"Moana" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

             Moana (Auli'i Cravalho) is the daughter of Chief Tui Waialiki (Temuera Morrison) of the Island Motunui.   Like every other citizen on the island, she has a job.  For Moana, this job is to stay on the island and rule the people there.  However, as is evident from the very first scene in Disney’s new animation adventure “Moana”, this girl is destined for the sea.  Set in a mythic Polynesian land, “Moana” is the story of this daring girl.  A succession of introductory scenes and catchy songs set the stage for the film.  In years past, a shape-shifting demigod by the name of Maui (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson) had the nerve to steal the life-giving heart of the Goddess Te Fiti.  Maui’s rash decision awakened various mystical beasts across the islands and below the sea, not to mention sapping the goddess of her life-giving power and unleashing a destructive force across the entire land.  This destructive force has suddenly reached Moana’s home of Motunui, where they have run out of fish and vegetation has started to crumble.  To save her island Moana is tasked by the Ocean itself to find Maui, and deliver him across the ocean to return the heart of Te Fiti.

My favorite scene in “Moana” is unequivocally her discovery of Maui.  After washing up on a tiny dessert island, Moana is quickly introduced to the loud, egotistical, yet ultimately charming Maui.  He emerges dressed only in a leafy skirt, tattooed from the neck down with a head of hair that would make Troy Polamalu proud.  While Moana tries to explain her quest to the mystical demigod, he ignores her and breaks into song, “Okay, okay. I see what’s happening, yeah. You’re face to face with greatness and it’s strange…  I know it’s a lot, the hair, the bod! When you’re staring at a demigod. What can I say except, you’re welcome!”  Maui goes on and on about how great he is and all of the prizes he won for humanity, like the breeze and coconuts and fire and various other natural phenomena.  As he sings, a “mini-Maui” tattoo dances all around his body, each piece of artwork depicting a great accomplishment.  This scene, among others, is so full of color and energy it’s impossible to turn away.

Aside from the quality music and plot we have come to expect from Disney animation, “Moana” features a powerful female lead voiced by Auli'i Cravalho.  The quest that Moana undertakes is one of great danger, and there are several points where she encounters the kind adversity most animation films would shy away from.  Throughout the film she overcomes obstacles through unconventional intellect, wit, and fearlessness.  As a kid, I had the joy of watching a lot of male heroes like Hogarth in “The Iron Giant” and Buzz and Woody in “Toy Story”, amongst many others.  Not that those films don’t inspire all children, but it is special to have heroes you can relate to on a base level just as a boy or a girl.  Moana joins a growing lineup of dynamic animated female leads that have emerged in theaters over the past few years.

In a not-too-short, not-too-long 107 minutes Moana and Maui are led on a thrilling journey that involves run-ins with monsters, moments of self-doubt, and plenty of music.  The imagery throughout the film is crisp, beautiful, and infused with Polynesian folklore.  By all means, “Moana” is a breezy oceanic voyage that should fill the sails of anyone in need of a lift this winter season. 

"Manchester by the Sea" Review

OP-ROB RATING: LEGEND

          “Manchester by the Sea” is a film directed by Kenneth Lonergan starring Casey Affleck as Lee, a Boston janitor who spends his days serving rude apartment tenants and getting into bar fights.  Lee is suddenly yanked out of his normal life when his brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) dies of heart failure, leaving behind a teenage son named Patrick (Lucas Hedges) and several other assets including a house and a fishing boat.  The subsequent burial, allocation of the will, and funeral require Lee to temporarily relocate an hour away from Boston to Manchester by the Sea, Massachusetts where his brother lived.  Lee himself once lived in Manchester by the Sea, but made a mistake one night that resulted in a horrific personal loss.  Throughout the film, Lee finds himself caught between his responsibility for Patrick and his desire return to his secluded life outside of Boston.

           Most of us know what it feels like to have bad memories connected to a physical location.  Most of us know what it feels like to lose something invaluable in our lives.  Granted, the tragedy that haunts Lee is probably far more dreadful than anyone in the theater can relate to.  But it is his despair that makes the story so compelling.  Because despair is always deeply, impossibly personal.  However, Lonergan manages to build a story that reveals despair with refreshing clarity.  Earlier this year I reviewed a film called “Demolition” that sought to explore this very same human affliction.  While “Demolition” made a grand effort, it ultimately failed because of a muddled plot that overextended itself.  “Manchester by the Sea” avoids this pitfall.  Furthermore, Casey Affleck turns in a fantastic performance that will likely land him an armful of awards this winter.  Few actors have portrayed such an authentically unsettled man.

          In addition to Affleck’s performance the simply told story in “Manchester by the Sea” is refreshingly original.  In many films audiences are presented with a character that has experienced a great tragedy, whether it be Sean Thornton (John Wayne) in “The Quiet Man” or Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) in “The Shawshank Redemption”.  These characters almost always find a path out of the darkness that haunts them.  “Manchester By the Sea” presents a similarly challenged main character in Lee, yet his experience with loss proves much different.  At many points during the film Lee is presented with opportunities for redemption, often arriving in the form of typical drama movie tropes.  However, instead of taking the bait, Lee constantly defies the viewer’s expectations.

          Another facet of the film that is worth noting is the beautiful cinematography throughout.  The wide shots of the open Atlantic coupled with the distinctly New England architecture are particularly compelling.  Throughout the film Lonergan manages to keep the viewer in perspective.  The beauty of the film always bolsters the plot and never dominates it.  The brisk shots of the New England winter are nicely paired with the hardy attitude of the blue-collar characters.  “Manchester by the Sea” is very well done yet never condescending in its excellence. 

          Ultimately some viewers might be disappointed with “Manchester by the Sea” because of its rather cold ending.  There is a scene near the end of the film in which Lee tells Patrick, “I can’t beat it”.  While there is something comforting about films that wrap everything up, there is also something unrealistic about them.  In life, some wounds never heal, and “Manchester by the Sea” reflects this reality in beautifully effective fashion.

"Don't Breathe" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

“Don’t Breathe” is a horror film directed by Fede Alvarez about three young thieves, specializing in house robberies in the Detroit area.  In an opening scene the trio breaks into a nice residential home to steal electronics and jewelry and each burglar is quickly introduced.  Rocky (Jane Levy), a slender girl with blonde hair, is focused on making enough money to flee her abusive mother in order to start a new life in California. Money (Daniel Zovatto) is a reckless loudmouth and a wannabe gangster, who displays little respect for professionalism during the robbery. Finally there is Alex (Dylan Minnette), who reluctantly steals information from his father’s security business in order to rob the houses.  Alex is seemingly responsible and appears to be robbing the houses mostly to win over Rocky, who has placed him in the “friend-zone”, opting for the more rambunctious Money.

After the robbery yields underwhelming returns, Money seeks out a job involving an old man (Stephen Lang) that is rumored to be sitting on a large cash sum in his run-down, two-story suburban house outside of Detroit.  The old man came into the money after a girl from a wealthy family killed his only daughter in a motor accident that resulted in a six-figure settlement.  Money proposes the robbery to Rocky and Alex, and after some deliberation, they decide to take on the challenge as “one last job”.  A successful robbery would mean Rocky could achieve her dream of moving to California. During the recon mission to the old man’s ghostly neighborhood, the group discovers the old man is blind, further strengthening their confidence in the job.  Late that night, Money, Rocky and Alex approach the house and manage to break in through an upstairs window.  A series of twists and turns ensue as the group discovers the man, the house, and the situation are far beyond their expectations.

“Don’t Breathe” thrives under excellent direction from Alvarez. A very distinctive film technique gives “Don’t Breathe” an edge with the pop-outs as with many scenes the camera moves through an entire room, giving the viewer a full view of the situation, before finally settling in on a character.  This heightened awareness of space and location gives the audience a sense of placement within the movie. The vast majority of the film takes place inside the Blind Man’s house, and feels like a prolonged cat and mouse hunt for survival, reminiscent of the final sequence in the classic horror film “The Silence of the Lambs”. 

Perhaps the greatest compliment that can be given “Don’t Breathe” is that it is just plain smart.  The plot is clean-cut, and Alvarez doesn’t mess around with extra scenes that don’t add up to the story.  An example of this focused direction is how objects are emphasized early in the story and become relevant later on.  When Rocky initially breaks into the house, a piece of broken glass sticks to her boot, and is dislodged in the middle of the upstairs hallway.  When the Blind Man awakens and searches for the burglars’ point of entry, he stumbles upon the piece of glass, which leads him into the bathroom where he subsequently boards up the broken window with a piece of plywood.  In the film there are several objects that share a delayed importance, some more vital than others:  a hammer, a cell phone, an alarm trigger, a pair of shoes, a gun.  Another intelligent aspect of “Don’t Breathe” is the judicious use of sound.  The title may imply this, but there are multiple scenes that involve such silence that a character’s breath or any small movement sounds booming.

Further strengthening “Don’t Breathe” is an overarching narrative about human nature.  At many junctures each of the burglars are presented with a very stark choice, go after the money or walk away.  In the beginning that choice carries little consequence, but as the story progresses so does the gravity of the decision.  Time and time again the burglars choose to pursue the money, even at junctures when that could mean their lives.  The exploration of these basic human desires is also reflected in the films’ villain.  The Blind Man, as we find out in a disturbing revelation, is interested in a basic human entity that money can’t buy.  “Don’t Breathe” lacks any kind of superstitious element, employing only plausible events, and is much more unsettling as a result.

There are a few slip-ups in “Don’t Breathe”, including the addition of a few unnecessary scenes following the climax of the film.  However, on the whole it is a very smart, very scary, and ultimately satisfying horror film.  Along with David Robert Mitchell’s 2014 film “It Follows”, Detroit is quickly becoming somewhat of a modern horror mecca, the derelict suburban houses ready-made for eerie events.  Coming off a disastrous summer for movies, “Don’t Breathe” is a welcome sigh of relief for moviegoers and horror fans alike.

"Suicide Squad" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

 “Suicide Squad” is a DC Comics film directed by David Ayer and starring an ensemble cast headlined by Will Smith, Jared Leto, Margot Robbie, and Viola Davis. In the wake of Superman’s demise, a ruthless Intelligence Operative named Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) proposes an idea to assemble a team of villains to combat the next inevitable disaster.  The strategy is similar to combatting cancer; her team of destructive villains is the radiation treatment.  Despite obvious concerns from government higher-ups, Waller gets the go ahead for her “suicide squad” when an evil witch named “Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne) escapes captivity and begins destroying Midway City.

Waller handpicks several individuals including Floyd Lawton aka Deadshot (Will Smith) a skilled sniper and hit man, Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) a psychopathic killer, Diablo (Jay Hernandez) a Mexican gangster with powerful pyrotechnic abilities and Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) a cannibalistic man-crocodile. To contain the volatile team Waller employs Colonel Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), a cocky special forces leader with extensive field experience.  After a head-spinning number of introductory scenes, the squad is sent into Midway City to neutralize the Enchantress.

A prominent subplot in “Suicide Squad” involves the Joker, portrayed by Jared Leto.  As Harley Quinn’s boyfriend, the Joker is central to her backstory and introduction.  When the squad arrives in Midway City, the Joker is there to try and break Harley out of the group and away from captivity.  Compared to portrayals of the character by Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger in other movies, Leto's is disappointing.  Perhaps the underwhelming performance is inevitable, given the legendary status of the formerly mentioned actors.  More of an erratic mob boss/gangster than genuine psychopath, the Joker in “Suicide Squad” mostly struts around in an over-stylized costume and mumbles formulaic lines.  Having said that, the Joker is an entirely tangential character in the movie, so it is hard to judge Leto’s performance with certainty.

The most puzzling and ultimately damning problem with "Suicide Squad" is that it doesn't deliver on its central promise: that these characters are villains. Villains, if you didn’t already know, are supposed to be bad.  In reality, not one of the seven members of the squad is actually an evil individual. Deadshot is a very reasonable hit man and a genuinely caring father.  There are several scenes, which are the finest in the movie, in which Deadshot spends time with his daughter.  Killer Croc would probably be a regular guy if not for his horrific mutation. Even Harley is just one bad boyfriend away from being a model citizen.  In a strange dream sequence Harley envisions her ideal life as a domesticated mother and housewife with the Joker as a clean looking guy in a suit.[1]  Of the entire squad Diablo is probably the most evil given his past as a gang lord, but even he has a conscious so powerful that he refuses to use his powers for the first two thirds of the movie. 

The main selling point (“Worst. Heroes. Ever.”) of the movie is so false that the whole thing feels like a big gyp.  In one scene, the squad puts the mission on hold and visits a deserted bar in downtown Midway. While sitting around and having drinks, these supposed "super-villains" confess to each other and share deeply personal stories.  Flag joins the sob fest and mopes about his girlfriend problems. At the end of the pity party, the squad decides they will do the right thing and save the city together.  As it turns out the only truly wicked character aside from Enchantress is Amanda Waller.  Deadshot directly points this out after she murders several employees and he mutters to Flag, "yeah, and I'm the bad guy".

 “Suicide Squad” is a stark reminder that Marvel sets the gold standard for the genre. A few months ago I went and saw “Captain America: Civil War”.  At the time, I felt it was pretty average and had felt the same way about preceding “Captain America” and “Avenger” films as well as “X-Men: Days of Future Past”.  At a certain point the superhero formula gets old.  However, Marvel films are always well written, and at the very worst feel lukewarm.  DC Comics has been playing catch-up with the Marvel machine, and “Suicide Squad” is yet another ramshackle production that wastes its actors’ talents and audience’s time.  With a slew of DC Comics films set to release over the next few years, one has to wonder if life is too short to waste on another one not directed by a guy named Nolan.

[1] RIP Paul Allen. Cameo of the year

"The Fits" Review

OP-ROB RATING: LEGEND

 “The Fits”, a 2016 independent film directed by Anna Rose Holmer is about an elementary school girl named Toni (Royalty Hightower) living in a Cincinnati housing project.  She is slender, sports two tightly woven braids that bounce behind her head, and has the look of someone wise beyond her years. Aside from the hairdo, Toni could easily be mistaken for a boy.  She follows in the footsteps of Jermaine (Da’Sean Minor), her older brother, who is an amateur boxer.  In the local community center, Toni boxes with the guys, does sit-ups with the guys, and runs stairs with the guys.  Older males surround her in the boxing environment.  However Toni ventures across the community center to spy on the girls dance group, “The Lionesses”.  The group performs in a competitive hip-hop circuit. The practices that Toni frequently observes sometime involve a one-on-one “dance-off” that is in tune with the intensive nature of boxing.  Fascinated and with the blessing of Jermaine, Toni decides to try out for the all-female group. 

The theme of  “The Fits” is centered around gender roles, and what effect “choosing” a certain gender has on an individual.  For Toni, she unknowingly “chooses” to be a girl when she joins the Lionesses.  For example, she pierces her ears, paints her nails, and makes new female friends.  While all of these things aren’t necessarily bad, they alienate Toni from her brother, and from the boys she used to hang out with.  At a certain point in the film, Toni no longer fits in with her former friends. 

An overarching dynamic in the film involves a series of seizure-like attacks on various members of the Lionesses.  One day at practice one of the older girls loses control of her body and begins convulsing.  The violent shaking is preceded by a brief trance like state.  The event shocks all of the girls, and they suspend practice.  Although quite frightening, the “fit” doesn’t harm the girl, and she returns to normal as if nothing occurred. Over a period of time each girl succumbs to the fits, one by one.  Although the community center blames the drinking water, none of the boys are taken with the fits.  The meaning of the attacks is up for interpretation, but it is undeniably intertwined with gender.  The girls are affected while the boys are not.  As the film reaches its climax we wonder if young Toni, like the rest of the girls, will fall victim to the strange attack.

“The Fits” is full of interesting comparisons regarding gender. One such comparison is between boxing and dancing.  With the exception of Toni, who does both, the sports are restricted to either boys or girls.  The boxing is brutal, yet precise and calculated.  The Lionesses’ style of dancing is also very aggressive, but in a much wilder and reckless sense. In one of the dance routines there is a punch integrated with the rest of the moves.  On one of Toni’s first days as a Lioness, her authentic punch looks out of place with the rest of the routine.  Like a sound-byte of classical music being spliced into a DMX song.  These stark comparisons add layers to a seemingly basic story. 

Most importantly “The Fits” is bolstered by superb direction from Holmer and a riveting performance from Royalty Hightower.  Each scene is filmed with the kind purpose that is rarely displayed on the screen in this day and age.  For example, when Toni first spies on the Lionesses she does so from behind a door, looking through a narrow rectangular window.  The shot emphasizes her separation not only from the dancers, but also from the female gender role.  As the film runs its course and Toni “becomes a girl”, she looks at her former training partners in the boxing gym from an identical vantage point.  These tiny details are interspersed throughout “The Fits”, and add further intrigue to the story. 

Perhaps the seminal moment in “The Fits” occurs about halfway through the movie, when Toni stands on small arched bridge over a busy highway.  In a long take, she starts dancing and punching.  The two don’t mix, and it looks awkward.  But she continues with intensity, alone and unbothered.  By the end of her little workout she is smiling and laughing, completely content and full of confidence.  In reality, true individualism is independent of gender.  For a brief period, Toni embodies this kind of total freedom.  She can have the best of both worlds.  It is only when she commits to one over the other, or perhaps is inevitably taken by one that she loses the equilibrium embodied in the bridge scene.  “The Fits” runs for only 72 minutes, but packs the punch of a three-hour epic.  A film so unique in its execution and so universal in its meaning, “The Fits” is the best movie of this summer so far.

Farewell, Timmy D

Tim Duncan will leave an indelible mark on the NBA because of his dominance in the power forward position.  A quick glance over his statistics and accolades prove that he belongs in the top ten players of all time. 

·      5 NBA Championships

·      3 NBA Finals MVP’s

·      2 League MVP’s

·      15 All-Star Appearances

·      10 All-NBA Team Awards

Duncan ranks 14th all-time in scoring, 6th in rebounding, and 5th in shot blocking. 

What’s more astounding is that Duncan cranked out 19 NBA seasons and currently holds the 4th best ELO rating of any NBA player ever (An ELO rating measures the all-around skill/efficiency of a player, Duncan is right up there with Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Hakeem Olajuwon). 

            Aside from the numbers, Duncan’s career holds a wonderful story and legacy.  Drafted in 1998, Duncan has spent his entire career with the San Antonio Spurs.  For almost two decades he has worn number 21 for the Spurs.  He has led his team through the twilight years with David Robinson, into the big -three era with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, and finally into the new big-three with Kawhi Leonard, LaMarcus Aldridge and Pau Gasol.  He is leaving the Spurs is superb condition.

            Tim Duncan was a superb basketball player, seeing him dunk a ball, or bank in a shot was to see a master perform his craft.  One of my favorite memories was in 2014 when he manhandled Serge Ibaka using old-man strength and pure skill.  Duncan was the perennial power forward, and I will miss his style of play on the court.  However, the reasons for which Duncan leaves such a void in the NBA actually have nothing to do with basketball.  They have to do with character and awareness and with doing things the right way.  They have to do with taking the high road time and time again.  Duncan’s game was defined by consistency, but so was his demeanor.

            Despite his immense drive to succeed, Timmy D was never one to talk trash, as Draymond Green recounted earlier this year.  In fact Duncan would often do the opposite, even giving opponents advice on how to improve their game.  Many commentators chock Duncan’s commendable demeanor up to his personality.  As if it were automatic or just how he was.  However, I believe that this kind of thinking robs Duncan of his greatest impact on the game, and on the lives of those who admired him.

            Basketball is a sport in which players often wear their emotions on their sleeves.  Any small bit of trash talk, a misplaced elbow, or a dirty glance can lead to a scuffle.  A recent example would be Draymond Green calling LeBron a “little bitch” and inciting a suspension-worthy altercation.  A more famous incident would be the “Malice in the Palace” where Ron Artest jumped into the stands and fought with fans.  Of course there are dozens of scraps in any given month in the NBA that are spawned from a lack of self-control.  Somehow, Tim Duncan rose above all of this.  Did his inherent personality help?  Sure it did.  But any player in any sport with comparable success to Duncan has a brutally competitive edge. Timmy D, with all of his composure, had a vein of sheer determination that drove him to be the best, to win more than any player of his era.

            This is where Duncan truly becomes great.  He chose to act the way he did, to lead the way he did.  Night after night Duncan performed like a superstar while neglecting the uglier side of the game, the uglier side of humanity.  While many would disagree with me, I would argue that on innumerable occasions Duncan probably wanted to retaliate to a trash-talker like Kevin Garnett, or add a taunting gesture after throttling an opponent. It is in human nature to add insult to injury because it feels good.  It grants a kind of instant gratification that is addicting.  For nineteen years, Tim Duncan blocked out the noise and just played great basketball. 

            When you consider the level of professionalism and respect for fellow players that Tim Duncan brought to the table he is truly second to none.  The reason I’ll miss Tim Duncan most is not because I wont get to see his pretty bank shot, or see him high-five the bench warmers at the end of the game, or watch his pre-game ritual of hugging the basketball with his arms raised high.  The reason I will miss Tim Duncan is because I won't be able to watch the man that I try, and fail, every day to live up to in my daily life. Tim Duncan applies to the real world in a way that includes a minuscule number of other athletes.  I fall prey to my emotions more than I would like to admit, but Duncan has proven that good nature and calmness can always prevail.  Over the years I have seen Tim Duncan play his hardest and lose on multiple occasions. Whatever the case he handled his situation with grace and humility.  He gives me, and everyone else an example to strive for.  His basketball legacy pales in comparison to his life legacy. 

Next year, when I tune in to watch the Spurs, I will miss my hero. 

Thank you Tim, for everything.  I wish you the very best in retirement. Go Spurs Go.

"The Shallows" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

“The Shallows” is a 2016 thriller directed by Jaume Collet-Serra and starring Blake Lively as Nancy, a medical school student and surfer on a journey of self-discovery.  The film begins as Nancy is driven out to a “secret” beach by an amiable Mexican man named Carlos (Óscar Jaenada). During the ride Nancy explains that her mother came to the beach after becoming pregnant, and the spot is personally special. With the exception of a pair of local guys out in the water, the beach is entirely empty.  In the following sequences Nancy enjoys surfing on the crystal clear, blue waves and eventually goes back to the beach for a lunch break.  It is at this point that Nancy Facetimes with her father (Brett Cullen) and we discover the mother’s death has prompted an identity crisis, and which may cause her to drop out of medical school.  Nancy’s father implores her to return home to Galveston, Texas and explains that she couldn’t have done anything to prevent her mother from succumbing to cancer.  Nancy shrugs off her father’s comments and quickly says goodbye before hitting the waves again.

Of course we all know what happens next.  “The Shallows” is a shark movie, and during Nancy’s second surfing session she gets bit.  After happening upon a dying whale washed up on a reef, Nancy is attacked by a great white shark, presumably drawn into the shallows by the bleeding whale.  The attack leaves her with a sizeable bite in her upper thigh.  Amazingly, she manages to swim to a small rock landing jutting out of the water.  For the vast majority of the film, Nancy is confined to the rock accompanied only by her thoughts, and by a seagull with a broken wing.  Although the rock is relatively close to shore, Nancy is too hurt to make the swim, and she must find a way to elude the circling predator.

Nancy’s 24-odd-hour journey back to shore in “The Shallows” involves suturing her thigh with earrings, eating a baby crab, puking the crab, a lot of napping, talking to the seagull, trying to get the attention of a cargo ship, and finally confronting the shark in a climactic scene.  While there is certainly a lot going on, none of it is particularly innovative to the shark movie/survival genre.  “The Shallows” isn’t based on a true story, either, so it is not as if the movie couldn’t have been more creative. “The Shallows” is not unique as a thriller, or even a shark movie and Collet-Serra resorts to gimmicks like the wounded seagull, and several scenes with social media to bolster the film.  In one scene Nancy obtains a flare gun and fires it at the shark.  At this point the shark is near the wounded whale, and the whale oil ignites. Before firing the round she exclaims, “Fuck you.”  The token “f-word” for the PG-13 rating is all too predictable.  Perhaps this was a misfire attempt to pay homage to Roy Scheider’s line in the classic shark blockbuster “Jaws” (In the film, Scheider’s character tells the shark “Smile you son-of-a-bitch” before blasting it out of the water).

Perhaps the worst aspect in “The Shallows” is in the misuse of Blake Lively in the lead role.  There is nothing wrong with casting a stunningly gorgeous actress.  There is nothing wrong with showing how beautiful she is on camera.  But there is a distinct difference between building the beauty around the story, and simply exploiting the physical features of the actor/actress.  In “The Revenant” you didn’t find Alejandro G. Iñáritu panning over Leonardo DiCaprio’s abs as he pulled himself through the snow.  In Jean-Marc Vallée’s “Wild”, you didn’t see Reese Witherspoon hiking in a sexy outfit just for the audience’s viewing.  Granted, those are both top-tier, critically acclaimed films based on true stories, not summer shark thrillers.  But there is a distinct tone of physical worship in “The Shallows” that dilutes the quality of the film.  The obsession with Lively’s body is evidence of a weak script, and even weaker directing.  This misdirection severely hurts the actually important parts of the film, like storyline and character development.  But the greatest disservice is toward Blake Lively, who never really gets to act.  Even in the scenes where Nancy is suffering immensely, she looks great:  And not in a natural way, but in a very intentional and artificial way.  There might be four frames in the entire film in which Nancy looks truly destitute.  

Maybe I’m missing the point of this film.  Maybe it’s supposed to look the way it does.  Maybe Blake Lively is totally fine with doing movies like “The Shallows”.  Whatever the case, “The Shallows” is not good enough on its own to survive without the constant drooling over its lead actress.  Most of the scenes feel distracted, and the entire film crumbles on a rickety plotline.  One such massive loophole is that Nancy doesn’t drink any water during her entire fight for survival, how is something so crucial as potable water overlooked?  This film is a lazy, cheap, summer thriller starring a popular actress.  The real victim of “The Shallows” is not Nancy, but rather the poor soul who bought a ticket.

"The Conjuring 2" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

           “The Conjuring 2” is a horror film directed by James Wan, and starring Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga as the power couple and real-life demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren.  As the title of the film implies, “The Conjuring 2” is a sequel to the 2013 film “The Conjuring”.  In the first installment, Ed and Lorraine investigated a haunting that took place in Rhode Island during the early 1970s.  In “The Conjuring 2” Ed and Lorraine are led to a suburb of London where the Hodgson family is being tormented by another demonic being.  The Hodgson’s are briefly introduced as a respectable, yet struggling lower class family led by a stalwart single mother named Peggy (Frances O’Connor).  The rest of the family is comprised of five children, of whom only one is really vital to the story.  This child is Janet (Madison Wolfe), a nine-year-old girl indistinguishable from any other young girl in London except for the fact that she is being haunted by an evil spirit.  The haunting manifests itself in several nighttime disturbances that escalate to the point that the Hodgson’s are forced to move out of their townhouse.  Ed and Lorraine catch wind of the story after it becomes publicized in the local news, and are coerced into travelling across the pond to investigate.

          The plot of “The Conjuring 2” is just a slightly tweaked version of the first film.  As the supernatural disturbances increase, Janet is singled out by the demon and is slowly overtaken much like mother in the previous film.  What begins as disturbing, yet relatively harmless nighttime pranks evolves into seriously terrifying and dangerous assaults on the family, eventually orchestrated through Janet herself.  Once Ed and Lorraine show up in London with their cameras and tech gear, the demon goes full throttle and the film spirals into a chaotic climax.  Without a doubt the strongest aspects of "The Conjuring 2" are the visuals. While they aren't smart or subtle, they are very effective.  The demon takes many forms, the creepiest of which is a zombie-like, Marilyn Manson-looking nun dressed in a black robe. Probably the most unfortunate part of "The Conjuring 2" is that James Wan shows several flashes of great directing, yet cant seem to string them throughout the film. The first scene in London is a tracking shot through an urban elementary school accompanied by The Clash’s "London Calling". The scene is pretty chipper, but also manages to set the aura for the drippy, dark, dingy setting of London that lends itself well to the horror that follows later in the film.

If only there were more scenes in which Wan utilized his finer talents instead of inserting pop-outs for the sake of a momentary thrill.  In “The Conjuring 2”, the scary moments are built up by visuals.  For example, in one scene previewed in the trailer, Janet sits in a room covered wall-to-wall with crucifixes.  The intensity slowly builds as the evil spirit takes control of the room and the wooden crosses slowly start to turn upside down, almost like “the wave” at a sporting event.  The big pop out occurs as the last cross goes upside down. These scenes are a dime-a-dozen in “The Conjuring 2”.   Although these scenes are somewhat frightening, they don’t actually add anything to the story.  The best horror films are built by what is actually going on in the plot.  Information is key, and the moments of absolute dread occur when a character sees or learns something new.  An example would be in “The Silence of the Lambs”, when the protagonist Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) first encounters the serial killer Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine) and gets a quick look inside his house.  In that scene there are several pieces of information that were gained through dialogue and harmless visuals that culminate in a sudden, horrifying realization.  “The Conjuring 2” looks scarier, but feels way dumber in comparison.

         Take away the effective pop-outs and creepy visuals, and the film crumbles on poor screenwriting and a generic storyline.  In “The Conjuring 2”, the dialogue feels mandatory, as if its only purpose were to move the story along.  Unlike smarter horror films, the audience doesn’t have to work for any of the scares, and around every corner the film is interspersed with chippy little tidbits of dialogue that are supposed to provide comic relief.  In a scene where Ed and Lorraine are preparing to explore the townhouse, Ed picks up a clunky 1970s video camera and exclaims, “It’s so small and light!” In another scene late that night when Ed and Lorraine get into separate twin beds in the townhouse, Ed expresses his discontent with being so far away.  Lorraine responds with, “It’ll give something to look forward to when we get home.”  So they’re about to go to sleep in a demon infested house, and Lorraine makes a sex joke? How seriously are we supposed to take this film?

            For some audiences the visuals may be enough to satisfy.  “The Conjuring 2” boasts incredible special effects and innovative build-ups to the big thrills.  However, how much credit can you give a horror film for just being visually creepy? “The Conjuring 2” is chock full of things that are inherently creepy, like a zoetrope featuring a spindly, stalking figure called “The Crooked Man” and a dilapidated underground laundry room with flickering lights.  Demons are on their own are scary.  Compare these objects to those used in a great thriller like Alfred Hitchcock’s 1954 film, “Rear Window” which utilizes elusive, seemingly mundane little details to build up to the climax.  Ultimately, “The Conjuring 2” has enough gusto to outpace most modern day horror films by a mile.  However, in a genre with zero competition, how much does that really count for?

"Demolition" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

“Demolition” is a film directed by Jean-Marc Vallée about an investment banker named Davis Mitchell who suddenly loses his wife in a horrific car accident. Davis is portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal, who turns in an excellent performance as the distraught widower.  However, is Davis distraught because of the loss of someone he loved? Or is he distraught because he doesn’t know how to feel about it?  After the car accident, Davis goes to the hospital where he trys to purchase a packet of Peanut M&M’s from a vending machine.  The bag gets stuck.  He returns home in his blood spattered clothes and eats a bowl of cereal, watches Animal Planet, and neglects the gifts of concerned neighbors outside of his door.  Davis doesn’t seem to be at all distressed over the loss of his former wife, Julia (Heather Lind).  In fact, to the surprise of his boss and father-in-law Phil (Chris Cooper), Davis returns to work a few days after the the tragedy.  The overall conflict in the film revolves around Davis and his inability to feel “normal” about losing his wife.  Everyone around him seems to be more upset than he is.

Davis’ confusion with how to feel manifests itself in mini demolition projects.  In order to figure out why his refrigerator is leaking, Davis tears the thing into every individual piece.  He does the same with his laptop, and even a squeaky stall door in his office bathroom.  The story becomes more complicated when Davis writes several comprehensive letters to the vending machine company that couldn’t fulfill his candy purchase.  His letters are answered by Karen Moreno (Naomi Watts), a woman who takes an interest in Davis and his situation.  Karen and Davis meet up and appear to be headed into a romantic relationship. However, the story takes another turn when Davis starts hanging out with Karen’s rebellious teenage son, Chris (Judah Lewis). Together they embark on several adevntures including a demolition of Davis’ luxurious home in the suburbs.  The odd tag-team goes about the house with sledgehammers destroying everything from counter tops to flat screen TVs.

Before “Demolition” Vallée directed the "Dallas Buyers Club" which won Matthew McConnaughey the Academy Award for best actor. He also directed "Wild", which flew relatively under the radar two years ago.  Both films were based on true stories and involved a fair amount of soul searching.  "Wild" was about a woman named Cheryl Strayed who went backpacking up the Pacific Coast Trail on a journey of self-discovery.  "Wild" focused completely on its main subject portrayed by Reese Witherspoon. Throughout the film her background story was built up in such a way that we felt her pain and anguish over the sudden death of her beloved mother, or at least we could understand it.  “Demolition” shares many similarities with “Wild”:  a sudden death, an exploration of a relationship, a broken individual.

This idea of having a relationship end abruptly is one that should be familiar to many people; it's certainly familiar to me. Having someone suddenly drop out of your life kind brings about a reevaluation of what that particular relationship meant. How does one feel when this occurs? It could be a death, or a breakup, or a sudden move.  There is a need to metaphorically take the relationship apart piece by piece and figure out what happened, or what can be learned from it.  The first third of “Demolition” is superb, and presents Davis as an interesting character with a background worth exploring.  His anguish feels genuine. Personally, I was excited to see what he could discover about his relationship with Julia.  However, “Demolition” shoots off in so many different directions, there is ultimately very little to take away from the film.  There is a storyline involving Karen and her boyfriend. There is another storyline involving Chris and his sexual orientation as a young teenager.  Finally, there is a shocking revelation near the end of the film about Julia that quite frankly adds nothing to the film but unnecessary confusion.  “Demolition” has more than enough with Davis Mitchell and unfortunately his story is sacrificed for several other half-baked ones.

There is a well-executed film to be made out of “Demolition”.  One that explores a man’s struggle to cope with the fact that he never really knew his wife.  It may even involve some of the seemingly ridiculous dismantling of household appliances.  But by the time Davis has begun skipping work, growing a beard, hanging out with a teenager, and taking a sledgehammer to his multi-million dollar home, we have to wonder just how serious he is about his situation.  Is this a a real human being?  Or a talented actor being paid to have a mid-life crisis?  For a film with so many worthy assets, it’s disappointing to see it fail under misdirection.  The opening third of “Demolition” may end up providing the groundwork for an excellent film,  but the rest of it is going to have to be demolished.

"Miles Ahead" Review

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

            “Miles Ahead” is a film about the Jazz musician Miles Davis directed by Don Cheadle and starring Don Cheadle as Miles.  The basic premise of the film revolves around an encounter between Miles and a nosy reporter named Dave Braden (Ewan McGregor).  Set in the 1970s, Miles is living in his New York City home as a recluse and cocaine addict, refusing to produce any new music.  Braden manages to break into Miles’ house insisting on an interview and is promptly socked in the face by the Prince of Darkness. Infuriated by the invasion of privacy, Miles travels to Columbia Records with a gun in order to lambast his producers. It is in the studio headquarters where Miles is introduced to a jazz musician named Junior (Keith Stanfield) and his sleazy agent, Harper Hamilton (Michael Stuhlbarg).  Miles promptly leaves the studio when Braden promises to score them some quality cocaine.  During a house party at Miles’ later that night, Junior and Hamilton steal a new recording from a drawer in the house. Through a series of events, Miles and Braden end up as a kind of tag team to retrieve the stolen recording.  Throughout the adventure they encounter a series of obstacles and run into various amusing situations.         

What separates “Miles Ahead” from an average biopic is the way in which Cheadle directs and tells the story through two distinct lenses: the mythic Miles and the factual Miles.  There are essentially two storylines, one that is strung together throughout the film on a consistent timeline and another that is delivered in intermittent flashbacks.  The flashbacks typically reveal an event in Miles’ life that really occurred:  moments in studios making the music that defined an era of jazz, scenes of tumult with his wife, and the infamous the assault outside the Birdland music venue in 1959.  Cheadle’s cuts to the past are always creative, and usually flow from what is going on in the 1970’s storyline.  In one scene Miles is holding a punching bag and encouraging Braden to take lick at it.  One of Braden’s punches cuts into a flashback.  The most interesting technique Cheadle employs occurs after Miles has an emotional conversation on the phone with girlfriend Frances (Emayatzy Corinealdi) in which he asks her to marry him.  After Miles sets down the phone he returns to a bed occupied by two nude women.  As Miles climbs back in with the women the camera moves over a series of Polaroids scattered around the bed depicting the sex fueled night.  Without a cut, photos of Miles and Frances’ ensuing wedding enter the lineup and the scene leads into the actual wedding day.  It is an unconventional and telling sequence depicting Miles’ double life.

The fictional adventure involving the stolen record plays out much like a light and engaging heist flick.  The flashback driven, realistic storyline in "Miles Ahead" often gives meaning to the overarching fictional one and brings the biopic together.  Scenes of Miles’ turbulent marriage and wild sex life depict the many facts that comprise this unbelievable personality that is portrayed in the fictional story.  The assault outside of Birdland helps explain why the mythic Miles is so abrasive towards white people.[1]  While the flashbacks do provide many hints that characterize mythic Miles, they certainly don’t tell the whole story.  For viewers unfamiliar with Davis' life, there will be a significant disconnect between the two storylines.  Those uninformed won't realize that Davis sees himself in Junior, who is a struggling trumpeter and heroin addict. This relationship is subtle, and can only be accessed with the knowledge that Davis was heavily addicted to heroin himself in the early 1950s.  

Cheadle’s performance as Miles is terrific; he nails the raspy voice and mercurial flare of the late musician.  Although this film is not catered to a wide audience, it is clear that Cheadle himself is a Miles Davis aficionado, and wanted the film to be for similar fans.  In one scene Miles listens to a man on radio proclaim his record Kind of Blue a “masterpiece”.  Hearing this, Miles phones into the radio station declaring the record a “miss”.  Miles Davis understood what people wanted from him.  He knew what was popular, i.e. Kind Of Blue.  But Davis didn't want to be popular; he wanted to push the limits of those people who thought they knew his music.  In many ways, a Miles Davis biopic could be crafted without much innovation in terms of the actual storyline.  Get a good director, a good lead actor, a good screenwriter, and the product wouldn’t look too shabby.  However, as a Miles Davis admirer, Cheadle takes a lot of risks by going on an unconventional route with a fragmented storyline and a completely fictional cover story.  Amazingly, the risks pay off.  The film is quirky, entertaining, well directed, and always unpredictable.  “Miles Ahead” is a fitting tribute to its larger-than-life subject.

[1] One of my favorite Miles quotes left out of the film is, “it’s like, how did Columbus discover America when the Indians were already here? What kind of shit is that, but white people’s shit?”  An actual quote from Miles Davis, it reveals the kind of biting wit and attitude that is infused in the mythic Miles portrayed by Cheadle.

"The Jungle Book" Review

OP-ROB RATING: STARTER

“The Jungle Book” is a children’s adventure film directed by Jon Favreau. Personally, Favreau always brings to mind D-Bob, the loyal best friend he portrayed in the Notre Dame football gem “Rudy” which came out in 1993.  However, in recent years Favreau has become one of the most touted directors in Hollywood, and deservedly so. He has directed“Elf”, “Iron Man”, “Iron Man 2”, “Cowboys & Aliens” and “Chef” as well as a few others.  Favreau’s “The Jungle Book” is an adaption from both Rudyard Kipling’s book as well as the 1967 animated film that many people know so well.  The main character in the film is Mowgli (Neel Sethi), a boy who has grown up in the jungle raised in a pack of wolves led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) who is strict, but just.  Under the tutelage of both Akela and a black panther named Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) Mowgli does his best to live as a wolf, learning their hunting tactics and their oath “The Law of the Jungle”.  However, Mowgli is forced to leave the pack when he is threatened by a tiger named Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who holds a grudge against all humanity for an altercation that left him burnt and blinded in one eye.  Bagheera volunteers to bring Mowgli to a nearby “man-village”, because that is where a “man-cub” belongs.  On their way out, Shere Khan attempts to kill Mowgli and is thwarted, but the failed attack leaves the man-cub and Bagheera separated.  On his journey, Mowgli meets various animals including a devious snake named Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), a Himalayan brown bear named Baloo (Bill Murray), and a power-hungry Gigantopithecus ape named King Louie (Christopher Walken).

The live action aspect of this remake is precisely what allows it to expand into a full-length feature film.  The 1967 Disney original was mostly a series of songs and outrageous comedy sequences that ran for a mere 78 minutes.  Favrea’s “Jungle Book” is a 105-minute adventure with a fully fleshed out story.  For a PG rated kids movie Favreau’s “The Jungle Book” is also surprisingly gritty.  The jungle is not a colorful fantasyland; in fact it is often harsh and unforgiving.  In one scene Mowgli stands in a muddy ravine dodging a stampede of water buffaloes.  All of the fighting sequences are brutal.  The animals grapple and slash at each other.  Shere Khan’s abrupt assassination of Akela involving a swift chomp to the neck must have shocked many of the youngsters sitting in the theater.  Although most of the animals can talk, there is not much else that is tame about this jungle.

The best aspect of “The Jungle Book” is the voice cast.  There is not a poor showing from any of the actors and actresses involved in bringing the animals to life.  Both Kingsley and Elba bring their characters Bagheera and Shere Khan a level of elegance absent from the original film.  Murray, as always, is absolutely charming in the role of Baloo.  The scenes with the witty brown bear are the most fun to watch.  Who would be better than Murray to portray the “fun uncle” mentor for Mowgli? 

Despite powerful voices the live-action aspect of the film works against itself in the expressions of the animals.  There is one particular scene in which Shere Khan speaks with Akela regarding Mowgli’s departure.  Akela stands upright looking into the distance while Shere Khan lounges on a rock below him.  They do not make eye contact and speak with one another in a serious tone.  Yet, if you were to mute the scene it could easily be mistaken as a live shot of animal planet or a scene at a zoo.  These animals can talk but their faces often say nothing.  Perhaps more attention could have been paid to the eyes and the mouths of the animals during production, because this is an area in which the original film excelled.

Another deficiency in “The Jungle Book” is the blatant shifts in tone throughout the movie. Although Favreau’s realistic approach is enthralling and original, it conflicts with the lighthearted aspects of the 1967 film that he incorporates.  One scene will be light and happy, and the next will be dark and intense. The “I Wan'na Be like You” scene with King Louie is the best example of this strange dynamic.  Having been kidnapped by monkeys and confronted King Louie, Mowgli is in a very real and very scary situation.  Christopher Walken is as creepy as ever voicing the massive ape.  However, when Louie breaks into song the scene is drained of all suspense.  Paying homage to the original is undoubtedly important, yet Favreau’s new take on the story and the colorful musicality of the first film often do not mix.

The standout weak link of “The Jungle Book” is Neel Sethi’s performance.  Mowgli is an innately likeable character and somehow Sethi manages to make him annoying.  Perhaps it is a lack of poise in his voice compared to the likes of Kingsley, Murray, Elba, and Johansson.  No matter the situation Sethi always seems to be yelling, speaking out of exasperation.  A scene in which this occurs is when he and Bagheera are walking toward the man-village in the beginning of the movie.  Mowgli pleads to Bagheera not by genuinely having a discussion but by complaining like a spoiled brat.  His reaction to the news of Akela’s murder is equally poor in its delivery, “You knew, you both knew!” he screams at Bagheera and Baloo.  Sethi reminded me a lot of Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker in “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”, everything he says is a kind of over dramatization.  “The Jungle Book” features a single human; a solid performance from this individual is a simple bare necessity.

Overall “The Jungle Book” is too good in certain areas to condemn for its inconsistencies.  In time, the movie will prove durable amongst the younger crowd.  Perhaps one day kids will remember this “Jungle Book” like so many other adults remember the animated version. 

OP-ROB NOTE: There is a great reference in the form of a cowbell. Keep an eye out for it.

"Hardcore Henry" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BUST

“Hardcore Henry” is an action film directed by Ilya Naishuller that was entirely shot using a GoPro camera. From start to finish it is in first-person point of view, much like a video game. The main character is Henry, a man living in the future who awakens in a hovering medical laboratory and with an arm and a leg missing. Estelle, (Haley Bennett) a woman dressed in a white lab coat, proceeds to attach Henry’s missing limbs with mechanical replacements. While Estelle works on Henry, she explains that he has amnesia due to the accident that resulted in his injuries. She also explains that they are husband and wife, even though he cannot remember. Estelle leads Henry into a separate room in the laboratory where his “speech module” is to be installed. However, as the technicians prepare to give the main character a voice, a group of heavily armed soldiers break into the lab and kill everyone with the exception of Henry and Estelle. These men are led by Akan (Danila Kozlovsky), a telekinetic, sociopath who maliciously wants to steal Henry’s technology in order to create his own army of super soldiers. In the commotion, Henry and Estelle escape the lab in an escape pod, that crash lands on a busy freeway below. However Akan and his soldiers soon catch up with the couple and Henry is blasted off of the freeway after being shot by a taser. This leaves Henry separated from Estelle and on the run from Akan and his soldiers.

“Hardcore Henry” has minimal plot, minimal character development, and minimal believability. However, in the case of this film none of those shortcomings matter.  The POV filming technique and non-stop action are supposed to be enough. “Hardcore Henry” is a one trick pony through and through. While the POV filming compliments some scenes well, for the most part it acts as a negative, making simple scenes annoying and even unbearable to watch.  For instance, when Henry grapples with a mercenary in a one-on-one melee, the POV works fantastically. In the skirmish Henry punches and grabs at the man who is suddenly shot by a sniper, and his head explodes right in front of the audience. It’s a shocking sequence made even more effective by the POV. On the other hand, the film is full of chase sequences that are enough to give anyone a headache. The cuts are choppy as Henry runs from point A to point B jumping over stuff and occasionally falling down. The constant shaking drains from the environment in which the story takes place. A film technique designed to put the viewer in the shoes of the subject does exactly the opposite in these frantic sequences. Henry is running and fighting for the majority of the movie, and this makes it very hard to get a grip on any particular setting. Some viewers may find the POV more agreeable than others, but there is no denying that is robs the viewer of a concrete and omniscient eye.

“Hardcore Henry” is also too hard-core for its own good. There is a numbing effect to the violent action and loud noises. If you received a nickel for every bone Henry breaks throughout the movie you would easily refund your ticket. Aside form hand-to-hand combat; there is an abundance of explosions and almost non-stop gunfire. By the end of the film, Naishuller has to resort to pure absurdity to illicit a fitting grand finale. The last fifteen minutes of “Hardcore Henry” are so over-the-top, it proves nothing except for Naishuller’s lack of craft and judicious use of violence in his film. A great director can make your ears ring for days with a single, well placed gunshot. Anyone who saw “10 Cloverfield Lane” would know.

Lost in the scuffle of “Hardcore Henry” is an entertaining performance delivered by Sharlto Copley as Henry’s ubiquitous fighting partner and advocate, Jimmy. Most of the time Jimmy gives Henry information and saves him from various situation, each time reappearing as a new version of himself ranging from a Russian homeless man to a Michael Jackson enthusiast. Copley is lively and refreshing whenever he shows up, yet his sporadic appearances often feel wasted when the action starts up again.

However, one could argue that “Hardcore Henry” serves its purpose, and stays true to the one trick of POV action. Perhaps the film is supposed to be excessive and unrelenting in its ferocity. Even in this aim, “Hardcore Henry” pales in contrast to films that have followed the same formula. Director Gareth Evans’ “The Raid: Redemption” and “The Raid 2: Berendal” are both similar to “Hardcore Henry” in that they are driven by action. Storyline and character development get tossed in the process. Unlike Henry, Evans’ characters fight using martial arts techniques that are a marvel to watch.  “Hardcore Henry” is brutish in comparison. Most of the time Henry shoots his enemies, and on occasion rips their hands apart gripping their fingers like two ends of a wishbone.

Ultimately, “Hardcore Henry” doesn’t put enough support around its POV focus to make a worthwhile full-length feature film. The trailer is far more enjoyable than the hour and a half slog. Seeing one fight sequence in “Hardcore Henry” is to see them all.  For some people, the action may be enough to entertain, but this film is as voiceless and forgettable as its main character.

"10 Cloverfield Lane" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

Remember the movie “Cloverfield” that came out in 2008? It was about an alien attack on New York City and the entire movie was supposed to look as if it were filmed on a handheld camera. Fast-forward nearly a decade and “Cloverfield” has given birth to a sequel called “10 Cloverfield Lane”. Both films involve science fiction, and both were produced by J.J. Abrams. However, “10 Cloverfield Lane” is a much different movie in almost every other respect. It stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Michelle, a woman who flees her fiancée after a fight and ends up in a horrific car accident. She is run off the road by a pickup truck and awakens in a concrete walled room where she is chained up.  An obese, rugged looking man (John Goodman) greets her by vaguely explaining that there has been an attack on earth and that he saved her from the car accident and brought her to his underground bunker. Michelle reacts as any normal person would after being abducted, but the man shrugs off her anxiety and frustratingly tells her “You need to eat. You need to sleep. And you need to show me a little bit of appreciation”.  After the sketchy conversation he finally introduces himself adding, “My name’s Howard by the way”.

After being unchained, Michelle meets Emmet (John Gallagher, Jr.), a young man who helped build the bunker for Howard. Unlike Michelle, Emmet forced his way into the bunker after the first signs of the attack, which he describes as an unnatural bright red flash. Howard reiterates over and over the dangers of going outside the bunker. A lifelong conspiracy theorist, he believes the attack could be alien and must have resulted in some kind of fallout or air contamination. The single window at the entrance to the bunker reveals two dead pigs that have been chemically burned almost beyond recognition. Despite Emmet’s testimony and the dead pigs, Michelle remains skeptical of the entire situation. And now we’ve reached spoiler territory, so I will back off. But in any case, as the evidence piles up Michelle must decide what to believe is the truth. It is her life that depends on it.

 For the record, I didn't enjoy the first Cloverfield movie. The concept was cool, but the shaky camera took away from the suspense and blurred any special details the movie had to offer. A great thriller thrives on the little things like subtleties in dialogue or seemingly unimportant objects in a room that come together to tell more of the story or provide some kind of shocking revelation. “10 Cloverfield Lane” is certainly detail minded. Most of the movie takes place in Howard’s bunker, which consists of four or five rooms. What a man chooses to put in his survival chamber says a lot about him.

Howard is an especially interesting character. He has all the stereotypes associated with a longtime conspiracy theorist, such as loads of nuclear fallout books and pamphlets as well as a military background. Although Howard projects himself as a “man with a plan”, he is always somewhat anxious about every situation. His desire for control is the kind that cannot be satisfied with other human beings around. In one scene the three are playing a board game that resembles “Catch Phrase”. Emmett is holding a card for "Little Women", and prompts Howard by pointing at Michelle to queue "woman". Howard can't seem to find the word, saying stuff like "little girl" and "little princess". Apparently "woman" is not in his vocabulary and he fails the round. It is an enthralling and strange scene that could suggest any number of things about Howard that I am still trying to figure out. It is scenes like this one that complicate the characters and elevate "10 Cloverfield Lane" above your average series of thrills.

Although both Goodman and Gallagher, Jr. deliver excellent performances, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is the most impressive in the role of Michelle. Far from your average "scream queen" she is resilient, resourceful, and fiercely determined to discover the truth. In many horror/thriller movies, the protagonist does stupid stuff all the time. Like going into the empty house or looking around the sketchy corner to investigate a strange noise. Michelle rises above these annoying faults and it is refreshing to watch. Throughout the story she never believes anything that the audience wouldn’t and reacts to perilous situations with the efficiency of Jason Bourne (Matt Damon).

          Perhaps the most effective aspect of “10 Cloverfield Lane” is its use of sound. The movie is relatively quiet most of the time. There are a few songs played on the jukebox and some light rumblings outside the bunker. It is the judicious use of loud noises that make the slamming of door, the banging of a table, or the discharge of a gun sound so loud and so shocking. A movie I reviewed last year called “Sicario” starring Emily Blunt shared the same mastery of suspense through sound. The loud noises are crucial to the thrills in “10 Cloverfield Lane” and they don’t disappoint. While the final act of the movie was somewhat dissatisfying, “10 Cloverfield Lane” defies your typical sequel and results in an innovative and entertaining thriller.

OP-ROB NOTE: The actor who plays Emmet, John Gallagher, Jr., is also in a movie called "Short Term 12" starring Brie Larson. It's on Netflix if you get bored and need something awesome to watch.

"Zootopia" Review

OP-ROB RATING: ALL-STAR

“Zootopia” is about an ambitious young bunny named Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), who lives in a modern society where animals all get along, predator and prey alike. Despite the pleas of her protective parents, Judy ditches the idea of becoming a carrot farmer and pursues a career as a police officer. She overcomes all adversity and graduates the police academy at the top of her class to become the first police bunny ever. Upon graduation, Judy is sent to Precinct 1 located in the heart of the great city of Zootopia. Judy’s parents caution her to be wary of predators like lions and tigers and bears, but especially of foxes. As Judy’s parents see it, despite how far society has come in the world of “Zootopia”, some animals will always revert back to their “savage” ways. Judy reluctantly accepts the anti-fox mace spray her parents give her and hops on the train to the big city.

Zootopia is nothing short of a grand metropolis with gleaming buildings and distinct neighborhoods. Just a few include the “Rainforest District”, “Sahara Square”, and “Tundratown”. Judy is stationed in the downtown area where she is rudely greeted by her superior officer, an Ox named Bogo (Idris Elba). Judy the bunny looks out of place in a room full of tougher animals such as Timberwolves, Cheetahs, Lions, and Rhinos. Bogo addresses the room about fourteen missing persons from around Zootopia and promptly assigns all of the tough animals to the separate cases. He sticks Judy on parking duty, making her nothing more than a “meter maid”. Through a series of events, Judy is allowed to investigate a case regarding a missing otter named Emmett Otterton. Her lead witness in the otter’s disappearance is a clever fox named Nicholas “Nick” P. Wilde (Jason Bateman). Judy and Nick become a kind of team when investigating the case, which leads them all around Zootopia and into a grand conspiracy involving the highest members of government.

For all of the colorful scenes and silly characters, there are certain points in which “Zootopia” is for adults rather than kids. In one scene Judy and Nick stumble into a metro car that has been turned into what resembles a meth lab where creepy ram named "Doug" stomps around in a gas mask mixing chemicals. His yellow suit is reminiscent of Breaking Bad. At one point Judy and Nick are led to a “naturalist” club called “The Mystic Spring Oasis”. Judy and Nick gawk at the naked animals meditating and doing yoga around the club while they try to gather information. What would this scene look like in a movie with humans? These two scenes and many others exemplify a level of grittiness that was surprising for a children’s animation film. In another scene the duo encounter a crime boss named "Mr. Big", a tiny rat, who hilariously resembles Don Corleone from "The Godfather". "You come into my house the day my daughter is to be married" he says... I couldn't stop laughing.

In the world of animation, details are often what make a movie great. “Zootopia” nails everything on the spectrum. There are little parodies including Starbucks as “Snarlbucks”, Macy’s as “Mosuey’s”, and Lululemon as “Lululemmings”. More importantly, the animals have a full gamut of facial expressions that give them life, and make them a real character. Although “Zootopia” is set in a fictional world, there is plenty to take away from the movie and apply to real life. In several scenes, “Zootopia” plays around with this real life application. When Judy and Nick have to identify a license plate number and go to the DMV, all of the workers are sloths…literally. Early on in the story as Judy is working as a meter maid, a frustrated driver yells at her, “my taxes pay your salary lady.” These were jokes most of the kids in the theater wouldn’t understand but drew plenty of laughter from the parents. More importantly, “Zootopia” confronts the ever-contemporary political issue of xenophobia and racism. Throughout the film, there are conflicts between predators and prey. The film dares to ask, can predators be civilized? Or will they always revert back to their biological behavior?

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of “Zootopia” is its versatility. It has the makings of a fun children’s animation film, a detective thriller, a coming-of-age story, and a politically charged drama. Amazingly, “Zootopia” succeeds in all of these endeavors. The directors of the film, Byron Howard and Rich Moore, have extensive experience in animation as well as clear-cut political views regarding diversity and acceptance. In many ways “Zootopia” is the anti-Trump of animation films. While “Zootopia” doesn’t quite match the brilliance of Disney Pixar’s “Inside Out”, it is certainly one of the best animation films I have seen in recent memory, and bears a vitally important message about the world we live in today.

P.S. The movies theme song ("Try Everything") is performed by a gazelle named "Gazelle". She is Zootopia's version of Shakira, and the song is definitely worth a listen.

"How to Be Single" Review

OP-ROB RATING: BENCH

 “How to Be Single” is like a multi-season New York City sitcom jam packed into a feature film. Alice, portrayed by Dakota Johnson, is the main character study; but an ensemble cast includes ten other important yuppies.  Alice has just graduated from Wesleyan and broken up with Josh (Nicholas Braun), her boyfriend of four years, in order to experience single life in New York City.  Upon arriving at her new job, Alice befriends Robin (Rebel Wilson), an energetic party girl who knows all about being single in the city.  With the help of Robin, Alice meets Tom (Anders Holm), a bar owner with a die-hard swinger mentality.  They have sex and Tom explains how he handles single life, including a tour of his girlfriend-proof apartment with no breakfast foods and no running water.  Satisfied with her experiment of being single, Alice tries to reconnect with Josh.  Much to her disappointment, Josh has found another girlfriend and even criticizes Alice for her lack of commitment when they graduated.  More hook-ups and plot developments ensue.  Alice meets David (Damon Wayans Jr.), a wealthy developer who has recently been widowed and left with a daughter. Alice and David start going out, but she is pushed away because David cannot confront his grief and is protective of his daughter.  Ultimately, Alice comes to a realization that being happy as a single person is relative, and for her it means fulfillment in moments of absolute stoicism. Adjacent storylines include Lucy (Alison Brie) and Meg (Leslie Mann). Lucy doesn’t want to be single, but cannot find a man that fits her stringent criteria.  Meg is Alice’s older sister who is focused on her career but still wants to have baby.

The main flaw in "How to Be Single" is a severe lack of character development. Most of the people in the movie represent stereotypes rather than intelligent human beings. Tom is the swinger and to him relationships are a waste of time. Lucy is the straight-laced girl who knows exactly what she wants (her character is reminiscent of Monica Geller/Bing from the sitcom "F.R.I.E.N.D.S."). Robin is a rambunctious partier who drinks and does drugs and sleeps around and doesn't care what you think of her (similar to the character portrayed by Amy Schumer in "Trainwreck"). Out of the entire lineup, Alice and David were the only characters that have enough heft to actually care about.

Another major issue with "How to Be Single" is the plot. It doesn't make sense. There are two separate scenes where Meg (Leslie Mann) emphatically breaks up with her boyfriend citing her need to be independent; neither is acknowledged in the slightest by the boyfriend and he just keeps showing up. By the end of the film, three of the main characters have inexplicable changes of heart. In the most shocking example, Josh abandons his "nice-guy" stereotype and makes a purely sexual advance on Alice. The possibility of Josh needed to be eliminated, so his character is hastily warped into a villain. These, and several other scenes feel forced either for the sake of a couple laughs or the structure of the plot.

The misdirection in "How to Be Single" is ultimately the biggest hindrance to the truly relevant characters. David is a compelling person with an interesting backstory, yet he gets maybe 15 minutes of screen time while Robin, an utterly meaningless character receives closer to an hour. A prime example of the writers of "How to Be Single" sacrificing their own creations for a couple jeers comes near the end of the movie in a scene between Tom and Alice. The two are hanging out discussing their relationship woes, when Alice starts counting the number of drinks they have shared. The "drink number" was a bit introduced by Robin earlier in the film where she explains that between two friends, there is a number of drinks that constitutes a definitive sexual encounter. In this scene, Alice frantically counts the beer bottles; she is seemingly adverse to the idea of sex with Tom. Yet Alice counts to the "drink number" and has sex with Tom, a decision she immediately regrets. What are Alice's motivations in this scene? She doesn't have to have sex with Tom. The drink number was a Robin joke, not a rule handed down by God. In this scene the joke is made at the expense of Alice’s character within the movie. But this is a comedy. Why am I fretting over character depth and how realistic the plot is? While "How to Be Single" is labeled as a Romantic Comedy, it makes a concerted effort to be "deep", and the second half of the film is surprisingly somber compared to the first half.

Somewhere hidden in all of the nonsensical scenes that comprise "How to Be Single", there is an attempt to explain how a young woman lives in a post-materialistic society. This is a compelling topic, yet the movie is too distracted and unsure of itself to make provide any concrete answers. "How to Be Single" tries to be a raunchy comedy, a relationship drama, and a philosophical expedition all at the same time. When you break up the movie into each individual storyline, it's easy to see the shallowness of the overall story and the lack of substance within the characters. In the end all that is left is a weak rom-com that wastes its talented cast by not fulfilling any one of its many storylines: it is ironic that a lack of commitment is the downfall of "How to Be Single".