Tag Archives: Michelle Pfeiffer movies

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA (2023) – Third Ant-Man Movie Visually Striking and Lots of Fun

0
Posted on by

It’s no secret that Marvel has been in a slump since its much-heralded AVENGERS finale, AVENGERS: ENDGAME (2019). Since that movie, Marvel has suffered through some missteps, misfires, and mediocrity. However, their recent sequel BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER (2022) was a terrific movie, a perfect testament to both the late Chadwick Boseman and to the Black Panther character. Heck, it even earned a well-deserved Best Picture nomination!

Now comes ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA (2023), Marvel’s latest superhero movie and their third Ant-Man flick. I’ve always enjoyed the ANT-MAN movies, and this third installment is no exception. ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA is high quality entertainment and adventure, enjoyable throughout, and probably the most ambitious ANT-MAN movie yet, as the story takes place inside the quantum world.

Not that ambitious is necessarily better.

I still yearn for an old-fashioned superhero movie where the hero is fighting a supervillain in the here and now, but nowadays we’ve got stories involving the multiverse, the quantum realm, time travel, gods, and faraway worlds across time and space. Yep, superhero tales are becoming more entrenched in the world of science fiction and fantasy. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. It’s just a more difficult thing to get right. You need exceptional writing to pull off these kinds of stories, otherwise you’re left with just striking visuals and no story. The good news is that the writing is up to snuff here in this third ANT-MAN movie.

So is the cast. Marvel superhero movies almost always sport fantastic casts, as they feature A-list actors in both lead and supporting roles. With the ANT-MAN films, it starts with Paul Rudd in the lead role. He’s made it his own, and he carries the fine supporting cast on his back for this fun adventure.

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA is a family affair. Scott Lang aka Ant-Man (Paul Rudd), his now teenage daughter Cassie (Kathryn Newton), his girlfriend Hope Van Dyne aka The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly), her father and brilliant scientist Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), and her mother, another brilliant scientist Janet Van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer) are all having dinner when Cassie reveals that she’s been dabbling with the quantum realm herself, and she has developed a method of mapping out the entire quantum world. To do so, she’s been sending a beacon there to retrieve information. When Janet hears about this, she demands Cassie turn it off immediately. But before Cassie can do so, Janet’s worst fears are confirmed, and the five are pulled into the quantum world.

There, they discover a remarkable world of bizarre living creatures and civilizations which, of course, are at war because of a certain being who rules the realm with an iron fist, and he does so because he is intent on escaping the quantum realm and is building a war machine to help him do just that. It turns out that Janet knew all this already because during the thirty years that she spent in the quantum realm, she had met this ruler, but the whole experience had been so horrible for her she wasn’t able to tell her family.

The ruler is Kang (Jonathan Majors), and before Janet left, she had stopped him from leaving, because she believed he was too dangerous, and now that she’s back, Kang not only still wants to escape, but wants vengeance against Janet and her family.

Kang the Conqueror describes himself as master of the multiverse, as a being who understands, controls, and manipulates time. Yet, in spite of this, he still needs Ant-Man to get his power core for him so he can escape. Which had me scratching my head, because if he’s so powerful, why does he need Ant-Man’s help retrieving his much-needed power core? Couldn’t he do it himself?Hmm, not so all-powerful, are you Kang? Apparently, he is, as he’s going to be the focus of the next AVENGERS movie.

Anyway, that’s the plot of ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA. As plots go, it’s okay. Honestly, I’m growing weary of stories about rebels and fights against oppressors, which we see all the time in STAR WARS and in the AVATAR movies. But that doesn’t stop this movie from being entertaining.

It has a fun script by Jeff Loveness which features just the right amount of well-timed humor without becoming entrenched in full blown and misplaced silliness. The laughs were genuine.

As I said earlier, Paul Rudd has owned the role of Ant-Man and made it his own. He’s the perfect ordinary guy— actually, he used to be a thief— who had no business becoming a superhero, yet he did. He embodies the recurring theme in the story that life doesn’t make sense, and that you just have to roll with the punches.

As good as Rudd is in the role, he’s actually outshined a bit by some of the other players in this one. Kathryn Newton brings a tremendous youthful energy to the role of Lang’s daughter, Cassie. It’s Newton’s first time playing the role, and she’s awesome.

And on the other side of the age spectrum, Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer add class and experience to their roles as married scientists Dr. Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne. Douglas has been in all three ANT-MAN movies, and his supporting presence has been a constant. He has a few memorable bits here. Pfeiffer joined the ANT-MAN cast in the second movie, and she’s a joy to watch here in the third ANT-MAN adventure. And when she shows off her fighting skills and takes on the bad guys, it brings back memories of her Catwoman days in BATMAN RETURNS (1992), still the screen’s finest Catwoman performance to date.

Marvel has also been on a roll with its villains of late. I thought Tenoch Huerta’s Namor in WAKANDA FOREVER was one of the better Marvel villains in recent memory, and Jonathan Majors’ Kang the Conqueror is equally as impressive. Majors definitely gives Kang a Thanos-type vibe, as he’s the sad and somber all-powerful villain who is capable of instilling so much harm and damage to the universe. I’ll be looking forward to seeing Kang in future Marvel movies.

Jonathan Majors is an impressive actor who has made his mark in recent movies such as in Spike Lee’s DA 5 BLOODS (2020) and in the western THE HARDER THEY FALL (2021) which pitted him against a gunslinger played by Idris Elba. He will also be starring opposite Michael B. Jordan in CREED III (2023) due out on March 3.

Evangeline Lilly returns for the third time as Hope Van Dyne/aka The Wasp, but even though her character’s name is featured in the title of this movie, her character seems to take a back seat to young Kathryn Newton’s Cassie character here. Heck, Cassie even has her own suit!

Bill Murray shows up in a glorified cameo as Lord Krylar, Janet’s former lover in the quantum realm. While Murray is fine, his scene is most memorable for giving Michael Douglas some of his best moments as he plays off Murray’s Lord Krylar, jealous that his wife had a relationship with the man.

Director Peyton Reed creates a memorable quantum world that is a visual feast for the eyes. Reed has directed all three ANT-MAN movies, and he does a fine job here. Of course, he’s also bailed out by the script, which gives this one a story and decent characters in order to prevent it from being just a visual experience. Technology in films has reached superior levels, where it is possible to create unknown worlds and bring them to life in ways that they seem real. And as long as the film has a decent script to go along with it, I have no problem with it. ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA has such a script.

It also has two post credit scenes, one in the middle and one at the end, so if you’re interested in the hints Marvel likes to give regarding their future movies, you might want to stay till the end.

I had a good time with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA. I enjoyed the visuals, the action, the characters, and the frequently funny dialogue. It also features a heck of a villain.

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA is another excellent Marvel superhero movie, their second in a row. Here’s hoping their slump is over.

I give it three stars.

—END—

RATING SYSTEM

Four stars – Perfect, Top of the line

Three and a half stars- Excellent

Three stars – Very Good

Two and a half stars – Good

Two Stars – Fair

One and a half stars – Pretty Weak

One star- Poor

Zero stars – Awful

If you enjoy my reviews, you might enjoy my latest horror novel, DEMON AT THE DOOR, available at the link below:

THE BATMAN (2022) – Film Noir Batman Goes On Way Too Long

0
Posted on by

A funny thing happened while I was watching THE BATMAN (2022).

The latest Batman movie, which is yet another reimagining of the masked vigilante of Gotham city by one of my favorite movie directors working today, Matt Reeves, and which introduces Robert Pattinson to the role of the Caped Crusader, has been receiving heaps of praise from critics and fans alike since its theatrical premiere on March 4… it’s currently streaming on HBO Max… with some even calling it the best Batman movie yet!

For me, I was really enjoying it, and like many others was blown away by its dark film noir take on the subject, and at the end of two hours, I was leaning towards agreeing with those who were calling this the best Batman ever. But then that funny thing happened. The movie kept going. And going. And going. So… at the end of three hours, I didn’t hold that same opinion.

See, THE BATMAN is long. Like, super long! As in two hours and fifty-six minutes long. And yes, these days this is a pet peeve of mine. Movies in general are trending towards the time management equivalent of Major League Baseball games. If you’re going to make a movie that is three hours long, you darn well better have a good reason for it, and for my money, most films I see that run well over two hours, don’t. Someone needs to edit these would-be sagas down.

So, while I liked THE BATMAN, what I liked least about it was that it was so gosh darn long. And this is from someone who was really into this film and was enjoying the ride all the way up to that two-hour mark.

It also didn’t help that the plot as laid out in the screenplay by director Matt Reeves and Peter Craig isn’t anything to write home about. The story is all about corruption. The Riddler (Paul Dano) is targeting the corrupt public officials of Gotham City because he’s sick and tired of the lies and cheats of those running the city, and hence the Mayor, Police Commissioner, and others are all being murdered in the most horrific of ways, complete with personalized letters and riddles meant for Batman (Robert Pattinson) who decides he will find out who is killing the corrupt leaders of Gotham and why. He teams with Selina Kyle aka Catwoman (Zoe Kravitz) to do this, as Kyle is interested because her best friend was involved and was subsequently killed because of her involvement. Their investigation leads them to the dark underbelly of Gotham City, filled with organized crime and corruption, and folks like Oz aka The Penguin (Colin Farrell) and gangster Carmine Falcone (John Turturo).

At the end of the day, you know who wins.

You don’t need three hours to figure it out. Did I say THE BATMAN was long?

The screenplay is not a strength of this movie. It does a decent job with some of the characters. I liked the take on Batman where he’s viewed more as a detective and vigilante, who is quite shadowy and frightening, and I also liked how most of the comic book aspects of the villains took a back seat to more realistic interpretations, but sadly we’ve seen all this before.

Craig was one of the screenwriters who wrote THE UNFORGIVABLE (2021), the very dark Sandra Bullock drama where she played an ex-con out of prison dealing with people who continued to see her as a worthless monster who didn’t deserve to be alive. The feeling of hopelessness from that movie is often on display here in THE BATMAN, and that works well. Likewise, the dark tone is on par with Matt Reeves’ WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (2017) which Reeves wrote and directed. I have no problem this. In fact, I really liked the grim outlook which THE BATMAN presented.

The problem though is a question I asked myself before I sat down to watch this one, which was: do we really need yet another reimagining of Batman? I mean, it used to be years would pass before filmmakers would return to remaking great stories which had already been told. I mean, we just saw Ben Affleck in the role a mere five years ago in JUSTICE LEAGUE (2017).

So, while I liked a lot of what Matt Reeves did with this movie, most of it is just stuff I’ve seen before. And if I’m going to sit through a three hour movie, I’d prefer it not be on stuff I’ve seen before. Have I mentioned yet that this film is long???

As I said, Matt Reeves is one of my favorite movie directors. He directed CLOVERFIELD (2008), LET ME IN (2010) Hammer Films’ vampire remake starring Chloe Grace Moretz that I actually prefer over the original, as well as the very entertaining DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2014) and WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (2017). For the most part, I enjoyed Reeves’ work here on THE BATMAN. I loved how he depicted Batman’s movements, with slow heavy footsteps that made him more monstrous and ominous than any previous interpretation. He instilled fear before he threw any punches. The film noir feel of the movie was awesome. With its constant rain pelting Gotham City, the film had a definite BLADE RUNNER (1982) feel to it.

The action sequences were okay. I’ve seen better. But the overall drama, conflict, and story simply doesn’t hold up for all three hours of this very long movie.

I’m a fan of Robert Pattinson. Not because of TWILIGHT, a series which I hated then and still hate now, but because of what he’s done since. He’s been terrific in such movies as THE LOST CITY OF Z (2016), GOOD TIME (2017), and most recently as a slimy reverend in THE DEVIL ALL THE TIME (2020). As Batman, Pattinson is excellent! He is certainly not the problem with this movie. In fact, I enjoyed Pattinson as Batman so much I would be more than happy to watch him play the role again. I liked his tortured take on the character… again, nothing new… but Pattinson did it well.

Where does Pattison rank with the movie Batmans? Tough to say now, as he has only played the role once. I love Christian Bale’s take on the character, and I’ve always been a fan of Michael Keaton’s work as the Caped Crusader in his two Batman movies. Interestingly enough, the Batman I believed Pattison resembled the most was… Adam West from the campy 60s version! There’s something about Pattison’s jawline beneath the cowl that calls to mind West. For such a dark movie, there are several nods to the Adam West version of Batman here in THE BATMAN, such as the bust of William Shakespeare in Wayne Manor.

The rest of the cast is solid, and all add to the pieces which make up THE BATMAN. Zoe Kravitz is okay as Selina Kyle. We just saw her in the thriller KIMI (2022), and I actually enjoyed her more in KIMI than here as Catwoman.

Jeffrey Wright, fresh off his memorable swan song as CIA agent and James Bond buddy Felix Leiter in NO TIME TO DIE (2021), makes for an effective James Gordon. An unrecognizable Colin Farrell is excellent as Oz aka The Penguin who looks like he would have been right at home operating inside the world of THE SOPRANOS (1999-2007) The same can be said for John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. Besides Pattinson, Farrell and Turturro deliver the best performances in the movie.

Andy Serkis does well as Alfred in limited screen time. Speaking of limited screen time, we barely see Paul Dano as the Riddler, which works against the movie. In his brief screen time, Dano didn’t really impress me as the villain.

THE BATMAN also features an atmospheric and haunting music score by Michael Giacchino, which reminded me a lot of the score he wrote for LET ME IN.

Is THE BATMAN the best Batman movie ever?

No.

Christopher Nolan’s THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) remains the gold standard of Batman movies, and for my money is the best Batman movie to date. Nolan’s BATMAN BEGINS (2005) is not that far behind. And while they have not aged well, Tim Burton’s BATMAN (1989) and BATMAN RETURNS (1992) are both excellent Batman movies. You have Michael Keaton as Batman in both, and Jack Nicholson’s Joker in BATMAN, and Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman— still the best movie Catwoman yet— in BATMAN RETURNS.

Where does THE BATMAN rank?

Well, for its first two hours, it was right up there with THE DARK KNIGHT. But it goes on far too long and just doesn’t have the legs to go the distance. It lost me in its final hour, and by the time Batman and Catwoman are taking down the Riddler and friends, the only thing I was thinking about was finally being able to stand up again.

Did I mention this movie was very long?

—END—

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP (2018) – Light, Fun, Another Marvel Hit

1
Posted on by

ant-man-and-the-wasp

Evangeline Lily and Paul Rudd in ANT-MAN AND THE WASP (2018)

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP (2018), the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is a comedic vehicle that will have you chuckling throughout, which is just what Marvel fans needed after the devastating AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR (2018) earlier this year.

After breaking the law by teaming up with Captain America in CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR (2016), Scott Lang/Ant Man (Paul Rudd) finds himself under house arrest. He sees his young daughter Cassie (Abby Ryder Forston), and he’s visited by his business partner Luis (Michael Pena), but he cannot leave his house, which explains his absence from AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR. Speaking of which, the events in this movie take place just before the events in INFINITY WAR.

Scott’s also not supposed to have any contact with Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lily) or her father Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) since they designed the Ant Man suit which he wore when he fought against Iron Man and half the Avengers when he joined Team Captain America. Hope and Hank are considered fugitives from justice. And Scott wants no part of seeing them since his house arrest ends in a matter of days.

But that all changes when Hope and Hank extract Scott from his house, telling him they need his help to find Hope’s mother Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) who was lost years ago in the subatomic realm and considered dead, but since Scott had been reduced to a subatomic level and returned, Hank now believes it’s possible his wife is still alive. Scott reluctantly agrees to help them.

But along the way they find resistance from a shady business contact Sonny Burch (Walter Goggins) and a mysterious being with super powers greater than their own, both of whom want to steal Hank’s technology.

So, as you can see, the plot here is nothing heavy.  Ant Man is not trying to save the world, and after AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, that’s fine with me.

How does ANT-MAN AND THE WASP compare to the first ANT MAN movie?  It’s as good if not better.

One of the strengths of the Marvel movies has always been that they have very strong scripts, and the screenplay here by Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Paul Rudd, Andrew Barrer, and Gabriel Ferrari is no exception.  It goes all in on the comedy and is light and funny throughout. Writers Barrer and Ferrari are new to the Marvel Universe, while Rudd worked on the screenplay to the first ANT-MAN (2015), and McKenna and Sommers were on the team that wrote the highly regarded SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING (2017).

The other strength of these Marvel movies is the impressive casts they always assemble.

Paul Rudd returns as Ant Man, and he’s about as likable a superhero as you’re going to find in a movie, mostly because he’s an unlikely superhero. He doesn’t see himself as much of a hero. In fact, he knows he usually messes things up pretty bad.  Rudd is fun to watch because of both his easy-going personality and his sharp comedic timing.

Rudd’s scenes with Abby Ryder Forston, who plays Scott’s daughter Cassie, are precious. The scene where she says she wants to be his partner is a keeper. And Forston also gets plenty of comedic moments as well.

Rudd enjoys fine chemistry with both Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas.  Lily is perfect as Hope/Wasp, as she’s both bitter and in love with Scott, and their scenes together have the necessary sexual tension and honed humor. Lily also makes for an impressive bad-ass superhero.

Michael Douglas gets plenty of opportunities to shine as Dr. Hank Pym. When he’s not chastising Scott or saying lines like “are we going to get out of here or are you two going to stare at each other all day?” to Scott and Hope when they become preoccupied with each other rather than escaping, he’s devoted to finding his wife.

And it was fun to see Michelle Pfeiffer back on the big screen in a superhero movie, something she hadn’t done since her phenomenal performance as Catwoman in BATMAN RETURNS (1992). Pfeiffer’s not in this one much, but she appears early on in a flashback as the first Wasp, thanks to some CGI/motion capture effects, looking years younger.

The rest of the cast is largely there for comedic relief.

Michael Pena has a field day as Scott’s business partner Luis, and as the movie goes along, he becomes more involved in the plot. Luis, along with associates Dave (T.I.) and Kurt (David Dastmalchian), form a team who when helping Scott are about as useful as the Three Stooges.

Likewise, Walter Goggins, who’s played some very serious villains in his day, in films like DJANGO UNCHAINED (2012) and THE HATEFUL EIGHT (2015), plays baddie Sonny Burch strictly for laughs. The scene where Sonny and his goons capture Luis, Dave, and Kurt and plan to use “truth serum” on them is hilarious.

Judy Greer returns as Scott’s ex-wife Maggie, and Bobby Cannavale returns as her new husband Paxton, and their scenes are comic as well this time around. And Randall Park plays lawman Jimmy Woo, also, you got it, for laughs.

The emphasis on humor would be bad if the film wasn’t funny, but it is, very much so, and all these actors excel in their roles. The result is a highly entertaining two hours which fly by incredibly quickly.

About the only two folks in the film not playing things for laughs are Hannah John-Kamen as the mysterious Ghost, and Laurence Fishburne as Hank’s former colleague Dr. Bill Foster. Hanna John-Kamen is okay as Ghost, but the character, in spite of an interesting background story, isn’t developed all that well.

Laurence Fishburne fares better as Dr. Bill Foster. He’s a man who’s often at odds with Hank Pym, but he’s trying to do the right thing. The scene where he puts his foot down with Ghost when she suggests they go after Scott’s daughter for leverage really resonates. When he tells her in no uncertain terms that going after children is wrong and that he will not be a part of using a child to get what he wants, it’s a telling moment.

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP was directed by Peyton Reed, who also directed the first ANT-MAN movie. He handled both films very well, and I think he outdid himself with this second film, as he pretty much got everything right with this one. The humor works, the action scenes are edited well and fun to watch, and the pacing is perfect. The special effects are also spot-on.

If there’s any flaw it’s I would have liked more Wasp.  I really enjoyed Evangeline Lilly as Wasp and would have loved to have seen her in even more scenes as the bad-ass superhero.

And while comedy ruled the day in ANT-MAN AND THE WASP, the events from AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR which have not happened yet loom like a cloud over the proceedings, which makes this story even better.

In the Marvel movie tradition, there are two after-credit scenes. The first is the big one, the one you definitely do not want to miss, while the second, at the very end of the credits, reverts back to the comedic.

ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is yet another high quality superhero movie from Marvel, as the studio continues its amazing run of entertaining movies, and it shows no sign of slowing down. In fact, the studio is having an extraordinarily exceptional year, as all three of their releases so far in 2018, BLACK PANTHER, AVENGER: INFINITY WAR, and ANT-MAN AND THE WASP, are among the best films of the year.

And since Ant-Man wasn’t involved in the devastating conclusion to AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, he’s suddenly a very important superhero going forward. Be sure to catch him in this light adventure now, because the next time we see him in the next AVENGERS movie, things no doubt will be a bit darker.

Yup, the next time we see him he’ll be going up against Thanos.  Gulp!

—END—

 

 

 

 

 

 

MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS (2017) – All-Star Murder Mystery an Exercise in the Mundane

2
Posted on by

murder_orientexpress_kenneth_branagh

Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot in MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS (2017)

I consider myself a Kenneth Branagh fan.

I have absolutely loved every Shakespeare play he has brought to the big screen, from his masterful debut with HENRY V (1989) to his wonderfully witty MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING (1993).  But his non-Shakespeare films haven’t been as successful, and I’ve never been exactly sure why.  His MARY SHELLEY’S FRANKENSTEIN (1994) didn’t work, and his THOR (2011) was just an OK Marvel superhero movie.

Branagh both directs and stars in today’s movie, MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS (2017), which is based on the novel by Agatha Christie, and is a remake of the 1974 film of the same name directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Albert Finney as detective Hercule Poirot.  It featured an all-star cast of train passengers, including the likes of Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Richard Widmark, and Sean Connery, to name just a few.

In this new 2017 version, Branagh plays Hercule Poirot, and he too has assembled an all-star cast of passengers, which for me, was the best part of this movie.  The cast is superb.

MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS opens in the middle east in the early 1930s where famed detective Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is busy solving yet another impossible crime.  His job done, he climbs aboard a train for some rest and relaxation, but things don’t go as planned when there is a murder committed on board, and suddenly Poirot finds himself once again trying to solve a complicated mystery.

And this is a mystery, so the less said about the plot the better.

As I said, the best part about MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS is its cast, and I’ll get to that in a moment, but for the film itself, it’s a mixed bag.  The biggest knock against this movie is it just never reached out and grabbed me.  There is never a defining moment in the film where I felt, okay, this is where it gets going.  It just move along at a steady pace with no sense of urgency or dramatic build-up.  It’s all rather listless.

It certainly looks good.  The shots of the train travelling through the snowy mountains are picturesque, and the costumes and set design are impressive.  But director Branagh seems satisfied to film a period piece drama without giving much emphasis on the suspenseful side of things.  This film just never gets going.

But the cast is fun, starting with Branagh himself as Hercule Poirot.  Branagh seems to be having a good time with the role, and he’s convincing as the meticulous borderline-OCD Poirot.  And his full mustache is so noticeable it’s nearly a character in itself.

Johnny Depp makes for an excellent gangster-type, and his was one of my favorite performances in this film.  I’ve grown tired of some of Depp’s off-the-wall acting roles of late, and it was fun to see him actually play a character.  He does a fine job, and I wish he would do this more often, play someone who actually seems like a real person.

I also really enjoyed Michelle Pfeiffer, and although she wasn’t as memorable as she was in MOTHER (2017) earlier this year, she’s still very good.  We haven’t seen a whole lot of Pfeiffer in recent years, and I hope this changes because she remains a strong talent whose presence has been missed in the movies of late.

Likewise, Josh Gad was particularly effective as Hector MacQueen, the right hand man and attorney for Depp’s Edward Ratchett.  While Gad was more memorable as LeFou in the recent live-action remake of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (2017), he’s still pretty darn good here.

Also in the cast are Daisy Ridley, Leslie Odom Jr., Penelope Cruz, Derek Jacobi, Judi Dench, and Willem Dafoe. Now, all of these folks are fun to watch, but none of them do a whole lot.  Like the film as a whole, no one really has any signature moments.

Michael Green wrote the screenplay, based on Christie’s novel.  It’s a decent screenplay with believable dialogue and interesting characters, but it doesn’t score all that well as a whodunit mystery.  There is a murder, and Poirot investigates.  This in itself is interesting, but without compelling dialogue and conversations, and without energetic directing, the process of solving the crime somehow all becomes rather mundane and lifeless.

There are some good moments, like when Poirot says he’s reached the age where he knows what he likes and doesn’t like, and he partakes fully in all that he likes and completely ignores what he dislikes.  For those of us who have reached a certain age, this line rings true.  It’s too bad the same can’t be said for most of the other dialogue and situations in the film.

Green was one of the writers who wrote the screenplay to BLADE RUNNER 2049 (2017), and he also worked on the screenplay to LOGAN (2017).  Of these three, the Marvel superhero film LOGAN is clearly Green’s best credit.

Another drawback to this film is if you’ve seen the 1974 movie, it’s hard to forget, and this new version doesn’t really offer anything that is new.  I’m going to guess that if you haven’t seen the 1974 movie, you might like this version better than I did.

I found MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS to be simply okay.  It didn’t wow me, didn’t have me on the edge of my seat, or scratching my head wondering who the murderer was, but it did hold my interest for the most part, in a rather routine pleasant sort of way, which for a period piece murder mystery, doesn’t really cut it.

—END—

Books by Michael Arruda:

TIME FRAME,  science fiction novel by Michael Arruda.  

Ebook version:  $2.99. Available at http://www.neconebooks.com. Print version:  $18.00.  Email your order request to mjarruda33@gmail.com. Also available at Amazon.com.

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT, movie review collection by Michael Arruda.

InTheSpooklight_NewText

 Ebook version:  $4.99.  Available at http://www.neconebooks.com.  Print version:  $18.00.  Email your order request to mjarruda33@gmail.com. Also available at Amazon.com.

FOR THE LOVE OF HORROR, short story collection by Michael Arruda.  

For The Love Of Horror cover

Ebook version:  $4.99.  Available at http://www.neconebooks.com. Print version:  $18.00.  Email your order request to mjarruda33@gmail.com. Also available at Amazon.com.  

 

 

 

MOTHER! (2017) – Metaphor For Our Narcissistic Times

0
Posted on by

mother-poster

MOTHER! (2017), the latest movie by writer/director Darren Aronofsky, is an ambitious and thought-provoking film that serves as a metaphor for our ever-increasing narcissistic culture that not only breeds and encourages narcissists but the radical zealots who follow them.

There’s a lot going on here, most of it not that easy to digest or decipher, and since the trailer for this movie makes it look like a modern-day ROSEMARY’S BABY, which it is not, I’m guessing there’s going to be a whole lot of disappointed moviegoers out there who decide to see this movie.  It’s not really a horror movie, in the traditional sense.

But that shouldn’t stop you from seeing this one.  Any time a movie makes you think and think hard, and goes about its storytelling in a way that is creative and out of the ordinary, that’s a good thing.  MOTHER! is a good thing.  It’s just not going to appeal to a wide audience.

MOTHER! tells a straightforward story.  A woman (Jennifer Lawrence) lives in her quiet dreamhouse with her author husband (Javier Bardem) who’s stuck in a writer’s funk and has been struggling to produce new material.  One night, a man (Ed Harris) shows up at their door, and to the woman’s surprise, her husband invites the man to stay the night.  It turns out that the man is a huge fan, and this pleases the author to no end.  Soon, the man’s wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives as well, and naturally, she’s invited to stay, too.

Things happen that result in more people showing up, people who make the woman uncomfortable, because this isn’t what she expects.  She wants her life in her house with her husband, but yet her husband is fine with opening up their house to these guests. She grows more distressed as more people arrive.  And later, when a lot of people come in, all hell breaks loose.

In terms of plot, the story is constructed very well, or at least the first half is, anyway. When Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer arrive, their arrival makes perfect sense. Likewise, when many of their family members join them, that also makes perfect sense. So, it’s not as if the audience is sitting there scratching their heads wondering why these people are there.  It strikes Jennifer Lawrence’s character as strange, but when Javier Bardem’s character explains things to her, we in the audience understand.

Later, in the second half of the movie, the film deviates from a straightforward plot and enters into the realm of pure metaphor.  And it’s here where the film will no doubt lose most of its audience.

But through it all, it remains truthful and has a lot to say.

First of all, this is not a good movie for authors who want to get married, because if there’s one message that comes through loud and clear, it’s what it’s like to be married to an author.  Now, this isn’t the point of the movie, but it’s certainly one of the parts I liked, because there’s truth behind it.

Javier Bardem captures what it’s like to be a writer.  You can see it in his face when he can’t produce, and alternatively, you can see him light up when the ideas come to him and when his fans tell him how much they like his work. The bottom line is for this character,  life is always about him and his work.  His wife, though he says he loves her and indeed acts like he loves her, is always secondary.  Jennifer Lawrence has a great line when she says that he never really loved her, and that he only loved the fact that she loved him.  A telling and truthful moment.

But MOTHER! is much more than a story about an author.  Javier Bardem’s husband character is a narcissist.  He’s driven by the attention he receives from his adoring fans. In the movie, it begins with the simple conversation between his character and the Ed Harris character, who admits to being a fan and who says “your words changed my life.” From there it grows, slowly at first, until during the second half of the movie it becomes full-blown insanity.

In the second half of the movie, people come to the house because they are fans, and it’s here that the plot becomes secondary and the metaphoric elements of the film take over. We see varying degrees of fandom, but most are radical followers.  The film then serves us images which are religious, militant, violent, and flat-out horrific.

In a nutshell, the film shows what life is like living with a narcissist.  But, more than that, the images at the end  of the movie, of violence, hatred, of opposing sides clashing, easily brought to my mind images that we have seen on the news of events here in the U.S. in 2017, which for me, lifted this movie to another level, because what I took from it by the end, was that it’s a metaphor for what life is like when you elect a narcissist.

But not all of the movie works.  I had an issue with the pacing.  It runs at about two hours long, and there were times midway through where it felt longer than that.

Jennifer Lawrence is fine as the young mother here, in a role where she spends most of the film barefoot and pregnant.  And since this movie is called MOTHER! after all, her character is the one audiences will identify with the most. The story is seen through her eyes, and so when she is upset about the things that are going on, the audience is right there with her. And by the time you get to the end, with all the different sides going at each other, she’s the one who’s hurt the most. She becomes the victim of both her husband’s actions and inactions.

I was more impressed with Javier Bardem as the author/husband, who always seemed to make sense when he spoke to his wife, yet at the same time it was maddening to watch him pretty much ignore his wife’s needs.

Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer add fine support in their roles as the annoying intrusive couple, especially Pfeiffer who exudes a coldness that really fits with the movie.  But Harris is just as good, as the more emotional half of this couple.

The rest of the cast is secondary.

The main guy here is writer/director Darren Aronofsky, who’s mostly known for the movie BLACK SWAN (2010), a dark movie that was well received and that I liked well enough.  Previous to MOTHER!, he wrote and directed NOAH  (2014), a re-telling of the Noah and the Ark story, starring Russell Crowe as Noah which tried to turn Noah into an action hero.  It was a misfire, but I actually enjoyed it.

MOTHER! is a film that most folks are simply not going to enjoy.  It’s not your standard horror movie or drama, and it becomes highly symbolic during its second half which is bound to turn off lots of viewers.

But I liked it.  It has a lot to say about narcissism in our culture, both about those who desire and command attention, and about those who relentlessly become their “followers.”

Better yet, it tells the truth, even when that truth is ugly and repugnant.

—END—

Books by Michael Arruda:

TIME FRAME,  science fiction novel by Michael Arruda.  

Ebook version:  $2.99. Available at http://www.neconebooks.com. Print version:  $18.00.  Email your order request to mjarruda33@gmail.com. Also available at Amazon.com.

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT, movie review collection by Michael Arruda.

InTheSpooklight_NewText

 Ebook version:  $4.99.  Available at http://www.neconebooks.com.  Print version:  $18.00.  Email your order request to mjarruda33@gmail.com. Also available at Amazon.com.

FOR THE LOVE OF HORROR, short story collection by Michael Arruda.  

For The Love Of Horror cover

Ebook version:  $4.99.  Available at http://www.neconebooks.com. Print version:  $18.00.  Email your order request to mjarruda33@gmail.com. Also available at Amazon.com.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE FAMILY (2013) – An Uneven Mix of Drama and Comedy

0
Posted on by

The-Family-2013-Movie-PosterMovie Review:  THE FAMILY (2013)

by

Michael Arruda

 

True, when I saw the trailers for THE FAMILY, I didn’t think much of it, but how could I not see a movie starring Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer, two of my favorite actors?  I like De Niro in pretty much anything he’s in, and way back when, Michelle Pfeiffer as the Catwoman in BATMAN RETURNS (1992) was the hottest thing going.

In spite of my misgivings about this movie, I was eager to see the two actors in action.  That being said, THE FAMILY is a rather odd movie.  Its tale of a former mobster hiding out in the witness protection program who has to move constantly because both he and his nutty family can’t seem to stop killing people has screwball comedy written all over it, but this isn’t the path  this movie takes.

It follows a far more subtle path and tries to be a sophisticated comedy-drama that is oftentimes as elegant as the rich Italian dinners Pfeiffer’s character prepares.  But the subtlety here is juxtaposed against both serious scenes of violence including some graphic mob hits, and comedic over-the-top ones, played for laughs, making this movie a difficult one to figure out.  It’s as if the filmmakers weren’t sure what kind of movie they wanted to make— comedy, drama, comedy-drama, dark comedy, or nuttiness unchained— but one thing is for sure, regardless of intent, the whole thing would have worked better with a sharper script.

THE FAMILY opens with a jarring mob hit, as the underworld is out to get the former Giovanni Manzoni, a former mafia boss who ratted out his associates and now goes by the name Fred Blake (Robert De Niro).  Blake and his family, his wife Maggie (Michelle Pfeiffer), teen daughter Belle (Dianna Agron) and teen son Warren (John D’Leo), have relocated to Normandy, France, under the protection of CIA Agent Robert Stansfield (Tommy Lee Jones.)

Stansfield is frustrated with Blake because he can’t seem to stay out of the limelight, and as a result the CIA has to relocate him and his family every few months.  Stansfield is fighting a losing battle, because it’s not only Blake— who goes out when he’s not supposed to, and talks openly with neighbors when he should be keeping a low profile— but his wife and kids.  When the local store owner insults his wife Maggie, she turns around and blows up his store.  When some boys try to take advantage of Belle, she beats them silly, and likewise, young Warren is up to no good in school as well, building up a criminal resume that would make his dad proud.

Because the Blakes are not subtle, it’s not that difficult for the mobsters to find them, and when they do, they send in a massive hit squad to wipe out Blake and his family.  Of course, his family, being who they are, are not about to go down without a fight.

The biggest problem with THE FAMILY is it can’t make up its mind whether it’s a comedy or a drama.  When Maggie blows up the store, it’s supposed to be funny.  When the mob’s hit squad attacks the Blakes at the end of the movie, this part is played seriously, with ample tears, blood and death.

As a result, while earlier I had laughed here and there, during the ending, I wasn’t laughing at all, as thing were played straight.

The film could certainly have benefitted from stronger writing.  The comedy could have been funnier and the drama darker.

Most of the comedy misfires.  There’s a scene for example where De Niro’s Fred is signed up to give a talk about a movie, and it turns out to be GOODFELLAS (1990).  This should be an uproarious moment, but it hardly garners a laugh.

One of the funnier gags is De Niro’s various uses of the F-word.  When Maggie complains that he uses it too much, he explains that he has to because it has different meanings depending on the situation and on the way one says it.  He goes on to demonstrate, in one of the film’s funnier scenes.

But the scenes with his teen children— and I hate to point this out, but isn’t De Niro a bit old to playing a dad of teen kids at this point?— mostly misfire.  The humor is all off, and as a result in spite of some decent acting performances by Dianna Agron and John D’Leo, they’re not very likable characters.  Plus Agron gets stuck in a subplot in which she has a crush on a student teacher that is about as realistic as an old BRADY BUNCH episode.

Luc Besson, who also directed, wrote the screenplay with Michael Caleo, based on the book by Tonino Benacquista.  There are plenty of set-ups for some decent comedy, but time and time again the writing fails to deliver, and the jokes just don’t work.  The story is also not dark enough to completely work as a drama either.

Besson has a ton of writing credits, so he has plenty of experience, but that didn’t seem to help him here.  He fares better as a director, as I liked the look of this one, very polished, and it captures the mood of a gangster film.

A lot of emphasis is placed on food in this movie, from characters complaining about the rich creams of French food, to Michelle Pfeiffer going on about the benefits of olive oil, to elegant Italian dishes, to Robert De Niro preparing a barbecue.  I found myself hungry by the time this one was over.

I did enjoy the two performances of the leads, Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer.  De Niro can play a mobster in his sleep by this point, and he’s certainly fun to watch here.  I probably enjoyed Pfeiffer the most in this movie, as she cracked me up just with her fiery personality.  Imagine how funny she could have been with a better script!

Tommy Lee Jones was good as well, but to a lesser degree since he enjoys far less screen time than De Niro and Pfeiffer.  And again, both Dianna Agron and John D’Leo deliver decent performances as the Blake teen children, but the characters they play are rather annoying.

I would have enjoyed THE FAMILY far better had it either been flat out funny or a much darker drama, or even a well balanced mix of the two.  As it stands, it’s an uneven hodgepodge of light and dark, a dish that’s not easy to digest, like that French cream poured on a barbecued burger served on a heap of olive oil pasta.

—END—