Gordon/Batgirl (Dawson) and Alfred the butler (Ralph Fiennes).  These actors were all well-chosen, their voices strongly reflecting their personalities.  Robin is the young, exuberant (almost puppy-ish) sidekick; Batgirl is a tough, skeptical feminist; and Alfred is the refined mentor.  Last among the main characters is Zach Galifianakis' Joker.  Zach has quite a range of vocal styles, and here he uses a much gentler tone (though still smirking) than recent iterations (Ledger, Leto).  There is also, as in The Lego Movie, an impressive cast of cameos but few stand out much in my opinion; the lone exception is perhaps Eddie Izzard's Voldemort.

The Lego Batman Movie is a finely produced film that follows a formula similar to its predecessor The Lego Movie, but falls well short of that masterpiece in almost every way.  By far the strongest part of the film is the first act; we are treated to a flashy action piece to re-introduce Batman, and it's about as good as those from The Lego Movie.  Following this is an extended look at Batman once he's done for the day, and it does an excellent job of fleshing out his character flaws and is quite funny.  It's downhill from there, though.  I think ultimately this is a result of the approach itself: if you've seen The Lego Movie, you're already familiar with the structure and style, and then the characters - how many incarnations of Batman have you seen? - are plenty familiar, too.  There simply isn't enough here that is fresh or at least done with exceedingly high quality.  It is entertaining throughout, though, and the pace doesn't drag (it might be a little too stuffed, actually).  There is consistent humor as well, mostly from its satire of Batman, but it became less and less effective for me because the characters themselves aren't as funny.  Finally, the film has its own pop anthem, like The Lego Movie's "Everything Is Awesome"; this one, called "Friends Are Family", is also catchy but - sense a pattern here? - just not as good as its predecessor.

***

The Lego Batman Movie is an entertaining and well-made family film, but I had higher expectations for this follow-up to The Lego Movie.  I think it's likely, in fact, that your familiarity with The Lego Movie, and also the Batman franchise to a lesser extent, will determine your enjoyment of this one.  If you haven't seen The Lego Movie, this will probably seem much more fresh and interesting; but if you have seen it, be prepared for much of the same (just not nearly as good).  I'd also add that The Lego Movie has a level of maturity equivalent to that of Pixar films (therefore similarly interesting to adults), whereas The Lego Batman Movie is more like a typical Dreamworks production that is better suited for a younger audience.  This is a fun movie that can appeal to a broad audience, but you may want to take your experience (or lack thereof) with The Lego Movie into account when deciding to see it in the theater or waiting for it to come to Netflix.




By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49903959