REVIEW: Alien Covenant

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

REVIEW: Prometheus

It's a testament to the quality of both Alien and Aliens that we hold this franchise in such high-regard. These first two films rank among the best ever made, yet everything since has ranged from merely okay to pure garbage. Prometheus was a film that I (and I'm sure many other Alien fanatics) was greatly looking forward to. With Ridley Scott back in the director's chair and a viral marketing campaign that promised something more in-line with the original 1979 film, I was sure that this would be the film to restore this franchise to its former glory. As Noomi Rapace's Dr. Elizabeth Shaw says, "I was wrong. We were so wrong." Perhaps I'm being a tad harsh; the last and only time I watched Prometheus was back when it released in the summer of 2012. Like with Batman V Superman, I left the theater feeling as though the film was passable at worst (albeit a tad unsatisfying), only for that feeling of middling acceptance to quickly sour into outright contempt. The more I thought about it, the more elements of the plot and characters disintegrated before my eyes like so many buff, albino spacemen. However, as hard as it is to believe, that was just about half a decade ago. I decided to give Prometheus another chance, to see if it holds up better upon a second viewing. It does, though only slightly, and I'm still very much inclined to chalk this one up as yet another 'miss' for the Alien franchise.

Taking place well before Alien (and retconning those god-awful AVP movies out of series canon), the film follows the crew of the Prometheus, a research vessel commissioned by the eponymous Weyland Corporation. Archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) have discovered star maps in several locations across the Earth, believing them to be directions to the origins of mankind's makers. Intent upon finding these so-called Engineers and uncovering the purpose of human life, the crew travels to a planet known as LV-223 (not to be confused with LV-426 from Alien and Aliens), only to find a massive pyramid filled to the brim with a strange, goopy alien pathogen. Instead of answering the questions posed by Alien (mainly regarding the origin of the iconic xenomorph), the film instead poses a host of new questions and chooses to answer exactly zero of them.

In some ways, this was a functionally flawed film from the get-go. Part of the appeal of Alien was the sense of mystery and uncertainty. We knew as much about the creature that terrorized the crew of the Nostromo as they did; the alien represents the unknown, and the unknown is always inherently terrifying. That is, until you attempt to explain it. Really, we don't need to know where the xenomorph came from. Any origin they could present would just feel unsatisfying compared to some thirty-plus years of speculation and conjecture. Luckily, however, the xenomorph gets to retain its mystique because it doesn't appear at all in this film. Instead, we're given an unsatisfying (and canonically dubious) explanation for the Space Jockeys (now called Engineers). Being that the xenomorph has existed in pop culture for so long, it's understandable why Ridley Scott chose to omit the creature from this entry in the series; people love the big chap, but we've had nearly four decades to look at the monster. Safe to say he's lost a bit of his initial shock and awe, so it's important to innovate and keep things fresh. Unfortunately, the film forgets that there's a difference between being mysterious and simply being ill-defined.

In Alien, we're able to understand how the creature functions, even if we know very little about what it actually is. We can gather that it reproduces by implanting an embryo inside a host and that it's got pressurized molecular acid for blood. It's incredibly resilient but, like most animals, is averse to fire. There's just enough there that the xenomorph is still strange and terrifying, but coherent enough in concept that it remains conceivable. We aren't distracted by this fantastical creature skulking around a ship knocking off space truckers because it feels like something that could very well exist in the cold depths of space. That's precisely what makes it terrifying. 

Meanwhile, in Prometheus, we know all the wrong things about the Engineers. We know that they created human life, we know that their DNA is somehow a direct match to ours (despite them being an ancient race of alabaster giants), we know that they want to destroy us for whatever reason, and we know that they possess a sinister black goo that you certainly don't want to get near any mucus membranes. We don't know, on the other hand, what the black goo even does; as is, it basically functions in whichever way is most convenient for the plot. Sometimes it causes life to disintegrate, sometimes it causes rapid evolution, and sometimes it just turns people into zombies. While we assume the creature in Alien is just acting on animal instinct, the Engineers are clearly intelligent. So why don't they operate under any sense of logic? Why do they want to destroy Earth so badly? We have some sense of what the stakes are, but we don't know what motivates any of it. I was so busy trying to make sense of all the plot holes and oversights that I completely forgot to be emotionally invested.

I could spend a great deal of time picking apart the insane amount of plot holes in this movie (and I would, if a certain pair of hackfrauds hadn't perfectly summed everything up five years ago), so I'll instead pick apart the characters. Whereas Alien spent the entirety of its first act familiarizing us with a small crew of normal, everyday people, Prometheus instead opts for a comparatively larger cast of sci-fi cartoon characters. Logan-Mashall Green is completely unbelievable, playing the part of a doctor of archaeology with all the impulsiveness of a boorish frat-boy. He's completely unlikeable and I felt nothing but joy upon seeing him bite the dust. Rafe Spall's biologist character is a jittery coward for the entire film, up until the point he sees a phallic alien snake and decides to try and shake hands with it. Apparently there was a cut scene in which he encounters a decidedly non-hostile version of these creatures, establishing the idea that they pose no threat to him; why this scene was cut, I have no idea. We also get to watch Sean Harris comically smoke weed out of his space helmet while trapped in an ancient alien pyramid. This movie features the most appallingly incompetent excuses for scientists I think I've ever seen, and that's aside from the scene towards the end of the second act where Idris Elba explains the premise thus far to any audience members who might be having trouble keeping up.

That said, the film is not without its highlights. Noomi Rapace is totally believable in her role as Elizabeth Shaw (even if she's just a tad too spry immediately following a last-minute cesarean). The idea of a character struggling to hold onto their faith despite literally meeting their maker is leagues more fascinating than every other bit of sci-fi schlock the film throws our way. There's also Michael Fassbender as David the android, by far the best takeaway of the entire film. The theme of creations rebelling against their creators is about the only thing the film gets across well, and that's almost entirely thanks to Fassbender's incredible performance. He displays such a subtle turn from helpful and innocent to jealous and spiteful, completely commanding attention while on-screen. It's actually kind of stunning; few films display such an aptitude for wasting talent like this one does, yet I'd go as far as to say that David is right up there with Ripley as one of the best characters this franchise has ever produced. Fassbender earns every bit of praise he gets for this one, and he's one of the few things I'm certain will be good about Alien: Covenant.

Visually, this movie is stunning. The cinematography is gorgeous, the special effects are holding up nicely, and the reliance on practical sets and creatures is greatly appreciated. For as much as I gripe about the story and characters (care of Lost's Damon Lindeloff), I can't deny that this is a superbly good-looking film. Everything aesthetic, from the lighting to the score, is top-notch. I can even respect the film for daring to be as ambitious as it is; it goes to some truly far-out places, yet rarely scuffs the atmosphere that it builds. The first act is a strong preamble to a massive-yet-gorgeous letdown. With a better script, this really could have been a masterpiece to rival the first Alien. Instead, it will just have to join the long line of interesting films that were ruined during re-writes.

Prometheus is a film that I truly wish was as good as I wanted it to be. It sets lofty goals for itself and falls far from accomplishing them, as admirable as the attempt was. Unfortunately, there's just too many things wrong with the story being told on a fundamental level to save the film as a whole. Michael Fassbender is incredible and the visual direction is truly a sight to behold, but beyond that it's a disappointingly vague, shallow mess of a prequel. It may be somewhat unfair to compare it so vigorously to Alien, but I feel as though such comparisons are inevitable when both films are not only in the same franchise, but share the same director. There's so many cut corners and lazy plot holes here that were completely absent in Alien, so one has to wonder what changed in the interim. 

In the past, Ridley Scott has expressed frustration that Alien has become yet another blockbuster franchise, with schlocky sequels and a ride at Disney World. In many ways, Prometheus feels like an attempt by a director to reclaim an idea that has since gotten away from him; in the process of doing so, he ignores everything that made the original idea good, just for the sake of separating himself from the past that everyone knows and loves. I've seen the original draft of this film, back when Prometheus was known as Alien: Engineers. It certainly sounded like something better than what we got and it's unfortunate we'll never get to see it reach fruition. Hopefully he'll have more luck with Alien: Covenant.

REVIEW: Kong- Skull Island

"Cinematic Universe" seems to be the defining phrase in this era of film history. Considering the runaway success of the MCU, it's not exactly difficult to understand why studios seem so smitten with the idea of tying their various franchises together in massive, theatrical crossover events. However, the idea of mashing profitable properties together is hardly a modern one; after all, Frankenstein's monster met the Wolfman long before the Avengers ever assembled (and that's counting the comics, too). Monster Mash films like Godzilla vs Mothra and House of Frankenstein were immensely popular all throughout the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Now that shared universes are making a comeback, studios are taking note by resurrecting the monsters who started it all. While Universal's upcoming reboot of The Mummy seems to be mimicking the superhero action of the Marvel films rather than sticking to the franchises' horror/suspense roots, Legendary's MonsterVerse (which began with 2014's Godzilla) skews much more towards presenting classic monster movie tropes and conventions with modern style and sensibilities. This remains true for the second film in this new series, Kong: Skull Island. It's a classic monster adventure with flair to spare, and I absolutely loved it.

The film acts as a reboot of the King Kong franchise, introducing Kong to this new continuity through an original story, rather than retelling the classic tale of beauty and beast. Set in 1973 right at the end of the Vietnam War, the film follows a team of scientists, government agents, and military personnel on a research expedition to the enigmatic Skull Island (recently discovered by Landsat satellites). As one might expect, our crew of explorers get more than they bargained for once they reach the island, running afoul of the local fauna (most notably, a 100-foot tall ape deity known as Kong). The plot is as straightforward as it gets and the characters are, for the most part, static and paper-thin. However, it's the sheer amount of care and competence that this movie was obviously made with that makes it work so well.

The film's visual style completely took me by surprise; the folly of so many modern blockbusters is an over-reliance of CGI to the point where everything looks flat and unimpressive (despite the immense amount of man-hours and artistry required to bring these effects to life). Imagine my shock when this offbeat, schlocky monster reboot ends up taking visual influence from everything from Apocalypse Now to Princess Mononoke. Skull Island is brimming with life, looking both organic and fantastical at the same time. Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts opted not to use dinosaurs, instead populating Skull Island with a number of bizarre but brilliantly-imaginative creatures and monsters. Early on, John Goodman's Bill Randa (an agent for the Monarch agency from Gareth Edwards' Godzilla) describes the titular island as "a place where God never finished creation", and everything from the vegetation to the inhabitants most certainly looks the part. Kong himself is more of a mythic beast than a big gorilla (no offense meant to Peter Jackson's loving 2006 tribute), covered in moss and algae as he lopes around his South Pacific home.

This is a movie that isn't afraid to get weird and inventive with its cinematography, and I feel the creativity at work here really pays off. During the initial helicopter battle with Kong, we are treated to a wonderful POV shot from inside a downed chopper. Our view of the outside world is restricted to an open side door, as we see the landscape slowly shift while Kong lifts the helicopter above his head. A hapless soldier falls into the ape's mouth and the film immediately hard-cuts to a research technician biting into a sandwich. Moments like these set the artistic tone for the entire movie; a larger-than-life adventure with dazzling contrasts of warm and cool colors shot from dynamic, engaging camera angles. There are several moments that I think would make for excellent posters (though I of course chose the bombastic Japanese variant for this Review); it's clear that the shots and visuals were composited with great care and attention to detail. Moreover, the film doesn't waste an ounce of its 1970's framework, enveloping its atmosphere in the iconography of the era.

Bucking the usual King Kong motif of "lovestruck beast martyred by the greed of man", Skull Island presents a positively Aliens-esque Vietnam parallel involving headstrong military types travelling to an unknown land to fight an enemy they don't understand. The film's antagonist, Lieutenant Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), suffers from disillusionment and denial after US forces are recalled from Vietnam. Whereas all of his men are just thankful to go home to their families, Packard is left questioning the point of his sacrifice and service (as he explains to Brie Larson's wartime photographer, "we didn't lose the war, we abandoned it"). He's a soldier without a war to fight who happens to find an enemy in Kong. Despite Kong merely defending his territory from bomb-dropping intruders, his retaliation still wipes out a good amount of Packard's men. The best kind of villains are the ones with motives we can sympathize with; Packard is clearly consumed by a desire for vengeance, but we can completely rationalize his motives (to a point, of course). When a film's conflict boils down to "man vs nature", it's important for the human element to not be irrationally cruel. If the antagonist is a strawman who hates nature "just because", the audience will fail to see any reflection of themselves in the villain and the conflict loses all sense of interest and nuance.

That said, while I appreciate Skull Island's engaging stylistic choices and classically straightforward plot, I can't really defend the flat, uninteresting cast of characters. The film assembles an incredibly talented stable of actors (Tom Hiddleston, John Goodman, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, John C. Reilly, etc.) and then gives them nothing particularly interesting to do aside from escape from an island full of monsters. Samuel L. Jackson was an effective antagonist (though the role is very clearly in his comfort zone) and no one really gives a bad performance, but no one really stood out too much either. The script isn't anything to write home about (aside from a few good action movie monologues and one-liners here and there) and there are simply too many characters who are spread too thin in terms of motivation and emotional appeal. I didn't particularly care when anyone died and I was moreso engaged in Kong's conflict rather than if our team of protagonists could make it off the island. The only exception, unexpectedly enough, was the comedic relief played by John C. Reilly. He plays a US Air Force pilot who crash landed on Skull Island during World War 2 and has been living among the natives ever since (as you'd expect, there's culture shock jokes galore, a surprising amount of which hit). He actually gets a really nice amount of characterization and pathos, and I was really pulling for him to make it home; out of the entire cast, his was the only character that actually made me think "I hope he makes it out alive". Not to say that I actively wanted to see anyone die (like I said, the performances are all strong enough), but I wouldn't have necessarily cared if they did. This is a tremendously fun monster movie, but it could have really been something special if it had a stronger sense of focus when it came to the human element.

Kong: Skull Island is, shortcomings aside, an absolute blast. Is it a totally original movie? No. But is it a well-made movie? Most definitely. While the cast of characters is somewhat lacking (with John C. Reilly and Samuel L. Jackson carrying most of the weight), it's clear that this is a movie made with a loving artistic vision. It may not be as groundbreaking as the 1933 original or as epic as Peter Jackson's 2006 remake, but it's enjoyable in its own way, paying tribute to classic monster films both new and old. This is by no means a movie which attempts to reinvent the wheel; it knows exactly what it wants to be and exactly what it wants to do. It's made up of existing genre conventions, all executed with a great deal of finesse and style. The only question is, is that enough to make this worthwhile? I definitely think so; if you're looking for something to scratch that giant-monster movie itch, Kong: Skull Island is a worthy choice. While it's no eighth wonder of the world, it's still a ton of fun.

REVIEW: Rogue One- A Star Wars Story

It's a genuinely strange feeling to get two Star Wars films in two consecutive years. Disney has made it clear that they intend to follow the path of their Marvel properties and release each film annually, one year after another. While it's naturally exciting to see more adventures set in the Star Wars universe, it's also potentially worrying. A constant stream of annual releases tends to lead to a series of progressively middling, formulaic films which take few risks and rarely improve upon the groundwork laid by prior entries. Sure, the films may be passable, but is that truly all that we want? A never-ending stream of "not bad" movies, year after year, quantity trumping quality? One nice thing that can be said about the prequels (heinous as they are) is that they were very different films compared to the original trilogy. As much as I adored watching The Force Awakens last year, it was a painfully safe outing. As time has gone by, the hype has worn off and its flaws and imperfections start to shine through all that lovely nostalgia. The only way this modern-day revival of Star Wars doesn't end up like the result of a Monkey's Paw wish is if the filmmakers responsible for each of these films take real risks and deliver innovative, original stories that branch out on their own, independent from what's safe and profitable. Having seen Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (the first in a series of anthology films framed around the background of the main series), I can safely say that they're definitely on the right track.

The film takes place literal days before A New Hope; Luke is still farming moisture on Tatooine, Han is off ducking Imperial freighters, and Darth Vader is totally jazzed about his fancy new Death Star. Built by the reluctant Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen), the weapon is nearing completion and could likely spell doom for the galaxy (specifically places occupied by the ragtag Rebel Alliance). Overcome with an Oppenheimer-esque sense of guilt over what he's created, Galen entrusts a renegade Imperial pilot (Riz Ahmed) with delivering a message to the Rebels, informing them of the Empire's planet-killing capabilities. This information finds its way to his long-lost daughter, Jyn (Felicity Jones); under the command of Captain Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), Jyn and a team of Rebel spies must steal the plans to this new battlestation and deliver them to the Rebellion, before the Empire's stranglehold over the galaxy is made absolute.

To anyone who's seen Star Wars before, this plot would seem somewhat inconsequential at first glance. Apologies for spoiling a film that was released in 1977, but the Rebels get the Death Star plans and use them to blow up the Death Star. Shocking, I know. It's true that we never saw how the Rebels ended up with the plans (the title crawl in A New Hope simply says they were stolen by Rebel spies following their first victory over the Empire), but the outcome of this film was literally the first part of the Star Wars story ever experienced by the public. Thankfully, the film understands this and thus places emphasis on the journey, rather than the destination. We're left in suspense not in regards to the plot, but moreso in terms of our characters. There's no question that they accomplish their mission, so the drama focuses on whether or not they'll make it out alive (or at the very least, unscathed). Up to this point in the saga, we've only ever followed the point of view of heroes like Luke Skywalker; Rogue One, to put it bluntly, is a film starring the cannon fodder that makes up the remainder of the Rebel forces.

The film takes full advantage of the fact that, while every other Star Wars film has focused on the heroes of the story, none have focused on the soldiers. This is an entry in the series that feels much more like a war movie than a space opera; the characters are vulnerable, the conflicts are brutal, and the morality is framed through many varying shades of gray. We see through Galen Erso that not everyone who works for the Empire is a villain; at the same time, not every Rebel is a hero. Though they fight the totalitarian regime of the Emperor, there's no shortage of killers, assassins, and extremists allied with the Rebel cause. The movie sets out to show that heroes are born when people stop "just following orders" and do what is right. Appeasement isn't the answer, yet neither is extremism. There's a fine-line separating good and evil, and it can be very easy to step over that line whilst fighting for what feels "just". This is definitely a story that takes full advantage of its spin-off status and expands upon the comparatively black-and-white morality we get in the standard Star Wars adventure.

That said, a heavier tone comes with its own set of problems. The first half of this movie tends to drag a great deal; while watching it for the first time, I found myself flashing back to The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochy Show, asking when our gang of Rebels was going to get to the proverbial fireworks factory. Conversely, the pacing in the beginning is as erratic as the opening of Suicide Squad, jumping from planet to planet for the express purpose of getting the character introductions out of the way so that the plot may begin. As sloppy as it starts out, the film more than finds its stride in the last hour; everything comes together gorgeously into one of the absolute strongest third acts in a series known for pulse-pounding and iconic third acts. 

The characters are all more or less fine, with a few standouts. Felicity Jones is a serviceable protagonist, though she often lacks the raw emotion and conviction one would expect from a main lead. Diego Luna's Captain Cassian presents a very interesting character arc, as he learns just what separates the freedom fighters from the Stormtroopers. Mads Mikkelsen acts his heart out in this role and feels much better implemented here than in Doctor Strange; he's got a defined personality and a clear sense of purpose in the plot. He feels necessary, which is more than I could say for Strange's Kaecilius. My personal favorite additions to the cast include Donnie Yen and Jiang Wen as Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, protectors of an ancient Jedi temple in the Imperial-occupied city of Jedha. These two had great chemistry and were a joy to watch in any given action sequence (in particular Yen, though this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with his past work). I also really enjoyed Alan Tudyk as K2-SO, a reprogrammed Imperial security droid who accompanies Cassian on missions for the Alliance. The character feels like a bizarre blend of the best elements of C-3PO, Han Solo, and Chewbacca rolled into one; it's altogether refreshing to see a droid character who has a purpose that generally goes beyond unlocking doors and being cute.

We also have Ben Mendelsohn as our antagonist, Imperial Director Krennic. He does a good job playing the part of the top-brass slimeball who was put in charge of the Death Star project, but he's unfortunately overshadowed by the return of Darth Vader (Daniel Naprous and Spencer Wilding) and Grand Moff Tarkin. Vader is voiced once again by James Earl Jones (who hits the mark, despite the age evident in his voice) and you'd be forgiven for thinking Tarkin was played by the late Peter Cushing, risen from the dead. In reality, he's portrayed by Guy Henry under a heavy layer of CGI prosthesis. It's noticeable, of course, but I still found the effect to be absolutely stunning. I won't spoil anything here, but Tarkin is not the only jaw-droppingly innovative display of the power of digital makeup and unused archival footage. It's this clear sense of care and attention to detail that makes Rogue One the perfect compliment to A New Hope. It manages to enhance the original film and frame it in a new light, all while standing on its own as a wholly engaging tale of its own.

While I found the pacing to be equal parts plodding and erratic for the first half of the runtime, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story manages to rise above its flaws and stand out as its own film, amounting to more than the sum of its parts. The characters aren't necessarily as endearing or memorable as Han, Luke and company, but their story is one that feels entirely necessary and relevant within the universe of the Star Wars saga. Most importantly, this is a film that takes risks; the Star Wars name prints money, so quality isn't necessarily a factor. Despite the overwhelming amounts of evidence at our disposal in regards to the questionable quality of the prequels, those films still made literal billions of dollars at the box office alone. The studio could have easily played it safe, keeping director Gareth Edwards on a tight leash to ensure that he create something inoffensive, serviceable, and profitable. Instead, we have a film that, while flawed in some ways, is immensely successful in others. It's a gorgeously-shot, unique take on an iconic, established universe that paints a wholly optimistic picture for the future of the franchise. Whether you're a long-time fanatic or a newcomer who was introduced to the saga by The Force Awakens last year, Rogue One is a bold, essential entry into this classic saga.

REVIEW: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Given that it's been several years since the Harry Potter film series came to a close (and nearly a decade since the final book was released, not counting the recent stage play), it's sometimes easy to forget just what a huge phenomenon the series was back in the day. I grew up on the stories and films, so this franchise more or less dominated a huge portion of my life; it was an ongoing event comparable to the original Star Wars saga. While I still consider myself a fan, no question, I must admit that it's been years since I've re-read any of the books or revisited any of the movies. We all assumed there would be more Harry Potter some day, whether or not it was entirely necessary. Though I doubt anyone could have guessed we'd end up with a prequel spin-off containing none of the original characters we'd spent an entire decade reading about. As is the popular trend nowadays, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them hopes to establish a cinematic universe in which the films are connected through a shared canon, while not necessarily directly related to one another. It was recently announced that this would be the first of a whopping five films (an announcement I feel holds as much water as James Cameron's insistence that there will be four more consecutively-filmed Avatar sequels released between 2018 and 2023), so the question still remains; is this movie strong enough to establish a series of its own without Harry Potter and pals picking up the slack?

Taking place in the year 1926 (nearly 70 years before Harry Potter would be admitted to Hogwarts), the plot follows magizoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) as he journeys to New York City on personal business. After a mix-up with a non-wizard named Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), numerous magical creatures escape Newt's enchanted suitcase and begin wreaking havoc on the city. This does little to ease the tension brewing within the wizarding community; a string of anti-muggle attacks by the infamous Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) have threatened to expose the magical world at large and inspired the rise of groups like the Second Salemers, a fanatical cult of non-magic users hoping to expose and destroy those who practice witchcraft. At the same time, a sinister presence has begun causing destruction and chaos in New York. Naturally, Newt's creatures take the blame and the task falls to him, Jacob, and Tina Goldstein (an agent for the Magical Congress of the United States of America played by Katherine Waterson) to round up his beasts before any harm can come to them (or indeed, the world at large).

It must be said, I'm eternally grateful that J.K. Rowling decided to step outside the box with this film; it would have been positively tragic had we gotten a Harry Potter prequel focusing on Young Dumbledore or the adventures of Harry's parents when they were at Hogwarts or, god forbid, a Star Wars prequel-style series about how Tom Riddle became Lord Voldemort. Instead, we get something totally new and original; a movie starring the author of a textbook that is occasionally mentioned offhandedly by the main characters as a bit of set dressing. Something that, realistically speaking, has next to nothing to do with the story told in the previous Harry Potter films. It would have been tremendously easy to make a movie about Harry's kids or something equally banal and pointless; the Harry Potter name prints money, so a spin-off would be successful no matter what. It's that the filmmakers and Ms. Rowling decided to go the extra mile and make something daring and different that I respect. That effort pays off, since we get to see a whole new side of the wizarding world which we've never seen before. 

The original series hinted at international magical communities outside of England (most prominently in Goblet of Fire), but we never really got to see how things were done overseas. Unlike every other piece of Harry Potter media, the entirety of this film takes place in the United States; as is to be expected, things are done differently on this side of the pond. Instead of a Ministry of Magic, Americans have the Magical Congress. Instead of Hogwarts, there's Ilvermorny. Instead of "muggles", non-magical folk are referred to as "no-maj". While it might seem like a simple change of backdrop and terminology at first glance, the film does a fine job of making the United States feel like totally new territory in the Harry Potter universe. The events of the original story are presented as wholly irrelevant to the plot; there's a few callbacks and name-drops here and there, but the film, for the most part, plays all of its references close to the chest. There's no immersion-shattering cameo from a young Dumbledore; barring Grindelwald (who was practically as much a footnote in the original series as Newt Scamander was), any and all references to the previous films are cursory at best. This is a film that knows when it is appropriate to evoke feelings of nostalgia without distracting the audience, something that all modern revivals (from Jurassic World to Star Wars) should take note of.

That said, the film is most definitely not without its flaws. The first act is a ploddingly slow, poorly-paced jumble of scenes; while it's naturally fun to get re-immersed in the wizarding world and enjoy the drastic change of scenery and setting, the plot doesn't really begin until around thirty minutes in. Once the movie actually takes off, it's as engaging and fun as one might hope for, but the path to that point borders at being a chore at times. There were also points where the movie as a whole felt somewhat overstuffed. Sorcerer's Stone had a fairly basic plot, since it had to establish the entire world in which the story takes place. This allowed the sequels to grow more complex, since the bulk of the world building was already set up and out of the way. Fantastic Beasts operates under the assumption that viewers are already familiar with all the previous entries in the series to that point, but also has to establish its own distinct world, separate from the rest of the existing Harry Potter universe. The film clocks in at just over two hours and not a minute of it is wasted; the reason the first act comes off as so sloppy is purely due to all of the setup it needs to get out of the way before the real plot can begin. 

While I don't really have any objective issues with the story, it does feel a bit dense for the first movie in a new series. Given that he's an outsider (like Harry was, initially), it very much feels like Kowalski should have been the main protagonist (despite him not being able to contribute anything to the action-packed climax); Newt doesn't have much of an arc to speak of and, while endearing, honestly comes off as pretty flat in terms of his characterization. I also wasn't a fan of the main antagonist, Percival Graves (Colin Farrell). In a series featuring such iconic villains as Dolores Umbridge and Lord Voldemort himself, there's immense potential to be found with the Director of Magical Security for the United States. Unfortunately, this character completely fell flat for me; his goals aren't clearly defined until the very end of the film and I was able to spot the twist coming a mile away. It honestly would have been more shocking (as well as a nice parallel to Sorcerer's Stone) to have the brash, spooky jerk turn out to be one of the good guys all along, despite the protagonist's (and audience's) expectations that he was really working for the main villain the whole time. Imagine if, at the end of Sorcerer's Stone, we find out that Harry, Ron, and Hermione were totally right and that Snape was the one trying to steal the stone for Voldemort. That is essentially what the "twist" in Fantastic Beasts amounts to; in a film with so much imagination and ingenuity, it's the one glaring aspect that feels utterly mundane and expected.

Despite my reservations, I must say that Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them turned out to be a solid entry into an iconic series. I wasn't entirely sure that this movie needed to exist, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't get some powerful chills the moment the Warner Bros logo floated in through the fog to the tune of that iconic jingle. In a world of cinematic universes and soft-reboots that seem to minimize on ingenuity in an effort to maximize profit, Fantastic Beasts manages to revive a beloved franchise while at the same time doing something totally original and independent of the established iconography. It has its flaws, but I believe it rises above them and justifies its existence by simply being a very enjoyable movie on its own. I'm still not entirely sold on the idea of four more sequels following Newt Scamander and company, but this film has certainly proven that it is possible to tell a good story in J.K. Rowling's wizarding world without once saying the name "Harry Potter".

REVIEW: X-Men Apocalypse

"Everyone always knows the third movie is the worst," quips Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she and fellow teen mutants Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), and Jubilee (Lana Condor) exit a showing of Return of the Jedi. Ironically prophetic words, considering that X-Men: Apocalypse is the third in the semi-new line of X-Men movies (a line that started with the quite good First Class and was followed by the all-around excellent Days of Future Past). While it's likely that this joke was meant to be a dig at Brett Ratner's heavily-derided entry in the series, X-Men: The Last Stand, it still doesn't change the fact that it manages to predict where Apocalypse falls in relation to its siblings.

The year is 1983 and Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) has begun transitioning his family home into a bonafide school for gifted youngsters. Meanwhile, the powerful mutant En Sabah Nur (better known as Apocalypse, played by Oscar Isaac), buried in ancient Egypt by those who feared his power, has emerged after millenia of slumber. Believing that humanity has lost its way and wishing to reclaim his place as god-king of all mankind, Apocalypse gathers four "horsemen" (Storm, played by Alexandra Shipp, Psylocke, played by Olivia Munn, Angel, played by Ben Hardy, and Magneto, played by Michael Fassbender) to assist in his conquering of planet Earth. As one would expect, it's up to the X-Men to stop him.

The heart of any good X-Men story is the relationship between mutants and average people; what fears and prejudices are brought to the surface when homo-sapiens are faced with homo-superior. Since the very first X-Men comic, the premise has involved special people who are dedicated to protecting a world that hates and fears them. Unfortunately for Apocalypse, that conflict is almost entirely absent here. Sure, there's the odd remark from Scott Summers or Jean Grey about how difficult it is to be a teenager with such fantastical powers, but human-mutant relations does not lie at the crux of the story here, as it did with First Class and Days of Future Past. The X-Men are not called into action to prove themselves before a world of bigots and naysayers, but rather because Apocalypse is a big evil dude who wants to rule the world, and they don't want that to happen. As I mentioned before, there's a scene where several of the students (including the demonic, blue-skinned Nightcrawler) take a trip to the mall to see a movie; this is the most obvious X-Men setup ever, clearly leading to a scene where we get to experience not only the culture of the 1980's, but the culture of intolerance and distrust towards mutantkind that is perpetually relevant in modern society. Instead we see none of it, aside from the aformentioned wink to the audience.

It's this facet of the movie that keeps Apocalypse from achieving true greatness; this is a movie that is massive in scale, but miniscule in scope. There are moments of brilliance, such as the setup for Michael Fassbender's Magneto, or the comedic return of Quicksilver (Evan Peters), or even the likely studio-mandated appearance by Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) that manages to somehow NOT feel shoehorned into an already dense plot. However, these individual moments aren't enough to change the fact that the primary conflict here is yet another braindead "powerful guy wants to rule everything, levels cities to do so" summer blockbuster plot that we've seen a million times before.

This is typically where I'd bring up the cast, but there are so many characters who do so little that I was hardly able to get a feel for their personalities by the time the credits rolled. Naturally, McAvoy and Fassbender are both spectacular as Xavier and Magneto, giving the strong performances we've come to expect from the two by this point (if the rest of the movie was on-par with Fassbender's story and performance, this might have been the best X-Men movie to date). Kodi Smit-McPhee is fun (if underused) as Nightcrawler, and Nicholas Hoult makes for a fine Beast, but the rest of the cast of merry mutants (Cyclops, Jean Grey, Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), and ESPECIALLY Jubilee, Psylocke, and Angel) have very little to do in terms of characterization or relevance to the plot. Sure, the former three are present for the majority of important story beats, but I still wouldn't necessarily classify them as main protagonists. The pacing in this movie is a complete mess, as it can't decide whether it wants to focus on the established characters of Professor X, Magneto, and company, or build the more iconic team of characters that headlined the original series of movies back in the early 2000's. 

It's the Phantom Menace problem of stretching itself too thin over too many characters, and as such the movie lacks an emotional pillar for the audience to identify with and latch onto. Cyclops would be the ideal choice, seeing as how he's a fish-out-of-water thrust into Xavier's School after his mutation manifests, yet we see him instantly acclimate to this massive change in environment and lifestyle immediately after being given a pair of ruby-quartz Ray Bans. Professor X played a large role in the two prior movies, yet here he's left without an arc; he's a wise mentor who contributes to the plot, but the events of this film leave him essentially unchanged, save for a lack of hair. Even Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique, while a very prominent and vital character to both First Class and Days of Future Past, has surprisingly little to do here. Not that I'm complaining, considering how evidently phoned-in her performance is, but it would have been nice to have someone to latch onto. We feel the most for Magneto, but the things he does over the course of the movie greatly outweigh any empathy he may have earned. And while Evan Peters once again steals the show as Quicksilver, he's not given enough screentime or development to be anything other than "the jokey member of the team".

Oscar Isaac really does the best he can with what he's been given here. As the name would imply, Apocalypse is a fairly theatrical villain. I expected lots of dramatic monologues and villainous posturing and an ego of biblical proportions. I of course got all of that, but the way the movie is shot degrades the effect to a monumental degree. At 5' 9", Oscar Isaac isn't exactly an impressively tall guy. In order to make him appear more intimidating as Apocalypse, the forty-pound bodysuit he wears involves a fair amount of padding, as well as lifts in the boots. This wouldn't normally be an issue, as such techniques have been used for ages. However, the cinematography takes what should have been a physically imposing villain and makes him look more like a cosplayer with limited mobility. Not to make the obvious comparison to the MCU, but Marvel Studios has proved that there is a way to make silly, complicated comic book designs translate well to the big screen, so long as they are shot appropriately. Characters who dress as absurdly as Thanos and Loki don't lose an ounce of their gravitas, despite the oddball accoutrements. This sadly isn't the case for Apocalypse and his horsemen, who all appear passable at best, undeniably comical at worst. Not since Life is Beautiful have I laughed so hard at a scene taking place in a concentration camp, but I guess when your antagonists look like the Village People decided to pursue careers as Power Rangers villains, it's simply to be expected.

X-Men: Apocalypse is not a bad movie. Despite its problems with pacing and story, there are several moments sprinkled throughout that keep this from being a boring, mindless slog. That said, it certainly isn't a good movie either. It's entirely middling, a solid 5/10 with strong moments and performances scattered throughout. While it doesn't commit the same sin as Batman V Superman of spending far too much time hyping up future movies rather than improving the one we're currently watching, it does feel as though the editing process could have been much more thorough. The pacing is all over the place up until the climax, some of the CGI is simply embarrassing, and the whole thing just feels overstuffed; like it either should have been longer to flesh out what is already there, or trimmed down to give us a stronger sense of focus. It's far from the worst X-Men movie, but it's certainly not the best.

REVIEW: Insidious- Chapter 3

The first time I watched James Wan's Insidious, I honestly didn't like it. I considered it a so-bad-it's-good ghost flick that was best enjoyed with an audience who all enjoyed laughing at the musical stylings of Tiny Tim. Insidious: Chapter 2 was a pleasant surprise; not only did I thoroughly enjoy it, it actually managed to retroactively improve the first film in my eyes. As time has passed, the series has really grown on me and I now enjoy partaking in the occasional Insidious double-feature, watching both films back-to-back in a darkened room with a group of friends. The series manages to be well-made, scary, imaginative, and tons of fun all at the same time. With that kind of pedigree behind it, it's a shame that Insidious: Chapter 3 manages to feel both mediocre and unnecessary.

Taking place a few years before the original hauntings in the first movie, the story follows the Brenner family; still recovering from the loss of her mother, Quinn Brenner (Stephanie Scott) seeks the help of Elise (Lin Shaye), the psychic medium from the first two films. While Quinn has tried (unsuccessfully) to contact her mother's spirit in the past, she cannot shake the feeling that there's a presence watching over her. Sensing something evil is afoot, Elise warns the young girl against dabbling in ghost-whispering in the future, for fear of unintentionally contacting a malevolent spirit. Sure enough, this is exactly what happens and, after an accident leaves her recovering in a wheelchair, Quinn finds herself menaced by a wheezing demon who wants nothing more than to do all manner of nasty, spooky things with her immortal soul.

The first red flag here is that, despite this being Chapter 3, it is a prequel. This would be fine, except it doesn't really add anything to the story of the other films. We get a bit of backstory for Elise and we see how she began working with series regulars Specs and Tucker (Leigh Whannell and Angus Sampson, the former of whom has taken on both writing and directing duties); other than a few jarring winks to the audience, it contributes nothing new to the series. The character of Elise appears in the other two Insidious movies (which take place after this one), so any scene in which she's in danger is immediately removed of all dramatic tension; we see her later on, so we know that no matter what happens, she'll emerge totally unscathed. The previous two films established a standard of ending on a cliffhanger; it usually answers one question while raising another that will inevitably be answered in the sequel. I was genuinely interested in seeing where the story would go after the way Chapter 2 ended, but that plot thread seems to be completely ignored here. As I mentioned, James Wan wasn't involved with this one at all and it really shows; the whole thing feels like someone attempting to ape his style, but not quite pulling it off. There are a few scenes that actually work, showing creepy imagery in the background, building solid tension, and generally toying with the audience until something comes along to scare them out of their pants. These scenes are few and far between, sadly; the majority of spooky scenes this time around involve a character looking around a dark room for a bit before someone in a spooky mask pops out and yells "BLARGH". Sure, it'll make you jump, but the thrill is immediately gone afterward; it's a cheap shot that gets cheap results. The previous two films are well-shot ghost stories, but this film is more akin to sneaking up behind someone and popping a balloon when they aren't expecting it.

The performances here are nothing spectacular, but they get the job done, I suppose. Shaye, Whannell, and Sampson are all good as Elise, Specs, and Tucker, but then they've easily been the highlights of the series so far. Dermot Mulroney is fine as Quinn's father, but I really wish we got more characterization out of him. They hint in one scene that he has his own issues regarding his wife's death, but it's never brought up again. He simply spends the entire film as the beleaguered, old-fashioned dad; that's fine for the first act, in which the characters' everyday lives are established before the supernatural funtimes begin, but part of what made the original films so strong was how interesting the central family was. Each character reacted to the horrifying events in their own way, which helped us empathize with their plight. They felt like real people, which is the crux to making any horror movie work; from Alien to The Exorcist, believable characters help keep things grounded and work to sell the scares. Here, the Brenner family is comprised of a few totally flat characters who exist only to be scared by things. Stephanie Scott is good at looking terrified, which honestly helps this movie a fair bit when it comes to keeping the adrenaline pumping. I never really felt for her character, but I definitely thought "ooh, that's a bad situation" more than a few times, which shows that the film is doing something right. There's one sequence in particular which employs a remote night-vision camera; I won't spoil anything, but the highlight of Scott's performance here is easily found in this scene. If the entire movie were as good as this one moment, it'd be a strong contender for the best film in the franchise.

The biggest problem with Insidious: Chapter 3 is that this simply wasn't a film that needed to be made. It adds nothing new to the story and feels like a transparent cash-grab meant to bank on name-recognition and a few recurring characters. While it certainly has its moments here and there, they aren't enough to completely salvage this spiritless prequel. Hopefully James Wan will return to direct any future entries in the series, considering how it really feels like his absence is what hurt this movie the most.