A Wrinkle in Time

A film written in “child” should not be criticized by adults who do not speak the language. This is not your typical Disney standard of film release. At the same time, when watched with my two daughters, this adult saw a truth in it, a juvenile purity. Evil fights to dominate Good. Who wins? Um, most of us speak Disney but this one speaks in child first and foremost.

A Wrinkle in Time (2018)
PG | 1h 49min | Adventure, Family, Fantasy | 9 March 2018 (USA)

After the disappearance of her scientist father, three peculiar beings send Meg, her brother, and her friend to space in order to find him.
Director: Ava DuVernay
Writers: Jennifer Lee (screenplay by), Jeff Stockwell (screenplay by) | 1 more credit »
Stars: Storm Reid, Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon

The first love of most kids, after mom,  up to the tween ages is their father, whether he was around or not. Storm Reid’s character and her brother lose their father. Right away you have most kids hooked in. Will she find him? Where has he gone? Does he still love the family? Would he want to be found. The director focuses on these particular questions. I would argue it’s to engage the children and tweens in the audience. Chris Pine plays the father and he does a great job of acting. Most the performances are wooden and almost inaccessible but not his, he delivered.

Children often feel trapped in their families. They can’t drive, they can’t choose where to go every day. They are held by their families. Most children dream of being swept away by a mythical savior presence with their well being in mind. That would be Reese Witherspoon’s character. I think they call her a witch but I don’t recall. She is a ditz. She falls into the character she played in “Legally Blonde” more than once. It’s off-putting at best. She was poorly cast in her role. But the kids eat her up. They all want to be taken away from their mother so they can soar through the galaxy in search of dad. Hmmm. Sounds like a bleak plot, but that’s what it is. Summon your inner child and it actually kind of works though.

There is a quote witch and a giant witch. Zach Galafinakis plays a Zen warlock (I assume he’s something like that) who says something really cool (I’m being serious): paraphrased:

“It’s okay to fear the answers but you can never escape them.” – The Happy Medium in A Wrinkle in Time

I took this as it’s better to seek the answers rather than hide in ignorance.

There are amazing backgrounds and colors in this movie. There are also euphoric sound effects and songs. At times it equals the running waters over rocks at the local Massage Envy lobby. Ultimately, there is a battle and there is a victor. I’ll leave the revelation to you. I must say as I close that my daughters loved the filmed and thanked me all the way home for taking them. Maybe those kid brains know something about enjoying films that we don’t? This was a film you must see as a kid and if you can bring a kid to see. As an adult critic, I wouldn’t praise it but for what it is, I give it a 7/10. In an upcoming Talking Stars show I’ll be elaborating more in a conversation so if you’re interested. Please tune in.

The Death of Stalin

I’m glad there is a smart category in Hollywood where it’s ok to make films that are dialogue heavy and historical in scope. Some kid doing a report on Stalin somewhere in the future may call upon this film for muse. I say all that to set the foundation for my review: this film is not a normal film. Once you open your mind to something else, you’ll have a better time enjoying it.

The Death of Stalin (2017)
R | 1h 46min | Comedy | 20 October 2017 (UK)

Follows the Soviet dictator’s last days and depicts the chaos of the regime after his death.
Director: Armando Iannucci
Writers: Armando Iannucci, David Schneider | 5 more credits »
Stars: Steve Buscemi, Simon Russell Beale, Jeffrey Tambor

Armando Iannucci is our director. Fittingly enough, he directed the hit political series “Veep” with Julia Louis Dreyfuss that is also a very high intellectual show. Steve Buscemi stars in this and does a great job. It’s one of those films where you get a mile a minute of satire and if you’re lucky enough to get it all, you feel lofty, high-brow, intellectual. This film wasn’t really my thing. Probably because I have not studied Stalin to any degree. Some of the humor is funny though and I trust the right audience will adore this movie. I give it a 6/10 for my part though because there was much of it that I didn’t get.

Storks

My Rating: 7/10

storks-new-poster

Storks
Cast

Andy Samberg, Katie Crown, Kelsey Grammer

Directed by

Nicholas Stoller, Doug Sweetland

Written by

Nicholas Stoller

Other Info

Animation, Adventure, Comedy
Rated PG
89min (and no more, thankfully)

For grown-ups:
For kids:
Storks landed in my local theater tonight and I was there with my 2 daughters ages 9 and 11.  By the way, I’m 47. I’m happy to report the 9 and 11 year-olds loved the film. I was only somewhat impressed.

IMDB gives this synopsis: Storks have moved on from delivering babies to packages. But when an order for a baby appears, the best delivery stork must scramble to fix the error by delivering the baby.

If that sounds like  a convoluted story, you don’t know the half of it.

Kids will like it though.

This film has been promoted in theater trailers and internet for what seems like a year at least. I think the makers felt the title would resonate in so many people’s childhood memories that they would mark the premiere date on their calendar as well as their Google alerts. As old as I am, my parents never told me anything about storks bringing babies. If any parents needed an explanation, it was them. I’m the oldest of 4 siblings and I was intelligent and very inquisitive as a kid. Thankfully for me, they shared the truth about how babies are made and how they come into the world at a reasonable age: no need for storks.

My dad on the other hand did get the stork story when he was a kid. I sent him a text after the movie joking that he should see this film. Maybe he’ll get it. I think this film assumed the audience knew this dishonest legend that parents used to tell their kids. It’s ironic how parents in the 1940’s needed storks to explain the mystery of childbirth to children. After this movie, a lot of parents will have to explain the mystery of the storks in the movie through the actual explanation of birth.

But, enough about the weird stork angle, let me tell you 2 things that do work in the film. 1) The babies. The first strong impression I recall of a baby in an animated film is Jack Jack in The Incredibles. He is a firecracker. I loved the way he giggled as he was blurting out superpowers. I think he stands out in all our minds as a movie baby we won’t forget. The babies in this film are amazing in a similar way. Their voices are perfectly timed with deft CGI artistry. This makes them extremely cute and loveable. The best aspect is the laughs. Their laughs make the Pilsbury doughboy sound stand-offish. They invite you to love them. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of merch comes from this film. 2) SOME of the jokes. There is a small bird who is a sort of pseudo-nemesis. He is very funny. Some of the jokes lag too much though. I was surprised this film was so flat in its humor after having been in production for a year or more. Usually they test things like that with focus groups etc. This film feels “off the cuff” a lot. Moreover, so much is predictable because we have seen all this before.

Having said that …

Kids will like it. To them, I recommend it. All else, tell me what you think. I think I could have skipped this one and not have missed much.

Buzzard

Slacker, lazy bones, shiftless youth, juvenile delinquents, whatever you can call this type of person I think it exists in every society. But what if this person was the anti-hero of a movie? Could a director pull that off? I’m not saying he does or doesn’t but here you have the premise of this film.

Buzzard (2014)
Not Rated | 1h 37min | Comedy, Drama, Horror | 6 March 2015 (USA)

Paranoia forces small-time scam artist Marty to flee his hometown and hide out in a dangerous Detroit. With nothing but a pocket full of bogus checks, his Power Glove, and a bad temper, the horror metal slacker lashes out.
Director: Joel Potrykus
Writer: Joel Potrykus
Stars: Joshua Burge, Joel Potrykus, Teri Ann Nelson

I like director Joel Potrykus’ stuff. I did a review and a podcast of his “Alchemist Cookbook” film and I really loved that film. If these two films are any indication of what he’s getting at, it appears to be disillusioned people in society out on the fringe trying to get something for nothing. At least that’s the case in Buzzard. He is resigned to what he can achieve through a temp agency. It’s as if he thinks there are no other options for him, or maybe he just doesn’t like those options.

The protagonist fashions a finger knive set like the glove Freddy Krueger wears in “Nightmare on Elm Street. Only this one is made from a Nintendo computer game glove.

We watch him make more and more anti-society and even criminal decisions as he falls deeper into his own consequences.

The glove represents the one in the middle: not middle class and not impoverished but much worse: bored and lazy. He has just enough resources to become a criminal.

This is a very interesting case study of its protagonist. There is a lot of dark humor if you get the sarcasm. I really enjoyed this film and if the material sounds interesting, I recommend it to you. It has a goofy quirkiness about it that detracts a little from the story. It looked a little too low-budget at times. Perhaps expanding the setting would have helped? I really will be watching this director, he is very talented.  7/10.

Jeepers Creepers II

My score: 7/10. After the first film about this bat-like killer took audiences by storm, in stands to reason a second would be made. This one starts out just before the time the creature will be awakened to eat for a specified period of time. On the farm where it takes place, there are no holds barred in terms of movie craziness.

Jeepers Creepers II (2003)
R | 1h 44min | Horror | 29 August 2003 (USA)

Set a few days after the original, a championship basketball team’s bus is attacked by The Creeper, the winged, flesh-eating terror, on the last day of his 23-day feeding frenzy.
Director: Victor Salva
Writers: Victor Salva (characters), Victor Salva
Stars: Jonathan Breck, Ray Wise, Nicki Aycox

Steps are being taken by the old man to get ready for the creature’s return. His two sons are getting in fights but they know the severity of what could happen if the creature appears. In fact, they house the creatures remains in their barn and change people to come through and see this urban legend for real. This film is based on the farm this time. There are some appearances of Justin Long’s character either in dreams or ghost form. This is great horror. While not as good as the first in my opinion, it is still highly worth watching. 7/10

‘Ashby’ – Legendary Mickey Rourke as Mentor

My Rating: 6/10 – Mickey Rourke is an irresistible performer. I’ve been watching his movies since I was a kid and his presence in movies had drawn audiences for years and up to the present day. Is Ashby a welcome presence? Hmmm.

ashby-poster

Ashby (2015)
Cast

Mickey Rourke, Nat Wolff, Emma Roberts

Directed by

Tony McNamara

Written by

Tony McNamara

Other Info

Comedy, Drama, Romance
Rated R
1h 40min

Ashby is one of those movies you keep questioning whether it’s an independent or major studio motion picture. You think it must suck as the latter and might be hip and cool if it’s the former. Turns out, neither platform can save this film, it comes up empty on several levels.

The premise is that a High-school student Ed Wallis (Nat Wolff) enters into a friendship with his neighbor, Ashby, (Mickey Rourke) a retired CIA assassin who only has a few months left to live.

The basic plot bears similarities to Scent of a Woman. The main difference is that Mickey Rourke doesn’t play the role as deftly as Al Pacino. In fact, his character is boring and without charisma. It’s hard to believe we are watching the same Mickey Rourke that kicked ass in Iron Man 2. Maybe he came off as lucid there because he was playing with a thick accent. His character could have been performed much better. The film’s biggest weakness is in him being mis-cast. He’s a great actor and I have huge respect for him. Another film I truly loved him in was The Wrestler. This is not The Wrestler. Unfortunately his performance falls short and almost nonsensical in this film. The romance present in the film can’t save it either. Emma Roberts and Nat Wolff are both charming but the other story overshadows everything and mostly, you want to forget it. I actually chose to watch this film because it was a romance but I think that is another “mis” in the movie along with miscast: a mislabeled.

It’s a fun idea for a story and for a while, I wanted to see what was going to happen. Soon however I lost interest in the characters and the predictable story unraveling before me. When a high school kid is mentored by an old dude, cool things can happen. I guess the trouble here is that not enough cool things happen. The film weaves a high school film into a hit-man drama with another “coming of age” cord woven in. If each were like seasoning, I’d say each overpowers the other. Nothing is subtle. I’ll be a Mickey Rourke fan to the end but this is not one of his films I can wholeheartedly recommend. I wanted deeper, more rounded characters and a better story. I see what they tried to do but in the end they missed it. It’s not a total bomb so if you are a fan, you may enjoy it because hey … it’s MICKEY ROURKE! Still, Ashby doesn’t pack the punch of some of his other hit films.