Wreck-It Ralph 2: Ralph Breaks The Internet: A Stupid Title For A Decent Sequel

The people at Disney are very clever. They hire the creative minds the other companies just don't have. These minds are able to come up with high concept ideas, execute them beautifully, and rake in millions upon millions of dollars. The stories from these people are perfectly balanced with fun, humor, and heart. They're even able to make sequels that are oftentimes better than the originals. They attract big named actors to take part in voicing their films because everyone desires to be in a Disney or a Pixar or a Disney/Pixar film. They're the only ones making consistently great animated films for children. So if all of this is true - and it is - how the hell did no one stop them when they proposed Ralph BREAKS the Internet??? Did literally everyone involved in writing/creating the film forget that the first movie wasn't called Break-It Ralph? Did they think the general public would be too stupid to understand the play on words if the film had been called Ralph Wrecks the Internet? How does a company this clever and smart and creative let something this stupid slip through the very obvious cracks? Because it's stupid goddamn dumb.

Anyway, picking up six years after the previous movie, Ralph (John C. Reilly) and Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) are besties who hang out every day. They play in their games, meet for a root beer at the local tavern game, and sit in the power strip and watch the sun rise. Rinse and repeat. When Vanellope expresses how she wishes she had a new track to race on, Ralph builds her one, which ends up breaking her game. The two then must descend into the internet to look for a part that will stop her game from getting unplugged forever. After bidding an extraordinary amount on the part on eBay, the two must find a way to make money from the internet. They meet a pop up ad named Spamley (Bill Hader) who gives them the mission of going into a racing game called Slaughter Race to steal an unattainable car from a character named Shank (Gal Godot). This is where Vanellope finds her true calling. Ralph finds his making viral videos and bee puns.

While the film doesn't have that superior quality that made the first Wreck-It Ralph so funny and endearing, the sequel does impress. One thing Disney is pretty great at lately, is making a sequel that isn't just a regurgitation of the plot of the first film. They know the perfect formula - take the characters we've grown to love and put them in a new and different adventure that isn't a carbon copy of the adventure they've already been on. Don't let them make the same mistakes we were told they learned in the last film. Don't make their character growth be the same. And it's true here with this film. It's a lot of fun watching Ralph and Vanellope scour the internet because they aren't the same people they were in the first movie and they don't have the same problems and don't have to overcome the same obstacles. Ralph has finally found happiness in his best friend, but Vanellope is feeling discontent in her cookie-cutter life of doing the exact same thing every single day without any fail or change. Ralph fears the internet because it's something different - which is exactly why Vanellope embraces it. It's a nice dynamic that speaks true to a lot of real life friendships - you can have a best friend, but they don't have to share the same life as you.

The movie is very cute and adorable and has some pretty great moments of humor (though I'd say the first movie was far funnier). The only thing that just kind of put the movie in an inferior position is that there isn't an antagonist. There's no real force keeping the two of them down and making the audience fear that Ralph and Vanellope might fail their quest. They only conflict they're up against is the ticking clock. They have X amount of days before the game is shut down for good. Then they have X amount of time to find the game part. Then they have X amount of time to get the money to pay for the part. No one really stands in their way. This is actually pretty uncommon for Disney and I think it hinders the movie just a little bit. I'm usually always impressed with the way Disney comes up with such clever conflict for their characters to overcome, but this time I wasn't ever really worried for Ralph and Vanellope and I actually kept wondering if any hardship or conflict was actually going to come at all. When it does - it does seem a little forced. And the moment that briefly tears the two of them apart felt forced as well. While the rift between them is one that could have come from them, it would've felt a little more organic to have an insidious outside force causing the rift.

But overall, it's just a cute movie that both kids and parents alike can enjoy. It's just missing a few things that made the first movie great. The adventure is there and so are the laughs and the heart. While the laughs are fewer than the last one and the heart isn't as emotionally-wrecking, it's still got that wonderful Disney quality to it that elevates it above any other company trying to produce animated works. The scene with Vanellope and the Disney princesses alone is worth the price of admission. Make sure you stay for the entire length of the credits. There's a scene in the middle that's pretty hilarious and one more at the very end that killed me. Ralph WRECKS the Internet is a solid Disney sequel that's worth a lot more than it's dumbass name suggests.

B

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald: A Muddling Of The Middle

Let's get the obvious out of the way first - I'm a Harry Potter fan, much like the billions of other people all over the world. When the final book was released and when the final movie was released, yes I yearned for more. That always happens when a series goes out at the right time. We want more. It's only after it goes on too long and has worn out its welcome and some of the actors have already left and it's bleeding the source material dry do we actually WANT it to end. So, when Rowling started kind of a spin-off of the series with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them it was exciting because we got more of that Harry Potter world that we yearned so much for. But, it wasn't Harry Potter. It wasn't even close. Yeah, Newt Scamander is a decent hero. Yeah, there are some fun, quirky side characters. But the movie was lackluster and all I could keep thinking while watching it was that I wanted to go and watch Harry Potter again. Much like Better Call Saul makes you really just yearn for Breaking Bad (though Better Call Saul is actually a superior spinoff). I think Rowling really took this to heart because while The Crimes of Grindelwald is a better film than its predecessor, the only thing it really accomplishes is making the audience really just want to go back and re-read and re-watch the Harry Potter series. She knows this - because she crams as many Potter nods into this script as she does new ideas.

I enjoyed The Crimes of Grindelwald. I did. But there wasn't much of a story and what there was of a story is extremely problematic. Basically it all revolves around Credence (Ezra Miller), the Obscurial from the first film, who apparently lived after almost vaporizing New York. How did he live? Reasons. He's now in Paris, traveling with a circus and the female human version of Nagini. He's trying to find his birth mother so he can understand who he is and where his "curse" comes from. Newt (Eddie Redmanyne) is summoned by Dumbledore (Jude Law) to go to Paris and find Credence before Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) does and uses him to do his evil deeds. There's also a bunch of side plots including Leta LeStrange (Zoe Kravitz) and her long-lost half-brother she assumes is dead, but may not actually be. Then there's Queenie and Jacob joining Newt on their quest to get married (but a pure blood and a muggle marriage is forbidden). Jacob remembers the events of the first movie also because reasons. Finally, Tina shows up to do nothing and ruin every moment she's in just like the first movie. Essentially, everything comes to a head at the end. There's some strange revelations and twists which all leads up to the actual identity of Credence, which I won't spoil here.

The problem with the film is that it's a middle film setting up for more sequels and absolutely nothing happens in this movie. There's almost nothing that drives the story and Grindelwald doesn't actually commit that many crimes. In fact, I couldn't really tell what exactly Grindelwald wanted that differs from what Voldemort wanted, except for the fact that apparently Grindelwald doesn't want to wipe out all muggles. He even tells his cronies this in private, and reiterates it when he holds his klan meeting. I even sympathized with Grindelwald because he doesn't actually do anything that evil. He never kills anyone (his cronies kill the family in the house they take over) and he's only fighting back against the magical world Aurors who happen to be just kill-friendly people we're supposed to root for? From what I've seen... yeah, I'd probably join up with Grindelwald too. The only reason I know he's evil is because we're told he is... but never shown. Shit, even at the beginning when he throws everyone off the flying carriage, he stops one of his captors from his death right before hitting the water. Why exactly is everyone hating against this dude?  And if we are supposed to be hating against him... why is he EXACTLY like Voldemort... only not as bad? Either way is problematic.

The other big thing I took issue with in the story is that I was confused as hell all the way through. We're in JK Rowling's world, so she gets to control everything. She knows the ins and outs of every character, storyline, backstory, and all the in betweens. But if there was something confusing in the Harry Potter movies, there was always a book to be read to clear up any confusion. But in Fantastic Beasts there is no book. It's just from the mind of Rowling. So if shit isn't explicitly spelled out for the audience, we're left sitting there wondering what the hell is going on. And I felt that way for most of the movie. Why did Credence survive? Why didn't the memory spell work on Jacob? What are Grindelwald's crimes? Why did a certain character sacrifice him/herself at the end for no reason whatsoever? Who was the evil-looking lady in the hall of records? Why do Newt and his brother have weird beef? And that twist - um what??? Where did that come from? Again, not going to spoil anything but is Rowling just making shit up and disregarding everything else from the book or is it just a misdirect we'll find out about in three more years when the next one comes out? Too many questions to keep me invested in the story, which, again, there wasn't much of. In fact, all of the important info could've been summed up for the viewer in a prologue of a much better and satisfying movie. I trust Rowling, but I also believe she KNOWS the answers to all of these questions in her head, she just wasn't able to get them all out for it to make sense to us. So, in actuality, she's kinda George Lucas-ing these prequels.

A lot of the characters are fun in the film. I personally believe Newt is slowly, but surely transitioning into a pretty great protagonist, even though I know he's kind of a polarizing character - you either love him or hate him. I actually dig him. I like Queenie and Jacob more in the first movie, but at least they mattered to the plot of this one. Tina is awful. She was awful in the first film and she's even more awful/useless in this one. She's a boring, one-dimensional character that no one really roots for. When Newt is kinda going back and forth over Leta vs. Tina... we're all questioning Newt for thinking Tina is the superior being because let's be real... she's fucking not. I really hate to say this - but Johnny Depp brought the Grindelwald goods. He's been phoning it in a lot lately with his performances, especially in the last Pirates entry, but he genuinely makes this movie and the character more watchable than anyone else. Jude Law is the same way and it's going to be a badass movie when the two of them actually go toe-to-toe against one another. While I completely disagree with everything Johnny Depp has stood for and done in the past few years (namely the alleged spousal abuse) and I truly believe he should've absolutely lost the role... I can't deny that he was terrific in this film.

Really, there's just too much going on in the movie with such a lack of plot that if you think too hard about what you just watched... none of it is going to make sense. It's also very evident how long they're planning on stretching these movies out for. I thought we'd get a couple of them, maybe even a trilogy, but it looks like it's going to be a lot more than that. Hell, this movie takes place in 1923 and according to the books, Dumbledore and Grindelwald don't even have their dual until 1945. We got a lot of ground to cover and an infinite amount of movies to do it in. I think Rowling should stray from the "beasts" elements of the film since they really don't contribute to much anymore, they're there for the sake of the name. There were some cool Potter nods in the movie, but some were just a little too on the nose. If you're going to sacrifice plot for Harry Potter recognition moments, then just make another Harry Potter movie. But it is enjoyable. Redmayne, Depp, and Law all save the movie from being too mediocre, but you have to watch it with your brain turned off. Otherwise, there's just too many questions, too many inconsistencies, too many moments you just want to shake your head at. But the end of the movie will be the same for everyone - you're just going to go home and watch/read Harry Potter again.

B-

Creed II: "Rocky IV" + "Rocky II" + "Creed" = This Movie

So, I did something I hadn't done before. I sat down and I watched every Rocky movie one right after the other to follow the through storyline and see how each movie plays out. I'd seen the first three a few times but never all together. I'd never seen the fourth or fifth movies and it's been at least ten years since I've seen Rocky Balboa, but what's weird is that even as cheesy and terrible as some of the movies are - I really enjoyed the experience. The first Rocky still holds up and it's very clear why it's so highly regarded. I even thought Rocky II was a capable sequel that deserves nearly as much praise as the first one. Rocky III is where the series started to venture in to cheese territory, especially with the acting "chops" of Hulk Hogan and Mr. T, but the boxing sequences are still top notch. Rocky IV ventures into new territory where the film takes a turn of not focusing on Rocky as a three-dimensional character and focuses solely on flashbacks, boxing scenes, and several training montages to truly awful 80s music. But the dynamic of Rocky vs. Drago made the movie fun - even if it doesn't hold a candle to the previous three. Rocky V shouldn't exist - plain and simple, but that street fight at the end makes it at least a tad watchable and Rocky Balboa is fine. The movies tended to get worse as they went on, but then came a 9 year hiatus where Sly Stallone realized that people didn't come out for Rocky movies anymore (especially when he's pushing 70), so they went back to the drawing board and they brought us Creed. Creed was the surprise hit of 2015 and was so much better than it should've been, but with Ryan Coogler at the helm, he knew what made a great Rocky-universe movie. It's not the boxing (though that helps) it's the characters. Creed II does a lot of the good that the first movie did, but it also falls into a few of the traps that the Rocky sequels did as well. 

Creed II picks up right where the last one left off. Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan) is now the Heavyweight champion of the world, having won every fight he's been in since the one he lost at the end of the last movie. But a figure from the past has returned and called him out to fight - Viktor Drago, the son of Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren), the man who killed Apollo Creed in the ring, wants to fight Adonis and reestablish the good Drago name. After Rocky took the fight to Russia and gave Ivan the what-for, Drago was ostracized by the entirety of Russia. He was sent away an outcast and lost everything, including his wife. His last hopes lie in his son, Ivan, to reclaim the great Drago name and put them both back on the map. Rocky encourages Adonis not to take the fight as he doesn't want to see what happened to Apollo happen to Adonis. Adonis, riding an ego high, takes the fight anyway and sees his entire world come crashing down. Together, he and Rocky must train, both mentally and physically, to rid themselves of their personal demons and take down Drago again, once and for all. 

I really liked the angle Creed II takes in setting up the sequel. We already got to follow Adonis's character change from feeling like a "mistake" in the world and having to live up to the Creed name. So, what better choice to make than have Drago reappear? Who better to have fight Creed than the son of the man who killed his father? What better inner struggle to give Rocky than having to choose whether or not to train Creed to fight the son of the man who killed his best friend? I can't imagine what it must've felt like sitting in a theater and watching Drago kill a beloved movie character in Apollo, so for fans of the Rocky franchise this is like a Christmas morning type of plot. And it's organic. It's the natural progression of the story so that the same beats of Adonis's character aren't hit, but new ones can be established. Just as Creed has finally made a name for himself, one that separates his own legacy from his father's, Drago comes in. Most of the internal and external struggles of each character in this movie do stem from plotlines of the past and don't actually feel forced. The anger and fear that Adonis overcame in the previous movie comes rushing back from the duty he feels he must undertake by fighting Drago in order to (for lack of a better term) avenge his father. It was a great choice by the filmmakers and one that lends to a very good film. 

The boxing sequences are out of this world. It's not as cool as the first Creed where Coogler gave us two rounds of a single take, but the intensity of each swing of each duck of each miss of each hit is upped in Creed II and though it doesn't feel like a REAL boxing match, even for someone who has seen every Rocky movie and has figured out the formula of how these fights go, I found myself gripping my armrest several times and exclaiming "oh!" out loud just as many. Jordan and Stallone also have the same great chemistry in this film as the last one, with Stallone taking an even smaller role than before. The rift between them hurts even more because you want to watch them as allies, not enemies. But the best part of the movie, strangely, is the Drago family dynamic. First, Lundgren KILLS It in this movie (no pun intended). His intense stoicism coupled with scarcely revealed vulnerability is amazing. Dolph has long been a joke in the movie world, but he's terrific in this. No, seriously. As an older Drago, he wants nothing but to restore his good name and the only way to do this is to train his son harder and tougher than he ever was for fear of losing everything again. He wears this toughness and fear equally and there's a strange vulnerability to the character we haven't seen before. And Viktor (Florian Munteanu) is almost... ALMOST a sympathetic villain. He maybe has five lines in the movie, but his entire character is in his eyes. He could be scowling and growling, but in his eyes you see a little kid in fear of letting his father down. He doesn't care about the Drago name or the Drago fame, he just doesn't want to let down his dad. The Rocky franchise has made a name in making every opponent Rocky or Adonis faces be these despicable, unnaturally evil characters so we WANT Rocky or Adonis to beat them to a pulp. Finally, we get a sympathetic opponent, and this brings a new layer of depth to the film, one that each movie previous hasn't explored. I absolutely loved the Drago dynamic and (don't quote me on this please) would theoretically love a movie with just them. 

But for all the good Creed II has going for it, it also hits a lot of the same beats as the other Rocky sequels. You know exactly how the story is going to go. When the first fight between Creed and Drago happens only 45 minutes into the story, I knew Creed was going to get demolished, have to pick up the pieces of his life, insert training montage, and then fight again. There's also the inner conflict of each character. And while they are mostly organic to the story, they're not explored as deeply or as expertly as they were in the first Creed. There were pieces of exploration, but they were only surface pieces hidden behind excellent performances. The one that I didn't buy at all is the one involving Rocky and the fact that he hasn't spoken to his son in several years and now doesn't even know how to. This goes against everything the Rocky character is. He's the simple, nice guy. He gives love harder and faster than anyone. He feels a duty and he carries it out to the millionth degree. Rocky isn't the type of character to become estranged from his son, especially one that has a connection to his late wife, Adrian. I didn't buy it for a second, so I didn't care when it was explored. 

Even though Creed II hits some of the sour notes of the inferior Rocky sequels, it still hits more notes from the first Creed. It's a great time at the movies with some of the best boxing scenes we've seen in theaters in a long time. I'm not sure where they'd go from here, but if this was the last Creed film, then they certainly ended on a high note. It's making a bunch of money, so I doubt this is the end. And I don't care if this is a spoiler or not - Rocky lives throughout the film. It's getting late enough into the series that I keep entering each one worried that they're finally going to kill off Rocky. As long as the movies can keep up the same quality as these first two, and the filmmakers have the good sense and wherewithal to not kill a movie icon... I can be on board for another Creed or two.

B-

Widows: Packs A Hell Of A Punch

Widows should've been an easy sell. Academy Award winning director Steve McQueen (12 Years A Slave) and writer Gillian Flynn (Gone Girl, Sharp Objects) are both still riding success from their previous works and they've put together an ensemble cast of brilliant actresses and actors for what was advertised as a heist movie. Who wouldn't want that? Now, obviously, there's more to it than your typical heist movie, but how is a movie with these names attached not tempting enough? Hell, I'll pretty much watch anything Viola Davis is in, but along with her you've got Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki, Cynthia Erivo, Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Robert Duvall, Carrie Coon, Daniel Kaluuya, and Brian Tyree Henry. Most of these people are either recognizable names or faces or both. Most of these people are riding their own success waves as well. But somehow Widows is falling by the cinema wayside and it's a shame because Widows is a very good movie. 

Widows tells the story of four women (Davis, Rodriguez, Debicki, and Coon) whose criminal husbands are all killed during a heist. This heist, unfortunately, revolved around ripping off a criminal-turned-politician who wants his money back. So, he sends his brother, the muscle, (Get Out's Kaluuya) to intimidate the women and tell them they've got one month to bring him two million dollars. Davis's character finds her husband's notebook with detailed plans for a 5 million dollar score. She gathers the other widows together to pull off the heist. What separates Widows from all the other run-of-the-mill heist/action movies is that its focal point is not the heist. It's not the bad guy or his cronies intimidating these women into pulling a heist for him. It's not the montages of planning and executing the heist and getting around all of the unexpected obstacles. It's not the shootouts or action sequences. It's about the characters. It's about these women who have lost everything trying to keep it together to get a job done - a job they've no expertise or experience in - in order to not only move on with their lives, but survive. Each character is layered with so much depth, every one of them could have their own standalone movie.

The leader of the pack is Viola Davis, whose husband (Neeson) was the leader of his. Not only is she dealing with the death of her husband, but this comes on the heels of the still-lingering mourning of the death of their son by police. She's the one who's lost the most, but also the one who has to put on the toughest face. She turns ice cold, treating the other women as if they're nothing but pieces of a business transaction, but inside there's fire and rage. Viola Davis is one of the most watchable actors I've witnessed in a long time. Her performance in Fences, as well as this one will straight-up wreck you. Michelle Rodriguez, who I've long since considered a throw-away actress due to her Fast and Furious resume actually shows she's not just a typecast actor and can really bring it when she has to. Elizabeth Debicki, who I wasn't really familiar with before this film, also brings the goods. Her character is used an abused by everyone around her (including her late husband and her mother), and she's the one we watch have an actual mental and physical transformation. All of these women find strength through loss, but none of them have more of a powerful change than Debicki's character. 

Then there's also the men of the film. A side-plot involving an election race for Alderman between Colin Farrell's character and Brian Tyree Henry's character (which connects to the main plot in several ways) showcases just how good these actors are as well. Farrell is always good and even better when he's playing a sleaze. Henry brings the intensity even behind his kind face. The two (not-so) surprising performances come from Robert Duvall, who plays Farrell's reprehensible father and Kaluuya, the muscle and the one who enacts Henry's evil deeds. Kaluuya is an actor to continue watching out for. He already showed us the goods in Get Out, but we get to see a different side to him here. You'd think he wouldn't be right to play a killer who gets off on toying with victims, but every time he's on screen, your heart will leap into your throat. Hell, even Liam Neeson, who gets almost no screen time in this film is great. It's been a long time since we've seen an ensemble cast this great outside of a Marvel film really come together to breathe even better life into an already great story.

The story is slow moving, but it's intense. And there are a lot of sub-plots to follow, but most of them come together in the end. The only real complaint I have is that there are so many sub-plots that not all of them get tied up in the end. I still had a few questions. There's even one big lingering question that doesn't get answered and it's frustrating because this movie gets you so invested in its characters you want to make sure you have a clear outlook on the outcomes of each one. Other than that, McQueen and Flynn deliver a taut thriller that really is derived from their previous work. It's got the dark feel and twists and turns of Gone Girl and the dramatic prowess of McQueen's previous films that come together to make a truly intense and remarkable movie that should be doing a lot better in the box office. The theaters are going to be packed for the big Disney and Harry Potter releases for awhile, so if you want to see an excellent film that isn't going to be packed to the brim, then I certainly say Widows is the way to go. 

A-

Overlord: Soldiers and Nazis and Zombies, Oh My!

It doesn't matter how good or bad Overlord is - the movie was always going to be DOA. For the last six years, I've been hammering how much I want to see studios make original content and put their faith into the public that we want to see, even crave, original works. Then again, maybe we don't. Bad Times at the El Royale was one of the best original movies of the year and no one saw it. Overlord is a wholly original piece that SHOULD have been one to draw in horror audiences and at the very least make back its budget. But the studio fucked up and fucked up hard. It decided to pit a niche Nazi horror movie against The Grinch. Seriously? A kid-friendly Christmas movie? Yes, people flocked out to the theater this past three-day weekend, but hardly anyone was going to see Overlord and that's unfortunate because it's actually a very fun movie that specific audiences will love, but when people look back on this film, it's most likely going to be labeled a flop and part of the reason studios only churn out already established work.

So... what's actually pretty funny about this review so far is I wrote the above paragraph over a week and a half ago. I've been a little busy since then, but not busy enough that I couldn't finish the review. I just didn't know what to say about Overlord. I feel like I was up on the movie when I left and at this point I'm a little down on it. I just had a big spiel about how we take these great original movies for granted, but the truth is people... they're not all great. Overlord is just fine. There's no big complaints I have about the finished product and I enjoyed myself while watching it... but not even ten days later and I don't remember a lot of the movie. That's not a wholly great sign. I think I've figured out the problem with the movie, though - it didn't go big enough. Think of it this way... Nazi zombie movies aren't necessarily that common in our movie zeitgeist.  For one to sneak its way through and open nationwide, there's gotta be something special about it, right? And that's the thing with Overlord... there wasn't.

It shouldn't have been "that run-of-the-mill" Nazi-Zombie movie because those don't exist. It should've been this balls out, bonkers, bananafuckingcrazy movie that really knew how to impress its core audience. But it didn't. It was just... fine. Part of the problem is that the trailer (which played before every goddamn movie I saw for the last two months) gives away everything. There wasn't anything that nutty or surprising that came my way and I was expecting everything. When there was a quiet or tense moment during the movie, my brain would revert back to the trailer to try and remember what "shocking" moment hadn't appeared yet. And it left a lackluster taste in my mouth. But again... there wasn't anything wrong with the movie either. I can't really chastise a movie because it wasn't crazy enough or it didn't leave a big enough impression especially if it was a decent movie in its own right. But it just wasn't decent enough for a big release. This movie would've been killer on Netflix because it's above average for Netflix. But for theaters... it's just fine.

But I did call the fact that no one saw the damn movie. A week and a half later and I'm shocked it's still in theaters. By Thursday, it'll be gone in favor of the cluster of sequels and spinoffs and prequels and remakes about to flood cinemas. Who knows... maybe I am right. Maybe it just wasn't that great of a movie and that's why it didn't leave an impact. Maybe it'll fade out into obscurity and when it's referenced by those random few who love it, they'll have to consistently answer the question "What's Overlord?" But maybe... maybe... it'll hit streaming and develop a cult following and I'll check it out again years later, having forgotten that goddamn trailer, and finally realize how the film impressed enough studio figureheads that it made it's way through the cracks to a nationwide release.

C+

Bohemian Rhapsody: Come For The Story, Stay For Rami Malek

The musical biopic is not exactly something new. In fact, by now, in 2018, it's actually become somewhat of a tired genre. Look back at most of the films in the genre and there's a similarity to all of them - the structure. Musical biopics, while often fascinating, tend to all follow a certain structure that has all but worn out its welcome at this point. People in 2018 are unsatisfied by watching the same story over and over and over again, just with different musical acts. Selena is Notorious is Ray is Walk the Line is La Bamba is Get on Up is Straight Outta Compton. There's a strict formula that each movie follows and the ones that stand out are the ones that were here first or the ones who told the story of a musician or band... but told it differently(*cough* Love and Mercy). Bohemian Rhapsody, unfortunately, doesn't buck that trend. In fact, it follows it perfectly in a real paint-by-numbers way. Walk Hard somehow parodied Bohemian Rhapsody's structure nearly a decade before it came out, it's THAT structural. You know what's going to happen. You know every single beat of this movie. There is absolutely nothing you don't already know and can't already predict walking into the theater. So, what's the point of going to see it? Two words:

Rami Malek. 

Bohemian Rhapsody is as cookie-cutter as it could possibly get. Freddie Mercury (born Farrokh Bulsara) is working as a baggage handler at the airport when the college band he follows loses their frontman. He offers up his songwriting and singing abilities and that's how Queen is born. They get signed, they write songs, they tour, they fight, they start to crumble, they break up kind of, they hit lows, they reconnect, they perform the greatest show of all time. Like, I could've written that synopsis before even watching the movie. It's so damn cookie-cutter, there's even a scene where the hard-headed, straight-laced, unaccepting father who disapproves of trying to make a career out of being in a band, gives his acceptance. Like, you KNOW what's going to happen, please do not underestimate that. But Rami Malek's performance as Freddie Mercury disguises nearly all of it. His portrayal of (in my personal opinion) the greatest vocalist of all time... is so extraordinary it makes all of the structural issues seem to disappear (for the most part).

Just a month ago all I could talk about is how Bradley Cooper is a lock for the Best Actor Oscar. It was a confident pick and one that I am now embarrassed to say might not actually be such a lock anymore. Rami Malek wasn't just playing Freddie Mercury, he became Freddie Mercury. Not since Jim Carrey transformed himself into Andy Kaufman have I seen an actor disappear into a role and BECOME that person leaving no traces of his former-actor-self behind. Every movement, ever mannerism, every hip thrust, and confident strut Malek makes is identical to Mercury. After seeing the film I'm convinced there's actually no other human being alive who could've done what Malek did with the performance. And through that - put a Mercury-colored gloss over our eyes so we don't sit and stew on the flaws of the film.

I don't know if the movie is going to convert anyone who isn't already a Queen fan because as far as the film goes - it's just a lot of "and then they did this song" moments. The first hour is probably the film's biggest weakness. We get Freddie and then he gets into Queen and then they're getting successful and then they record an album and then they get signed and then they play on the radio and then they start a tour. What the film doesn't provide is a lot of depth for these characters. Yes, we're interested in how they got together and how they started writing their songs and all that... but a good biopic is supposed to show us why. It's supposed to give us insight into the minds and souls of the band that we aren't privy to, but Bohemian Rhapsody doesn't really give us any of this for awhile. It does a better job with Freddie in the back half of the film, but we never really get into the heads and minds of the rest of the band. This could be more of a result of a change in the intended idea. The film initially had intended to be a Freddie Mercury biopic, but the rest of Queen demanded it become a Queen biopic instead. So, because of this we get a lot of "and then this happened" as well as "and then they did this song" moments instead of giving us explanations as to WHY it happened.

There's also a fair amount of cheese involved with the story telling. Songs getting "inspired" in cliched ways. People having emotional arguments in the middle of the pouring rain. That sort of thing. Plus, there's the liberties taken (as always) in changing history for the band a little bit. There are quite a bit of historical inaccuracies in the film. But Malek's performance is so strong it disguises the flaws. It distracts the viewer from these moments of cheese because the viewer's eye is so fixated on the wonder that is Malek/Mercury. And the movie isn't "bad" per se. Critics have panned the movie in the past few days, but praised Malek as the only reason to go. While I can see their point of view, the movie does offer a lot more than just a regurgitated formula for a musical biopic. There's plenty of heart in the film. There are a lot of laughs - I'm actually surprised at how funny the movie actually is (including a hilarious, albeit on-the-nose, comment from Mike Myers). And the end of the film which focuses on Queen's 20-minute performance at Live Aid is breathtaking. I love the fact that this movie had the balls to lead the movie up to a live concert performance and show the audience a perspective they've never gotten before.

If you're a Queen fan, don't worry - there are a LOT of Queen songs. And while the inception of the songs may not have happened like we are told they happened, it's still fun to see this band write some of the most iconic songs of all time. And Freddie Mercury has long since deserved a biopic. It's a damn shame it's taken them this long for them to get it made. And while this isn't exactly the FILM Mercury deserves, it certainly is the performance. If you're not a Queen fan... it's time to reevaluate your life, and become one.

B

Suspiria: Cups Of Tea And All That

You know when you go to an art museum and you see a painting that a bunch of people are gathered around and you stare and stare at the painting and in the back of your mind you just don't understand how anyone could call it art? You squint your eyes, stand closer to it, back up from it, try to imagine any sort of intent the artist could've had with it, but you still don't understand why it's art? You hold in your opinion because you don't want to seem uncultured, but there's also a small rage burning inside of you because it feels like the artist (who assumedly made a lot of money on it) pulled off a brilliant con instead of a beautiful painting? You survey the other onlookers. Some have the same blank stare you have, some are squinting and trying to figure it out like you did, and some have tears in their eyes from staring at such overwhelming beauty? Others begin to discuss the artist's intention. There's back and forths from the onlookers with their own interpretations of what they're looking at. The tears of some turn into full fledged crying because they just can't stand how painful or gorgeous or mesmerizing the painting is... and all you can think is: "what a load of horse shit"? This is exactly how I experienced Suspiria.

I can't tell if what I watched was something so beautiful and abstract that my feeble little mind just couldn't comprehend it or if it was so far up its own ass that it truly means nothing and it's just a shiny turd impersonating art. My reaction after having sat through the long, two-and-a-half-hour sludge is the latter. However, as I was eavesdropping on other reactions leaving the theater, it might just be me. But I'll get to that later. Suspiria, which is extremely lacking in plot, is about a dance company in Berlin. It's run by the intense and intimidating Madame Blanc (Tilda Swinton) and a bunch of other snotty old German women. Susie (Dakota Johnson) arrives in Berlin for an audition into the company. After blowing them away with her abilities, she's welcomed in and immediately put center stage. But, there's something sinister brewing within the company, something even the dancers aren't aware of. All of the ladies running it... are witches. One girl, Patricia (Chloe Grace-Moretz), has managed to escape, telling only what she's discovered to her therapist, Dr. Josef Klemperer (also Tilda Swinton in some seriously cool old-guy makeup). He first dismisses her as insane, but when she goes missing, winds up investigating her claims himself. The rest of the movie... well... there's not much left of a plot to be able to discuss. What I've already described is about the first fifteen minutes or so. The rest is Susie trying to fit in, Dr. Klemperer looking into claims very slowly, Madame Blanc and the rest of the older ladies acting strange and filling Susie's mind as she sleeps with very disturbing dreams, constantly talking about how 'ready' she is for their plan, and a bunch of other nonsensical "plot" elements.

Director Luca Guadagnino, who helmed last year's Call Me By Your Name brings his rising brand of pretension back to the big screen and gives us a movie that will ultimately be a love-it or hate-it type of film. It's a very slow journey that when it finally gets to the climax, it's more of a WTF moment than a "holy shit" moment. It's a strange and bizarre film that isn't really out to please the viewer, but to get the viewer to "interpret" their own meaning from the film. This can work in some movies, but generally there needs to be something to latch onto. There are sub-plots (especially with the doctor) that don't go anywhere and make no sense. Almost all, if not all, of the characters are without substance. It feels like a bunch of independent scenes stitched together to try and form some sort of cohesive film, but never actually accomplishes the feat. Guadagnino keeps his audience at arm's length, not really letting them into what's actually going on, and trying to set up a mystery that doesn't ever really come full circle, but is supposed to be full of dark themes and underlying motifs that he doesn't really care if the viewer understands or not. It's like one big, messy inside joke that's never explained... or funny. I looked at a comparison of this film and the original, and I guess you could say this Suspiria is more of an "homage" to the original than a straight up remake. The characters are named the same, but are inherently different. The story both takes place in a dance company run by witches, but the plot plays out completely different. And if you're actually a fan of the original, you may be completely blown away by the ending, or furiously enraged. After watching this version, I still don't know if I never, ever want to see the original, or if I want to see it more now.

The movie has no real audience it's trying to attract. It plays out almost like an arthouse hoax. Guadagnino, I'm sure, had a vision of what he wanted this movie to represent and symbolize, but he never lets the audience in on this vision. So when the ending plays out as bonkers as it does, we're supposed to get the full reveal of what was going on, but there's so much unexplained subtext that the movie falls flat and feels like an utter mess. Everywhere you look the film is being described as a horror, suspense, mystery, fantasy film but it really never falls into any of those parameters. It's not scary. The mystery doesn't unfold enough for the viewer to follow and figure it out. There's some grotesque moments, but never enough to illicit any suspense. And it's a fantasy only in trying to figure out how this movie is going to appeal to any viewer - other than the ones who watch something "artsy" and claim it's good because they "just know art". It has the appearance of substance without actually having any. The movie is at least an hour too long and it's almost painstaking to sit through even for the most 'cerebral' viewer.

On the other hand-- I'm also willing to put forth that maybe the movie just wasn't meant for me. Clearly, there's a huge (attempted) feminist message running throughout the film that may or may not have been fully understood by the standard white male (as I am). There's a true (and even slightly clever) "fuck you" to the patriarchy and a lot of people are going to be turned off by just that. I don't mind movies like that, in fact I wish there were more. I just wish this message hadn't been so muddled in its delivery. It's clear Guadagnino is trying to make this statement in just his casting alone. The movie is almost entirely female, with a few male actors peppered throughout, but even the lead male character is portrayed by a female under several layers of impressive makeup. So, maybe the movie just wasn't made to speak to ME. Just like that painting at an art museum that I just don't get - it's not meant to speak to me. It doesn't make it any less of a piece of art just because its intended viewer isn't a thirty-year-old white dude. But, it's also unclear if the movie is so confusing and messy that I've just willed up this explanation because it has the pretense that it's smarter than I am. And for that I will say that maybe the movie isn't bad per se, but it might just not have been my cup of tea.

I heard a handful of people walking out of the theater saying how much they loved the movie. However, the direct quote is "I loved it... I don't know why I loved it... but I loved it." So, it might actually be an artistic mirage after all. Or maybe I'm just not the guy to tell you if it was a good film or not. This is one of the few instances that I'm not going to tell whether you should see it or avoid it. Just understand that the marketing for this movie is wholly different than the film itself. You're going to have your own strong opinions of the film and there's really no guiding you with this one. But, if you do see it, and you pick up a lot more than I did, feel free to fill me in on what I might've missed or misunderstood because what I saw was an attempted artistic masterpiece that's nothing more than an optical illusion.

(Also - no clue how to grade this movie, so I'm going slightly higher than my instinct because it might just be smarter than me.)

C-