Smash Cut

Karl Delossantos

  • ‘Better Watch Out’ review — Nothing is what it seems in this Holiday horror

    ‘Better Watch Out’ review — Nothing is what it seems in this Holiday horror

    Better Watch Out is the kind of smart and witty horror movie that fans will love to watch and dissect

    You’d better watch out. You’d better not cry. You’d better not shout, I’m telling you why… Because there are armed invaders attacking the home you’re babysitting in.

    That’s the horrifying premise of Better Watch Out, an Australian horror movie that takes place in the American suburbs around Christmas time. However, this is no holly jolly Christmas movie. 17-year-old Ashley (Olivia DeJonge, quite good here) is babysitting 12-year-old Luke (Levi Miller), your typical preteen boy who is going through that awkward stage of puberty where his voice is a little lower but squeaks and is having sexual urges but is still seen as a kid.

    However, that’s not stopping him from trying to seduce Ashley while she’s watching him. That storyline is already played for laughs as he tries and fails to prove that he’s more adult than she thinks. But then, a brick comes crashing through an upstairs window that reads, “U leave and U die.”

    It’s difficult to talk about the rest of the movie because part of its success comes from the effectiveness of its twists and turns. So I’m going to warn you now. If you haven’t watched Better Watch Out, go on and watch it, then come back to this review. If you are a fan of psychological horror with an edge of wit to it, then this one is for you.

    I’ll try and tread lightly, so you thrill seekers that want to risk reading the rest can do so generally spoiler free.

    Better Watch Out reveals the movie it’s really trying to be in almost a split second. And it’s that change that will make or break this movie for audiences because it asks you to very quickly reevaluate your feelings toward characters without exactly earning it. For me, it was an incredibly effective twist that makes this movie a stunning watch.

    For the rest of the running time, Better Watch Out plays like Home Alone mashed together with Funny Games. It may be one of the oddest descriptions of a film, but it is actually adept at explaining the mood and plot beats. At one point, the characters play a demented game of truth or dare that ends with one of the most twisted horror movie kills in recent memory, but director Chris Peckover doesn’t glorify the gore. It’s present, but he doesn’t linger on it.

    In general, he doesn’t linger on the violent side of what is happening. Instead, the movie is a pretty sensible commentary on privilege, as one of the characters feels justified in their actions because they believe they deserve it. Halloween was a commentary on how our suburbs aren’t safe. Better Watch Out is an updated view on that topic that makes the danger a little closer to home.

    Like The Cabin In the Woods, which stands as one of the best horror movies of the decade, Better Watch Out has a razor wit to its storytelling. It has a surprisingly light mood considering the subject matter and plays well as a comedy, albeit the darkest of comedies, and a horror.

    Although, its success as a horror and a comedy rely on your buy-in to the characters. And Miller and DeJonge make that easy with two beautifully realized performances. Miller, in particular, feels like a star in the making. Which might happen with A Wrinkle in Time on the way.

    Better Watch Out is like a puzzle that horror fans get to dissect, which makes it a true joy to watch. Even better, it’s a movie that demands you react to it. You’ll laugh. You’ll yell at characters. You’ll cringe. It’s just another indication that we’re in a golden age of horror. But not only that. It’s a golden age of original horror. The kind that you never see coming. And trust me, you won’t see what Better Watch Out has in store coming.

    Better Watch Out is available to stream on Shudder!

    Karl’s rating:

  • 2018 Oscar Predictions — The Wildest Best Picture Race Ever

    2018 Oscar Predictions — The Wildest Best Picture Race Ever

    The Best Picture race this year is one of the most unpredictable with no clear frontrunner emerging. Though, Get Out is definitely going to put a fight for the title.

    Oscar voting begins this week, which means we finally know exactly what the voters might be considering as they cast their ballots. However, Best Picture remains the most murky category. There are still 4 or 5 contenders that have a clear path to winning. This year, more than any, the preferential ballot is going to make it extremely difficult to figure out what film is going to win. Unlike the past couple years, though ending in upsets, we knew generally what the top two films were going to be.

    But to quickly refresh, here’s how the preferential ballot works. Instead of voting for their favorite film, voters are asked to rank all nine nominees in order of preference — their first place film should be there favorite and their last place film should be their least favorite. In the first round of voting, each ballot’s first place vote is counted. If no film gets 50% of the first place votes, the film with the least first place votes is eliminated and their second place film becomes their first place vote. So let’s say Darkest Hour received the least first place votes in the first round and is eliminated. If the voter with Darkest Hour in first place had Phantom Thread in second place, then Phantom Thread would get another vote added to its total.



    This means that the Best Picture winner will be a film all the voters generally like — a consensus pick. However, with so many frontrunners, voting might last 5 or 6, and even, 7 rounds before coming up with a winner. So, below I break down the four strong contenders for Best Picture and the case for and against each of them winning.

    Let’s start with the film that based on precursors looks like a Best Picture winner. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri won Best Picture or the Best Picture equivalent at the Golden Globes, SAG Awards, and BAFTAs, received seven nominations including the rare double acting nomination in Supporting Actor, and is on track to win two acting awards. On paper, it seems like the strongest Best Picture contender even without a Best Director nomination, which certainly hurt its chances a lot. However, if any film is going to be hurt by the preferential ballot, it’s Three Billboards. Though it has its fervent fans, it also has its fervent detractors who point to the movie’s more problematic elements. Films like that tend to do well in precursors because they are voted on with a popular vote. However, with as many people ranking the film as their first and second place picks as much as their last pick, any support is essentially cancelled out.

    On the other hand, The Shape of Water has both the chance to be helped and hurt by the preferential ballot. A lot of Oscar voters are going to put it towards the top of their ballot and a lot are going to put it towards the bottom. However, I think there’s also going to be a sizable amount of voters that put it in the middle, as well. Industry opinions on the movie range from love to appreciation to confusion. Having the breadth of placements can help if voting goes a lot of rounds, but hurts if it only goes 3 or 4. To win Best Picture this year, a film needs to consistently show up on the top half of ballots and almost no where on the lower parts of ballots.

    Dunkirk Best Picture

    I think two films are going to do that, which means that they’re most likely our two legitimate Best Picture frontrunners. Get Out is emerging as a popular choice among pundits since it has wide support, is well-viewed by voters and audiences, and a film that it seems everyone generally likes. However, the older sect of the Academy, according to some Oscar experts, have viewed that film as good, but not Best Picture worthy. Whether that means they’re going to rank it low on their ballot isn’t completely certain. That’s why I think that the dark horse contender this year is Dunkirk. Not only is it one of the most well-received movies of the year, it appeals to both the artier crowd and the older Academy voters who appreciate a war epic. Plus, it’s going to be a widely seen movie, which means, even if a voter didn’t see every movie nominated and only rank 5, Dunkirk has a good chance of being one of those 5. There’s a really strong chance that it upsets come Oscar night. However, if it does win, it’ll break a lot of long held beliefs among Oscar pundits. It doesn’t have a screenplay nomination, acting nomination, and it wasn’t nominated at the SAG awards. Those are a lot of statistics that would have fall for it to win. However, we’ve seen those statistics fail more recently. Anything can happen.



    Check out all our 2018 Oscar Predictions!

    So, who is going to win? At this point, I think this is Get Out’s race to lose. Universal has been putting a lot of weight behind it, it’s beloved by many and liked by most, and it should do well on the preferential ballot. In a time where Moonlight is the reigning Best Picture champ, anything is possible. Get Out may be an improbable winner, but it looks like it will go all the way.

    Will Win: Get Out
    Could Win: Dunkirk or The Shape of Water
    Should Win: I always think this is a hard question to answer because I could just say my favorite movie of 2017, Call Me By Your Name, but I think Best Picture is a great way to represent the year in movies. In that case, Lady Bird is not only fantastic, it feels like a movie that is in and of our time. The same could be said for Get Out.

     

  • Wind River review — Taylor Sheridan steps into the director’s chair

    Wind River review — Taylor Sheridan steps into the director’s chair

    Wind River finds screenwriter Taylor Sheridan taking the director’s chair with thrilling results and stellar performances from Elizabeth Olsen and Jeremy Renner.

    Wind River opens with a terrifying shot of a woman running barefoot through the snowy and isolated landscape of Wyoming. She falls to her knees. We never see who or what is chasing her. All we know is that whatever she’s running from must be terrifying enough for her to endure this frozen hellscape.

    Of the three screenplays in Sheridan’s impressive career, Wind River is certainly the darkest. Though Sicario and Hell or High Water are certainly intense, they have their moments of levity. He creates characters with quirks and gives them breezy dialogue to carry you through the exposition. However, with Wind River, he strips the screenplay down to the bare bones to create an efficient, slow-burning, humanist crime drama.




    While on a hunt for a predator that has been killing his father-in-law’s cattle, Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, great as usual) stumbles upon the body of the young woman we see in the movie’s opening. Her identity is revealed to be 18-year old Natalie Hanson (Kelsey Chow), a resident of the reservation, which causes tribal police — in the form of police chief Ben (Graham Greene, an absolute delight) — and FBI agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen). Banner is motivated but clearly inexperienced in the job — she doesn’t even come prepared with a coat for the subzero temperatures.

    Eventually, it’s uncovered that Natalie was assaulted and murdered. Realizing that she may be in over her head, Banner enlists the help of Lambert and Ben. However, it’s quickly apparent that the case is more complicated than it seems and added emotional stakes make it even harder on the trio. Those stakes mostly come from a brief, but powerful performance from Gil Birmingham as Natalie’s father.

    By taking place on a Native American Reservation, Wind River could have gone one of two ways. It could have simply taken advantage of the people and environment to just be a “case of the week” procedural in a different setting. Instead, it went the other way and became, from my limited perspective, a balanced crime drama that is of its time and setting. The movie is as much about the crime as it is about the experience of being a Native American in this country — from the complicated jurisdictions to drug abuse rates.

    At one point, one of the Native American characters — I’ll leave them unnamed to preserve the plot — is performing a ritual. When asked how they knew how to do the face paint, they respond, “I made it up. There’s no one left to teach me.” I think one of Sheridan’s greatest talents as a screenwriter is coming up with lines of dialogue that punch you in the gut. Well, that line is a prizefighter throwing a right jab straight at your heart. Though there is a murder at the middle of Wind River, the real crime is the one our country continues to treat the people we took this land from.




    The characters Sheridan creates in Wind River aren’t his most interesting. However, Renner and Olsen breathe life into Banner and Lambert and move them past just being two-dimensional archetypes. In particular, though, Olsen strikes an emotional chord by balancing her character’s conflicting motivations: the chip on her shoulder as an FBI agent and her disgust at the cruelty of life and humanity. It’s one of the best performances of her already stellar career.

    Wind River is as much of a gritty crime thriller as it is a character study. While the former sometimes suffers in service of the latter, the film is, in the end, greater than the sum of its parts. Between Sicario, Hell or High Water, and now, Wind River, Taylor Sheridan has proved himself one of the most exciting screenwriters working today. However, this movie also proves that with some growth, her can also be one of the most exciting directors. What he pulled off with Wind River was no easy feat. He’s one to watch.

    ★★★½ out of 5



    Watch Wind River on Amazon!

  • Stronger review — Jake Gyllenhaal shines in this bold and uplifting drama

    Stronger review — Jake Gyllenhaal shines in this bold and uplifting drama

    Subverting genre tropes, Stronger is a humanist story about triumph over adversity with stellar performances by Jake Gyllenhaal and Tatiana Maslany.

    Jeff Bauman’s story feels like one that Hollywood would consume into its “based on a true story” formula and spit out an emotionally manipulative story of triumph over adversity. Stronger is not one of those movies. That’s because it doesn’t focus on the physical obstacles that so many of these kinds of movies zero in on — though it certainly has its share of scenes covering Jeff’s rehabilitation. Instead, Stronger focuses on the emotional and psychological trauma that comes with the physical pain.

    Jeff (Jake Gyllenhaal) is your typical blue-collar Bostonian — beer is his water, the bar is his church, and the Red Sox are his savior. He’s the kind of persistent and goofy guys that you date for a while then cut off much like Erin Hurley (Tatiana Maslany) does to Jeff. Director David Gordon Green doesn’t sanctify Jeff. He shows him as the true man he is flaws and all. The first 10 minutes or so of the film give us some breezy exposition about Jeff, his history with Erin, and his brash, but loving, family. In an effort to win Erin back — she’s tried to break up with him three times at this point — Jeff plants himself at the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon with a homemade sign to cheer Erin on. You know what happens next.




    Green shows us the bombing from Erin’s perspective, one of many genius directorial moves that maximize the emotional impact of the story. We learn later that Jeff lost both of his legs just above the knee. We see the historical events of the bombing — the hunt for the bombers and their eventual deaths — from a distance even though Jeff was instrumental in the search. That’s not what Stronger is concerned with. This is Jeff’s story.

    For such an intimate movie, Green, and cinematographer Sean Bobbitt make the movie so much more cinematic than it could have been. In an early scene, doctors are replacing Jeff’s leg bandages for the first time. Instead of inciting a physical response from the audience by closing in on the actual changing, the camera focuses on Gyllenhaal in the foreground as the pain overcomes him — the procedure occurs out of focus in the background. The medical team coaches him through while Erin stands by unsure of her place in the procedure. The single take is effective in portraying the physical pain but also sets up Erin and Jeff’s story as well.

    Gyllenhaal is such a physical actor that it’s a wonder it has taken him this long to do this type of story. However, it’s one that he’s born to play. He knows how to emote huge emotions without feeling overwrought. It’s one of the best performances of his career and one that I think will earn him his long overdue Oscar. However, Maslany keeps up with him beat for beat. Erin is a strong character, which Maslany is sure to show at the beginning, however, that just makes her times of vulnerability more jarring. The pair is breathtaking. Oscars, pay attention.

    After some expected scenes of the physical anguish experienced by amputees, the movie shifts to a wholly unique perspective of a man thrust into heroism, even though he’s reluctant. “Boston Strong” became a phrase often used following the attack and Jeff became a symbol of that phrase. However, the weight of it takes a toll on him, especially when PTSD begins to settle in. That’s not helped when his hard drinking and smoking mother (Miranda Richardson, a delight here) starts to push Jeff further into the spotlight, which just draws him into himself. All the while, Maslany plays the role of the long-suffering sidekick, who is given time to flesh out her own character’s journey.




    Stronger touches on a lot of points that make Jeff’s emotional recovering all the more daunting — countless appearances, 9/11 truther types. However, it never forgets its focus — Jeff and Erin. Both characters are going through an intense psychological journey that eventually comes to a head one night in a scene that I’m sure will be played at the Oscars if both actors are rightfully nominated. We watch them grow, grow apart before both of them learn how to live for themselves and for each other. It’s the kind of intelligent adult drama that we need to see more of.

    Stronger surprised me in the best way possible. It’s filmmaking at its finest. Green takes a seemingly uncinematic story and turns it into a poetic film that begs to be watched. It’s about struggle and the love that we have to finally accept to overcome that struggle. It doesn’t take the easy route to portray that. Instead, what we get is a cinematically bold and emotionally rich story that’s inspirational without feeling self-important. Stronger is about the human spirit. And that no matter how much you bend or warp it, it’s almost impossible to break. It’s the kind of humanist drama we need right now. One that is doused in hope and love.

    ★★★★ out of 5



    Watch Stronger on Amazon!

  • Mother! review — Chaos reigns and comes for Jennifer Lawrence

    Mother! review — Chaos reigns and comes for Jennifer Lawrence

    mother! is a cinematic experience like no other and features Jennifer Lawrence’s best role to date and a story that’s as crazy as they can get.

    There’s a point about halfway through Darren Aronofsky’s mother! where you’re still in the dark on what the film is about, a bit confused, and ultimately weirded out by the film. But wait, it gets weirder. Someone once said that every movie is secretly about their director. And if mother! is any reflection of Aronofsky, then I’m very worried for his well-being. This is art with a capital “A,” but it’s the kind of glorious, messy, chaotic art that makes you want to dissect every image, sound, and word.




    Luckily for us, our audience surrogate is Jennifer Lawrence, whose unnamed character is only credited as mother. She spends her days renovating her and her husband’s (Javier Bardem, also unnamed and credited as him) country estate while he compulsively tries to write his second book of poems. Of course, he has debilitating writer’s block that seems to only be aggravated by his wife’s presence. While it’s not a perfect existence, it’s a comfortable one for them. That is until an unwelcome visitor (Ed Harris) unexpectedly stops by the couple’s home mistaking it for a bed and breakfast. To mother’s surprise and dismay, her husband invites the visitor to stay with them. Eventually, the visitor’s wife arrives (Michelle Pfeiffer, who’s never been better) and immediately butts heads with mother. From there, chaos ensues. But, I promise you, it’s not in a way that you’d ever imagine.

    But what is mother! about? The only answer is the pretentious one. It’s about anything you want it to be about. Art, marriage, celebrity, chaos, religion, good, evil, all of those things, none of those things. To try and unpack what mother! is trying to say is probably a means to a good cry and a bottle of wine. That’s because for as unsubtle the movie is, its themes are kept under wraps. At times, it reveals itself and revels in it. But it doesn’t matter. Because trying to interpret mother! for other people is like trying to tell someone what their favorite color is. You can’t force the answer on them, so I’m not going to force my interpretation on you.

    However, I’ll say this. Aronofsky is a filmmaker that knows how to capture a person under extreme pressure. His films like Black Swan, The Wrestler, and Requiem For A Dream all look into the lives of people that are being crushed under the weight of their own humanity. In mother! he uses crushing close-ups on Lawrence — the camera rarely moves away from her — to fully communicate the claustrophobia of the chaos that she endures. Even when the movie becomes enormous, he stays tight on her. It also helps that she’s giving one of the best performances of her career. Though, Bardem and especially Pfeiffer give performances that elevate the movie, as well.




    Aronofsky immaculately orchestrated the film, but in areas that are sometimes neglected. The production design, in particular, is perfect. The minimally decorated house with all it’s awkward angles, endless doorways, and rustic charm work together to make the perfect setting for the film — we never leave the house. The sound design is also a feat of technical wizardry. We hear every sounds with a distinct sharpness. Even when the chaos reaches its peak, we can isolate every sound. That’s because we’re filtering them through mother.

    It’s hard to do this movie justice in words. It’s bold and breathtaking filmmaking that signals a new era of studio filmmaking — yes, this was a studio film. One that’s unafraid to take risks, ask incredible things of its actors, and ultimately tell a story that not everyone will get, but the select few who do will be rewarded. Take from the harrowing experience what you will, but the most important thing to remember is that mother! is an experience. An all out assault on your senses. And one you will have been happy to endure.

    ★★★★ out of 5



    Watch Mother! on Amazon!

  • 2017 Emmy Predictions In Every Category Before Sunday’s Ceremony

    2017 Emmy Predictions In Every Category Before Sunday’s Ceremony

    The Emmys are this Sunday! So, we made our predictions in every category.

    Drama Series

    Will Win: Stranger Things
    Could Win: The Handmaid’s Tale
    Dark Horse: The Crown

    If you asked me who was going to win earlier this year, I would have said that The Crown was a lock. However, its buzz has waned since then and The Handmaid’s Tale picked up steam. But I feel an upset brewing in this category. That’s because Stranger Things did well at the Creative Arts ceremony — they won five awards. Most importantly, it took the crucial Picture Editing award, which has predicted the last 5 winners of Best Drama Series.

    Lead Actor in a Drama Series

    Will Win: Sterling K. Brown, This Is Us
    Could Win:     Bob Odenkirk, Better Call Saul
    Dark Horse: Anthony Hopkins, Westworld

    Brown should win this easily barring a major upset.

    Lead Actress in a Drama Series

    Will Win: Elisabeth Moss, The Handmaid’s Tale
    Could Win: Claire Foy, The Crown
    Dark Horse: Viola Davis, How to Get Away with Murder

    This is going to be a tight race between Moss and Foy. And though Foy won the Globe and the SAG, Moss has been an Emmy bridesmaid for so long that an overdue win should be coming her way. Though, look out for Davis, who is riding high on her recent Oscar win for Fences

    Supporting Actress in a Drama Series

    Will Win: Millie Bobby Brown, Stranger Things
    Could Win: Chrissy Metz, This Is Us & Thandie Newton, Westworld
    Dark Horse: Ann Dowd, The Handmaid’s Tale

    This is going to be the hardest category to predict the entire night. This is Us has been incredibly popular with actors — they have seven acting nominations — and is the only broadcast show in contention on the drama side. Metz has a narrative to win. However, Millie Bobby Brown, is the actor of the moment. She has become such a cultural icon even larger than the show itself. Plus, if the show wins Drama Series, it can certainly take her along the ride. Thandie Newton has received the most acclaim of anyone in this category, but Westworld‘s confusing narrative could squander its chances in these main categories. It’s a coin flip at this point. I’m going to give Brown the VERY slight edge, but don’t be surprised if one of the other two actresses surprise.

    Supporting Actor in a Drama Series

    Will Win: John Lithgow, The Crown
    Could Win: Ron Cephas Jones, This Is Us
    Dark Horse: David Harbour, Stranger Things

    John Lithgow should easily win this category. But Ron Cephas Jones certainly has room to upset. If Stranger Things goes on a sweep, Harbour could be taken along.

    Writing for a Drama Series

    Will Win: “Offred” (The Handmaid’s Tale)
    Could Win: “The Vanishing of Will Byers” ( Stranger Things)

    Directing for a Drama Series

    Will Win: “The Vanishing of Will Byers” (Stranger Things)
    Could Win: “Offred” (The Handmaid’s Tale)

    Comedy Series

    Will Win: Veep
    Could Win: Atlanta
    Dark Horse: Black-ish

    It’s going to be hard for any series to overcome Veep at its height.

    Lead Actor in a Comedy Series

    Will Win: Jeffrey Tambour, Transparent
    Could Win:     Donald Glover, Atlanta
    Dark Horse: Anthony Anderson, Black-ish

    A lot of pundits are predicting Glover, but I find it hard to believe Tambour isn’t going to three-peat.

    Lead Actress in a Comedy Series

    Will Win: Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep
    Could Win: Tracee Ellis Ross, Black-ish
    Dark Horse: Allison Janney, Mom

    Louis-Dreyfuss continues her 5-year streak here.

    Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series

    Will Win: Kate McKinnon, Saturday Night Live
    Could Win: Anna Chlumsky, Veep
    Dark Horse: Leslie Jones, Saturday Night Live

    McKinnon has the edge, but having three Saturday Night Live ladies in the category could have a negative effect. If that’s the case, then Anna Chlumsky could finally win a very overdue Emmy for the series.

    Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series

    Will Win: Alex Baldwin, Saturday Night Live
    Could Win: Louie Anderson, Baskets
    Dark Horse: Tituss Burgess, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

    Baldwin should easily win this.

    Writing for a Comedy Series

    Will Win: “Thanksgiving” (Master of None)
    Could Win: “B.A.N” ( Atlanta)

    Directing for a Comedy Series

    Will Win: “B.A.N.” (Atlanta)
    Could Win: “Groundbreaking” (Veep)

    Limited Series

    Will Win: Big Little Lies
    Could Win: The Night Of
    Dark Horse: Feud: Bette and Joan

    Big Little Lies has the acclaim and has become a cultural phenomenon. But don’t count out The Night Of or Feud, the latter of which has a lot of star power behind it.

    TV Movie

    Will Win: Black Mirror: San Junerpino
    Could Win: Wizard of Lies
    Dark Horse: Sherlock: The Lying Detective

    This is one of the weaker categories of the night, but Black Mirror feels like the popular pick. Though, Wizard of Lies does have more support through other categories.

    Lead Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie

    Will Win: Ewan McGregor, Fargo
    Could Win:     Riz Ahmed, The Night Of
    Dark Horse: John Turturro, The Night Of

    McGregor has gotten mixed reviews for his performance, however, much of the campaign surrounding him has to do with his dual-role. The Emmys love dual roles. That’s why I think he’s going to do it. However, both The Night Of guys are chomping at his heels. Ahmed is the more likely of the two to win.

    Lead Actress in a Limited Series or TV Movie

    Will Win: Nicole Kidman, Big Little Lies
    Could Win: Susan Sarandon or Jessica Lange, Feud: Bette and Joan
    Dark Horse: Carrie Coon, Fargo

    I think Sarandon and Lange cancel each other out. Under the old system of voting — voters used to rank the nominees — I think that one of them would have won. However, with the new popular vote system, it’s more likely that the two are going to draw votes from each other.

    But why are the Witherspoon and Kidman not canceling each other out?

    I think Kidman is the more clear choice between the two. Better role. Better material.

    Supporting Actress in a Limited Series or TV Movie

    Will Win: Regina King, American Crime
    Could Win: Laura Dern, Big Little Lies
    Dark Horse: Judy Davis, Feud: Bette and Joan

    This is the tightest race in the Limited Series or TV Movie categories. Dern’s show has a lot more buzz than the others in the category. But King has surprised for the last two years winning in shocking upsets. And with her best role to date, I think that she’s going to win her third.

    Supporting Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie

    Will Win: Alexander Skarsgard, Big Little Lies
    Could Win: Stanley Tucci, Feud: Bette and Joan
    Dark Horse: Michael K. Williams, The Night Of

    Skarsgard wants to win this. He’s been doing far more campaigning than his competitors and has the strength of his show behind him. If anyone takes him down, it’s one of the Feud actors with Tucci being the most likely.

     

    Reality-Competition Series

    Will Win: RuPaul’s Drag Race
    Could Win: The Voice
    Dark Horse: The Amazing Race

    With three wins at the Creative Arts ceremony, RuPaul’s Drag Race should win its first trophy in the category. However, there’s always a chance past winners The Voice and The Amazing Race upset.

    Variety Sketch Series

    Will Win: Saturday Night Live
    Could Win: No One

    This is the safest category of the night. With their best season in decades, Saturday Night Live should deservedly win.

    Variety Talk Series

    Will Win: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
    Could Win: Late Show with Stephen Colbert
    Dark Horse: Full Frontal with Samantha Bee

    John Oliver should notch his second win, but with such a ripe political season, Colbert and Samantha Bee could certainly upset. Also, watch out for Jimmy Kimmel Live, who has a lot of buzz with his heartful speeches regarding his son.

  • 2018 Oscar Predictions: Best Actor

    2018 Oscar Predictions: Best Actor

    Best Actor has quickly become one of the hardest categories to predict at the Oscars with several contenders and no clear frontrunner. Though, it looks like Timothée Chalamet or Gary Oldman could rise to the top.

    If there’s a category without a frontrunner, it’s Best Actor. Early in the season, Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour) seemed to be a lock to win the category. However, as critics prizes started rolling out, it became clear that he wasn’t going to be a critics darling like some past winners. But that’s not always a requirement. Leonardo DiCaprio and Eddie Redmayne basically didn’t win anything until the major awards. It’s hard to picture Oldman winning without at least some critical support. Although, part of the reason he became a frontrunner was because the role is classic Oscar bait — grandstanding speeches, a revered historical figure. That might give room for a less conventional Oscar performance by Timothée Chalamet (Call Me By Your Name) to sneak in. Unlike Oldman, Chalamet has been the consensus critical pick.

    Chalamet is arguably the breakout star of 2017, but the Oscars aren’t kind to younger actors in Best Actor. At just the age of 21, he’d be the youngest nominee in the category since 1939. The most recent nominee to be in his 20s was Heath Ledger who was 25 when he was nominated for Brokeback Mountain. Before that, Adrian Brody was 29 when he won for The Pianist, the youngest winner in this category. His age is going to be his biggest hurdle to a win.




    There are a few veterans in contention as well. Any of combination of them could be nominated. As of right now, I think the safest bet would be Daniel Day-Lewis (Phantom Thread). The movie, which was arguably the last major contender to premiere, was even higher profile than most of his films because it is supposedly his final film performance. I think it’ll be hard for the Academy to pass up nominating him for that fact alone. It only makes it easier that he gives yet another winning performance. However, he missed out on a Screen Actors Guild nomination to Denzel Washington (Roman Israel, Esq.) depending on how you look at it, but it’s not uncommon for one nominee from that ceremony to drop out of the Oscar shortlist.

    Washington still has a chance of being nominated, but he’ll have to contend with Tom Hanks (The Post). Hanks was shockingly snubbed by SAG as well, but The Post also screened for voters later, which could account for that fact. Still, much of the praise for the film lands with Meryl Streep, who is a top contender for Best Actress. However, Hanks has been snubbed for his past three performances — two of them were shocking snubs. I don’t know whether that fact will help or hurt his campaign, but with two strong candidates also on the bubble, I could see him being snubbed once more.

    Those final two candidates will appeal to the hipper set of Academy voters — most likely the newest members. Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out) is perhaps the more surprising of the two. Get Out was always a strong contender in a lot of categories, but Best Actor wasn’t one of them. Still, he surprised with a SAG nomination and could stand as a representative for the ensemble. Plus, one of the most iconic images from this past year in movies has to be him petrified in a leather chair. That will stick with voters. But what has also been having a lot of cultural resonance is James Franco (The Disaster Artist) playing one of the most infamous filmmakers of all time.

    Though Best Actor started as one of the less competitive categories this year, it’s quickly evolved to being the most unpredictable. In addition to the 7 contenders I’ve mentioned so far, there are still a few other that have a feasible shot at being nominated. The most likely of which is Jake Gyllenhaal (Stronger), who could get a late-breaking push. Right now, it’s a coin flip.

    Check out all our 2018 Oscar Predictions!

    Current Rankings (1/2/18):

    Timothée Chalamet, Call Me By Your Name
    Daniel Day-Lewis, Phantom Thread
    James Franco, The Disaster Artist
    Daniel Kaluuya, Get Out
    Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour

    Other Contenders:
    Jake Gyllenhaal, Stronger
    Kumail Nanjiani, The Big Sick
    Robert Pattinson, Good Time
    Denzel Washington, Roman Israel, Esq.

  • ‘It’ (2017) review — More thrilling than scary, but certainly entertaining

    ‘It’ (2017) review — More thrilling than scary, but certainly entertaining

    Following the 1990 miniseries, It reimagines Stephen King’s classic novel as a frightening romp through the 1980s.

    30-second review: A key change was made from Stephen King’s classic novel It for its 2017 film adaptation directed by Andy Muschietti. The film’s timeline was moved from the 50s to 1988. That change brought some refreshing updates — raunchy humor and fun pop-culture callbacks — but also some issues.

    However, Muschietti focuses the movie on these set pieces pulled straight from the novel that makes you question the treatment of the child actors in the best way possible. The twisting creatures of the film, including a decomposing leper and a burned decapitated corpse, are fancifully realized and used to great effect. But it makes you think one thing: how messed up is Stephen King?

    It follows seven friends who make up the self-named Losers Club. Billy (Jaeden Lieberher), recently lost his little brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) to the eponymous monster, though he relentlessly searches for him with help of his friends. However, when the same monster comes after the group, they must get over their fears and band together to defeat him.

    The set pieces at the center of the film are visually splendid and offer genuine thrills that will keep word of mouth churning for the film. However, after each of those scenes, the tension is drained usually after an awkward tonal shift. The film, which was adapted by Chase Palmer, Gary Dauberman, and Cary Fukunaga — who was attached to direct originally, feels a lot like Stranger Things.

    Whether it’s the 80s setting or Finn Wolfhard — he stars in Stranger Things — the humor, style, and even the scares feel more like the sci-fi drama than a real horror movie. Still, what stays with you are the set pieces. Each character has their fear realized when they are alone, and that’s where the film excels. One scene in particular, which takes place in a bathroom, was the closest the film got to terrifying. It was measured, tense, and paid off in a great way. Plus, the absolute drenching of blood gave of Carrie vibes that felt like a subtle nod, unlike a lot of the movie’s references.

    The character pieces in between, though, fall flat. Though the movie really feels from the point of view from adolescents, the story elements feel jammed in. A sexual abuse storyline is overtly alluded to, even though it seems like the movie thinks it’s being subtle. The history of the town and the potential source of It is crammed down our throats in clunky exposition scenes. Much of Billy’s storyline concerns his search for Georgie and his constant denial of his death, however even this is done in an unsubtle way.

    Jaeden Liberher in It

    However, three key performances save those sections from detracting too much from the film as a whole. First off, Sophia Lillis, who plays the only female member of the Losers Club, Bev, carries a lot of the emotional weight of the movie on her shoulders and does so naturally. But what stands out for me is her watershed moment in a bathroom with gallons of blood drenching her and her surroundings.

    For a movie about fear, she certainly knows how to portray it convincingly. Wolfhard, who plays Richie closely to his Stranger Things character, gets a lot of the one-liners and lands them every single time. He often walks away with every scene he’s in and, at points, he got the entire theater clapping. But the arguable lead of the film, Lieberher, gives the best performance of the Losers Club by fleshing out a character that isn’t given that much of a personality. He has a stutter, which he doesn’t let define the performance, and instead uses an intense love of Billy’s brother to drive the character’s motivations. It’s a sublime performance. Between this and Midnight Special, Lieberher may be the rising star among young actors.

    But still, the scares, all belong to Pennywise the Dancing Clown played masterfully by Bill Skarsgard. Skarsgard, who stunned in Atomic Blonde this year, builds on Curry’s classic 1990 performance as the character and infuses a physicality that Curry’s performance didn’t quite have. No scene displays the virtues of his performance more than the famous sewer scene that opens the movie. 

    He uses a similar throaty cartoon voice to Curry’s but adds menace with his delivery. More importantly, the amount of movement that he uses in his mouth area is a small but effective way to up the creep factor. Even when he’s not speaking he pinches and moves his lower jaw in a manner that I can only describe as deliciously creepy. All the nightmarish imagery aside, Skarsgard delivers the chills in the movie like no other monster can.

    It is frustratingly close to being a great movie. The 80s references — from Molly Ringwald to New Kids on The Block — are fun, but ultimately bog down the themes that make the novel a classic. The set pieces are scary but short-lived and the movie lacks the tension it needed to be an effective horror movie. You can count the number of changes that would make the movie a near-masterpiece on one hand, but it gets a lot right.

    It’s shot and designed beautifully — the creature design is phenomenal — and is cast superbly. Look at the movie as more of a sci-fi drama than an outright horror movie and you’ll definitely be more enthralled — this was one of the most fun times I had at the theater this year. Either way, when Pennywise tells you you can float too, you’ll feel a chill down your spine. Just like King intended.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    More movies, less problems

    Hey! I’m Karl. You can find me on Twitter and Letterboxd. I’m also a Tomatometer-approved critic.

    💌 Sign up for our weekly email newsletter with movie recommendations available to stream.

    ADVERTISEMENT
  • 2018 Oscar Predictions: Best Actress

    2018 Oscar Predictions: Best Actress

    Sally Hawkins, Meryl Streep, and Saoirse Ronan lead the packed field for Best Actress

     

    Best Actress started out as one of the most competitive categories at the Oscars this year, but quickly it looks like we’ve found our five nominees. Of all the categories this year, this is the one I’m most confident in predicting — at least the nominations. As for the winner, it’s going to be one of the hardest to predict. Especially considering that of the five expected nominees four of them appear in a Best Picture frontrunner. A feat that hasn’t happened since 2013 and gets even rarer the further you go back. If it does indeed happen, it would be a great way to cap off a year that has seen the most support for female empowerment in recent memory.

    Still, the Academy is the Academy and that means that the winner of this category is going to most likely be a young, up and coming actress. That bodes well for Saoirse Ronan (Lady Bird), whose performance in Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut has earned her wide acclaim and won her several critic’s awards along the way. It also doesn’t hurt that her film is one of the most acclaimed of the year and is looking more and more like a viable candidate to win Best Picture. However, it’s not your typical Oscar role. It isn’t the watershed performance that Brie Larson or Jennifer Lawrence won for nor the towering one of Meryl Streep or Sandra Bullock. But what she does have going for her is momentum. Between her and Margot Robbie (I, Tonya) the other young and up and coming actress in contention, Ronan is the one that seems to deserve it more at this point in her career. At just 23, she’s looking at her third nomination, is one of the most respected actresses of her age range, and feels overdue despite her young age. If I had to pick a definitive frontrunner, it is her.




    But there are also other performances by veterans that in any other year would beget a win. The most likely of those would be Sally Hawkins (The Shape of Water). Despite a silent performance and unconventional film, especially for the Oscars, she quickly emerged as a frontrunner early in the season. And it’s not surprising. Though I was more tepid on the film than most, I was enamored by her performance. It’s easily the most overtly emotional of the contenders. However, it does seem a bit too far outside the Academy’s taste to actually win. Though with the changing demographics, who knows what their taste actually is. What she does have going for her is that she hasn’t won like the two other veterans in the category.

    Anyone who has seen Steven Spielberg’s latest film agrees on one thing. Meryl Streep (The Post) delivers one of the best performances of her career. While I can’t speak to that yet, from what I know about the role, it’s the kind of towering performance that often wins in this category. Plus, it’s a film that empowers its female protagonist, which will certainly play well in our current climate. However, there are a few things that will get in the way of another Oscar on her mantle. First, and probably most importantly, she won in 2011 for The Iron Lady. Though there have been cases with less time between wins, it’s pretty rare to win another trophy so close to another. It usually takes the perfect conditions to win again. In the case of Hillary Swank’s win for Million Dollar Baby, which came just 5 years after her win for Boys Don’t Cry, she didn’t have much feasible competition and her film was a late-breaking juggernaut. The same goes for Jodie Foster. I don’t think Streep has the right conditions to win, plus there are certainly other alternatives to go with. Especially Frances McDormand (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri).

    Like Streep, her role is about female empowerment and the movie gives her the room to explore that in a larger than life way. If there is a towering performance this year, it’s this one. However, the film has received significant backlash recently, which has diminished the acclaim it received initially. Unless there is a backlash to the backlash, I don’t see an easy path to a win.




    Though I feel pretty confident that these five women are going to be the Best Actress nominees this year. There is always room for a spoiler to surprise in the category. The most vulnerable actress in a contention is probably Robbie, whose film is the most polarizing of the field and will have the least nominations on Oscar nominations morning. If she is pushed out, then Jessica Chastain (Molly’s Game) is most likely to take her spot. She’s an Oscar favorite, landed a Globe nomination (Robbie and Ronan competed in the comedy category), and appears in a film that has received critical acclaim. However, there’s always room for another respected industry veteran like Judi Dench (Victoria & Abdul) or out of left field choice like Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman) to surprise.

    Check out all our 2018 Oscar Predictions!

    Current Predictions (1/2/18):

    Sally Hawkins, The Shape of Water
    Frances McDormand, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
    Margot Robbie, I, Tonya
    Saoirse Ronan, Lady Bird
    Meryl Streep, The Post

    Other Contenders:

    Jessica Chastain, Molly’s Game
    Judi Dench, Victoria & Abdul
    Gal Gadot, Wonder Woman
    Diane Kruger, In the Fade
    Carey Mulligan, Mudbound
    Emma Stone, Battle of the Sexes
    Daniela Vega, A Fantastic Woman
    Kate Winslet, Wonder Wheel

  • The Blackcoat’s Daughter Movie Review — A dark and gloomy psychological thriller

    The Blackcoat’s Daughter Movie Review — A dark and gloomy psychological thriller

    The Blackcoat’s Daughter, Oz Perkins’ debut film, is a tense and twisting psychological thriller that keeps you guessing until the very end.

    Director Oz Perkins, son of actor Anthony Perkins (yes, Norman Bates), seems to have really been inspired by his father’s most famous role. What makes Psycho such an enduring horror classic is the pervasive slow burn that keeps his cards close to its chest that by the final act you’re still left guessing. The Blackcoat’s Daughter, Perkins’ debut film as a director has the same quality. It’s Hitchcockian in style, however, the thrills are doused in dread to create a surprisingly effective horror movie.

    Kiernan Shipka, fresh off a successful run on Mad Men, plays Kat, a quiet girl living at a Catholic boarding school in Upstate New York. At the beginning of the film, she experiences a dream of her father in a black coat showing her their family car destroyed. She wakes up on the day that her parents are meant to arrive, however the fail to show up. Rose (Lucy Boynton, from Sing Street) tells the school’s headmaster that she told her parents the wrong date to pick here up. This leaves the two girls alone with two odd female teachers in the dark and snowy environment of the school. Elsewhere, a mysterious girl, Joan (Emma Roberts), hitches a ride with a couple (James Remar and Lauren Holly) to an unknown destination.




    The dark passages of the Bramford, the school where the film takes place, are beautifully captured by cinematography Julie Kirkwood. She uses the natural shadows of the space to unnerve you and question what’s coming around the next corner. The oppressive score, composed by the director’s brother Elvis, makes every conversation as tense as an eerie trip down a dark hallway. It’s that kind of relentless dread that makes the movie such an effective horror.

    The payoff, in the end, isn’t quite as satisfying as the rest of the movie would suggest. If there were just another ten minutes dedicated to fleshing out the lore of the story, it would work. However, what does sell it are the performances, particularly by Shipka and Roberts. Perkins draws a lot of inspiration from horror and psychological thrillers past. But he doesn’t imitate. His visual style is classic, but serves the story and the setting well. For any filmmaker, that is the main task. I’m sure he made his father proud.

    ★★★½

    The Blackcoat’s Daughter is streaming for free on Amazon Prime Video!

  • Logan Lucky review — A southern wannabe Ocean’s Eleven

    Logan Lucky review — A southern wannabe Ocean’s Eleven

    Logan Lucky makes an attempt at recreating the charm of Soderbergh’s earlier heist movies, but ultimately misses the mark.

    Logan Lucky is being touted as a red state Ocean’s Eleven, which is a lofty comparison considering the latter movie is considered THE heist movie of the 21st century. However, if any director is going to pull it off, it’s Ocean’s director Steven Soderbergh, whose self-imposed retirement seems to have been premature. And while Logan Lucky certainly has its moments, any comparisons to its iconic predecessor yield disappointment.




    Featuring an all-star cast, Logan Lucky tells the story of the generally unlucky Logan brothers Jimmy (Channing Tatum) and Clyde (Adam Driver). When Jimmy is let go from his job, he enlists Clyde into a scheme that is sure to go down in hillbilly history. The brothers plan to rob Charlotte Motor Speedway, where Jimmy was working construction under the stadium. They enlist the help of their sister Mellie (Riley Keough, who stunned in It Comes At Night earlier this year), Joe Bang (a juicy Daniel Craig), an explosives expert, his brothers to help on the scheme.

    The overarching problem with Logan Lucky is that nothing is developed enough. The characters, no matter how talented the actors are, just never have the depth required to make you care about them. Although, Keough, Craig, and particularly, Driver certainly make the most of what they have. The plot is also half-baked at best. Though the actual heist has its fun moments, the lack of stakes, ingenuity, and panache make the final reveal fall flat. It doesn’t have the rhythm or charm of the Ocean’s movies. It’s something that you’ll sorely miss by the end of the film.




    The moments of humor do hit sometimes — an extended Game of Thrones joke is easily the best part of the movie. However, so much of the movie relies on the performances to elevate it past its bland direction. Craig, playing against type, has moments of pure comedic genius. He’s the typical comedic scene stealer. But the best performance is easily Adam Driver’s dry, yet sensitive Clyde. It’s in his moments of silence that the brilliance of his performance comes through. At one point, he searches for his prosthetic arm with an air of both desperation and anger that plays perfectly. It’s unfortunate that the writing doesn’t allow the other actors much room to stretch their talents.

    Logan Lucky feels like a movie that Soderbergh just couldn’t decide what he wanted be. It has moments of more ridiculous humor that pokes fun at its subjects, then moments that tries to pay respect to them. The moments of heart — there’s a subplot with Jimmy’s daughter Sadie (Farrah Mackenzie) — that just don’t fit and a half-hearted FBI investigation led by Hilary Swank and Macon Blair that feels like an afterthought. I really wanted this movie to be good. For the cast, for Soderbergh. But there’s more disappointing moments than satisfying. Save yourself some time and just rewatch Ocean’s Eleven.

    ★★ out of 5



    Watch Logan Lucky on Amazon!

  • Detroit review — A tense depiction of the 1967 riots

    Detroit review — A tense depiction of the 1967 riots

    Kathryn Bigelow delivers a tense and terrifying telling of the 1967 Detroit Riots with one of the strongest ensemble casts of the year.

    Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal have proven to be an infallible pair when it comes to portraying real-life war events — The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty are among the best movies of the century so far. But in their next collaboration, they went away from the present-day Middle East conflicts and turned their sights to the 1967 Detroit Riots, which came on the heels of similar riots in several cities across the country. Bigelow treats the film like a docudrama more than her others by intercutting scenes with footage and photos from the actual events. By filming with the shaky cam quality of the archival footage, Bigelow begins to blur the line between the film and the actual artifacts from 1967.




    In the macro sense, Bigelow is sure to give the story a time and place. Not just saying that it’s in Detroit in America in 1967, but about the rise of Detroit and how race plays into the city’s DNA. While the riots are obviously at the center of the movie, its focus is on one specific incident that took place in the middle of them at the Algiers Motel.

    Like the best screenwriters, which Mark Boal has proven that he is, the movie establishes the three main characters that we will follow. Larry Reed (Algee Smith, who does Oscar-caliber work) is the lead singer of The Dramatics, a Motown group that is on the up and up when the riots break out. When their gig gets broken up because the violence has escalated, Reed and his friend Fred take refuge in the Algiers. Meanwhile, Detroit police officer Philip Krauss guns down a looter simply getting groceries in broad daylight. After being chewed out by his superior, he’s let back out on the street with even more aggression than before. Lastly, Melvin Dismukes (John Boyega), a security guard tasked with guarding a grocery store during the riots, is in a unique position as a middleman between the law enforcement and the rioters. However, he finds that both sides have reasons to discount them.

    The Algiers Motel seems to be indifferent to the events surrounding it. Music is playing. People are dancing and having fun. However, nothing could prepare them for the nightmare that they are about to experience. Carl (Jason Mitchell, who makes the most of his small role), a guest in the motel, shoots a fake pistol filled with blanks at a National Guard outpost near the motel — the National Guard and State Police were called in to help control the riots. Convinced that there must be a sniper in the motel, several policemen, including Krauss, national guardsman, and Dismukes make their way into the hotel. The policemen gather up the guests, many of them teenagers, line them up against the wall and begin interrogating them to find either the gun or the shooter.

    From there, the movie becomes a horror movie that is one of the tensest experiences at the movies in years. Krauss, drunk with power, begins to torment the motel’s inhabitants to try and suss out where the “shots” came from. Poulter is absolutely terrifying as the dictator-esque officer. He begins to resemble Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange more and more as the hours tick by and he begins to physically and emotionally abuse the dozen or so in the motel.

    Those people include Larry, Fred, two white girls (Kaitlyn Dever and Hannah Murray), and Greene (Anthony Mackie, great here), a Vietnam war veteran. Bigelow doesn’t give a moment of relief during the entire incident. She holds tight on the actors’ faces to give a sense of claustrophobia. We get to see the incident from the perspective of the victims and the antagonists, which makes the impact even harder. The actions of the officers here are so clearly put on display that fear and hatred both make it into your mind. Even when national guardsman start to question the officer’s actions, they are reluctant to intervene for fear of suffering blowback. Bigelow gives incredible detail that makes you consider the incident from all angles. And all of them are terrifying.




    The last third moves at a slower pace than the first two and plays a lot like the closing text of another movie. It tells us where the story goes from there. It’s effective in the sense that it helps audiences feel the effects of systemic racism in our country and, mostly through Smith’s Larry Reed, the individual plights that black people feel at its hand. However, narratively the scenes are long-winded. In particular, courtroom scenes featuring John Krasinski as a defense lawyer for the police department feel out of place and could have easily been summed up in title text and still left an impact. The one aspect of the final act that does work is Larry Reed’s story.

    Detroit comes exactly 50 years after the actual events took place in 1967 and the movie makes you feel the outrage of the time. However, movies are as much about the timing as they are about the actual filmmaking. And Detroit comes at a time where that outrage is as high as ever. Whether or not Bigelow and Boal should have been the people to tell this story, what is up on the screen, at least for the middle third, is a breathtaking film experience that is incredibly affecting.

    ★★★½ out of 5



    Watch Detroit on Amazon!

    August 9, 2017
  • Atomic Blonde review — Charlize Theron is the action hero we need

    Atomic Blonde review — Charlize Theron is the action hero we need

    Atomic Blonde is a fun, 80s romp of an action movie with a performance announcing Charlize Theron as our next great action heroine

    There’s a scene about two-thirds of the way through Atomic Blonde that can only be summed up as “that scene.” It’s the scene that will stick with you at the end movie. At the end of it, I sighed under my breath, “oh my god,” in awe. David Leitch, the stuntman turned director best known for John Wick, knows how to capture action the same way he knows how to choreograph it.




    Atomic Blonde is based on the graphic novel The Coldest City, which isn’t surprising watching the film. Every frame feels like it could be a comic panel. Tight close-ups on the characters are given equal weight as the epic wide shots. The opening text explains how the Berlin Wall would eventually come to fall before quickly clarifying that this is now that story. The movie is framed by a debriefing of Lorraine (Charlize Theron), an MI6 operative that went rogue in the days leading up to the fall of the wall. When we first see our protagonist, she rises out of a bathtub filled with ice badly bruised across her entire body. “What happened? ” you might ask. Well, that’s exactly what MI6’s Eric Gray (Toby Jones) and the CIA’s Emmett Kurzfeld (John Goodman) are trying to figure out.

    By framing the movie as a debriefing where Lorraine is telling us the story of the past ten days, the rest of the movie is essentially told by an unreliable narrator. One that is especially hostile towards her interrogators. It makes the twisting plot all the more interesting. She is tasked with going to Berlin to find a list containing secrets of the agents in Berlin. It’s the classic espionage movie setup, but Leitch has fun with it. Throughout the movie spies, assassins, and double agents are thrown at Lorraine. Secret messages are traded. It feels like a classic spy movie.

    David Leitch doesn’t hold back when it comes to action sequences. Though, he uses them sparingly. Unlike John Wick, Atomic Blonde isn’t non-stop action. It allows time to build relationships and character. Even if the story does get lost in the plot heavy second act, stylistically it’s beautiful to watch. It also helps that they’re undercut with 80s hits like “Father Figure,” “99 Luftballoons,” “Voices Carry” and “Under Pressure.” It’s bright, it’s efficient, and it has a musicality to it that makes it a pleasure to watch.

    The first and last thirds of the movie, though, are what makes Atomic Blonde great and a delight to watch. The first real action sequence of the movie shows Lorraine fighting her way out of a car, then fighting her way out of an upper floor apartment. So much of the movie’s action is her escaping. It’s almost as if she never intends to get into fights. It’s refreshing considering so many action movies today are focused on getting to something or getting revenge. The violence in this movie is necessary, but it’s never lingered on.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BhXj-wng8B8/?taken-by=cinemabunbaking




    However, for all the incredible action, well-curated soundtrack, and sleek directing choices, it’s the actors that elevate it past the page. Theron’s impressive action sequences — she did most of her own stunts — and icy demeanor make her an instantly likable action heroine. And though she definitely gives the movie its edge, other characters give it life. James McAvoy does great work as the eccentric Percival and makes every moment he’s on screen count. Even the smaller roles make a huge impact. Sofia Boutella’s role as a mysterious woman that encounters Lorraine — in more ways than one — is a strong emotional core that with a different actress could have made the end of the movie very different. The standout in the supporting cast, for me, is Bill Skarsgard as an MI6 agent supporting Lorraine in Berlin. He portrays so much with just looks. He’s a surprising highlight in the film.

    Atomic Blonde looks and feels different than any action movie before it. It takes every beat with a spring in its step. However, when it has to get down to business, it gets down to business. Whenever I think of the movie, I always go back to “that scene.” It’s tightly choreographed and shot to look like a 10-minute continuous take. You can’t do anything but hold your breath until it’s over. It’s that effective. Nearly every element of the film comes together to sell it. However, the film surrounding that film is pure fun. It’s the action romp that feels right at home in summer blockbuster season.

    ★★★★ out of 5



    Watch Atomic Blonde on Amazon!

  • The Big Sick review — Funny, romantic, and one of the best comedies in years

    The Big Sick review — Funny, romantic, and one of the best comedies in years

    Real life story The Big Sick looks and feels like a romantic comedy, but is so much more thanks to its masterful writing and performances.

    “So, what’s your stance on 9/11?”

    Yes, that’s an actual line that’s uttered in the Kumail Nanjiani and Emily V. Gordon written film The Big Sick. However, in this movie, which takes a deep look at the cultural clash that often occurs for minorities in this country, the line comes off as endearing. So much of the movie is about learning about other people, their pasts, and what drives them. It’s just that in the case of The Big Sick it’s an ex-boyfriend and his ex’s parents that are doing the learning.




    Love always comes with baggage. However, it’s the way we deal with that baggage that often determines the fate of relationships. But what if you couldn’t confront that baggage head-on? Nanjiani, who plays himself in this movie, meets Emily Gardner (Zoe Kazan) after one of his stand-up gigs in Chicago — Bo Burnham, SNL’s Aidy Bryant, and Kurt Braunohler play his friends and fellow comedians. The two instantly hit it off. Kumail’s self-deprecating confidence and Emily’s youthful energy mesh perfectly. However, after spending the night together, Emily says that she can’t get involved in a serious relationship — she’s getting her masters in psychology. Of course, Kumail woos his way back into her life. There are no big romantic gestures or unrealistic proclamations of love. Still, you find yourself grinning your way through the first part of the movie.

    All the while, Kumail’s traditional Pakistani parents — his father, Naveed (Adeel Akhtar) and mother, Sharmeen (Zenobia Shroff), both actors are standouts — present him with a plethora of often comical women for marriage. As Kumail puts it in one of his sets, “In Pakistan, arranged marriage is just called, marriage.” These scenes feel isolated from the rest of the movie until Kumail’s two worlds come crashing together. It’s refreshing to see a romantic lead with a different background and different set of difficulties when it comes to family and romance.

    Eventually, Emily wonders why she hasn’t met Kumail’s family as Kumail tries his hardest to keep her and his family as far away apart as possible — his parents don’t know about her and are still presenting him with potential wives. When it all becomes too much for Emily, the pair breaks up. Things are complicated, however, when the eponymous “big sick” comes for Emily and she goes into a medically induced coma. Since no one else can, Kumail is the one that informs her parents and is there when they arrived. It goes about as well as meeting your ex-girlfriend’s parents when she has just slipped into a coma could go. Not well.

    The movie makes its shift from romance to dramedy focusing on very different people forced together by a tough situation beautifully thanks to director Michael Showalter’s masterful handling of the tone and the two best performances in the movie. Ray Romano and Holly Hunter as Emily’s parents are the kinds of supporting performances that feel so much larger than they are because they control every minute of screen time they have. As Kumail and Emily’s parents circle each other like cowboys preparing for a shootout, there are moments of understanding and education. In the most memorable scene of the film, a racist heckler disrupts one of Kumail’s sets while Emily’s parents watch on. Beth, Emily’s mom, confronts the heckler in a way that you can only imagine a bereaved mother can. Kumail looks on with surprise at her gusto, while later Emily’s parents marvel at the fact that Kumail has to deal with that kind of behavior.




    As the movie goes on, different obstacles are put into place and are handled often hilariously. And in a show of strong directing, even the smallest roles make a big impact. Akhtar and Shroff, Nanjiani’s parents in the film, are more cartoonish versions of what you’d expect his parents to be like, but it’s delightful and makes their payoff at the end of the movie even better. Burnham delivers one-liners like no other. Even roles as small as one of Emily’s nurses (Myra Lucretia Taylor) have their moments. Still, the emotional, and comedic, core of the movie still lie with Nanjiani, Hunter, and Romano. They play characters that are naturally funny so that even in serious moments they can make you laugh and cry at the same time. They, along with Showalter and Kazan, have to be credited with getting you emotionally invested in the outcome of the story, even if you know what happens in the end.

    Too often do people say a movie “saves” a genre. Mad Max: Fury Road “saved” action movies. The Cabin in the Woods “saved” horror. However, the same way it’s wrong to say The Dark Knight saved comic book movies, it’s a disservice to say The Big Sick saves romantic comedies. The Big Sick isn’t a romantic comedy. However, it doesn’t really fit into any other category either. For once, a movie wasn’t made to fit any marketing campaign. It was made to service a story. And a hell of a story it is.

    ★★★★ out of 5



    The Big Sick is streaming on Amazon Prime Video!

  • Frank review — A celebration of weirdness and papier-mâché heads

    Frank review — A celebration of weirdness and papier-mâché heads

    Michael Fassbender is fascinating as the papier-mâché headed lead singer in Frank, which celebrates weirdness and understands mental illness

    Frank is just about as quirky and surreal as you’d imagine a movie about an experimental indie band with a lead singer who constantly wears a giant papier-mâché head would be. However, surprisingly, the character of Frank (Michael Fassbender) — who dons that giant head for the entire 90-minute running time — isn’t the weirdest character in this movie. And that is one of the many reasons that this movie triumphs. Although this is a pretty sharp satire of the creative process, particularly that of the new wave of pretentious indie artists that seem to think that building an audience is a threat to their artistic integrity, it also has an appreciation for the same people and has a firm step in reality. It begs interesting questions, even if the way it ponders them can only be described as eccentric.




    Jon (Domhnall Gleeson, in yet another strong, but under appreciated performance) is a down-on-his-luck wannabe musician who is tolling his days in his cubicle or walking down the street piecing together lyrics based on his observations. One day, as he’s walking down the beach, he witnesses a man being pulled out of the ocean by paramedics. As the man is being attended to, he encounters Don (Scoot McNairy), who reveals that the man was drowning himself and was the keyboardist in the band Soronprfbs — no one actually knows how to pronounce it. When Jon mentions that he is a keyboardist, Don, the manager of the band, invites him to fill in at their gig that night. When Jon shows up, the rest of the band is reluctant except for Frank.

    This first performance with the band, with all the disparate electronic sounds, nonsensical lyrics being talk-sung by Frank, and lack of melody, is surprisingly charming. That’s mostly due to the fact that Frank, thanks to Fassbender, is as whimsical as the enormous papier-mâché head he wears — the head is oblong and smooth with enormous eyes that constantly feel like they’re judging you. After the performance, which goes well until it doesn’t, Frank invites Jon to become a full-time member of the band and to join them in Ireland and record the band’s first album. The band, particularly Clara (Maggie Gyllenhaal), has a strong disdain for Jon whose mainstream tastes rub them the wrong way.

    Eventually, after explicit hot tub sex, a Viking funeral, and a lesson on YouTube, Jon reveals that he has been sharing videos of the band rehearsing online and that they’ve been invited to the South by Southwest festival. It takes a while for the movie to get to its main points, but it ponders them vigorously until the very end. Who is art for? The artist or the audience? In the case of Frank, there is the added storyline of mental illness. The way you react to the tonal switch in the third act will determine how you react to this movie as a whole.

    On the two sides of the aisle are Jon and Clara. Jon, who is more concerned with his social media followers, is encouraging Frank as an artist to share their music with the world. Clara, on the other hand, recognizes the fragility of Frank’s psyche. She understands that for Frank the music is art and medicine. In director Lenny Abrahamson’s able hands, the shift from quirky comedy to character study is jarring, but a welcome relief. Though watching the band set in the woods painstakingly use various household objects to make disparate noises to use on their album is hilarious, there isn’t necessarily a way that you can see the movie wrapping up successfully on that tone.




    Gleeson’s character is set up to be the “straight man” of the group, though his social awkwardness certainly gives him comedy points. Seeing the movie through his eyes give us a chance to view Frank mythically, then as misunderstood. Fassbender, on the other hand, gives us a surprisingly grounded view of a character as weird as Frank before giving us a view into his world. Mind you, Fassbender is doing this all without ever showing his face — he even wears it in the shower with a plastic bag protecting it — though his character does announce his expression periodically throughout the movie. Just through his physicality, you can witness the journey Frank goes through. It’s remarkable how much he emotes just through his body. More than that, though, he makes Frank more than just his papier-mâché head.

    Banksy — another enigmatic artist whose identity has yet to be revealed — once said, “Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.” It’s hard to grasp that quote unless you’re an artist. What screenwriters Jon Ronson and Peter Straughan were able to do was give us a look into the mind of an auteur — the screenplay is based on several musicians including Frank Sidebottom and Daniel Johnston — for better or worse. The first part of the movie, which is as entertaining as they come, lets us in on the better. The final act, the worse. However, you leave the movie with a different understanding of art, mental illness, and what it means to be different. For the disturbed, you will be comforted. For the comfortable, get ready to get disturbed.

    ★★★★ out of 5



    Frank is available to stream on Netflix and for rental on Amazon and iTunes