Justice League

Source: www.justiceleaguethemovie.com

"Boo-ya"

     Now I have my reservations about D.C.'s current catalog and model for the franchise they're attempting to build. Starting with Man of Steel in 2013, it was the rebooting of Supermans origin story, and how he develops into the hero (and man) that his father(s) expected him to be. More importantly it laid some loose framework for the future through General Zod and the existence of interstellar forces and technology. While I did enjoy the tone and direction of Man of Steel, going into the history of Krypton and Supermans upbringing on earth, the pacing came at a cost due to misplaced flashbacks holding the present story back. 

Source: Omega Underground

     Last year came the follow up Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, as well as the pseudo-sequel Suicide Squad. Batman Vs Superman continued the Man of Steel universe, rebooting (yet another) superhero in Ben Afflecks Batman. In this universe Metropolis and Gotham City are neighboring cities, and after witnessing the potential danger Superman poses to the world, Batman wants to bring Superman to justice. This is the one that really sets up the bigger picture, getting faint glimpses of Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Cyborg and the Flash. Lex Luthor serves as the main antagonist, but ends up feeling like a tacked on plot device, serving as General Zod did in setting up future threats. The movie focuses too much on these elements, and with melodramatic moments and scenery and an inconsistent plot, makes it feel like its wading through water.

     Suicide Squad is the in-betweener, focusing on Gothams ragtag team of Supervillains brought together by a Government official to save the world. Cameos by Batman and The Flash show that this too takes place within the Man of Steel universe, and serves more so to reaffirm that point, that these characters all exist within the same world and that eventually they will collide. Like its predecessors before it, Suicide Squads tone is all over the place, being a superhero buddy comedy of sorts one minute, then trying to humanize these supervillains by sentimentally tugging on your heartstrings. And don't even get me started on Jared Leto's Joker.

     Now with all the success Marvel has had over the years with building the MCU, I don't find it a coincidence that D.C. is just now starting to establish their overarching super narrative. My issue is this: instead of trying to do what Marvel is doing, why not just do these superhero movies individually? What lead to Marvels success is that these characters have been built over the years, whereas D.C. is tossing us into the water without knowing how deep it is. It's as if one were to watch the first Lord of the Rings, then jump to the third one with all the develeopment from the second but not knowing anything about it because you missed that bridging installment. Why should I care about Aquaman or the Flash if I don't know who they are?

source: Parade

     And here we are now, a year later and two more D.C. entries, Wonder Woman and Justice League. Wonder Woman has been the most grounded of any of the D.C. movies so far, giving Wonder Woman a very human fight to...fight in the aesthetic of World War One, while expanding on her lineage and building her through her history. I'm happy to say that the ball keeps rolling with Justice League, with a lighter tone, better pacing and a story that sort of makes sense.

(Major spoilers if you're behind on your D.C. cinematic universe lore....)

     All the pieces are here now, its just a matter of getting them together: Superman gave his life at the end of Batman Vs Superman, Batman knows there's other super beings out there, and there are dark forces coming to claim what the previous villains could not.That's where Batman comes in, and with the help of Wonder Woman, gathers the Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman in time to prepare for the next galactic threat. The movie wastes no time getting into the plot, focusing on Batman's quest for uniting everyone, while also introducing our heroes and what drives them. Once Wonder Woman joins in she's the one who really expands on the plot, (again) setting up future installments.

     I never agreed to Ben Afflecks casting as Batman, seeing him as too "Hollywood" for the role. His extremely violent, gun-toting Batman in Batman Vs Superman I found to be blasphemous.Thankfully he turns it down a notch in this, appearing a little more laid back and human, accepting his flaws and dealing with them as he goes along. Gal Gadots Wonder Woman still is the best one out of any of them in my opinion. She gives off the vibe that she's the only adult in the room, knowing what's really at stake and how to proceed the right way.

   Newcomers Jason Momoa (Aquaman) Ezra Miller (the Flash) and Ray Fisher (Cyborg) each bring their own dynamic to the table, while faintly bordering on becoming archetypes: the Flash is the nerdy comic relief, Aquaman's the cool alcohol consuming Atlantian, and Cyborg is the misunderstood creation. By the end of the movie however, they all fit into their proper roles and serve their purposes individually and collectively. For a movie that changed its directors halfway, it's pretty consistent.

    My only issue with this movie, and the D.C. movies as a whole, is the heavy reliance on cgi. Steppenwolf, the cosmic enemy of this bout, feels so overly gratuitous in his design that he literally feels artificial. Cyborg as well, with being comprised of mostly a computer-generated body with the actors real head on top, creates an uncanny valley effect of sorts, knowing what you're seeing isn't really there because it literally doesn't look presentable in our reality. Spoilers in mind, keep an eye on a certain characters facial features.

     Overall this was a step in the right direction for D.C. A lighter tone, characters that develop their charms as they go and the usual cgi eye candy will help keep the franchise going. And with Aquamans movie due, as well as all the other forthcoming installments, they may save their cinematic universe yet.

7 boo-yas out of 10

But that's just my opinion. What do you think? Comment below and be part of the conversation!

     

Mother!

"Who are you?"

     Director Darren Aronofsky has made a bit of a reputation for himself. With powerful pieces such as The Wrestler and Black Swan (companion pieces to each other respectively) his movies create a relatable and tangible world with themes that in the scope of their narratives, provide lessons such as maintaining purpose and identity, and the cost of doing so. His film Noah was a departure for him, due to the heavy use of effects and action sequences, something that I felt wasn't his natural style. He returns this season with Mother!, another visceral piece that covers some pretty heavy themes, some which are just a little bit too self indulgent for its own good.

Source: brocode.nz

     This is a movie that since I saw the first trailer I've wanted to see, the marketing doing a really good job establishing this vague mystery of a home invasion. So let me just say right off the bat: if you're expecting the psychological mindf*ck that the trailer made this movie out to be, this is not that movie, at least not in the context you'd expect. This movie is about love, devotion, sacrifice, death and rebirth and the corruption of power. Symbolism and metaphors are in every frame, all personified through the quaint home of Jennifer Lawerences character.
     In terms of background, I'll only provide what the trailer does: Jennifer Lawerence and Javier Bardems characters live in an isolated multistory home in the middle of a pasture. With the arrival of a mysterious man (Ed Harris) and later his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) things slowly begin to unravel as more and more strangers begin to show up at the house, challenging JLaws sense of reality.

Source: Pop Sugar

     This is a bubble movie, never leaving the walls and sprawling halls of the house. Cinematography wise it is beautiful, tight following shots of the ageless architecture, some rooms finished and some in the process of, with brief shots of the spanning wilderness and the sound of the breeze going through the tall grass and trees. Audio plays a role in establishing the setting as well, leaving cross audio from background conversations in the mix, emphasizing the tight corridors of the home. It could be considered that the house, given the story being told, is a character itself, and the central one at that. One might also think that this is the only sense of civilization within the movie, the only house visible for miles, in a location one wouldn't expect. It's very dream-like, almost like a paradise, a Garden of Eden. This is where the movie gets a little muddy.
     It's message to be honest isn't that hard to grasp. If you can follow the bread-crumb trail of clues and cues you'll pick up on everything rather quickly. The problem is that the movie spends so much time wrapped up telling it's message, it creates a sort of disconnect, some ideas holding their weight and some being so outlandish that it comes off almost desperate. Subtleties such as nicknames (JLaws "Goddess", Javier Bardems "The Poet") and the emphasis on the color yellow help fill in the spaces between the lines. But then there are some pretty obvious allegorical concepts that totally go off the deep end, from expanding on the houses function entirely to one idea in particular that hits the nail so hard on the head it feels like it's trying way to hard to do so.

Source: PopSugar

     The cast with what they have to work with serve the movie well, providing enough through their body language and semantics to explain their motivations. JLaw comes off as a natural provider and faithful wife and companion, while Javier Bardem is distant and distracted. Ed Harris is a rather odd fellow, while Michelle Pfeiffer is the one who really gets the ball rolling. The rest of the cast, nameless strangers, represent not themselves individually, but rather as a collective, working together through their actions rather than their words to bring out their true identity. I think this may be the best emotional performance from JLaw I've seen in any movie of hers. She truly gives it all she's got in this one, a tender being having the life sucked out of her. Javier Bardem for me didn't have enough of a part to really contribute to the movie, but rather just serves as a plot device for JLaw. There's even a cameo from a certain Bridesmaids star!

   Overall I did like the movie. It certainly had me engaged, with an ambitiousness that I could appreciate. It is a well produced piece of cinema, with tight directing, camera work and performances. But there are some parts of the movie that they could've done without and it would've had the same sort of impact, and I think it would've been way more Shakespearean in its message. I'm not sure how much longer this will be in theaters, so if this movie caught your eye, I say go along for the ride. It'll definitely give you something to talk about.

7 mothers out of 10  


Update: After letting this movie sit and stew in me, it's had quite a lasting impression on me. It may be suffocating in its detail in regards to its concept, but it is a very committed conceptualized idea that holds a lot of merit for its conceptualized production alone.

9 mothers out of 10

But that's just my opinion. What do you think? Comment below and be part of the conversation!

IT

"Time to Float"

source: https://www.warnerbros.com

For the past 4 years or so, the movie industry has been saturated with adaptations, reboots, superhero movies, and sequels. Every genre is accountable, horror especially. There are the tried and true horror classics like Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that get rebooted every couple years, and there's the ever growing "torture porn" subgenre and all of its unnecessary sequels.

I've never been much of a horror guy per say. Slasher films I find predictable and redundant, almost a traditional type of concept of young people being separated and killed off one by one by a seemingly immortal foe, until the secret to defeating them is discovered. The concept of "torture porn" just seems unrealistic and downright disturbing to me to be considered a form of entertainment. I've always been drawn to the more psychological style of horror, something that makes someone question their own logic or sanity, supernatural or paranormal, a tangible mental experience. After seeing IT twice, not only does it touch on the psychological spectrum, but has enough of its own identity where, with some typical classic horror tropes aside, is something more than just a horror movie.

     Going in completely blind, I wasn't sure what to expect. I haven't seen the 90's television miniseries starring Tim Curry, nor had I read the sweeping Stephen King novel. Friends of mine who

source: Fox News

have read the book describe it as the most fudged up book Stephen King has ever written, quite a claim to consider. I heard the news of a certain sewer romp from the book being opted out of the movie (if you know what I'm referring to, it's for obvious reasons) and that the time period was changed from the fifties to a more relatively contemporary eighties setting. With the marketing, I was curious as to what this iteration of Pennywise the Dancing Clown would entail. Would it be something refreshing to behold, due to the "R" rating and the premise of a child-eating clown? Or would it be another tired Hollywood reboot?

     The movie begins with a touching musical score, as we're introduced to older brother Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) and his little brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott). As rain pitter-patters against the window, Bill is crafting a paper boat for Georgie to sail down the runoff in the storm. Georgies experience is foreshadowed quite ominously in an early scene, and as he splashes along in the puddles, is guided by an adventurous soundtrack reminiscent of Jurassic Park or Jaws, alluding to a greater mystery that's coming, starting with a chance encounter with a certain sewer dweller.

source: thereelbits.com

     Next we meet Mike (Chosen Jacobs), an outsider in town with a dark family past. As he works with his grandfather, tasked with slaughtering sheep, he's hesitant about taking the animals life. His grandfather tells him, which is a central theme through the movie, is that you can be like a sheep in the slaughter, mindless towards your fate, or you can stand up for yourself and overcome your fears and do what has to be done. Guided through the halls of  the last day of school, we're with Bill and friends Richie (Finn Wolfhard) Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer) and Stanley (Wyatt Oleff) members making up the rag tag "Losers Club", all sharing the misfortune of being targets of bully Henry Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton) and his cohorts. Hiding in the girls bathroom is Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis) and getting acquainted with his new surroundings is new kid Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor).

source: cinemablend.com

     I have to give props to the kids comprising the cast, because they did a great job handling such heavy material, as well as all of them bringing their own dynamics to the table. They swear, they're exposed to a surprising amount of violence and torment, and support it all with a lot of humor and witty banter. These kids reminds us what it was like growing up with a group of friends to develop your identities and view of the world: we have natural leader Bill ("if you say 'it's summer' one more fucking time"), motor mouth Richie ("He's leaking hamburger helper!"), mommas boy Eddie ("They're gazebos!"), mild mannered Stanley( "It's Summer! We're supposed to be having fun!") and so on. Everyone has a role to fill, and they do so convincingly. Beverly turned out to be the strongest character of the bunch, showing a confidence and fearlessness that outmatches Bills own bravery. Henry Bowers character was a real treat to watch, someone so desperate for power of his own he'll go to any lengths to get it.

     But not all is quite as it seems as we sweep through shots of the town of Derry Maine, catching a glimpse of whats playing at the movie theater and remnants of its past through old smoke stacks and drainage pipes. Since the disappearance of Georgie, an epidemic of child disappearances has taken a hold of the town. Through some heavy exposition from Ben, it is revealed that Derry has a dark cloud hanging over it, tragedy shaping its history. One by one the kids are exposed to their worst fears, making them question their sanity and reality, thus begins their experience with Pennywise the Dancing Clown, played with a certain jubilant charm by Bill Skarsgard.

source: Movie Pilot

 Again, going in completely blind, I had no notion of how to judge Skarsgards clown. The brief clips I've seen of Tim Curry's interpretation made it seem very hokey, like a Three Stooges skit. All of that changes with Skarsgards menacing, intimate role. Some of my favorite moments with Pennywise and his antics were done with a mix of practical and digital effects, manipulating his body in all sorts of ways, adding a layer of unpredictability and otherworldlyness to his physique. Even his eyes are off center, giving his piercing gaze that much more levity. Over the course of the movie the kids piece together that its Pennywise taking the form of their greatest fears in order to taunt and eventually feed on them. Through their individual experiences we get brief glimpses of  him, one in particular done via a slide show reel, but it isn't until their first physical encounter with him that we see the true nature in his demeanor and actions. The final act is set up with some rather quick pacing, and  they realize that the only way to stop Pennywise is to work together, step up, and face their greatest fears.

source: tenor.com

     Structurally the movie holds up well, with pacing either keeping up the tension or the laughs. There are some moments where it slows down a bit, specifically the middle and final acts, with some of the kids becoming conveniently separated from one another to continuously emphasize their vulnerability, while messing with the continuity of the movie. But in it's overall design it does in a way make sense, since it's through these separate interactions that their reality makes up ours, seeing what they see. The sound design was immersive as well, with Stanleys encounter guided by a musical score reminding me somewhat of The Shining, and Pennywise's lair complete with a dilapidated canvas circus wagon and distorted voice introductions.

     The ending sets up the sequel (obviously), the kids swearing to return to Derry should Pennywise return. Given the book is over 1200 pages long, and dealing with some pretty out there metaphysical concepts, as well as following the kids 30 years later, there was no way all the detail could be crammed into a two hour movie. But there's already buzz as who's going to be cast as our adult Losers, and what outer elements from the book will surface. There's even talk of a special directors cut being made once both parts come out, combining the two into one chronological epic. Whoever they cast as the adult versions of The Losers Club, I'll be there too to face their fears.

8 red balloons out of 10



But that's just my opinion. What do you think? Comment below and be part of the conversation!