runolive47-blog - Tumblr blog

[runolive47-blog]

?Columbus? Review: Kogonada?s Debut Is a Feast for Eyes and Heart

There was never any question that when lauded video essayist Kogonada finally turned his attention to a full-length feature, the finished product would be visually stunning and impeccably framed. The real surprise ? and a satisfying one at that ? is how the newly-minted filmmaker has used his debut effort ?Columbus? to layer visual flair with deep emotional nuance, delivered care of two of the year?s best performances.

Set in the small city of Columbus, Indiana, an American mini-metropolis that?s home to a number of Modernist structures from such giants of architecture as Eero Saarinen, I.M. Pei, and Richard Meier, ?Columbus? is a feast for the eyes, but its more lasting impression is on the heart.

Ostensibly a romantic drama in the vein of Richard Linklater?s ?Before? trilogy and Sofia Coppola?s ?Lost in Translation,? ?Columbus? joins together a pair of seemingly different people ? both with troubles to spare ? and delights in them, well, delighting in each other. Jin (John Cho) arrives in Columbus after his father, a respected professor, falls into a coma on the eve of an important talk. A stranger to both his father (the two men haven?t spoken in over a year) and the country he used to call home (though American-raised, Jin?s life and work is in Korea), Jin feels understandably isolated in the strange city, but that changes when he runs into Columbus native Casey (Haley Lu Richardson).

An architecture freak who is struggling to make her own way (and get out from under her loving, but troubled mother), Casey spends her days working at the local library, admiring the architecture of her adopted hometown, and steadfastly pushing down thoughts that there must be something moreout there. If anything, she?s convinced herself that she?s fine where she is, but her curiosity and intelligence hint at bigger dreams for the recent high school grad. ? Reverse Shot like Columbus,? Casey tells a nosy friend, who seems shocked that anyone would. You almost believe her. Relative newcomer Richardson, who was so appealing in ?The Edge of Seventeen? in what could have been Peter Travers: ?Columbus? Is a Modern-Day ?Before Sunrise? ? Rolling Stone (and one outshone by star Hailee Steinfeld), is simply stunning here.

Every shot in ?Columbus? is an impressive visual achievement, but the ones that place Richardson and Cho at the center are superior from the start. As Jin takes a phone call outside his sprawling hotel (seemingly the only building in Columbus not touched by Modernist design), the ever-curious Casey eavesdrops on his conversation, delighted to eventually discover a kindred spirit who is equally at ease calmly puffing on a cigarette and discussing the intricacies of architecture. Initially, they?re separated by a tall wrought iron fence, but as they walk slowly together, a break appears ? suddenly, they?re standing next to each other. The temperature of the scene changes on a dime, and from that moment, they?re never pushed apart again.

The pair fall into an easy conversation that continues throughout the rest of the feature, and one that picks up and falls off without ever real ending, nor beginning. Kogonada doesn?t just have a knack for creating visual art, but an ear for conversations, the kind that beat along with ease. His characters talk like real people.

Richardson and Cho are the perfect people for such roles. The pair have prodigious chemistry, but the real pleasure of ?Columbus? is watching that bond deepen, and the comfort that Casey and Jin ultimately find in each other. Kogonada doesn?t only seem compelled by how things and people take up space ? though his skill at framing a shot, everyshot is the first attraction of the film ? but why,especially when those things and people are forced to interact with each other. As Casey and Jin embark on a haphazard, days-long architecture tour of the town, discussions about structure and space abound, but it?s the construction of their relationship that stands tall.

While ?Columbus? is principally focused on Jin and Casey?s growing relationship, their story would be incomplete without exploring the impact others have on them. Casey and Jin?s relationship is mirrored elsewhere, as Jin bonds in fits and starts with his father?s assistant (Parker Posey in an unexpected role, far more down to earth than audiences are used to seeing her, and charmingly so) and Casey keeps up a vaguely flirty friendship with a co-worker, played by Rory Culkin. Casey?s relationship with her troubled mother, played by Michelle Forbes, informs much of her experience, and as she reveals details of their life together to Jin, her troubles come into sharper relief.

[runolive47-blog]

Reviews

As we?ve written before, Netflixisn?t exactly known for a robust catalogue of quality anime features to choose from. Since our roundup list last September, the streaming service?s selection has only marginally improved in some respects, rotating out a handful of forgettable titles with a few films that could charitably be called improvements. The most noteworthy of Netflix?s recent acquisitions, however, is Gantz: O, making its first appearance on the streaming service following its English language debut at the Tokyo International Film Festival late last year.

Based off of Hiroya Oku? Reviews -fi action manga, Gantz: O follows a group of recently deceased people who have been seemingly resurrected by a mysterious black orb that charges them with the task of exterminating a host of shape-shifting aliens marauding across the island of Japan. Adapted from the series? midpoint chapter, the film follows Masaru Katou, a selfless and well-intentioned high schooler who is brought back to life by the eponymous ?Gantz? after being stabbed to death in a freak subway attack. What starts out as an inexplicable tragedy quickly transforms into what in all honesty could be described as a hyper-violent game of BDSM-themed laser tag with super powers, with Masaru soon swiftly recruited by the sphere?s meek roster of human chess pieces before being whisked away to downtown Osaka to murder a horde of Japanese demons.

The plot, and by extension its core cast of characters, is negligible, with Gantz: O?s focus firmly fixated on the dizzying if shallow spectacle of its action sequences (of which there are many) and the scrupulous fidelity of its 3D animation. The english dub is serviceable if often incongruent with the original Japanese voice acting, while the film?s stilted script at times yields a few choice lines of deliciously campy dialogue, such as in the case of the character of Hachiro Oka boasting that he was on his high school?s ping pong team before proceeding to bludgeon an alien into submission with a pair of oversized rock ?em sock ?em gauntlets, as if the former had any relationship to the latter. Oku?s creature designs thrive through the film?s aesthetic, with grotesque ghouls, goblins and oddities stampeding across the screen before being atomized into a shallow pool of blood and giblets. At one point a gigantic neon-highlighted mecha brandishing a retractable katana duels with a massive minotaur crossed with a tarantula. Gantz: O has all the sophomoric drama and improvisational complexity of a child indiscriminately smashing action figures together while watching Saturday morning cartoons. But damn if it isn?t cool to look at sometimes!

Some critics, chief among them writer Karen Jiang through her incisive review for Variety, have taken aim at Gantz: O for what can be described as the film?s sexually reductionist and socially regressive depiction of its female characters. While fans of the series have for the most part met these criticisms with expressions of disdain, such reactions do little to discredit the validity of Jiang?s arguments. Anime enthusiasts, some though not all, have a tendency to view their favorite franchises through a rose-tinted lens of selective insularity, treating films and series as though they are islands in vast sea of media separate and whole unto themselves. In Japan, manga and anime are unique in that they are categorized primarily by their intended demographic as opposed to their genre. In the case of Gantz that demographic is seinen, which translates to the Japanese equivalent of ?youth.? Unlike anime such as Dragon Ball or One Piece which aimed at young boys (i.e., shonen), seinen is targeted towards adolescents, playing to the all the aesthetic gratifications and priorities implied by that unique period of hormonal chaos. Put simply: blood, breasts, and big ol? explosions, all of which Gantz: O has in abundance, particularly in the case of a downright freudian monstrosity comprised entirely of naked flesh-fused female bodies with a habit for devouring men whole. Gantz: O knows exactly who its audience is, and as such the film?s broader appeal outside its target demographic lives and dies squarely within the stunted scope of those initial ambitions.

Further note, out of the film?s broad yet anonymous cast of characters, only two are women. That?s not to imply that the quantity of representation equates to the quality in how those are represented, but in the case of Gantz: O the quality of those depictions is particularly damning. The first, Reika Shimohira, is a quiet and demure model who exists perpetually on the peripheral edge of the action shouting screams of sideline encouragement and fear at the male protagonist?s debasement, and Anzu Yamazaki, a young woman who hovers incessantly at Masaru?s side and can be aptly described as equal parts shrill, clingy and remorselessly callous. The two do get to have their own firm yet fleeting moments in the spotlight during the climax of the final battle, but it?s always in support of another character?s fight, namely Masaru?s. Fidelity to source material aside, it would?ve been nice to see these characters fleshed out as something a little more than buxom damsels waiting to be rescued. Or perhaps, that?s in the manga?

All of which is to say that Gantz: O is a problematic movie, though not an entirely unenjoyable one. It?s about as rudimentary and action-driven as its source material, acting as a solid litmus test for whether audiences new to the franchise should branch out to explore the series? other incarnations in search of answers to the many questions they will undoubtedly have by the film?s conclusion. It?s not the best, but respective to the rest of Netflix? Reviews of offerings, it?s a welcome if tepid step in the right direction.

[runolive47-blog]

Mini Reviews (December 2017)

Radius, Coco, Welcome to the Punch

Radiusfollows Diego Klattenhoff?s Liam as he wakes up in a field with no memory of how he got there or even who he is, with the amnesia quickly revealed to be the least of his problems once he discovers that his mere presence will kill any living creature within a certain distance. It?s a high-concept premise that?s initially employed to impressively engrossing effect by filmmakers Caroline Labr�che and Steeve L�onard, as the directors deliver a strong opening stretch detailing Liam?s near-silent attempts to piece together what?s happened to him and why nearby people keep dropping dead ? with Klattenhoff?s stirring performance as the befuddled central character certainly perpetuating the intriguing atmosphere. The promising vibe persists even when Liam encounters (and eventually befriends) a woman (Charlotte Sullivan?s Radius (2017) Movie Review from Eye for Film ) immune to his inexplicably deadly presence, although it does become more and more clear, particularly as Radius progresses into its wheel-spinning midsection, that there?s just not enough material here to sustain a full-length feature (ie there are too many sequences that either go on too long or are flat-out needless). And while Labr�che and L�onard do offer up a small handful of compelling interludes that briefly buoy one?s interest ? eg Radius starts strong then goes in circles , suspenseful set-piece at a hospital ? Radius is ultimately the sort of picture that would?ve been much better off as a component in a short-film anthology (though it?s worth noting that a last-minute twist does ensure the film ends on a decidedly positive note).

Not exactly top-tier Pixar, Coco follows Anthony Gonzalez's Miguel as he enters the Land of the Dead and embarks on a quest to track down his great-great-grandfather. Directors Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina deliver an exceedingly appealing opening stretch that seems to promise an above-average animated endeavor, as the filmmakers suffuse the beautifully-animated proceedings with a whole host of appealing elements and characters - with, in terms of the latter, Gonzalez's Miguel certainly as likable and charismatic a protagonist as one could possibly imagine (and this is to say nothing of the adorable stray dog that follows Miguel for much of the picture). The movie's thoroughly engrossing vibe persists right up until Miguel enters the aforementioned Land of the Dead, after which point Coco morphs into a Miyazaki-esque fantasy riddled with admittedly creative yet woefully over-the-top elements (ie there's just nothing to connect to within the film's padded-out midsection). It's certainly not difficult to see just what Unkrich and Molina are attempting to do here - the movie's message couldn't possibly be clearer - and yet the pervasive lack of subtlety ensures that too much of Coco feels as though it's been geared directly towards small children. The touching closing stretch isn't, as a result, quite able to make the tearjerking impact that Unkrich and Molina are obviously striving for, which is a shame, clearly, given the film's preponderance of better-than-average attributes (including an animation style that's never not jaw-droppingly astonishing).

[runolive47-blog]

Smallfoot (2018), directed by Karey Kirkpatrick and Jason Reisig

Smallfoot **1/2 - Punch Drunk Movies /105300785/image.jpg" alt="Smallfoot 2018" />

It?s hard to find much to latch on to in this likeable but slightly animation.

When Smallfoot (2018), directed by Karey Kirkpatrick and Jason Reisig were tiny and screamed at the sight of a spider or other creepy crawly, your parents probably told you it was more frightened of you than you were of it. The same, apparently, applies to sasquatches and humans. In ?Smallfoot?, not-so-abominable snowmen, and women, live at the top of a mountain. They hear mythical tales of vengeful little people living far below, but their village elder dismisses it as nonsense. Of course, one young sasquatch ventures further than he should and discovers humans. Beings both large and small learn that the other is not nearly so bad as they feared.

Karey Kirkpatrick and Jason Reisig?s film goes everywhere you?d expect it to but it has pace and doesn?t outstay its welcome. Its starry voice cast ? Channing Tatum, Zendaya, Danny DeVito, James Corden ? does good, enthusiastic work. There are a few hits of weirdness that the film could have used more of: the snowpeople hear human voices as a squeaky babble; a chase through the streets of a mountain village is staged like a game of Pacman; the sasquatch creation story involves giant snails and pooping buffalo.

[runolive47-blog]

Newness is a movie about how dating apps changed everything and nothing

In September 2015, a now-infamous Vanity Fairarticle went viral after it drew a defensive flurry of sarcastic tweets from Tinder. In the piece, titled ?Tinder and the Dawn of the ?Dating Apocalypse,?? Nancy Jo Sales quotes dozens of millennial daters and considers their testimonials, musing, ?In a perfect world, we?d all have sex with whomever we want, and nobody would mind, or be judged, or get dumped; but what about jealousy, and sexism, not to mention the still-flickering chance that somebody might fall in love??

About 30 minutes into Newness, the new feature from Like Crazy teamDrake Doremus and Ben York Jones, a minor character reads a liberally adapted quote from Sales, presenting a theory about the major inflection points of human history. He says there are three: the transition from hunting and gathering to sedentary farming, the invention of modern plumbing, and the age of dating apps.

?It is literally destroying our emotional spectrum,? he reads off a crumpled sheet of notebook paper. ?There?s only ?like? or shame, pleasure or pain, all extremes, no grey? which is funny, because it was our greyness that made us human all along.? It?s a doozy of a speech, only lightly rebuffed as ?cheesy? by its recipient. And if you?re alive and dating in the age of dating apps, it?s not particularly pleasant to listen to. There?s a little bit of winking hostility in Jones? script, seen again when he choreographs a key scene around two millennials eating avocado toast together. It?s not mean, exactly. But he?s asking ?What exactly is wrong with dating apps, and whose fault is it?? and he starts to answer the latter half of that question by pointing fingers at the most obvious guilty party: the beautiful people who use them. Whether they can get out of the movie without destroying each other and accepting that guilt becomes the primary source of tension.

Ever since the Newnesstrailer came out last month, I?ve been referring to it as the ?very serious Tinder movie,? and waiting for it impatiently. It looked ridiculous, and at the same time it felt urgent. Watching the trailer again ? in which swipes on a dating app are interspersed with beautiful people screaming ? it looked absurd. I could not wait, and it did not let me down. Newness is both very serious and very much a Tinder movie, although the dating app on-screen is a fake one called Winx. A third of the way in, Newness explicitly argues that dating apps have ruined romance, or made long-term love impossible. The central relationship, between Martin (Nicholas Hoult) and Gabi (Laia Costa), is tested because ? a few months after moving in together ? they find they still crave ?that newness,? and decide to redownload their dating apps so they can experiment with an open relationship.

You can probably already guess every key point on the arc of Newness, which follows Gabi and Martin as they experiment with their relationship ? happily, then not-so-happily, then angrily. Newness would be boring if not for the fact that the parameters of an open relationship aren?t the only thing threatening to blow this relationship up. Gabi is hyper-sensitive and Martin can be mean. Martin also had a brief, previous marriage that ended in the wake of a shared emotional trauma. When he finds out on Facebook that his ex-wife is now the happy mother of a six-month-old baby boy, he fishtails into a night of guiltily watching old home videos and composing a verbose email to her about his lingering regrets.

?She?s in the past,? he tries to assure Gabi as she rages around the room, throwing herself onto various pieces of furniture and screaming, ?No, she?s a ghost! She?s here!? Boiled down, Newness isn?t really about dating apps: Martin and Gabi love each other, or so they say, and their love story is one-of-a-kind, or so they believe. But it doesn?t exist in a vacuum. That?s at least one of the big problems in? every relationship in human history. This is part of what makes Newness feel so similar to the filmmakers? 2011 feature Like Crazy, about two people who love each other, and think their love is one-of-a-kind, and end up on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean, separated by a violated visa. That, and the leads in both films are objectively beautiful, charming, perfectly lit, articulate, and poreless in a way that makes their love story seem more than a little detached from the broader human experience it?s meant to represent.

As for that broader experience, the debate about what dating apps have or haven?t changed about love has already been raging for years, and Newness doesn?t add much to it. Sales? 2015 article quoted young people who said things like ?You can?t be stuck in one lane? There?s always something better,? and ?It?s like ordering Seamless. But you?re ordering a person.? Just a year later, people from the same generation told The Atlantic?s Julie Beck about their ?dating app fatigue,? saying, ?It really is sifting through a lot of crap,? and ?Maybe everyone who?s on Tinder now are like the last people at the party trying to go home with someone.?

Search ?Tinder ruined dating,? and you?ll find no shortage of personal essays, Reddit threads, and expansive, reported features arguing as much. At the same time, Tinder rebutted Sales by claiming it had already facilitated 8 billion ?matches? in late 2015. In early 2016, a report from the Pew research center found that 15 percent of American adults were ready to admit they were using dating apps. The same report showed that a majority of Americans considered dating apps a good way to meet someone.

Newness is really not a clear thesis about the impact of dating apps on romance and love. The few dating-app conversations on-screen are bland enough to read like first-draft placeholders. In one, Gabi says, ?Points for not sending a dick pic!? The first act of the film shows Gabi and Martin finding match after beautiful match, sleeping with them seemingly whenever, and then gossiping cheerfully about it. There?s none of the real-life drudgery of using an app like ?Winx? ? swiping for hours, un-matching boring people, half-trying to make a plan but realizing your schedules are incompatible, you don?t care enough, and you?re tired. For ordinary people, dating apps aren?t really a sphere where the major problem is an overabundance of choice.

In ?Newness? Review From Sundance: Drake Doremus? Digital-Age Romance ? Variety for Movie Mezzanine, Doremus said that he personally missed the boat on dating apps, having been in a long-term relationship since before they really took off. He explained his goal with the movie: ?It?s of the moment, but the same issues we deal with of intimacy, what we share and don?t share, how we relate to each other ? they?re kind of timeless, in a sense.? Sure, at a certain point, it becomes uninteresting whose fault it is that the infrastructure of dating has moved to the smartphone. What?s more interesting is how people are responding. But if you take Doremus? and 'Newness': Sundance Review ? word for it, these relationships are no more or less affected by the paralysis of choice brought on by an app than they are by the dozens of other hurdles life can throw in front of a new relationship. As someone who didn?t miss the boat, I don?t know that I believe it, though it?s certainly a comforting suggestion.

Newness is a modern love story, where selfies and LTE play a role, but its sweet, wildly optimistic final minutes are something else entirely. Without spoiling them, they?re a timeless resolution to a timeless formula. They make Newness into an enjoyable, well-acted, beautifully written, but ultimately very small movie, divorced completely from the question of whether dating apps have had any specific impact on our ability to fall in or out of love.

[runolive47-blog]

Wonderstruck

Todd Haynes has often tinkered with genres and cinematic styles, turning the Douglas Sirk film inside out for Far From Heaven or rethinking the biopic with his adventurous Bob Dylandrama I?m Not There. With click here , the director turns his attention to the family film, using as inspiration the same author whose source material was the fuel for Martin Scorsese?s Hugo. There?s a fascinating tension between Haynes? clinical, meticulous approach and the conventions (and limitations) of the story he?s telling. But in the process, Wonderstruck emerges as an exceedingly intelligent children?s film that values the brains of its young characters?as well as the kids? who might see it. This may not be Haynes? best work, but it?s the one most likely to make you cry.

Working from a screenplay by Brian Selznick (who also wrote and illustrated the 2011 novel), Haynes splits his narrative into two interweaving pieces. The first takes place in 1977: A 12-year-old named Ben (Oakes Fegley) is mourning the recent death of his saintly mother (Michelle Williams), while pondering the whereabouts of his father, a man he never met. The second thread occurs in 1927: A young deaf girl named Rose (Millicent Simmonds) is drawn to a silent-screen star (Julianne Moore), venturing from New Jersey to New York to meet her.

Both storylines involve the characters taking trips to the Big Apple in the hopes of finding something or someone that brings meaning to their life, and Haynes (working with editor Affonso Gon�alves) often deftly moves between the two, finding intersecting emotional through-lines. Those connections help since Haynes has filmed the segments in strikingly different ways. 1927 is in dreamy, purposely stylized black and white, as if Rose lives in a silent movie?albeit without title cards to guide the viewer. 1977 has the feel of faded color snapshots, and when the action moves to New York, the city hums with humid, gritty energy. Ed Lachman, who has received Oscar nominations for Carol and Far From Heaven, provides his usual evocative tinge to the photography, creating hyper-real environments for our young protagonists.

There?s an inherent downside to Wonderstruck?s back-and-forth structure. Constantly jerking the audience between time frames can start to feel repetitive as the novelty of the approach slowly fades. In addition, once it becomes established that Haynes is underlining the narratives? thematic similarities, it?s inevitable that viewers will try to jump ahead and guess precisely how these two threads will eventually connect.

Still, Haynes mostly sidesteps these issues by letting the two halves work together to tell a whole story. In this regard, Carter Burwell?s score is crucial: The acclaimed composer has crafted minimalist instrumental music that suggests both wonder and fragility. With much of Wonderstruck avoiding conventional dialogue?Rose is deaf and Ben, thanks to a weird fluke, will lose his hearing during the film?Burwell?s arrangements need to do a certain amount of the emotional heavy lifting. Click Here is exquisite, capturing the terror and the wide-eyed excitement felt by two kids venturing into the big city.

Wonderstruck also benefits from the director?s trademark reserve. Though not nearly as chilly as most of his works, Wonderstruck nonetheless resists catering to the mawkishness of the source material. Instead, Haynes emphasizes the universal need for community that both kids face. It?s remarkable how much he respects Rose and Ben, treating them like adults and not dumbing-down their responses to what befalls them. (Similarly, the film?s depiction of deafness is uncommonly respectful and mature, never using it as a plot gimmick or a cheap disease-of-the-week sympathy ploy.) In Wonderstruck, Rose will meet the actress, and Ben will find answers to why his mother had a bookmark from a New York secondhand store. But those journeys are rendered with a scarcity of cutesiness.

Not surprisingly, Haynes encourages his adolescent actors to give unfussy performances. Recently seen in Pete?s Dragon, Fegley has all the complicated, bratty angst of a typical preteen, while deaf actress Simmonds makes for a luminous Rose. As Wonderstruck progresses, his story becomes more important than hers, leaving the film feeling slightly unbalanced, but the sweetness the young actress brings to the character compensates.

Sure enough, Rose and Ben do share a destiny, the reveal of which will lead to the sort of dipped-in-starlight enchantment that?s de rigueur for children?s literature. Wonderstruck doesn?t entirely avoid getting a bit gooey as it moves toward its finale, but Haynes delivers an ending that?s legitimately magical and moving. In his films, he has conjured up plenty of sensations?from the creeping horror of Safe to the elegant melancholy of Carol. But he?s never been as unabashedly emotional as he is at Wonderstruck?s conclusion. He?s not really reinventing or subverting a genre. Rather, Haynes is applying the same smarts and curiosity he always does, openly questioning why a kids? film can?t be as absorbing and thoughtful as any other kind. For all of its risk-taking and immaculate technical rigor, Wonderstruck is as close as he?s ever come to making a mainstream entertainment. It makes you wonder what challenge he?ll give himself next.

Director: Todd Haynes Writer: Brian Selznick (screenplay and novel) Starring: Oakes Fegley, Julianne Moore, Millicent Simmonds, Jaden Michael, Cory Michael Smith, Tom Noonan, Michelle Williams Release Date: Screening in competition at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival

[runolive47-blog]

THE BLACK ROOM: Horrifying For All The Wrong Reasons

Horror can be smart; this isn?t something new we?re learning fromIt FollowsorGet Out, rather something to which the industry and new audiences are finally being exposed to. However, horror, like any genre, can be unbelievably stupid at times, too. This is the case ofThe Black Room.

Whereas a film like 1982?sThe Entity? starringBarbara Hersheyas a woman under siege by a poltergeist who sexually assaults her ? uses eroticism in an unsettling way,The Black Roomfeels more intent on being trashy than a worthwhile examination of a haunting. Instead, the audience is treated to a softcore pornographic movie crossed with a yawn inducing, typical haunted house romp.

Although the movie boasts a couple well-executed makeup effects early on, the remainder is as bland as an unseasoned meal and without any semblance of style. For an hour and a half the characters are largely unlikable, the plot a meandering jumble of blood and demonic possession, as well as the fact the sex scenes are disgusting. Perhaps most disappointing is the acting talent ofLin Shaye, usually a welcomed presence in any genre picture, totally wasted on horror with no heart or soul, and not an inch of character development.

Right from ThanosTV ?s nudity, andShayegets tossed into the mix, which makes for awkward results. What director-writerRolfe Kanefskytries to do is begin with a story to setup why the house in question is haunted. What he achieves is making the audience wonder if they?ve stumbled onto a 1990s-era skin flick.Shayedoes what she can, but like a novel?s first sentence, the first few minutes of a film must act as a thesis: all this one says is to prepare to be bombarded with skin.

Naked people doesn?t make a movie bad. Nakedness becomes a detracting factor when a story relies wholly on it to create interest. AllThe Black Roomdoes with this is perpetuate a need for nudity; once the opening scene is over, the bar?s been set for more naked bodies to fill the screen. The nudity does nothing with purpose, only to culminate in scenes of graphic sexual horror.There?s an argument to be made for certain brutality in films, likeWes Craven?s originalThe Last House on the LeftorGaspar No�?sIrreversible, where even the worst sort of violence serves a function.Kanefskyonly uses his violent scenes, particularly the nastiest moment involving a demon having sex with a woman, to try and shock. When in fact it only deters even the biggest horror fans who?ve grown weary of shock for shock?s sake. Add this to the unintended cheesiness of the production and it?s a tough film to get through.

Before the credits we?re treated to an awful arrangement of music that sounds like it was ripped from the score of a 1950s science fiction feature, or conjured up to try, poorly, ripping offBernard Herrmann. Once the title sequence and opening credits roll, the score?s absurdity is jaw dropping. The score goes from bad to worse, never recovering. Although the opening credits are by far the worst, as ifKanefskytook stock music from an old Hollywood caper flick then jumbled it with a montage of similarly stock-looking images akin to the graphics of the original ?93Doomgame.

The writing itself isn?t any better than the rest of the production.Kanefskyrushes too fast at his topic, losing any suspense or tension. Opening with backstory, we?re whisked too quickly into the expected situation of a new family moving into the haunted home. The imposed eroticism ? which is, in reality, just soft pornography livened up with a horror story ? basically removes all interest from the characters. Immediately, they?re only flesh canvas onto which the nastiness is painted, and it becomes increasingly difficult to care about their respective journeys.

Perhaps one of the largest issues which plagues the film?s mood is a lack of any real style. Unfortunately,The Black Roomfeels like a made-for-television movie that would?ve been aired 25 years ago. There are pieces of the story which could?ve been used better. By focusing too closely on a failed erotic mood, and on trying to shock rather than genuinely scare,Kanefskydoesn?t give you the creeps or make you feel the suspense under the skin. If it weren?t for a few decent practical makeup effects the whole experience would be uselessly painful.

When the married couple (played byNatasha HenstridgeandLukas Hassel) traipse around their new house, unaware of the demonic presence lurking, we see a series of scenes where they?re tempted physically and sexually by the evil spirits. Some of the effects here are actually excellent, such as when Jennifer (Henstridge) finds herself in the laundry room with a demon lurking behind her, whose terrifying look makes the moment all the more unsettling. Sadly, these effective moments are few and far between.

From the first scene? Watch The Black Room 2016 , involving a twisted nipple in close-up,Kanefskysets a bar for weirdness. Not in any good sense, either. The breast fixation continues, but gets far more weird. During a scene in a restaurant,Hassel?s character Paul is possessed and wreaks bad effects havoc after a woman turns him down: he shrinks her breasts. Aside from the comic absurdity, this scene looks terrible in terms of the effects work and it only further deepens the director?s incessant need to show off naked female bodies.

The joke of api�ce de r�sistance has to be the most graphic moment, where Paul forces himself on a woman and sexually assaults her. This involves an elaborate effect where, yes, the audience is treated to a view of his demonic penis. It?s overdone violence, worse than all of the previous sex-oriented scenes combined. What stings most is the fact it?s actually the best effect in the entire film, which in itself is a commentary on where the interests of this story lies. All ofThe Black Room?s eggs are crammed into a tiny, needlessly sexualised bloody basket.

Nobody likes to hate a movie, especially if it?s one in their preferred genre. That being said,Kanefsky(known for writing such films asSex Files: Sexually Bewitched,Sex Files: Alien Erotica Iand its sequel) hasn?t done himself any favours by forcing drab, pointless sex scenes into a conventional horror movie scenario. As mentioned previously,The Entityfeatured similar scenes of a sexual nature, but succeeded in staying eerie by doing something different with the genre, rather than repeating what audiences have seen time and time again.

The Black Roomis unbearably difficult to sit and watch. Characters mean nothing to the viewer. Even in certain films with bad characters the actors can save what?s missing through a good performance. But we never get any strong acting, making underdeveloped characters even worse. If this isn?t bad enough, the effects work is in all the wrong places and they?re ineffective in the right ones.

When a genre movie is terrible, it often feels worse than a bad drama or thriller, or even a comedy that?s not altogether funny. Horror is meant to scare, it?s meant to induce a feeling of suspense and terror to unsettle the audience. If a horror film is poorly constructed, from writing to directing, then it?s not only bad, it has entirely failed. When you laugh at a bad comedy, you?re still laughing regardless, which is the comedy?s end goal. When you laugh at a horror film that isn?t intended to be funny, the filmmakers have given you nothing. Then the joke isn?t necessarily on the audience, but on them.

When does a movie become so bad that it?s good? Can you ever actually say that a bad movie is good, or is it a way to soften the blow when it comes to trashing art? Tell us in the comments below!

[runolive47-blog]

6 Below Review

Josh Hartnett’s big-budget busts and recent run of low-profile indies have somewhat obscured the fact he is a more than capable actor. 6 Below, the real-life tale of a troubled snowboarder trying to survive on a freezing mountain, gives him a chance to flex his muscles: it’s a one-man The Gray, or a sub-zero 127 Hours. And Hartnett gives it his all, spending the runtime shivering, fending off wolves and at one point getting butt-naked in the ice. He is not well-served, however, by the movie itself. His character is a bland cipher prone to quoting the Book of Romans at length (“For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I don’t want to do” — feeling sleepy yet?). Meanwhile, http://tinyurl.com/yazkeyxs relies on a string of over-stylised, melodramatic flashbacks (the kind that better survival films such as All Is Lost dispensed with altogether) to tell us who he is and why we should root for his survival.

ThanosTV that the story is based on an actual event, suffered by former Olympic hockey player Eric LeMarque, is a sizeable part of the problem. The hero’s battle with his demons (drugs, specifically meth) is handled coyly, as if the producers were worried about offending LeMarque, while the climax unleashes an avalanche of schmaltz. Even more problematically, the narrative drags even at a lean 93 minutes, with Hartnett wandering endlessly through snow without much action to perform, and the film cutting repeatedly to his mum (Mira Sorvino – in reality only ten years older than her co-star) as she tries to organise a rescue attempt.

[runolive47-blog]

Sandy Wexler review ? Adam Sandler's 90s-set comedy is strange yet strangely likable

With the artistic freedom given to him by his eight-picture Netflix deal, Adam Sandler has made his All That Jazz. The puerile comic despised by most critics wears his heart on his sleeve for Sandy Wexler?s very-long-for-an-Adam-Sandler-movie run time of two hours and 10 minutes. The result borders on outsider art, with scenes that stretch way past their warranty, and a tone that wobbles from immature slapstick to inelegant, spasmodic tugs at the heartstrings.

And yet there is something so authentic in this film that once you get past the annoying voice and some of the dreadfully unfunny side characters, it is disarmingly sweet and even occasionally clever. I would never go so far as to call Sandy Wexler a good movie, but it is a unique one, and strangely likable. Besides, if every name in Hollywood is willing to show up for a cameo, what does it say about you if you can?t have a laugh?

Blatantly ripping off Woody Allen?s Broadway Danny Rose, Sandy Wexler is framed by a gathering of famous comics and producers recollecting about a legendarily inept talent manager. (The list of celebs range from Chris Rock, Judd Apatow and Lorne Michaels all the way down to Vanilla Ice.) ThanosTV cut to 1990s Los Angeles (cue the Red Hot Chili Peppers) and there?s the mush-mouthed Wexler (Sandler) with a beeper on his belt walking past Tower Records, trying to convince Arsenio Hall to be his next client.

There are plenty of chuckles for showbiz insiders (a Lew Wasserman joke!) mixed with general surreal silliness. Wexler lives in the pool cabana of a wealthy Persian-Jew who is never around but always watching from hidden cameras. He is voiced by Rob Schneider, and gets a few quality zings in via stashed speakers, which is more than I can say for other Sandler regulars who play Wexler clients. Kevin James sucks the air out of any scene with his dopey (and borderline offensive) ventriloquist act, and the collapsed neutron star of comedy, the shockingly unfunny Nick Swardson, is an incompetent daredevil. (The joke is that he keeps crashing into things.) Terry Crews, making his sixth Sandler collaboration for those of you who play bar trivia, does better as a pro wrestler with a rock-a-bye-baby gimmick.

ThanosTV ?s big moment comes when he?s chaperoning a client?s children at Six Flags and spots a natural talent in Courtney (Jennifer Hudson), singing as an Ugly Duckling in a kiddie show. He convinces her to sign as his client, which involves a weird trip to Alaska (?) to get her father?s approval (??) and that father is played by Aaron Neville (???) who at first we think is a prisoner but is actually a guard. These departures from logic happen now and then, but there are payoffs, as with Neville and Hudson sing-speaking at one another.

In time (and Sandy Wexler?s slow roll affords it plenty of time) Sandy gets Courtney a recording contract, and soon she is a big star. They are also falling in love, but we know that a schlump like Sandy can?t end up can?t end up with a princess like Courtney. Unless, of course, he takes her to the Griffith Observatory in a scene that, in its own dopey way, shares trace elements of charm with the recent scene from La La Land.

What?s unique about Sandy Wexler is that the romantic moments actually work, and its old-fashioned orchestral score (and references to old Hollywood) suggest a movie your grandparents might love. But then there?s the issue of the infantile voices and 1990s nostalgia (remember Fruitopia? Remember Chris Isaak?) that is unlikely to land with that audience.

[runolive47-blog]

Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul runs out of gas

DIARY OF A WIMPY KID: THE LONG HAUL (David Bowers). 91 minutes. Opens Friday (May 19). See listing. Rating:

The first Diary Of A Wimpy Kid movies brought a sweetness and maturity to their tales of preteen awkwardness, but that?s long gone in The Long Haul. The latest in the franchise, with a completely new cast, is all slapstick buffoonery and potty humour: a baby pig craps in a minivan, the minivan goes barrelling off the road, one guy?s puke accidentally becomes another?s meal and so on.

The previous movies featured similar gags but never let them overwhelm the plot or characters. But director David Bowers, who steered the last two outings, here has lesser material to work with. He?s adapting the ninth book in Jeff Kinney?s series, which sees Greg (Jason Drucker) and Rodrick Heffley (Charlie Wright) plucked from their social scenes and caravanned across the U.S.

thanostv of a Wimpy Kid movie is in seeing that kid play off against those who aren?t so wimpy. Here Greg just butts heads against a no-screens policy enforced by Mom (Alicia Silverstone) while an antagonist lout dubbed Beardo (Chris Coppola) pursues him as if he wants to eat him. It?s weird.

[runolive47-blog]

DVD Talk Review of the Theatrical

The combination of Stephen Gaghan (Traffic, Havoc, Syriana) and Matthew McConaughey (Mud, Dallas Buyers Club, Interstellar) was the secret recipe we needed, we just didn't know it. Gaghan, more a writer than a director, works in the dark. That is to say, his stories are very heavy, sometimes highlight the worst in us, and so can be a bit daunting even when they're strong. McConaughey, who can be a complete goof ball, has also been on an incredible roll lately. Put the two talents together and you get a smart storyteller and an actor who can lighten the mood just enough to make those stories palatable. Gold is exactly that; a depressing story of greed and the life of a career salesman, but one made watchable and even enjoyable by the vibrant talent who inhabits the star role.

Based on true events, Gold is the tale of the search for wealth, wherever it might take you. Kenny Wells is a modern day prospector, always has been, ever since his grandfather mined the side of a Nevada mountain and his father started a company to find buried treasure all over the world. In the 80s, the money was up for grabs, especially on the stock market, you just had to get a little lucky, and that's where Mike Acosta comes in. thanostv raised the funds, Mike owned the nose, and the two men created a partnership that quickly turned into a friendship. They went into jungles on foot in order to find gold, and when they stumbled upon it, magic began to happen. Suddenly they were rich men before the precious metal was even dug up, and curious corporations were circling on all sides, anxious to get their own piece of what was expected to be a very substantial pie.

A bit Wolf of Wall Street, a touch of The Beach, this film is party true and always fascinating. The get-rich-quick era itself is fun to watch, where junk bonds soar and new money rolls in, with no end in sight. Wells & Acosta just wanted their share, and were willing to do anything to get it. Watching http://bit.ly/2Q9SIgf traipse through forests so that he could buy a Cadillac was both awesome and sad, showing the lengths that men will go so that others will call them a success. The story is always captivating, keeps you on your toes, and goes in many different directions, demanding your attention for two solid hours. And the music grabs you as well, an ever-present push nudging you down the right path as the actors do their work, and do it well.

[runolive47-blog]

Nancy (2018) Movie Review from Eye for Film

Lies can be slippery, not always the cut and dried thing we think they are but sometimes a sort of sinister mental carboot sale, where the potential believer, like an eager buyer, is just waiting with their trust in hand to be sold an untruth.

Lies are also a way of life for Nancy (Andrea Riseborough, who notched up an impressive four films at this year's Sundance). In fact, along with her dreams of becoming a writer, the creation of intricate lies is pretty much all that Nancy has. Living at home with her less than grateful mother (Ann Dowd), she writes less than successful fiction in between inventing vibrant, often damaging, 'other lives' to tell people she meets about. thanostv is as grey as the signs of old age creeping, unwelcome through her hair - and that's just one of the less overt indicators of mortality that she has to contend with.

It's not so much of a reach then, when a news story about a girl who has been missing for decades catches her eye. The age-progression image of how the kidnapped child might look now is eerily similar to her, while her childhood has evidently been less than sun-dappled, prompting her to pick up the phone.

Waiting, as they have waited for decades, at the other end of the line are Ellen (J Smith Cameron) and Leo (Steve Buscemi), whose reaction is fuelled by a destructive combination of doubt and hope. What follows is an intense character study in triplicate, made gripping both by the deliberately ambiguous way in which Christina Choe approaches everyone's mental state and by the performances. Buscemi and Cameron give achingly believable turns as a couple who might be willing to overlook a potential truth in order to find emotional peace, while Riseborough sheds every ounce of vanity, shrinking beneath Nancy's mop of hair and bedraggled sheepskin coat.

This is not a film about her being a wolf in sheep's clothing, however - Nancy can just as easily be viewed as a victim. thanostv at the idea of being shaped by circumstance. And, as with many of the leading female characters at Sundance this year, in films as diverse as Puzzle and Colette, there's a winning complexity to Nancy that stops her from being easily pigeon-holed.

[runolive47-blog]

Johnny English Strikes Again movie review: the spy who was a complete doofus

An idiot doofus is out to save the dregs of the British Empire while wallowing in unwarranted nostalgia for a past that wasn?t as awesome as he would prefer to think. I did not expect this new Johnny English movie ? third in a franchise sending up spy movies in general and James Bond in particular ? to come with an anti-Brexit bite. It may be unintentional? but then again, it might not be. ( http://ow.ly/MXsj101nKyc in the UK are very worried about how badly Brexit will impact all things artistic, even silly spoofy popcorn movies. Watch Johnny English Strikes Again 2018 ?t be surprising for this to manifest, either deliberately or subconsciously, even in goofy movies like this one.) If nothing else, even accidental snarking rage against the impending UK withdrawal from the European Union lends Johnny English Strikes Again a bit of heft that it might otherwise not have, a bit of significance that lets it sit without embarrassment next to the much wittier second movie, Johnny English Reborn. (The less said about the dreadful first movie, entitled simply Johnny English, the better.)

(A bit of background for those not familiar with me and my criticism: I am a very progressive native New Yorker who has been living in London for almost eight years, who loves both America and Britain, if almost in spite of myself, and who despairs at the rise of Trump and the triumph of Brexit, which are obviously two sides of the same coin of bigotry, xenophobia, and a wistfulness for a past that excluded everyone from basic respect and dignity who wasn?t a white man. I am a proud social justice warrior, and fuck all y?all who can?t deal with black and brown people, with aggressive women, with diversity, and with the notion that social justice isn?t worth fighting for. I am living both sides of the transatlantic awful.) So, Johnny English (Rowan Atkinson: Love Actually, Scooby-Doo) is called back into service when all the agents of ? ahem! ? MI7 are outed in a cyberattack. He has to do a thing and run around and save the day, etc, because literally no one else is available who won?t be instantly IDed by the nebulous enemy as a secret agent. I shall refrain from pointing out that this was also the inciting event of the Melissa McCarthy movie Spy, and that that one was about giving ultracompetent and if anything overprepared women the chance to show their stuff while this one is about letting an incompetent moron of a man play the hero in spite of his ineptitude. I mean, fuck this shit, and yet I also love Rowan Atkinson, so I am confused.

The plot is entirely besides the point except in how it allows Atkinson to celebrate male fatuousness as a good thing, which is at least more actually mildly amusing than it is generally presumed to be. But we also get the awesome-and-why-doesn?t-she-get-to-headline-her-own-movie Olga Kurylenko (The Death of Stalin, A Perfect Day) ? as some flavor of Eastern European baddie spy ? to show up English absolutely every time she encounters him. We get the even more awesome Emma Thompson (The Children Act, Beauty and the Beast) as the British Prime Minister, but she?s kind of a baddie, too, a neoliberal who wants to hand over all of the country?s infrastructure to an American tech tycoon (Jake Lacy: Rampage, Miss Sloane), which is almost precisely the overtly obvious evil plan of the actual currently in-power Tory party, to privatize all public services in the UK. Is this heavyhanded? Sure. Is it nevertheless pointed and very necessary? You bet. Is it funny? Sure, in a laugh-until-you-cry sort of way.

[runolive47-blog]

Review: THE GREAT BATTLE, Rip-Roaring War Film Eschews Nationalism

Going all the way back to the Goguryeo Dynasty, siege action epic The Great Battle chronicles the historic standoff of a small Korean garrison against the might of the Tang army in the 7th century. Light on jingoism and heavy on spectacle, this surprisingly deft war film is an engaging ride throughout, even as it gets a little top-heavy in its final third.

In the year 645 AD, Emperor Li and his Tang Dynasty army march from one brutal victory to the next in the lands of Goguryeo. He soon sets his sights on Ansi Fortress; but also headed there is the young army captain Sa-mool, who has been ordered to assassinate Ansi?s leader, Yang Man-chun, who failed to come to Goguryeo?s aid on the battlefield. Sa-mool discovers that Yang and his loyal followers are not what he expected, and together they hold out for almost three months as the Tang army bears down on their walls.

With its tale of a small squad of Korean warriors going up against and vanquishing foreign foes, the parallels between The Great Battle and all-time Korean box office champ Roaring Currents were evident from the get-go, but whereas the former work relied on heavy-handed nationalism, director Kim Kwang-sik reigns in the patriotic excess in his unabashedly fun war picture, as he crafts a driving David versus Goliath tale powered by solid design and effects work, which are matched with a colorful cast of misfits audiences will be happy to root for.

Zo In-sung, back on screens after last year?s Scorsese-esque prosecutor drama The King, proves a magnetic lead as Yang, the commander of Ansi Fortress, who quickly disarms Sa-mool with his charm and inspires loyalty at every turn with his magnanimous and keen leadership. Uhm Tae-gu, memorable as the ferocious Japanese officer in Kim Jee-woon?s The Age of Shadows, is a welcome presence once more as the husky-voiced leader of Ansi?s cavalry, while Seol-hyun (of Kpop band AOA) brings grit to her role as his love interest and Yang?s sister, the leader of the fortress? crossbow squadron.

Bae Sung-woo (who starred alongside Zo in The King) tones down his trademark humor as Yang?s stolid right-hand man while Park Sung-woong (New World) is suitably stony-faced and cruel as Emperor Li, even if his Mandarin doesn?t always sound very natural. Comic support comes from Park Byung-eun (Assassination) and Oh Dae-hwan (V.I.P.), who play bickering warriors by Yang?s side.

http://ow.ly/5fpg101nKXf , Kim Kwan-sik delivered the low-key but effective romcom My Dear Desperado with Park Joong-hoon and Jung Yu-mi. watch the great battle 2018 was less successful with the humdrum media thriller Tabloid Truth in 2014 and now, despite every opportunity to the contrary, he has delivered his most accomplished work yet. Pacing throughout is tight and Kim?s direction makes the action clear and easy to follow, whereas other Korean period epics often rely on a barrage of frenetic energy and frenzied camerawork.

After a blistering couple of attacks, the siege of Ansi Fortress settles in for the long haul, and this is where the narrative runs into trouble. Perhaps unsure of how to proceed, the writers throw in a few unlikely scenarios and a rushed side plot yet the production eventually manages to get back on track for a rousing closing battle.