Review by Daniel Lima Lamenting the state of the blockbuster today almost feels redundant. It seems even general audiences are growing tired of the way these films are made, not only in terms of the reliance on weightless CGI-driven set pieces, but also with regards to their lack of authorial voice, failure to generate emotional stakes, and entirely interchangeable aesthetic. Though its budget is paltry compared to American studio tentpoles, the South Korean film The Moon has all glitz and gleam expected from a modern blockbuster, as well as all the flaws. Set in the near-future, the film begins with the failure of South Korea’s first attempt at a manned moon landing. It then falls on the ground crew to help get their lone surviving astronaut back home safely. Will they succeed, or will the crowd-pleasing summer movie spend two hours on a narrative where the only real stake is the life of one man, only to end with his death? It’s bound to keep the entire audience at the edge of their seat, so long as they have never experienced a traditional narrative in any medium ever. Truthfully, a foregone conclusion isn’t actually an issue for a survival story. After all, there are plenty of compelling tales of survival, fictional and otherwise. When handling a narrative like this, the hook is in the details — the depth you give to the characters, how harrowing the set pieces are, even the social commentary offered. As boilerplate as the skeleton of a film like this is, there is room to deliver something interesting. That does not happen here. A hallmark of disaster movies is a large ensemble of stars, playing idiosyncratic characters, who are given ample opportunity to bounce off each other. Unfortunately, this film is so narrowly focused on the procedural plot that the limited amount of character work goes to waste. The actors do what they can with the scraps of melodrama here and there, but scenes meant to humanize them move with the same haste as the set pieces, making these moments feel inessential. This lack of depth is compounded by a lack of distinct characterization. As most of the runtime is focused solely on the mission, most of the performers get nothing to do besides speak technobabble and react to screens. Even the astronaut who serves as the driving force of the narrative lacks a personality beyond "determined." Considering how long the film is, and how little time is spent on action where the astronauts' life is in immediate danger, it’s confounding that these individuals aren’t given any idiosyncrasies. The action that is here is serviceable by modern standards. That this movie has a budget more comparable to an American studio comedy than a superhero movie goes to show how bad Western standards have gotten, as this looks leagues ahead of the computer-generated slush those films produce. It makes moments like a meteor shower, or the astronaut’s spacecraft tumbling through the vacuum, feel more grounded and real than it otherwise would. Of course, that’s a double-edged sword when most of the film is set in a featureless void. As impressive as the effects work is, the emptiness of space doesn’t provide the ever-shifting environmental challenges that make for the most compelling action. The film boils down to the astronaut trying to outrun rocks, or tumbling around a vessel, neither of which are visually dynamic. That he is so reliant on the team on Earth also robs him of agency within the set pieces, undercutting the tension even more. For their part, the ground team spends the entire runtime in a big command center, staring at large screens and sitting in board rooms, the kind of spaces you’d find in any movie tackling this subject matter.
This could be livened up by some dynamic camerawork, compositions that communicate something about the characters, maybe even an editing style that lends weight to scenes where characters figure but what to do. Alas, there is a profound lack of imagination in the basic craft of the film. Nothing is egregiously bad, but every element feels entirely conventional and machine-like. That both the procedural plot on Earth and the action in space look and feel the same renders the set pieces just as inessential as the attempts to flesh out the characters. While not every disaster movie needs to offer a message, it can certainly help differentiate one from its peers. Space movies especially tend to display pro-science and pro-government attitudes, for obvious reasons, and an emphasis on international cooperation. The Moon hits all those familiar beats, with a particularly heavy dose of jingoism. While that’s not inherently bad, it does feel lazy, relying on the audience’s sense of national pride to carry the emotional stakes. It feels particularly distasteful here, where a character’s past misdeed is meant to be ignored in favor of their noble contribution to this particular mission. At least, it would if there were any reason to be invested in their character in the first place. All that said, this is not an incompetently made movie. The effects work is good, the actors are making the most of what they’re given, the craft elements are perfunctory but never egregious. The film never becomes an endurance test — it’s an easy enough watch. If all you ever want from a movie is something to pass the time, there are certainly worse options. For anyone looking for something exciting, something memorable, something that generates any emotion at all, however, know that The Moon is every bit as bland and nondescript as its title. The Moon hits theaters August 18. Rating: 2.5/5
0 Comments
Review by Adam Donato Phil Lord and Chris Miller are two of the greatest filmmakers working today. Interestingly enough, the duo hasn’t directed a feature in almost a decade. In the meantime, they’ve been succeeding as producers. This year alone they’ve already seen successes in Spider-Man: Across the Spiderverse and Cocaine Bear. Strays definitely falls more in line with the latter. It's a talking dog comedy, but this time with a hard R-rating. Think Homeward Bound meets The Wolf of Wall Street. While the kids are just about ready for school, adults who grew up on dog movies can enjoy a raunchy twist on the genre. It’s funny that R-rated studio comedies are intended for adults, but no other demographic will enjoy them more than boys 13-17 years old. Strays is excessively explicit, but that’s the whole joke. It’s not high-brow humor, but it’s meant to appeal to the masses. This movie certainly takes advantage of the R-rating, which is nice because it’s easy to see a world where this movie keeps it family friendly for a PG-13. If you think the word “f**k” is funny or are interested in jokes about sex and poop, then Strays is sure to be a blast. Expect an unrated cut on the DVD featuring a naked Will Forte. Long ago were the days where Will Ferrell was a comedy rockstar. That 2000s run with hits like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers defined studio comedies for a while. These days, Will Ferrell is much more miss than hit. Here he does well with his voice over performance, but it’s hard to assume his star power coupled with Jamie Foxx will put butts in seats. The outrageous premise should be doing the heavy lifting. Foxx has fun as well, but the standouts here are Randall Park and Will Forte. Park is doing his typical nice guy geek thing, but it's very funny as his character is this gigantic dog compared to his friends who are mostly lap sized.
Dog movies are a persistent genre and most of them are exactly the same. We see the world through the innocent eyes of a dog who is ignorant to the complexities of the human world, but due to this simple perspective, their insights hold more wisdom than we know. Not to mention, they’re silly little guys who like chasing squirrels and food. It’s a winning formula, but a formula nonetheless. Strays parodies this genre in a delightful way, going as far as to feature Josh Gad as the stereotypical dog narrator. In such a saturated market for films like these, it’s refreshing to see Strays have such an outrageous take on the subject. Strays is sure to satisfy comedy fans who can stomach crude and outrageous content. Bring some friends and have some drinks for this one as it’s a total riot. Somewhere out there, there’s a cool uncle who is taking their middle schooler out of class to catch this one. Poor parenting aside, what a great day. Still catching up on the amazing summer slate at the theater? Feel free to wait to check this one out at home. Still, it's a good time comedic romp. Bless Phil Lord and Chris Miller. Strays hits theaters on August 18. Rating: 4/5 Review by Camden Ferrell The DC Extended Universe might have ended for all intents and purposes with this year’s The Flash, but DC is back with a new movie that will connect to their new cinematic universe. Blue Beetle is finally reaching the big screens after years of development. This new superhero movie is directed by Angel Manuel Soto whose most recent feature film was 2020’s Charm City Kings. This is a fun and simple superhero origin story that has enough heart and charm to make up for its shortcomings. Jaime Reyes is a recent college graduate who is ready to make his mark on the world. Unfortunately, once he returns home, he finds his family is suffering through tough times and that finding a job is harder than expected. However, a chance encounter with an ancient Scarab, he finds himself turned into the superhero Blue Beetle. Even though this is a beloved superhero, it’s an old-fashioned origin story that will appeal to fans of the character while also introducing him to those unfamiliar with his story. Written by Gareth Dunnet-Alcocer, the script’s biggest flaw is also what makes it so endearing. The movie doesn’t take narrative risks at all, and it follows familiar beats while adhering to specific superhero tropes. But this isn’t a movie that needs ambition and subversion to succeed. When the movie is about the bonds and strength of family and coming into one’s own, it doesn’t always have to be fresh and exciting to satisfy viewers. It’s a story we’ve seen many times before, but it’s the characters and their unique relationships that give the movie its soul. Xolo Maridueña leads the film as Jaime, and for his first starring role in a movie, he does a decent job. He has the good looks and youthful charisma to pull the character off. It’s not a particularly complicated role, but it is one that will make or break the film. The only other character that really stands out is George Lopez who plays Jaime’s cousin. It’s no secret that he’s a naturally funny person, and this movie gives him a chance to make audiences laugh with his over-the-top antics and reactions. The rest of the cast is passable at best and noticeably lacking at worst. Susan Sarandon, who has delivered many iconic performances in her career, appears to phone it in as this movie’s villain.
The movie is never astounding, but it’s also never bad. It’s an enjoyable and straightforward superhero movie that all audiences are going to enjoy. The suit itself looks fantastic, and there’s some decent fights and choreography throughout. It can feel the slightest bit too long, but it’s so crowd-pleasing that it’s forgivable. At its core, it’s a movie about family, and I think many viewers will resonate with that message. Blue Beetle is a strong introduction for the titular character to the big screen. It may not hold much rewatch value, but for one viewing, it’s quite entertaining. Some of the acting is subpar, and the story is as predictable as they come, but for those looking for a fun and relaxing time at the movies, this isn’t a bad choice at all. Blue Beetle is in theaters August 18. Rating: 3.5/5 Review by Daniel Lima Comedy cinema is in dire straits. It is rare that we ever see a film that takes full advantage of the medium, using every element of the craft to get as many laughs as possible. Gone are the visual gags, the slapstick, the surreal and the absurd. These days, the few studio comedies that get released are either self-aware dreck that is too ironic to commit to the bit (“Well, that just happened”), or follow the Apatow model of dialogue-based riffing contests that must end on a sentimental, dramatic note. As bleak as this landscape is, sometimes you get a work that is so self-possessed, so passionate, so full of verve and energy and fun that you can’t help but feel exhilarated while watching it. Sometimes, you get Hundreds of Beavers. The film tells a simple story of a drunkard in New France — that is, Canada before it was handed over to the British — who, through a series of silly mishaps, begins a life as a fur trapper. He struggles to survive, he gains the attention of the local tradesman’s daughter, and most importantly, he earns the ire of hundreds of large rodents that like to chew on trees. Where filmmakers Mike Cheslik and Ryland Brickson Cole Tews’s last effort was a riff on 1950s science fiction films, this takes clear inspiration from the silent era: largely dialogue-free, black-and-white cinematography, utilizing basic effects work and cinematic tricks that could have been managed over a century ago. For their part, the duo has said the film is more a product of figuring out what they can do with limited resources than born out of a deep love of silent films. As mercenary as it may sound on the surface, this motivation benefits the movie, turning the typical deficiencies of a low budget indie — a lack of scale, a certain rough and shaggy quality — into boons. It has the ironic effect of forcing the creative team to make use of what they have in much the same way as those early cinematic pioneers did. The result is a film that feels every bit as fresh as a new Buster Keaton short must have felt on release. Beginning with a rousing song that combines live-action footage with crude yet expressive animation, the film announces its exceedingly casual relationship with reality from the jump. Animals depicted as humans in cheap costumes and felt puppets, blatant green-screens and compositing allowing unique shifts in perspective and impossible stunts, clever use of old-school editing, mattes, and cutout animation bring life to the backgrounds. Reminiscent of the films of Méliès, these elements come together to create a sense of magic and wonder, a feeling that absolutely anything is possible within any frame. All this is completely in the service of comedy. Like the silent comedians of yesteryear, all the jokes are visual, and the breadth of the cinematic techniques used and the rapid-fire pace that the gags are doled out make for a film that is impossible not to laugh through from start to finish. There's simple slapstick like an empty beaver costume flying through the air, only to hit a wall and match cut to a person falling to the ground; a recurring gag sees a man attempt to spit tobacco into a cup, only for him to miss in increasingly ludicrous ways; a trap consisting of a typical snowman holding a fishing rod fails, and the snowman that replaces it has a finely defined musculature… and still fails. Recounting every single gag would be an arduous task, consuming more time than the film itself, but it’s the kind of anarchic, chaotic, throw-everything-at-the-wall sense of humor that is sorely lacking in the media of today.
Perhaps the most important element of this is the editing. Most contemporary comedies leave ample dead space between lines, as if to give an audience enough time to process the joke and laugh before going on to the next. Rhythm and timing are as important to a comic set piece as they are to action, and this commonplace approach deflates any sense of momentum that a film is attempting to build. Hundreds of Beavers, on the other hand, is impeccably timed, with shots held for laboriously long when enduring it makes for a bigger laugh, and abruptly short when a jarring cut serves as a punctuation mark that makes a gag even richer. It’s a level of precision that can evade even veteran comics. To see this level of deftness from relative newcomers is a testament to their ability. As madcap and fantastic as the film gets — particularly in the jaw dropping tour-de-force climax — there is something strangely affecting about the simple story of a man trying to make something of himself. Ryland Brickson Cole Tews plays the lead role, and he lends the character a charm that is every bit as infectious as the actual comedy. It’s an incredibly committed performance, particularly when watching him do stunts like rolling down a hill in a box, or walking through the snow in the middle of a Canadian winter (most of the film was shot on location). To see his character persevere through hardship and acclimate to his new lifestyle is genuinely thrilling, almost like watching a video game character level up, and by the end of the film it’s hard not to root for him. Considering the degree of comedic sociopathy he displays, that is no small feat. Ultimately, trying to describe what makes Hundreds of Beavers so special feels like a fool’s errand. Words don’t seem to do justice to the manic vision and command of film craft on display, the mastery of comedic timing and sheer density of gut-busting, inventive gags. Combining a modern independent spirit with traditions going back to the birth of the medium, this is the perfect encapsulation of all the things that make people fall in love with cinema. If in a decade’s time, this film is not spoken of as one of the best of the 21st century, it will either be because a new cinematic golden age will have dawned, or because not enough people will have discovered it. That, or the beavers will have won. Hundreds of Beavers screens at the 2023 Cinequest Film Festival, which runs from August 15 to August 30. Rating: 5/5 Review by Dan Skip Allen Death can lead to drastically different reactions within the family structure. The Adults is a film that deals with various family issues after the death of a loved one, and is maybe one of the best movies I've seen about this topic in recent years. Eric (Michael Cera, known primarily as a comedic actor), returns home to where he grew up to visit his sisters and find a poker game to play in. What he finds when he gets there is one sister, Rachel (Hannah Gross), who has had a hard time dealing with the loss of their mother, and another sister Maggie (Sophia Lillis, from the It franchise), who is glad to see her brother and get some quality time with him. The director/writer of this film, Dustin Guy Defa, creates a terrific dynamic between these three siblings. Even though they haven't seen each other for three years, they fall back into many things they did together when they were younger, like singing and making up goofy creative songs or creating characters and voice impressions. These can mask how these people actually feel at times, and it is not fun when they get into arguments using these voice impressions, but they do work as a way to get anger or other emotions of disappointment out. There are deep-seated emotions that have been locked away for quite a while, especially for Gross’s character. She holds resentment towards her brother, who left and didn't call or visit for so long. She even held on to the family home, which is something of a bone of contention between them. Lillis’s character tries to be a peacekeeper, but she is in her own world of what her life holds for herself because she made a decision that didn't make her brother happy. These siblings are as realistic as I've seen written lately by any screenwriter. There is a subplot in the movie that takes up a lot of time, and that is that Cera has an ulterior motive for coming home besides visiting his two sisters. He's looking for a poker game. He finds one, and once he gets his head into the world of gambling, he can't stop thinking about it. He is very set on getting back to another game, and even postpones his flight a few times to play high-leverage games. Cera has a history with poker, as he was in Molly's Game, where he played a fictional version of Tobey Maguire. So this subplot had to interest him in the script when he read it. He's good at playing this type of character.
As someone with three siblings, I can say some of the dialogue and plot are very good. The story is very realistic toward families and siblings, but that is not the only thing that is good about this film. The cinematography is beautiful at times. The director takes moments off from the tension to showcase various locations in and around where this movie was made, and it's good as a respite for the dramatic sequences between the three siblings and the poker games. I was instantly enthralled by the look of the film from the beginning. The Adults might not be the most accessible film for everybody, but for me it was very realistic in its portrayals of these three siblings. They all had their moments to shine within the script, and the direction and writing by Defa is some of the best this year. If viewers want a story about real people, this is it. I was completely invested in this family and their story through the good moments and the bad. The Adults hits theaters on August 18. Rating: 4/5 Review by Cole Groth Cybersecurity is the biggest issue facing the planet, at least according to director Daniel Gordon. With all of our lives revolving around a digital medium, it’s important to consider how safe the devices we use are. Focusing on the story of a daring cyber heist, Billion Dollar Heist won’t live up to its name, but it will inspire interesting thoughts about how we use technology. The Bangladeshi Central Bank theft is an excellent choice for a documentary subject. It’s a story full of twists and turns, political and social commentary, as well as teachable lessons. Back in 2016, a group of hackers were successful in a large-scale robbery of the Bangladeshi Bank. They were able to steal tens of millions of dollars, and unlike heists in the past, this one was purely online. The documentary tells this story in a great way. We slowly learn new details as new issues are brought up, making it a riveting, constantly unfolding adventure. While the heist might be interesting, there’s a big problem here: it wasn’t a billion-dollar heist at all. While the attackers were trying to get an amount around (but not at) a billion, they failed to get even a quarter of that. While it’s still a large sum of money and still an interesting story, there’s something frustrating about almost being lied to by the title. This would've been much better if it chose a title that not only focused on the heist, but the technological developments it discusses as well. There are some fascinating points about how modern hacking affects our world and how cyber-security is important, but the title only points to one of those points.
Technically, this is a very well-made documentary. The editing is nice. The music is interesting. The subjects are well-lit. You’ll have no qualms about the way it’s been produced. That being said, there’s always something keeping this back from being excellent. It doesn’t feel particularly innovative, so this isn’t something that will stand out as particularly worthy of a watch. Billion Dollar Heist tells a good story and is prescient. As far as documentaries go, this is about as average as you can get. It’ll be something cool to listen to, but has the memorability of an average PBS broadcast. Media now demands to be bigger and better than everything else. While this is a good documentary overall, it simply doesn’t stand out that well. If you’re a technology buff or love documentaries, this is your cup of tea. Otherwise, it’s just fine. Billion Dollar Heist releases on VOD on August 15. Rating: 3/5 Review by Dan Skip Allen Frankenstein is one of my favorite horror movies. It was so popular back in the day it spawned a sequel, The Bride of Frankenstein, also directed by James Whale. It was a film that, when I watched it, made me think that maybe people could come back from the dead. And then of course, many years later, George A. Romero started the zombie genre with Night of the Living Dead. Then I forgot all about that thought I had about people coming back from the dead. That is until I saw birth/rebirth. This movie brought back the science of bringing people back from the dead in a realistic way. It focuses on a morgue technician and a nurse who is the mother of a little girl. They are both dedicated to their jobs at the same hospital in different ways. The mother, played by Judy Reyes, works a lot and leaves her daughter with the neighbor across the hall. When a tragedy happens and the little girl dies of bacterial meningitis, it tears her apart. When the body ends up in the morgue, the doctor in charge played by Marin Ireland takes the opportunity to try an experiment on the child, which has some interesting results. This film has a realistic take on a horrifying story. When I saw The Bride of Frankenstein, it threw me for a loop, but birth/rebirth was very dark in its science and the way these two women handled this situation. They do things no medical personnel should ever do in their careers. They comprise their Hippocratic oath for the sake of personal and scientific gain. This film tries to say a mother would do anything for a child, but I think there is a line they wouldn't cross. The two main actresses are very believable in their roles as a doctor and nurse. All the various medical jargon is used in a real way. I felt like these women knew what they were talking about, even when they were doing questionable things, like ordering the wrong tests or stealing things from the hospital they work for. These women did an exceptional job.
Director/writer Laura Moss creates an atmosphere full of anxiety and suspicion. That's the scariest part about birth/rebirth. There are many kinds of horror movies, and this is one of the scariest I've seen because it could actually happen someday. The two main actresses Reyes and Ireland were very believable in their roles. They actually made me scared because of what they were doing and could potentially do if this was a real situation. This movie built suspense until it got completely batshit crazy, and it’s effective as a result. birth/rebirth hits theaters on August 18. Rating: 3.5/5 KILL SHOT -- Cat-And-Mouse Action-Thriller Is Putrid, Boring, and Lacking in Basic Filmmaking Craft8/14/2023 Review by Daniel Lima The opening scene of Kill Shot is hypnotic and tense, following the handoff of a briefcase of drug money deep in the mountains of Afghanistan. Captured in a series of long takes, this opener follows the briefcase from a heroin operation, to the hands of a little girl, to paramilitary operatives. It plays out almost entirely in silence, with drone cinematography that captures the sparse, remote expanse the characters find themselves in. There is attention to details that normally get ignored in low budget indies like this: composition, framing, even the quiet sound design that forces the audience to lean in. This scene announces the film as punching well above its meager budget. Then the rest of the movie happens. Rib Hillis stars as a hunting guide who discovers the briefcase while out with a client, played by Rachel Cook in the Montana wilderness. Taking the money, the two must make their way back to civilization, while avoiding the mercenaries out to retrieve it. A tried-and-true action movie formula that this film makes unbearably tedious. Perhaps the most obvious problem is the script. The unfolding narrative is the kind of dull, trite material you might get by banging your hand on a keyboard for a few hours, but even more dire is the dialogue. Every word that comes out of the actors’ mouths is atrocious, the kind of jocular, juvenile trash that makes anyone who has aged out of adolescence wince in embarrassment. If it’s not a joke about women being whores, it’s faux tough guy machismo, manifested in rattling off basic gun specifications like its secret knowledge or... well, jokes about women being whores. It feels like the product of an AI being fed issues of Maxim from 2005. It bears emphasis that even by action cinema standards, Kill Shot takes particular glee in belittling women. The fact that in the opening credits, the men are shown in tough guy hero poses, and the women are shown in states of undress, is an early indicator of what to expect. Without exception, the female characters are depicted as innately untrustworthy, constantly objectified, and holding value as people only insofar as they can perform tasks seen as traditionally masculine, or gratifying men. Rachel Cook, easily the best actor of the ensemble, bears the brunt of all this, spending much of her screen time without pants or a shirt, the camera constantly leering at her. It might sound like performative pearl-clutching, but the toxicity of this film would be jarring even if it were decades old. One would hope that if you can’t enjoy time spent with the characters, at least the set pieces would be up to par. Unfortunately, this is easily some of the worst action of the year. The moment the shooting starts, it’s the same rote shot/reverse shot affair that plagues many a direct-to-video production, but Kill Shot takes things a step further. Not only does the film fail to establish distance and geography, it also breaks the 180 degree rule constantly, completely throwing off any sense of where anyone is in a space. The editing is so choppy, it completely blunts the rhythm of any scene. Showing your hero doing a fast tactical reload, then cutting to two different people shooting at him, before cutting back to the hero completing the reload, is certainly a choice. It becomes a chore to watch these scenes immediately, and they make up the bulk of the second half of the film.
The fights are marginally better, with it being clear that the actors are performing their own stunts. It’s also clear that they are untrained in screen fighting, with incredibly slow, clumsy movements failing to ever sell the hits. The choreography does them no favors, being much more complicated than the performers can handle, and the camerawork and editing never generate the energy that could carry a fight like this despite a lack of training. It’s a pitiful enough effort that I found myself wishing to get back to the shootouts. The rejoinder to all this is that shooting action on production like this, obviously limited in time and budget, is hard. While that is certainly true, there are plenty of examples of similar works, or even works with more meager resources, that have accomplished far more: Dead Reckoning (Scott Adkins, not Tom Cruise), Contour, everything out of Wakaliwood. Those films have many qualities that this one lacks: basic filmmaking craft, decent scripts, performers who can actually handle the choreography, interesting set piece design that utilizes the limited resources to the fullest. More than anything, they have a clear passion for action cinema — an obvious love that can carry an audience through the rough parts that come with the territory on a low budget production. Passion is something that Kill Shot sorely lacks. It is a bland, soulless, by-the-numbers product that ultimately only distinguishes itself in how ugly it can be, without ever being interesting. That a film can devolve so much from its first scene onward is downright chilling. If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it's that the fundamentals of the craft should never be ignored. It is not a lesson worth sitting through something so insipid and putrid. Kill Shot hits VOD August 15. Rating: 1/5 Review by Dan Skip Allen Coming-of-age films come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them are better than others, though. Miguel Wants to Fight isn't one of the best coming of age films I've seen. It lacks a realistic approach that could have made it much better. Maybe it is geared towards a younger audience that can relate to it much better than I did, but however you look at it, it's just not very good. Miguel (Tyler Dean Florez) is a teenager with a group of friends in Syracuse, New York. Sometimes, they get into fights for various reasons, but Miguel doesn't seem to jump in when his friends are fighting, even though his father (Raul Castillo), is a boxing trainer. He is a pacifist. When he gets some bad news, he decides to show his friend he can fight. He decides to pick somebody at his school with whom he or one of his friends had a disagreement for one reason or another. The problem is that every time he picks someone to fight, something happens, and he ends up not fighting them. The filmmaker Oz Rodriguez uses boxing-esque subtitles to show the viewers who he plans to fight and on which day. This film has a feel of a popular anime called One Punch Man. The main character is a fan of martial arts films and fighting shows like this. The filmmaker and writers, Shea Serrano and Jason Concepcion, use dream sequences to depict what these various fights could look like, including one that is animated and is a total tribute to what it's trying to be, One Punch Man. These sequences add a funny element to the film. Aside from Castillo and Dasha Polanco as the kids' hot English teacher, the cast is filled with many young actors in their first or one of their earliest roles. The four main kid actors are fine. They have good chemistry with each other and the smaller characters in the movie. I just wasn't blown away by their performances. The script doesn't lend itself to hard coming-of-age topics. This story is rather light on those elements.
The comedic nature of a kid trying to get into a fight before an event happens lends itself to a lot of funny moments. How all these scenarios play into the teen angst in the movie is fun, but they didn't do anything new or interesting for the coming-of-age genre. Some kids who are into manga or anime might like this film, but I didn't care for it much. Miguel Wants To Fight is a funny take on the coming-of-age genre. The dream sequences and set up for some potential fight added a chuckle or two to my face, but as a whole, the film just didn't do it for me. I'm just not the target audience for a coming-of-age film set around One Punch Man. The cast and direction were fine, but the script wasn’t very good and weighed the film down. It didn't add anything new to this storied genre. Miguel Wants to Fight streams on Hulu beginning August 16. Rating: 2.5/5 Review by Daniel Lima At first glance, Jules looks like a charming, if milquetoast, indie dramedy about an old man bonding with an extraterrestrial life form. Though the narrative incorporates some decidedly strange elements, it is clear that director Marc Turletaub had no greater ambition than to make something charming and decidedly unchallenging. That steadfast refusal to embrace the weirdness inherent to the story, and the darkness that lies just underneath the surface, makes for a film that might be pleasant if it was not constantly gesturing toward a version of itself more textured and powerful. Ben Kingsley stars as an aging widower, whose twilight years are spent alone at home, occasionally journeying to the local town hall to complain about pressing issues like changing the town motto. His quiet, static existence is shattered by the arrival of a flying saucer in his backyard, and the small, mute alien that disembarks it. Their chance encounter forces Kingsley to consider what it means to be human, and the value of connecting with his fellow man. At least, that’s what you’d hope for. Every individual craft element of the film seems effortless, in the sense that no effort is being made to liven up the material. This is most obvious in the visual language, bland and inert as it is. Just about every shot is a simple medium, keeping everything the audience needs to see in frame and nothing more. Moments that should register as mysterious, wondrous, or perhaps even dangerous, such as the first sighting of the spaceship or Kingsley’s first contact with the alien, are instead flattened and robbed of any power they could have by workmanlike composition. Rendering the fantastic mundane might be compelling in and of itself, but Jules instead aims for the twee whimsy, as if it were a film seeking distribution at Sundance two decades ago. Nowhere is this more evident than in the score: light, bouncing, and ever-present, never failing to undercut any possible dramatic tension with the assurance that this story will never take a darker turn. Not only does this dull any sense of stakes within the narrative, it also makes the entire film one-note — an unceasing parade of cozy scenes that quickly grows stale. Not that this script needs help quashing any semblance of narrative stakes. There is no antagonistic force here, with every hint of one developing resolved before a given scene is over. A nosy neighbor pokes her nose into Kingsley’s affairs, only to prove a compatriot; shadowy government agents screen come knocking, only to turn away of their own volition. Not every story needs a villain per sé, but there ought to be momentum and a sense of purpose. Without anything actively challenging its protagonists, Jules never conjures that feeling. As limp and rote as the film’s aesthetic and narrative are, one might expect the bulk of the runtime to be spent exploring those characters, deepening our understanding of who they are, and providing its ensemble ample opportunity for fun performances. Confoundingly, there is only the scantest, most cursory examination of their inner lives. Kingsley himself receives the lion’s share, with a strained relationship with his children and the looming onset of dementia, but these never feel properly explored. Others make do with a single scene of backstory, or just their job. For their part, the actors do what they can with the material, but there’s nothing for them to build on.
This lack of definition is evident in the portrayal of Jules, the titular alien. With a blank expression, rarely conveying any emotion, the creature serves as a tabula rasa for the characters who meet it to project their own desires onto. Unfortunately, they are so ill-defined that what exactly it means to them is never conveyed. When someone says Jules has come to mean very much to them, it’s hard not to wonder why. That the alien's secret-keepers never stop arguing about what to name it — the being whose name is supposed to be the name of the film — is indicative of how amorphous the characters, the intended emotional core of the story, actually are. All this begs the question: what is this movie about? What is the central animating idea behind it, under its kitschy middlebrow veneer? The film never articulates a grand thesis. It gestures towards the kind of generic, feel-good message about human connectivity that you might expect from something so unambitious, but the lack of fully-realized characters or any meaningful conflict undercuts that attempt. With a story so deliberately light and airless, it’s ultimately impossible to lend it a sense of weight or importance. Teasing out some of the ideas raised in passing, however, hints at a far bleaker worldview. The film takes for granted that darkness is an inherent part of the human psyche, and that suffering is an integral part of the monotonous human experience. Family and friends are offered as reprieves from the inevitable pain one has to endure, but the film goes out of its way to practically vilify attempting to find another path through the torment. In a way, this fatalism is reflective of the film’s aesthetic values: any attempt to find something greater, be it in the twilight years of one’s life or in the realization of a story about a man and an alien. Dour and unpleasant as that may sound, this faint glimmer is the most interesting part of the movie. Scenes such as Kingsley reckoning with the prospect of his declining health, or a particularly odd moment juxtaposing a musical number with an outburst of violence (set to “Free Bird,” a possible reference to the similarly middle-of-the-road Forrest Gump), could offer far deeper and more insightful observations of the characters and the human condition than what the mediocre vision of the film allows for. Sadly, Jules is committed to adhering entirely to convention, both eschewing any exploration of the darker themes at its heart, and refusing to take any creative risks in bringing what should be a wholly unique story to life. Perhaps one could call the film a success, in that it achieves its own embarrassingly low aspirations. If so, it is a Pyrrhic victory, as it has consigned itself to be a mere shadow of what could have been. Jules hits theaters on August 11. Rating: 2/5 |
Archives
May 2024
Authors
All
|