The Shallows is a movie that upon reflection of its first hour is flawless, and in the last twenty-six minutes only seems to slightly lose enjoyment by virtue of contrivance. It’s the type of excellent little action thriller that actually thrills and scares, but also doesn’t overstay its welcome. If you’ve seen the trailer of The Shallows you’ll know that it mainly focusses on Blake Lively as a med student who gets caught on a rock outcropping a few hundred yards from shore after being bitten by a shark. It’s short, concise, and incredibly well-conceived stuff. From that you’ll probably guess that Lively is well cast, and she as a personality is truly perfect for this type of movie. I will give credence to how she is blatantly objectified near the beginning of the film aka slow motion camera gliding along her body, but it’s almost a big middle finger to the audience in that way. Let me explain. The true greatness of The Shallows is how the film uses the cultural significance of presenting such a familiar situation, shot verbatim to how shark movies are shot while infusing it with a Sucker Punch level of subversion. The fact is the objectifying of Mrs. Lively might have actually had a purpose in calling out how violence is so often placed so close to sexuality. This has become a huge problem in modern society as the growing violence of sexuality on the internet has become more and more acceptable. The film even hangs a marker on such sexuality by having Mrs. Lively wear a black jacket over herself most of the time, and not reveal the elements of sexuality too much. When she finally does so it’s to help stitch herself up, therefore, revealing a strength in such sexuality. But that’s not the subversion that I am talking about The combination of sexuality and violence usually comes with the idea that the women is being made to submit. The fact that the film will draw a certain audience in like that and then watch as Lively ultimately drags herself out of such a position to take control is wonderfully sly, and the very 90’s action movie way of going about killing the shark only prompts the screaming of “Awesome.” The film’s only flaw only comes in the fact that the more it contrives ways for Lively to escape the shark, the more tired the movie seems to get. That doesn’t mean such contrivances aren’t interesting. At one point the camera shows the shark swimming through water that reflects purple and blue only. I immediately noticed that it must be laced with oil, but this had come almost out of nowhere. I won’t spoil the oil's use because that is actually an awesome plot point of the movie, but the oil showing up with no explanation prompts how the movie is actually making a slight bit of commentary, almost getting up in the face of everyone in the audience and screaming, “You don’t think there’s oil in the water? Well, there is. A lot of it. Your argument for our movie being contrived is invalid.” That might be a little far fetched but it serves the purpose of making the audience think in the middle of a shark movie. The Shallows is a nerve-wracking ride even if you don’t catch onto the layers under its surface (ha ha). This may turn out to be one of the better thrillers of the year. 9 out of 10
0 Comments
I’m starting to get the sense that all the Pixar movies are made the same way (barring Cars 2) and that the best one can only be determined by whether or not you enjoy the subject at hand. Some people like Monsters Inc. the most because of the interesting caretaker and global warming stuff that it’s talking about. Other’s might be preferential to The Incredibles because of its superhero trappings. I personally think Up is a perfect creation in the filmmaking landscape but that’s mainly because I’m tailored toward the idea of the pulpy action that dominated the filmmaking landscape of the serial. However, all of these movies seem to share a common ground. They all share the ability to drape a childish sensibility over otherwise mature themes, and Pixar’s done it for years. Minus the forgettable roller coaster ride that was Cars 2, all of their films have an aspect of that in there. That’s where the ideas of taste come in, though. The formula is so familiar by now that it’s harder and harder to drag catharsis out of their films, and with some of them if the interest isn’t in the subject the formula almost lies bare ( I mean why do people just ignore A Bug’s Life sometimes). Now, that doesn’t mean that any of the films are bad, just that they are similar in structure enough that a person could pick specifically what they wanted and stick to it. Most people just like every version here and Pixar often makes the films beautiful enough to sustain attention even if the subject isn't there. I like fish. Not enough to make a living out of it, but I like the idea of the danger that could reach a person in the unknown ocean, and that makes the idea of a completely underwater adventure fascinating. Finding Dory may use the same structure of dark themes hidden in a kids movie, but it’s one that takes place in the ocean so personally it's already exciting. Just as in its predecessor, Pixar has created a beautiful and serene world that holds a lot of danger for the stories little heroes. Speaking of the story, Finding Dory has Dory (Ellen Degeneres) trying to find her long-lost parents, but it extends into much further territory than that. The overall plot structure is very similar to Nemo, but that doesn’t end up mattering. The fact that we got to revisit such beautiful vistas, and enjoy some new ones is enough. The turns the story takes, much like other Pixar films also prove to be devastating, but there could have been more focus. During the climax, the film seems to just be throwing whatever it can out there just to make sure the characters end up ok like the animators decided the absolutely gut-wrenching “all is lost moment” of the film and then made up the third act on the fly to fix it. That said it’s still so interesting to watch the world that Pixar has created unfold. The new characters that have begun to populate them are as usual extremely well animated and have enough characterization that they start to feel connected to Dory, Marlin, and Nemo. A new character, a Septopus (watch the movie to figure that out) played by Ed O'Neill is a surprisingly deep character, and a snooty beluga voiced by Ty Burrell is hysterical. If anything Pixar has not failed to create some very personable characters. Pixar’s been using its formula for so long that it sometimes lacks the bite that it used to, but Finding Dory feels almost none of this tiresome feel. This is a sad, funny, and beautiful little movie. That said that may have to do with me liking fish. Finding Dory gets a 9 out of 10 . The ideas behind Warcraft are so great, and the people behind the project are so talented that the fact that it’s not a good movie is enough to tire one of the entire prospect of a blockbuster. It’s the type of film that displays the ever slightest bit of promise, and then without mercy slowly allows all of it to drip away allowing the audience to slowly grow with dread. Warcraft is a truly incredible torture display. In its beginning moments, Warcraft is fascinating. The darker, more creepy tone that is displayed is classic dark fantasy and seems a perfect fit for Duncan Jones. This is almost a delicious tone. The fact that the images on the screen are both inspired and interesting makes this glimmer even more promising. Durotan (Toby Kebbell) and his fellow orcs are marvelous creatures of motion capture wizardry. It’s not as good as the work in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but they’re so wonderfully expressive that the film draws you in. For the record for as bad as the review is about to get from here the direction of Duncan Jones, while being horribly misguided, never drops into the realm of bad. His action especially is startlingly hard hitting for PG-13 films, at the least in smaller scale intimate moments. The following sections of Warcraft feel like it’s excruciatingly bleeding out all the promise that it originally held. The moment when it starts is almost subtle, almost to the point that you miss it. As you move into the ending of the first act the dialogue doesn’t change from setup and continues that way forever. Characters aren’t characters, and the inert nature of this grinds the fantasy adventure to such a halt for so long that by the ending you’ll be begging for the final act to be just skipped. The story is the next similarity to the aforementioned Apes movie in that Warcraft steals the powerful, “You May Be the Leader, but Your Followers Want to Fight Turning this Into an Unstoppable Tragedy,” conceit of that entire movie. It can’t even orchestrate it correctly, though. By the end of the film instead of being saddened by the emotional bonds that the characters shared being ripped apart for unstoppable, but trivial reasons, I was saddened by the draining of anything that could have made Warcraft meaningful and bearable. The dark tone had soured, and soon after realizing that it had nothing else to offer the film started to rely on extremely unsubtle pop iconography that overshadows the power that scenes may have held. The hate that has descended on the actors is deserved, but these are incredible actors given material that does not suit them so I will not break them down too much. Their engagement level is different across the board with some like Travis Fimmel doing his best, and others like Paula Patton not trying to do anything special. Fimmel is a great actor (in fact I saw him in a very nuanced performance this same weekend) but even the best of performance drowns in this film. Warcraft is the type of film that takes everything out of the person watching it. At almost every turn it’s excruciating in a dangerous way. So inept that I thought two characters were hooking up only to be reminded soon after the film that they were brother and sister by another viewer. To explain such a thing proves only scattershot, and dumbfounded. I implore you to go see something else. The Lobster is weird and cruel, but it’s awesome, and Maggie’s Plan is really funny. Don’t see this. Warcraft gets a 2 out of 10 . The first Now You See Me was a dull, and preposterous affair that felt like an adult telling you and your friends that you couldn’t have fun. Here’s a movie about a group of people that use “magic tricks” to rob banks while laughing at the authorities for it. That sounds awesome. The problem? The movie doesn’t work if it’s missing a few pieces. The characters were likable enough, but it almost seemed like it was all being played too straight, killing whatever energy that the film might have otherwise had. Now You See Me 2 is much more preposterous than the first one, but it has the good sense to build in a mechanic to make sure that all of it is fun. The great idea? Add an actual audience POV character. The whole point of the first Now You See Me’s characters was that they were continuously ahead of the audience in everything that happened. Sure, that could cause us to marvel at their achievements, but it also introduces the problem of sympathy. We as an audience are always looking up at the characters, but never really emotionally connect with them so the engagement factor of the film drops substantially. Sure, it does cover up the stupidity of the events of that movie by shielding us from them, but it’s boring no matter how much tension that film tried to drudge up. Most of the characters in Now You See Me 2 act the same way, but one doesn’t. Lizzy Caplan's new Lula character is from frame one the antivirus to that problem. She’s over the top and weird in a way that most female characters are not allowed to be, she calls out just how incredibly stupid all of this is and acts as the almost capable but incapable person that maybe one of the audience members might be on the team. That’s at least a tangible connection which allows us to sit back and actually buy into the nonsense. That all said it is still all nonsense. The story picks up with the Horsemen living in hiding, then being exposed, and then having to deal with the punches as they come. The whole story seems tailored to bring us to each new let’s use “magic” to be awesome moment, and then promptly gets going to the next. The whole thing’s moving so quickly that it almost forgets to give us the moment of betrayal that a villain would theoretically need to create to give substance and emotion to the entire last act of the movie. It only barely explains the motivations of such villain, and that’s surprising seeing how this movie seems to only be about explaining the magic tricks that we are gawking at. It makes one wonder what this series would look like if the perspective were shifted more towards the almost now pointless cops watching in awe, like the rest of us, four master criminals use traditional magic tricks to avert them. There might be real magic in that. But that’s a discussion for another time. Look at the movie you have, not the one you want. Now You See Me 2 is much more fun than the first and prompts much more audience engagement. That seemed to be the goal, and they’ve at least succeeded at that. I give Now You See Me 2 a 6 out of 10 . 10. Louder Than Bombs: This might be the most potent film (Other than The Lobster) of the year. It's the tone that keeps this one together as the thin veneer of goodness that the central family has to offer is ripped apart, but the actors are so great that the effect can't help but bombard you with emotion. 9. Captain America: Civil War: The Russo Brothers and Marvel studios made a great film with The Winter Soldier, but almost rose above the occasion for Civil War. The full scope of the Marvel Universe is now laid bare, and it's only going to get better from here. 8. Hail, Caesar: This is a movie that has grown on me over time. It's so focussed on the somewhat thin characters that might be fuller to the directors that brought them to the screen, that it has less of an impact than it might have. That said it's hilarious and the new Han Solo, Alden Ehrenreich was excellent. 7. 10 Cloverfield Lane: Dan Trachtenberg has excellently directed a fresh little suspense picture that rises above the occasion with excellent twists, and insert shots. 6. Green Room: The use of gory violence to bolster themes and catharsis is truly Jeremy Saulnier's true calling. It lacked some of the bites of Blue Ruin, but even toned down Saulnier is better than any of the competition. 5. Love and Friendship: Whitt Stillman's Love and Friendship is resoundingly tickling. It's not crass, but it slowly and intricately builds its punchlines. A joke streched out over an entire conversation can sometimes create more suspense than a ticking time bomb. 4. The Witch: This movie was made for $1 million, and actually scared me. I often walk out of horror films in a state of disappointment because I wanted something thrilling and exciting, but all I got was a fine drama that had screaming things in it. The Witch terrified me. 3. The Nice Guys: Contrary to what people might think my opinion of Shane Black has only gotten better with time. He started with the pretty good Lethal Weapon, then made the jumbled but still good Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, then went on to make the best character piece of the Marvel Universe, and now has returned to the buddy cop genre with The Nice Guys. This is a vibrant, and enlivening film sporting great performances from its leads. 2. The Lobster: No film affected me quite like The Lobster, and that's because it understood the loneliness that comes in rigid structures of love. This juxtaposed with the actual rigid, repeating structure that the film had to offer made a tight, great film of endless cruelty but also catharsis. 1. Everybody Wants Some: Lots of movies on this list are dark affairs that sit in your stomach and make you wonder how messed up life will be. Everybody Wants Some creates the opposite effect. It fires up with all it's passion to find what good can come out of life, and how these moments will define us. Everybody wants some happiness, exuberant joy, and they're all going to fight for it by being as positive as possible. The hedonistic surface of the film is enough to give anyone a contact high, but it's the depths of it's longing that pushes it into being the best film of the year so far. I was perfectly ready to go into Me Before You and burn it to the ground for being trite, sentimental, and at worst a romantic comedy. Not that I have anything against romantic comedies (When Harry Met Sally is a masterpiece), but from the trailer and poster Me Before You looked like it was going to be that cutesy tearjerker, cute font and all, that I was not looking forward too. The snob glasses were on, and then about 30 minutes in the movie called me out on that, and persisted to kick them off and then make me play a game of chicken with myself on whether or not I would actually cry with my girlfriend at the events. That does not mean the this is a great or even good movie. Me Before You is the type of film that dangles at the facet of just likable enough, but also just corny and disposable enough. The likeableness isn’t even the thing that pushes it into the ballpark of high mediocre. The mechanics and performances do that. See, the dialogue here being so cutesy really robs the movie of any sense of tension, but Me Before You is on a serious time limit. It follows Emilia Clarke as Louisa, the caretaker of one Will Trainer, a womanizer who after an accident was made a quadriplegic. If you’ve already guessed that Louisa’s plucky nature is going to start to change Will, and make him start to appreciate life than enjoy that small reward as the film’s story is much more ambitious than just that base. See, Will is in six months going to travel to Switzerland, and end his life, leading to Louisa take all the pluckiness she has and convince him that the world is not so bad. Ok, so there’s a time limit built in so what? Well, that leads to the film’s biggest problem. As likable as the movie is and as good as Clarke is (I’ll get to that in a sec) the time that Emilia spends trying to cheer Will up feels almost like dead air waiting to gain a point. Soon, the chemistry of the two leads takes over and allows this to become serviceable, but weightless wish fulfillment, but that’s all it is. SPOILERS, though, this is all finally given weight when the fact that all was for not and Will still actually wants to die no matter what is revealed. Controversy aside it’s a sly twist to get the audience in a calm and breezy mood and then bring the anvil of reality down on their heads. I was most likely the only dry eye in the theater, and that was only barely. That dead air section of the movie though isn’t intolerable. Emilia Clarke is a truly expressive actress, and the way she uses her face to act is surprising in the age of stoic main characters. Clarke is endlessly cheery and innocent making her extremely loveable. The thematic throughline of the movie almost gets flipped as Will (Sam Claflin also a charm) starts to take the activities that Louisa initially planned to cheer him up, and use them to both distract her and become humbled at his own ability to make her happy and Claflin’s sly note working with Clarke's overbearing joy only serves to blindside the audience more. These two things help to keep Me Before You keep itself above the Nicholas Sparks crowd, but it’s all only covering up the emptiness just better than those movies. Me Before You gets a 6 out of 10. SERIOUS SPOILERS, BUT THEY ARE NECESSARY IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE FILM. THIS IS MORE AN ANALYTICAL ARTICLE/REVIEW. Love in all it’s treacherous trickery. How can one determine if it’s real or not? That is to put it simply the whole entire point of The Lobster. Its overarching goals are almost completely described by a scene in which a man is asked to shoot his wife. He finds no other option seeing how the rules of the threateners dictate that he cannot love. Eventually, he does pull the trigger. His sector of society forced his love, and that was the only thing doing so. This may sound difficult, but let me explain. The “normal” society is based on the idea that having a partner will make everything better; forcing people over a certain age to stay in a hotel over the course of forty-five days to find a partner. Once time is up the person is turned into an animal. A society of loaners lives in the woods and forces its members to stay away from anything resembling love. Human nature is caught in between. The hilarity of The Lobster comes in both a sense of overwhelming joy and the absurdity that both sides of love have to offer. The hotel at first seems funny, and even as the horrors of the limitations placed on guests and the fear of being turned into an animal onsets the absolute craziness of the situation only serves to be hilarious. Until it’s not. The purpose of a story built in a society different than our own comes from the way characters interact with it, and how that makes us feel. The Lobster’s purpose seems grounded in making us feel exactly the way the characters feel in the world that they inhabit, forever stuck between two ideals that they cannot choose. Truthfully that’s just not the way the world seems to work. The structure of the film is completely based on these described emotions. That’s where the aforementioned overwhelming joy comes from. There are only three characters in The Lobster that ever feel love, and only one of them is a lead. The first is a woman with blonde hair at the hotel. She’s always next to an auburn haired girl who eventually finds a partner (Ben Wishaw is excellent as him), and in the narration that plagues the first act of the film is immediately tied to her. It makes one wonder whether or not these two feel something for each other. When the auburn girl is described she’s always attached to the idea of “who was here with her best friend.” Later, the auburn girl reads a letter to the blonde haired woman on the blonde woman’s last day before conversion into an animal. The letter is lush and intimate, bringing the emotions that the audience has been feeling for the two to the surface of the film. It allows you to stare into the eyes of real love, and experience the untapped joy in it...but the film ends it. The blonde woman grows upset and slaps her friend. She stares at her with cold eyes as she realizes that the love she feels for her is only going to be brought down by the society around them. The blonde haired woman’s story only accentuates the way the film gets us into the mind space of the characters. The disappointment you feel in the deflation of the scene….the frustration. This is how the characters of this society feel every day. They feel in constant suspense of their emotions getting the better of them and the societal implications that could have. Many of the scenarios the film has to offer play this way. First a setup, then an overwhelming sense of joy or relief and then the dashing of that against the rocks. Catharsis through frustration, and suspense ever building. This is a film that believes real love exists, but it also believes that the society can corrupt us into false loves, or lead us away from it. Love in all it’s treacherous trickery. How does one determine if it is real or not? The film stars Colin Farrell in a beautiful character role that he inhabits scarily well. Farrell’s last great role was In Bruges, so it’s a treat to see him back in a role that allows him to flex the true acting chops he has. The same goes for Rachel Weisz, as she seems to have dropped into lesser fare since her Oscar-winning performance in The Constant Gardener. The world mechanics are sold on the performances, and each actor helps create the feeling of frustration and desperation. The camerawork and direction do this as well. The film is all into pushing its emotion, even to the point of employing traditionally bad cinematography techniques to manipulate the audience. As a reader you might be wonder what in the hell all of that above means? I hope to leave you with the thought that it was at least interesting though. That way you’ll go see the movie. I give The Lobster a 9 out of 10. The first third of X-Men: Apocalypse is a triumph of X-Men filmmaking. Sure, it’s not perfect, but it’s strikes the balance that First Class did so well between very zany comic book ephemera and real world humor and an understanding of what drove its characters. The last two thirds of X-Men: Apocalypse are empty vessels of CG action and character beats that either don’t make sense or don’t hold any significance. Clearly, there seems to be two movies in here: one barren and cold, and another exhilarating and full blooded. Too bad the former won. So, before we get to the slap around session that this review will ultimately devolve into, let’s discuss that first third. X-Men: Apocalypse, in its first third, manages to be better than almost any of the other films. The reason? Because it simply embraces the dominant format for an X-Men film and manages to be humourous and engaging in a way Days of Future Past didn’t even manage to be. The X-Men have always felt like they belonged on a television show, and the masterpieces that were X-Men: The Animated Series Seasons 1-4 and X-Men: Evolution are there to prove it. The serialized version of these characters helps create a balanced tone coming out of the big civil rights allegory, but also helps transcend it by creating the feeling of a rich world that exists in the aftermath of such issues. Days of Future Past has world changing events that took place in it for these characters, and the lived in results create the rich world that inhabits the beginning of X-Men: Apocalypse. It’s also not too blunt about the existing prejudices against the mutants, allowing them to be more organically blended into the background. Sure, this could just be shallowness at work, but the way it came off was like a more subtle version of the “mutant hate” themes of the first film. Not to say that there isn’t “mutant hate” stuff in here (the fight between Angel and NIghtcrawler is a very unsubtle example of that), but a lighter tone keeps this from all bogging down this third of the movie. This also contains Cyclops’s origin scene and that’s just Sam Raimi Spider-Man types of awesome. The opening action sequence is the craziest this series has dared to get, but it balances that out with a more brutal and horror-like sensibility, balancing the ridiculousness of the action with hard hitting violence. MIchael Fassbender has a tired (but in a good way) sense to him as Magneto in these opening moments, and he actually gets a chance to act for the last time in this movie. You know what? Other than the tonally awkward sections that actually seem to add to the aesthetic here, the first third of this movie is actually very good. The new X-Men as kiddos are compelling in a Freeform TV show type of way, and the other actors seem to be happy to be back and playing everything like old pros. Even Oscar Isaac seems to show some crazy and corny promise as Apocalypse. Soon though, everything they build falls. Soon, the balanced act falls apart, and X-Men: Apocalypse becomes Gods of Egypt combined with writer Simon Kinberg’s Fant4stic. I’m the most lenient critic in the world, and I still gave those movies .5’s out of 10. Combining them does not make a better movie; it just pisses all over everything that was built up well. So, as promised, here is the smackdown of X-Men: Apocalypse’s final two thirds. All the characters that were previously interesting cease to exist as entities. Magneto becomes a mindless goon, along with Angel, Psylocke, and Storm (none of whom were really given personalities to begin with). Now, yes, the argument could be made that the few of them were mindless Horsemen of the Apocalypse (aka the bad guy's henchmen), but that all breaks down on first glance. If they truly were characters, they would have an actual purpose in the story. These characters only serve as bosses in the tiresome-looking ending. The ending, by the way, is tiresome, and when one considers the effects used to bring it to life, the parallel to Gods of Egypt becomes even more clear. The garish computer effects (especially on a cargo boat) make the film completely intangible, almost to the point that the characters become action figures in their own movie. For all the modern blockbusters that beat the critics over the head, I never usually find that sympathy. Blockbusters are loud, but the good ones can just cover it up with interesting action and colorful visuals. X-Men: Apocalypse is not that blockbuster. Again, I’d use the words “garish visuals” allows the overall tone to skew for the ugly, including the loud booming of the explosions and powers. Olivia Munn, after the greatness of The Newsroom, is stuck moving around like a CGI character even when she’s in live-action. Fassbender gets the worst part of it all, as he just stands around for a lot of the time. When the team actually does team up, Fassbender’s actions become completely irrelevant, and as a character, he takes a step back. Also, notice how the Fantastic 4 kill Doctor Doom in Fant4stic. They all just punch him at the same time, and seeing how Kinberg can’t think of anything better to do when his heroes need to beat down a villain the heroes do the same here. Director Bryan Singer doesn’t do anything flashy, which on one hand helps create the TV aesthetic, but on the other hand makes the tone really flat and untextured. Yes, these are all the nitpicks that could be pointed out about the ending of this movie, but it’s thematically empty, so there’s nothing else to do than nitpick. The unfortunate bottom line is that after a downright classic (X-Men: First Class), and another pretty good movie (Days of Future Past), X-Men: Apocalypse has taken the bar down low. If this seemed like a positive review, it’s because the positive stuff was more digestible than the negative. I give X-Men: Apocalypse a 4.5 out of 10 (only a third of the movie is good, so statistically that’s actually a leg up for the movie). |
Archive
December 2017
CategoriesAuthorHello welcome to FilmAnalyst. My name is Stephen Tronicek, and I really like movies. This is a way to get my opinions out to people. Thank you for visiting. |