Zombieland Double Tap (2019)

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

Director: Ruben Fleisher

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg and Abigail Breslin, Rosario Dawson, Luke Wilson, Bill Murray

Zombie films have proven to be cyclical. Like the undead beings they portray, the zombie genre is resurrected and disposed of according to the public’s interest or the success of one particular film. Back in the 70’s, thanks to the success of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978), zombie films made a resurgence. They grew in popularity thanks to all the Italian knock offs that came as a result of Romero’s seminal film. I speak of films like Lucio Fulci’s Zombie (1979) and The Beyond (1983) and a whole slew of Italian zombie films that were released during the 80’s. In America, we saw films like Return of the Living Dead (1985), Day of the Dead (1985), Re-Animator (1985) and Night of the Creeps (1986). In a few years, zombie movies died again and disappeared. During the 90’s, few of them were released in theaters and the ones that did get released were not box office giants. But time passed and in 2002 that all changed, zombie movies were back at the box office and they came back strong! Thanks to box office hits like 28 Days Later (2002), Dawn of the Dead (2004), Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Resident Evil (2002), zombie movies were back in a big way! Zombies even infested our tv screens with shows like the ever popular The Walking Dead, which is still shambling around.

Zombieland (2009) was released around the time when people were still obsessed with zombies. It was a moderate hit, which should have meant a quick sequel. Instead, for whatever the reason, they waited a decade to make it. So now here comes the sequel, a whole decade late. I can definitely say it couldn’t have come at a worse time, because at this point,  people are zombied out. This zombie wave is reaching its end …zombie fatigue is definitely here and it is felt in the lackluster box office performance of Zombieland Double Tap (2019) Yes my friends, my take on Zombieland Double Tap is that it’s a sequel that came about ten years too late. And you know how that goes when you wait too long to do a sequel, people stop caring. If you don’t believe me just see Dumb and Dumber 2 (2014), Zoolander 2 (2016) or any other sequel that waited too damn long to be made. The moment has passed, the magic is gone. I say it’s always a mistake to wait that long. Unless your film is a sequel to a beloved franchise that people can’t get enough off, chances are your long gestating sequel will die a quick death at the box office. 

Why make Zombieland 2 now? When people have had their fill of zombies for years? Apparently the filmmakers have their faiths set on the cast, who at this point are all Oscar nominees or winners. Or they think they have an important enough story that it simply has to be told! But quite honestly it doesn’t feel that way at all. In fact, it’s a very silly movie that exists only to make us laugh and giggle, the story is just an excuse for the comedy antics which is fine by me, the only problem for me is that I feel they could have made it funnier. I’m sure a lot of people will find it an unnecessary film. As it is, it's simply a watchable film. 

It’s great seeing Harrelson, Eisenberg, Stone and Breslin together again. They still have the chemistry, which is really what saves this movie. It's the script that's weak. And that's a sad story too because apparently they waited this long because they were waiting for the right script or it wasn't going to happen. Let's see how this story goes..it’s been more than ten years since we last saw them and the zombie apocalypse is still going strong with a (wait for it) new strand of zombie that has evolved and become stronger and faster. The team has decided to find their “forever home” and it’s the abandoned white house. The story revolves around rescuing Abigail Breslin’s character, who has decided to run off with a hippy who doesn’t believe in violence. And they decided to go to Graceland, Elvis's home. So off they go to rescue her, along the way they meet a couple of funny characters. 

But honestly there’s nothing here you haven’t seen before in other zombie movies. An evolved strand of zombies? Check. The zombie free haven they have to get to by the end of the movie? Check. They even have an entire scene that we’d already seen before in Resident Evil Extinction (2007), so this one doesn’t get any bonus points for originality in terms of zombie antics. I did laugh a few times, but I feel that if the filmmakers knew that they were not bringing anything new to the table in terms of zombie mayhem, then they should have at least amped up the comedy and made it a full on super comedy. I mean, I did like the ditzy dumb blonde girl…and the Tallahassee and Columbus clones…but we needed more slapstick, silly stuff. Problem is that the actors on this film aren’t comedians, they are actors who are in a movie that’s supposed to be funny. The film could have benefited from casting actual comedians in the main roles. Why is it that Hollywood keeps making comedies without comedians? I don’t get that. 

It’s not all bad, while this movie does feel a tad unnecessary, it does have a few things that keep it from being a total waste of your time, like for example, there’s the opening sequence that imitates the opening sequence from the first film. If you remember correctly, the first film opened to slow motion zombie mayhem to the tune of Metallica’s ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls’, on this one they do the same slow motion zombie mayhem thing, but to the tune of Metallica’s ‘Master of Puppets’ which is just perfect,  loved that opening credits sequence.  There’s an after credits scene involving Bill Murray killing zombies, make sure you stay for that. There’s a scene that involves Rosario Dawson driving a monster truck that was pretty freaking sweet. But that’s about it. A fun movie my friends, but nothing you’ll remember after you walk out of the theater. It’s got zombies, but nothing we haven’t seen before. It’s funny, but not super funny. So it’s a very been there done that kind of film, very so-so. I guess the correct word for this one is ‘bland’ and that’s not a good thing for a zombie film to be. So in a way, Zombieland Double Tap has dug its own grave. Bottom line is, we are witnessing the last throes of this cinematic zombie wave. I am currently waiting for Zack Snyder’s Army of the Dead to be released, which to be honest has my full attention, my curiosity is peaked. It looks like that will be the film to determine if we’ll see any more theatrically released zombie films in the coming years. Let’s see where this goes.

 Rating: 3 out of 5

Joker (2019)

Joker (2019)

Director: Todd Phillips 

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert Deniro

Joker has taken the world by storm. I had a hint that it was going to be better than your ordinary comic book movie when the media started their fear campaign against it. Somebody somewhere made damn sure that major media outlets started spreading the news that going to see Joker might be a dangerous thing because the movie might instigate a crazy loon to sneak into your theater and shot gun you to death. Sure it happened before during The Dark Knight Returns (2008), but that was an isolated incident and we sure as hell are not gonna let one crazy bastard (who started shooting people in a theater while dressed in a Joker outfit) ruin our movie going experiences. They also had people believe that it is way to violent. Okay, so it is violent I wont say it isn’t, but there’s way more violent films out there. John Wick Chapter 3 (2019) and Rambo: The Last Blood (2019) are two fine examples of films that are way more violent and graphic than Joker, so that argument was weak. So why did the media target this film for termination? Why did the powers that control the media focus all their forces against this film? Could it be that it actually had something to say? 

 Glad to say that yes, this film does in fact have a lot to say and I applaud it for doing so because we do live in a world in which being truthful is frowned upon and wearing a mask to hide what we really have to say is the norm.  Film reviewers who weren’t attached to mainstream media (and I speak of bloggers and movie sites) were hailing it as a masterpiece. My movie buff experience has shown me that usually, when the media tries its best to kill a movie, its’ because they are afraid of it. When the media started to label it as dangerous, I immediately put the movie on my must watch list. The media tells me not to do it, I’m gonna do the opposite, because normally they don’t give a shit what crappy movie you go see. But when they’re self-righteous, politically correct minds stand against something so strongly, it’s because they are afraid of it. And ho boy do they have a reason to be afraid of Joker. 

 Sure, it's “just a movie”, but like the highest type of literature, film can also serve as a mirror to ourselves; to society and Joker simply put, is right on the money as to how a huge part of society feels right now. The poor are suffering, the rich are getting fatter and things are tough all over as Cheech and Chong use to say. Yeah people are struggling to survive in this crazy world, many are one paycheck from living out on the streets…one crazy moment away from going totally bat shit insane. And when the masses can’t take it no more, all they need is a little push to drive them over the edge. This is what “they” are afraid of, that those in need of waking up might do so because of this movie. That they might suddenly see what’s being done to them and that seeing the film might push them to do something about it. That is the reason “they” don’t want you to see it. But tell a kid not to do something, and he’ll go right ahead and do it. So others might see the whole “controversy” as a marketing campaign. If it is, it worked like gang busters. 

 Will this movie incite people to revolt? To scream as the main character in Network (1976) did “I’m mad as hell and I can’t take it anymore!”? Actually, that quote is referenced in Joker, leading us cinephiles and movie buffs to understand the mentality behind this fine picture. That mentality of uncovering the insanity behind the status quo of society, showing us, with laser like accuracy, the ones to blame for the state of the nation. What they fear with this movie is that people will see themselves mirrored in the main character of the Joker. And I’m sure many will. We’ve all been in that tight spot, living paycheck to paycheck, praying that pay day gets here…only to see our checks vanish in thin air due to how expensive life is at the moment. So yes, many people will see their lives addressed in this here film.

 Now these are all issues that need to be addressed, we cannot go through life ignoring problems. As we all know, when we do that, problems only tend to get bigger. Issues have to be addressed and talked about, so solutions can surface and progress is achieved. Kudos to the filmmakers behind Joker for that. For harnessing societies collective anxieties in one film. Now, Joker is not the first film to do that and the filmmakers behind Joker know this, which is why they borrowed and paid homage to films of the same ilk. I speak of course of Taxi Driver (1976), The King of Comedy (1982), A Clockwork Orange (1971), Fight Club (1999) and Network (1976). You’ll find bits and pieces of all these movies in Joker. And that’s a good thing in my book, it drew inspiration from similar films and created this amazing film that brings its own original and show stopping moments to the silver screen. 

 I am pleasently surprised with where DC went with Joker. This film is the anti-thesis of Marvel movies. Joker was decidedly adult and dramatic, serious and raw. It’s not a cgi fest, it’s not PG-13, it does not have a post credits sequence…simply put, if you had superhero fatigue, Joker is the cure. Now keep in mind that it is not your traditional “comic book film”, you’re not gonna see heroes posing with the full moon in the back looking all mysterious and menacing. You’re not going to get your traditional Joker either, so don’t expect Joker falling into a vat of chemicals while fighting Batman. No, this film functions more like an issue of ‘What If…?’ from Marvel Comics, an alternate take on the Joker. It’s closer in spirit to what Fox did with Logan (2017), it takes the character to previously unseen levels of dramatic possibilities. It takes the Batman mythos and uses it as an excuse to address social issues and present us with a picture perfect character study of a mental patient. 

 Speaking of which Joaquin Phoenix delivered such a masterful performance. The Oscar for performance of the year is his, I am almost certain of it. If he doesn’t win it, I will lose what little faith I had in the Oscars. If he doesn’t win, there’s something wrong with “the academy”, which has always been a bit looney anyways. Joaquin will convince you of his madness. He really did immerse himself into the role, losing weight to look sickly and being extremely intense on set. He was recorded getting upset because someone was making fun of him on the set, calling him a “diva”. To that I say, why mess with an actor that is “in the zone” trying to create a memorable performance? I side with Joaquin who said “I’m sorry, but he shouldn’t have done it”. And I totally get him. When you see the performance, you see he wasn’t just reading his lines, he wasn’t just “getting a paycheck” with this movie. No, he was living that role, he was meaning it. With this performance, Joaquin puts other actors to shame. This will be, I’m sure, the performance of his life. The one they will most remember Phoenix by. 

 Technically speaking the film is amazing as well. It shows us a very ugly picture of society, sure, but it looks so beautiful. Somebody had the brilliant idea of shooting in New York and making it look like Gotham and I have to say this was a genius idea. Maybe it had something to do with Scorcese producing? As cinephiles everywhere know, Scorcese has always been enamored with the Big Apple, and so maybe his clout made it all happen. Because normally, studios stay away from filming in New York because it is so expensive to shoot there. On a personal note, I had a blast when I discovered they shot the most iconic scene in the film (that of Joker dancing on those long steps) in the neighborhood where I grew up in, in The Bronx. It was so cool to see Joker dancing around my old elementary school! To see him dancing his glorious dance in those steps I went up so many times! 

 Final words: it’s not all the time that we get a film that syphons the way the public feels about society so well. This is the reason why the film is breaking all sorts of records. It’s because people see themselves in the film. Joker has high marks all around, great performances, great script, an amazing musical score (reminiscent of Taxi Driver's own score) and beautiful visuals, a true masterpiece of modern cinema. I love that DC is finally doing the right thing by not trying to duplicate Marvel’s movies, but rather getting as far away from them as possible. Keep it up DC, chins up, you’ve redeemed yourselves with this one! Don’t drop the ball with the next one!  

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

IT Chapter Two (2019)

It Chapter Two (2019)

Director: Andy Muschietti 

Cast: Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader, Bill Skarsgard, Finn Wolfhard, Sophia Lillis

The rule of thumb for sequels to a highly successful film is that the second one will be bigger, louder and more ‘in your face’ than the first film and trust me, It Chapter Two definitely does this. This sequel to Andy Muschietti’s adaptation of Stephen Kings IT is all that and then some. It certainly is longer! Strap yourself tight because this carnival of horrors is 11 minutes shy of being a three hour movie! A little too much for some viewers, I know. I saw a couple of people leaving the theater even before the film was totally over. But for those of you who want their movies to go on forever, because you just LOVE a good movie, well, you’re in for a treat. 

It Chapter Two picks up 27 years after the first one, with ‘The Losers’ all grown up, each living their own separate lives. One is a writer, one is an entrepreneur, one is a comedian and so forth and they’ve all forgotten the horrifying events they lived through together when they were kids. And that’s the way they want to keep the past, forgotten. But when the evil clown known as ‘Pennywise’ begins to kill again, it’s up to ‘The Losers’ to reunite and take on the monster, one final time. Will they have the guts to face their fears and slay the beast? 

 I thought I’d get a bit bored with this movie, because I’d seen the original one a million times, but as it turns out this remake has so many new elements to it, I was actually thoroughly entertained. The good part about this is that you can watch both versions of ‘It’ and you’ll have original moments occur in each. Basically, every major scare sequence has been altered, replaced or enhanced in one way or another by new monsters and nightmares, which is great. In my opinion, that’s what makes a good remake. A film that retains the essence of the original, while still giving us enough new material so that we won’t get bored. So don’t expect that creepy shower sequence you love so much from the original, it’s been replaced with some new creepiness. Yet not all is changed, the film successfully retained that feeling of true friendship and love that is such an essential part of IT and of many of Stephen King’s novels. King loves to tell stories that have that ‘gee whiz aint it fun to be a kid’ vibe to them. The clubhouse, the riding the bikes through the woods, the blood pact and the idea that our childhood friends will remain our friends forever and ever. It Chapter Two felt a lot like King’s Stand by Me…if you mashed it up with A Nightmare on Elm Street. Doesn’t that sound enticing? 

Andy Muschietti makes the film very much his own by adding those creepy cartoony creatures he infused into his horror film, Mama (2013). Remember that one? The one about the creepy entity who decides to raise a couple of orphaned girls? Creepy visuals indeed, but on IT he takes those creepy visuals up to a thousand. Loved the creatures on this one! Don’t expect anything “realistic”, after all, this film is filled with dark fantastic elements like aliens, evil clowns and giant soul sucking spiders. So, if you like your creepy, EC comics style creatures and monsters, you should have tons of fun with this one. A note about the effects, I personally really dug the visual effects aspect of the whole thing, while some people seem to be bothered by the cartoony nature of some of the effects, I personally thought they were effective when taking in consideration the tone of the film. 

Another thing I loved about It Chapter Two was the huge homage it is to the 80’s. I know going back to the 80’s has always been cool (tell me about it I LIVED through them) and some might feel that doing this on any film is old hat, but honestly, I loved the homages to the decadent era. A Thundercats t-shirt, a poster for The Lost Boys, a Street Fighter Arcade machine and A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989) on a cinema marquee were some of the homages I caught. But trust me, there are many more little homages spread through-out the entire film, one amazing one goes to John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982), but I won’t tell you how that one unfolds. So be on the lookout for those!

The film does have a lot of levity to it, this has bothered some hardcore horror fans. But we have to remember that horror and comedy have always gone hand in hand. Remember An American Werewolf in London (1981)? How about Ghostbusters (1984)? Fright Night (1985)? Creepshow (1982)? All scary/fun movies. Remember, with the exception of hardcore horror fans who love true blue hardcore horror, the general population probably can’t take too much of the gory red stuff. Plus, this is a big budget horror film, producers want to make their money back and one way of doing this is by having the general population have a little fun with their scares. I mean, it’s not in every movie that three children get slaughtered in graphic ways. Producers know this, so they alleviate the tension with a little levity. Case in point, Bill Hader as Richie. Though if we get right down to it, the character of Richie was always the funny one in the novel as well as the original film. So, we can’t really complain that Richie is always saying jokes, that’s just the way the character was written. On top of all that, Hader is hilarious on It: Chapter Two, a very welcome addition to the film if you ask me. Hader, as far as I can tell, is a comedic star in the making. I got a feeling Hader is gonna be way bigger in the near future. 

Word of advice, go to the bathroom before the movie starts and don’t order the large soft drink or else you’ll be getting up half way through the movie and miss something. I say Muschietti will be making lots of movies in the near future, It Chapter Two has already made close to 100 million domestically, so it is a surefire hit. I’m just hoping that the Thundercats t-shirt in the film means that Muschietti is actually considering bringing the Thundercats to the big screen. Wouldn’t that be something? A Thundercats film is a surefire hit waiting to happen. I just can’t believe some producer hasn’t picked this one up yet! Everybody and their mother is waiting for that movie to get made. Well, at least those of us who grew up during the 80’s! So anyhow, bottom line with IT Chapter Two is that it’s a long film, sure, but a scary, creepy ride worth taking. 

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood (2019)

Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood (2019)

Written and Directed by: Quentin Tarantino 

Cast: Margot Robbie, Leonardo Di Caprio, Brad Pitt, Al Pacino, Michael Madsen, Emil Hirsch, Kurt Russell, Luke Perry 

The god of cinema decided to make another one so of course I had to go see it. Movie buffs like me live for days like this, when a legendary filmmaker releases his new masterpiece upon an unsuspecting universe. As you can see, with every Tarantino film there comes a certain expectation of greatness for me. It goes without saying that I am a full blown Tarantino fan since day one, when I first saw Pulp Fiction back in ‘94 and felt a bucket of cold ice being poured down my cinematic back. But time has passed and as Tarantino himself has said, directors do not make their best movies in their heyday. And Tarantino is close to what he calls his ‘heyday’.  But whatever, I don’t subscribe to that idea, I mean, Scorcese is still amazing and he's close to hitting 80 as I write this. It’s true, that directing a film is a “young person’s game” but Tarantino isn’t that old yet. He still has it in him to hammer out a few good ones. So, was this one of his “good ones”?

 Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is as the title suggest, a huge love letter to Hollywood, filmmaking, actors and life in L.A. during the end of the 60’s. We follow Rick Dalton, an actor who’s afraid of being a has been and his stunt man Cliff Booth. Together they go from gig to gig hoping that it isn’t their last. Somehow, they end up getting entangled with Charles Manson and his gang of zelot followers. The rest is fun times in La La Land, Tarantino style. 

 I’ve noticed this thing Tarantino’s been doing with his films. He takes a moment in history and totally changes it as if saying “this is how I wish it had happened!”. Remember how he burned Hitler and all his cronies in Inglorious Bastards (2009)? Of course we all know that’s not how it happened, but that’s how Tarantino wished it had. Well, Tarantino does the same thing here with Sharon Tate’s murder at the hands of Charles Manson’s followers. It was a crime of pure hate and stupidity. Tate was pregnant and two weeks away from giving birth to her new child when these crazy Manson zombies killed her and her guests. Tarantino feels this was a great wrong, Tate was a beloved actress, she was loved for her looks and her talent and was a star on the rise. Tarantino decides to tell us the events that occurred that night, but in a completely different way, using Poetic Justice as his weapon. 

 Along the way, the film muses on the hardships of being an actor and trying to survive in Hollywood. What’s it like to have that pressure of delivering a great performance? What is the actors duty on a film or a television show? Tarantino also takes us on a stroll down Los Angeles 1969, with all the cinema marquees and automobiles from that era that you’d expect. I thought it was awesome how he brought that era to life, no digital effects to be seen I might add. A lot of scenes in the film are of characters just driving around L.A. streets so we can absorb the era. Granted, this film isn’t as profound as Inglorious Basterds (2009), there’s a decidedly lighter tone to the film, like a fun breezy vibe, a feeling enhanced by Brad Pitt’s character Cliff Booth, always smiling, his character serves as a counter part to the darkness of one of the films themes, Sharon Tate’s murder at the hands of the Manson Family.

 Tarantino, Di Caprio and Pitt get together once again and I have to say the results are fantastic. Di Caprio delivers another amazing performance to his repertoire. I’ve always thought that Di Caprio is one of the best actors of his generation from day one when he blew me away in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? (1993) and to be honest he continues to do so to this day. Love his performance on Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood. A flawed, imperfect character struggling with his craft, worried about becoming useless in life. Brad Pitt turns in another loopy sort of happy go lucky stoner type, where nothing fades him, always the cool dude. His character reminded me of that stoner guy he played in True Romance (1993), it felt as if that character had grown up and become a stunt man in Hollywood. There are lots of cameos sprinkled all through out the film, we get Al Pacino playing a film producer and Kurt Russell as a stunt coordinator, in a way, it felt like he was perhaps playing the same character he played in Tarantino’s Death Proof (2007)? We also get a lot of Tarantino regulars like Zoe Bell, Bruce Dern and Michael Madsen, sorry, no Samuel Jackson this time around. 

 This is Tarantino’s 9^thfilm and there’s been a lot of talk about Tarantino saying that his next one, his tenth film, will be his last. Quite honestly I think they will milk that angle to death for his next film and make a profit out of it being “Tarantino’s 10^thand final film”, but I can almost guarantee that wont be the case. Tarantino’s love for cinema is too strong, a fact that’s evident by what we see in Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood. Tarantino has still got it and I don’t think it’s going anywhere, not even after he makes his 10^thfilm. But that’s just me and I could be horribly wrong so don’t quote me on that. As for Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, it’s a fun ride down the trippy 60’s. It’s a fun time at the movies that explores a dark chapter in Hollywood history while also exploring in a very entertaining way what it means to produce, act and direct films. A film buffs dream this movie is. 

Rating: 5 out of 5.  

Dark Phoenix (2019)

Dark Phoenix (2019)

Director/Writer: Simon Kinberg 

Cast: Sophie Turner, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jessica Chastain,  Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, Tye Sheridan, Evan Peters  

Again, another film that’s getting the shaft from audiences because they are being led to believe they shouldn’t see it. Hollywood is notorious when it comes to dealing with left over productions from a previous regime. Case in point, Disney bought Fox and so all films that were in the process of being completed during this period are quietly swept under the rug or treated like crap and left to die a quick death at the box office. For example, The New Mutants was one of the productions to get swept under the rug and forgotten. To be honest, that film looked all types of cool, it even had a horror vibe to it. Mutants in a horror film? Hell yeah I’d like to see that one! But since it was made during the Fox/Disney take over, it’s now in limbo, possibly being unceremoniously dumped on Netflix. And then there’s Dark Phoenix, the last X-Men film that will be produced by 20^thCentury Fox. Well, people already hate it because they just can’t wait for Disney to take over the X-Men and “give them the X-Men film they’ve always wanted”. 

It’s sad too, considering that the X-Men franchise was the one (along with the Spider Man movies) to kick off the currently still going strong super hero craze in cinemas. I remember a time when people just couldn’t believe they were finally getting an X-men film. Now here we are, at a point where people don’t want to back up an X-Men film. And it’s a damn shame too because this is a good one. Dark Phoenix tells the tale of the ‘Dark Phoenix Saga’, one of the most recognized and beloved of the X-men stories. This review comes from a guy who’s just read the Dark Phoenix Saga and has just recently seen Dark Phoenix. So, how did the comic book to film transition fare? Was the film faithful to the comic? For those not in the know the Dark Phoenix Saga is all about Jean Gray and how her powers get out of control and how she likes it. Problem is, absolute power corrupts absolutely and Jean ends up turning so powerful that all she cares about is pleasing her ever growing thirst for power, which includes the ability to devour worlds and everyone in them. She actually rivals Galactus in that sense, and Galactus is one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel universe! But how do the X-Men react to Jean going evil? Can Cyclops stop loving her? Can the X-Men and the rest of the world forgive her for all her evil doings? 

As expected, some changes do occur from comic to silver screen. The biggest one for me is that Jean’s reason for turning evil doesn’t come from within her, but rather from an entity that possesses her body while on a space mission. This point is the one that “bothered” me the most as I actually dug that element of the story, the fact that the evil comes from within,  that idea that we all have a dark side that we have to contend with, that side that we learn to keep in check, to control. The other big change is that they completely eliminated the plot line involving The Hellfire Club and their desire to control Jean and use her for their purposes. Finally, one last change was that the aftermath of Jean going evil and how she is judged by an alien race for having destroyed and entire planet and all the millions of people who lived in it. These changes were probably made for budgetary reasons, to keep the story “smaller”, and I get that. Which is why I’ve always thought this story should have been better suited for a trilogy of films rather than telling the whole story in one film. 

The good news is that the story manages to retain the gist of the Dark Phoenix Saga. Jean is still battling with her inner demons and the fact that she quite enjoys the influx of power. The story is still about her trying to control it. So we get all the important points that the original story hit. What’s good about the film? Is it as bad as the media and mindless movie reviewers would have you think? Hell no. In all honesty, I enjoyed this X-Men film more than I enjoyed parts 3 to 5! It is a very eventful chapter in the X-Men saga. To my surprise it is very well written. Now take in consideration that this film was directed by Simon Kinberg, the same guy who wrote X-Men’s 3 through 5! So he knows the X-men inside and out! Thankfully Kinberg takes the opportunity to fix a lot of the mistakes and quirks that fans haven’t enjoyed from previous entries and even makes fun of his own films. For example, Mystique has a line where she pokes fun at how it’s the women who are always saving the men and how the group should be called X-Women.  Also, just when Xavier is about to go on one of his famous ramblings where he starts to babble people to death Magneto says “save it, nobody is listening”. Poking fun at how sometimes Magneto and Xavier go on these endless rants! 

Why do I say that I enjoyed this one more than other X-Men films? Well for one, the dialog is straight and to the point which I loved. The film doesn’t feel like it was filmed entirely in a green room; this one feels like they actually shot the film in locations! In terms of action, this one delivers. There’s a moment where all the X-Men get together to gather Jean that’s just wow. There’s another scene on a train that will blow you away! Another plus is that the X-Men don’t hold back on their powers on this one. Remember how in X-Men you were upset because they put Storm to fight against Toad? Well, that doesn’t happen here! On this one all the X-Men go completely ballistic! In fact, they are more violent with their powers on this one than any previous X film, excluding Logan (2017) of course. Also, there are some amazing moments on this one like Magneto vs. Jean!  Anyhow, sadly this one is dying a quick death at the box office. But what can you expect? They were writing bad reviews even before the film was released. Good news is, we will see the X-Men rise from the ashes like the Phoenix by way of Disney/Marvel's take on the franchise, gotta say I’m mighty curious about that iteration of the X-Men. But this last Fox film was a great swan song; I recommend you see it in the theater. 

Rating: 4 out of 5   

Eyes Without a Face (1960)

Eyes Without a Face (1960)

Director:  Georges Franju

I didn’t expect this film to be a horror movie classic, but as it turns out, it is. I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, save for the fact that it’s one of those movies that you have to “see before you die”. I put off watching it because I thought it would be a boring film, but as I began to watch it, I was transfixed by the beauty in the imagery and the fact that it was going down horror movie territory, something totally unexpected for me. 

The story is all about a surgeon who is trying to give his daughter a new face. You see, she was in a terrible car accident and her face was horribly disfigured. Her father, the surgeon, concocts a way to give her a new face. Unfortunately, it involves ripping the face off somebody else! Will this procedure work? Will somebody stop the mad doctor? How far should science go to prove a point? 

First off, this film was beautifully shot. It took advantage, as many European films do of Europe’s beautiful architecture and natural landscapes. A director doesn’t need millions of dollars to make his movie look good, he simply has to have an eye for beautiful locations and the talent to shoot them well. This is what happens with Franju’s Eyes Without a Face, it simply looks amazing because Franju shot in these beautiful locations, this, if you ask me, elevates the material from its B movie roots and takes it into art house territory. Still, at heart, this is you’re a-typical mad doctor on the loose movie, there’s more than a passing resemblance with films like Frankenstein (1931) or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Yes, this is a film is about a mad doctor, going above and beyond to make his theories come true, to make his experiments work. 

The film is most famous for its surgical operation scene, which I imagine must have been quite the show stopper back in the day. Reportedly, people passed out during that sequence. I do remember as I watched the film, I suddenly felt I was watching “the scene”. You know how when you’re watching classic films and see a famous sequence for the first time and you realize you are in the presence of greatness…that’s how I felt with that scene. It’s an art film mixed with a horror film, loved that about this one. 

After watching Eyes Without a Face I realized where Pedro Almodovar’s The Skin I Live In (2011) comes from. Almodovar’s film is extremely similar in premise and visuals so obviously this film was a major influence. The only thing is that Almodovar’s film dives a bit deeper into themes, while Franju’s film is simplistic in nature and almost kind of void of any themes. The film shocks, has an interesting premise and looks amazing, but what is it trying to say? What is its ultimate purpose? It seems to me like Franju’s film only manages to shock and titillate and that it does in a beautiful way, but it doesn’t go beyond that. So in that sense, it’s an exercise in style over matter, poetic/surreal imagery over depth or story. I’m sure back in 1960 this film must’ve shocked audiences, I’m sure it will be considered tame by today’s horror enthusiasts. Still, this is a beautiful looking horror film, a true classic of the genre. Definitely worth a watch! 

Rating: 5 out of 5

John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum (2019)

John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum (2019)

Director: Chad Stahelski 

Cast: Keanu Reeves, Halle Berry, Laurence Fishburne, Mark Dacascos, Angelica Houston, Ian McShane

To be honest, I never understood what was the big deal with these John Wick movies, so this review comes from a viewer who was never a huge fan of the previous two films. I get why people love these movies, Keanu plus dogs = box office gold. Both are lovable, cause Keanu is Keanu and dogs, well, who doesn’t love dogs right? What I didn’t like about the first two movies was that they were R rated action movies, that behaved like they were rated PG-13. By this I mean that the amount of graphic violence and bloodshed felt limited, restrained. This is a problem for me because these are action films and to me action equals, nitty gritty, bloody and graphic. Intensity is of the essence in action films. I come from the 80’s, which means I was raised with action movies like Lethal Weapon (1987), which means I like my action to be graphic. So I never really understood why these films were holding back. It’s not that I didn’t like these movies, because they are super stylish and fun, but they needed a little more oomph to them in my opinion.  So here comes part 3, which had an awesome trailer that got me all convinced this was going to be the one to finally win me over. Did it? 

Parabellum picks up right where the second film left off, with every single hit man in the world looking for John Wick, who has a price of 14 million on his head. That’s about all you have to know about this movie to see it. Basically, these John Wick movies all have one simple excuse for all the mayhem to kick off. On the first one they killed his dog. On the second one they thrashed his car. On this one Mr. Wick doesn’t want to die because he wants to go on living so he can remember the love of his life. So basically, that’s the McGuffin on this movie. It’s the excuse to kick things off. 

And boy do things kick off quickly! In this sense John Wick delivers every step of the way, it is literally non-stop action. It never stops. And the action scenes are intricate, extensive and we can actually see what is happening. For a while there, action films were all about blurry camera movements that only suggested what was happening. This was a technique that got very popular after Ridley Scott used it in Gladiator (2000). For a while there in action films, lots of action was happening, but in reality, we understood very little of what was going on. Not on John Wick Chapter 3, here we can see everything that happens! There’s no unnecessary jerky cam to hide behind; on this film all the action is crystal clear. 

The action is truly awesome here. I’ve always described these films as excuses to show a million entertaining ways to kill people, and trust me, that’s exactly what you are going to get! We got Keanu shooting guns while horse back riding, we got Keanu shooting guns and sword fighting while riding a motorcycle, we got Keanu making the best use of a massive gun arsenal! I mean, if this isn’t the best definition for the quintessential ‘gun ballad’, I don’t know what is! Gun ballads are these usually super stylized action films that are paper thin in plot and everything is resolved with a gun. Examples of these types of films include films like Wanted (2008), Shoot ‘em Up (2007) and El Mariachi (1992). The John Wick films definitely fit this profile. You so much as look at John Wick wrong you’re going to get a bullet in ‘ya. The violence can become numbing after a while, to the point where I was expecting the film to come up with some bat shit insane death to surprise me, and it always did. Just when you think you’re getting bored, John Wick stabs somebody in the eye. Slowly. 

Basically, this is the same exact formula as the previous films, only that much cooler. That much more violent. So yes, this was the one that completely won me over. To me, this third John Wick film truly earned its ‘R’ rating, it is the best of the three. It is a guaranteed fun time at the movies. The deaths are way more graphic, the action is never ending and interesting and the stunts are amazing. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Chad Stahelski, the films director is a stunt man himself. He has doubled for many actors in action films, including Keanu in The Matrix films. What works in favor of these John Wick movies is that Stahelski knows his way around action sequences.  He even trained Brandon Lee in Jeet Kun Do, before Lee’s death in The Crow, hell, Stahelski doubled for Lee in The Crow when they decided to finish the film.  Stahelski also knows how to make a film look good. I mean, everything in John Wick looks like its glowing with neon colors! New York looks amazing on this film! By the way, this film is very New York. 42nd Street, Grand Central Station, The Continental, New York and John Wick are one here. I hear this director has signed up to direct the upcoming Highlander remake. There’s even an inside joke in Parabellum where John Wick walks into an establishment called ‘MacLeod’s’, definitely a hint of things to come, to which I say hell yeah. If the sword play in John Wick 3 is any indication, we’re in for a show.  

Rating: 4 out of 5