Monday, September 24, 2018
This movie is based on a true story that happened in the 80's. Because, you know, we're a bit obsessed with the 80's right now and Hollywood likes these drug trafficking movies. So to continue both of these trends, someone dug up this story of Richard Wershe Jr., aka White Boy Rick, a young boy in Detroit who was caught up in the drug business at an all too early age. While perhaps not a drug kingpin like some of the trailers claim, even though the movie itself doesn't really do so, Rick was heavily involved in the drug business by the time he turned 17. I would say a big portion of the credit for this goes to a poor upbringing with divorced parents, who weren't exactly model citizens themselves, combined with being caught up in the wrong crowd. Living in Detroit certainly doesn't help matters there as the crime in the city over the years, and even today, is very well documented. So being "caught in the wrong crowd" wasn't a very hard thing to do. His sister got involved with a sketchy dude, which got him to be involved with sketchy friends. Pretty soon he knew his way around things fairly well in terms of petty crime and the drug business, which got him addicted to this lifestyle of drugs, money, girls and what not, which we all know never ends well.
As far as the movie itself goes, I will give the movie all the credit for introducing me to this story. It's one of those movies where you immediately head over to the internet and Google the true story of White Boy Rick. Sometimes this causes the movie to be ruined in retrospect if you learn that the movie was inaccurate in telling this story. In certain instances, I can let that slide. But for the most part I think that if you are going to tell a true story via film, then your main objective should be to accurately tell that story. If that story doesn't lend itself to a Hollywood film, then find a different story that does and tell that one instead. If you can't find a true story that tells things the way you want it to be told, just come up with a fictional story to tell. I mean, people can watch things like "Breaking Bad" and be equally as affected by the themes of the series even though the characters and story itself are fictional. All that said, you may think that I'm leading you to believe I'm going to claim that "White Boy Rick" screws this up, but that's not the case. From what I can gather, "White Boy Rick" does a great job in accurately telling this story. Thus I commend the film for finding a fascinating story and telling it without twisting the facts of what really happened.
However, accurately telling a true story is not the only factor in making a good film based on a true story. That daunting task of covering a large time span is another major element that you need to get right and sadly "White Boy Rick" rather embarrassingly falls flat on its face when it comes to that. There's a lot of time to cover in this movie, but there's no sense of urgency in the pacing or the editing. The movie is filled with a lot of long, drawn out scenes that feel less important to the plot of the movie. In between all of those sequences are all of the more important scenes that are jumped over too quickly. Had the movie been paced properly, there would be potential for it to be similar to last year's "American Made," the drug movie with Tom Cruise, or perhaps a "Sicario." Maybe we can even look at the small screen to something like the aforementioned "Breaking Bad," which is an excellent series, or "Ozark," which I've just started, but is so far really good. In these movies or shows, the pacing properly allows for a story that leaves you on the edge of your seat given the subject matter at hand. But with "White Boy Rick," I found myself begging for the movie to get to the point. Then when it did, it ran right past the point, then slowed down again at the wrong spot.
Even so, there was still potential with this film. The inherent problem with doing a movie like this is that there's only so many ways a story like this ends. Either the person somehow gets out and gets clean or they get thrown in prison or wind up dead. And very rarely do stories like this end up as the first option. Movies about people getting involved with the drug industry usually end up with them dead or in prison. So in telling a story like this, there's an added challenge of coming with something fresh and unique otherwise you just get another story of someone who ruined their lives doing drugs or selling drugs. But with proper execution, you can still manage to make an intense film that leaves you on the edge of your seat. "White Boy Rick" had an interesting enough story with the angle of this being a young kid who got involved in drugs, but it ended up being mostly a miss for me because the execution of the film felt like all of the emphasis was in all of the wrong places, leaving me mostly bored throughout instead of intensely invested. I'll give the movie credit for getting me interested in the real story, but the more I think about it, the more I lean towards the idea of this not being a story worthy of being invested in. So I'll give "White Boy Rick" a 6/10.
Friday, September 21, 2018
As far as my personal experience, I was one of the people who was rather upset with the first film. Yeah, sure, if you go in completely blind to the story of Louis Zamperini, you might have found the story rather uplifting and rewarding. Angelina Jolie directed the movie and she showed decent competency in her ability to make a film. It was well shot and well acted. It did a pretty good job at telling the first two-thirds of Zamperini's story. But therein lies the problem. In typical mainstream Hollywood fashion, the filmmakers took a very religious story and removed the religion from it, instead choosing to focus on the horrors of war and war-related action sequences. And even then, they sanitized the story quite a bit in order to get their family-friendly PG-13 rating, which in this instance didn't do Zamperini's experiences justice. What happened to him was a lot more brutal than what the movie chose to display. But even putting that aside, this specific story was a whole lot more than just a guy who became a prisoner of war in Japan. It's a story about a guy whose experiences in war completely destroyed him and nearly ruined his life, yet the movie summarized things by simply stating in the credits that he lived up to his promise to follow God.
And that's where we get to this movie. After seeing "Unbroken" in theaters, I thought that was the end of things as far as movies based on Zamperini's life. But then I saw this trailer. A movie based on what happened next. Apparently I wasn't the only one who felt cheated after watching Angelina Jolie's movie. I was rather elated to see that a Christian studio set out to do Zamperini's story justice because the story of what happened to him when he got home was the best part of the story. So while the rest of the world was checking out Shane Black's latest addition the Predator franchise, simply titled "The Predator," a super creative title might I add, I went out to see "Path to Redemption." I considered that a pretty good decision. "The Predator" was getting panned, anyways. And I have never seen any of the Predator movies, so why would I be a good judge of that? But given how passionate I was about the book "Unbroken," and how disappointed I was about the first movie, I needed to see this movie. And the world needed my review because none of these other critics were going to give it a fair look. Except for maybe Josh Terry of the Deseret News. And yeah, he gave it a good review, so you can take that into account. He's someone I generally trust.
All of that said, my level of excitement for this movie was officially set at cautiously optimistic. I loved the idea that this follow-up was happening. I didn't love the specific studio that it was coming from. Pure Flix. They have a very rocky record when it comes to Christian films. Yeah, "Woodlawn" was alright and I hear "The Case for Christ" was surprisingly good, but they also did "God's Not Dead 2" as well as "God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness," the latter of which was so poorly received by all parties earlier this year that it didn't even expand far enough for me to see it. So yeah, Pure Flix is very well known for distributing the very preachy, Protestant films that make you feel like you walked into a Sunday sermon instead of a movie theater. Sometimes they work good enough, but more often than not they usually are severely lacking in cinematic quality, forgetting about things such as acting, directing and proper storytelling. Unfortunately that's exactly where "Path to Redemption" falters. It's not a very high quality film. For everything that "Unbroken" does wrong, I will give credit where credit is due and Angelina Jolie did a better directed job than Harold Cronk did in "Path to Redemption" and Jack O'Connell was a much better Zamperini than Samuel Hunt.
I think another major problem with this movie was that I believe it would've been extremely effective as the final 30 minutes of the first "Unbroken" rather than being a 90-minute movie on its own. I'll hold my ground that this portion of the book is what makes the story interesting, but it's the final third of the book as opposed to being a second book on its own. There's not enough content to fill an entire movie and make it perfectly engaging, especially when you don't have a very competent team of writers to begin with. The moments where Zamperini is having nightmares about the war or seeing hallucinations of the main Japanese guy who tortured him are extremely effective. There's a scene with him at a restaurant where the server gives him rice, but he flips out because his memories with rice consistent of it being full of bugs and worms, thus making that scene effective. But in between moments like this, there's a lot of moments with everyone living life in a very normal way and those moments weren't very engaging. They spent a long time on the love story between him and his wife and that love story wasn't very interesting, which in turn made the sequences at the end with their marriage falling apart less emotionally impactful given that I wasn't as invested.
That said, I walked out of this film having been much less offended at the final result than the first movie. Yes, Angelina Jolie made a better film on a technical scale than Harold Cronk did in this sequel. But whereas Jolie and company ripped the heart and soul out of Zamerini's story, Cronk and company actually had good intentions and stayed true to the full story. It's a lower quality film, but it's a more accurate film that does a better job at doing justice to the story and to the book that I have come to love. In a perfect world, perhaps we could combine the two films into one proper "Unbroken" film that tells the whole story of Zamperini as told in Hillenbrand's and does so with proper cinematic qualities, as in good acting, good directing, good cinematography and good storytelling abilities. And maybe the perfect person for that would be Mel Gibson, who has proven to be great with his war films in accurately capturing the horrors of war, but also being able to do justice to the religious side of things, like he did with "Hacksaw Ridge." Given that he also directed "The Passion of the Christ," I think he'd be the perfect director to make a proper "Unbroken" film. But alas, we'll just have to live with what we have. My grade for "Unbroken: Path to Redemption" is a 7/10.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
"Searching" was released in nine theaters in August 24 and expanded nationwide the following week on August 31. I saw it somewhere around that nationwide expansion, I think on a Thursday night screening on August 30. I suppose ScreenGems put it in that date range because they had success with "Don't Breathe" in August 2016. Normally when I personally think of ScreenGems, I think lazy and awful, which is why I was strange seeing their logo in front of a good movie for a change. I think "Don't Breathe" and "Searching" are the only two good movies they've distributed. The rest include "No Good Deed," "The Perfect Guy," "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies," "When the Bough Breaks," "Proud Mary" and "Slender Man," so forgive me for normally not being excited about a ScreenGems thriller. But again, this was initially a Sundance film, so that's why I've had my eye on it for a while. After seeing it nearly three weeks ago, why am I just now getting around to writing my review? Honestly when I walked out of the theater, one of my first thoughts was, "How in the heck do I write this review?" Normally reviews are pretty basic, but when it comes to a twisty, mysterious thriller, anything I say could be considered a spoiler that ruins the experience, so I got stumped.
If any of you have seen the Studio C skit "Spoiler Alert," this is exactly how I feel right now and how I have felt since walking out of the theater. If you haven't seen that, search it right now on YouTube and you'll get me. So what do I say? I almost want to simply recommend you go see it if you enjoy a smart thriller that keeps you guessing throughout. It can get a bit dark, but it's only PG-13, so it's more user-friendly when compared to other thrillers that are similar. If that's good enough for you, then perhaps my job here is done. If I've already spoiled the whole movie for you based on me simply saying that I like it and that it's a smart thriller, then I sincerely apologize. I will continue to attempt a full review, but from here on out I'm going to give the warning that you may want to simply not read this review if you are excited about this movie until after you've seen it. From that, I suppose the next logical thing is to give you a premise. The general premise here is pretty basic. We have a father, mother and daughter living a seemingly normal life. A thing happens to the mother that transforms our happy family into a less happy family with just a father and daughter living together. Then the daughter goes missing, leaving the father all alone to figure out what happened to his life.
I think there's an especially deep connection to the idea of trying to be a single parent. A child often needs both parents in order to progress. A father and a mother bring very different things to the table that are critical to a child's development. But when one parent either leaves or passes away, the remaining parent can struggle to properly raise the child. That's why I think John Cho does an excellent job in this movie as a single father trying his best to raise a teenage daughter. He brings a lot of charm and charisma to the table here and you care for him. You fully believe that he's an excellent husband and father, but when he's forced to fly solo, he does an excellent job of acting like a normal human being. Parents are far from perfect even when they have each other to lean on. But when you lose your spouse and have to raise a child on your own, that's a difficult task. When he approaches certain people who bluntly tell him how much he's failed in raising his daughter, well, they're kinda right. He did a lot of things wrong that could've potentially prevented this situation. But at the same time, he's only human and was doing the best he could, yet has to face the harsh realities that his daughter might be gone and there's nothing he can do to fix that. He also makes plenty of mistakes during the investigation, but at the same time he acts in a way that many might act.
Thus these themes transformed this movie from your typical missing person mystery investigation to a surprisingly deep and thought-provoking film. Even in moments where you can say it's a bit by-the-numbers, it's a lot more than that due to the execution of the plot and the excellent performances from the cast. Now in speaking about taking a basic by-the-numbers premise and making it original, the style of this movie is rather fascinating as it's all told through computer screens and social media pages. Every time you see the father, or any character for that matter, it's from the viewpoint of a computer or phone, usually through face time. The movie also spends a lot of time on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and various other social media platforms. And it's not discount versions of these in order to avoid copyright. It's the actual social media sites, meaning they probably paid a good premium in order to use all of them. And the way they used them in the movie are extremely clever in ways that I'll let you experience on your own. But there's a lot of attention spent on the details of each page and each site that manages to keep your attention for the entire time, thus the movie is able to avoid feeling like a gimmick and rather becomes extremely creative and clever.
My biggest problem with this style in "Searching" is the same problem I had with the movie "Chronicle" with its usage of found footage. For most of "Chronicle," the use of found footage was completely justified. But towards the end, the narrative didn't lend itself to found footage because there were certain instances where you simply would not be carrying around a camera and filming. Thus "Chronicle" had to take some shortcuts to finish the story by jumping from various street cameras and whatnot connect the dots. And that's the same thing with "Searching." Not only does the father spend an awful lot of time face timing the detective on his case because the narrative required it, but at times when they were out in the field searching without their computers and phones, the movie was pushed a corner a bit because they committed themselves to this style, so they taped things together with breaking news stories on the internet that filled in the gaps. And that was fine, but it was those points in the movie where the style no longer fit the narrative. I certainly commend them for their dedication, but it was pushing it a bit in these scenes, especially since the story of this daughter went a lot more viral than it probably would've in real life.
But these are more nitpicks than anything. I think this movie has a lot of poignant themes regarding parenthood and relationships in general. There's a strong sense of humanity to this movie that I think a lot of people are going to be able to connect with on a very personal level. I think it's going to cause people to look at all of the people in their lives, whether it be children, parents, friends, classmates, coworkers, siblings or associates and cause them to wonder how well they know the people around them and make them wonder if there's more that they could be doing to build these relationships that they might not be properly building at the present time. And in speaking about this, I've only scratched the surface with this movie. There's a lot more characters in this movie and a lot more plot to discuss that I am simply avoiding. In fact, this whole review has been mostly a deep dive into the first portion of this movie and I allowed myself to go deep into this initial section because I don't know how to discuss anything else without spoiling the movie. I want to tell you my reactions to the middle section of the movie and especially to the ending, but my hands are tied and I'm just going to have to leave you hanging. All that I'm going to say is that my grade is a 9/10.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
This movie comes to us via The Conjuring franchise. With this being the second spin-off of the main two movies, with a whole room full of potential other spin-offs waiting in the wings, many of started referring to this as The Conjuring Cinematic Universe, because, you know, ever since "The Avengers," we all have to have one of those. But we're now five films in and it's been a mostly enjoyable ride. The biggest issue I have with the main two films is that they spend way too much time trying to convince the audience that these are true stories that actually happened, using that as a main scare tactic. When you look up the actual events, it's quite obvious that it's all a bunch of hogwash and the main investigators have about as much real life credence as any of those other dumb ghost story investigators that you see on TV. Not to say that all demonic possession stuff is fictional, but these specific cases are fantasy that paranoid individuals blow out of proportion. If the movies would just accept that and focus on giving me a good horror movie without pushing the true story angle so hard, I wouldn't be complaining about that so much because both "The Conjuring" and "The Conjuring 2" are solidly crafted horror films with good stories and interesting themes
Yet that's the most frustrating thing about this. James Wan, who is a master at horror and the reason this whole Conjuring franchise exists, helped right this script. In three out of four of these movies, everyone involved has known exactly what needs to be done in order to make the movies work. So what went wrong this time around? Before I go into specifics in tearing this down, I will say on a positive note that on a technical scale, this movie is quite excellent. The set designs are quite excellent. This Nun place that we spend most of the movie in is a creepy place set in the middle of no where with dark passages and creepy hallways. The score of the movie is effective. The movie is wonderfully shot with great visual effects and near perfect cinematography. We even had excellent acting throughout as our main characters, a young Nun who hadn't quite taken her vows and a more experienced priest assigned to investigate this matter, were characters worth caring about. Sure, we had a comic relief character named Frenchie that was mildly annoying, although I don't think he was quite as bad as some have claimed and didn't detract from the movie at all. And we even had a solid opening sequence that made me believe I was going to enjoy this movie despite the reviews.
But outside all of that, there's just nothing here. It's like a fancy, shiny outer shell with nothing inside. I said earlier that all they had to do was come up with a decent enough mythology behind this and I would've been sold. But there is no mythology here. Not one that's worth anything, that is. The set up here is that we have a demon from Hell who is trying to escape, but throughout history the Nuns at this place have done a great job of keeping the demon at bay by keeping it locked in Hell thanks to the blood of Christ. That is until sometime about 20 years before "The Conjuring" an airstrike of sorts breaks the seal and causes the demon to escape. But the demon can't become fully realized until it possesses a human form, so it wanders around as a nameless, shapeless demon taking the form of a Nun in order to try to possess one of the Nuns in the place. And that's it. That's our demon Nun mythology. The movie begins when a Nun at this place commits suicide, which causes the Church in the area to send people out to investigate what's going on and see if that place is still holy. I just wanted more out of this premise. I wasn't expecting a lot. Just more than what I got. I've seen monster-of-the-week episodes in "Supernatural" that were more creative.
In summary, this whole situation felt like the writers and director of "The Conjuring 2" came up with an excellent idea of what could've made a great spin-off movie and teased that with the demon Nun in their movie, but then whoever got put in charge of turning that concept into a full movie, whether it being themselves or a new team, ended up coming up completely blank as to how to execute this. There's great set designs, great acting, and near perfection on a technical scale, but no substance. There's a paper thin, run-of-the-mill demon mythology, a non-existent story, confusing supernatural events that showed the filmmakers didn't even know the rules of their own movie or what this thing was capable of and why, and a whole lot of attempted cliche jump scares and loud noises. The demon itself barely showed up in its own movie and when it did, it just unintimidatingly growled at the characters, which almost made me roll over laughing instead of cowering in my seat. But hey, I hear that the first Annabelle had a lot of these same issues. Yet they turned around and came up with a good movie the second time around with "Annabelle: Creation." Maybe they can follow suit with a sequel here, given how much money its made. My grade for "The Nun" is a 5/10.
Monday, September 10, 2018
September 7th - 9th-
The biggest question for "The Nun" will be its long-term potential. On one hand, you could point out the fact that this is the beginning of the Halloween season. A full two months in theaters leading up to Halloween could prove very fruitful, as was the case with "IT" last year. However, despite having excellent totals for its opening weekend, what "The Nun" doesn't have is positive reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes, critics were brutal with the film, giving it a 26 percent score, the worst score in the franchise, below the first "Annabelle," which got a 29 percent score. Audiences weren't much better as they gave it a 49 percent on the audience side of Rotten Tomatoes as well as a C cinemascore from opening day audiences. This leads one to believe that a front loaded showing is probably in the cards. Looking at "Annabelle," that only had a 2.27 multiplier. If "The Nun" falls in line there, a final total of around $120 million domestically would be where it ends up, meaning it would fall short of the $137.4 million total of "The Conjuring," which remains the best domestic total in the franchise. But still, a $120 million total most likely means more Nun movies will be on the way.
The news wasn't quite as positive for our other two wide releases, led by Jennifer Garner's revenge-thriller Peppermint, which barely edged out "Crazy Rich Asians" for second place with $13.4 million when weekend actuals were released. The movie saw Garner back in an action role, which is the type of role where she made a name for herself in the early 2000's with the likes of "Alias" and "Elektra." In "Peppermint," Garner stars as a woman whose family gets killed and she eventually decides to take justice into her own hands when the police's work on the case doesn't satisfy her. In terms of reaction, critics were even harsher on this movie than "The Nun," giving it a 13 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Although, unlike "The Nun," audiences seemed more on board with this, giving it an 82 percent audience score as well as a respectable B+ cinemascore, so there's an outside chance that this holds on fairly decently. A comparable title might be last September's "American Assassin," which opened to $14.8 million and wound up with $36.2 million, a 2.45 multiplier. A similar multiplier for "Peppermint" would allow the movie to sneak past $30 million total and possibly come close to $40 million if word of mouth is decent enough to overcome the critical beating it's taking.
Debuting outside the top 10 this weekend was God Bless the Broken Road, which could only muster up $1.39 million from 1,272 theaters. This puts the movie in identical territory as, well, "The Identical," another movie from distributor Freestyle Releasing, which debuted to $1.59 million in September 2014. "The Identical" ended with just $2.8 million, which might be where "God Bless the Broken Road" will end up as there's a long list of smaller Christian films that opened in this million dollar range that quickly disappeared from theaters. "God Bless the Broken Road" comes from the director of "God's Not Dead" and "God's Not Dead 2" and is about a woman trying to get back on the road of faith after the passing of her husband put her on a bit of a rocky path. She also meets a race car driver to potentially help her out.
September 14th - 16th-
The early to mid September thriller seems to be a popular thing recently and that will continue this month with A Simple Favor debuting in around 3,000 theaters. While there's no good comparison to last September, the previous three years all had at least one major thriller that will be in the same ball park as "A Simple Favor," with "No Good Deed" opening to $24.2 million in September 2014, "The Perfect Guy" opening to $25.9 million in September 2015, "The Visit" opening to $25.4 million also in September 2015, and "When the Bough Breaks" opening to $14.2 million in September 2016. "A Simple Favor" stars Anna Kendrick trying to uncover the truth about her best friend's disappearance, with said friend being played by Blake Lively. The movie is directed by Paul Feig, who usually is directing comedies like "Bridesmaids," "The Heat," "Spy" and "Ghostbusters" as opposed to thrillers, so looking at his filmography is probably not the best comparison here. In a perfect world for this film, this would hit the mid $20 million range like the aforementioned thrillers from 2014 and 2015, thus potentially trying to play spoiler if "The Predator" fails, but "When the Bough Breaks" is probably a better comparison as this will probably come in somewhere in the low teens.
Attempting to challenge "A Simple Favor" for what will most likely be the third spot, as "The Nun" will likely come in second with around $20 million, is our latest drug cartel movie White Boy Rick. This sort of premise has become quite popular recently, both on the big screen and the small screen. In the TV/Netflix series world, we have shows like "Breaking Bad," "Ozark" and "Narcos" that have done quite well. On the big screen, we have both "Sicario" movies as well as the best comparison to "White Boy Rick" in "American Made," which came out last September and was also a true story about a normal person who got involved in the drug business due to the potential of earning money. "White Boy Rick" tells the story of a teenage white boy named Rick who got heavily involved in the drug business before he turned 16. On that note, "American Made" opened to $16.8 million last September, a total which would win "White Boy Rick" third place if it accomplished that. However, the biggest difference between the two movies is the theater count as "White Boy Rick" will be debuting in around 2,400 theaters as opposed to 3,100. "American Made" also had the star power of Tom Cruise and a major studio in Universal pushing it, neither of which "White Boy Rick" has.
The final film opening this weekend is another smaller Christian film, Unbroken: Path to Redemption. This comes via Pure Flix, who distributed "Samson," "God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness" and "Death of a Nation" this year so far, all of which opened below $3 million. In fact, Pure Flix's biggest opening weekend is "God's Not Dead 2" with $7.6 million and "Woodlawn" with $4 million. "Path to Redemption" has the chance to be on the higher end of that spectrum given the "Unbroken" connection. While it may not be completely appropriate to call this a sequel to "Unbroken," given that this is a completely different cast and crew than the original movie, "Path to Redemption" tells the rest of the story that the original film left out. In regards to Laura Hillenbrand's best-selling book based on the life of Louis Zamperini, an Olympian turned World War II prisoner, the book had three major sections: before the war, during the war, and after the war. "Unbroken" told the first two sections of that story, leaving the final third of the book to be summarized in a couple of sentences at the end. "Path to Redemption" attempts to do justice to that final act by focusing their movie on the events of Zamperini's life when he got home, which was a big reason for the book's success.
September 21st - 23rd-
While "House with a Clock" is the only major film being released this week, there are two smaller films set for wide release and the most notable of those two is Fahrenheit 11/9, the latest political documentary from Michael Moore. Back in 2004, "Fahrenheit 9/11" was Michael Moore's radical political documentary that tried to show how awful President Bush was in hopes to get him to lose the election that year. It failed in that goal as President Bush won a second term. But in the process "Fahrenheit 9/11" made an astounding $119.2 million, which is the highest grossing documentary by a large margin. Now in 2018, 14 years after "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore has flipped around the title with his anti-Trump documentary, which is exactly what "Fahrenheit 11/9" is. In terms of the box office, ain't no way this is getting close to "Fahrenheit 9/11," which opened to $23.9 million on it's way to that $119.2 million. Rather, a look at fellow political radical Dinesh D'Souza could clue us in, even though D'Souza is literally on the exact opposite side of the political spectrum. Nonetheless, "2016: Obama's America" opened to $6.5 million in 2012 while "Hillary's America" opened to $3.9 million in 2016. Somewhere in that ball park would probably be where this lands.
And finally, Amazon Studios will be delivering Life Itself into theaters following its premier at the Toronto International Film Festival earlier this month. "Life Itself" is a multi-generational drama diving into all of the twists and turns that life throws at people as it follows Oscar Isaac and Olivia Wilde as a couple who go from college romance to marriage to the birth of their first child and potentially more. In addition to Isaac and Wilde, Annette Bening, Mandy Patinkin, Olivia Cooke, Antonio Banderas, Samuel L. Jackson among others. The problem, though, with this type of movie is that in order to make a true dent in the box office coming out of TIFF, you need to have a lot of buzz following your premier and that's not something that "Life Itself" got at all. In fact, out of nine reviews out on Rotten Tomatoes, eight of them are rotten, giving this an early score of 11 percent. Yes, that's a very early sample size and it's possible that general audiences are a lot less bitter towards this, but that reaction comes as a bit of a red flag, meaning this movie might be the type of movie that flies under everyone's radars and makes little impact when it comes to the box office.
September 28th - 30th-
The biggest competition for "Smallfoot" will be Night School, a movie that has been trending upwards. The movie stars Kevin Hart as someone who is forced to attend night school in hopes to pass the GED to finish high school. Tiffany Haddish, star of "Girls Trip," plays the role of his teacher that is working to whip him into shape. And of course all of them end up getting into some sort of trouble in order to up the ante for the comedy in the movie. Now there's plenty of comedies to look at from this year for comparison. We have "Blockers," which opened to $20.6 million, "Life of the Party" with $17.9 million, "Game Night" with $17 million, and "Tag" with $14.9 million. "Night School" could slip into that range in the mid- to upper-teens, but the star power of Hart and Haddish could prove explosive, especially if the movie connects with audiences. "Girl's Trip," starring Haddish, surprised last year with $31.2 million while Hart helped power "Central Intelligence" to a $35.5 million opening in 2016. "Night School" also has a lighter PG-13 rating, which means it could have an appeal with teens and adults alike, which is something that greatly helped "Central Intelligence." So don't be surprised if this ends up winning the weekend.
The Halloween season continues to roll on as we get closer to the holiday in October and that leads us to our second major adult horror film of the season, if we're counting "The Nun" as the first and that is Hell Fest. This will act as more of an original horror, which should put it at a disadvantage when compared to "The Nun" and "Halloween," both of which have a large built-in fan base going in, especially the 40-year run of the "Halloween" franchise. "Hell Fest" is going to try to start from scratch and gain its own fan base, which will largely be determined by the quality of the movie itself. The premise surrounds a Halloween theme park that has a costumed killer walking out picking park attendants off one by one as said park attendants are initially unsure of whether being chased by this killer is a part of the experience or is actually a deadly situation where their lives are in danger. The film is going for an 80's slasher vibe, which could work out well as 80's nostalgia is a huge thing in our society right now. But if reaction to the movie isn't very positive, horror fans will most likely choose to save their money for "Halloween." Chances are that the production budget with this wasn't very high, so either way it probably won't take a whole lot for this to turn out a profit.
The final film of the month is the, wait for it, seventh film adaptation of the classic novel Little Women. There were two silent films in 1917 and 1918 as well as major adaptations in 1933 by George Cukor, 1949 by Mervyn LeRoy, 1978 by David Lowell Rich and 1994 by Gillian Armstrong. There have been six television series made, four by BBC in 1950, 1958, 1970 and 2017 as well as two Japanese anime series in the 1980's. There was a Broadway musical that began in 2005 and an American Opera version that began in 1998. And if that's not enough, there's another film adaptation coming in December 2019 by Oscar-nominated director Greta Gerwig of "Lady Bird" fame, which is set to star Timothee Chalamet, Emma Watson, Saoirse Ronan, Meryl Streep and Laura Dern. This 2018 version, though, was made to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Louisa May Alcott's classic novel and will be directed Clare Niederpruem in her feature-length directorial debut. The main star is Lea Thompson. The rest of the cast consists of a lot of people that general audiences probably don't know too well. And the distributor here is brand new. So there's all kinds of red flags here as a lot of people might now know this version even exists, which might lead to small box office returns.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Sharknado was a franchise that began back in 2013 and became quite the phenomenon. Dare I say... it took the world by storm? Because, yeah, making an purposely bad movie that ends up being so bad that it's good is a tricky thing to do. There's probably hundreds, if not thousands, of movies where the filmmakers tried to make an enjoyably bad movie, but failed miserably and wound up with a movie that's simply really bad, resulting in something that was forgotten about shortly after release and only is remembered briefly when it shows up in one of those 10-movie packs in the $5 bin at your local Walmart because that's literally the only way anyone might be tricked into buying it as no sane person would do so otherwise. There's also plenty of examples of movies where a person honestly tried to make a good movie, but failed so miserably that the final result ended up being hilarious for reasons unintentional to the original filmmakers. "The Room" by Tommy Wiseau is a classic example of that and has hit such a high cult status that a movie called "The Disaster Artist" was made last year about the making of that movie. "Sharknado" is neither of these. It's an example of an attempt at a purposely bad movie that was hilariously awesome. And it worked.
In fact, it worked so well that the first movie has become cemented into our culture to the point where it basically stands side by side with "Jaws" in terms of how iconic it is in shark cinema, but for completely opposite reasons. "Jaws" is a perfect example of a GOOD shark movie while "Sharknado" is a perfect example of a BAD shark movie. Love it or hate it, you've definitely heard about it. Which proves my point of its iconic status. If we were to do a "Family Feud" style of survey where we asked people to name a shark movie, "Jaws" and "Sharknado" would most assuredly be the top two answers on the board. When it comes to a critical standpoint, I can't in good conscience give any of these six Sharknado movies a pass because the acting is horrible, the story is horrible, the movie has no sense of logic or common sense, the effort of including science in the movies is always embarrassing, and the special effects are literally some of the worst you'll ever see when it comes to a movie made post-2010. These are literally horrendously awful movies. But that's kinda the point. If you want a serious shark movie that actually tries, go re-watch "Jaws" or check out recent shark movies "The Shallows," "47 Meters Down" or "The Meg." "Sharknado" is for turning off your brain and enjoying.
But then there's the case of the rest of the movies. Because, yes, they kept on doing this once a year, even though the novelty of it wore off pretty quickly and many people don't even realize the sequels exist. I personally admit to being one of said individuals who just didn't care that much after the first two. I never even watched any of them past the second one until this summer. Back in April I excitedly showed a group of my friends "2001: A Space Odyssey" in honor of its 50th anniversary. Sadly most of them hated it, which made me upset a bit since it's my all-time favorite sci-fi film. But it sparked this idea to go watch a different type of sci-fi film. This Sharknado franchise. So over the course of the summer, we watched all six of these Sharknado films, ending with the sixth one last night, which initially debuted on the Syfy Channel on Sunday evening. And yes, we all thoroughly enjoyed all of them. In fact, this group setting is important to note because a big part of the reason why we enjoyed them is the camaraderie among us friends. This franchise is designed to gather a group of friends together and laugh at the absurdity of it all. If you watch the movies by yourself at night on Netflix (the first five are there), I don't think it's going to be the same.
On the flip side of that, the biggest problem I have with the Sharknado sequels, like an actual problem that was detrimental to my entertainment, because at this point I don't care how poorly made they are, is that it's really hard to remember which events happened in which movie. And it's not like I had a year in between to forget the specific events. They're all fresh on my mind. When we watched the fourth and fifth movies, we had new people join us and I honestly had a really hard time giving a basic outline of what happened chronologically in the previous movies that, in some cases, we had watched the week before. A new character would show up, requiring a quick explanation of who they are and which movie they're from, and I struggled. I had to turn to IMDb to remind myself which side characters were in which movie while looking up a Wikipedia summary of who the characters actually were, even though the faces looked familiar. Thus each of the movies were all extremely enjoyable in the moment, making for some excellent summer memories of 2018 in going through all of them, but now that it's been a month since we watched the fifth and when this sixth one debuted on TV, all the Sharknado sequels blend together to make one giant cluster of Sharknadoism.
All of that leads us into the specifics with this final movie that I have listed here in my review title. At this point I feel I should re-title this review to read "Franchise Review: Sharknado" or something like that since this has been more of a review of the whole franchise, but eh. You get the point. Quite honestly, this final movie is one where I have very mixed feelings with. On one hand, whereas the first five movies all clump together, making me think that the original "Sharknado" is really the only one that needs to be watched, this final movie is one where it's definitely easy to separate from the rest because it's the first movie where they added a bit of creativity to the plot instead of simply trying to one-up themselves with bigger and more disastrous Sharknados. This is the movie where they went back in time, giving us a non-stop stream of "Back to the Future" references the whole movie. And not only did they go back in time, they went through a whole bunch of different time periods, beginning with the dinosaurs and progressively going forward until the year 20013. And no, that's not a type. They go 18,000 years into the future before finally ending in 2013, where this all began. And for that I give this movie a lot of props instead of rinsing, washing and repeating the previous movies.
The other major problem with this crammed plot that I speak of is that those three best sequences are all towards the first half of the movie. They do go to the Revolutionary War in between Merlin and the Wild West, but that part comes off as unhilariously awkward. The second half of the movie is actually kinda boring. When we went to the 70's, the 90's and 20013, I found myself not really caring for the movie. I think a part of that was because the opening title sequence was animated and included brief sequences of Abraham Lincoln Shark Hunter and Nazi Sharks. That had me excited because I thought those were going to be in the REAL movie, so I spent the whole movie excitedly anticipating them, only to feel robbed that they weren't in the movie, but were just in that opening title sequence. As if they ran out of budget with the first half of production, so they decided to go even more low-budget by hanging out in the 70's and 90's because that was easier to accomplish rather than delivering on what they initially planned on. That and their rules for time travel made no sense and there was a story between Fin Shepard and his son Gil that was really hard to follow, but because this was a Sharknado movie, I found myself not being too bothered by those last two points.
When push comes to shove, I've decided that I'll simply stick to "Legends of Tomorrow" when it comes to time traveling shows because "The Last Sharknado" followed a similar formula as "Legends" by jumping through time. In fact, every sequence in "The Last Sharknado" is a time period that "Legends" has spent a significant time in. But "Legends" is way more thought out, has much better writing and acting, and is more cohesive and organized rather than just being a whole ton of small segments crammed into one 90-minute movie just because they can. Given that we watched this movie on TV with commercials, the commercial breaks ended up derailing the movie quite a bit and the second half of the movie wasn't interesting enough to completely grab our attention back. We got lost in conversation during the commercials and the movie felt like it was interrupting our conversations when it came back on. So perhaps wait until this shows up on Netflix to watch it? As far as a grade goes, I can't realistically give any of these movies higher than a 5/10 because of how bad they are, so that's why I'm creating my own specialized Sharnado scale. A 10 Shark score equals laugh out loud hilarious while a 1 Shark score equals bored to tears. This final Sharnado gets a 6 Shark score.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Yet here I am reviewing "Crazy Rich Asians" anyways after seeing it on opening night, which in this case was Wednesday, August 15, instead of Friday, August 17. Why the change of heart? Easy. The reviews. This movie was standing at 100 percent on Rotten Tomatoes after the initial reviews came in. As I'm currently typing this, it's officially certified fresh at 93 percent with 115 views counted. That could fluctuate a bit as the weekend moves on, but that number of reviews is enough to make me confident that it'll remain in that region when the dust completely settles. So that moved me from uninterested to curious. This is still a genre that I'm extremely harsh on, so I wasn't fully convinced that I would love it, but I do try to maintain an open mind. If the reaction to a movie is positive, I try not to be the type of person who ignorantly skips a movie anyways just because I didn't like the idea or the trailers didn't grab me. It's good to give movies a chance and formulate your own opinion after having seen the movie rather than before. So with nothing else interesting on the schedule, especially since "Mile 22" and "Alpha" don't even open until Friday, anyways, I thought, what the heck. I'll give this a shot. And I'm glad I did because this is the new gold standard for romance films.
The first thing that I have to say about this film is that it is jaw-droppingly gorgeous. The plot, which I'll get to more in a second, revolves around a super fancy, high-class Chinese family living in Singapore who are celebrating a wedding that's essentially the event of the decade there. It's akin to a son or daughter of the Queen getting married, like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in real life earlier this summer. Because of this, I feel that director Jon M. Chu had the desire to make this movie look as high class and fancy as possible in order to set the stage for the story. If this was the goal, then mission accomplished. Once we get over to Singapore, where I'd say around 95 percent of this movie takes place, I was bedazzled. There was sheer brilliance in every single set design as it felt that every single set piece of this movie was carefully crafted in order to look absolutely perfect. Along with that, I'd say the costume designs, the makeup and the hairstyling were also crafted to perfection when it came to each individual person, whether they were the main star or simply an extra who was in the background for a second or two. The attention to detail was very noticeable as it had me awestruck the whole film, which helped me become more invested in the story itself.
Then of course we have the plot of the film. With the stage set perfectly, I felt like it became easy for the plot to just fall in place. Given that I'm not well-versed in Asian drama, nor do I follow romance movies to closely, my mind instead reverted to Disney's "Aladdin" as a plot comparison. In "Aladdin," we have Jasmine living as a part of the royal family, but she's kinda tired of that life, so she disappears into the village, dressing up as a common woman, and sparks a relationship with Aladdin, a street rat. Drama ensues when Jasmine is finally forced to reveal that she is in fact a princess. This is how "Crazy Rich Asians" unfolds, but with a bit of role-reversal as it's Nick Young, the male in the relationship, who essentially belongs to this royal family, but he doesn't really like that life, so he goes off to New York and lives a normal life where he falls in love with Rachel Chu, an Econ professor at New York University. After their relationship builds strongly over the course of the year, with her having no idea who he really is, something that he personally enjoys because it makes him feel normal, he decides it's finally time to take her home and show her off to his family just in time for the big wedding. This means Rachel is in for quite the culture shock when they arrive.
I suppose this plot is a fairly common one with a romance involving one partner from an upper class background and one partner from a lower class background. You might call me crazy for thinking of "Aladdin" first, but so be it. I also thought of fellow Disney movie "Cinderella," but specifically the 1997 Rogers and Hammerstein's version starring Brandy and Whitney Houston because that one has a heavy focus on the Asian prince who is not super stoked about this palace life gig. And the third movie I thought of was the relationship between Jack and Rose in "Titanic," with Jack coming from rags and Rose coming from riches. In fact, I'll just concede and say this specific story probably has heavy origins from "Romeo & Juliet," a story of forbidden love between two lovers from two different families and classes. So yeah, this plot has probably been done a thousand times and the movie doesn't steer very far from your classic romance film formula. Boy meets girl. Boy and girl fall madly in love. Drama happens that almost permanently separates boy and girl. Boy and girl somehow reconcile their differences and live happily ever after. Unless you're Jack and Rose and you stubbornly decide that two people can't fit on the floating door, so you decide to let one freeze to death.
Yet despite the familiar formula, "Crazy Rich Asians" proves that you can take a familiar idea and still craft an excellent movie if your execution is done to perfection. There's a reason why this formula is used so often and that's because it works. Yet on the flip side of things, the fact that this formula is used so often is a big part of the reason why I'm so picky with this genre. There's a lot of lazy Nicholas Sparks style of teenage romance films that seem like they wrote the screenplay in an hour or two, then lazily threw together a quick film in order to please the target demographic of teenage girls who will swoon and scream at the mere sight of an attractive male lead. But again, "Crazy Rich Asians" proves to me that I'm perfectly allowed to be super picky because you CAN do this right. There's a lot of things going in this movie's favor regarding the plot, but a big thing propelling it forward is that the two leads are just oozing in chemistry. It's much more than two attractive human beings put together on screen. The way their characters are written make you feel like these two belong together and the strong performances from Henry Golding and Constance Wu are able to make your heart melt every time they look at each other because they're simply perfect.
Speaking of other characters, there's a lot of excellent supporting cast here, but none better than Rachel's one friend in all of this, Peik Lin Goh, played by Awkwafina, who is quietly having a great acting year after both this and "Ocean's 8." Peik Lin is the main source of comedy in this movie and she is on point as the crazy, blunt friend who is just what Rachel needs. There's a point in the movie where she randomly disappears without the movie telling us exactly where she went, but whenever she shows up in the movie she is comedic gold. The other side character I liked most was Nico Santos' character of Oliver. It's Oliver and Peik Lin that help Rachel the most when she decides to move forward with a certain idea of her's and the three of them together just cracked me up. I could keep name dropping here as there were a lot of great side characters, but I think it's sufficient to say that I was super impressed with the entire cast. Everyone who was in this movie came in and played their role to perfection, whether that role was minor role for just a scene or two, or was a major role that greatly impacted the plot. I can't think of a single weak link in the entire movie when it comes to the cast. They all came in and gave 100 percent to this project, so a round of applause is due.
So yeah, this movie really got to me in ways that I didn't expect it to. I'm extremely impressed and shocked that a movie that I wasn't even planning on going to before seeing the reviews ended up being one of the most pleasant and emotional films I've seen this year. This coming from someone who is often hard to please when it comes to these romance films. And yeah, I don't know if you've noticed until now, but I've specifically made an effort to classify this is a romance film rather than saying chick flick or even romantic comedy. I've learned to avoid the term chick flick because everyone has a different idea of what that is. And I've also avoided romantic comedy because there's a lot of romcoms that I realize I've enjoyed specifically because of the comedy element, with "Hitch" being a classic example of that. The movie itself is hilarious. The romance element is a bit generic. But "Crazy Rich Asians" is good specifically because of the romance story itself, all of the characters involved, and the emotional journey that they all went through. The comedy was simply the icing on the cake. Thus when you ask me what my favorite romantic movie is, honestly "Crazy Rich Asians" might be one of my go-to responses. I'm going to reward the movie with a very strong 9/10.