Joker Review

It's been quite the interested road for DC lately. I could recount their recent history, as well as my brief opinions of all the movies, but I'll forgo for now. I will say briefly that, in a strange turn of events, the failure of "Justice League" in 2017 was probably the best thing to ever happen to them. Not only did it lead to solid stand-alone films in "Aquaman" and "Shazam!," but it also caused them to completely toss their idea of a cinematic universe or a cohesive timeline straight in the trash. And that's a good thing because, instead of chasing Marvel, they have the freedom to do whatever they want. Given that DC has quite the large Rogue's Gallery of villains, especially in the Batman universe, one of these things that they decided to do was to take a deep and dark dive into the backstory of their most iconic villain, that of the Joker. Initially this seemed like a bad idea. Part of the intrigue of the Joker was that his backstory is so mysterious. He just kinda exists as an agent of chaos. And now we're going to solve his mystery? And we're going to bring on Todd Phillips, director of "The Hangover," to do the job? Yeah, that seems like a no from me. Until Joaquin Phoenix signs on. And then we see those trailers, which were excellent. Suddenly DC had my full attention.

I certainly didn't go into this movie blind from all the reaction. Warner Bros. made the bold move of premiering this as the Venice Film Festival, where it won the top prize. Then a week or so later it showed at the Toronto International Film Festival. The festival audiences seemed to be giving it a ton of hype and praise as the best thing since sliced bread. That had me confused because, despite the strong hype, the score on the Rotten Tomatoes was floating around in the 70 percent range. That means not everyone was liking it. Then when it hit general release, the non-festival-going critics seemed to be more lukewarm on it and the Rotten Tomatoes score started dropping, putting it in the awkward situation of being at 69 percent despite already being rewarded the "Certified Fresh" label. Given that their benchmark for that is 75 percent, I think that's the lowest score for a Certified Fresh movie that I've seen. Meanwhile in the world of IMDb, the movie is currently at a 9.0 with 140,000 votes counted, good enough for 9th place on IMDb's Top 250. I scoffed at that score initially given that this happens to all DC movies. But they usually drop after opening weekend. This movie hasn't. On top of all of that, the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is at 91 percent.

All this means that, even though I'd heard so much buzz and talk about this movie before seeing it Thursday night, I had no idea what to think. Especially since a whole bunch of controversy has been floating around, which I will most definitely get around to talking about. So it was almost as if I went in blind. And that excited me because I was just curious to know what they had up their sleeve with this. And boy is this movie quite the experience. I will say right up front that this is a heavy movie with a lot to say. If you're expecting just another one of these comic book films that's fun and inconsequential, you're walking into the wrong movie. In fact, this is so heavy that I purposely waited to write my review. Because, yes, I did see it on Thursday. In fact, Thursday previews for this movie began at 4 p.m. and that initial showing is the exact one I got into. I could've come home and thrown together a quick review and had it up before I went to bed. Or I could've typed it up on Friday. But I waited. And I purposely typed up my review of "The Addams Family" the next day instead because I needed to give this a weekend to ponder on and make sure I'm not overreacting. But now I've given it enough time to sit, so no more waiting around. It's time to dive into this spectacular piece of cinema.

If you know me well enough, you'll know that the type of movies I gravitate towards the most are the psychological movies, which means "Joker" was right up my alley. This is a movie that takes a comic book villain and decides to explore a realistic avenue into what would turn someone into such a monster. In doing so, this does not feel like a comic book movie at all. In fact, it almost feels like an idea that was initially unrelated to anything in the comic book realm, but they decided to slap an IP on it to sell tickets. I say "almost" because I don't believe that was ever part of the process. I think this began as a Joker film rather than being an unrelated property that evolved into a Joker film. I think they wanted to tell a realistic story involving the origins of Joker, then came up with an idea of how to do it. And given that the world of Gotham is the perfect setting to pull all of this off, it works rather well. But I say all of this to paint of picture of what this movie is like. If you hate all of this comic book stuff, you might want to give this movie a serious look because it's not that. On the flip side, as I've said before, if you love comic book movies, know that that's not what you're getting here. This is a dark and gritty drama that just so happens to have Gotham characters as the subject.

In regards to the Joker, this is something that, to my knowledge, does something that no other Joker story has done. It gives Joker a name. That name here is Arthur Fleck and he's a real human being. He's not born as this evil vessel. He's not sent as a servant of Satan to torment all heroes just for the sake of it. He's a man with a mental illness who is doing his best to live life. He has goals and aspirations. There's people he cares about. He's also self aware about his situation as he's seeing a therapist and taking medication. He's working a normal job to help support him and his mother who is alone and needs his help. And he also has a goal of being a comedian, so therein lies his career aspirations. But he also is in the unfortunate circumstance of living in a dark world that doesn't accept him. In defense of the world around him, they're not purposely all trying to conspire against him. They're just individually unable to connect with him because he's different than them. Perhaps in hindsight, if people had a crystal ball to see what he would eventually become, maybe one or two people would reach out and help him. But that's the thing. We don't have crystal balls. So because Arthur is different and has some strange conditions, there's no one around to embrace him.

I don't want to dive into any specifics, but I became rather fascinated with Arthur's journey. I felt for him. I understood his pain. Every time something bad happened to him, my heart ached a bit because I saw a human being who was trying to fit in and do what he was supposed to do, but nothing was working out. You see in the trailer some kids stealing his sign, then hitting him with it when they get to the alley. I wanted to grab those kids and scream at them. Then when he got to work the next day and his boss got mad at him for not returning the sign, I wanted to yell at the boss and explain the situation. When he was on the bus and was entertaining the little kid, then the parent got mad it him, I wanted to yell at the parent for not understanding the situation. Then he has his condition of his uncontrollable laughter. I learned that's a real condition. When that happened to him and everyone started looking at him funny, I wanted to get up and explain the situation. He tried to do that himself with a pre-prepared card, but whoever took the card didn't take it seriously. And they didn't return the card to him. I wanted to slap them upside the face. And even though I said I don't want to dive into specific, these are all small things that happen at the beginning of the movie.

But then things start to get increasingly worse and this is where I begin to become increasingly vague because now we're diving into things that aren't in the trailer or aren't in the introduction of the film. Because I don't want to give spoilers, yet I want to tell you how I reacted to all of this, I'm going to talk about my feelings instead of diving into events. All the smalls things that I stood up for Arthur for, I felt justified. But what made me feel increasingly more gross and uncomfortable was that I stayed on his side for most of the movie. And I kinda hated myself for it because the movie does a great job of continuing down this realistic road. Never once does Arthur's reactions become cartoonish. He doesn't start becoming evil because the plot requires him to become Joker. Everything remains natural. And when he does certain things, they often feel justified. Or, rather, I can understand why he chooses to do them. There's many moments where he does really awful things, but I specifically remember that the first of said awful thing his victims deserved what he got. And I was happy because of it. But then I was immediately disgusted with myself. I was like Kronk with the angel and devil on my shoulder and they were arguing with each other.

This is where a lot of the controversy comes in because a lot of people are complaining that this is a poorly timed movie that's going to do more harm than good. There's a lot of people in this dangerous world we live in who are in very similar situations as Arthur is in in this movie. In case you live under a rock, mass shootings happen on practically a weekly or monthly basis. Most of these are committed by mentally deranged people who were rejected by society and chose to go kill a bunch of people. The story of Arthur Fleck is their story. We often wonder how someone could get to the point where they would do something so unthinkably evil. In telling the story of Arthur Fleck, "Joker" tells us how. And because the movie tells us how, many people have decided that said mentally deranged people are going to watch this movie and either be instructed how to commit evil, be inspired to do so, or be justified in their actions. I've listened to and read opinions from people who I am confident are intelligent, well-educated people who are claiming these very things. Yet when I hear them, my blood begins to boil because I think that's so far off point. In no way is "Joker" glorifying violence or justifying Arthur's actions. It's instructing us how one can come to this point.

This is where my fascination of the psychology of human behavior kicks in. I love studying serial killers. I've watched every episode of "Criminal Minds." Netflix's "Mindhunter" is something that I ate up rather quickly. And I've often been confused as to why I love this type of stuff. Sometimes I'll step outside myself and think that I'm crazy for loving all of it. But then I reconcile with myself because I think understanding this human behavior can be critical in knowing how to prevent it. If we're to understand human behavior, I think it's important to be able to understand the entire spectrum. The movie and documentary about Ted Bundy that came out this year did not glorify or sexualize Ted Bundy. It told the honest, true story of who he was. Knowing that story can be beneficial for many reasons. In that case, one of the best lessons there is to know that some of the worst and most despicable human beings can take the appearance of someone normal. If we understand those lessons, we can be aware of our surroundings and it could save our life. If we know that the most normal of human beings could be struggling, we could save their lives. If we see someone struggling, sometimes one friend to makes all the difference.

That's why I cringe when people say "Joker" is dangerous. "Joker" is not dangerous. It's honest. It tells in the most realistic way possible how someone could could end up being so deranged and evil. It explains why and how someone could commit the most heinous acts imaginable and feel good about it. Now we can either have a knee-jerk reaction and say that this movie is bad because it's going to justify or condone evil behavior. We can even call in reckless in its approach by saying it did it accidentally. Or we can look at this story and insert ourselves into the situation. What can we do personally to help those around us? If we see someone who looks or acts differently, instead of just looking at them funny and mocking them or walking away, is there something we can do to help? As I was watching this movie, I was imagining that at any point in this movie, if someone would've come up to Arthur and treated him like a friend, maybe that would've changed his trajectory. Thus I think this movie can be a positive movie that shines a light to mental illness by showcasing the worst case scenario of what might happen if we're not careful. And it's often these honest and realistic approaches that can end up doing the most good because they don't sugarcoat everything.

In short, the portrayal of evil in film does not mean the film itself is evil. This is a constant uphill battle that I fight with the horror genre especially. Most horror movies are not evil. In fact, they're often quite the opposite. Many horror films showcase the idea that evil can be overcome. My favorite example is "The Exorcist." It's not an evil movie at all. In fact, "The Exorcist" is a very Catholic movie that showcases very Catholic themes. Just like that, "Joker" is not a movie that condones evil. It does not glorify violence. It's not reckless in its approach. Rather, it tells the story of a man whose life spirals downward out of control until everything simply becomes a comedy to him. And I think it ends up as one of the most horrifying portrayals of the Joker because he's so real. He's much more than just the typical comic book villain doing evil things because that's who he is. His arc is extremely tragic and I was able to understand every step of the way of what he was going through and why he did the things that he did. In fact, it's so well done that it sparks the interesting debate of whether this is a tragedy or if it's actually a triumph. On that note, the movie reminded me a lot of "The Witch," which is a horror movie that has similarly conflicting themes.

Unfortunately, though, that's where this conversation comes to end. Because the most natural step after describing all of this is to get into specifics and I've not labeled this as a spoiler review, nor am I going to. I've only touched on basics of the plot while spending a whole lot of time combating this lame controversy as to why this is not an evil movie, but is rather a very positive movie that can do a lot of good and spark a lot of important conversation. But there is, of course, so much more to say, but I'm going to restrain myself. Of course what I should say is that all the credit here goes to Joaquin Phoenix for what is sure to be a legendary performance. I think Heath Ledger would be proud. It will be an absolute shame of Phoenix doesn't get his Oscar nomination at the very least. A lot of credit to the writers for writing a very beautifully story that is perfectly constructed and to Todd Phillips for stepping out of his comfort zone of raunchy comedies and directing a masterwork. If I didn't know who directed this, my first guess would've been that Martin Scorsese had decided to take on the Joker. For me that's a huge positive. I already can feel that "Joker" is going to be a movie that sticks with me for a very long time as a potential personal favorite, so of course I'm giving it a 10/10.

Retro Review: The Addams Family (1991)

Welcome back to what has become my yearly series of Halloween reviews! Typically on this blog I've stuck to reviewing new theatrical releases, but I've also had fun diving back into the past on occasion. I've thought about doing this more often, getting a good mix of older movies and newer movies, but I've had a hard time finding specific excuses to do so. However, when the holidays roll around, that's the perfect excuse. This will be my third Halloween doing these older Halloween reviews. My first year I went extremely gung-ho and exhausted myself by getting 7 or 8 reviews in during the month. Last year I slowed down a bit to about once per week, which is what my current plan is for this year. Maybe some weeks I'll get two reviews in, but I have a goal of at least one per week. When I polled Facebook this year for suggestions, I got mostly crickets from friends, which surprised me a bit, but is OK since I have plenty of ideas of my own. My first idea was to explore "The Addams Family" in preparation for the new animated that comes out next weekend. Said animated movie has not yet excited me as it doesn't look that good, but at the same time I'm not as up to speed on the franchise as a whole, so I thought I'd take my time to educate myself. So here we are.

In exploring the history of this franchise, I learned a few things that perhaps many of you had already known for a long time. "The Addams Family" is an old property that dates all the way back to the 1930s when creator Charles Addams did single-panel cartoons for "The New Yorker." He continued those for several decades until his death in 1988. In the meantime, TV show creators and filmmakers have been obsessed with this family and have made many attempts in bringing these characters to life. The first said attempt, and perhaps the most iconic, is the live action TV show that ran for 64 episodes from 1964 to 1966. About a decade later, the first animated series by Hanna-Barbera ran for 16 episodes in 1973 after first showing up in an episode of "Scooby-Doo" in 1972. Then in 1977 we had the first TV movie titled "Halloween with the New Addams Family" that reunited most of the original cast from the 60's TV show. In 1991, the franchise was revived with this movie that we're about to review, which spawned a sequel in 1993 titled "Addams Family Values." There was a direct-to-video film in 1998 titled "Addams Family Reunion" as well as a 21 episode animated series from 1992-1993 and a 65 episode live-action series from 1998-1999.

How much of this have I watched? Not much. I'm very familiar with the idea behind it all and I've always liked the original theme song that dates back to the 1960s show, because, you know, my first name is Adam. So my family is the "Adam's Family" (OK, not the Addams Family, but close enough). Yet with all this Addams Family saturation, do we really need a new animated Addams Family movie? That will be the question going into the new movie, whenever I get around to seeing it. But I can't go into that movie without having any sort of knowledge of the franchise as a whole, which is why I'm now reviewing this 1991 movie. No, it's not the quintessential Addams Family property. The 1993 sequel "Addams Family Values" even has better reviews. But I think this is a good place to start. It also did quite well for itself at the box office, earning $113.5 million domestically off a reported $30 million budget. When adjusting for ticket price inflation, that $113.5 million is equivalent of about $240 million with 2019 ticket prices. Compared to the movies around it, it was the seventh highest grossing film of 1991. Has it developed into a Halloween classic? That's a great question. I'm not sure.

Without question, the thing that this movie gets right is the setting, the tone and the characters. The Addams family has always been a family that is a bit odd and cooky when compared to the outside world. They're a bit of a Goth-inspired group, or perhaps it's the other way around. Goth people are inspired by them? I'm not expert in that area, but either way, the purpose of them is to be different, which is why I think the opening to this is great. They have Christmas carolers on their doorstep trying to get their attention, yet they're all hiding on the roof, ready to pull some sort of prank on the carolers. The movie cuts away to the opening credits before showing the results of that, but that was a fun introduction. Then we dive into their world, which I rather enjoy. There's a certain humor here that is difficult to get right that I think the movie nails. It's a bit of a dry comedy mixed with a dark comedy as they're all doing things that are weird and creepy, but are perfectly normal to them. All of the actors do a great job of selling everything without even cracking a smile or making things look cheesy and dumb. Thus they do a great job of capturing the spirit of what this family is all about. Yet even though this is dry and dark, it never becomes inappropriate.

That's why I think this is the type of movie where you can kick back and enjoy while inviting the whole family. Maybe perhaps not young kids as this is PG-13, but I personally think this is a very light PG-13. I was even assuming it was PG while I was watching and got a bit surprised when I looked it up to see a PG-13 rating. Perhaps in retrospect, there's a couple of scenes here and there that warrant the PG-13, but for the most part this is pretty time. I think the most enjoyable part is seeing the characters' interactions with each other. Leading the way we have excellent performances from Angelica Huston and Raul Julia as Morticia and Gomez Addams, the parents of the family. They are a bizarrely wonderful couple to watch and do a great job of guiding the story, making things fun and amusing along the way. Then of course we have a whole host of side characters. I don't remember all of their times, but it was rather amusing watching the hand walk around as well as the Frankenstein's monster looking tall guy hanging around. I believed they call him lurch. But of course stealing the show is young Christina Ricci as Wednesday Addams. Some of the funniest moments is when she's trying to nonchalantly murder her little brother Pugsley, with him being perfectly fine with it.

Of course a lot of credit has to be given to the people in charge of the set design, as well as the costume and makeup people. Recreating the mansion they live in was beautifully done. It was fun being in the mansion, paying attention to all the detail put into it. There were a lot of great shots that led to an overall solid visual aesthetic. If creepy and Goth is what they were going for, that's exactly what they pulled off. If you want to sit down and get yourself into the Halloween spirit with a bunch of friends, this movie provides a great opportunity, especially for those who may not be fans of intense horror films. This will put you into the Halloween spirit without giving you nightmares since the setting of it all is perfectly Halloween. And yes, along with that, all of the characters fit perfectly into this atmosphere, which is why I praise the makeup and hairstyling crew. I imagine that's a lot of work that often goes unnoticed, but is a critical part of the film, especially with something like this. And even though I'm not super familiar with the original 60's show, it doesn't take much research to learn that they did their best job to pay homage to all of the original characters by getting their looks right. There's also plenty of visuals that for the 90's holds up rather well, which is nice because not all 90's movies do.

You may have noticed that I have been dancing around the elephant in the room, though. That's because I didn't want to come off as super negative towards this movie because there's a lot that I really enjoyed. It's a great atmosphere and a lot of great characters. But there's a plot in this movie that is just not good. It involves Gomez's brother Fester Addams, who's played wonderfully by Christopher Lloyd, but has been missing for 25 years. The Addams' lawyer Tully Alford owes money to a woman named Abigail Craven. When in her office, he notices that her adopted son Gordon looks a lot like Fester Adams, so Gordon decides to pose as Fester to try to find the Addams' secret vault where they have their money. So that's it. Abigail and Gordon are trying to steal from Addams because they think they're dumb enough to fall for it. There's not a whole lot of drama or suspense. The resolution of the whole thing can be seen from a mile away and there's not much character development along the way. It felt like they had a hard time coming up with a good enough plot for this first feature-length adaptation and never quite had the right idea. So without much of a plot, it's hard for the movie to be too terribly interesting, but there's still plenty to enjoy along the way.

My conclusions here are that perhaps "The Addams Family" is a property that's best fit for what it was originally created as. A TV series or a cartoon. With simple, 20-30 minute episodes, you don't have to be too creative when it comes to plot. You can just enjoy short, episodic adventures with your delightful cast of characters and your wonderful scenery. Perhaps I should test this theory by diving into the original TV show for comparison. Or at least test the waters with the show by watching an episode or two to see how it is. And if they did find a way to be more entertaining and creative with the sequel "Addams Family Values," maybe that's worth checking out. And if you are one who is more well-versed into the whole "Addams Family" world, feel free to give your personal commentary on all of that. Because I can understand if this has become a Halloween favorite for you. There's a lot to like here. But I can also see why this only has a 65 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes. It's something that, when you look at with a critical eye, doesn't quite accomplish everything that it could've despite immense potential. And maybe that's the reason why this one doesn't get brought up too often when people list off their favorite Halloween movies. My grade for it is a 7/10.

Movie Preview: October 2019

The second lowest grossing month of 2019 is officially in the books. Historically speaking, September is more often than not the lowest grossing month of the year at the domestic box office, but in 2019 that still belongs to February with $624 million. September shot a bit higher than that with $685 million, which is the second highest September on record. Not coincidentally, this September was also the second September to have an "IT" movie opening. But because "IT: Chapter Two" didn't quite reach the heights of its predecessor, September 2017, which is when "IT" opened, retains the September record with $697 million. "IT: Chapter Two" is certainly not a disappointment, though, as it made $194 million in the month of September and currently has a worldwide total of over $400 million. Together the two "IT" movies have made over $1.1 billion worldwide. Outside "IT: Chapter Two," September was also helped by "Hustlers" and "Downton Abbey" becoming surprise box office hits. Now as we look forward to October, this is again historically not the best month, but there's another clown that will lead the way in a month that has the potential of hitting last October's record of $833 million, wherein Sony's "Venom" led the way. So let's dive in and see what's in store!

October 4th - 6th-

While it was Pennywise dominating September, the other clown dominating October will of course be Joker. This is a movie that's certainly getting quite the unique buzz when compared to other DC films. It's also the first movie that marks DC completely ditching the idea of a cinematic universe by creating a standalone Joker film that has nothing to do with the rest of the DCEU. Rumor has it that Jared Leto's Joker still might exist in said cinematic universe, which exemplifies the idea that this is just a one-off thing. It's also the first DC film in the recent DC phase to get the R-rating as director Todd Phillips has decided to go the disturbingly psychological route in telling this iconic villain's backstory. The movie debuted at the Venice Film Festival, surprisingly winning the top prize there, then went onto play at the Toronto International Film Festival, so Warner Bros. has been pretty confident in this and that has resulted in mostly positive results as the movie has been hovering in the 70 percent range on Rotten Tomatoes. Even the negative reactions might work in the movie's benefit in terms of the movie's box office as there's a lot of conversation surrounding the violent nature of the film. Many people might show up solely to be a part of the conversation moving forward.

We're going to find out what "Joker" ends up doing at the box office here rather soon, but there's a broad range of potential comparisons here. First off, DC themselves have had quite the wide range of openings. The highest of the DCEU belongs to "Batman v. Superman" with $166 million, with "Suicide Squad" in second with $133 million. Yet earlier this year, "Shazam!" could only manage a $53 million opening. Given the unique nature of this film, DC's own filmography might be the wrong place to look. If we look at recent R-rated comic book movies, "Deadpool" and "Deadpool 2" opened to $132 million and $125 million respectively. Said $132 million for "Deadpool" also represents the highest grossing opening weekend ever for an R-rated movie. Also on the X-Men side of things, "Logan" opened to $88.4 million. Although not R-rated, last October's "Venom" opened to $80.2 million, which is currently the October opening weekend record. So there's a broad range of potential comparisons. A variable worth nothing that perhaps none of these movies have faced is the news of potential terrorist threats, which have resulted in warnings from the military and FBI. Are said warnings widespread enough to keep some people home on opening weekend?

While "Joker" is the only wide release, there is a major wide expansion and that is Judy. This is the biopic of legendary actress Judy Garland and has been met with largely positive reviews as it stands at 83 percent on Rotten Tomatoes after premiering at Telluride on August 30 followed by a showing at Toronto International Film Festival. And while that score suggests some mixed reaction, making it a bit of a fence-sitter when it comes to the upcoming awards season, one element of the film that does seem unanimous is the praise regarding Renee Zellweger's performance as Judy Gardland, thus making her seemingly a strong contender for a best actress nomination. The movie is set 30 years after Judy's "Wizard of Oz" performance in the latter portion of her life when things weren't exactly rainbows and butterflies. She unfortunately passed away at the age of 47 after a drug overdose. Last weekend "Judy" opened in 461 theaters and managed to crack the top 10 at No. 7 with an opening weekend of $2.9 million for a solid per theater average of $6,313. This weekend Roadside Attractions will be expanding it into about 1,400 theaters. If that per theater average holds up well enough, the movie could at least sniff the top five. At the least, it should have a solid hold in the top 10.

October 11th - 13th-

If "Joker" does end up playing like "Logan" or "Venom," that means its second weekend total might be in the $35-40 million range as both of those movies fell 56 percent. That's probably enough to keep it at No. 1 for a second weekend. However, there's going to be a strong competition for that runner-up spot, which should be led by Ang Lee's Gemini Man. This is a movie that sees Will Smith pitted against... Will Smith. Specifically Will Smith plays an aging government assassin who comes upon a younger clone of himself who is trying to "retire" him. Younger Will Smith is de-aged to look like he did back in the 90's, which is something that is also being done in Martin Scorsese's upcoming film "The Irishman," which is set to debut on Netflix at some point before the year ends. After being one of Hollywood's most bankable stars, Will Smith has had a bit of a rough go of it in the last few years, although 2019 has so far turned out very well for him as he starred as Genie in Disney's major hit "Aladdin." So he'll bring some positive buzz from that. As far as an opening goes, 2012's "Looper" might be a good comparison given very similar premise. That opened to $20.8 million. Ang Lee's last major film was "Life of Pi," also in 2012, and that one opened to $22.5 million.

Going toe-to-toe with "Gemini Man" in the fight for the runner-up spot will be the new animated film The Addams Family. While this comes only two weeks after DreamWorks' "Abominable," which could be experiencing good holds due to positive word of mouth, it does have the benefit of that opening to a softer $20.6 million. Prior to "Abominable," the previous animated film was "The Angry Birds 2" back in August, and that also opened very soft. So "The Addams Family" is positioned rather well, especially since the next big animated movie isn't until "Frozen 2" right before Thanksgiving. Plus there's the obvious Halloween tie-in. Now even though the timing is excellent, the bigger questions surrounds the actual demand for another adaptation of "The Addams Family." These characters originate all the way back to cartoons published in The New Yorker starting in 1938. A live-action TV series premiered in 1964, followed by an animated TV series in 1973. The franchise was then revived with the 1991 hit film, which was followed by a sequel in 1993 and a second animated TV series in 1992. Is it time for another revival? Do audiences care? Best case scenario is a "Hotel Transylvania" comparison, but perhaps opening closer to $20 million might be right.

Looking for a spot somewhere in the top five, most likely in fourth place, will be the comedy Jexi. This is a comedy directed by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, the comedy duo behind "Bad Moms" and "Bad Moms Christmas," and is about a really smart phone that has gone rogue. The phone is extremely honest and starts insulting people and being raunchy if the guy doesn't give it the attention it wants. Imagine a super smart and super crazy version of Siri. The guy that owns the phone is played by Adam Devine and the phone is voiced by Rose Byrne. Justin Hartley, Alexandra Shipp, Michael Pena and Wanda Skykes also co-star. Now comedies have had a bit of rough go of it this year, with August's "Good Boys" being the lone exception. And although comedies are a bit tough to predict, "Jexi" seems like the type of movie that will follow more in line with the other disappointments of the year rather than being another hit like "Good Boys." Some of the major examples of comedic disappointments have been "Long Shot" ($9.7 million), "Stuber" ($8.2 million) and "Booksmart" ($6.9 million). That seems like an appropriate range for "Jexi," especially considering the competition from "Joker" and "Gemini Man," which will also be attracting adult audiences.

The final movie that Box Office Mojo, which I've always used for this monthly post, has listed as a wide release is High Strung Free Dance, which is being distributed by Atlas Distributions. Although I'm personally not convinced that this is an actual wide release. This appears to be a sequel or follow-up of sorts to the 2016 film "High Strung," which is a film I didn't know existed until researching this post. It opened in just 100 theaters to $40,708 for a pretty pathetic per theater average of just $407. It finished with only a few dollars more, totaling $53,447. "High Strung Free Dance" is done by the same director as "High Strung" and from the looks of the trailers, it appears to be some sort of "Step Up" musical/dance movie. Outside a lot of dance sequences, the trailers advertise a movie about a girl who is an aspiring dancer and is just looking for a shot to prove herself. It appears that said chance of a lifetime comes here way, with a possible romance with the boy showcased in the trailers. Atlas Distributions is a different distribution company than the first movie. Looking at their releases, the widest release they've had is "Atlas Shrugged: Part II" in 1,012 theaters. The four other movies they've released in more than 100 theaters have been between 158 and 425 theaters.

October 18th - 20th- 

It's been quite the year for Disney to say the least as they've released five movies that have earned at least $1 billion at the worldwide box office and are sure to add to that with "Frozen 2" and "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker" right around the corner. But before we get to those, Disney's year continues with Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, a movie that was initially scheduled for May 29, 2020 before Disney pulled an audible and moved it up to this spot. "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil" is the follow-up to the 2014 film "Maleficent," which told the story of "Sleeping Beauty" from the perspective of the iconic villain Maleficent, giving her a bit of a redemption arc at the end. "Maleficent" performed quite well at the box office, earning $241 million domestically after a $69 million opening weekend, but it wasn't necessarily received with wide praise. That combined with long gap between movies makes it hard to believe that "Mistress of Evil" is going to match its predecessor. "Alice Through the Looking Glass," another belated Disney sequel that no one asked for, opened to just $26.8 million after its predecessor opened to $116 million. The other movie to look at is this year's misstep in "Dumbo," which opened to $45.9 million back in March, then scrounged its way to $114.8 million total.

While "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil" is expected to take the weekend, it will have a major challenger that could play spoiler if it falls short and that is Zombieland 2: Double Tap. "Zombieland" was a horror comedy that came out in 2009. Even though it was a modest success, opening to $24.7 million on its way to $75.6 million domestically, demand for a sequel has been rather loud for quite some time, especially since "Zombieland" has continued to build up its fan base in the years since its release. And now that demand has been met. Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin are all returning, as is director Ruben Fleischer. Notably, in the 10 years since "Zombieland," Jesse Eisenberg and Emma Stone have become Oscar-nominated actors. Woody Harrelson, who already had one under his belt, has gone onto receive two more in addition to receiving renewed fame from "The Hunger Games" franchise. Abigail Breslin's most notable work came before "Zombieland," which included an Oscar nomination for the 2006 film "Little Miss Sunshine," but has still had a decent career. So this reunion is pretty significant. Belated comedy sequels have had a rocky history, but this looks to at least match the original's opening.

October 25th - 27th-

The final weekend of October looks to be the weakest of the month as the country braces for what should be a wild November, but there still are three wide releases that look to earn a spot somewhere in the top 10 and they should be led by the police drama Black and Blue. Specifically this is about a woman who is trying to reconcile the fact that she is black and a cop as the two communities often have a hard time coexisting. In the midst of this, she learns that some of the white male cops are rogue cops and she captures some of what they do on her body cam, which causes them to try to chase her down and kill her. Or at least attempt to stop her and get rid of the footage on the body cam. That leads the movie into being an action thriller. Starring in the lead role is Naomi Harris as this woman, with Tyrese Gibson, Mike Colter and Frank Grillo as co-stars. The director here is Deon Taylor, who directed "Meet the Blacks" in 2016 and "Traffik" in 2018. Both of those movies opened around $4 million, making around $9 million total. Last October the movie "The Hate U Give" earned $7.6 million in its nationwide expansion. Even though the two movies are completely different in terms of plot, there are some similar these that could make it a decent comparison.

Hoping to tap into the teen horror crowd prior to Halloween will be the horror film Countdown. Given that there's no new true horror films this month outside this movie, this could be a solid strategy. The movie is about an app that tells you how long you have to live. When our main girl downloads it, she is rather horrified to find out that it says she has two days to live. Then some sort of demon thing starts to haunt her, so she turns to her friends to help her survive this thing. There's no notable cast members here and the director is Justin Dec in his feature length directorial debut. Previously he's written and directed a bunch of short films while mainly working as a production assistant on various films. So the signs don't point towards a strong level of quality with this one, but it also looks like a cheaply made horror film that only requires to make a few million in order to get a profit. If it can have a good enough marketing campaign to draw in enough of a teenage crowd, that could do the trick. If successfully, it could potential play like the horror film "Truth or Dare," which used a popular teenage premise to earn $18.7 million in its opening weekend in April 2018. If that's the case, it could easily top "Black or Blue" to be the top new release of the weekend.

The final film of the month is one that will be limping into theaters and that is The Current War: Director's Cut. That title change, adding the subtitle of "Director's Cut" is a recent change in the last few weeks that potentially infers that this movie that audiences are going to see might be different than the one that was initially seen by audiences at the 2017 Toronto International Film Festival. The history behind this one is interesting as it was initially going to come out in December 2017, but got shelved as it was one of the movies being released by The Weinstein Company during the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse scandal. The Weinstein Company then died while "The Current War" got passed around a bit, eventually landing in the hands of 101 Studios, a studio launched by David Glasser who was COO at The Weinstein Company before it collapsed. All that drama aside, "The Current War" tells the story of the battle between Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse in their battle to determine whose electrical system would power the modern world. The movie stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Edison, Michael Shannon as Westinghouse, Nicholas Hoult as Nikola Tesla, and Tom Holland as Samuel Insull. Alfonso Gomez-Rejon is the film's director.

Ad Astra Review

I'm a bit late on this one. Usually when I review a new movie, I like to get the review out on opening weekend if possible, or shortly thereafter. Perhaps within the week. But "Ad Astra" got released on September 20, on the same weekend as "Downton Abbey" and "Rambo: Last Blood." Today while I'm typing this, it is October 2. So perhaps you no longer care about "Ad Astra." But oh well. I finally got around to seeing it and I want to say a thing or two. It's interesting looking at that weekend because I ended up getting none of those movies reviewed. The reasoning for the other two is that I've not seen any episodes of "Downton Abbey," nor have I watched any "Rambo" film. So I didn't feel qualified to give those a review because I have nothing to compare to, even though I was assured that knowledge of previous materials  wasn't necessarily required. But still. With "Ad Astra," I was interested in seeing it in IMAX, so I decided to wait for a Tuesday to see it since my local IMAX theater has a $5 Tuesday deal for all IMAX showings, so that's what I do for IMAX movies since I don't like paying the regular $10,000 ticket price for an IMAX ticket. But last Tuesday I ended up being super busy, so I postponed my "Ad Astra" experience for another week. Now here we are.

"Ad Astra" continues our tradition of going off into space at least once a year. This is something that Hollywood has not missed a year on since "Gravity" in 2013. After "Gravity," we had "Interstellar" in 2014, "The Martian" in 2015, "Passengers" in 2016, "Life" in 2017 and "First Man" in 2018. And when I talk about space movies, I'm not counting "Star Wars," "Star Trek" or "Guardians of the Galaxy." I'm talking about these movies that attempt a somewhat realistic portrayal of space travel, calling back to Stanley Kubrick's classic "2001: A Space Odyssey." The action/adventure franchises that happen to take place in a fictional version of space are a completely different thing in my books. Space travel is the central focus of these movies rather than space being simply the setting of the adventure, if that makes sense. Because we as human beings have always been obsessed with space travel, especially since it became a real possibility in the mid-20th Century. In regards to these movies, I've always really enjoyed. Granted, there's various levels of quality. "Passengers" is a straight-up bad movie and "Interstellar" has a final act that completely derails it. But I like the general concept. It's an excellent subgenre of film and thus I'm always down for our next space adventure.

The specific comparison for "Ad Astra" is a bit of a unique conversation. I've heard a lot of people saying it's a lot like "Interstellar." It's not. Unless you point to "Interstellar" as the pioneer of this subgenre. Which again... it's not. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the pioneer here and "Ad Astra" definitely takes inspiration from that, as all of these movies do. We'll come back to "2001" here in a bit because that's a critical comparison, but "Ad Astra" is kind of its own thing. Brad Pitt stars as Major Roy McBride and he goes on an adventure to find his dad, famous astronaut H. Clifford McBride, who has been gone for 30 years and specifically been missing (and assumed dead by Roy and others) for a good majority of those years after arriving at Neptune. The reason that Roy accepts a mission to go find him is because there's been some power surges affecting the solar system and the government believes that they can be traced to Clifford McBride's Lima Project on Neptune, thus revealing that Clifford is actually alive, so they send Roy on a secret mission to figure out what's going on and to stop the Lima Project from threatening the solar system. So yeah, I'm having a hard time pinpointing exactly what that's closest to, which I think is a plus.

Even though this is a space movie that is grounded in reality, if you need your space physics to be perfectly accurate, take turn and run right now because this movie is set in the "near future" where they've made a lot of advancements. We've already made colonies on the Moon and Mars. There's even a Subway on the Moon. Travelling up to the Moon is like taking a plane cross country. It's a piece of cake and doesn't take much time. Politics, wars and scavenging have even began on the Moon's colonies. Travelling from the Moon to Mars isn't that much harder, either. When the astronauts are flying in their ships, there's something up with their suits that make it easy to navigate when they're outside the ships so they don't accidentally float off into oblivion. It's not a full-on Iron Man or Captain Marvel suit, but it's not too far from that, either. And here's the big kicker. It only takes 79 days to travel from Mars to Neptune. If all of this completely messes with your brain and you can't handle it, then just don't bother. It presents a Utopian society of sorts when it comes to space. One that we've always dreamed of being possible that the movie decides has become possible. I found that I really enjoyed myself being out in this futuristic, yet realistic atmosphere.

The movie also has a very mysterious element to it and that's where the movie grabbed my attention and never let go. It's not some sort of random, upbeat space adventure where disaster and tragedy happens halfway through. There's an immediate, imminent danger right from the very beginning that no one is certain about. The government thinks it's coming from Project Lima and they're confident in Roy's abilities to help them out. But nothing is certain. And even if it is Clifford turned completely rogue, which the government refuses to reveal since they've already deemed him a space hero after he went missing, the reasoning behind all of that is completely unknown. So Roy is traveling to what could be a very precarious situation, thus the atmosphere and tone reflect that. I spent the whole movie feeling quite uneasy at what was about to happen and there's certain events that take place in the first half of the movie that I won't spoil that makes this whole situation even more bizarre and uncomfortable. Thus when I hear from people that this movie is boring, slow and uneventful, I begin to wonder if I was shown a different copy of this movie because I was very interested in learning what the frack was going on and I thought the movie was paced very well.

But at the same time, I get it. And this is where I mentioned earlier that the comparison to "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a vital one. Last year was the 50th Anniversary of the movie and thus I was rather excited to get a group of my friends together to watch this masterpiece of a film when that anniversary took place. And while a few of my friends did appreciate the experience, most people there were bored to tears and hated the experience. It inspired a marathon of all of the "Sharknado" movies instead of sparking a conversation about the most influential sci-fi movie ever made. I don't want to sound all high and mighty by saying "2001" is a movie that only the true lovers of film will enjoy, but it is admittedly a bit of an acquired taste. It didn't receive unanimous praise by everyone when it came out in 1968, nor is it a movie that is universally praised today. Thus I can also understand a bit of a rift when it comes to a movie like "Ad Astra" that takes inspiration from "2001." Critics gave "Ad Astra" general high praise as it has an 83 percent, certified fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes, but the audience score is a pathetic 40 percent while the movie earned a fairly dismal B- on Cinemascore. It clearly isn't connecting with everyone.

My only conclusion to the matter that I can give is that if you are a fan of the slower, more methodical pace of something like "2001," then you should certainly give "Ad Astra" a shot because it has a similar. I hate to use the word slow because that always carries a negative connotation, but the movie is very careful and methodical. And if you watch it in a chair that is too comfortable or you watch it when you haven't had quite enough sleep or it's late at night, then you might be in danger of drifting off into a deep slumber. While I do feel it has a very uneasy tone that kept me paying attention, it's no "Star Wars" movie. There's no high-paced action sequences spread throughout to keep you awake. When I left the theater, I eavesdropped on a conversation where a certain gentleman clearly missed the finale of the movie as the person with him was describing exactly what had happened. Plot points that should've been easily picked up on had he been awake to see it. I'm very well aware that the movie might have that type of effect on you. If you're one of my friends who hated "2001: A Space Odyssey," skip "Ad Astra." It's not your movie. But if you're willing to be patient and you like a movie that makes you stop and think, then "Ad Astra" is very rewarding.

The unfortunate circumstances with this review, though, is that there's a lot more about this movie that I want to say, but my hands are tied and my lips are going to be zipped. While the first two acts are mysterious and intriguing, it's that third act that completely blew my mind, making me walk out of the theater in a very emotional, reflective state. There's a part of me that wants to clue you in a little bit about what I'm referring to since it's been two weeks that this movie has been out, but I'm not going to. All that I'll say is that there's some powerful acting on the part of Brad Pitt. He's able to express some very strong emotions while using a lot of restraint. And the people that are in the scene with him do a job that is equally as good. I won't name names. You can go check IMDb if you are overly curious. In regards to our recent space movies that I mentioned earlier in this review, I still think "Gravity" is the best of them all and that's followed closely behind by "The Martian." But I'll comfortably put "Ad Astra" there in third place. Just for fun, my ranking there will be rounded out by "First Man," "Life," "Interstellar" and "Passengers" in that exact order. This is a very rewarding film if you're prepared for the experience you're about to get. My grade for "Ad Astra" is a 9/10.

Abominable Review

It's the third movie in what I'm now calling the Yeti trilogy. This follows Warner Animation Group's "Smallfoot" last September and Laika's "Missing Link" this April. Now DreamWorks is finishing it off with "Abominable." This is a bit of a strange phenomenon that three different studios all came up with a similar idea for an animated movie. And they all came out in such close proximity to each other that I don't think it's possible for them to be copying off each other. It's like when "Antz" and "A Bug's Life" came out within two months of each other back in 1998 or when "Shark Tale" was released the year after "Finding Nemo." Sometimes these things just happen. In this instance, I feel bad for "Abominable" because it might be the best of the three, yet I'm certain a lot of people skipped it because they saw a Yeti movie being advertised and thought to themselves, "Another one?" Yup. Another one. Granted, neither "Smallfoot" nor "Missing Link" broke the bank in terms of box office performance. "Missing Link" was easily one of the biggest financial failures of 2019, which breaks my heart. But either way, I'm sure the existence of two other Yeti movies contributed, at least in part, to "Abominable" opening to just $20.6 million, one of the worst openings ever for DreamWorks.

In fact, since I've created a lot of DreamWorks charts recently, I will share based on personal findings that if you adjust for ticket price inflation and remove the three Aardman movies that Dreamworks helped co-produce in the early 2000's ("Chicken Run," "Wallace and Gromit" and "Flushed Away"), a $20.6 million opening is the second lowest opening for any DreamWorks Animation film, ahead of only "Sinbad: The Legend of the Seven Seas," which adjusts to a $10.3 million opening with 2019 ticket prices. Even if you don't adjust, the opening for "Abominable" comes in 29th place for DreamWorks out of either 34 or 37 titles (again, depending on whether you count the three Aardman films). If you're curious, the average opening for a DreamWorks film is $54.8 million if you adjust or $44.3 million if you don't adjust. So this is not good news. Luckily for them, this is not a complete loss for them. Expectations were tempered a bit with a budget of only $75 million. Universal, who owns DreamWorks, was expecting a $17-20 million opening going into the weekend. Also, the movie is co-produced by Pearl Studio, a Chinese production company, and most of the movie takes place in China, yet has not opened in any of its major Asian markets, so there's still hope for it.

Enough of all of that, though. Onto the movie, which I think it quite adorable. I have all of these DreamWorks charts because I'm currently in the process of going on a DreamWorks marathon as I want to make a post of my favorite DreamWorks films, like I have in the past with Disney and Pixar. I was going to expedite that marathon so that I could release said list right before going into "Abominable," but I wasn't fast enough. And now I'm glad I didn't succeed because I honestly feel "Abominable" has a solid chance of making into that list of top DreamWorks movies, which is something I wasn't expecting. I thought it would be a cute, fun movie for families, but this movie has some legitimate Pixar moments, if you know what I mean. In fact, the movie that it reminded me the most of was not "Smallfoot" or "Missing Link," but Pixar's "Coco," which sounds like a strange statement on paper, but I'll explain myself here in a bit. First though, the movie follows a teenage girl named Yi who is quite sad and depressed due to the passing of her father, yet suppresses her feelings and closes herself off to her mother and grandmother. One night she finds a baby Yeti hiding on her roof, which leads to quite the magical adventure.

Yes, this is certainly a movie that is rather derivative of a lot of films. And I'm not talking about the two other Yeti movies I've previously mentioned. Rather I'm thinking of any movie where a child or teenager develops a bond with an alien or monster that is being misunderstood by the evil government or evil adults and has to help said alien or monster return home. The biggest example here is "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial," which "Abominable" follows rather closely. This is certainly not the first movie to try to summon the magic of "E.T." and it most definitely won't be the last. But yet it is a great example of the idea that you can take a familiar idea and still create a good movie if your execution is on point, which is definitely the case here. Our Yeti, who they name Everest since that's where he's trying to get back to, is absolutely adorable. He's just like a baby Yeti, or young Yeti, who doesn't have any idea what's going on, but is scared and hurt. When he learns that Yi is his friend, an immediate bond is formed that is equivalent of your typical child/pet relationship. Because, yeah, that's what separates this from "Smallfoot" and "Missing Link." In those two movies, the Yetis are anthropomorphized. They have human qualities. In "Abominable," the Yetis are like animals.

What ensues is the story of a girl who is lonely and depressed, yet is able to find a connection with this lonely baby Yeti that helps her discover what's really important. But it's not just her and the Yeti. There's two other human characters involved in this journey, a young boy named Peng and a fellow teenage boy named Jin. Peng and Jin end up on this journey to find Everest's home almost by accident. Yi is simply trying to hide Everest from the evil government when Peng and Jin happened to be dragged along with them. Peng and Everest are hilarious together because they are about the same age, or at least the same level of maturity, so they spend the whole movie goofing off like two young kids while the older teenagers in Yi and Jin try to navigate everything. Jin is a stuck-up teenage boy who doesn't want to be here with them, but he's there because he feels responsible for Peng. Luckily there's no romance arc between Yi and Jin, I was worried they were going to go that route, but instead they go the much better route of the four of them developing a strong, believable friendship as they learn to rely on each other for help and support. And yes, Everest is a magical Yeti, which leads to some beautiful scenes, both in terms of animation and theme. 

And that brings me to my "Coco" comparison. In regards to plot and characters, the two movies are quite a bit different. But the central themes and the way they were executed felt very similar to me. Said themes is that of family. Both movies are centered around a young protagonist who perhaps doesn't fully understand the importance of family, yet by the end are able to really understand and appreciate what they have due to an adventure they went on away from the family. Sure, "Coco" might be a more well-rounded movie with a stronger emotional punch, but "Abominable" has shades of "Coco" scattered throughout, which I wasn't expecting. Both movies even have a grandmother figure who is key to the story and are centered around non-American cultures. Some of the magic scenes in "Abominable" reminded me of some of the animation of "Coco" and both movies have a theme song that helps drive home the emotion. "Abominable" uses Coldplay's "Fix You" rather brilliantly--and I believe it's an arrangement that's specific to the movie--while topping things off with a new song by Bebe Rexha called "Beautiful Life." There were a couple of other songs used, but it was Coldplay and Bebe that stood out to me.

The only thing that really bothered me in the movie were the mustache-twirling villains that were only there because we needed a villain chasing the group. I get the idea of conflict being important here. If it were just these three kids going on an adventure with this magical Yeti, the movie may have felt a bit empty. But that was one part where the execution wasn't done so well. I didn't even really understand the motivations of these villains outside money and popularity. Yes, the whole movie was very derivative, but with everything else they found a way to make you gravitate towards the characters and feel the emotions of the movie. Thus it was kinda disappointing when they couldn't come up with a solid villain to drive this home, especially since this evil organization got a significant amount of screen time. It ended up detracting from the film. That one complaint aside, this movie came as a very pleasant surprise. How it ends up stacking up to all the other DreamWorks movies is a complete mystery to me. I have no idea what my DreamWorks list is going to look like, which makes for a fun undertaking. But "Abominable" is a solid effort from them. If you're in search for a good animated movie to watch, I highly recommend this one. My grade is an 8/10. 

Out of Liberty Review

September has been an interesting month for movies. And by that I mean there's been "IT: Chapter Two" and... well, nothing else. There's been a couple of times in the last week or so where I've had the desire to go see a matinee film or something like that, but I look at what my options are and realize that I've seen everything that I've wanted to see that's currently in theaters near me. So instead of going to see movies and writing reviews, I stayed home and was jealous of all the people who were fancy enough to go to the Toronto International Film Festival, because there's now at least 15-20 films that showed there that I am now dying to see. Now I saw this coming when I did my September preview, but still. I'm excited to get out of this September lull and into the holiday season where there are a lot more options. So while the first weekend of September had only "IT: Chapter Two," the second weekend that just passed us by gave us the option of a stripper movie in "Hustlers" and "The Goldfinch," a movie I was excited for until it got absolutely wasted at TIFF. So instead of seeing one of those two, I turned my attention to the local scene where we have "Out of Liberty," a movie about Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail. Given these choices, I'd like to say I made a good decision.

Earlier in the summer when I reviewed "The Other Side of Heaven 2," I had no idea what the theater count was and thus I wrongly assumed it was only a Utah release. Turns out the movie opened in 205 theaters, which was a much wider release than I was expecting. After 12 weeks in theaters, "The Other Side of Heaven 2" has made $1.7 million, which is pretty good for a one of these smaller, local-ish Christian films. "Out of Liberty," though, only opened in 35 theaters, so this one does seem like it's actually a local film here in Utah only. Maybe a few locations outside. I do know from looking at my showtimes on IMDb that 22 of the 35 locations are here on the Wasatch Front. Where the other 13 locations are, I'm not sure. They're most likely in places like Idaho or Arizona that have a higher population of Latter-day Saints. In late July, Purdie also released "The Fighting Preacher," which started in 28 theaters and expanded into 37 theaters in its second weekend. So if you got that movie at your local theater this summer, I'm willing to bet that you also have "Out of Liberty" right now. If you don't have either, I'm guessing you'll have to wait until it comes to DVD, unless the movie catches on like wildfire. But based on early returns from this past weekend, I don't think that will be the case. 

For better or for worse, "Out of Liberty" is a movie that assumes you know all about Joseph Smith and are curious in seeing a deeper dive of what he experienced in Liberty Jail. Some of these Latter-day Saint films at least make an attempt to appeal to a non-member audience. Whether or not that effort is successful is a different story, but at least there's an attempt. "Out of Liberty" makes no attempt. If you're not an active member of the Church and/or you don't care about Joseph Smith, this is not your movie. That's my disclaimer right now. And that's a bit of an interesting choice given that Garrett Batty is the director here. His previous two films, "The Saratov Approach" and "Freetown" were movies that had at least some sort of appeal to the general public. I think it was Larry King who said that "The Saratov Approach" was a great little independent film. Now I don't think "Out of Liberty" going a different approach is a bad thing by any means. It's just a different approach. And in many cases, having a very specific, niche audience can be a great thing. You don't have to worry about pandering to people outside your target audience. You can simply give them exactly what they want. If they're pleased with the result, then you did your job.

I didn't pay too close attention to the advertising of this movie. I was very well aware that it existed because they gave it a very good local push. Because of that, I knew this was a movie about Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail. I just didn't know what the specific angle was and I was curious to see what Garrett Batty brought to the table. The thing is, I'm very well aware of this story. It almost goes without saying that Joseph's Smith story has been told a lot of times. Just about every time it has been told, Liberty Jail is included in some form because it was a key moment in his history. Doctrine & Covenants sections 121 and 122 are some of the most powerful and most quoted scriptures in the Church's library of scriptures. Whenever they are quoted, often a brief explanation of the Liberty Jail context is also given. So in my mind, if we're going to revisit this in the form of a film, there's got to be a specific purpose as to why we're revisiting it for the upteenth time. That's why I was more curious than outright excited for this experience. And I have to be honest here. The final result has me slightly conflicted. I do think Garrett Batty is a good filmmaker and because of that, there's a lot of things here that work quite well. It just didn't resonate with me as much as it should've.

If you want to go into this movie completely blind as to what it's all about, feel free to exit this review and come back after you watch. If you don't mind a bit of an exploration of this, then proceed. With that out of the way, the specific angle here is, simply put, Liberty Jail. All of it. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't get a recap of who Joseph Smith is. There's also very little information given about the Saints' situation in Missouri. We don't even get to see why Joseph Smith and company got put in Liberty Jail. There's a few words of text that briefly describe the situation, but no visuals. After said text, the movie starts with them two months into their jail sentence, the month being December 1838. The introductory scene is of them formulating a plan to escape because they feel like that's their only way out. That plan fails. Because, you know, they ending up being there for six months. Following that, the movie goes in a very straight-lined narrative, giving highlights of their time in jail in four different sections: January, February, March and April. No, the movie doesn't have a nice and pretty three-act structure, thus this ends up as quite the tricky undertaking. Most of the time that Joseph and company were in Liberty Jail, it was cold, dark and lonely with nothing happening.   

That's why I felt conflicted here. While there was a lot going on during this time period, if the decision is made to have the point of view strictly from Liberty Jail only, what do you do to make that story interesting? Yeah, they did a great job of setting the scene for Liberty Jail. It was cold and chilling. There were definitely some great individual moments. But when I had to stay in jail with them for the whole movie, I started to get claustrophobic a bit. It felt like I got thrown in jail for two hours with them and it began to be uncomfortable. It's just hard to maintain a great flow when you decide to handcuff yourself to just one point of view. And given that I'm well familiar with the story, I think it would've added to the emotion to see what the saints were going through while Joseph was stuck in prison. The events right before Joseph got thrown in Liberty Jail were emotional and heart-wrenching. The continued extermination order while Joseph was in prison was tragic. Pair all these events up and you have an excellent movie. With what we got instead, we feel bad for Joseph because he's cold and miserable. In reality, he was mostly sad about what the saints were going through and the fact that he could do nothing to help them given that he was stuck in this jail all winter.

Yet we don't get to see any of that. Instead, we get loaded with constant exposition the entire movie and that's just not as effective as seeing what's going on. That's why whenever these events have been portrayed in various movies, we do get to witness the full scope of what's happening from every angle. And I don't think this decision was made due to budget constraints. Batty's previous two movies have been fairly successful. I just think he wanted to tell a more constrained, personal story with this, thus giving us a different look at this then what we've had in the past. And I will say that does make this unique in the large library of movies based on Church history, so I give him points there. I just don't know if unique is always the best. I mean, when Liberty Jail is portrayed, it's never the focus point of the entire film and I think there's a good reason for that. It's just a bit exhausting when we zoom in and spend the whole movie there. It gets the point across just fine in 20-30 minutes as a part of something bigger in scope. And if I'm being honest, if I'm ever in the mood to dive into some Church history via film, I don't know how often I'm going to turn to this one when something like "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration" is available instead.

All that said, this review has been a lot more negative than I initially intended it to be. I just walked out in a bit of a conflicted manner and I've used this review to get to the bottom of what I've been feeling. Since I feel I've gotten that point across just fine, if we put aside the narrative structure of the film, there is a lot of positive moments in this movie. Despite this being about Liberty Jail, Joseph Smith is actually almost a supporting character in the film. There's a lot of focus around the jailer Samuel Tillery, who is played by Jasen Wade, who is definitely the lead in the film. He's the name they have advertised on all of the posters and is the one who comes up first in the end credits. And he has a solid arc in the film. He's trying to be this stern jailer so that the leaders of county and state will be happy with him, but he also fights hard to protect all of his prisoners from the angry mobs that constantly try to come and take justice into their own hands. He's bound and determined to keep all of them safe. There's some good, solid character moments with him. And if you don't remember off hand exactly how Joseph got out of Liberty Jail, I won't give that away, but it makes for an excellent moment that leaves you with all warm and fuzzy inside.

The movie's soundtrack is also quite excellent. When moments of tension happened, I was successfully on the edge of my seat. Even though I know that they all stayed in Liberty Jail until April, their attempted escapes were framed and executed quite well. And all of the acting was solid. Now if we're going back to the nitpicky side of things, I do have to say that the actor who played Joseph Smith looked nothing like him. It made me laugh when the whole group stood up and Joseph Smith was short and chubby. I don't know how tall Brandon Ray Oliver is, but he looked like he was only 5'6" or 5'7" while I think Joseph was closer to 6'2" or something like that. So if we're going to get a random, non-member actor to play Joseph, why not cast someone who looks more like him? That said, he did a great job of portraying Joseph in the most honest and respectful way, so I appreciated that. And we also had a lot of other great supporting cast members, including Garrett Batty bringing back Corbin Allred from "The Saratov Approach" to play Porter Rockwell. Corbin Allred always gets into his roles and it's fun to watch him. And without saying more than I should, if you've been to the temple recently, you'll know exactly who Corbin Allred is when you see him. 

Some other quick final thoughts. Again, if you are unfamiliar with Church history, some of the drama that happens won't have as strong of an effect. The main antagonist in the film is a mob member who is very angry about certain events that happened at the Battle of Crooked River. If that battle rings no bells, you're going to be at a disadvantage. Also, Alexander Doniphan plays a significant role in this. And if that name doesn't ring a bell, then you're also at a disadvantage because the movie assumes you already know him and doesn't bother explaining. If you're watching this at your home, you have the advantage of being able to pause and go over that. But if you're watching it in theaters, the movie has the potential to lose you. That's why I said earlier that if you're not an active member of the Church, this movie is probably not for you. Given that I am in the target audience, I personally wasn't bothered, but again it's worth noting. All in all, this movie does have plenty of great moments. It's not preachy, but it does leave you with enough of a spiritual high that I imagine most people won't even think of all things that I brought up here. I don't think it's a movie you need to rush out to see in theaters, but I do think it's worth a watch at some point. My grade here is a 7/10.

IT: Chapter Two Review

Everyone's favorite killer clown is back in what is easily the horror event of the year. It's actually been a pretty decent month or so for horror as in just the last month I've done reviews for "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark," "47 Meters Down: Uncaged" and "Ready or Not." Then we had "Midsommar" back in July as well as "Child's Play" and "Annabelle Comes Home" back in June, the latter two of which I still haven't seen. We also had the little Sundance thriller "Don't Let Go" last weekend, but I also didn't get around to seeing that one. But, yeah, "IT: Chapter Two" is the big one as the first "IT" made an astronomically high $123 million opening weekend, which is practically unheard of for a horror film. Horror films are so cheap to make that if you get $40-50 million opening weekend, you're almost guaranteed to have 10 sequels coming in the next 10 years. You can even get away with only making $20-30 million overall in certain instances and still be considered profitable given that most of these films are budgeted at only a few million dollars. So yeah, $123 million in one weekend is insane. It went onto make $327 million domestically and $700 million worldwide. So here we are with "Chapter Two" as fast as they possibly could, which is also set to do quite well.

Sure, it might be unfair to expect "Chapter Two" to perform as high as the first one, but given that the first one was only budgeted at $35 million, it's not necessary for it to do as well, even though it does appear that they doubled the production budget to $60-70 million, which it's certainly guaranteed to make back in its upcoming opening weekend as it's on pace for somewhere between $80-100 million. In the meantime, Warner Bros. is probably trying to figure out a way to bring Pennywise back for a third outing, but I hope they can manage to restrain themselves and just keep it as these two movies because, with both movies combined, this is a solid five hour epic that has a perfect beginning, middle and end. We don't need more. As far as my feelings on this second half going in, I would label myself as being cautiously optimistic. I really enjoyed the first movie and I loved the idea of having the same director and team come for this second movie. I also loved the new cast they had for the adult versions of the losers club, highlighted by Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy and Bill Hader. But if we're being real, the first half of the movie was the part that was easy to get right whereas they had their work cut out for them as the second half is the lesser half of the story.

I don't want to get too deep into my issues with this second half, in terms of the book and the 1990 TV miniseries, because most of that has to do with how this ends. It's not a good ending. Granted, I haven't physically read the 100,000 page book by Stephen King (OK, that's a slight exaggeration in terms of that length), but I've read and heard a lot about it, especially since I have seen the miniseries and when that ending came, I was like, "Wait, what? That's it?" A friend of mine once told me that, while Stephen King does an excellent job setting up his horror, mystery and suspense, he's not very good at his resolutions. I can't claim that as my personal opinion of his work since I haven't actually read most of his stuff, but in terms of the ending of "IT," I'd say that most certainly holds true. The other non-spoilery reason why I'm not as big of a fan of the second half of the story is that having Pennywise terrorize a group of teenage kids is a much more intriguing setup that simply works better for a horror film as compared to Pennywise terrorizing a group of adults. With the 2017 movie version, the fact that they made it take place in 80's was a perfect marriage as it felt like a classic 80's horror. And we all know how popular and fun 80's nostalgia vomit is right now. 

So yeah, the filmmakers here really had their work cut out for them, which is why I think I ended up enjoying and appreciating this film a lot more than I was expecting to. First and foremost, what really held this thing together was the cast. When I heard that they cast Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy and Bill Hader, I knew I was going to get 110 percent out of those three. And I was exactly right. But what I also got was an equal amount of effort from the other three members of the adult losers club, played by Jay Ryan, James Ransone and Isaiah Mustafa. Yes, there were seven kids in the losers club in the first movie. If you don't know the story here, I'll let you figure out in the first 20 minutes what happens to the seventh one as an adult. But for the sake of this review, these six actors are our main group that are focused and I think it's impressive how much I bought the idea that they are grown up versions of the kids. There's a lot of flashbacks in this where they go back to them as kids and it helped me remember their personalities in the first movie, which in turn made it extremely impressive because those same personalities still existed in their adult selves. Despite being very well known actors, especially Chastain, McAvoy and Hader, they were all able to disappear into their roles and become these characters.

On top of there being six great performances in the movie, I also liked the focus of this being a character piece. A lot of horror films out there are focused first and foremost on the scares and the imagery, with story and characters being afterthoughts. Depending on how well said scares are set up, that can work as mindless entertainment, but where the horror genre really shines is when there's more depth. When the horror sequences are secondary in focus to the themes, characters and story. That's one thing that the first "IT" excelled at. You really cared about this group of young outcasts and what they were going through. Having them all bind together to face their fears and thus become stronger was quite touching and inspirational. It was a lot more than just a killer clown chasing kids around. I loved how "Chapter Two" built on that. Sometimes we make promises as kids, but life happens and we forget. In the movie, they literally forgot due to supernatural elements of the town, but I think it was very metaphorical. They had to remember who they were, come together again, and conquer their fears once and for all. For most of them, the struggles they had when they were younger carried over into their adult lives and all of that got forced to the surface when they reunited in Derry.

I found myself really enjoying watching all of them grow and progress as characters. I don't want to specifically single out one or two of them as having superior arcs because I liked all six of them. I also liked how the movie chose not to rush to a finale. There's a lot of story to tell here and they gave themselves plenty of time to tell it. It was a gamble to make the movie nearly three hours long (2 hours 49 minutes), but I think it payed off as nothing felt rushed or compromised. This could've easily been one of those 10-episode Netflix shows with how much material there is to work with, but I liked having this as a movie and I liked how well it has done because it's given them the financial freedom to do this story justice with high budget effects and top notch actors to go along with 2019 technology. It's allowed us to experience the "IT" story that we all deserve. And I think it's highly amusing that people will binge a whole season of "The Haunting of Hill House" in one weekend with zero complaints (that's nearly 10 hours worth of content), yet at the same time will walk out and complain that "IT: Chapter Two" was too long at just three hours. Yes, this movie is a bit of time investment, but if you're just going to watch Netflix all night anyways, you might as well invest that time, right?

Now it would certainly be foolish of me to review an "IT" movie and not talk about the scares. Because there's a lot of them. I don't know if I was cowering in my seat like I was with something like "Hereditary" or "Midsommar." I'm not even sure this was quite as terrifying as the first "IT." But I was really enjoying myself. Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise was again having the time of his life. Every time he showed up on screen, he just completely took over and had my full attention. Tim Curry as Pennywise is rightfully iconic, but Bill Skarsgard absolutely does the character justice and also does a great job of making it his own. These are two very different performances, but are both great in their own right. The advantage that Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise has is that it's not held back by being a TV miniseries. They can get away with being a lot more gruesome and graphic. Speaking of that, I felt that "Chapter Two" was even a lot more graphic than the first one. Given that they didn't know how successful that first movie was going to be, it felt like perhaps they were a bit cautious. But this time around, knowing that people will show up in droves, they did not hold back one bit. They completely unleashed the Pennywise fury.

With that does come a bit of a caution. If you don't have the stomach for graphic horror films, but yet you were considering maybe give "IT" and "IT: Chapter Two" a chance due to how culturally relevant and popular the movies are becoming, you might want to reconsider. Perhaps you can check out the first movie, I own it if you are a good friend of mine who lives close. And if that's too much for you, then steer clear of "Chapter Two" because they turn up intensity quite a bit. If you've only seen the 1990 miniseries, know that these two movies make that one look cheesy, childish and tame. But if you do have the stomach for these types of horror films, buckle up and enjoy the ride. Now "Chapter Two" is not being as widely acclaimed as the first movie, thus I think I might end up being one who is higher on the movie than most. As such, I was going to counter a lot of the common complaints that I didn't have an issue with, but there's an interesting psychological phenomenon with movies that once you hear a complaint about a movie you haven't seen, you often go in with that complaint in mind, thinking that you might also have the same complaint. So I'm not even going to put those negative thoughts about this movie into your brain. Maybe it'll give you more of a clean slate. 

As far as a final grade, I think I've handcuffed myself a bit. I really enjoyed last month's "Scary Stories" and gave it a really high score. And even though I liked "IT: Chapter Two" for very different reasons, I'm not quite sure which one I like more and I'm not ready to make that determination quite yet. So I feel obligated to give it the same score just to make my life easier. But at the same time, I will freely admit that the first "IT" is a more polished, refined, and scarier movie that "Chapter Two" simply because it was easier to get right, thus I was going to give "Chapter Two" a slightly lower grade than that one. But yet my score for "Scary Stories" and "IT" is the same exact score, so I'm in a bit of a bind. That's why I hope you don't put too much weight into the grades I give in my reviews. I like giving them because it's a good summation of how I feel. But yeah, what I say means a lot more than the number I give and this is a good example of why. I suppose this is deserving of the same score as the first simply because they had a bigger uphill battle to climb and they did an excellent job with the task that they were given. And without spoiling the ending, I left the movie with a huge smile on my face thanks to certain things they changed. So, sure. I'll give "IT: Chapter Two" a 9/10.