Downsizing Review

1.5 Stars

 

The world has reached a breaking point with over-population.  A pair of Norwegian scientists have figured out a way to not only stop the human race from completely depleting the planet of all its resources, but also to provide a better and more luxurious lifestyle to anyone who chooses to participate in his program of Downsizing.  His patients are shrunk to a height of 5 inches and live in an experimental community built just for them.  While they are praised for their efforts, and communities are built in several areas of the world, only a small fraction of the world actually participate in the program.

Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) is a physical therapist living in Omaha with his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig).  Like many couples today, they are struggling financially to make ends meet.  And, like many couples, they have at least toyed with the idea of Downsizing.  At a high school reunion, Paul and Audrey talk to Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis) and his wife Carol (Maribeth Monroe) who have already undergone the irreversible process.  They sing the praises of the community and get the Safraneks thinking even more about the idea.  But it's not until they are denied a mortgage on a new home that they take the trip to New Mexico and agree to change their lives forever by Downsizing.

And that's really all we were told about the movie from the preview.  It's an original idea, sort of.  Dennis Quaid was shrunken in 1987 in a movie called Innerspace.  Two years later, Rick Moranis accidentally shrunk his kids in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.  It goes all the way back to 1957 with the film, The Incredible Shrinking Man.  But Downsizing looked like a new and different take on the idea of shrinking.  The only other thing we really had to go on is that the movie is rated R, and there was absolutely nothing in the preview that even hinted as to why that would be.  

 

First, the R rating.  There is plenty of full frontal male nudity in the film.  It's completely unnecessary and used purely in a medical sense.  First, a nude man is pictured to show the before and after effects of Downsizing.  Then, a group of men are shown disrobed on tables undergoing the process.  Again, it's not used in a sexual way, and there's really no reason we need to see everything they show to get the idea of what's going on.  There is also one psychedelic party scene at Paul's neighbor's apartment that involves some drug use and brief nudity.  And there are some F-bombs that, again, didn't really need to be in there.  However, when there's no real substance to a movie, you tend to resort to things like that just to reel in some audiences.  

The people responsible for putting together previews really did their job well.  I had no idea what this movie was about, except the basic premise, but I was very excited to see what it's all about.  And those people deserve a raise because they not only hid any hint of why the movie would be rated R from the previews, they also concealed the fact that there's really no plot or substance behind an otherwise original idea for a story.  Paul and his wife Audrey are separated at the Downsizing facility because men and women go through in different areas.  When Paul awakes after the procedure, he gets a call from his wife who has changed her mind and leaves him alone in the shrunken world that he cannot come back from.  After the divorce, Paul must sell the mansion that his modest earning afforded him in the Downsized world, and he moves into an apartment.  He works at a call center and is pretty much miserable.  One night, he decides to join his upstairs neighbor Dusan Mirkovic (Christoph Waltz) at one of his lavish parties.  The next morning, he meets Ngoc Lan Tran (Hong Chau).  She was a protestor in Vietnam who was imprisoned and Downsized against her will.  Paul befriends Tran and quickly becomes her errand boy as she cares for those in the "slums" of the Downsized world.  Paul and Tran join Dusan on a trip to Norway, the original colony.  It is there they are told the methane gases released from the arctic snow caps have reached a level spelling eminent doom for the planet.  So they have carved out an underground safe haven where they can live and repopulate.  Paul thinks this is finally how his life will have meaning, but changes his mind realizing his love for Tran.  They go back home and the movie abruptly ends.  

 

There were a couple chuckles throughout the movie, but it felt like watching an amateur comedian bomb on stage, or a magician who's tricks just aren't working.  The idea was there, the actors were there, but there was no substance to this confusing, no point, slow-paced, unnecessary downer of a flop.  I gave an initial cautious and curious 3.5 Star rating with so little to go on.  But the preview for Downsizing certainly fooled us all and that rating will plummet to  1.5 Stars.  It was not worth the price of admission in the theatre, I'll most likely never watch it again, even for free on cable, and I'll definitely never own it.  So, what movie will be on my mind next?  We shall see.

 

 

Downsizing Preview

The world has reached a breaking point with over-population.  A scientist has figured out a way to not only stop the human race from completely depleting the planet of all its resources, but also to provide a better and more luxurious lifestyle to anyone who chooses to participate in his program of Downsizing.  His patients are shrunk to a height of 5 inches and live in an experimental community built just for them.

Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) is a physical therapist living in Omaha with his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig).  Like many couples today, they are struggling financially to make ends meet.  At a high school reunion, Paul and Audrey talk to Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis) and his wife Carol (Maribeth Monroe) who have already undergone the irreversible process.

And that's really all we know about the movie from the preview.  It's an original idea, sort of.  Dennis Quaid was shrunken in 1987 in a movie called Innerspace.  Two years later, Rick Moranis accidentally shrunk his kids in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.  It goes all the way back to 1957 with the film, The Incredible Shrinking Man.  But Downsizing certainly looks like a new and different take on the idea of shrinking.  The only other thing we really have to go on is that the movie is rated R, and there is absolutely nothing in the preview that even hints as to why that would be.  At one point, there is a bottle of Absolut Vodka shown for the Downsized to drink from, and to them it's about the size of a water tower.  But that wouldn't explain the harsh rating.  So that makes me skeptical.  

The people responsible for putting together previews really did their job well.  I have no idea what this movie is about, except the basic premise, but I am very excited to see what it's all about.  It's a little difficult to give an initial rating with so little to go on, so I'm giving Downsizing a very cautious and curious 3.5 Star Rating.  It looks like it will be worth the price of admission in the theatre, something I'd watch again, and might even have a chance of making it to my home collection.  So, am I right?  We shall see.

The Greatest Showman Review

4 Stars

 

“Unless a man enters upon the vocation intended for him by nature, and best suited to his peculiar genius, he cannot succeed.”  Phineas Taylor Barnum, best known today as simply P.T. Barnum, was born in 1810 in Bethel, Connecticut.  In his early 20s, Barnum was a small business owner and founder of a weekly newspaper.  He moved to New York in 1934 where his entertainment career began when he purchased Scudder's American Museum that he renamed after himself and transformed into a "freak show" playing on human curiosity with features like the Feejee mermaid and General Tom Thumb.  Later in life, Barnum returned to Connecticut where he served as Mayor in 1875.  He was an author, publisher, politician, businessman, and philanthropist, but is best remembered for his showmanship.  It is that achievement that has inspired the new musical The Greatest Showman starring Hugh Jackman as P.T. Barnum.

If you have read any of my previous Previews or Reviews for films based on actual events or people, I have given up on doing too much research beforehand as the movies often take many creative liberties with regards to the timeline of events, the location of events, characters involved, roles they played, and more.  And they have every right to do so as the films make no claims to be historically accurate or documentaries.  The Greatest Showman is based on the life of P.T. Barnum, specifically in regards to his creation of the Barnum & Bailey Circus dubbed The Greatest Show on Earth.

Hugh Jackman tackles the title role of Barnum and he is no stranger to singing on stage or in film.  Jackman grew up a theatre performer in Australia including musicals.  The world was exposed to his singing abilities in 2012 with his role as Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, a performance that earned him the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Motion Picture Musical or Comedy and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor.  Jackman received both praise and criticism for his vocal performance.  I was one of the critics asking the question "Were you impressed with the performances in Les Miserables because you wouldn't expect Wolverine and Gladiator to be able to sing like that, or did you really think they gave the performances you would expect if you had paid $500 to watch this on Broadway?"  Jackman has already been nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance in The Greatest Showman and I enjoyed his singing as Barnum more than I liked his Jean Valjean in Les Miserables.

Zac Efron's leading man roles in his career to date have been campy, goofy and sophomoric starring in such movies as Neighbors 1 and 2, Dirty Grandpa, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates, and Baywatch.  He is slated to play a completely opposite role as Ted Bundy in a film titled Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile that could really reshape his career and propel him to a much higher platform possibly opening many more "meaty" roles for the young actor.  His performance in The Greatest Showman was definitely a huge step in the right direction to separate him as more than just the goofball in crude comedies.

Last year, when La La Land came out, I said we were long overdue for a new musical and La La Land was hopefully the first of many.  Songwriters Benj Pasek and Justin Paul took home the Oscar for Original Song with their creation of "City of Stars" from La La Land.  They're back and have written the original music for The Greatest Showman and I would be surprised if they didn't get at least one more Oscar nomination this year as it was the music that really stole the show.  The Greatest Showman features a modern pop feel as team Pasek and Paul did not confine themselves to the 1830's when the film is set.  It was a risk, but a risk that paid off.  If they tried to fit the songs to the era of the film, I don't think this movie would have worked at all.

I was excited for The Greatest Showman and had high expectations.  I gave a 4.5 Star Prediction as I anticipated thoroughly enjoying Jackman and Efron's performances along with co-stars Michelle Williams and Zendaya, the music, and the spectacle from director Michael Gracey who literally made his big screen debut.  He's so green, he doesn't even have a completed biography on IMDB.  I had a feeling this would just the beginning for Gracey after a hugely successful Greatest Showman.  I thought this movie was sweet, charming, electric, exciting, fun, and sensitive.  However, I felt it should have been about 20 minutes longer than its 1 hour and 44 minute running time.  Barnum didn't come from anything at all and swept his wife away from a lavish, wealthy lifestyle.  She didn't care about the money.  Their apartment had a leaky roof and no frills at all, but she and their two daughters were happy.  After losing another job, Barnum took a risk and convinced a bank to loan him $10,000 so he could purchase a macabre wax museum figuring that human's morbid curiosity would draw them in.  His daughters pointed out that it wasn't enough.  He needed live spectacles.  He agreed and searched for the outcasts, the freaks.  He found his Tom Thumb, a bearded lady, the World's Fattest Man, the Irish Giant, the acrobat brother and sister, and many more.  And it worked.  People lined up and shows were sold out to see something no one had ever seen before.

Barnum teamed up with the legitimate theatre producer Phillip Carlyle (Efron) to raise their show to the next level.  It takes some convincing but Carlyle gets on board and it isn't long before their entire troop gets an audience with the British Queen.  It's there that I feel the movie started rushing things.  Providing a better life, a bigger home, ballet lessons, fancy clothes soon wasn't enough for Barnum.  He became obsessed with people's opinions about how he obtained his wealth.  In England, they meet famed European opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson) and convince her to tour the United States as promoted by Barnum.  At her first performance, Barnum became infatuated with the "legitimate" adulation she received and started hiding his band of freaks to the shadows.  It is Carlyle who first questioned Barnum, though he himself wasn't ready to be fully associated with them.  His inner conflict was growing, however, as he had fallen in love with acrobat Anne Wheeler (Zendaya). 

Barnum quite abruptly abandoned his circus as Carlyle abruptly became an outcast to his family and his upper crust associates as he fully embraced his new family in Barnum's absence.  Almost as quickly as Barnum threw the origins of his success aside, he flipped a 180 and left Lind to finish her American tour without him so he could return to his wife, his children and his circus family.  Local protestors threatened to permanently end their dream, but Carlyle's investments saved the day and the show went on. 

I really only had two big issues with The Greatest Showman.  As described above, the flip-flopping of allegiance of both Barnum and Carlyle could have used a little more time in the film to develop and transition.  The second was the character of Tom Thumb as played by actor Sam Humphrey, an Australian actor with a skeletal disorder that keeps the 22-year-old actor at a height of 4'3" tall.  But that wasn't short enough for the film as they digitally shortened his legs by what appears to be 6 to 8 inches.  The problem is that you can tell he was digitally altered in every full-body shot he is in.  He is also obviously missing from some wider shot scenes, when he should be in them.  During the number "This is me", the cast of freaks are out in the public streets all performing together.  He is there during close-up scenes, but when the camera pulls out, he is noticeably absent.

Other than that, the songs really made this show a spectacle and truly entertaining.  It starts with an anthemic performance by Hugh Jackman of the show's opening song "The Greatest Show" that has a similar feel to Queen's "We Will Rock You".  Efron and Jackman were the perfect pair in their duet in the bar as they sang "The Other Side".  Efron had a very heart-felt, sweet, sincere, beautiful duet with Zendaya as they battled with their feelings for each other as they sang "Rewrite the Stars".  And the Bearded Lady Lettie Lutz (Keala Settle) led the cast of the circus in a triumphant singing of "This is Me".  While the movie sold itself short in it's character and story execution, a shortcoming that really could have been fixed easily with about 20 minutes more, it more than redeemed those downfalls with some amazing original music that should get a couple Oscar nominations and probably one of them taking home the trophy.  So, I predicted 4.5 stars for The Greatest Showman, I'm going to lower it just slightly to 4.0 Stars.  It was definitely worth the money in the theatre, I'd see it again, and I'll be owning this once it comes out.  So, what movie will be on my mind next? We Shall See.

The Greatest Showman Preview

“Unless a man enters upon the vocation intended for him by nature, and best suited to his peculiar genius, he cannot succeed.”  Phineas Taylor Barnum, best known today as simply P.T. Barnum, was born in 1810 in Bethel, Connecticut.  In his early 20s, Barnum was a small business owner and founder of a weekly newspaper.  He moved to New York in 1934 where his entertainment career began when he purchased Scudder's American Museum that he renamed after himself and transformed into a "freak show" playing on human curiosity with features like the Feejee mermaid and General Tom Thumb.  Later in life, Barnum returned to Connecticut where he served as Mayor in 1875.  He was an author, publisher, politician, businessman, and philanthropist, but is best remembered for his showmanship.  It is that achievement that has inspired the new musical The Greatest Showman starring Hugh Jackman as P.T. Barnum.

If you have read any of my previous Previews or Reviews for films based on actual events or people, I have given up on doing too much research beforehand as the movies often take many creative liberties with regards to the timeline of events, the location of events, characters involved, roles they played, and more.  And they have every right to do so as the films make no claims to be historically accurate or documentaries.  The Greatest Showman is based on the life of P.T. Barnum, specifically in regards to his creation of the Barnum & Bailey Circus dubbed The Greatest Show on Earth.

Hugh Jackman tackles the title role of Barnum and he is no stranger to singing on stage or in film.  Jackman grew up a theatre performer in Australia including musicals.  He branched out of Australia when he landed the role of Curley in Oklahoma in London in 1998.  Two years later, he emerged in America in the role of Wolverine in the X-Men comic movies.  While he continued to perform musical theatre on the side, the world was finally exposed to his singing abilities in 2012 with his role as Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, a performance that earned him the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Motion Picture Musical or Comedy and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor, an award that went to Daniel Day Lewis for his performance in Lincoln.  Jackman received both praise and criticism for his vocal performance.  I was one of the critics asking the question "Were you impressed with the performances in Les Miserables because you wouldn't expect Wolverine and Gladiator to be able to sing like that, or did you really think they gave the performances you would expect if you had paid $500 to watch this on Broadway?"  Jackman has already been nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance in The Greatest Showman and the preview has me excited to see and hear his singing that sounds cleaner than it did in Les Miserables.

Zac Efron burst onto the screen in Disney's High School Musical in 2002, a role that earned him the Teen Choice Award for Breakout Star.  His leading man roles in his career, however, have been campy, goofy and sophomoric starring in such movies as Neighbors 1 and 2, Dirty Grandpa, Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates, and Baywatch.  He is slated to play a completely opposite role as Ted Bundy in a film titled Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile that could really reshape his career and propel him to a much higher platform possibly opening many more doors for the young actor.  His performance in The Greatest Showman could really pave the way for America to accept him in that role and to see him as more than just the goofball in crude comedies.

Last year, when La La Land came out, I said we were long overdue for a new musical and La La Land was hopefully the first of many.  Songwriters Benj Pasek and Justin Paul took home the Oscar for Original Song with their creation of "City of Stars" from La La Land.  They're back and have written the original music for The Greatest Showman.  While La La Land's musical numbers had the old school throwback feel you'd expect from the 50's mixed with some 80's hits and a little more modern jazz, The Greatest Showman will feature more of a modern pop feel as team Pasek and Paul were not bound to embody the 1830's when the film is set.  It's a risk, but a risk that looks to payoff judging from the preview.

I'm excited for The Greatest Showman and have high expectations.  I'm giving a 4.5 Star Prediction as I anticipate thoroughly enjoying Jackman and Efron's performances along with co-stars Michelle Williams and Zendaya, the music, and the spectacle from director Michael Gracey who is literally making his big screen debut.  He's so green, he doesn't even have a completed biography on IMDB.  I have a feeling this is just the beginning for Gracey after a hugely successful Greatest Showman.  Am I right?  We Shall See.

Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi Review

4.0 Stars

Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi is the second installment in the third trilogy of nine mainstream Star Wars movies that started back in 1977 with Episode IV: A New Hope.  Back then, there was no such thing as CGI or 3D.  So filmmaker George Lucas invented technology to make his vision come to life.  His films were groundbreaking and laid the foundation for some of the greatest advances in cinema.  Episodes IV, V, and VI were movies that changed how movies are made.  They were ahead of their time and still hold up forty years later.  In 1999, Lucas went back to tell us how it all began with Episode I: The Phantom Menace.  CGI technology had come a long way, but it wasn't perfect.  For his original trilogy, Lucas invented new technology to create what he saw in his mind.  He received heavy criticism for Episode I as he seemed instead to settle for what technology was available at the time.  He listened to the critics and scaled it back for Episode III, but it still lacked what made the original trilogy so special.  In 2015, JJ Abrams and Disney joined forces (pun intended) to release Episode VII: The Force Awakens and it was the perfect blend of technology versus actual characters and actual props.  Episode VIII continues Rey's (Daisy Ridley) Jedi training with Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill).

In my preview post, I spent much of the post drawing parallels between the 7 existing Star Wars movies.  There are so many similarities between the plots, the twists, the characters, the scenes.  I'll skip most of that, but restate my comparisons between Episode II and Episode V since Episode VIII is the second in the trilogy as well.

In Episode II, Anakin's training is progressing rapidly.  It is revealed that Senator Palpatin is really the dark Sith Lord they've been looking for and he begins to tempt Anakin with the power of the dark side.  During a battle with Count Dooku, Anakin loses his hand.  The movie ends with Anakin's arm and prosthetic hand around Padme (Natalie Portman) with C3PO and R2-D2 at their side.  In Episode V, Luke's training is progressing rapidly.  It is revealed the Darth Vader is actually Luke's father as he begins to try to seduce Luke to the dark side.  During a battle with Vader, Luke loses his hand.  The movie ends with Luke's arm and prosthetic hand around Leah (Carrie Fisher) with C3PO and R2-D2 at their side.  Both movies begin to take a darker turn from their lighter predecessor preparing us for the darkest third installment of Return of the Jedi and Revenge of the Sith.  Ironically, the original working title for Episode VI was Revenge of the Jedi, but Lucas changed it to Return because a Jedi does not seek revenge.  That is a characteristic of the dark side, hence Revenge of the Sith.

So, if history repeated itself a third time, there should have been some similarities in the newly released Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi.  Rey's training should progress rapidly, and it does.  There should be a surprising reveal, but there really wasn't.  The previews lead us to believe there could be some darkness in Luke, but there isn't.  It's more of his whiny self blaming himself for the fall of the Jedi and hoping his own isolation and death would bring an end to the Jedi.  It could also have been in the revealing of who the holographic dark lord Snoke really is.  Well, we do get to see Snoke up close and personal, but we still don't know who he really is or where he came from.  Kylo Ren will grow more powerful as he is increasingly agitated with the struggle inside himself.  That is definitely true.  It will be darker than Episode VII: The Force Awakens, but not nearly as dark as Episode IX will be in two more years.  It was certainly darker than its predecessor, but only time will tell what Episode IX has in store for us.

So this movie did not exactly follow the previous trilogy formulas of similarity.  In fact, The Last Jedi's epic 2 hour and 44 minute adventure had elements of both second and third installments.  Rey advances her training with Luke and faces her own demons.  No one loses their hand in this movie like Anakin did in Attack of the Clones or like Luke did in Empire Strikes Back.  And there really was no dramatic reveal.  Yes, we find out who Rey's parents are, but after years of build-up and anticipation, the reveal from Kylo Ren is anti-climactic at best, if what he said is true.  And we are given no reason to doubt the veracity of his claim.  But that still doesn't explain Rey's connection with Luke and the force.  We are also introduced to a new Han Solo type character.  While Finn (John Boyega) and Rose (Kelly Marie Tran) are imprisoned looking for the master hacker, fellow inmate DJ (Benicio Del Toro) helps them escape and vows to assist them in  their mission for the right price.  He later turns on them for his own freedom and a handsome payoff.  He's a much more suitable Han character than Jar Jar Binks was apparently supposed to represent.

But The Last Jedi also had many elements of Episodes III and VI.  Kylo Ren takes Rey to Supreme Leader Snoke in cuffs, each hoping to turn the other to their side of the force.  Snoke sits confidently in his chair taunting Rey with her lightsaber at his side while the fleeing Rebel forces are under attack from the Galactic Empire.  

I did take issue with a few things in the movie.  I didn't care for all the "connection" scenes between Rey and Kylo Ren.  Luke had a similar connection with Darth Vader, but this took it to almost an annoying level.  I didn't care for Leah's "powers" that came out of nowhere.  We were given a glimpse of her abilities in Empire Strikes Back when she feels Luke's whereabouts in Cloud City, and Yoda promises there is another hope for the Jedi referring to Leah and Luke says the force is in her, but we see none of it in Return of the Jedi or The Force Awakens.  Also, actress Carrie Fisher sadly passed away before the film's release, but her character completed The Last Jedi which means it will have to be addressed in Episode IX.  And I didn't care for Luke's trick against Kylo Ren. 

JJ Abrams did not direct The Last Jedi, but handed over the reigns to a fairly new director Rian Johnson who's most notable works are a few episodes of Breaking Bad and the Sci-Fi movie Looper.  But, from the previews, Johnson looked like he was more than up for the challenge.  Unfortunately, I did feel that a bit of the JJ balance of CGI to real-life was sacrificed in this second installment.  It was still leagues ahead of Episodes I-III, but not as flawless as Episode VII.  Supreme Leader Snoke was animated with the same facial recognition technology as Lord of the Rings, Planet of the Apes and Avatar.  It was good.  But his disfigured face and mastery of the dark side were supposed to be menacing.  I honestly found the Emperor from Episodes V and VI to be more scary and that was done purely through makeup.  It looked like his animation wasn't limited to his face and hands, but included his clothes.  For some reason, we can do hair, water, explosions really well, but clothes still elude animators when striving for undetectable perfection.

I gave Episode VII a rare perfect 5 Star rating so I expected the same perfection giving a 5 Star follow-up prediction for Episode VIII: The Last Jedi.  I thought most of the animation was fantastic.  It was a great story and thoroughly entertaining.  I'm glad I saw it in the theatre and it was worth the money.  I know I'll be owning it, but I am dropping my rating to 4 Stars.  So, what movie will be on my mind next?  We shall see.

Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi Preview

Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi is the second installment in the third trilogy of nine mainstream Star Wars movies that started back in 1977 with Episode IV: A New Hope.  Back then, there was no such thing as CGI or 3D.  So filmmaker George Lucas invented technology to make his vision come to life.  His films were groundbreaking and laid the foundation for some of the greatest advances in cinema.  Episodes IV, V, and VI were movies that changed how movies are made.  They were ahead of their time and still hold up forty years later.  In 1999, Lucas went back to tell us how it all began with Episode I: The Phantom Menace.  CGI technology had come a long way, but it wasn't perfect.  For his original trilogy, Lucas invented new technology to create what he saw in his mind.  He received heavy criticism for Episode I as he seemed instead to settle for what technology was available at the time.  He listened to the critics and scaled it back for Episode III, but it still lacked what made the original trilogy so special.  In 2015, JJ Abrams and Disney joined forces (pun intended) to release Episode VII: The Force Awakens and it was the perfect blend of technology versus actual characters and actual props.  Episode VIII continues Rey's (Daisy Ridley) Jedi training with Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill).

Rather than talk too much about Episode VIII, I want to draw some parallels between the 7 that are already out there.  Some people criticized Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) for being too weak and whiny.  But look at how Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd and Hayden Christensen) and Luke both started out.  It seems that the whinier you are as a juvenile, the stronger Jedi you will eventually become.

In Episode I, we meet young Anakin Skywalker.  He's a whiny boy but the force is strong in him.  Qui-Gon Jin (Liam Neeson) takes him under his wing to begin Jedi training, against the advice of the council.  The movie ends with a pod race that Anakin wins and is rewarded at a trophy ceremony.  In Episode IV, we meet young Luke Skywalker.  He's a whiny boy but the force is strong in him.  Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) takes him under his wing to begin Jedi training, against the advice of Yoda.  The movie ends with Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Luke saving Princess Leah and they are rewarded at a medal ceremony.  Episode VII introduces us to Rey. She's not whiny, but she's alone and the force is inexplicably strong within her.  She joins the fight with the Rebellion.  While there is no trophy ceremony, she is the one who ultimately finds the long lost Luke Skywalker and presents him with his own light saber.

In Episode II, Anakin's training is progressing rapidly.  It is revealed that Senator Palpatin is really the dark Sith Lord they've been looking for and he begins to tempt Anakin with the power of the dark side.  During a battle with Count Dooku, Anakin loses his hand.  The movie ends with Anakin's arm and prosthetic hand around Padme (Natalie Portman) with C3PO and R2-D2 at their side.  In Episode V, Luke's training is progressing rapidly.  It is revealed the Darth Vader is actually Luke's father as he begins to try to seduce Luke to the dark side.  During a battle with Vader, Luke loses his hand.  The movie ends with Luke's arm and prosthetic hand around Leah (Carrie Fisher) with C3PO and R2-D2 at their side.  Both movies begin to take a darker turn from their lighter predecessor preparing us for the darkest third installment of Return of the Jedi and Revenge of the Sith.  Ironically, the original working title for Episode VI was Revenge of the Jedi, but Lucas changed it to Return because a Jedi does not seek revenge.  That is a characteristic of the dark side, hence Revenge of the Sith.

In Episode III, there are three major battles at the end of the movie.  On land, the Gungans are fighting with the Rebels against the battle droids.  And Yoda fights against Emperor Sidious.  And Anakin goes toe-to-toe with his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor).  Obi-Wan wins and Anakin is transformed into Darth Vader.  In Episode VI, there are three major battles at the end of the movie.  On land, the Ewoks are fighting with the Storm Troopers trying to help Han and Leah take down the Death Star's protective shield.  In space, Lando (Billy Dee Williams) leads a battle against the Empire's fleet to take down the Death Star.  And Luke fights against Darth Vader.  This time Luke wins, with the aid of his father against the Emperor as Luke has successfully brought Anakin back from the dark side.

So, if history repeats itself a third time, there should be some similarities in the newly released Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi.  Rey's training should progress rapidly.  There should be a surprising reveal.  The previews lead us to believe there could be some darkness in Luke.  It could also be in the revealing of who the holographic dark lord Snoke really is.  Kylo Ren will grow more powerful as he is increasingly agitated with the struggle inside himself.  It will be darker than Episode VII: The Force Awakens, but not nearly as dark as Episode IX will be in two more years.  JJ Abrams is not directing The Last Jedi, but has handed over the reigns to a fairly new director Rian Johnson who's most notable works are a few episodes of Breaking Bad and the Sci-Fi movie Looper.  But, from the previews, Johnson looks like he is more than up for the challenge.  I gave Episode VII a rare perfect 5 Star rating.  I'm expecting the same perfection, so I'm going to go ahead and predict a 5 Star follow-up for Episode VIII: The Last Jedi.  Am I right?  We shall see.

The Man Who Invented Christmas Review

2.5 Stars

"Marley was dead, to begin with, there is no doubt whatever about that." In December of 1843, struggling author Charles Dickens began his yuletide classic A Christmas Carol with this line.  Known for his humor as much as his thought-provoking genius, Dickens spent the next paragraph comparing Marley's death to that of a door nail, then questioning whether that was an appropriate object and perhaps a coffin nail would have been more accurate.  After three failed novels, Dickens struck gold with this timeless tale that has become as synonymous with Christmas as trees, lights, wise men, snowmen and Santa.  The much-needed success of A Christmas Carol resurrected Dickens' career, not unlike the rebirth of Ebeneezer Scrooge after his night of ghostly visitors on Christmas Eve.  The Man Who Invented Christmas tells the story of Dickens' inspiration for his holiday masterpiece.

Dan Stevens takes on the role of Charles Dickens, and Bharat Nalluri directed the film.  Neither are very well known as the majority of their works are from television.  But Stevens has some heavy-hitting film legends to keep him company.  Johnathan Pryce plays John Dickens, Charles' father.  And Christopher Plummer plays Ebenezer Scrooge.  The rest of the cast, however, is anything but a who's who of Hollywood.  

After the huge success of Oliver Twist, Dickens has put out three failed novels in the last 16 months.  He is broke.  He and his wife have just moved into a larger house with their three children, housekeeper and nanny.  The bills are piling up and his wife just informed him they have another  child on the way.  In two months, he must write and publish the book of his career, a Christmas story, to save his family.  But Dickens has severe writer's block and matters are not made any better with his estranged parents moving in, drudging up painful memories of a less-than-pleasant childhood, the result of his father's financial irresponsibility.  

Charles overhears his nanny Tara telling a traditional Irish Christmas tale to the rest of the children.  It involves spirits that roam free on Christmas eve every year.  That plants the first little seed of a story.  After an event where Charles gave a speech, a rich attendee expressed some criticisms of his latest works.  His objection was that the poor and the beggars and the pickpockets don't deserve a place in a novel, they should be in the workhouses.  Charles rebuts that many would rather die.  The response was that they had better get on with it and decrease the surplus population.  The seed grew in his head. 

That evening, he stumbles upon a graveyard where a man is burying his business partner.  There are no friends, no family present and the man isn't upset by the loss.  Two men with shovels are waiting nearby to toss in the dirt and Dickens overhears them comment that it's a shame the business partner had so much money and no one to share it with.  As the man walks away from the grave, he spies Dickens looking on.  He approaches Charles, stops, and utters just one word: "Humbug."  And the seed took life.  The story began to come and the characters came alive in his mind. 

The Man Who Invented Christmas looked from the previews like it could potentially be a new underground Christmas classic.  A Christmas Carol has been made and re-imagined several times.  George C. Scott played Bob Cratchit in 1984.  In 1988, Bill Murray played Xavier Cross in a twist on the classed of Scrooged. In 1992, the role was undertaken by Kermit the Frog in The Muppet Christmas Carol.  2009 marked a fantastic animation put out by Disney with Jim Carrey in the lead role.  I, myself, played the narrator in a radio production of A Christmas Carol in High School in the early 1990's.  I said this could be an underground classic because I thought it might take a couple years to really take hold and be shown every year on TV during the holidays.  After watching it though, I don't think this will become a Christmas classic at all as this movie fell far short of my expectations.

I thought that Dan Stevens delivered a humorous, genuine, heart-felt and energetic performance as Charles Dickens and Christopher Plummer was a brilliant Scrooge.  The Man Who Invented Christmas is a Christmas story that has never been told before, though it is based on the story that has been told nearly as many times as the birth of Jesus in the manger.  I'm a huge fan of all things Christmas but this was a disappointment.  Dickens was a master storyteller using words to paint vivid images and creating characters who come to life off his pages.  Unfortunately, and ironically, those are the two things that screen writer Susan Coyne lacked.  Like Stevens and Nalluri, the majority of Coyne's previous work is from television.  The Man Who Invented Christmas might have been too big for her to take on.  Even within the film, we see how powerful a writer Dickens was.  He shares some of his pages with Tara and she smiles uncontrollably and is also brought to tears as she can't bear the thought of Bob Cratchit losing Tiny Tim and believes there must be some good within Scrooge.  Later in the film, Dickens is struggling with the ending of the story and the turning point for Scrooge.  His best friend and business partner Mr. Chapman asks him some probing questions.  What causes Scrooge to turn around?  What's holding him back?  Why is he the way he is?  Who cares for him?  Who does he care for?  All questions that make a character relatable, three dimensional, and real.  It doesn't seem these questions were asked of most of the characters in the movie about the man who did it better than almost anyone else throughout history. 

Dickens was a successful author who chose to move into a larger house with all the bells and whistles.  You felt worse about the chandelier than you did about his wife and three children.  Dickens wrestled with his own Scrooge-like characteristics, but you weren't exactly rooting for him like you were for Scrooge towards the end of the book.   You didn't feel sorry for his wife who felt neglected nor for Tara who was sent away after a temper tantrum.  There was so much potential for this to be a great movie, but the lack of basics made it fail.

I gave The Man Who Invented Christmas a 4 Star Prediction. I'm going to lower that to 2.5 Stars.  I'd probably watch it again if it was on TV.  I doubt I'd rent it, and I'm sure I won't be adding this one to my collection.  So, what movie will be on my mind next? We shall see.

The Man Who Invented Christmas Preview

"Marley was dead, to begin with, there is no doubt whatever about that." In December of 1843, struggling author Charles Dickens began his yuletide classic A Christmas Carol with this line.  Known for his humor as much as his thought-provoking genius, Dickens spent the next paragraph comparing Marley's death to that of a door nail, then questioning whether that was an appropriate object and perhaps a coffin nail would have been more accurate.  After three failed novels, Dickens struck gold with this timeless tale that has become as synonymous with Christmas as trees, lights, wise men, snowmen and Santa.  The much-needed success of A Christmas Carol resurrected Dickens' career, not unlike the rebirth of Ebeneezer Scrooge after his night of ghostly visitors on Christmas Eve.  The Man Who Invented Christmas tells the story of Dickens' inspiration for his holiday masterpiece.

Dan Stevens takes on the role of Charles Dickens.  Many probably won't recognize his name, but if you saw Disney's live action version of Beauty and the Beast, you are familiar with his work.  Stevens was the Beast.  Most of the rest of his resume involves roles in TV series like High Maintenance, Legion and SuperMansion.  Exactly.  But Stevens has some heavy-hitting film legends to keep him company.  Johnathan Pryce plays John Dickens, Charles' father.  And Christopher Plummer plays Ebenezer Scrooge.  The rest of the cast, however, is anything but a who's who of Hollywood.  

The Man Who Invented Christmas is directed by Bharat Nalluri.  Born in India, Nalluri's resume is very similar to Stevens, filled with TV series and his biggest project before this was Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day.  

After three failed novels, Dickens and his family are broke with bills piling up they cannot pay.  In two months, he must write and publish the book of his career, a Christmas story, to save his family.  Dickens has severe writer's block and matters are not made any better with his estranged parents moving in, drudging up painful memories of a less-than-pleasant childhood, the result of his father's financial irresponsibility.  Characters for his story begin to appear in his imagination and the pen begins to flow bringing the characters to life.  But they take on a life of their own and don't cooperate with their creator, the Author.  

The Man Who Invented Christmas looks like it could potentially be a new underground Christmas classic.  A Christmas Carol has been made and re-imagined several times.  George C. Scott played Bob Cratchit in 1984.  In 1988, Bill Murray played Xavier Cross in a twist on the classed of Scrooged. In 1992, the role was undertaken by Kermit the Frog in The Muppet Christmas Carol.  2009 marked a fantastic animation put out by Disney with Jim Carrey in the lead role.  I, myself, played the narrator in a radio production of A Christmas Carol in High School in the early 1990's.  I say this could be an underground classic because this might take a couple years to really take hold and be shown every year on TV during the holidays.  It might never make anyone's top 10 list of Christmas favorites, but could grow to be a top 20 contender.  

Dan Stevens looks like he delivers a humorous, genuine, heart-felt and energetic performance as Charles Dickens and The Man Who Invented Christmas is a Christmas story that has never been told before, though it is based on the story that has been told nearly as many times as the birth of Jesus in the manger.  I'm a huge fan of all things Christmas and I think this will be thoroughly enjoyable, new and something I'll want to own.  So I'm giving The Man Who Invented Christmas a 4 Star Prediction.  Am I right?  We shall see.

A Cure For Wellness Review

3.0 Stars

 

A Cure For Wellness is a psychological thriller about a remote spa in the Swiss Alps.  Lockhart (Dane DeHaan) is an ambitious young executive who is tasked with retrieving Pembroke (Harry Groener) the CEO of their company from this spa.  When he arrives, it looks like a mix between a luxury spa and an insane asylum.  There are people doing yoga, exercising, swimming.  They are normal activities done in a creepy looking facility.  Lockhart meets a young woman, Hannah (Mia Goth) who asks if he's there to take the Cure.  He laughs and says he's on his way out.  She comments that no one ever leaves.

When Lockhart arrives, he asks to see Pembroke.  They are passively uncooperative at the "spa", but reluctantly agree to let him visit after 7pm when Pembroke's treatment is finished.  Lockhart agrees to come back and as he leaves the "spa", his driver hits a deer and their car crashes in the woods.  He awakes back at the facility and is being treated for a broken leg.  They convince Lockhart to be treated by them, and he decides to turn his retrieval mission into an investigation of the strange spa that is obviously anything but normal.

Other than that, you really don't get too much from the previews, no matter how many you watch.  But, if you're into psychological thrillers, the images that are beautifully terrifying, classically creepy, and oddly curious make you want to see A Cure For Wellness.  We saw orderlies in tight white t-shirts, white pants and white shoes conducting exercise classes and wheeling patients down long tiled corridors with flickering fluorescent lights overhead.  At one point, Lockhart is submersed in a water tank with a breathing tube and is suddenly surrounded by eels.  

 

The movie itself is hard to describe.  It's like Stanly Kubrik's Clockwork Orange mixed with Steven King's Misery mixed with the Saw movie franchise.  A Cure For Wellness was directed by Gore Verbinksi who directed three of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, the cartoon Rango, the failed Lone Ranger reboot, and The Ring.  Verbinski is quite eclectic in his directing ventures and did a great job creating this freaky nightmare that will have you cringing in your seat at times.  

 

It looked like a strange, unsettling, bizarre, crazy, awful thriller.  I gave it a 3.5 Star Prediction.  I'm going to lower the rating slightly to 3 Stars.  It wouldn't be a waste of money in the theatre, it's definitely money better spent as a rental, but most likely not one I'd own.  Mostly, it just moves along too slowly.  The movie is about 2 hours and 20 minutes long and it feels like it.  The last half hour or so, really ends the movie with a bang though.  A lot of revelation and action packed into a well-done conclusion to the movie.   So, what movie will be on my mind next? We shall see.

 

A Cure For Wellness Preview

A Cure For Wellness is a psychological thriller about a remote spa in the Swiss Alps.  Lockhart (Dane DeHaan) is an ambitious young executive who is tasked with retrieving the CEO of their company from this spa.  When he arrives, it looks like a mix between a luxury spa and an insane asylum.  There are people doing yoga, exercising, swimming.  They are normal activities done in a creepy looking facility.  Lockhart is approached by a young woman who asks if he's taken the Cure.  He laughs and says he's on his way out.  She comments that no one ever leaves.

As he leaves, he hits a deer and his car crashes in the woods.  He awakes back at the facility and is being treated for a broken leg.  They decide Lockhart would be a good candidate for the Cure, and he decides to turn his retrieval mission into an investigation of the strange spa that is obviously anything but normal.

Other than that, you really don't get too much from the previews, no matter how many you watch.  But, if you're into psychological thrillers, the images that are beautifully terrifying, classically creepy, and oddly curious make you want to see A Cure For Wellness.  We see orderlies in tight white t-shirts, white pants and white shoes conducting exercise classes and wheeling patients down long tiled corridors with flickering fluorescent lights overhead.  We see a steam room that looks like a dirty, dank bathhouse.  At one point, Lockhart is submersed in a water tank with a breathing tube and is suddenly surrounded by eels.  The Cure is a mysterious liquid administered a drop at a time from a blue bottle onto the patient's tongue.  I've wanted to watch this movie and it was just recommended to me.  It looks like a strange, unsettling, bizarre, crazy, awful thriller.  I'm giving it a 3.5 Star Prediction.  While I don't think it would be a waste of money in the theatre, it would probably be money better spent as a rental, but most likely not one I'd own.  Am I right?  We shall see.

City of Ghosts Review

City of Ghosts is a documentary independent film about ISIS terrorists in Raqqa, Syria, the citizen journalists exposing them, and the power of media used by both.  In 2014, ISIS took over Raqqa by force and recruited more soldiers to their cause by distributing CDs.  These CDs were poor in quality, looked amateur, and were not producing the results they wanted.  A group of 17 correspondents inside Raqqa filmed the actions of ISIS and transmitted their footage to another group of citizen activists outside of Raqqa who would then publish their footage online for the world to see.  ISIS caught on and stepped up their game, smartly, viciously, successfully.

For 40 years, Assad ruled Syria.  Slowly, Syrians had enough and rebelled.  A group of high school students sprayed graffiti demanding Assad leave and free Syria.  The government arrested those students, tortured them and killed them to send a message.  Their message failed and a full revolt arose, successfully toppling the regime.  Unfortunately for the Syrians, there was not a succession plan in place to set up a government to rule once Assad had been overthrown.  A militant group of Muslims named ISIS took Raqqa and they were even worse than Assad.

 

ISIS launched a three-pronged attack.  First, they attacked by force.  Then, they attacked by upping the quality of their videos used to recruit soldiers.  They utilized Hollywood style filming techniques and special effects to entice Syrians to join their "paradise".  Finally, they found out who was working against them and used intimidation to scare them off.  They would publicly execute their family members, they would post pictures of those working against them and their addresses encouraging their soldiers and followers to kill them.  They demanded that all satellites be removed and destroyed so they could be in complete control of any media entering or leaving Raqqa.  They drove around in vans detecting internet signals and killing violators.  But a few brave resisters would not be deterred realizing that either they would successfully share the truth, or they would be killed.

This is a documentary that uses actual footage of the atrocities being committed by ISIS in Syria.  These are not Hollywood actors, there are no special effects or makeup tricks.  What you see is real.  And that makes this film brutal and painful but necessary to watch.  The preview showed that you would be given front-line access to the daily terror to which Syrians are subjected, and that's what the film delivered.  It was hard to give this a typical star rating because it's not meant to entertain, it's not meant to thrill and take you to a make believe place.  Even movies that are based on actual events are a little easier to handle because they are a step removed.  They are recreations of things that happened and the viewer can take some solace knowing it's still a Hollywood movie.  I'm not often squeamish at horror films with gore and blood.  I'm more curious at how the special effects team pulled it off.  With City of Ghosts, what you see is actually happening and cannot be brushed off as a trick.  I honestly was not sure what exactly to expect.  I didn't know how much would be shown in the movie and in how much detail.  The movie is graphic, but restrained.  You do see executions. You do see children being brainwashed and threatened with no choice but to follow ISIS.  You do see the aftermath of public beheadings.  But you are spared some of the brutality as the camera will film the reactions of the Syrians who had to witness their fellow Syrians, their fellow journalists, their friends and families being killed.  But their goal is to spread the graphic truth of what is going on and their lives are at stake.  I gave City of Ghosts an anticipatory 4 Star prediction.  I am going to stand by my 4 Star Rating, even though it breaks my own rating scale because this will not be a movie I'll be owning.  I'm giving this a higher rating because I think it is an important film that we all need to see.  Not in spite of how uncomfortable it may make us, but rather because of how uncomfortable it should make us. So, what movie will be on my mind next?  We shall see. 

 

 

City of Ghosts Preview

City of Ghosts is a documentary independent film about ISIS terrorists in Raqqa, Syria, the citizen journalists exposing them, and the power of media used by both.  In 2014, ISIS took over Raqqa by force and recruited more soldiers to their cause by distributing CDs.  These CDs were poor in quality, looked amateur, and were not producing the results they wanted.  A group of 17 correspondents inside Raqqa filmed the actions of ISIS and transmitted their footage to another group of citizen activists outside of Raqqa who would then publish their footage online for the world to see.  ISIS caught on and stepped up their game, smartly, viciously, successfully.

ISIS launched a three-pronged attack.  First, they attacked by force.  Then, they attacked by upping the quality of their videos used to recruit soldiers.  They utilized Hollywood style filming techniques and special effects to entice Syrians to join their "paradise".  Finally, they found out who was working against them and used intimidation to scare them off.  They would publicly execute their family members, they would post pictures of those working against them and their addresses encouraging their soldiers and followers to kill them.  But a few brave resisters would not be deterred realizing that either they would successfully share the truth, or they would be killed.

This is a documentary that uses actual footage of the atrocities being committed by ISIS in Syria.  These are not Hollywood actors, there are no special effects or makeup tricks.  What you see is real.  And that makes this film brutal and painful but necessary to watch.  The preview shows that you will be given front-line access to the daily terror to which Syrians are subjected.  It's hard to give this a typical star rating because it's not meant to entertain, it's not meant to thrill and take you to a make believe place.  Even movies that are based on actual events are a little easier to handle because they are a step removed.  They are recreations of things that happened and the viewer can take some solace knowing it's still a Hollywood movie.  I'm not often squeamish at horror films with gore and blood.  I'm more curious at how the special effects team pulled it off.  With City of Ghosts, what you see is actually happening and cannot be brushed off as a trick.  I'm honestly not sure what exactly to expect as I'm sure many of the horrible things going on cannot be shown in the preview.  I don't know how much will be shown in the movie and in how much detail.  But I can imagine as their goal is to spread the graphic truth of what is going on and their lives are at stake.  I'm giving City of Ghosts an anticipatory 4 Star prediction, breaking my own rating scale because I don't believe this will be a movie I'll be owning, though I think it will be an important film that we all need to see.  Not in spite of how uncomfortable it may make us, but rather because of how uncomfortable it should make us. Am I right?  We shall see.

Atomic Blonde Review

2.5 Stars

 

Undercover MI6 Agent Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is described as an expert in intelligence collection and hand-to-hand combat.  In Atomic Blonde, Broughton is sent on a mission to Berlin on the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall to take down a ruthless espionage ring that is responsible for killing her boyfriend and fellow MI6 undercover agent.  He was killed for an important document referred to as "the list" that contains compromising information about undercover agents and missions.  There, she is forced to team up with embedded station chief David Percival (James McAvoy) who is not always on the same page as far as information sharing.  Once in Berlin, the mission quickly expands from just finding "the list" to also revealing and eliminating the double agent crossing the KGB, the Royal Crown and the United States.  

Atomic Blonde is the full length feature film realization of the graphic novel titled The Coldest City.  Written in 2012 by Antony Johnston and Sam Hart, The Coldest City chronicles the adventures of a spy sent to find a list of double-agents being smuggled into the West.

An early review described Theron as "bigger and bolder than Bourne".  Many have compared her character to the first real female James Bond. I found a couple problems with those comparisons.  First, the action scenes and driving sequences in the Bourne movies were believable and flawless in their execution.  While Theron was more than able to pull off the realistic and graphic fighting scenes, the driving scenes were enhanced by a computer in post production.  And you can tell.

Second, Broughton, like the 007 Agent to which she is compared, has a love interest in the movie.  Bond is known for being quite the ladies' man with not-so-subtle innuendos and a PG to PG-13 scene of intimacy before getting back to the action and gadgets.  Broughton engages with a female French agent named Sandrine (Sofia Boutella).  This affair was not in the 2012 graphic novel, but the writers of Atomic Blonde felt it would set their spy movie apart from other ones and it would be an unexpected twist.  Their affair was graphic, intense and gratuitous.   While the Bond scene of love is titillatingly playful, the scenes in Atomic Blonde hinted at by the preview leave s little to the imagination and something that I feel works against solidifying Broughton as a viable contender to be in the same class as a Bourne or Bond character.  Though I can excuse the affair itself as being a means to and end (information gathering), it still could have been done with a PG to PG-13 ambiance about it.

All the things that are wrong about Atomic Blonde are showcased in the first 5 minutes of the film.  The MI6 Agent is killed by the KGB in an unrealistic computer enhanced car hit, the first line of the movie drops an F-bomb (the first of many), and the next scene is Broughton naked in a tub and around the bathroom.  I supposed the point of that was to show a bruised and broken Broughton; but, again, that could have done without the nudity.

Atomic Blonde looked interesting and I agree we are overdue for a female version of a Bond or Bourne, but I do think they could have done so with more attention to the plot and the action and less on the nudity and sex that didn't make the movie any better.  I went in with low expectations giving a timid 2 Star Prediction.  I will say this, as the movie progresses, it does get better for me.  The fighting scenes (and you can tell Theron is actually doing most of her own work) are quite realistic.  The story is not unique.  It's a spy movie, so the one you think is the traitor isn't, and even when you think you figured out the twist, there's another one.  It's entertaining, but not innovative or new.  Because of the fight scenes alone, I'm bumping this up to 2.5 Stars.  Still disappointing, especially when it could have been a solid 4 to 4.5 stars had it not been for the car chases with computers, the nudity and sex, and the foul language that just wasn't necessary to put Atomic Blonde in the same league with Bourne or Bond.  I think this is one to wait for on cable, but might be worth renting, but not spending the big bucks to watch in theatres.  So, what movie will be on my mind next?  We shall see.

 

Atomic Blonde Preview

Undercover MI6 Agent Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is described as an expert in intelligence collection and hand-to-hand combat.  In Atomic Blonde, Broughton is sent alone on a mission to Berlin on the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall to take down a ruthless espionage ring that is responsible for killing an undercover agent.  There, she teams up with embedded station chief David Percival (James McAvoy) to navigate her way through a deadly spy game.  

Atomic Blonde is the full length feature film realization of the graphic novel titled The Coldest City.  Written in 2012 by Antony Johnston and Sam Hart, The Coldest City chronicles the adventures of a spy sent to find a list of double-agents being smuggled into the West.

At the beginning of the preview, Broughton is briefed on her mission by a top CIA Agent (John Goodman).  She is tasked with finding out who is responsible for killing one of their agents and take down their ring.  Of course, she is told to "trust no one" which should immediately make you distrust Goodman's character right out of the gate.  An early review describes Theron as "bigger and bolder than Bourne".  Many have compared her character to the first real female James Bond.

I can already see a couple problems with those comparisons.  First, the action scenes and driving sequences in the Bourne movies were believable and flawless in their execution.  While Theron looks like she is able to pull off the fighting, the driving looks like it was enhanced by a computer in post production.  And that's just from the preview.

Second, Broughton, like the 007 Agent to which she is compared, has a love interest in the movie.  Bond is known for being quite the ladies' man with not-so-subtle innuendos and a PG to PG-13 scene of intimacy before getting back to the action and gadgets.  Broughton falls for a female French agent named Sandrine (Sofia Boutella).  This love affair was not in the 2012 graphic novel, but the writers of Atomic Blonde felt it would set their spy movie apart from other ones and it would be an unexpected twist.  Their torrid affair looks graphic, intense and gratuitous.   While the Bond scene of love is titillatingly playful, the scenes in Atomic Blonde hinted at by the preview will leave little to the imagination and something that will work against solidifying Broughton as a viable contender to be in the same class as a Bourne or Bond character.

Atomic Blonde looks interesting and I agree we are overdue for a female version of a Bond or Bourne, but I do think they could have done so with more attention to the plot and the action and less on the nudity and sex that seems to be just as big a part of the movie.  I'm not going in with huge expectations and am giving a timid 2 Star Prediction.  I think this would be one to wait for it to be on your pay cable channels, but might not even be worth renting, let alone spending the big bucks to watch in theatres.  Am I right?  We shall see.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 Review

3.5 Stars

Three years ago, the earthling Peter Quill A.K.A. Star Lord (Chris Pratt) acquired a mysterious orb that put his life in danger.  Hunted by the villain Ronan the Accuser, Quill assembled a team of intergalactic misfits who teamed up to stop Ronan and save the galaxy in Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy.  Quill was accompanied by Gamora (Zoe Saldana) a green orphan from an alien world raised to be an assassin; a physical brute named Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista); Groot (Vin Diesel) who is basically a giant walking tree with limited communication skills; and Rocket (Bradley Cooper) a raccoon bounty hunter / mercenary. 

In addition to an all-star cast, wonderful animation, and a fun movie based on a not-as-popularly known Marvel comic, Guardians of the Galaxy's success was aided in no small part to Peter Quill's awesome mix tape featuring songs like Hooked on a Feeling, Spirit in the Sky, Moonage Daydream, I Want You Back, Come and Get Your Love and Ain't No Mountain High Enough, to name a few.  The team is back to save the universe once again.

Groot is back and adorable.  Though the giant tree perished in Volume 1, Rocket replanted a piece of his friend that has produced the offspring, Baby Groot for Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2. The unspoken sexual tension (ala Sam and Diane from Cheers) between Quill and Gamora is palpable, but endearing and sweet.  And, as expected, another epic soundtrack accompanied this movie, including the ending credits from David Hasselhoff.  As a child, not knowing who his father was, Quill would tell other children that the Knight Rider was his dad.  But Volume 2 answers that question for us.

We don't learn too much from the preview.  We can tell the action and animation is at least on par with Volume 1.  It was.  We saw that the humorous one-liners would be flowing plentifully.  They were.  We know all our favorite characters are back and some new ones will be introduced.  But, we don't get too much of a plot reveal from the preview.  Well, if you don't want any spoilers, here where you stop reading.  

Volume 2 opens with Ego (Kurt Russell) and Meredith (Laura Haddock) driving in 1983 with the radio blasting and Meredith singing, truly where Peter got his passion for music.  The two young lovebirds run into the woods where Ego shows her a beautiful exotic blue plant.  As he vaguely describes what it is, she says she doesn't understand what he's saying but loves the way he says it.  She can't believe she fell for a space man.

Thirty-four years later, Star-Lord and his fellow Guardians have been hired to fight off an intergalactic monster trying to steal a valuable source of power.  It's a cute seen that is pretty much Baby Groot dancing while the Guardians take down the beast.  They return to collect their prize for a successful mission: Gamora's sister Nebula (Karen Gillan).  They don't get along and Gamora is going to turn her in for the bounty on her.  They don't make it that far as their ship is attacked by the very same creatures that employed them because Rocket, couldn't resist stealing some of the valuable cargo they were tasked to protect.  They set their course for the nearest safe planet, but they were outnumbered and it looked like all hope was lost until one solo ship appeared and the pursuing armada was completely decimated in an instant.  After crashing on the planet, their savior ship appears and Ego emerges, immediately revealing himself as Peter's father.  Ego, with his companion Mantis (Pom Klementieff) convince Peter, Gamora and Drax to return to his planet for further explanation while Rocket, Baby Groot and Nebula stay behind with the damaged ship.

That's where the big reveal happens.  Ego is not a human.  He is a god.  The planet is his and he is the only inhabitant, other than the alien orphan he has with him, Mantis.  He has fathered many children throughout the galaxy, but Peter is the only one who carried his god-gene that Ego needs to take over the universe.  The epic battle ensues on many levels, but culminates on Ego's planet as the Guardians again must save the Galaxy.  I won't tell you how it all ends, I think I've revealed enough plot-spoilers at this point.

Most of the star prediction was based on Volume 1 since the preview didn't reveal much about Volume 2.  But it was a successful preview for two reasons.  First, there was just too much to reveal.  I just scratched the surface of all the plot twists and reveals that are jam-packed into this sequel.  In addition to that, there are more characters and special appearances in the film.  But, if the preview clued you in to their roles, it wouldn't have been as fun when they popped up on screen.  So kudos for keeping those nuggets to themselves.  Second, it gave you enough to make you want to come see it.  Basically, the preview said, if you liked the first one, everything you loved about it will be in the second one.  And it was all there.  It was fun, original, enjoyable and more than just a sequel.  I gave Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 a 3.5 star prediction: worth the money in the theatres, something I'd watch again, and a contender for my home collection.  I was right on and I'm sticking with my 3.5 Stars.  Fans of the comic, fans of sci-fi action movies, fans of Marvel, fans of the first movie, they will all be quite pleased with Volume 2.  So, what movie will be on my mind next?  We shall see.