Jigsaw: All Work And No Play Make Jigsaw A Dull Boy

The first Saw movie did a lot of good for the horror world. It was a brand new type of horror film, one that was part mystery, part psychological thriller, and part cringe-worthy gore fest (even though the first Saw actually has hardly any gore at all). It also is the last movie I can remember to totally GET everyone who saw it. No one saw the twist coming in that movie. It was so impressive, I remember seeing the movie three times in theaters. It also launched the career of James Wan, who has honed his horror skills and given us great terrifying movies like The Conjuring and Insidious. Hell, the guy even got to do Fast and Furious 7 as well as the upcoming Aquaman film. The first Saw film still holds up today and is genuinely one of the best and most original horror movies ever made.

However... it also created a lot of bad. Since the first film, there have been seven sequels. There used to be a new Saw movie once every Halloween, until we got tired of seeing the same old thing. The sequels lost the acting quality, the script quality, and the intelligence of the first movie and it literally just became a bunch of random directors seeing how many different ways they could torture other human beings. The torture devices got more inventive and the carnage got gorier. There were little twists here and there throughout the series, but none that even remotely came close to the shock of the first film. Now, were any of the sequels good? Sure. I'd say one of them was good. But because they all blend together, I couldn't even tell you which one I'm thinking of. The sixth one? Maybe? Either way, most of the sequels were hot garbage that didn't require acting or a story. Fans of the Saw franchise saw these movies for the kills. That's it.

So, in order to bring back the franchise after a seven year hiatus, I thought maybe there was an idea so brilliant that it couldn't have been left alone. They came up with such good torture devices, such a good plot, such a good twist... that they HAD to bring the franchise back for one more, hoping once again to start anew.

Nope. Not the case. Seriously, if it hadn't been seven years since the last film, this movie would lump itself in with the rest of the series. Except this time, it's even more forgettable. I didn't go into the film thinking it would be good. Don't worry. Didn't make that mistake. But I did have high hopes for something within the film to impress me because, again... why bother bringing it back if you didn't have something new to offer? This question and more are unanswered in the film.

It's been ten years since anyone has heard from the Jigsaw killer, until bodies start turning up with jigsaw pieces cut out of them. A Detective and his partner have teamed up to figure out who is trying to pull a copycat of a long-dead serial killer (remember... Jigsaw actually DIED in the third movie despite this being the eighth). While the detective is searching for where the new "game" is being played, we are following a new group of reprobates being punished by Jigsaw - or a Jigsaw copycat - for their crimes against humanity. They are subjected to new torture devices and wind up getting killed by them one by one until the standard Saw big reveal at the end.

The acting is terrible, the dialogue sounds like it's straight from an episode of NCIS, the character motivations are laughable and the means of torture aren't even that clever. But it's actually a really fun movie to watch-- IF you enjoy watching the other terrible Saw films. Fans of the franchise don't see the movie to get scared. You go to laugh at the poor acting/dialogue/story and cringe at the gore. Critics of the franchise will not be converted. It's more of the same. It's more of the same even to a fault. Two consistencies in the Saw films really stood out to me and I was hoping we'd get a change of pace- first of all, everyone dies in every movie. Every person in every movie subjected to Jigsaw's games die. The only ones who don't wind up turning into Jigsaw helpers. No one ever gets to hack off a limb, escape and live happily ever after. Second, every Jigsaw victim, when put into a group (hell, even solo) is an idiot. No one listens to reason. No one tries to actually figure out the game. Everyone acts out of moronic instinct and all wind up getting killed because of it. A nice change of pace would've been to see a smart victim or a group of victims actually trying not to fall into the same trap over and over and over again. But, alas, we are given much of the same.

The other thing about the movie that hindered the fun a little bit, too, was the new directors (the Spierig Brothers) decided not to go balls out like the previous directors and a lot of the gore is held off screen. The one thing you can certainly rely on in a Saw movie is satiating your inner blood lust, but most of the carnage happens off screen, which is a little disappointing. There's also a couple of Jigsaw "traps" that are very confusing on how they're supposed to work, which makes the tension almost non-existent. There are still bloody moments and a couple of cool traps, but overall it's a weaker entry into the series (something a resurgence of a franchise after several years should never be).

I will give Jigsaw this-- the twist, though not mind-blowing by any standard, is actually pretty clever. I don't know if I should've seen it coming all along, but it was clever enough that it took me by surprise. It's too easy to just put the blame on a copycat Jigsaw killer, so the way they are able to explain the resurgence of Jigsaw after ten years was a bit more clever than I was willing to give the movie credit for. Other than that, it's your standard Saw film (the first movie doesn't count as "standard" btw). If you've enjoyed the insane and grotesque aspects of the each film and are willing to laugh along with the thin stories that accompany the deaths, then you'll have fun watching this one as I did. But, if you're looking for something new and unique and worthwhile in theaters (that's actually going to scare you), then this is certainly not the franchise to pick up this late.

C-

Suburbicon: Best Laid Plans Of Matt and George

George Clooney, as an actor, is very likable and makes pretty good role choices. George Clooney as a director-- eh. I'll admit I haven't yet seen Good Night and Good Luck, which I've heard is stellar, but the rest of his filmography is barred in mediocrity. I really liked The Ides of March, but I think it's because of the strength of the cast and not so much the strength of the script or direction. Leatherheads is the epitome of a forgettable film (thanks a lot Renee Zellweger) and The Monuments Men, even with a brilliant cast, couldn't be saved by anything. Suburbicon falls somewhere in the middle. It helps that the script Clooney wrote with writing partner Grant Heslov was basically an update of an older script written by the Coen Bros. The Coens are still given top writing credit, but the film they wrote is much different than the one we get. There's still some Coen-isms throughout, but the final product feels much like an amateur director trying his hardest to produce something Coen-esque and falling short.

Here's the deal with Suburbicon-- it's fine. Nothing stands out as particularly wrong with the movie, but nothing really makes a huge impact in it either. So, it's fine. It's an entertaining film that serves as a distraction from everyday life. But here's the thing... I left the movie feeling super 'meh' about it. I wasn't leaning toward good or bad with my reaction, but I was stuck dab in the middle of 'meh'. And I'm not sure if I felt this way because, once again, I was seriously misled by the advertisements for the film, or because the movie was actually just very mediocre. Go watch the theatrical trailer. What you're shown is that the film is going to be very dark and quirky. Fans who purchased tickets for the film are expecting a dark-comedy/satire about 50s white people and the "accidental" violence that plagues these do-gooders. There are images of Matt Damon covered in blood and silently eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. There's the shot of what looks like an explosion happening in front of Damon's face and he pedals off as fast as he can on a bike that's too small for his body. There's Julianne Moore dressed in pink housewife's attire using a rolling pin to smash down a gaggle of pills. It looks quirky as hell... but it's not. I laughed several times during the trailer. I didn't laugh once during the movie. There are a few chuckles here and there (maybe not even intentionally), but aside from the opening faux commerical for 1950s suburban living... it's a dark movie with almost no likable characters. Yes, there is a looming social commentary hovering over the film, but it is, by no means, presented in a satirical way. It's just dark and somewhat uncomfortable.

Suburbicon tells two stories. The first story is of the Lodge family. Gardner (Damon) lives in Suburbicon with his paraplegic wife Rose (Moore) and his son Nicky. Rose's twin sister Margaret (also Moore) visits them often. One night, two men invade the home, hold the family hostage, and wind up killing Rose. The other story is of the Mayers family. They're the first African-American family to move into Suburbicon-- in a house directly behind the Lodge's. There's Mr. Mayers, his wife, and his young son, Andy, who befriends Nicky very quickly. The all-white town of "pro-integrationists" are very upset by the arrival of a black family, that they wind up protesting their settlement outside the front of their house. What starts as jeers and name-calling, slowly turns into public disturbance and even the threat of violence. While the town is so focused on this family, who is kinder and gentler than ANYONE in the entire town, they're all distracted from the violence happening in the Lodge home. Finally, Oscar Isaac shows up as an insurance agent -- and that's pretty much all I can tell you about his character.

It's a nice little commentary on racism and white privilege, but it just feels... kinda... off. We don't get much of a look into the Mayers home. We get a scene or two of Mrs. Mayers getting verbally shit on by some white people and her staying tough and taking the moral high ground, but the family is used more as a prop than as real, suffering characters. They're there to play the role of "black family" to make white people racism stand out. We get a lot from young Andy and his relationship with Nicky, but not as much as I'm sure audience members would've liked. The rest of the cast is full of just unlikable people with agendas that are sinister instead of darkly humorous. The movie plays out the way someone recreating a Coen brothers movie would try to do it, but it falls short. Fargo is the perfect dark comedy/thriller. Guy has his wife kidnapped in order to get the ransom from her cheap father. He hires two loose cannons to do the job. Almost everyone ends up getting killed and the only characters who survive are the morally redemptive ones. Suburbicon attempts this formula, but without the quirkiness of the characters and the absurdity of the situations, it just doesn't really take any sort of tonally consistent shape. I will say this, though... the ending is very satisfying and both scenes with Oscar Isaac are the most entertaining in the entire movie.

I do feel bad that the film is royally flopping and Paramount is having a pretty dull year (see: Mother!), but Coen brothers movies aren't exactly huge money-makers. They rely on their indie movie style of filmmaking to take hold of a few thousand theaters and recoup their money based on positive word of mouth. Unfortunately, due to some seriously shoddy advertising and trailer building... the word of mouth isn't going to come and this movie is going to be just as forgotten as Leatherheads. It's not awful. If you wind up catching it On Demand or Netflix, you will find yourself invested, but not enough to pay it forward and recommend it to anyone else.

C

The Snowman: A Fascinating Exploration Into The Shit-Show That Is Filmmaking

Recently there has been a debate about whether or not Rotten Tomatoes has been good or bad for the film industry. As this has been a surprisingly down year for movies, a lot of filmmakers have pointed the finger at rottentomatoes giving poor ratings to movies which influence viewer decisions and have kept them away from their films. I mean, I guess this is a fair assessment on the surface. Before RT, all we had to go by were reading lengthy reviews in magazines or newspapers and most of us didn't take the time to do so. Then there was also Siskel and Ebert and their thumbs up thumbs down reviews... which, if you think about it, is basically the same good/bad assessment that RT gives, except instead of collecting an aggregate of all critics' reviews, it's two old, cynical dudes. On one hand, I can see where filmmakers, who spend countless hours and energy and money on films want a fair chance at people seeing their movies (at least enough to recoup expenses). But, on the other hand, don't be upset when a remake of The Mummy with Tom Cruise gets a 16% on RT, doesn't make even half the money it was expecting... when the movie was shit to begin with. I've always been a fan of RT because I don't take it at face value. When a movie gets a rating, I'll do my own investigation and read the reviews that follow said rating, especially a movie with an abnormally high or low percentage. My issue with RT is that it is too polarizing. Yes, we get the say of all critics allowed to cast their opinion on the site which is calculated into a percentage... but what fails to translate is the good/bad ratio of films. It's not fair to assess that your rating means either the film is fresh or rotten and there is no other middle ground. This means, if a movie is "just okay", in the C-average range, it's automatically labeled as rotten, which can bring a movie's percentage way down, even if the movie doesn't reflect such a low score. On the other hand, a movie with only two and a half stars and above can be certified fresh (60% and above is technically fresh), so I mean it does balance itself out in the end. Unfortunately, some films can get screwed by this balance. The Snowman is one of these films.

Earlier this week I saw Geostorm, which currently sits at a putrid 13% on RT. It's accurate, it's well-deserved, and there's really no arguing with it, especially if you've seen the film. However, The Snowman sits even further below with an amazingly low score of 9%. Is The Snowman a good movie? No, not exactly. But is it worthy of getting a lower score than Grown Ups? Absolutely not. And I think this is where filmmakers actually have a concern about their movies. People on the fence about seeing The Snowman are certainly not going to see the film now that it has a 9% attached to it. Hell, even people who probably wanted to see the movie have turned their backs to it. The film, no matter what the projections were for it, is going to suffer financially. Is it entirely Rotten Tomatoes' fault? Absolutely not... but it doesn't help. Accurately, I'd say The Snowman should sit around the 45-50% range. Even with a score like that, it's not going to change everyone's minds about the film, but there are many people out there willing to give a movie with a 50% a better chance than a 9%.

So, what's actually wrong with the film? How did a movie with such a skilled director, a fantastic cast, and a competent crew actually make a movie deemed worthy by critics as being worse than most Adam Sandler films? Well, from everything I've read about the movie, it sounds like it was a shit-show from the very beginning. Filmmaking itself, with everything that goes into making a movie, sounds like an absolute nightmare. There are so many small parts working together to make something large, it seems to me like a straight up impossibility to make an actual film good. But, it's been done. Several times. Obviously. I'm just surprised it hasn't failed more often. The Snowman is based off a book. The rights were purchased by Martin Scorsese and he was actually, at one time, attached to direct. When his schedule filled up, he handed the movie off to Tomas Alfredson (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Let the Right One In), a very skillful director and totally competent to handle this movie. But, everything just went haywire. Shooting in Norway took longer than expected, and production was shut down. They had to do extensive re-shoots over a year later. By the end of the production, about "10-15% of the script didn't even get shot." Unfortunately, this is very apparent when you actually see the film.

Advertising for the film didn't help much either. There's a poster for the film at a bus stop just down from my place. The poster looks like one of the notes written to Michael Fassbender's character from the killer. It says: "Mister Police. You could have saved her I gave you all the clues."

This poster, coupled with the trailer for the film, suggests there's a killer on the loose, particularly targeting women, and building ominous snowmen outside where their bodies lie. The killer then sends notes to Fassbender, written as if they were penned by a child, toying with said detective until Fassbender can discover who the killer is. This is what first intrigued me about the film. A detective thriller, investigating a series of murders, trying to stop a killer before he gets his next victim (a la Zodiac). This isn't exactly the case with this film. Yes, there is a note. It's at the very beginning of the film It's quite vague and it's the only note of the entire movie sent to Fassbender's character Harry. The rest of the movie is a mess of a murder mystery, with so many questions and sub-plots left unanswered,  it was evident that there was a lot left unfilmed.

What's even more upsetting is the movie is pretty enthralling. It's gorgeously shot and the actors do a fine job, especially Fassbender. I found myself wrapped up in the mystery, trying to guess what was going to happen along the way. Yes, you do find out who the killer is. Yes, you do get some semblance of a motive. And yes, said motive does make decent sense. But that's about it. The identity of the killer, left until the very end, isn't exactly difficult to figure out. I carelessly thought the movie was going to be much more intelligent than it was, so when I had my first suspect in mind-- I quickly threw it away because I felt it was too obvious, and this film wouldn't go the obvious route... and it did. I also was paying way too close attention to the subplots, hoping for some semblance of resolution to all of them. Yet, all but maybe one or two are wrapped up nicely. I keep going over and over in my head trying to connect all the dots of the film to make sense out of everything, and there are clearly chunks of plot just left entirely out of the film. And it's not an awful movie by any means, just frustratingly incomplete.

There's an entire subplot featuring J.K. Simmons that diverts from the murders, but is supposed to somehow connect-- and it doesn't. There's the opening sequence with a mother driving purposely into a frozen lake and drowning herself in front of her son's eyes that straight up connects to the killer-- but I'm still not sure how. There's flashbacks featuring Val Kilmer as a detective chasing a similar killer who may or may not be the same one today-- and it offers no closure whatsoever. In fact, the entire Kilmer subplot poses questions beyond what's even supposed to be asked within the scope of the plot of the film. He looks terrible (though this is most likely attributed to his recent cancer surgeries), but his dialogue is poorly dubbed over by someone who sounds NOTHING like Val Kilmer and doesn't even match the way his mouth is moving, making it distracting as well as sad.

I really didn't hate the movie. I don't like that there are large pieces missing from the puzzle and the fact that the killer's identity was so easy to figure out, but everything else worked just enough to keep me interested the entire time, even if this interest was often interrupted by head scratching. I believe we will get the full story of just what exactly happened behind the scenes of The Snowman because I'm genuinely curious as to how it all fell apart. And, yes, it has been branded with a repulsive 9%, when it certainly hasn't earned a score that low. I can't tell you to go out and help this movie earn some of the money it's losing because that would make me not very good at this whole "reviewing movies" thing... but if, for some reason, you do find yourself in the theater watching The Snowman, it's not going to be the worst thing to happen to you that day. It's just going to make you wish you had the full story.

C

Geostorm: Maybe Add A Little More Geostorming, And A Little Less... Everything Else

I love disaster movies. Something about watching nature take its vengeance on humanity is very appealing to me. Then, there's also the fact that I'm never going to be able to witness the act of nature in real life. If I'm seeing a huge tidal wave... I'm dead. So, it's nice to get to see the comet hit the Earth and cause the tidal wave. It's nice to get to see the ice tornadoes hit New York city. It's nice to see the earthquake rip apart AT&T Park. I love it. Most of the time, disaster movies are pretty junky with most of the effort spent on the CGI effects of the film, than anything else. There are a couple of exceptions, but generally, you don't go to see the disaster movie for the story or the acting. However, lately, the disaster film has been populated by some pretty big names. Jake Gyllenhaal did The Day After Tomorrow. John Cusack did 2012. The Rock did San Andreas. So, at least, when the movie has to fill story around the chaos, we get capable actors who are able to handle the schlock. Oh... but then there's Geostorm. Again, your capable actors are Gerard Butler, Ed Harris, and Andy Garcia, so you'd THINK that the story surrounding the terrible weather would at least be decent enough because of these guys. I'm here to tell you... NO.

The one thing Geostorm has going for it that most disaster movies don't is the plot is actually pretty clever. In 2019, due to global warming, the planet starts going to shit. The weather is wiping out entire sections of the globe. So the world comes together to formulate a plan-- they're going to construct a massive series of weather-control satellites and launch them into space to control the weather. After three years of peace, someone has hacked into it and is now using it as a weapon, setting off storms in different countries until unleashing the worst global storm there is... a geostorm. I mean, that's a pretty decent plot concept. It's better than "the Mayan calendar ran out". However, despite this clever concept, the execution is straight up garbage.

Roland Emmerich is the master of disaster. His filmography as a director includes Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and White House Down. That's a pretty impressive resume of disaster movies. Attached to each of these films is Emmerich's long time producer Dean Devlin. Well... old Devlin finally thought he'd learned all there was to learn from the master and set out to do his first ever directorial effort. The end result... Geostorm. Let's just say ol' Devlin should've stayed in the producer's chair and given the directing to someone who could handle it. Geostorm, folks, is bad. It's really, really bad. Like, I know I said that when watching a disaster movie there is always going to be some schlock... this shouldn't be the basis of your script. The acting is ham-fisted (which is acceptable in a disaster film). The dialogue is so putrid, it's like they wrote a first draft and then decided never to edit it (which is generally acceptable in a disaster film). The CGI fluctuates from great to poor (which can happen in a disaster film). And the on-screen disasters maybe take up two or three minutes of the entire movie's runtime (this is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE in a disaster movie).

If Deviln learned anything from Emmerich it's that you need to make your disasters the central focus of your movie. You need to have one main character having to (somehow) meet up with four or five different types of terrible weather and outrun them. This isn't the case in Geostorm. Our main character is Jake, Gerard Butler. He's the one who designed the weather controller. He's up in space trying to find out what's wrong as it attacks foreign countries. Our other lead is his brother Max (Jim Sturgess) who works for the President (Andy Garcia), and is trying to figure out who has hacked it with his secret service girlfriend (Abbie Cornish). None of these people actually get into much danger when it comes to weather (minus a little lightning storm). Scroll up and look at the picture. It's Butler holding his daughter facing a massive tidal wave. THIS NEVER HAPPENS. He's in space the whole time. He doesn't have to outrun a tidal wave. Hell, no one does. There's one that happens, somehow, on a beach in India and it just wipes everyone out in like fifteen seconds. Look, Devlin, we can handle terrible writing, bad acting, and a shit script as long as you deliver the goods of mother nature pounding the piss out of Earth. But it's when you don't that people get upset, and you get slapped with a lousy 13% on rottentomatoes. I mean, the critic has never been friend to the disaster movie, but this is a new low, Geostorm.

Okay, I've complained enough. Because even though Geostorm is at the bottom of the disaster movie barrel-- I loved it. It's one of the funniest movies I've seen this year. I'm a huge Butler fan (much like I'm a huge Jason Statham fan), but even he couldn't make the dialogue any better. Example: Butler and his brother are having a three year long fight. He shows up at Butler's house and starts talking to Butler's daughter, his niece, when Butler walks out, notices this and literally says: "Honey, I thought I told you never to talk to strangers." YEAH! The dialogue isn't the worst thing-- I mean, it's pretty awful (hearing Andy Garcia basically shout "I am the President of the United States" when asked a question is so upsetting it's downright hilarious), but Geostorm doesn't do it's job to be properly labeled a disaster movie. On the other hand,  it does fit perfectly into the so-bad-it's-good category. It's a terrible film that somehow illicits more laughs than this year's Baywatch movie.

That's not all. There's way more. I'm not kidding you guys... the computers in the movie... have a geostorm clock. What does this mean, you say? I'm glad you asked. When the natural disasters start occuring around the globe, the computer understands that if these continue it will trigger a global storm-- also known as a Geostorm-- so, when She (the computer) figures this out... a large clock counting down pops up on the screen and She (the computer) says "Geostorm warning. One hour twenty-three minutes until Geostorm." They have a clock for this! There is an algorithm within the computer than knows when a global storm will occur down to the very second and it can COUNT YOU DOWN, FOLKS!!!

But that's not all, either! It's not just the computers and the ticking clocks. It's also how the filmmakers decide to handle all of the "space action". There's so much that happens in the space station where Butler is working that goes wrong, too, you guys. It's like half Earth-disaster, half space-disaster. Except, 90% of what happens up in the space station made me want to stand up and yell at the screen, "THAT'S NOT HOW SPACE WORKS!"

It truly is one of the worst movies of the entire year, but it might actually be worth the price of admission if you know exactly what you're getting into. If you're going in trying to satiate your disaster movie thirst, then you're going to be sorely disappointed. There's not enough disaster happening around the shit show that is the rest of the movie. But, if you're going in to see just how bad a movie can be and still manage to take itself seriously... then you're going to love Geostorm like I did. I haven't had a laugh like that in quite some time. Best comedy of 2017. Worst disaster movie... well... since Left Behind.

D+

Upcoming Best and Worst of Fall 2017

After a lackluster Fall movie season from last year, it looks like we're back on board this year to some great Fall movies. Usually, just after October is when we jump into "Awards Season Movies". This year appears like we got some great movies on the docket. The WORST movie section is a lot smaller than last year, and we have a new Star Wars movie along with what appears to be Daniel Day-Lewis's final film (and eventual fourth Oscar for Best Actor). I, for one, am excited for most of the movies this Fall and with my Movie Pass... I will get to see nearly all of them. Let's take a look.


BEST UPCOMING:


10/20
The Snowman

Early reviews haven't exactly been kind to The Snowman, but it's hard to argue with how great/disturbing the trailer for this film is. It's also hard to argue with the cast and everyone surrounding the movie. It's certainly going to have to miss the mark by a lot for us to consider this movie nothing but stellar. I, for one, am hoping for something dark, gritty, and terrifying. Hopefully these early reviews aren't an actual preview of what's to come.

11/3
Thor: Ragnarok

I am completely OFF the bandwagon of Marvel. And if I were to list the superheroes from the Avengers that I just can't stand (especially their standalone films), number one would be Hulk and number two would be Thor. However, director Taika Waititi (who directed and starred in the hilarious and underrated What We Do In The Shadows) is the perfect person to take the helm. The movie looks like it's going to have a lot more personality to it and not take itself so seriously. Plus, there's the fact that Cate Blanchett looks like a badass and Chris Hemsworth even said in an interview that he was starting to get seriously over playing Thor... until this film. I don't want it to be good... but it's going to be great and you know it.

Roman J. Israel, Esq.

Here is Daniel Day-Lewis's only real competition for that Best Actor Oscar. It's Denzel. It's a smart legal-thriller. And it's written and directed by the guy who did the very underrated Nightcrawler. I mean... I've only seen one preview for the film, and alone it looks good. But with the added bonus of being a Denzel film during Awards time-- this movie is going to certainly be one of the best.

11/10
Murder On The Orient Express

Kenneth Branagh (who stars and directs), Daisy Ridley, Michelle Pfieffer, Johnny Depp, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Josh Gad, Willem Dafoe... look at that cast! Yes, it's yet another remake, but Branagh hasn't starred in a movie in forever, and he's proven himself as a capable director (as well as one who chooses the right projects). It's a murder-mystery party on a train. It's going to be subtle, it's going to be tense, and it's going to be fantastic.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

There is literally not a movie for the rest of the year that I am more excited for. Yes, even Star Wars. This film, if you haven't already watched the trailer (which I suggest you do right NOW), is going to be the perfect mix of drama, thriller and comedy. Director Martin McDonaugh (who helmed two of my favorite movies--In Bruges & Seven Psychopaths) is making his third film this year and it looks to be just as wonderful as his previous two. He's the long lost Coen Brother and it will be difficult, I believe, to find a film that I will enjoy more than this movie. Seriously, go watch the trailer right now. I'll wait.

11/24
Coco

  











Well, Pixar is back. And it looks like their new film, Coco, is going the route of Inside Out rather than Cars on this one. I don't know much about the movie because I'm intentionally not looking to hard into it. I want to go into it fresh and probably cry my little eyes out. But it deals with death. It deals with dogs. It deals with making us all weep like infants, but leaving feeling great about life. I can't wait.

Darkest Hour

This film doesn't exactly look like my cup o' tea. But, the physical transformation Gary Oldman has undergone to portray Winston Churchill is beyond amazing. It looks to be a little bit dry, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to be critically heralded. Even if it's not going to be one of the best of the year, still look for Oldman to get that Oscar nod. Unfortunately, he probably doesn't have a shot next to Denzel and DDL.

Molly's Game

When it comes to Academy Award worthy films in the Fall, I try my best to stay detached and not look too deeply into every movie, for fear of finding out too much and ruining the movie. I don't know much about this film either, but I do know it has a stellar cast, but more importantly, dialogue master Aaron Sorkin is making his directorial debut. If that's not enough to make the Best list... I don't know what is.

12/1
The Disaster Artist

 











Those of you unfamiliar with the hilariously awful film The Room may have you wondering what the hell The Disaster Artist even is. But it's the story of one of the worst (if not THE worst) movies ever made. It's not going to be your typical James Franco/Seth Rogen movie, but if anyone is capable enough of mocking a film while still respecting its creator... it's these guys. This is going to be a very strange film, unlike any you've seen, but it's going to be very good.

12/8
I, Tonya

No poster and no trailer have been released for the Tonya Harding biopic, but everything coming out of the respected film festivals say it's fantastic. Mostly, they're saying Margot Robbie's portrayal is out of this world. The movie is supposed to be a beautiful mix of drama and dark comedy. If you don't know the story about Harding's life-- jump on over to Wikipedia. It's amazing this movie hasn't already been made until now. It's going to be a weird, and wonderful, ride.

The Shape of Water

 











The Shape of Water is Guillermo Del Toro's next directorial feature film. His last effort, Crimson Peak was somewhat of a misfire. If it seems like Del Toro hasn't really given us much over the last few years, you can't deny that he's still one of the most visionary directors of all time. I don't even know how to feel about this movie based on the trailer-- it doesn't look like anything I'd even care about if Del Toro wasn't attached-- but because he is... I'm willing to give it the serious benefit of the doubt.

12/15
Star Wars: The Last Jedi

You were worried about this movie until you saw the trailer last Monday. Whatever your opinion was of the movie JJ Abrams gave us, you can't deny that what Rian Johnson has done with the sequel looks nothing short of astonishing. The trailer gave me chills. For those of you who believed The Force Awakens was a carbon copy of A New Hope, we can safely put that fear to bed about The Last Jedi. I'm worried we've already seen too much, but not only is this going to be one of the best movies of the year, it's probably going to be one of the best of the entire franchise.

12/22
Downsizing

Often overlooked writer/director Alexander Payne (Sideways, The Descendants, Nebraska) is coming out with a new film, Downsizing. It's about a man (Matt Damon) who, in a world where human shrinking is the new fad, decides his life would be better if he shrunk himself. It's a comedically talented cast and a quirky little plot. It's going to be a very quiet movie, but it's going to be funny and poignant as hell.

12/25
Phantom Thread

 











Again, no poster or trailer for this movie, but it's Daniel Day-Lewis. According to him, this will be his last film. It is a movie directed by Paul Thomas Anderson and it deals with the fashion industry. That's literally all we know about the film. However, with all of these elements combined, and due to the fact that DDL is literally the most picky actor in Hollywood when it comes to what movies he will come out of his cave to act in... this will be something great for us to witness. Watch out Denzel, DDL is going for his fourth Oscar before he takes his talent away from us forever (hopefully not forever).


WORST UPCOMING:


10/20
Tyler Perry's Boo 2: A Madea Halloween

 











HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. How?! How have we given Madea over ten years of movies??? How is this even still a thing? How did the first movie make enough money to garner a sequel? How?!?!?!?!?!

10/27
Jigsaw

I've seen all the Saw movies and the only good one is the first one... and maybe one of the middle ones. They're terrible movies, but for those of us who, for some morbid reason, love watching idiot people get creatively tortured... we're going to like this movie a lot. This doesn't mean it's going to be good by any means... but there will be people who like this movie. I'm just curious if people care enough again to make it any money. If it does... look for a lot more.

Thank You For Your Service

Can we all just admit that Miles Teller sucks and needs to go? Please? I mean, I know Whiplash was a fantastic movie and he didn't annoy the shit out of us, but everything else he's been in has been just pointless. Can we also stop making these shitty military movies that are Republican masturbation fodder. This movie is going to be a mess that makes no money. And it will all be well deserved.

11/17
Justice League

Wonder Woman was really good. I didn't hate Suicide Squad as much as everyone else did. But you couldn't pay me to see Justice League. Zack Snyder is the wrong choice to keep moving the DC world further. He's bastardizing most of these heroes and there's just nothing appealing about any part of this movie. Superfans unite... and enjoy this terrible, horrible, no good, very bad film.

12/1
Polaroid

 











Remember the movie Friend Request? No. Me either. Okay, remember The Ring? Well, this is kinda like both of them. Irrelevant and the same story. If you look at this Polaroid picture... or get your picture taken with it... or see this movie... you will die. It will be forgotten. It will make a lot of money from 14 year olds. And it will probably get three sequels. Yay Hollywood.

12/20
Pitch Perfect 3

I didn't particularly enjoy the first Pitch Perfect, but I understand why some people did. It just wasn't my personal taste. But, the filmmakers (who were certainly capitalizing on the popularity of Glee) made a small, funny movie that people could enjoy. Then they made the mistake of making a sequel that even huge fans of the first movie recognized as garbage. The third entry doesn't look like it's going to be much better. That's all I have to say about that.

12/25
The Greatest Showman

 











It's the story of PT Barnum's life and creation of his circus. It stars Hugh Jackman. It's also a musical. It could be great. But based on the preview it looks like it's trying MUCH too hard. And do we still care about musicals? And more specifically, does anyone actually care about this movie? It comes out on Christmas, so it's probably going to make a ton of money.


UPCOMING WILDCARDS:

10/20
Geostorm

Most people with a movie review blog... or most blogs that want you to take them seriously... would probably put this film on the Worst list. But damn it I love Gerard Butler and I love disaster movies. There have actually been good disaster films... and despite popular belief, good Gerard Butler movies as well. I'm hoping it's the perfect combination instead of the shit show it probably will be. I'm still very much looking forward to it.

10/27
Suburbicon

I came very close to throwing this film up on the Best list because, after all, it's one of those ultra-violent, quirky Coen Bros. movie that we all look forward to. But George Clooney is directing it. And as much as I respect him as an actor, and even a director, he hasn't really ever made a GREAT film and the reviews are split. It's getting praise and it's getting wailed on. So, my guess is that it will be 'just okay'. Not enough to put on the Best, nor the Worst.

11/1
A Bad Moms Christmas

The first Bad Moms was just alright. There were some very funny moments (especially those involving Katherine Hahn and Kristen Bell), but it was mostly forgettable. The trailer for this movie looks like much of the same, if not a bit of a downgrade in quality. It's going to be much of the same-- mostly forgettable throwaway jokes that try too hard, but look for a few scenes that actually make it worth the price of admission.

11/3
Last Flag Flying

Again, very close to throwing this one up on the Best list, especially because of its director, Richard Linklater who is one of my favorites. Then there's the cast of Steve Carell, Bryan Cranston and Laurence Fishburne. But there's just something about it that makes it look kinda... I don't know... schlocky? It looks like emotional manipulation at its best, but it could be great. I think this is the perfect movie to astutely define 'wildcard'.

11/10
Daddy's Home 2

If you saw the first Daddy's Home then you know it was supremely underwhelming. It was a lazy family effort by Will Ferrell that certainly didn't need a sequel. Normally, it would go straight into the Worst category, but the additions of Mel Gibson and John Lithgow raise the bar a little bit. Ferrell is always going to deliver funny moments, but it doesn't always translate into a funny movie. Hopefully, they realize what was lacking in the first film and use that to elevate the second film to something a little bit better.

11/17
Wonder

This is the epitome of emotional manipulation. You've got a physically deformed child who gets picked on but just wants to feel "normal"... yeah, it's gonna make you cry. It's the writing around the movie that is really going to determine if the movie is good or not. The actors, Jacob Tremblay, Julia Roberts and Owen Wilson already make the movie noticeable, but does the script warrant such talent? We'll have to wait and see for that one.

12/22
Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle

Okay, here's what I'm excited about-- I love The Rock. I love Jack Black. And I love Jumanji. This should all translate to a fun Christmas movie. However, I dislike Kevin Hart. And the movie does not look like Jumanji. Jumanji is a lot of fun, but it's also got a dark grit to it as well. This movie looks much too silly to be a sequel. The plot itself, on its own, sounds like a really good time. But as a Jumanji sequel, I'm more than worried.


I'm very much looking forward to this Fall movie season. There are a lot of great movies heading our way. Some definite stinkers, but the good will certainly (and hopefully) outweigh the bad. And I'm still doing shameless plugs for a company I have zero stake in... but if you want to see a majority of these movies without paying the exorbitant prices movie theaters charge... get the Movie Pass card. Unlimited movies for only ten bucks a month. I'll see you guys... at the theater. 

Happy Death Day: A Cliché-Filled Mess, A Cliché-Filled Mess, A Cliché-Filled Mess....

About a month or so ago, I purchased the Movie Pass card. For those who don't know, this is a service where you pay ten dollars a month (seriously, only ten bucks) and you can see a movie a day for an entire month. To put this into perspective, my ticket for Happy Death Day was $12.20... I was able to swipe my Movie Pass card to get in for "free". The card has already paid for itself and then some... and I'm able to see as many more movies as I want for the rest of the month and it's only ten bucks. Why am I providing such a shameless (and free) advertisement for Movie Pass at the beginning of this review? Because the card, I've already learned, can be a blessing and a curse. Next week I will be able to see The Snowman and Geostorm, and hell, even Tyler Perry's Boo 2 if I want and it will cost me nothing. But in a week when there is NOTHING good out in theaters... the card can make you do some silly things........... like see Happy Death Day.

Happy Death Day is OBVIOUSLY terrible. Nobody reading this actually thought it was going to be a surprisingly great film. You've seen the trailer. You've called it Groundhog Day with murder. You know what you're getting into when you go to see it... as did I. But, I'm here to just confirm your preconceptions of the film. It's terrible. Now, I went and saw it alone, so I'm not exactly sure what kind of terrible it is. For me, alone, it was an eye-rolling, cliché-filled trash heap. But, on the other hand, it might've been SO bad that going with a group of people could actually be so bad it's unintentionally funny and you might have a good time. Whatever kind of bad the movie is shouldn't really matter, though. Because there's no reason you should actually be going to see this movie. If you have any sort of desire to go to the movies to see something resembling horror... just go see IT again.

Happy Death Day tells the repetitive tale of Tree (Jessica Rothe), who is a spoiled, petty, unrelenting sorority asshole. She wakes up in the bed of Carter (Israel Broussard), the film's only likable character, with no memory of how she got there other than "she was wasted last night", believing she had slept with Carter, a guy she'd never met until this morning-- it is later revealed that they did not, in fact, sleep together because there are actual good people in the world (though we never get the full explanation of why she's not wearing pants). It is also Tree's birthday, something she resents as much as her roommate, another good person, who only wants to create peace in the dorm room. She's also having an affair with her British science(?) professor, ignores her father's calls and ditches the birthday dinner he waits for her at, she ostracizes everyone who tries to even just wave at her, and is generally a garbage human. However, at the end of the day, a stalker in a mask murders Tree with a knife. If only this were the end of the film. No, Tree wakes up in the same spot she'd been in the previous morning having to re-live the day over and over again until she solves her own murder.

If it wasn't such a blatant rip-off, it might actually be a decent premise, but that would take a lot of factors such as competent directing, a solid script, and capable actors. The film is very limited when it comes to these aspects. The film suffers right off the bat with its lead-- Tree is an insufferable character who you enjoy watching get killed more than anything else that she does. (I mean, come on, her name is Tree.) I understand in movies like this, the day only stops repeating when the main character has learned a lesson and made a major change in their life. Phil Connors in Groundhog Day is an asshole, but he's only an asshole because he's tired and disenchanted with life. He's also got an actual quirky personality. And he's also Bill Murray. Tree is a young, spoiled "mean girl" with nearly no reason to be as terrible as she is. When she finally does go through the "oh, I should actually be a good person" moment, it isn't earned and it comes out of nowhere. What's great, too, is during one of the days she makes amends with almost everyone she has wronged-- the day repeats yet again, thus undoing everything she'd accomplished.

The other part of the movie that really got me consistently shaking my head is the dialogue. For some reason, Happy Death Day fills its entire movie with lines from actors that the writer THINKS would come out of college students' mouths. They also have a very 80s Hollywood view of what happens on an actual college campus. It's one cliché after another... so much so that I was predicting lines before they were even said. Tree and Carter sit in front of a window with a cupcake and a candle a la Sixteen Candles and he asks her what she wished for. Yup. You already know what she says. If you thought "tomorrow", you win the jackpot. College, also, is still apparently made up of cliques, good-looking male rapists, fraternity hazing, and protesting global warming snowflakes. It's clunky and hackneyed dialogue and stock characters that really bring down the movie (there's even a fart joke-- I'm not kidding). I caught myself wondering when they were going to shut the hell up and get killed already. It creates so many questions that take you right out of the "plot" of the movie. Why is Tree such an asshole? Why did they cast a guy who looks like he should be playing Elijah Wood's future self as her father? Why does she wait until the very end of the second day to realize everything has happened exactly the same? Why is the professor a British guy who only looks to be three or four years older than Tree? And so on.

It's also not scary. Most of it is Tree being a dick a bunch of times leading up to her murder. There's a few jump scares, but nothing truly suspenseful enough to get the heart racing. I will give the movie three compliments, however. One, I was actually a little surprised at the reveal of the killer. I thought they were going to go obvious with it and it actually kind of worked (however, the motive of the killer is AWFUL). Two, Israel Broussard's character Carter really is the only likable character and moral center of the film. It's just unfortunate he has a character like Tree to become his love interest. And finally, props to the movie for actually mentioning out loud that what's happening to Tree "is a lot like Groundhog Day". It was impressive they had the balls to make connection. It's like plagiarizing a paper that deals with the subject of plagiarism. You have to at least respect the meta irony.

Look, there's a right way and a wrong way to recreate the Groundhog Day formula because no matter how you do it, it's always going to be compared. Edge of Tomorrow was the right way to do it. Before I Fall and now Happy Death Day are examples of the wrong way to do it. As much as I advise you NOT to see this movie, I'm actually happy it's doing well in the box office money wise. Producer Jason Blum who has now made a successful career of producing cheap and mostly great horror movies deserves his success and we don't want a shit show like Happy Death Day to put an end to it. Let's just focus more on movies like Paranormal Activity, Insidious, Split and Get Out.

D

Blade Runner 2049: Unnecessary Doesn't Always Mean Bad

I'm sorry, guys, but I just don't get Blade Runner. I don't understand the hype. Like, it's heralded as not just a great movie, but one of the best movies ever made right up there with Star Wars and Aliens. And I just don't get it. A friend of mine showed it to me way back in high school. It was one of his favorite movies, and I think I was expecting more of a Star Wars/Indiana Jones type Harrison Ford 80s movie and I found it to be overwhelmingly boring. Flash forward to two nights ago. I'd been wanting to see Blade Runner 2049, but I thought I better check out the original again first. Who knows? Maybe I just wasn't ready for what the movie had to offer back in high school. Maybe I didn't like it because I had different expectations. I mean, I saw The Godfather back in high school too and I thought it was boring as hell. I re-watched it earlier this year and it's one of the best damn movies I've ever seen in my life. I had to give Blade Runner another shot. I researched and found that really the only version Ridley Scott approves of is called "The Final Cut", so that's the one I watched. And guys... I just don't get it. I hated it. It was still boring. It was still too slow. There would be scenes that lasted several minutes of people just walking. Harrison Ford zooming in on a picture took nearly five damn minutes. I know it's not fair to criticize the acting in an early 80s movie, but it's comical. And that's the only thing funny about it-- the unintenionally bad acting. The movie is humorless, lifeless, and stylistically up its own ass. And I think the concept of the movie is fantastic. I loved the concept and was ready to go on this journey, but I hated the execution. By the end of the film I failed to see two important aspects-- first, why EVERYONE who loves the movie is so hell-bent on arguing "Is Deckard a replicant or not?" Who the hell cares? The issue is brought up exactly one time and doesn't delve into the question any further. And the second aspect I failed to see is how in the hell this movie needed/warranted any sort of sequel whatsoever?

Okay, now that I've gotten that out of the way and established that I am not a fan of the original film, and in fact can't really stand it... I absolutely loved Blade Runner 2049. Like, not just enjoyed it, not just thought it was a vast improvement over its predecessor... but loved it. Without diving too deeply into the story and giving anything away, here's what I can tell you-- set 30 years after the events of the first film, Ryan Gosling plays 'K', a blade runner replicant. If you recall from the first film, blade runners were essentially cops who sought out replicants to "retire" them. However, now, a new strain of replicants have been built by billionaire Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) who obey their masters instead of causing revolt. These new replicants now hunt all of the outlawed older models down. Also, don't worry, I didn't just blow any sort of secret or twist by revealing Gosling is a robot. This is legitimately the first bit of information you're given on him within the first three minutes of the movie. Blade runner 'K' uncovers a dark secret in the replicant world that now leads him down a path of trying to find ex-blade runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) for answers and truth. Unfortunately, that's all I am able to give you... but that's all you need.

Director Denis Villeneuve had a risky job to perform. On one hand, he needed to create a sequel to a beloved film with die hard fans. It's almost as daunting a task as making a Star Wars movie today. However, he also had to modernize the movie and make it palatable for new film goers who maybe aren't as familiar with the source material, or in my case, strongly dislike the source material. Whatever he did to figure out how to weave both of these dynamics into a single film, he did so successfully. While Blade Runner 2049 still feels like a Blade Runner film, he was able to find all of the short-comings of the original movie, fix them, as well as modernizing the story for a contemporary audience. And this is clearly coming from a man who is in love with the first film. There's much more excitement, much more tension, much more humor, much more weirdness (in a good way), but less of the cheese and arrogance of the first film. Villeneuve is the perfect choice, too, for this type of movie. Coming off his brilliant last film, Arrival, what he brings to sci-fi is a slow burn and nuance rather than CGI and explosions. His science fiction is cerebral and quiet, favoring a build up that's both relaxing as well as tense. The soundtracks to his films, especially Arrival and Blade Runner 2049 have the ability to provide heightened tension as well as send goosebumps down your spine. Much like Edgar Wright did with the matching up music perfectly to his action sequences of Baby Driver, Villeneuve understands how important the score is to a film like this one, and matches up his film to sustained booming and held synthesizer notes. (Apologies if this is crudely explained... I'm not very versed in music terminology, but you'll understand once you see it.)

The film is also gorgeous. The futuristic world still has that neo-noir feel to it, as is necessary when making a Blade Runner film, but Villeneuve also uses color better than most directors. Each part of the world 'K' travels to has a new color scheme attached to it. The city is a bleak black, the country is covered in shades of gray, the desert is a washed orange, the inside of Wallace's compound is a harsh yellow. The color mixed with the soundtrack is something almost hypnotizing. It's gorgeous and just a joy to watch and necessary to see in a theater (though I do think it might look even better on a 4K TV once released to purchase). Blade Runner 2049 almost reminds me of another Gosling film, Drive. It's a quiet film that uses color and sound to provide most of the atmosphere while saving dialogue for only truly important moments... only, you know... set in an alternate futuristic world. Gosling is once again, perfect. He's learned that as an actor he's able to communicate more without words than he is with them. And being a replicant, his performance is even more understandably subdued. Harrison Ford doesn't show up until about the third act... which I honestly didn't mind.  The story is more about leading up to the discovery of Ford's Deckard, rather than what happens after the two meet. But, the time that we get with Ford (and it is ample-- the movie is eleven minutes shy of three hours) is perfect. He's still a versatile actor who constantly reminds us that he can be the leading-man action star, but that he's also still got the dramatic acting chops. Unlike Deckard in the original, I feel there is more depth to this Deckard (and he's actually got a personality-- complete with some actual humorous moments-- go figure). It's good that Gosling was cast because Ford is a huge draw for a lot of fans, but with a very capable and watchable actor like Gosling as the lead, they're not going to be disappointed that Ford is relegated to the last 1/3rd of the film.

The only problems I can see moviegoers having with this movie (of which I had none) is they need to go into the movie with an open mind. Don't go in thinking you're going to be seeing an sci-fi full of action, adventure and mayhem. While there is some, it's infrequent. It's a journey that takes its time without ever lagging or boring the audience (something that is quite difficult to do with a near three hour run time). And there's also the fact that you're watching a movie where the lead protagonist is a robot. Some (including my lovely fiancee) may have a difficult time connecting to a non-human character. It's like this-- you either felt empathy for the robots in Westworld and rooted for their uprising, or you realized they are just artificial beings who are designed to look human and you honestly couldn't give two shits. If you are the latter of the two, you may find it difficult to care much about anything going on in the film. As with most sequels, yes, this film is entirely unnecessary. Blade Runner 100% did not need a sequel for any reason. However, if it was going to happen anyway, be glad this is the film that you get because I can't figure out a single way it could be any better.

SIDE NOTE: Just so you're aware... Blade Runner 2049 has zero connection with Blade or The Maze Runner. If you think this didn't need to actually be mentioned to the general population, you'd be wrong.

A

Kingsman: The Golden Circle: A Tale Of Two Movies

Most sequels don't need to be made. The key criticism in most sequel reviews are that it is "inferior to its predecessor" or "unnecessary".  However, there are films that are designed to have sequels. The Fast and the Furious was, coincidentally, NOT designed to have eight freaking sequels, however after the 5th one, they finally found their working formula. 007, James Bond, on the other hand, is specifically designed for sequels. He's a secret agent who can go on any number of missions and fight any number of super villains over a 60 year period of time. Unnecessary sequels from this year include Transformers, Cars, The Nut Job, XXX, Underworld, Alien. However, not among them is Kingsman. This film was written, nay, designed to spawn sequels. Tons of 'em. It's a secret service spy agency made up of very polite and violent Englishmen. Toss in the ol' fish-outta-water, profane angsty teenager to balance out the sophistication of the rest of them and voila! you've got a franchise on your hands. However, for some reason, director Matthew Vaughn is able to give us great first films to movies that should be sequel-worthy... but can not produce anything close to capable as his/their predecessors.

The same thing happened to Vaughn with Kick-Ass (though he wasn't all the way involved with the sequel). Kick-Ass took the already tiring superhero genre and gave it a huge twist by rating it R, making it bloody as hell, having 12-year old girls drop F-bombs like they're Skittles, Nic Cage going FULL Nic Cage, etc. Without the balls of Kick-Ass, I'm not sure we'd have had Deadpool yet. Vaughn had every intention of drawing out the franchise, but turned down the offer to do Kingsman instead and handed over the director's chair to someone else (though he stayed on as Producer) and what we were given was less than impressive. We were promised the same feel as the first movie, yet the humor was lacking, the violence was boring, and the characters were the same. The best part of the second Kick-Ass was Jim Carrey and (SPOILER) he's killed off 19 minutes after we meet him. My hopes had been higher for the sequel to Kingsman. Again, Vaughn gave us something new with Kingsman. We were shown the typical spy formula, but with a different presentation. We got suave Englishmen in expensive suits using umbrellas as their weapon as well as defense. We got stylized action sequences with a fair amount of blood, and we got a significant amount of humor surrounding the story as well (that and Sam Jackson as a villain with a lisp). Where Kingsman could've felt like a YA James Bond knock-off, it was actually something fresh and new and, again, DESIGNED for sequels. But, if The Golden Circle is reflective of the quality of sequels we're going to get for Kingsman films, they might want to stop now.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle isn't a bad movie, but it's not a great one either. Currently, and it has been this way for two weeks, the film sits at exactly 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, and I believe this to be a fair assessment. I don't mean that the movie deserves an F, but I do mean that it felt like two movies. The first hour or so was damn near unwatchable, but the back hour and twenty felt like the Kingsman we wanted. The movie begins with Eggsy (Taron Egerton) walking out of the Kingsman shop, only to be stopped by a bad guy. The bad guy has a robotic arm. They wind up in a huge fight in the back of a speeding taxi. The fight, which lasts a good five minutes, utilizes some of the worst CGI I've seen in this decade. It's supposed to be reminiscent of the the style of Colin Firth's church-gun scene from the first movie, however it comes off as distracting, nauseating, and above all, incredibly FAKE looking. It took me immediately out of the movie and it's amazing no one involved in the production was able to put a stop to it. So, the film already put a bad taste in my mouth. From there Eggsy escapes the fight claiming he has a dinner he absolutely CAN NOT miss, and has to jump into shit-filled sewer water. This dinner... involves three of his friends and we are not given any clue as to why it was necessary for him to swim through shit. Not only that, but the scene wasn't humorous or plot-worthy and now I'm getting worried for the rest of the movie.

From there we're sent to our villain's lair - Poppy Land - we're given a narration from Poppy (Julianne Moore) herself, explaining to us that she's rooted in 50s nostalgia and has created her jungle lair to look like a 50s diner. She's a soft-spoken crazy bitch with a never-ending smile and it's a fun little novelty to the villain character. However, that's as much depth as her character is given. She's quirky, but evil. Literally nothing else. Here we are also introduced to her henchmen-- a couple of robot dogs. These dogs also look very fake and I'm sitting there going: what the hell is this movie? I know the first Kingsman dealt with some suspension of disbelief... but this movie is so over-the-top it's almost like it's parodying itself already. Even the President, who is supposed to reflect Trump's behavior, is so exaggerated, it's like watching a cartoon, not a movie. That's not what I want. I want another adventure that has the same Kingsman feel to it, but a different story with a different set of circumstances. For example, this is why I am totally against the upcoming Jumanji sequel. The story for the movie itself looks pretty clever and the characters and events look like they're pretty funny. But it doesn't FEEL like Jumanji. It feels like a parody. Parodying your original work in your sequel is not really ever the best idea.

Anyway, back to the discussion-- from there, Poppy, who runs the largest drug empire in the world, has decided to do away with the Kingsman organization and sends missiles to kill every Kingsman - and she does. Everyone we met and cared for involved with Kingsman is killed within the first twenty minutes of the movie... including Eggsy's pug. This upset me as well. Obviously, most people don't like it when dogs are killed in movies to begin with, but there are two factors here that made it even more upsetting. First, there's the close up of the [adorable] pug's face just as the rocket hits the building and explodes. And second, it's basically counter-intuitive to what Vaughn did with the dogs in the first film. Eggsy is given a pug. He has to train with it. He has to love it and protect it. Then, to become and actual Kingsman, he has to shoot it. He refuses to shoot the dog and fails training. Colin Firth's character explains how he shot the dog... with a blank. But for the longest time in the movie, we thought the dog was dead... only to bring it back, basically poking fun at movies that kill dogs and exposing the truth that movie audience's care more about the lives of animals in film than they do people. By killing the dog, they've completely undone whatever commentary they made in the first movie and, like everything else up until this point, it doesn't feel remotely like a Kingsman film.

From THERE, Eggsy and Merlin (Mark Strong), the only other surviving Kingsman associate, head to America to join up with the Statesmen. Once there, they meet agent Tequila (Channing Tatum), Champagne, also known as Champ (Jeff Bridges), and behind the scenes agent Ginger Ale (Halle Berry). They reveal that Colin Firth's character, Galahad, is not dead from his gunshot wound (having been revived through some made-up technology that just BARELY escapes eye-rolling), but is suffering from Amnesia. Arguably, Colin Firth's and Taron Egerton's chemistry from the first film was the best aspect of that film. We are reunited with the two, however because Galahad does not remember who he is, we don't get any of that chemistry for a majority of the film. And this is when we've reached about an hour into the film. I had almost completely done away with this movie in my mind and accepted that this was just an unbelievable misfire in a movie that was ripe for opportunity. Then, things started to turn around. It started to feel more like the first movie. It started having more fun with the action and getting more creative. The jokes in the first half that didn't make sense or that fell flat were starting to hit again. The relationships started coming together and the chemistry between certain people started connecting and the last hour felt, indeed, like a fun Kingsman movie. The final thirty minutes is all action, but it's the best thirty minutes of the entire movie. It's like they could do no wrong after having been unable to do no right in the first half. It really is two polar opposites residing in the same film. By the end, I felt like I had enjoyed the entirety of the movie because it ended so strongly. It was only after a bit of reflection that I realized the first half was garbage.

So, what do I make of Kingsman: The Golden Circle? It's good if you're patient enough to wade through the muck and the slop of the first hour of the movie. Unfortunately, you can't jump in to the story an hour late, either because there are key plot points that are set up for the end, but if you can make it through the first part, the second part of the movie is an absolute blast and joy to watch. And, I'm sorry if you didn't already know, but Elton John is in the movie in an extended cameo role, and is arguably the best part of any moment of any Kingsman movie ever made. I could watch two solid hours of Elton John telling people to "Fuck off!"

C