The thing about the Jurassic property is that its filmmakers never learn the same lesson that all of their in-movie characters are supposed to be learning: just stop interfering with the the damn dinosaurs already! It has always resulted in someone getting eaten. Though the Spielberg classic's 2 sequels made these mistakes, at least both of their respective heroes have undergone a reinforcement of this arc- finally learning to leave well enough alone.
The Jurassic World franchise not only sees its characters confronted with these repeat mistakes, but Fallen Kingdom expands on them with face palming idiocy. So what's the latest excuse for stars Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt (heroes I still care little about) for facing the giant lizards? A volcano is going to cook the beasties- as if Mother Nature is saying: 'I thought I got rid of those things. Let's wipe them out again.' The movie paints letting these animals die in their natural environment as some violation of their rights. Does this movie even have a basic grasp of animal rights? It's quite telling when Claire (Howard) can only use sloppy emotional appeals to convince Owen (Pratt) to come save his poor, marketable, pet raptor Blu as the main drive- unable to even string together a practical reason for letting these man-eating, stem cell, monsters survive alongside us. It's also eye-opening that these hippy dippy dim-wits team with obvious dino poachers who are funded by an outfit out to sell and exploit them so as to actually violate their animal rights (to their utter ignorance of course). Still, this flimsy premise gives us reason for some of the cheesiest, unintentional funny B-movie style death scenes. For me they ranged from fun, to trying depending on their lack of ratio compared to actually disturbing scenes- which were much rarer here. While the newest genetically engineered monstrosity is this 'roided up raptor with these creepy Nosferatu claws they can grasp with like a sapien. Back to the human element, Pratt and Howard meanwhile have little chemistry. Pratt and Blu though? Cute as hell. Wish we had more of this. Yet these elements are incidental and only play out amid a bland story with few engrossing characters (both of which deteriorate in logic). The movie tries to be ambitious only to go overboard. Politicizing dinos in 2018 potentially puts the film in an interesting light, shaking up its status quo. There's no denying that this is Fallen Kingdom's ultimate goal: to deconstruct some aspects of previous movies while 'Last Jedying' them to promote a different future that sequels can go in. Too bad the animal rights arguments that it makes are done so clumsily. Just when someone is about to learn to except another dino extinction event as a solid character arc during the climax, the movie doubles down on its moronically unconditional obsession with the preservation of these creatures that has both in-world and story quality repercussions that's only meant to bait a more admittedly immersive idea. Yet the character who initiated this (who herself has an even stupider twist to reveal I must mention) is portrayed like she's this saint for her actions when they'll hurt so many more. Fallen Kingdom highlights this in what should've been its best weapon: Jeff fucking Goldblum! His pitiful cameo begins the film with his being the only voice of common sense. His persona, Dr. Malcolm, has been against the theme park from day one and he rightly criticizes those who would actively butt in with the dinosaurs again. He book ends this farce after everything goes terribly wrong to basically say, 'I told you so.' One doesn't just criticizes their own premise through the vehicle of a nostalgic character to then throw them to the sidelines. At least Luke in The Last Jedi was an integral player in its plot. Let him come along to argue with Howard and co. Challenging your heroes' ideas briefly only to just be ignored is not self-aware writing. It's a lazy attempt at calling this a 'tragedy' while ignoring the clear paths that could've been taken to avoid it. Easily the worst of the Jurassic movies. Piss poor in entertainment value, depth, and basic intelligence. What works lags behind its more eruptive flaws. The damn park should've stayed closed. Opening it again was one thing, but what's been done in its aftermath here is unforgivable of both the characters and the creators. As Dr. Malcolm himself would say: "That is one huge pile of shit." I wish this franchise would stop finding a way to live. Let it stay extinct.
0 Comments
Tag is yet another actually interesting comedy premise that I was into. Hooray! A film that celebrates bro-dom through some means other than obnoxious partying and binge drinking. Based on an actual group of friends whose yearly game of tag was covered by the Wall Street Journal, sees comedians chase each other down every May to make sure they're not it by the end. They go to insane lengths to win: tagging at a wedding, a funeral, disguised at an AA meeting, and while someone's wife goes into labor. The movie unfortunately blows its wad for creative skits based on this idea in its own trailer.
When we're not engaged with silly-fun chase sequences we're subjected to some of the least funny lines you'll hear this year. Some movies will hit you with quip-after-quip to consistently get you going with a few laughs. This one dumps bomb-after-bomb with low-energy lines often annoyingly digressed from the subject of a dialogue or a scene's circumstance. Although Hannibal Buress, of Eric Andre Show fame, manages to have the delivery chops to make the script's non-sequitur lines work most wonderfully. The story surrounding Tag's particular year here isn't too compelling either. Jeremy Renner, as a yet to be tagged player, is retiring after he gets hitched at the end of the month. So the rest of the boys must team up to take him down. So then it comes down to constant exposition with a WSJ reporter conveniently following them, unfunny dialogue, and boring pre-wedding story beats- all to have this monotony broken by more tag. Renner too is another of the few reasons to go see this. His inventive extremes for staying untouched are downright hilarious. If the movie kept up such levels of high absurdity, this could've been a classic. Thankfully the chase sequences themselves, while not always as funny as I hoped either, were at least exciting and silly enough for an entertaining break spaced healthily about between dialogue and plot crawls. I also appreciate that the movie tried to stick to the spirit of what the actual game in the article was about: staying young at heart while always reaching out to friends. That's a pretty positive message. I'd appreciate it more if extra bad jokes didn't under-cut every emotional moment with another lame wisecrack. I sense this movie won't do well financially either. On top of competing with Jurassic World 2 and Incredibles 2, Tag also needlessly alienates its potential viewers of younger ages with its R rating solely created because of potty mouth humor that adds nothing to the story like say the sassy super hero satire of Deadpool 2 does. Looking for a good comedy to see? This one's not it. Still a funnier joke you'll hear in the actual movie. It's showtime once again, fellow millennials! This is easily the most anticipated Pixar sequel of them all! What new possibilities will Brad Bird explore now that super flicks are bigger than ever? Apparently... not much. Incredibles 2 may have been a touch overhyped in my mind. The first film is legend amongst animation and super hero lovers while keeping itself grounded in themes of marital distrust and lost purpose wrapped in an atmosphere of timelessly pulpy 60's architecture. While the sequel is as good a time as returning to this world can offer, if seems more coattail clinging on to the superficial optics of the first while side-stepping the deeper stuff that made it go from good to masterpiece.
So after Incredibles 1, the Parr family is back to square one with their illegal status as destruction proxy uber mensches leaving them out to dry, desperately living in a motel, despite being extraordinary people out to do good. Then this rich guy puts them in a nice house that diminishes my ability to feel pity for this family. Loads of their following problems conflate to first wordly and sitcommish in nature without the economic stakes sprinkled on top. The richy rich boy does this to enlist Elastigirl into a corporate funded publicity campaign to put body cameras on the heroes' most competent agent so as to show the government that supers save lives more than cause destruction. In a coy role reversal, this leaves Mr. Incredible becoming Mr. Mom and fumbles with watching his meta human kids while mother takes center stage in trying to defeat a new villain (Screenslaver) whose sinister plan gravitates around the campaign's success. The role reversal is a cute idea. But not much is done with it outside of a few side comments. There's no emotional pulse to this entire plot that blared like crazy in the prequel's portrayal of a dismal office worker trying to do what he loves behind his family's back. Here, any inter relational stakes are played for laughs. Filler also includes constant call-backs which wouldn't be as bad if the new story wasn't such a diet brand redress of the OG with no substance. As for the new characters, they pale in comparison to the dimensionality of the first movie's protagonists. You got the rich boy- just an empty suit. Then there are these new heroes that get a brief intro before being lumped together during the climax. Names, personalities, even powers slip my mind regarding most of them because little care was put into developing them beyond a new variety of action filler. As for the villain, I honestly couldn't have asked for a more predictable identity twist before being made to do my own mental gymnastics for piecing together the exact motivation. I shouldn't moan though. Screenslaver at least was the most interesting of the new folks, despite poorly realized execution. Now that I got what killed my overhyped hopes for this sequel off of my chest, I'll still stick to the fact that I enjoyed the hell out it too. Though stakes aren't as gripping, the action set pieces are just as engrossing with how creatively paced and choreographed they are. For an animated movie, I found myself weirdly impressed by its 'camera' work smoothly following the also advanced action. Combine that with more the almost painting like lighting of the gorgeous backgrounds along with the popping jazz of Micheal Giacchino riffing away again and this movie's aesthetics are following its predecessor in all the right ways. Each family member's screen time was actually much better handled than the first's areas of focus wherein Mr. Incredible was basically the solo act until the last half. Here the familial dynamic is really brimming with great chemistry and bickering dances of dialogue. It's almost like a really well done sit-com, though this deflates the sense of dread the first did so well. Perhaps this series should live on as a show. What do you think, Netflix? I'd much rather watch an Incredible's adventure/ comedy cartoon than the Boss Baby show. Because whatever else I can whine about in regards to Incredibles 2, it's an undeniably funny movie. Poly powered baby Jack Jack steals the show with insane sequences demonstrating his outrageous powers in goofy ways-highlighted most by his battle with a craven raccoon in the film's comedic center piece. Not sure if I should technically count this in rating the film itself, but the following must be addressed anyway. The Pixar short 'Bao,' overturing this has to easily be one of the most sadistically belly bustingly hi-larious pieces of comedy that the studio's yet produced- ascending to the level of Looney Tunes or Tom and Jerry at their darkest yet zaniest back in the day. The short was legitimately more entertaining than the main feature was. Hearing my theater burst with psychotic cackling at this short story's perfectly built up punchline was one of the happiest cinema experiences I've ever had. So what if Incredibles 2 wasn't as epic a return as I hoped? I'm glad I was instead surprised by this awesome short that warmed me up with a huge grin to help me endure the mild disappointment I was about to face. Incredibly fun, but not so incredibly nuanced. I still recommend Incredibles 2, if not for its short alone. I feel like that's going to be talked about way more than the movie itself, which was probably the movie's actually biggest twist. Here's a book I gave a modest sized fuck about reading. Caught a preview in Google Play. Baby was thirsty for more. Fucking finally nailed a hold on it at my library, and despite over-blown but clearly understandable misgivings from critics, I loved it. Comedic self-help blogger Mark Manson gives us his cumulative magnum opus of his entire life's philosophy. The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck. Eye yanking title. Compelling. Cute. Funny. Kind of misleading, but a swell read overall.
What's not misleading about the title is that it hearkens the reader to a work brimming with an informal world of accessible prose winding away with its humor to give us a series of helpful life lessons. It's the equivalent to hearing your stoned, drunk, or just sober yet still sort of 'off' buddy wax philosophical. Sure, they can make you laugh as they try to be funny as they do it; yet you're still stunned as you walk away saying: 'Damn. As stupid as that sounded, that was so on my level that it was kind of profound.' Anyone that can translate a post-modern edition of Stoicism and Humanism to the masses of this miserable generation is doing something right in my book. It can be a tad obnoxious if not taken in small doses. Or you know: this brand of swear's comedy may not even be your funny bone's drug of choice. Yet you're reading this shitty blogger's review because you're intrigued enough at least by the somewhat silly title. I was too. I went in thinking this would be a silly take on the philosophy of Nihilism (the belief in "Nothing, Lebowski. Nothing!") Wrong! The preview alone got me with the twisted truth. There is no such thing as giving no fucks. Everyone gives a fucking care about something. Why else would one read this book? On some level one wants to read this because their abundance of care and and worry is hurting them psychologically. Perhaps learning how not to care at all will kill the pain. Nope. Not quite. Turns out the message isn't so much, 'stop caring about every aspect of your life and it'll get better.' That's the kind of 'I don't care' mentality ruling the lives of the anxious teenage emos at my old school. And look where that got them. I don't know. We never kept in touch. They didn't like me. Not that I give a fu- ANYway... turns out Manson wants to teach readers to readjust their outlook to better reflect their value system. Most fuck givers are unsatisfied with themselves because their "shitty values" drive their personal sense of well-being off course. Like the paraphrased quote I forgot to nail the page of says: "You only have so many fucks to give." So you shouldn't give a fuck about revenge, money, status, nor a spoiled attitude of entitlement regarding happiness. Because those things are so amorphously difficulty to attain in our own goal stretching assessments are more problem causers rather than solvers. Mo' money money, mo' problems as they say. So the title's a tad mis-leading, though not fully false advertising if we want to get semantical. It's not about giving no fucks, but rather giving less, more quality, degrees of of fucks. The Nihilists may say that's not fair. But I say: "Fair? Who's the fucking nihilist now, you fucking cry babies?" Given the mass of this overly enthused review one might fear this is a massive tome. Not really. It clocks in at less than 200. It's a blessing and a curse. While it's good we're not habituated for too long before the polish of this whacky prose's obnoxious cracks fissure ever larger, I'm still bummed class didn't last longer so we could dive deeper into the philosophical concepts. At least it got the job done. Guess that's what happens when you, as a writer, are so used to getting your literary point across in the short-form world of blog scribing. Yeah. That's something I should pick up on. Manson's not just talking out of his ass. That's what amateur bloggers like me are for. He also enlists some biographical and academic anecdotes to teach about how giving the wrong fucks can fuck us up. From the awkward phases of drug abuse during his teen years to the jungles of a Philippine island in which a Japanese soldier kept fighting the Allies in a solo guerrilla warfare well into the 60's; these stories are of delectable interest as well as illuminating of his points. Props to Manson for getting personal too. Takes guts. Although bemoaning years of being a world traveling ladie's man seemed a bit more self aggrandizing than pitiful. But that's his side of this. Maybe he was trolling You can't trust these internet people. To be honest, some stories are rarely boring, but most rate well in enhancing his book. The success of any self help book, serious or not, comes down to its advice: how to practically execute it and how it helps your life. Like I said: this is pretty informal. There's no diet point's chart or 5 step program. It's just a dude honestly accessing how he and others came to a better or worse place in their lives based on the quality of fucks they chose to give. How to decide what the fuck you should/ shouldn't give is ultimately laid on you. Some of his advice I'll try to follow. Some of it I won't based on personal preference. The main takeaway is that we can choose to stop caring about what we come to figure out doesn't matter in the end. Manson offers us what's most worthwhile in life: friends, family, relationships, doing what you sincerely love. Well duh, one may say. Yet you can do something about reconnecting with old friends you've been meaning to get to. Yet you can't do anything about that a-hole that cut you off in traffic today. So which one's worth giving more of a fuck about? Not too subtle a conclusion. Who gives a fuck? Solo: A Star Wars Story, a movie detailing the life and times of the franchises's most beloved rogue didn't fly beyond expectations. For every thing I liked about this side quest, there were tiresome missteps found right around the corner. This is most notable given the movie went from a more comedic piece by Lego Movie directors Lord and Miller that would've supposedly seen more of their signature adlibing hijinx get baked into the movie. Then Disney pulled them over creative disagreement with this direction to bring in the milk toast filmmaker of Mayberry himself Ron Howard to make it more mainstream.
It's up in the air if the goofy improv was going to be more entertaining or cring. All I know is that the final product gave us a movie clearly tampered with by two conflicting visions. Visually the move has a lot going for and against it. I liked seeing the more hand-made look of the costumes and creatures making Solo more of a tighter looking kin to the original trilogy. Yet it conflicted with the CG at times, although this wasn't often. What did annoy me was the clash of the less than passionate sets. Duly lit industrial planets and greyed Starship Troopers-esque opening areas made sense as they were grungy places. In spots, the movie smartly 'brightens' up a bit more from place-to-place, but only by virtue of a palish yellow tint. The cleaner, more saintly white of the Millenium Falcon's interior was more colorful than half the places we visit. Even so there were moments of cool camera work- a one shot zoom in of Han's face as he fends off blaster fire while backing into the Falcon was most impressive. Even then, some post edited fiddling was just as clear in cuts randomly out of scenes in which dwelling longer on key characters would've added more organic moments or dwelling too long on randomly disparate plot threads sewn together that get resolved very clumsily by the end. The result? The more potentially interesting characters and sub plots seem to get the short lightsaber. There are a couple of characters who die out of nowhere and I felt nothing for them. One was like a side comic relief alien man. I'm convinced that the cut during a team's fireside chat before the jarring jump to the scene they later die in would've given them more depth that could've made their loss seem more emotionally intense (or at least something was cut earlier on that would've made audiences feel more bad that they were gone). Woody Harrelson, the guy that lost his beloved, seems to almost forget about her right afterwards- never mentioned again. Were there scenes of him suffering through this loss lost as well? Otherwise, he seems to phone it in as an attempted mentor to Han. The interesting dynamic here is that boy Solo is too cocky to listen to the more seasoned Harrelson's wisdom. Very nice subversion of the apprentice narrative. I could see where this concept could have played up more laughs. Who knows? In an already kind of predictable movie, the comedy might have made the twist in this sub-plot seem more obvious. The movie lives and breathes more energetically depending on who Han (Alden Ehrenreich) gravitates towards. Seeing Han with Harrelson and a bland love interest that has an 'unspeakable' past (Emilia Clarke) while ambiguously trying to give our scoundrel a compelling character study before his OG trilogy shenanigans never enthralled me as much as his other interactions. Solo's first meet-cute with Chewie is great while edifying their friendship. Too bad it's cast to the side lines in favor of the above relationships. A similar sin lands on Lando. I was looking more forward to Donald Glover's take on Billy Dee's younger character than the decent if overall meh Ford impression by Ehrenreich. He too is abandoned in the sidelines. Lando's not only a flamboyantly colorful, cape obsessed goof in this gritty, gross world, but he's even got an overly serious droid-rights 'bot who plays as a cutesy satire of SJW politics. But this weird, risky, silly, and ludicrous stuff that's potentially more immersive still only makes up a small fraction of Han's less engaging story about how he loses some woman or old guy- the more 'mainstream' and 'accessible' story-line. This is Star Wars, people. If we can't experiment with weird shit here, where else can we? Even Star Trek was more experimental than this movie. I did like getting into the crime syndicate side of the galaxy here, even if it was only a teasing toe dip's worth that just started an actually intriguing dive before the credits to constitute future film baiting. Thematically the narrative of challenging the incidental empire's multiple levels of systemic oppression both legally and illegally gave Han and other character's shared battles to achieve independence kept this convoluted mess well sewn together. Even after this 2.5 hour slog, nothing of substance grows from the in-universe meta plot except for the seeds planting random origin nuggets and sequel teases. The quality depended heavily, I'm sure, on whether we were in Lord and Miller's or Howard's cuts switched on and off. Either stick to a zany Star Wars jaunt or plan to stick to a safe version. Don't back out halfway through either concept. May L and M's version was an unwatchable attempt at a doofy live-action Lego Star Wars movie. At least it would've been a fresh take on things. One go at something new that fails surely wouldn't hurt Disney's Star Wars cash flow. And if it succeeded? It could have been a cult classic as the 'weird Star Wars movie ' Structure wise, it was sandwiched with good meat, but stale bread. The 1st act bored me eventually. The 2nd act was where I enjoyed myself the most. It was the pulpy, adventure-serial junk that defines Star Wars. Han, Chewie, Lando, SJW droid, and a less intrusive Harrelson bust into a slave planet to fight some goons, share quips, deal with unplanned mishaps and have strong character moments to culminate in the famed Kessel Run. You'd think this'd be the climax. Nope. We are forced to endure a blobby 3rd act of more forced tiresome blues between Han, lady, old guy, and barely bad guy. Maybe L and M had too much on their plate. I agree that perhaps certain elements could've been cut. I just think Howard should've sliced the more self-serious crap out rather than the silly stuff. I'm pretty neutral on Solo though. It had enjoyable bits crammed in with snore-inducing garbage. The fun times shouldn't have been buried. But instead, we're given the least well executed of the new Star Wars adventures that I hope sprouts some better seeds it planted. Perhaps it'll be the Iron Man 2 of its cinematic universe to lead us to more transcendent spin-offs. I don't know. Star Wars needs to evolve in a way doesn't trigger half of the fans like Last Jedi, but it can't be clunky, factory sanitized retreads like this. If either direction says anything: I got a 'bleh' feeling about this. This movie. This sick, raunchy, un-PC, dirty, exploitative, idiotic, rude, unnecessarily cruel and violent film... HAD to be one of the most hear-felt smash hits of the year! Deadpool numero uno was the highest grossing R-rated film since Gibson's uncomfortably more bloody than Passion of the Christ. Dropping #2 left us in giddy anticipation that I'm pleased to report left this critic feel very satisfied deep down.
Everything about this one elevates it over the first. It works both as a funny reaction to Logan (another X-Men movie enlisting the proven R formula) to tell a tale as well as a narrative that's honestly heart rending in its own right. DP Dos kicks off with the same shenanigans as the first: over-the-top violence, goofy swears mixed with one-liners, self-aware satire of super hero films along with pop culture in general- the works. Then it gets sad out of left field. How? When you see, you'll instead be saying, 'ow.' But that's okay, my gentle-hearted one in search of a comedy to lighten life's sorrows rather than to magnify them. Deadpool the character and movie sequel are both made of tougher stuff than that. Though layered by a more serious message of dealing with loss trough searching for a fulfilling purpose of family or something, the flick ever strides on with its dance of absurd post-moderny comedy echoing from its prequel. It ebbs an almost darmatic catharsis between palps of laughter and teary feels. You could say Deadpool the first did this too, yet like I said: we're amping it up here. That's all a sequel could ask for (besides a bigger budget, which they have). So more gun 'splodey action rips hard too, offering more bloody slapstick as well. Yay! Ryan Reynolds does great again as the camera mugging anti-hero that he has been auditioning to be in almost all his filmography. That may seem like a jab, but it's a jab of love. Now that he's committed to this role of his dreams it's wonderful to see him so happily embrace his character every time he's on screen. He, along with the rest of the team clearly has a blast making these movies. Josh Brolin as Cable, a DP fan-favorite from the future out to kill a lost soul to save millions, is fantastic too. He's perfect as a straight man contra to 'Pool while still having a wisecrack or two in him as well. The rest of the cast is magnificent too. So yeah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Humor's subjective. Luckily DP 1 should give you an idea if you're okay with this blatant brand of brutish comedy. It's reached max capacity here and I still love it. So if that's not your speed, more power to you. I wish you God's speed to whatever you find funnier on your Netflix que. As for me, I can't wait to see this franchise's future 2 or 3 more shots at herodom for the Merc with the Mouth. So long! I'm going to spiral into a depressive crash that this proxy joygasm has afforded me some borrowed time from. What a decade. From Iron Man, to the Avengers, to subsequent hit after hit; the Marvel cinematic universe reaches its peak with Infinity War: a culmination of the in-continuity movie sequel experiment that's made Marvel go from counter culture nerd faire to a mainstream titan. This movie is more of an experience than a cohesive film- a coming together of (almost) all these great characters we've been following.
You'd think it'd be a nasty cluster. Over 20 superheroes ganging up on one purple thug with a magical gauntlet? The supreme balancing act of such a cast seemed to act as a natural follow-up to the similar fear audiences felt coming into the first Avengers. Directing Brothers Russo circumvent this problem by keeping each layer cordoned off into distant teams to allow it an epic scope- some as far as the ends of space or back on Earth defending New York Wakanda. The despondent parties we cut back and forth from may not take away from each individual hero, but it does leave the plot a tad wonky in that attention can be left fleeting, though most assuredly your favorite super will have a plethora of moments to shine. I wouldn't go so far as to call this an unfocused mess as a result. Thematically, this is akin to not just an epic climax to these movies, but also the equivalent to a horror movie in which these normally capable protagonists must face a relentless force that can't be stopped. Josh Brolin as Thanos is what Marvel movies have been missing more often than not- a villain whose initial appearance strikes fear of survival for the heroes, but he's also emotionally compelling as he acts almost as the star here. We follow Thanos' arc in which he struggles with what he's willing to lose to hunt down all the infinity stones in his race for the power to balance out this over-populated cast, I mean universe. As a result, the heroes almost take a backseat to Thanos. Though actually seeing every Avenger reconcile with their creeping defeat is equal parts inspiring and sad as their downfall looms closer. This ending will shake your core. My nerves were in smoldering flames by the end. Although, some moments annoyed me as there were multiple ways the good guys could have won. Some slip-ups make sense given character flaws, yet others feel like plot holes forgetting previous movies. Simply put, the stones everyone was protecting from Thanos could have been better utilized in some pretty obvious instances. Though, maybe part 2 will explain such flubs better. The lore of the stone's powers were a little too vague for me liking as well. Thanos' crew, the Black Order, ironically bring along the bland villain syndrome in the Marvel movie about the least bland one. They're expendable fight fodder for the action and quips so formulaic to these movies by now that your either love or hate them, which brings me to my final point. This succession of successful movies are the line you must follow to get here. If you aren't a committed fan who has't seen most of these to comprehend the plot, then there's no point coming to it. All I'm saying is that this might be a confusing 1st Marvel movie. But for those on the ride so far, Infinity War is a tremendous display of what we love about these films only to have them be violently crushed before our eyes. All I know is after that this ending, I can't wait until what happens next. And neither will you. Based on one of my old Gameboy mainstays, Rampage seems to shine best as one of the better video game movies by accepting its tonal roots: a fun, if dumb, action romp. Throw the Rock in there for a basic mix of on-screen charisma and you'll have a solid bit of frivolity if you don't let your more picky side of your movie watching brain get in the way. Is fun, but dumb, a better summation of a giant ape, wolf, and lizard tearing up Chicago in a modern blockbuster?
Definitely recommend this to younger teens. The movie is clearly aimed at them, unlike the Transformer's movies that seemed to shift from adult raunchiness to its childish roots of action figure smashing silliness. Rampage has an ornery joke here and there, but not to the gross extent found in Transformers. The goofy nature of the behemoth's downtown coupled with over-the-top antagonists like Jeffry Dean Morgan as a cowboy agent that seems to teleport where he can say the most bad-ass line to stupid, but weirdly enjoyable, effect. Dwayne Johnson as an animal loving former soldier has a sweet friendship with his zoo's gorilla George (mo-capped by Jason Liles) that carries the emotional stakes when we're bored of the exposition or taking a break between city battles. If A Quiet Place was a simple, Hitchcockian lay-up attempt at a higher art form of a monster thriller, Rampage is a simple beat-em-up Kaiju movie in the contemporary vein of Kong: Skull Island or Pacific Rim (while being definitely more fun than its lackluster sequel). Rampage is a blast as a dumb action watch, but not worth much else in the grand scheme. I'm really loving the creative ways in which movies are using American Sign Language. Plane of the Apes and Shape of Water use it to build a unique connection to strange creatures with limited communication ability. A Quiet Place is the most logical step in the usage of ASL wherein a post-apocalyptic family hides from more murderous creatures that can't see in the woods, but use hyper sensitive hearing to find their prey. So in order to survive, the humans must live their lives completely without noise. Which, spoilers, becomes dangerously impossibly to maintain.
The silence masking the usually loud theater was an auditory experience that I'm happy that I've had. Obviously this establishes Hitchcockian levels of tension that breaks into some of the more superior brands of jump-scares I've seen in a horror picture. The apex predators stalking the family may reek of the Alien franchise's Xenomorph, but they also have a cool design detail that explains why sound is not recommended around them. Meanwhile the family's silence also lets their emotional connection breathe more organically through highly expressive performances. The stakes for their survival chances are quickly established early on. So the tension feels stronger along with having personal weight to back it up. The mixture of fear as well as feels was accumulated to a satisfying conclusion by the time the stirring climax screamed past the chilled audio I and the characters have been tormented with. A Quiet Place isn't without flaws. An over-skeptical viewer may implode on multiple occasions. A kid needlessly makes noise in one scene. Precautions could have been a little better thought through. Mistakes in avoiding noise could have been averted. Areas that are sound-proofed could have been more often utilized. And such homestead features as a washer/dryer, most likely an electric generator, and possibly AC would have surely alerted the beasts. Despite these issues, I don't hate the movie for them. The characters skillfully work very hard to stay quiet and the lengths to which I'm sucked into this atmosphere makes me look past (more often than not) honestly human mistakes which are usually acknowledged in plot as bad moves before being dealt with. A Quiet Place is a simple monster mash. Clocked at less than an hour and a half along with an easy to follow plot, it thrives as a atmospheric suspense intensifier with a nice dash of human feeling as well. Definitely a perfect Halloween rental for sure. The Jungle was a 1906 novel that political journalist Upton Sinclair did heavy research for by going undercover as a worker in the corrupt meat packing industry of the time. While there he witnessed a lot of wage slavery, worker exploitation, and contaminated meat treating practices. A lot of these discoveries went into his journalism as well as into this novel, first serialized within his own newspaper. The book's intention was to cry out for worker rights. Its impact is better known for exposing the meat industry's unsanitary practices. President Teddy Roosevelt passed the Meat Inspection Act in response to what he learned in these very pages. Sinclair has one of the most memorable quotes about how his audience responded to his work: "I aimed for society's heart and I only hit its stomach."
The narrative follows the tribulations of Jurgis, a Lithuanian immigrant to the U.S. who suffers through endless poverty, job loss, multiple run-ins with the law, depression, despair, desperation, alcoholism, and connections with criminal organizations- basically everything about the American Dream that they neglected from the squeaky clean version. The novel often reads like misery porn, which could tire out some readers or continuously engage them as was the case for me. Suffering as a central plot point is hit or miss for me. It can be over-used to the point of jarring absurdity or can ignite sympathy for anyone also roughing it through the human condition. Sinclair seems to accomplish this despite not making much of Jurgis as a character as well as telling the story with a tad more tell than show than I usually favor. How? It seems to come down to Sinclair knowing his audience and the world he's setting this guy in. He did a lot of research for this after all... and it shows. Layered and detailed is every corner of the working man's hell-scape that was Chicago's early 20th century. Though paragraphs read more like essays reporting on Jurgis's struggles rather than descriptive coloring's, it oddly works in that this detached feeling of documentary explanation draws one in so deeply that imprinting on the flat Jurgis seems all too easy before you also feel his sorry state personally. This speaks to the modern socio-economic state of the U.S. when I myself understand and relate with many of Jurgis's problems in keeping up with the rat race for making a decent living in a system that cares little for the little guy. Though I thankfully haven't been homeless or imprisoned; such fears feel more close than ever as I too have recently been dealing with a slightly (but still scary) turbulent series of job and financial situations. The Jungle is an important book to U.S. history, and it could be more important if more modern readers were to rediscover it. Its ending puts stock in Sinclair's socialist party which may divide those same modern readers. Although after seeing the parallels of past worker oppression compared to those found today, I find it difficult to imagine anyone not even considering that we need better regulation of business exploits of workers as well as give unions a stronger presence. This is one piece of historical fiction whose impressions are still felt now and it seems valuable to anyone with a stake in our current economics to read of a time we may be returning to. |
Archives
October 2016
Categories |