Author: Michael Haffner

I enjoy sitting in large, dark rooms with like-minded cinephiles and having stories unfold before my eyes.

HAPPY DEATH DAY – Review

There are certain stereotypes and tropes that have existed in the horror genre for decades. In the 80s, the slasher genre made popular the idea of a masked killer stalking a group of teenagers. As often was the case, a “final girl” was left as the killer’s last victim, being forced to do battle and reveal to the audience who has been picking off her friends one by one.

Sure, it’s formulaic, but the concept spawned hundreds of films and continues to inspire modern filmmakers to put their own spin on the sub-genre. Powerhouse production company Blumhouse has hired Christopher Landon (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY: THE MARKED ONES) to breathe life into their own clever take on the slasher film with HAPPY DEATH DAY. Instead of a group of kids each facing their individual demise, you have one girl standing in the place of them all. How, do you ask? It’s never fully explained, but Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe) ends each day being killed by a baby mask-wearing killer and then wakes up to face it over and over and over again. And before you say it… yes, the film is very much aware of the classic comedy that they are borrowing the concept from.

This familiar structure works because the film plays around with slasher film motifs. Everyone who grew up with the sub-genre loves the staging of a good kill. While she may be living out the same day over and over again, Tree learns from each misstep which leads to a new and creative way for the killer to get her the next day. The deaths are fun without a focus on the blood and guts, even adding a tongue-in-cheek factor in some cases (an escape to the bedroom from a frat party takes a funny and disastrous turn).

Jessica Rothe’s character sort of embodies several female horror stereotypes all rolled into one, and I mean this in a good way. You have the bad girl that has a wild side, the comedic jester that farts and jokes with friends, and you even have the strong and determined final girl that outsmarts the killer, all packed into one character. She’s filled with gumption, but Rothe goes a little overboard with the delivery.

While the film embraces the nonsensical absurdity for two-thirds of its 96 min. duration, the last third amplifies it to parody-level theatrics. You almost expect the Mystery Science Theater 3000  hosts to pop in towards the end to riff on some of the nauseating moments, including one where our lead has a sequence of “self-discovery” moments. At that point though, the film had me mostly sold on its blend of self-aware and serious horror, even if the balance was a little uneven.

Many fans will be quick to point out that it’s not particularly scary. To that point, I would 100% agree. Sure, the mask is creepy – what 80s horror kid doesn’t love a good scary mask – however, the scariest element is the real-life horror insinuated by Tree questioning the men and women in her life. Like any good whodunnit, there’s always a question of who’s the killer. Director Christopher Landon emphasizes the personal players in her life. Despite his often pedestrian approach to staging the thrilling sequences, he does a fine job at putting the audience in her shoes. The threat is all around her and could be anyone in her life. So, while this specific paralyzing feeling might be creepy, horror fans might be more amused by the presence of “Death” instead of being actually afraid of it. HAPPY DEATH DAY is a film to moderately enjoy today, but not something that you will relive or remember tomorrow.

 

Overall score: 2.5 out of 5

HAPPY DEATH DAY opens in theaters Friday, October 13th

AMERICAN MADE – Review

Oliver Stone’s films from the 1990s feel substantially more radical than the anarchic, protest-cinema label that many seemed quick to slap on them. Like Stone’s JFK or NATURAL BORN KILLERS, AMERICAN MADE is a barrage of visual and aural cues slapped together to create that same kinetic spirit that Stone so artfully mastered. Yet, in its attempt to be a Stone-level critique of America, director Doug Liman instead just apes the style without any discerning commentary. It’s like a high-schooler giving the middle finger to the Reagan-era policies without fully understanding the why.

Tom Cruise reunites with his EDGE OF TOMORROW director, Doug Liman, to tell the true story of a pilot who is unexpectedly recruited by the CIA to run one of the biggest covert operations in U.S. history in the late 70s. What starts out as a few trips taking aerial photos of enemy bases in South America, quickly turns into a criminal career transporting cocaine and guns from Panama to the U.S. for both the CIA and one of the most notorious cartels in the world.


One of the boldest and most outrageous performances in Tom Cruise’s career is partially overshadowed by the fact that he’s completely miscast. Sure, the story demands someone that’s charming and can lighten the severity of the subject matter, but I couldn’t help but think how Sam Rockwell could have added some emotional depth to the role. Despite all the sweating and shocked expressions Cruise exhibits from scene to scene, there’s barely a moment of tension where you feel the pressure and severity of what’s at stake.

The moral compass never balances out as the majority of the film seems to glorify his pursuit of making more money by any means possible. Liman has taken Gary Spinelli’s screenplay and spun it in a way to make it as lighthearted and zany as possible. Though the only aspect that’s even remotely funny is the fact that we’re watching one of the most controlling A-list Hollywood stars cut loose and have some fun for once. We’ve seen this type of dark satire before – and done much better with a more talented cast – but the message seems lost amid a style of filmmaking and story that’s focused on excess. The critique of the American dream has never felt so tired.

How the world and the political landscape has been affected by the Iran-Contra Scandal is an interesting story, and one that could have been injected more into this depiction of how normalcy can shift so easily into debauchery. Regardless of such big-name characters like Escobar, Noriega, and Reagan, the bigger picture is ignored to make more room for Cruise’s antics. Despite the energy that the film’s commander in chief has for the subject matter, this American tale is an exhausting exercise in saying so little, so very loudly.

 

Overall score: 2.5 out of 5

AMERICAN MADE opens in theaters everywhere September 29th

REBEL IN THE RYE – Review

The world’s obsession with J.D. Salinger has always been there. Perhaps the fact that so little of his work was ever published is a part of it. Perhaps it’s the fact that the press and readers graced him with such high praise early on in his career (possibly prematurely). Perhaps it’s the enigmatic label that he put upon himself.

REBEL IN THE RYE touches on many of these issues but in a rather soft-handed, unoffensive way. Most importantly, it shows J.D. Salinger at his worst – an ego-centric and tenacious singular voice. His dedication to his voice is only matched by his determination to let it be heard. Even after his death in January 2010, we still can’t stop talking about the infamous man and what made him tick.

The 2013 documentary SALINGER attempted to piece together the writer’s life, thoughts, and personal quirks into an eye-opening film – yet, missing the mark by quite a bit – and REBEL IN THE RYE fairs about the same, though possibly slightly better due to a committed performance. Nicholas Hoult crafts a character that falls in line with the modern label, “The Softboy.” This is someone that is emotive but emotionally inept. He’s complicated but calculated. He can shift from being the intellectual to the bad boy on a dime. Hoult gives voice to these many different facets, but creating something that is complex doesn’t mean that it feels real or very likable.

During an interview earlier in the film, a lady asks the writer what the J.D. stands for. He nonchalantly responds, “Juvenile delinquent.” This bad boy posturing in between playing the martyr in both the classroom with his instructor (played in predictable fashion by Kevin Spacey) and with the ladies becomes tired and… dare I say… phony.

Phony is a word used brazenly in Salinger’s book, THE CATCHER IN THE RYE, and one that best describes the film’s attempts at capturing any real spontaneous moments of genius that may have inspired his writing. Montage after montage is shown of him writing and smoking cigarettes all set to the internal monologues from the book. It seems to go through the motions of his life instead of trying to discover a form of truth.

“Are you willing to devote your life to writing without getting anything in return?” That question posed by Spacey’s character lingers heavily throughout the film. While the story follows Salinger’s search to be published, in the end, there’s the realization that publishing might have been his biggest downfall. It’s a bittersweet, ironic message to learn – almost Shakespearean, in a sense. But it’s an authentic realization that gets lost in a sea of melodrama and phony theatrics.

 


Overall rating: 2 out of 5

REBEL IN THE RYE opens at the Landmark Plaza Frontenac Cinema on Sept. 15th and is now playing in select theaters 

 

IT – Review

“They all float down here… You’ll float too…” That simple phrase is one of the most iconic elements in Stephen King’s classic novel. It’s a line that sounds so innocent but it carries such a sinister meaning. Like the balloon in the clown’s hand hiding within the storm drain, dead bodies also float… or in this case, poor Georgie. Once the body builds up gases from bacteria, dead bodies float to the surface. With this in mind, director Andy Muschietti and the makeup department creepily emphasize this water and floating imagery throughout the film in subtle ways.

The film’s opening production logos are showered in rain, leading into the iconic scene previously mentioned. But they don’t stop just there. Many of the characters – especially the misguided and deplorable adult characters – are sweaty and oily. You can practically smell the sweat and dirt caked on their faces. And then there’s the clown, Pennywise. Each line of dialogue comes with a dribble of saliva that oozes onto his ruffled collar. It sounds like a gooey film, just not in the traditional bloody sense – it’s an intelligent director carefully utilizing a motif to build atmosphere and remind the audience of the constant threat, even when It isn’t on screen to terrify us.

IT tells the story of a group of outsiders in small town Derry, Maine. What begins as a small group of boys, quickly expands as other kids are drawn into Bill’s desire to find out who or what is causing the children of the town to go missing, including his brother Georgie. The Losers Club discover a connection with the town’s sewers, but as they delve deeper, a mysterious clown and other strange sights start appearing to each member of the group.

While the TV miniseries that was released in 1990 intercut the child and adult scenes from the book, this new adaptation focuses just on “The Losers Club” section of the book. This focus will draw immediate comparisons to another King adaptation, STAND BY ME, along with the popular Netflix series STRANGER THINGS (both featuring the talented Finn Wolfhard). But the screenplay attributed to Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman (Fukunaga previously attached to direct before leaving the project), is quick to define each of these characters and this specific world. Sure, it’s a coming of age story complete with “your mom jokes” and foul-mouthed zingers you would expect from boys and girls in the late-80s. It even includes a montage set to The Cure’s “Six Different Way” (one of the best uses of the song I’ve seen in a film). However, it’s important to remember that STRANGER THINGS wouldn’t be what it is without Stephen King’s IT.

Director Andy Muschietti creates a perfect balance of laughter, drama, and thrills that should satisfy King fanatics along with those looking for a memorable coming-of-age horror film. Sophia Lillis is captivating as the strong-willed and defiant Beverly who doesn’t buckle under the pressure from her father and classmates and as the sole female voice in the gang. Muschietti always focuses on the characters first, placing their internal and external struggles front and center instead of just cheap jump-scares. IT is a story that can be hard to tackle, but the Argentine director shows no signs of being intimidated by the material. In fact, he isn’t afraid to embrace the scope of the story. What could’ve easily gone the route of overused clown scares, results in a carefully constructed film that goes beyond being an exceptional horror film.

Many fans of the book were nervous about Bill Skarsgård’s look as the clown Pennywise. His commitment to the character results in several uncomfortable moments, but many will be surprised that his hair-raising visage isn’t utilized more. But once again, it shows a director who knows when to show restraint. My main complaint is actually how he utilizes the other frightening imagery. Like his previous film MAMA, Muchietti uses characters quickly moving towards the camera and a strong reliance on distorted faces to scare the audience, including a creepy surreal figure and a ghostly Georgie with a deteriorating face. But I guess it’s hard to top yourself after you open with the most shocking and grisly scene in the entire film –  an uneasy scene that establishes the fear that the Losers succumb to.

IT masterfully creates defining characters you can connect with. Even at a lengthy 2 hrs. and 15. mins, the pacing flows naturally from scene to scene and character to character, gracefully transitioning from one set-piece to another. Breathing life into each of the seven members of The Losers Club is no easy task. Each has their own voice and distinct characteristics. And each manages to shine with a warm empathetic glow. Despite what you feel about the horror elements, IT will surprise you with its depiction of the thoughtful, vulgar, and emotional moments that we remember from childhood. Memories that can never be washed away by the rain.

 

Overall rating: 4 out of 5 

IT opens in theaters everywhere Friday, September 8th

 

ANNABELLE: CREATION – Review

One of Andrew Wyeth’s most famous paintings is “Christina’s World.” It depicts a woman immobilized, lying on a grassy hill, reaching out towards a farmhouse that sits isolated in the distance. There was a young girl in Wyeth’s town who suffered from Polio, which forced her to crawl about. Emotions of loneliness, desperation, and fear are expressed even though the subject’s face is turned away from the viewer. This famous painting that has now traveled the world in exhibitions and as a postage stamp served as inspiration for Tobe Hooper’s 1974 cinematic masterpiece, THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE.

Director David F. Sandberg (last year’s LIGHTS OUT) seems to have also been influenced by this striking and haunting painting. ANNABELLE: CREATION feels like a southern-gothic folktale, not unlike PUMPKINHEAD. And like the aforementioned painting, the main lead girl also suffers from Polio, causing her to walk slowly in a leg brace. She’s one of several young women that a doll maker and his wife take in after the closing of an orphanage. Played with quiet strength by Talitha Bateman, Janice falls prey to a dark presence which leads her to discover an old doll hidden away in a locked bedroom upstairs.

While screenwriter Gary Dauberman, unfortunately, leaves the majority of the cast to simply blow away into the dusty distance, Sandberg focuses his attention on delivering what younger audiences have mainly come to experience: scares. In that regard, ANNABELLE: CREATION is extremely effective. Unlike its predecessor, it proudly stands next to THE CONJURING films as delivering real scares. What helps with this is making the audience afraid of not just the doll, but of what other being is haunting the house as well as the always hidden mother. It’s a terrifying trifecta that fits perfectly into the ominous surroundings.

Previously executed in James Wan’s INSIDIOUS and CONJURING films, Sandberg relies heavily on presenting children’s games and toys in a dark light. Everything from a dollhouse to a toy pop-gun is used in ways to subvert their innocence. Even his twisted take on a seemingly innocent song played on a record player is somewhat reminiscent of a similar take on a classic song in INSIDIOUS. That being said, I don’t fault Sandberg for learning from what has previously worked well. He shows a knack for creating tension, and like those previous films, the scares are structured as patiently staged set pieces as opposed to quick jump scares.

Art always spawns other art. As Harry S. Truman once stated, “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.” Sandberg proves that he’s certainly not ignorant to the world of horror cinema, while also showing how to properly take inspiration from some of the masters of the genre.

 

Overall score: 3.5 out of 5

ANNABELLE: CREATION opens everywhere August 11th

 

DUNKIRK – Review

Sometimes when you have been through hell and back, there isn’t anything you can say to properly convey the emotions and the experience. Without saying much, Christopher Nolan tries to express the raw emotions of war by dropping the viewer into the scenario as opposed to explaining the how and the why of the situation. Because at the end of the day, the brave soldiers at the frontlines aren’t given a suitable reason or explanation to justify possible death. Their instincts kick in and they have to fight to survive.

DUNKIRK is an emotional experiment forcing the viewer to connect with characters with little backstory or dialogue. In fact, the majority of the film is soldiers silently fighting towards a way out. The importance of time is crucial – so much so that the film opens with information placing how long each of the storylines takes place. Nolan and editor Lee Smith (who has worked with the writer/director since BATMAN BEGINS) then intercuts these stories, placing the intensity of a British Spitfire pilot (Tom Hardy) with that of the men he’s trying to protect on the ground who are looking to find a safe ship to get off the beach (newcomer Fionn Whitehead and singer Harry Styles – a decision that shows how no one was immune to the war’s call). All the while, the demand for more ships to rescue 400,000 men makes its way back home. British civilian boats set off to rescue the boys, one of which is led by Oscar nominee Mark Rylance. These three stories make up the by air, land, and sea trifecta.

Nolan is a filmmaker that doesn’t exude style necessarily. He’s not an auteur in the modern sense. He’s a traditionalist who embraces the mechanics of filmmaking with dedicated technical prowess. His use of the IMAX and 70mm format has been revolutionary in combating film piracy, while also delivering on a promise to fans of cinema. He wants you to see his film on the biggest screen possible and backs up his demand with sights that haven’t previously been seen in any other war film.

He’s always been a filmmaker obsessed with spectacle. From a hallway where the laws of gravity don’t exist in INCEPTION; to an 18-wheeler doing a somersault in the middle of the road in THE DARK KNIGHT; to the Batmobile jumping between rooftops in BATMAN BEGINS. Oftentimes, many think of Nolan as leaning heavily on the darker, dramatic side. However, I think of him more as a showman. With each film, he pushes himself to become the greatest showmen on earth. DUNKIRK solidifies this yet again with aerial dogfights unlike any we’ve seen in cinema before. The way the camera captures these planes in motion is breathtaking. The scope, simply put, is unparalleled. The 400,000 soldiers look like ants on this wide open beach while highlighting the magnitude of this impossible feat. To say that DUNKIRK is a technical marvel is an understatement.

The camerawork is punctuated with a sound design and score that lends a pulse to every frame. Hans Zimmer injects a ticking clock motif into the music, ratcheting the tension of each of the three stories and making the 106-minute runtime fly by.

Aside from all the film magic at work, Nolan strives to make it about the people and what they had to endure. As was previously mentioned, he attempts to do this with very little dialogue – apparently the script is only 75 pages. Newcomer Fionn Whitehead delivers on the challenge. It’s not easy to stand out from the herd of almost entirely dark, shaggy-haired boys, but Whitehead shines with a slight twinkle in his emotive eyes. You don’t entirely see the desperation in his eyes, but you see his determination that the physical role demands. Surprisingly, Harry Styles more than holds his own. However, if I wasn’t familiar with his recent pop hits (thanks in large part to SNL), I’m not sure he would stand out among the seemingly identical group of British soldiers that all breathe life into their roles.

Ironically, these identical soldiers are also facing a threat without distinction. These young Brits face off against a faceless enemy. You see, Nolan doesn’t ever show us the “evil Germans” we often see in films of this like. The fear of the enemy is always felt, but their faces are never shown. Large youthful eyes illuminate the desperation and danger they face – not the camera.

Placing an unknown, outside pressure as the enemy adds a level of ambiguity that ultimately makes the film feel less like a WWII and more like a film outside the specific 1940 timeline. This, of course, is interesting since the film is clearly obsessed with the idea of time. Between this and the lack of backstory surrounding the event and the characters, DUNKIRK comes across as an interesting experiment (especially given the summer movie marketing). While some might be hoping for more from the story, perhaps Nolan is actually saying much more amid the cacophony of racing hearts, plane engines, bullet-riddled metal, and silent soldiers looking for hope as the waves and bombs crash against the beach.

 

Overall rating: 4 out of 5

DUNKIRK opens everywhere July 21st

THE BIG SICK – Review

“I’m battling a 1,400-year-old culture!” lead actor Kumail Nanijani yells amid an emotional dispute with his girlfriend in the Sundance-praised film THE BIG SICK. This culture he’s specifically referencing is the Pakistani-born, Muslim belief household that believes in arranged marriage with another woman from his own country. And yet, this culture can also allude to the romantic-comedy genre that American filmgoers are used to viewing on the big screen. It’s not every day where a Middle Eastern actor gets top billing in a motion picture released across the country, and it’s quite another thing to see that someone play opposite a blonde-haired, blue-eyed American woman. The genre tends to skew predominantly white across the board. So, it’s with great fortitude that Kumail is willing to put aside his personal fears and squash cinematic norms to share a story about his and screenwriter Emily V. Gordon’s real-life romantic courtship.

Kumail meets Emily (played by Zoe Kazan) one night after a stand-up set at the comedy club he performs at. A one-night stand reluctantly turns into more after Kumail sets it upon himself to see her more than just that night. It doesn’t take long for their relationship to blossom. All the while, the expectations of his parents begin to wear on Kumail, who continuously try to set him up with young, single Pakistani women. This pressure, unfortunately, creates a rift between the star-crossed lovers. When Emily suddenly falls sick and is hospitalized, Kumail is put into a position where he is forced to confront his fears and her parents, played by Ray Romano and Holly Hunter (in what might be two of the best performances of their careers).

Produced by Judd Apatow, THE BIG SICK carries with it story beats that are familiar to Apatow’s brand. Though this time around, the dick and fart jokes are toned down compared to previous outings. However, it is a formula that has proven successful in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL and the Netflix show LOVE that balances drama and comedy, while letting the characters explore life in a way that feels surprisingly natural. Writers Kumail and Gordon have a knack for pivoting on a dime between sentimental and schtick – sometimes working both into the same scene, as is the case where a hospital lunchroom scene becomes howlingly funny.

A simple story is able to make room for complex issues in a tender and sincere way. Even though it’s a film about two people falling in and out of love with each other, it’s able to build layers of loss and regret through Emily’s parent’s relationship paired with Kumail’s identity. The pressures of being raised in a Pakistani family are brought to the forefront in such a way that each scene between Emily and Kumail feels like a step toward danger. The mounting pressure from his family is constantly casting a black cloud over their growing love for each other, making their love both a tragedy and a symbol for the bitter irony of the American dream for many foreigners. While his family has acclimated to life in America, the cultural clash becomes a central conflict that is refreshingly never entirely resolved. In the end, providing a realistic parallel to a growing problem our country is facing with no resolution in sight.

It goes without saying that Kumail is a shoo-in for a role where he plays himself, but Zoe Kazan, despite her natural charm, struggles slightly more during some of the more emotional highs. It’s a minor complaint though in a film where you can feel the heart and honesty in every scene. THE BIG SICK is an earnest remedy to the summer slog of big-budget, studio retreads. The battle within Kumail between his traditional Muslim parents and his love for Emily is a rivalry that puts more at risk than any Transformers film or spandex-clad superhero battle. In the end, hearts will be broken and the damage and pain are more traumatic than any CGI spectacle can elicit.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 

THE BIG SICK is now playing in limited theaters and opens in St. Louis on July 7th

BABY DRIVER – Review

Edgar Wright knows cinema. It’s evident in the way he writes his characters. It’s evident in how he chooses to tell his stories. It’s evident in the little visual nods he sprinkles into each scene, like tiny cinematic sprinkles – though they may seem unnecessary, they add to the delightful treat for film lovers. And so, with each new film, he pushes himself in terms of telling a new type of story and delivering it in a way that pushes his exhilarating style. It’s impossible to watch an Edgar Wright film and not feel the energy he has for the project, complete with those fun little sprinkles on top.

His unabashed glee for filmmaking has come to a head with BABY DRIVER. Years of studying film, analyzing the camerawork, acknowledging the tropes, and listening to the importance of a solid soundtrack, has amounted to a cinematic fervor that he hasn’t exhibited before. Sure, films like HOT FUZZ and SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD have shown the filmmaker challenging his comedic visual chops or adapting a new visual language, but with his sixth feature film, Wright gathers his knowledge and love of cinema into a nearly two-hour assault on the senses that’s sure to be one of the most talked about films of the year.

Baby (Ansel Elgort) is a kid who walks (or drives) to the beat of his own drum. He’s constantly plugged into his headphones to drown out the hum in his head from a childhood accident, and in doing so, he has created the ultimate soundtrack for the film. You see, Baby is a getaway driver who is looking to get out of his contract with his crime boss (Kevin Spacey). When he meets the girl of his dreams at a diner (Lily James), he sees a chance to ditch his criminal life and make a clean getaway. But as we all know with this genre, there’s always one last heist and it never goes as planned.

Relative newcomer Ansel Elgort is a delight, as he saunters and spins his way around veteran talent like Kevin Spacey, Jamie Foxx, and Jon Hamm. There’s a coolness to his performance that matches Wright’s style. It’s never cocky or ultra-masculine; it’s more indicative of Marlon Brando’s or James Dean’s brooding cool in THE WILD ONE or REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. Spacey seems to be toning it down (thankfully) to make room for Foxx, Hamm, and Eliza Gonzalez to flex their intimidating muscles opposite our puppy-eyed hero.

However, it’s important to remember that behind those soft eyes and quiet accent is fuel and rock n’ roll. Wright reminds us of this throughout the majority of the film. Like a Nirvana song where the verses are slightly softer and prettier and the choruses are loud and in your face, Wright incorporates those same tempo changes into the film. He’s not afraid to let the sweet moments between Baby and his waitress girlfriend shine, but he also ramps up the the intensity and is perfectly comfortable behind the wheel. It’s a balancing act, but he masters both with finesse and skill.

What might be the most astonishing feat but feels effortless, is the editing accompanied with each carefully selected song (curiously done by two editors who haven’t always worked together). The soundtrack, which runs the gamut from 60’s R&B like Carla Thomas, 70’s punk including The Damned, and a dash of modern hip-hop with Run the Jewels, is used throughout the film to coincide with the action, making the film the equivalent of an action movie musical. It’s one thing to listen to these songs, but it’s completely different watching how each drum beat and chord change matches up perfectly with the film.

Many might recognize the familiar story beats and cinematic tropes and see it as lazy or that Wright and his crew are copying off the films that have come before. Yet, Wright isn’t trying to hide his references. In fact, he openly showcases his love of these previous films throughout. You can’t have a kid from the “wrong side of the tracks” fall in love with a waitress at a diner without a little cheese. When you name the pizza place in your film “Goodfellas” – a film acknowledged as a cornerstone for film soundtracks – you clearly aren’t hiding your influences. Instead, Wright chooses to use these influences to create a cinematic language that walks a fine line between acknowledging the past and winking at the audience (something Tarantino falls on the wrong side of most times).

BABY DRIVER is an adrenaline-fueled love letter to the pulpy films from the 40s and 50s that’s precisely set and edited to the ultimate mixtape. Thoroughly exhilarating with just a touch of pathos, Edgar Wright has found the perfect vehicle for his passionate, cinematic voice. Each of our lives is set to a soundtrack, and it’s up to us to choose what track we want to live by.

Overall score: 4.5 out of 5 

BABY DRIVER opens in theaters June 28th 

THE MUMMY – Review

With a property like THE MUMMY, you could take it in a couple of different directions. You have the horror route: Universal and Hammer Studios both went this route in the 1930s and 50s, proving that the schlocky idea of a looming curse can be presented in a sophisticated and chilling manner. You have the adventure route: The 1999 MUMMY remake gave us a fun, Indiana Jones character in a pulpy page-turning excursion. As Universal begins its journey to create their own cinematic universe like Marvel – currently titled Dark Universe – an attempt is made to go in both directions at that same time, without successfully capturing either experience very well.

When Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) aren’t slinging jokes (bad ones, at that) during missions for the Army, the duo like to steal antiquities to sell on the Black Market. A treasure map leads the pair to a town overrun by enemy fire, but thankfully, their old day job comes in handy and a team of soldiers rescues them. In doing so, they discover a hidden burial temple beneath the town. Cut to Nick and Chris now partnering with archaeologist Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis) to investigate the tomb of Ahmanet. After killing her family centuries ago and attempting to partner with the dark Egyptian god Set, Ahmanet was buried alive for her sins. Now, as the trio excavate her tomb to bring her back to London, Nick begins to have weird visions and a special connection to this undead bachelorette.

THE MUMMY (2017) feels like a Hollywood product instead of a cinematic escape into a Dark Universe. You have the current blockbuster color palette of juxtaposing blue and orange throughout, as well as the old “villain getting caught and put in prison” trick, which leads to a dramatic monologue (think films like SKYFALL and THE DARK KNIGHT). What’s most egregious though is the over explanation in the script and the overuse of flashbacks to make sure that the audience understands everything along the way. It treats the audience like they’re stupid, constantly reminding us of what happened in the mummy’s past and harping on the fact that this dot connects to this dot – yes, we know that the red stone has to go with the knife and that they need to be rejoined.

The person that seems the most confused by all of the action is Tom Cruise. In what might be his most miscast role yet, Cruise struggles to find the direction of where to take the character (again, like the film itself). One minute he is a smart aleck thief, the next he’s a standard hero saving the girl, and then he even has to serve as the cursed and confused victim. Because the script and story is attributed six people, the push and pull of the narrative has made Cruise feel as if he’s just coasting through this one.

Yet, for all the bad elements incorporated into it, at least a few elements come across as fresh and not dusted-off ideas. The role reversal of the man being the one that’s possessed by the Mummy and not the woman is different enough to warrant some merit. Not to mention, having Jenny be the smarter and stronger leader that superstar Tom Cruise is equally as refreshing. Annabelle Wallis seems up to the task, even if her performance feels a little too dry.

What works the best in the film is the occasionally fun horror aesthetics. There’s an EC Comics flair going on at times with musty tombs, English graveyards, and the undead rising from their tombs. Watching Tom Cruise punch and kick his way through an undead Knights Templar army just makes for fun Sam Raimi-esque horror.

Aside from some haunted house visuals and a few nods to other horror classics – though some inclusions like AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and LIFEFORCE feel more like borrowed elements than homages – THE MUMMY doesn’t serve as a satisfying horror film. The dead air from unfunny jokes and forced one-liners also means that it doesn’t act a satisfying comedy or buddy film either. Finally, the action scenes fall far short of anywhere near the word thrilling, so it fails as an adventure film as well. As much as I love the idea of these Universal Monsters coming together again on the big screen, these classic tragic creatures deserve an entrance that feels more classic than contrived.

 

Overall Rating: 2 out of 5

THE MUMMY opens in theaters on June 9th

IT COMES AT NIGHT – Review

In IT COMES AT NIGHT, a special emphasis is placed on eyes and facial expressions. The importance of this isn’t to focus necessarily on intensity, like in the Italian Spaghetti Western style of storytelling. Rather, the eyes seem to be a symbol of truth. “Look at my eyes,” is a line that’s repeated by different characters. These dramatic moments always involve a character looking at another opposite them and having to decide whether the person is telling the truth or lying. However, it becomes apparent that these characters should’ve been looking at themselves in the mirror and judging their own character and personal decisions.

Paul, a family man (Joel Edgerton) tries to protect his wife and child from an unknown virus by taking refuge inside a boarded-up home. One night, Will (Christopher Abbott from GIRLS) is caught breaking into their home. Tension mounts over what to do with the man and if he should be trusted, but as the stranger reveals that he was in search of fresh water for his family (Riley Keough and Griffin Robert Faulkner), a truce is met. Paul agrees to take the family in, on the condition that they follow the rules – one of which being to never go out at night and another being to always keep the red door locked at night. However, the world that Paul has built is pushed to the breaking point as paranoia and mistrust set in.

Director Trey Edward Shults seems to be making the case against survivalist plans. You can’t always plan for the apocalypse, and that becomes almost immediately clear. Most importantly, you can’t prepare you for the decisions and consequences you make in a moment. What could have been just a WALKING DEAD knockoff finds its own voice through the constrained intimacy of the house and the surrounding woods. Though many will bemoan the lack of gooey, ghastly figures, the focus on a tight-knit group perfectly highlights the character’s interactions and emotional shifts.

The strong cast comprised of characters that seem fittingly like the everyman and everywoman are relied on heavily to push the film forward. Kelvin Harrison Jr. really makes his name known as Paul’s troubled son in a role that requires mixed emotions that range from heavy despair to restrained fear. Joel Edgerton and Christopher Abbott have both previously proven their knack for character-driven drama, and here, they both excel at creating characters that are captivating in their uneasiness. Unfortunately, as is the case with many horror films regardless of them being studio films or art house fare like this one, the female characters are quite a bit underwritten compared to their male counterparts. Carmen Ejogo and Riley Keough are practically forced to sit back and watch the boys argue over who has the bigger gun (read that as you may).

A strong score adds significantly to the tension with some moments being emphasized with somber bluegrass violins, while others are given a more tribal rhythmic beat. Yet for a film that is heavy on tension and forcing characters to confront one another, the screenplay (also from director Trey Edward Shults) rarely offers up answers to the questions the audience will have throughout. This feels both refreshing and yet slightly convenient. Similar films often feel the need to come up with a clever way of explaining how the situation came to be and what is actually out there in the woods. Take for instance the recent direction Ridley Scott has gone towards with his last two ALIEN films. The need for an explanation is often dull and tiresome, removing the element of the unknown that our mind finds so much more terrifying. While IT COMES AT NIGHT doesn’t play too far outside the virus survival-horror sandbox, its stubbornness to distance itself from the conventions of the genre while also delivering traditional loud jump-scares feels like a case of the fear of what you are. Essentially, the crux of the film embodied in its own filmmaking.

 

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5

IT COMES AT NIGHT opens in theater June 9th