|Posted by Nick Spake on June 20, 2018 at 6:55 PM||comments (0)|
The original “Jurassic Park” was such an exciting, quotable, and rewatchable blockbuster that it would’ve been crazy for Universal not to build a franchise around it. After the disappointments of “The Lost World” and “Jurassic Park III,” however, it seemed like there wasn’t much left to do with this franchise outside of milking it for every cent. Then over a decade after the franchise was seemingly extinct, “Jurassic World” came along and not only made a butt-load of cash, but also evolved the original’s premise. It was the best “Jurassic Park” sequel by a wide margin, bringing the series into modern times. “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” attempts to build upon its processor, but Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly’s script sadly comes off as half-baked.
Bryce Dallas Howard is back as Claire, who’s still trying to correct the mistakes of Jurassic World by preserving the dinosaurs that were left behind on the island. With a volcano about to erupt, though, it looks like the prehistoric beasts are about to become extinct yet again. Claire finds a wealthy benefactor in Eli Mills (Rafe Spall), who works for John Hammond’s former colleague Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell). Mills claims that he wants to rescue the surviving dinosaurs and give them a habitat far away from humankind. Chris Pratt’s Owen decides to join Claire on this rescue mission in hopes of reuniting with the raptor Blue, the true love of his life. It turns out this was all a setup, however, as Mills is actually planning on auctioning off the dinosaurs for money, money, money!
Herein lies the biggest problem with “Fallen Kingdom:” why do we need human bad guys? When you have a T-Rex and a volcano about to explode, what’s the point of throwing in a bunch of wormy, forgettable human villains who just make one colossal mistake after another? Granted, even the original “Jurassic Park” technically had human antagonists, but the filmmakers were smart enough to remove them from the equation half-way in. Here, we’re stuck with Mills for most of the run-time and he’s not nearly as memorable as Dennis Nedry. The villains simply slow down every scene they’re in when all we really want to see is badass dinosaurs doing their thing.
That being said, when “Fallen Kingdom” keeps the focus on the dinosaurs, it’s a pretty fun ride. Director J. A. Bayona, whose made some genuinely thrilling films like “A Monster Calls” and “The Orphanage,” brings his signature visual flair to the film, which features some jaw-dropping cinematography and effects. The best set piece by far takes place on Isla Nublar as our heroes dodge a dinosaur stampede and volcanic doom. It would appear nothing can stop Chris Pratt in his tracks… except for Thanos’ Infinity Gauntlet. Bayona plays his best hand too early in the film, however, as nothing that follows even comes close to topping this stunning action sequence.
Above all else, “Fallen Kingdom” just doesn’t seem sure what it wants to say. There’s clearly an animal rights message somewhere in there, but it gets lost considering that the dinosaurs cause so much destruction and we’d probably be better off letting nature take its course. Speaking of which, our heroes are constantly preaching that we shouldn’t interfere with the dinosaurs, but that’s what they’re constantly doing and often making things worse in due course. There’s also a mystery surrounding a little girl played by promising newcomer Isabella Sermon, but the big reveal fails to go anywhere. She’s not the only one who comes off as underutilized, as Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm briefly returns merely to spout a couple lines for the trailer.
As disappointing as this “Jurassic World” follow-up is in parts, it does offer some intriguing ideas, particularly in the final act. It’s too bad these ideas weren’t introduced earlier in the film, but they do have me interested to see where this franchise will go in its next inevitable outing. With a more fleshed-out screenplay, there’s true potential for another stellar action adventure. For now, though, “Fallen Kingdom” feels more like a stepping stone to better things to come. If only it had spent more time in the incubator.
Grade: 2.5 out of 5 Stars
|Posted by Nick Spake on June 8, 2018 at 12:40 AM||comments (0)|
Your enjoyment of “Ocean’s 8” will entirely rely on how much your you liked Steven Soderbergh’s “Ocean’s” trilogy. If you couldn’t get enough of the previous three films and have been yearning for more, you can bet on having a good time here. If you’re officially Ocean-end out, this sequel/soft revival probably won’t offer many surprises. While safe and fairly by-the-numbers, it’s still a well-executed heist comedy with enough star-power and glitz to keep the target audience entertained. Anybody who’s onboard going into the theater will get what they paid for, no more, no less.
Sandra Bullocks takes the reins of the franchise as Debbie Ocean, Danny’s equally crafty sister. Following a five year prison sentence, Debbie plans to pull off the biggest heist of her life at the Met Gala. Anne Hathaway is an MVP here as a self-centered celebrity named Daphne Kluger, who will be wearing a $150 million necklace to the ceremony. Of course Debbie can’t pull off this job alone. Her eccentric crew consists of Cate Blanchett as her right-hand woman, Helena Bonham Carter as a struggling fashion designer, Mindy Kaling as a quirky jewelry maker, Awkwafina as a sketchy pickpocket, Rihanna as the world’s most gorgeous hacker, and Sarah Paulson as a housewife who comes out of retirement for one last job.
While this “Ocean’s” film has been classified as an all-female reboot, the leads aren’t written as stereotypical woman. Most of these characters just as easily could’ve been played by a man, but the presence of these eight charismatic actresses brings something refreshing to the equation. The entire ensemble shines and everyone works off one another wonderfully. Although Soderbergh didn’t return to direct this outing, Gary Ross captures the same slick style and cheeky tone. The heist itself is a creative one and leaves the audience guessing how exactly these people are going to get those diamonds off Hathaway’s neck.
What the film lacks is a compelling villain. From Andy Garcia to Al Pacino, this franchise has attracted some pretty cunning baddies. Here, however, there’s not really anyone for the audience to root against and the character who comes the closest to being an antagonist is completely forgettable. It briefly looks like James Corden might shake things up as an insurance agent, but he’s sadly underutilized. As a result, our heroes seem to have the upper hand from the start and there isn’t really a sense of dread.
In spite of its shortcomings, “Ocean’s 8” ultimately compensates with its capable cast and Ross’ confident direction. While it isn’t the franchise’s best outing, it does provide a solid launching point for a new era. It would’ve been nice if the filmmakers took more chances, but that’s what we have sequels for. It’d actually be fun to see the series continue with “Ocean’s 9” and “Ocean’s 10,” bringing things full circle... just like an O.
Grade: 3.5 Out of 5 Stars
|Posted by Nick Spake on May 24, 2018 at 12:00 AM||comments (0)|
Over four decades ago, Paul Schrader forever changed cinema when he wrote “Taxi Driver.” While Martin Scorsese’s direction often soaks up most of the credit, Schrader deserves just as much recognition for crafting one of the 20th century’s most gripping character studies. “First Reformed,” which Schrader both wrote and directed, has the essence of a modern “Taxi Driver” with a touch of "The Last Temptation of Christ." It’s not as good as those films and chances are it won’t leave behind the same impact. Schrader’s film evokes many of the same feelings, however, taking the audience on an unsettling, understated, and uncompromising journey they won’t soon forget.
Ethan Hawke delivers one of his most powerful performances as Toller, a former military chaplain whose son died in war. Being the one who convinced his son to join the armed forces, Toller is already riddled with guilt and grief over his death. Although he’s clearly suffering from a fatal ailment, he’s reluctant to seek medical help. Toller has for the most part cut himself off from having meaningful relationships, only occasionally speaking to a fellow pastor (Cedric the Entertainer) and a well-meaning yet nosy choir conductor named Esther (Victoria Hill). This man of the Lord only becomes more conflicted as he grows closer to a pregnant woman named Mary, beautifully played by Amanda Seyfried. She asks Toller to council her paranoid husband, who’s convinced that the environment is beyond repair. Unfortunately, Toller not only fails her husband, but also slowly comes to believe that mankind has doomed the world God gave us.
Environmentally conscious films tend to range from well-intentioned to unbearably self-righteous. “First Reformed” isn’t without its preachy moments and can at times be a bit too on the nose, especially when it comes to tackling big corporations. More often than not, though, the film avoids the clichés you might expect. This isn’t a movie that tries to provide an easy solution to a global problem. Rather, it’s about a man desperately searching for answers, but finding nothing but uncertainty around every corner.
Like Travis Bickle, Toller simply wants to fit into something greater. The more he struggles to find a purpose, though, Toller starts to take extreme measures in hopes of fixing a timely issue. A more straightforward film would’ve just made Toller a one-dimensional martyr. Instead, he emerges an incredibly complex protagonist. You could argue that he’s a Christ-like figure willing to sacrifice his life for the greater good, but he could also be seen as a deeply troubled individual on the verge of committing suicide.
In terms of style, Schrader keeps things subtle and intimate with a tight aspect ratio. The film isn’t without its surreal moments that catch the audience off-guard, however, most notably a psychedelic flying sequence reminiscent of “The Big Lebowski.” The ending in particular is going to have a lot of people scratching their heads. With nothing spelled out and a slow pace, “First Reformed” admittedly isn’t for everyone. For those familiar with Schrader’s work, though, you’ll definitely walk away with something to think about.
Grade: 3.5 out of 5 Stars
|Posted by Nick Spake on May 17, 2018 at 7:00 PM||comments (0)|
There have been amazing “Star Wars” movies like “The Empire Strikes Back,” awful “Star Wars” movies like “The Phantom Menace,” and even divisive “Star Wars” movies like “The Last Jedi.” Now we get “Solo,” the first “Star Wars” movie that’s just… fine. It’s not great, but it’s not bad either. It’s a thoroughly assuming adventure that’ll keep die-hard fans and casual viewers entertained, although the experience probably won’t stick with them like any of the of the previous entries. Considering that the film’s production had so much going against it, most notably director Ron Howard taking over for Chris Miller and Phil Lord, it’s comforting to see everything come together with mostly positive results. Since this is “Star Wars,” though, you’d think that the film would spark more passionate feelings, be they good, bad, or mixed.
The film naturally provides an origin story for young Han Solo, played by Alden Ehrenreich, who wishes to become the galaxy’s greatest pilot and reconnect with his old girlfriend Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke). On his road to becoming an unlikely hero, Han of course crosses paths with a Wookiee named Chewbacca and a charming scoundrel named Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover). He’s also taken under the wing of a Long John Silver-like smuggler known as Tobias Beckett (Woody Harrelson). Beckett signs Han up for a job that’ll make them all wealthy, although the odds aren’t exactly in their favor.
Han Solo is such an iconic character that it’s impossible to separate him from Harrison Ford. That being said, Ehrenreich does about as well as any young actor possibly could in the role. It’s been reported that Ehrenreich was required to take acting lessons well into filming at the request of Lucasfilm. This had many fans worried, recalling the scene from “Hail, Caesar!” where Ehrenreich’s character is miscast in a comedy of manners. Fortunately, Ehrenreich ultimately pulls off a believable performance, successfully mimicking Ford’s voice and body language. While it can feel like an impression at times, Ehrenreich wins us over with his charm and charisma. The same can be said about Donald Glover, who’s the next best thing right after Billy Dee Williams. In other words, this isn’t another Hayden Christensen situation.
The rest of the cast is well-suited for their roles too. Harrelson is a likable con man, Clarke is an alluring dame, and Paul Bettany is a menacing gangster. There’s also Phoebe Waller-Bridge as L3-37, a droid activist who wonders why her kind can’t be served at every cantina. It would’ve been nice if the film provided more commentary on machine prejudice in this universe, but perhaps that’ll be another “Star Wars Story.” The action, while nothing mind-blowing, is keenly executed and the visuals are nothing short of stunning. The film isn’t without pacing issues, especially in the final act where we get multiple climaxes. There’s also a surprise cameo that’s admittedly pretty cool, although adds little to the plot. As far as space westerns go, however, “Solo” is a solid piece of work, even if it really didn’t need to exist.
Han Solo is undeniably one of the greatest characters in the history of cinema. After the original “Star Wars” trilogy and “The Force Awakens,” though, it feels like everything has already been said about him. This film does nothing to diminish Han Solo’s legacy. On the contrary, it’s true to the character’s spirit from beginning to end. The film just doesn’t add anything new to the character, or the “Star Wars” mythology for that matter. Considering that “The Last Jedi” left the masses split down the middle, it makes sense that “Solo” would be safer, but it’s hard to get really invested in a story where you can predict everything that’s going to happen. In a nutshell, if you want a “Star Wars” picture that takes risk, this isn’t the picture you’re looking for. If you’re in the mood for a brisk, lighthearted romp in a galaxy far, far away, however, “Solo” is satisfying, albeit a bit scruffy-looking.
|Posted by Nick Spake on May 15, 2018 at 9:30 PM||comments (0)|
In an oversaturated superhero movie market, the original “Deadpool” stood out with its self-aware sense of humor and unapologetic R-rating. “Deadpool 2” is essentially more of the same. That’s not at all a bad thing, as the film ultimately delivers exactly what we want: more over-the-top violence, more gratuitous swearing, and Ryan Reynolds as the Merc with a Mouth. On one hand, it’s kind of disappointing that “Deadpool 2” doesn’t up the ante, but it’s hard to imagine how a sequel like this could possibly be as fresh as its game-changing predecessor. It’s still a most entertaining second chapter with enough memorable moments to warrant the price of admission.
Reynolds is better than ever as Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool, who acknowledges upfront that the Oscar-nominated “Logan” is a tough act to follow. Similar to Wolverine’s relationship with X-23, this film follows Deadpool as he takes a temperamental mutant named Firefist (Julian Dennison) under his wing. Firefirst lands in hot water, however, when he’s targeted by mutant solider from the future named Cable, played by Josh Brolin. To protect his little buddy, Deadpool forms a new team called X-Force, which includes Zazie Beetz as the lucky Domino, Terry Crew as the not-so-lucky Bedlam, and Rob Delaney as the powerless Peter.
While you’ll go to the theater to see Deadpool himself, Reynolds fortunately doesn’t have to carry the movie on his own. Deadpool has a terrific ensemble to support him and his interactions with everyone, from Stefan Kapičić’s Colossus to Brianna Hildebrand’s Negasonic Teenage Warhead, are a delight to watch. Brolin also further proves that he can do little wrong with his debut as Cable. Funny to think that Brolin dominated the MCU as Thanos only a couple weeks ago and now he’s in another Marvel movie. And yes, Deadpool doesn’t hesitate to poke fun at this.
As you would expect, “Deadpool 2” is full of hilarious comic book and movie references, most notably taking shots at the DC Extended Universe. There are even some obscure references you never would’ve expected to see in an “X-Men film,” such as the parallels between “Frozen” and “Yentl.” Although the jokes mostly hit bullseyes, “Deadpool 2” admittedly slows down whenever it tries to be a real superhero movie. You don’t care that much about Deadpool’s growth as a person and the story is nothing new. As a matter of fact, the plot here would be a pretty basic rehash of “The Terminator” or “Looper” if it weren’t for the humor. Unlike “Kick-Ass 2,” though, this film fortunately doesn’t forget that it’s supposed to be a comedy above all else.
For all the moments that drag, “Deadpool 2” always has an inspired gag or an inventive action set piece waiting around the corner. Even if it’s not as good as the original, it’s sure to be enjoyed by anyone who likes Deadpool. It also has what might be the greatest end credits sequence in the history of film. Without giving too much away, let’s just say that it makes up for the sins of the past while opening the door for a potentially interesting future. With that said, bring on the “X-Force” movie!
|Posted by Nick Spake on May 10, 2018 at 11:20 PM||comments (0)|
Melissa McCarthy movies tend to go in one of two ways. If it’s directed by Paul Feig, we’ll probably get an instant comedy classic like “Bridesmaids,” “The Heat,” or “Spy.” If it’s directed by Ben Falcone, McCarthy’s real-life husband, we’ll get something mostly mediocre like “Tammy” or “The Boss.” With “Life of the Party,” the audience can’t help but get excited when they see McCarthy in the trailer, but interest quickly dies down when you spot Falcone’s name on the film’s IMDb page. To be fair, Falcone isn’t devoid of talent and his latest directorial outing does have its laughs. For this material to really shine, though, a more seasoned writer and director needed to be brought on board.
McCarthy stars as Deanna Miles, a middle-aged mother who’s taken aback when her jerky husband (Matt Walsh) asks for a divorce. Having never completed college, Deanna sees this as an opportunity to finally get her degree. Coincidentally, her daughter Maddie (Molly Gordon) Is in her senior year and soon enough Deanne becomes a regular at her sorority. While Maddie is a bit annoyed at first, she eventually comes to enjoy having her mom around. We’ve seen this kind of premise explored in other films like “Back to School,” “Billy Madison,” and even “An Extremely Goofy Movie.” Does “Life of the Party” bring anything unique to the table, though? Well, the cast does, even if the script doesn’t.
The characters here are for the most part all stereotypes, ranging from the geeky misfits to the mean girls. The material is elevated by a capable group of comedic actors, however. McCarthy strikes just the right balance of being warm and nurturing while also being over-the-top. We get some especially hysterical work from Gillian Jacobs as a student who started college late after spending eight years in a coma. Deanna actually has a very nice rapport with all of her daughter’s friends, acting as both a parental figure and an irresponsible sorority sister. Maya Rudolph, Julie Bowen, and Stephen Root help round out the supporting cast, delivering a descent number of one-liners.
There’s even time for a little romance as Deanna rebounds with a hunky college stud played by Luke Benward. Granted, it’s kind of hard to buy this relationship, but that’s part of the joke. It also leads the most hilarious moment in the film as worlds collide at a restaurant. I won’t give away what happens, but it’s one of the best revelation scenes since “Crazy, Stupid, Love.” So what we’re left with is a great ensemble and some genuinely funny moments in a comedy that’s ultimately just okay.
While there’s definitely a lot to like in “Life of the Party,” there are also too many moments that drag on without any laughs. The first act in particular is a bit of a slog to get through with most of the jokes falling flat. The humor does start to pick up in the second half, especially with that one dinner scene. When you look at the big picture, though, you’re left disappointed that some scenes didn’t get a rewrite. It’s perfectly passable for a DVD rental, but there’s not much to celebrate at the theater.
Grade: 2.5 out of 5 Stars
|Posted by Nick Spake on April 12, 2018 at 8:10 PM||comments (0)|
“Truth or Dare” starts off with an intriguing, if not brilliant, premise: a game of truth or dare where lives are on the line. Throw in a capable cast and a fairly well-plotted screenplay, and you should have an all-around enjoyable horror flick. Unfortunately, the filmmakers simply don’t take full advantage of the concept at hand. There are ideas here that were tailor-made for a classic supernatural thriller or even a dark comedy. Watching the film, the audience can cook up a dozen terrifying scenarios that could’ve been derived from this setup. That makes it all the more disappointing as the movie doesn’t answer the door when opportunity knocks.
Lucy Hale is Olivia, a college student who joins her friends for Spring Break in Mexico. While there, she runs into a mysterious hunk (Landon Liboiron) who convinces Olivia and her palls to visit an abandoned church. Drinking too much, they start to play a game of truth or dare that gets far too real. Returning home, the gang is followed by a smirking demon, who I’m not convinced we’re supposed to take seriously. The rules soon become clear: do the dare or you die and tell the truth or you die. So what do the filmmakers do with this fun, creepy plot? Eh, that’s where the movie lets us down.
The characters could be dared to do any number of crazy things. Outside of a drinking game that takes place on a roof, though, there are no edge of your seat dares. The truths aren’t that stimulating either, primarily because our characters have nothing very interesting to hide. While we do get a couple twists, it's nothing that the audience can’t see coming from a mile away. There aren’t enough truly challenging ethical dilemmas to make us cringe in terror. Even the deaths feel all too restrained, especially when you stack them up against something like “Final Destination” or “Saw.”
It doesn’t help that the characters are for the most part blank slates. Hale’s time on “Pretty Little Liars” certainly gave her enough experience to become an overnight scream queen. Outside of Hale, though, the rest of the cast aren’t given much to work with, despite their best efforts. The only other character who has a distinct personality is Sam Lerner as a pervy nerd, who of course doesn’t last too long. What we’re left with feels like a game of Monopoly that has almost all the right pieces, but the dice are missing.
While “Truth or Dare” doesn’t quite merit a recommendation, a part of me still wants to see it perform well. This is largely due to the ending, which – without giving too much away – leaves the door open for a lot of cool possibilities. A sequel could deliver where the film that started it all fell short. Having produced hits like “Get Out” and “Split” in recent years, Blumhouse Productions has what it takes to make it happen. They just need some more inventive and ambitious storytellers to tackle the next film.
Grade: 2.5 Out of 5 Stars
|Posted by Nick Spake on April 12, 2018 at 8:00 PM||comments (0)|
Of all the modern film adaptations of video games, “Rampage” probably had to build the most from the ground up. In “Tomb Raider,” the filmmakers had one of the greatest game protagonists of all time to work with. In “Warcraft,” a whole world and mythology was delivered to the filmmakers on a silver platter. “Rampage,” however, is based on a 1986 arcade game where a giant gorilla, lizard, and wolf attack a city. How is that a movie? In many ways, director Brad Peyton and company deserve credit for trying to make something out of nothing, even if the results still come off as half-baked.
While it’s a monster movie on the surface, “Rampage” is also the tale of a man and his monkey. Dwayne Johnson plays David Okoye, a primatologist who would rather spend his time with an albino gorilla named George than with people. When George comes into contact with a mysterious experiment from outer space, he grows to the size of Mighty Joe Young and develops a serious attitude problem. He’s not the only one, as the experiment also affects a wolf and a crocodile that grow big enough to join the Toho family. Along with a former genetic engineer named Kate (Naomie Harris), David sets out to save George before he and his fellow giants level Chicago.
Through motion capture effects, performer Jason Liles brings a great deal of personality to George, just as Andy Serkis did with his portrayal of Caesar in the “Planet of the Apes” films. George is really the only beast anybody seems that interested in, though. Ralph the Wolf is pretty much sidelined, although he does have one fun encounter with Joe Manganiello, who ironically played a werewolf on “True Blood.” Meanwhile, Lizzie, who’s never actually referred to by name, doesn’t pop up until the climax. While the destruction is visually impressive and captures the spirit of the game, the film keeps trying to shoehorn in humans we don’t care much about. That actually seems to be a problem with a lot of modern monster movies, as well as films with “vs” in the title.
As per usual, Johnson gives it his all, even when he’s not given the most complex character to work with. Harris also tries hard, although her character is basically just there to spout exposition and to be “the woman” archetype. The film honestly could’ve used more of Jeffrey Dean Morgan as a government agent with a cowboy persona. It’d actually be great to see him and Johnson in a buddy picture later down the line. Then there’s Malin Åkerman and Jake Lacy as the evil brother and sister behind Project: Rampage. As cliché as these villains are, at least they’re entertainingly over-the-top on occasion. Imagine Cersei and Jaime Lannister if you crossed them with Sharpay and Ryan Evans from “High School Musical.”
It’s becoming clear that the best video game movies are the ones that aren’t directly based on video games. “Wreck-It Ralph,” “Ready Player One,” and “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” a better film starring Johnson, all had fun with ideas and concepts derived from video games. “Rampage,” on the other hand, is just another film that isn’t sure how to adapt its source material. The movie might’ve worked it there was more emphasis on the monsters and less on the humans. Let’s just hope that “Godzilla vs. Kong” can get that right.
Grade: 2.5 Out of 5 Stars
|Posted by Nick Spake on April 5, 2018 at 7:00 PM||comments (0)|
20 years ago, we got “American Pie,” a film about four teenage boys determined to lose their virginity before prom night. “Blockers” possesses a similar premise, albeit with a few notable changes. For starters, rather than boys, this story revolves around three girls who enter a sex pact with the end of their senior years on the horizon. Of course the film is just as much about the parents of the girls, if not more so. Unlike Eugene Levy as Jim’s dad, however, these parents aren’t exactly eager to give their children advice on intercourse. This helps to distinguish “Blockers” from its predecessor, making for a comedy that’s not only funny, but also kind of poignant in parts.
Our three comically seasoned leads are all tailor-made for their roles. Leslie Mann plays Lisa, the loving – yet clingy – single mother of Kathryn Newton’s Julie. Ike Barinholtz is Hunter, the clueless estranged dad of Gideon Adlon’s Sam. Then there’s John Cena as Mitchell, the overprotective father of Geraldine Viswanathan’s Kayla. While their daughters have been best friends since they were five, the three parents have had a falling out over the years. Once the parents find out that the girls are planning to give their flowers away to their prom dates, they reunite to prevent them from ending up on “Teen Mom.”
It’s a simple, if not clichéd, premise that still makes leeway for a lot of hilarious scenarios. The highlight involves a drinking game that, without giving too much away, is simply crap your pants funny. Gary Cole and Gina Gershon also give some uproarious supporting performances as a couple with a VERY open sex life. The screenplay from Brian Kehoe and Jim Kehoe is additionally ripe with one-liners. Actually, there are times when the audience is laughing so hard that it’s easy to miss some of the dialog. That’s just a reason to revisit “Blockers” when it comes out on DVD, however.
“Blockers” marks the feature film directorial debut of Kay Cannon, who is best known for her work on the “Pitch Perfect” movies. Cannon injects sharp comedic timing into her film, getting strong work from the entire cast. The dynamic between Mann, Cena, and Barinholtz is especially refreshing. In most films like this, the leads would typically be either three dads or three moms. Gender isn’t really a factor when it comes to this trio, though, as they’re all simply concerned parents who have their daughters’ best interests at heart… even if they go a bit overboard. Cena in particular does a genuine job at making the audience forget that he started out as a professional wrestler, masking his hulking physique with a parental persona.
As great as the parents are, the film fortunately doesn’t forget about the daughters either. Newton, Viswanathan, and Adlon also strike an equal balance of being humorous, complex, and down-to-earth. The three actually share a very believable friendship and the rapport they have with their parents is just as sincere. Despite all the unrealistic shenanigans, the interactions between the characters feels surprisingly authentic and the film’s messages regarding teen sex ultimately ring true. It might not be a proper substitute for the sex talk, but “Blockers” will speak to parents and young adults when that awkward time comes.
Grade: 4 Out of 5 Stars
|Posted by Nick Spake on January 23, 2018 at 7:40 PM||comments (3)|
My feelings towards “The Maze Runner” movies are very mixed. The first film, while nothing groundbreaking, at least had a gripping sense of mystery and a premise worthy of a “Twilight Zone” episode. 2015’s “The Scorch Trials” threw all of those interesting ideas out the window, becoming a straight-up “Hunger Games” knockoff. That shouldn’t come as a massive surprise, seeing how this franchise primarily exists to bank on the success of Katniss Everdeen’s story. Since the young adult craze has started to die out anyway, “The Death Cure” is about three years too late. Of course the filmmakers and studio can’t exactly be blamed for the movie’s poor timing, as Dylan O'Brien’s on set injuries delayed production.
O’Brien reprises his role as Thomas, who just might be the key to saving humanity as a deadly disease continues to plague the world. Thomas is once again joined by… well… I can’t really remember any of the other characters, which is this franchise’s main problem. While the actors all do a fine job, Thomas’ friends are interchangeable and have few – if any – defining characteristics. You know the one kid in Stephen King’s “It” that everyone forgets about and is nobody’s favorite? Imagine if they just made about four or five of them and you’d basically have the primary ensemble here.
The other supporting characters aren’t much more interesting and come off as unenthusiastically clichéd. You’ve got Kaya Scodelario as the traitor who’s bound to reteam with our heroes, Patricia Clarkson as the big bad government figure who sees the light, and Aidan Gillen as the other authority figure who gets no redemption. Giancarlo Esposito is also there, although he’s never utilized to his full potential. Nobody is. Everyone just seems to be there to collect a paycheck and nothing more.
As half-assed as “The Death Cure” can feel at times, director Wes Ball’s action sequences do brighten matters up a bit. There’s an especially impressive set piece involving a bus that manages to be inventive, thrilling, and humorous all at once. While it’s a well-crafted movie on the whole, “The Death Cure” also borrows from one too many other franchises. In addition to “The Hunger Games,” the look of the film was clearly influenced by “Mad Max” and “Blade Runner.” Huh, maybe this movie should’ve been called “Maze Runner 2049.” Ultimately, there’s a been there, done that mentality to the whole experience which never lets up.
Of all the “Maze Runner” movies, “The Death Cure” isn’t the worst, but it’s arguably the most uneven. For every moment that’s legitimately fun, exciting, or dramatic, there’s another that’s redundant and monotonous. It’s a middle of the road conclusion to a franchise that was always average at best. For what it’s worth, this was probably the best ending we could’ve hoped for and if the previous two films had you at the edge of your seat, “The Death Cure” will leave you satisfied. Personally, I’m just glad they didn’t try to split the final book into two movies.
Grade: 2.5 Out of 5 Stars