Cast: Jessica Chastain, Andrew Garfield, Vincent D’Onofrio
Throughout the 1970s and 80s in America, Jim Bakker (Garfield) and his wife, Tammy Faye (Chastain), were the Kardashians of Christian televangelism. Starting as humble and timid in their pursuits to bringing the love of god to everyone via a traveling church show, later making their way on to TV became so much more. In the end, Jim Bakker was trying to create a Christian theme park to give you an idea of his ambitions. After creating a tv network that reached over 20 million views worldwide at the time of his arrest.
After escaping the brainwashing of a religious upbringing, as an adult, I stay clear of the subject, by and large. As a child of the 80s, I don’t need a trip down memory lane, except maybe I did.
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker were huge with adults for decades, a perspective I couldn’t understand as a child. Still, why should I watch a film on a topic I dislike? Jessica Chastain. She brings to life the layers, demons, and superficial complexities of the self-professed, big-hearted clueless wife. Her performance, depiction, and commitment to the role of Tammy Faye are nothing short of Oscar-worthy.
Andrew Garfield and Vincent D’Onofrio in ‘The Eyes of Tammy Faye’ Image: Daniel McFadden/Searchlight Pictures via nydailynews.com
Chastain and Garfield are energetic and believable together as this ever-changing couple, with clear character arcs. The script is all right, as it’s easy to construct one when based on two highly public figures/events. When a film must cover many time periods, the plot’s pace can get bogged down, but Showalter does reasonably well considering. An audience can easily see the conflict to resolution and the origins of these people/characters, which is needed in a bio-drama. Nothing feels missing as this story notes the rise and subsequent public fall of the Bakker’s.
The Eyes of Tammy Faye is a visual display of big hair, lavish outfits, materialism, and makeup. All while dripping with the love of god, asking people to open their wallets. Again and again and again. I adore Andrew Garfield as an actor. But if not for Jessica Chastain, I’m not sure another actress could have pulled me in to endure the recreation of the Bakker’s Christian televangelist propaganda.
Jessica Chastain in ‘The Eyes of Tammy Faye’ Image: Searchlight Pictures via latimes.com
If, somehow, you’re not a fan of Andrew Garfield or Jessica Chastain, take a pass on this embarrassing reminder of American behavior. Otherwise, I’m on the fence on whether or not to recommend it for your watchlist. It comes down to your tolerance of the 80s or religion. I saw it; Chastain is amazing, yes. But I’ll never watch The Eyes of Tammy Faye again.
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 2hr 7 min
Studio: Disney Screenwriter: Michael Green, Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Cast: Emily Blunt, Paul Giamatti, Dwayne Johnson, Edgar Ramírez, Jack Whitehall
Movies are adapted from books, real-life events, and video games, but Jungle Cruise was based on a Disney theme park ride. It’s an ode to the capitalistic aspirations of the American-based company. Digressing from that, it is a palate cleanser to all the sci-fi, superhero, or low-rent quality content currently swirling around.
When I first saw this film’s trailer, I wanted to see it. Not because the plot was original (it’s not), but because Emily Blunt’s films are always entertaining. In that, I wasn’t disappointed. She’s a wonderfully talented actress who is more than capable of portraying whatever is required of her. In Jungle Cruise, she’s Dr. Lily Houghton, a sassy British botanist who’s out to find a magical plant that will cure-all, a vital tool as World War One rages. It also would validate herself amongst the sexist scientific community. She sets off to the Amazon to search for this fabled plant, with her brother, MacGregor (Whitehall), in tow.
Dwayne Johnson and Emily Blunt in ‘Jungle Cruise’ Image: Disney via Slashfilm.com
Once there, she encounters Nilo (Giamatti), a Prince (Plemons), and Frank Wolff (Johnson), who are all in the middle of their own mico issues that help Lily and MacGregory meet Frank, their riverboat captain, and continues the tone for the film. That tone, feeling, is similar to the banter, charm, hijinx, and quirkiness of The Mummy andPirates of the Caribbean franchises, with a hint of Indian Jones. If there was more action and humor with Johnson in tow, I could have seen this as a workable version of Jumanji as well. It’s an exciting mix, but I did say this plot isn’t original.
The plot feels familiar, and so do aspects of the story, but it’s not so campy despite Frank making bad captain (dad) jokes. The romantic segway is on the nose for Disney, but it’s not so groan-worthy it’s unwatchable.
Edgar Ramírez as Aguirre in ‘Jungle Cruise’ Image: Disney via Filmschoolrejects.com
Cinematically it’s beautiful; it was filmed in Hawaii. Despite the cast, the rest was made possible by an army of CGI experts. Edgar Ramírez’s Aguirre has snakes coming out of him; one comes out of his face! The stunt and action sequences are well done for the type of movie that Jungle Cruise is and the period for which it’s set. I wish that Aguirre and his cohorts had more screen time, a chance to add more conflict to the story. It seems like a missed opportunity to not use them more.
I don’t see movies purely because Johnson is in them; his “acting” does nothing for me. I’d be more impressed if he could do a film where he didn’t throw something, have a fight scene, or swing off/jump off something. When you have an actor who can do their own stunts, great, but he doesn’t scream to me, a seasoned riverboat captain and con man. Depending on the age, Andrew Garfield or Jack Davenport-type actors would have fit the bill better than Johnson. When we think of Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones or Brendan Fraser’s Rick O’ Connell, one will out-think his opponents. The other is going to shoot at you. Dwayne Johnson is just going to punch you across the Amazon and keep going.
Paul Giamatti as Nilo in ‘Jungle Cruise’ Image: Disney via Screenrant.com
It’s a simple story, but it’s consistent with a plot that doesn’t spring too many leaks from beginning to end. There are times where the pace stalls, not from poor editing but the plot arrangement in general. The energetic performances by the cast and the general chemistry they all have together make it entertaining enough to get through. Jungle Cruise is different from others in its genre because the protagonists seek a magical plant and not the fountain of youth and whatnot. Or that it’s a woman searching and not a man. They’re small twists, but it works. Moreover, unlike Pirates, Indiana Jones, or The Mummy, Jungle Cruise is more family-friendly.
Jungle Cruise isn’t a cinematic masterpiece; it is a carefree way to spend time with the family for a few hours. It’s a textbook example of a popcorn film, made to watch as an escape for a few hours of innocent enjoyment. If that’s your thing, then give Jungle Cruise a place on your watchlist.
Director: Anthony Minghella Rated: R. Runtime: 2 hr 19 min
Studio: Miramax Screenwriter: Anthony Minghella
Based on: Novel by Patricia Highsmith
Cast: Matt Damon, Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Jack Davenport,
Philip Seymour Hoffman
“I always thought it would be better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody.”
-Tom Ripley
Sometimes it’s difficult to look back at periods and view a story through the lens of ‘that’s how it was.’ To accept that people were so gullible, to accept things flat out. And yet, that’s how author Patricia Highsmith wrote the characters for her book, the basis for this film. A viewer needs to understand this about The Talented Mr. Ripley and set their expectations accordingly. If you can go along with the story, you’ll find it more enjoyable. Usually, I can’t abide such things within a story or plot because I see it as a sign of lazy writing. Still, the acting by this phenomenal cast makes up for it.
Tom Ripley (Damon) is tasked through a stroke of fortune, via a white lie, by a Mr. Greenleaf with going to Italy to bring back his son. The boat-loving playboy Dickie Greenleaf (Law). What single person passes up an all-expenses-paid trip to Italy?
Once there, he, of course, must keep up the lie. Tom is adept at lying and convincing others of his wants and intent, which comes off as more unbelievable as the story progresses. Despite that, Tom comes off as smooth but vulnerable, exuding this innocence about him that he uses to get people around him to include him. Things unravel when he’s left out or stops feeling like he’s in control when others get in his way. Then-then the psychopath in him is viewable as if the mask falls away at times. Matt Damon does an incredible job of portraying such a character with all the nuanced layers required; he makes it seem effortless.
Cate Blanchett and Matt Damon in ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley’ Image: Miramax via Eonline.com
Dickie Greenleaf is a spoiled, temperamental scoundrel. Or a selfish American prick. Even with his womanizing, drinking, instant need to be amused all the time, Jude Law still makes him likable. He brings an energy to the character that is an absolute must. Law and Damon together are like tea and water; they belong together.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is a presence in any film. As limited as Freddies’ role is in The Talented Mr. Ripley, you understand he’s not stupid. He and Dickie are tight, and he smells the bullshit coming off Tom from a mile away. Hoffman is a solid supporting character matched only by the always incomparable Cate Blanchett. As Meredith, Cate is effortlessly the embodiment of a jet-setting, fashionable American heiress of the 1950s. Meredith gets more character development for a film with little female presence than Dickie’s girlfriend, Marge (Paltrow). While Meredith is off doing her own thing, it’s easy to see she has an active social life that doesn’t appear to hang on the whims of men. Marge is either around Dickie, Tom, or Freddie. She interacts with no one else of consequence, making her seem shallow. When her world falls apart, it’s disgustingly apparent Marge has no one else to talk with or turn to. She’s a non-married woman in a foreign country depicted as naive and hysterical with no redeeming character arch. 1950s women were treated a certain way, with limited expectations; as such, Marge gets shafted as a character with too many female stereotypes.
Hoffman, Paltrow, and Law in ‘The Talented Mr. Ripley’ Image: Miramax via The Mirror
So, within this mix of liars, brats, and sycophants, we have an intricate web of lies and deceit dressed up as the high life of the rich in beautiful Italy. When the police get involved, Tom’s lies become like a conman’s shell game to keep anyone secret of the moment in play. The question becomes can he keep it up? Will he get found out? While The Talented Mr. Ripley isn’t a full-on suspense film, it has those moments. The slow burn keeps you wondering how it will all play out for Tom, who will do anything to avoid going back to his own life.
What I find to be more beautiful or satisfying than the stunning Italian settings is the ending. Noting about the film is neat, and neither is the ending, and it’s brilliant for that. The Talented Mr. Ripley is overall a well-told story with a good plot, depicted by a fantastic set of actors that is worth a place on anyone’s watchlist.
Director: Denis Villeneuve Runtime: 2 hr 35 min Rated: PG-13
Studio: Legendary Pictures Based on: Frank Herbert’s novel ‘Dune’
Screenwriter: Eric Roth, Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve
Cast: Timohée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Zendaya, Oscar Isaac, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling, Sharon Duncan-Brewster
Dune is a science fiction saga layered with all the typical trappings of humanity. Rife with greed and civil unrest as a set of noble houses control planets for resources, wealth, and power. Often to the detriment of the locals.
Not too far into the film, and I’m having a flashback to 2015’s Jupiter Ascending, which was marginally more exciting than this film.
In Dune, the house of Atreides is given stewardship of planet Arrakis by the overlord of all the houses-the Emperor. House Atreides, people of a water planet, go to Arrakis, a desert world, to mine spice. It’s the only thing of value to the houses because though spice is a drug; they also use it to navigate space. Okay. Spice is only on Arrakis, with two other things: the locals, known as the Freemen, and massive sandworms.
The Freemen walk in a certain way to not cause unnatural vibrations in the sand that would otherwise attract the worms. They also wear special garb to help them endure the intense heat of the surface. Freemen characters are Chani (Zendaya), Stilgar (Bardem), and Dr. Kynes (Duncan-Brewster). Dr. Kynes has the most screen time out of these three, and the trailers for this movie imply the other two have more significant roles than they do. So if you see Dune just because they are in it, you’ll have to wait for most of the film and will be vastly disappointed.
Javier Bardem’s Stilgar in ‘Dune’ Image: Legendary Pictures via IGN.com
The previous stewards of Arrakis, House Harkonnen, mined the spice for 80 years and left abruptly. Houses Harkonnen and Atreides are sworn enemies but obey the Emperor’s decree of change. Still with me?
Paul Atreides (Chalamet) is the son of Duke Leto Atreides (Isaac), next in line to rule his homeworld. Paul follows his father and mother, Lady Jessica (Ferguson), to Arrakis to learn how to lead more. Dune is billed as a sci-fi hero’s journey of a young boy born for a destiny he can’t grasp. A journey to provide safety for his people and family, all while not giving into fear.
Frank Herbert originally published Dune in 1965.
‘Dune’ Spice harvester Image: Legendary Pictures via WSJ.com
To get to my following observation, let me highlight some key phrases and notions about Dune. 1. An Emperor (really) 2. Mine spice (Kessel) 3. Planet of sand (Tatooine) 4. Massive worms (Sarlacc pit, or Jabba) 5. Walking a certain way (Sand people) 6. Wear special garb (Sand people) 7. Hero’s journey (Luke) 8. A Young boy(Luke/Anakin) 9. Destiny (Luke/Anakin) 10. Not giving in to fear (Jedi) 11. High council (Jedi)12. Superpowers (the Force) 13. Imperium (Empire). I could go on. Before seeing this version of Dune, I knew nothing about it. I had never read the books or seen the previous movies, so I walked into the theater with no pre-knowledge or conceptions. However, after only a few minutes into the film, I was beyond irritated.
This irritation was because I couldn’t stop thinking about how much George Lucas poached from Frank Herbert. Not drew on as inspiration, full-on stole. George Lucas released the first of his Star Wars films, A New Hope, twelve years after Dune was published. Yes, the troupes of a young hero’s journey, saving one’s family, and the notion of destiny are all well used throughout cinema and literary works; but this is something else.
Sandworm of Arrakis in ‘Dune’ Image: Legendary Pictures via Looper.com
My urge to slap George Lucas aside, Villeneuve’s Dune isn’t worth the hype. It’s dull, cold, and wastes its runtime with lackluster performances. This film should have had gravitas and more substance, considering the vast source material available. I saw the trailer like millions of others, but I was unimpressed. The movie, like the trailer, left me with no investment in the plot or the characters. Dune’s filmmaker expects the audience to care and follow along with this story, though there’s no satisfaction at the end.
Why is there no satisfaction or excitement to find out what happens next? Imagine the following: you wake to strangers in your home, there’s shooting, fire, and death. Therefore you flee for your life through dangerous parts of town to seek shelter and help from people you barely know. All while not disturbing the gigantic sandworms and daydreaming about a girl. These people agree to help you- end film. Without actual spoilers, I just summed up Dune.
Zendaya in ‘Dune.’ Image: Legendary Pictures via nerdist.com
Villeneuve cuts Dune off after two-and-a-half hours with no actual climax/resolution. Walking through worm-infested dunes isn’t a proper climax. It’s a bloody boring letdown. As an avid reader and fan of films, I know that movies rarely do their sourcebooks justice. Even though I haven’t read Dune, I don’t believe the first novel ended the way the film did. Please correct me if I’m wrong because Dune is one of the top 100 books of all time.
How does such a popular novel make it to the silver screen with lackluster cast performance, pace, and lack of details? The most energy any character provides is Jason Momoa’s Duncan Idaho, discounting Brolin and Bautista’s roles as gruff, angry soldiers. That’s not a stretch for them, so I hardly call it acting.
Stellan Skarsgård as Baron Harkonnen in ‘Dune.’ Image: Legendary Pictures via latimes.com
Stellan Skarsgård’s depiction of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen was said to be terrifying. I’m a big fan of Mr. Skarsgård’s work, and terrifying isn’t the word I would use to describe him in this film. Authoritative, vengeful, physically imposing (he’s a tall man in real life) who flies, which I find to be a weird ability, but not terrifying. Again I haven’t read the books; maybe he’s amazingly terrific as his literary counterpart description.
The Lady Jessica is credited as Atreides but is referred to as the Dukes’ concubine in the film. If she’s his concubine, she’s not his wife. Either way, she is the mother of the Dukes’ son, Paul. The Lady Jessica is part of the Bene Gesserit, a political shadow group of sorceress with a breeding program. Again, I have that Star Wars connection in my mind. Breeding, cloning. Female sorceress’s, the Nightsisters of Dathomir. By and large, Ferguson’s emotional range is that of a brick wall.
Chalamet, Ferguson, and Isaac in ‘Dune’ Image: Legendary Pictures via Screenrant.com
Ferguson is a brick wall, and Timothée Chalamet is a wet mop. Why is there hype around this kid? Harry Potter had more emotional responses about his dead parents, whom he’d never met than Paul does about any of the stuff happening around him. And Paul is a lot older than an eleven-year-old. For that matter, Harry’s dead parents in memory form or in moving magical photos conveyed more emotion for their son than Lady Jessica.
It’s not fair that all I can think about is Star Wars when watching this; Frank Herbert really should have sued George Lucas at some point. Star Wars has plenty of other things that separate it from Dune. Still, so many of the broad strokes are not original, leaving me with a bitter taste in my mouth about the franchise. Herbert crafted a sci-fi series in novel form, and had George Lucas never come along with Star Wars, who knows how popular the Dune series cinematically could have been long term. All it needed was a studio, cast, and director, along with an excellent screenplay to bring it all to life- a few decades too late. Instead, now, Dune is left seeming like recycled content.
Jason Momoa as Duncan Idaho in ‘Dune.’ Image: Legendary Pictures via Vanityfair.com
The script and direction should be solid when watching a big-budget film with a solid cast based on a classic novel. The passage of too much time and George Lucas robbed Dune of its full potential. Try as Denis Villeneuve did to make a better version of the 1984 attempt of Dune; it still falls flat. The devil is in the details, and there were not enough of them for Dune to resonate as the larger-than-life story it’s branded to be.
Hopefully, the next attempt at Dune on the big screen will better incorporate details about the Houses in general, the interpersonal connections, and the mystical components that were played up but meant nothing. The story isn’t compelling enough without energetic performances and more complete pictures of characters and story arcs.
When plot mechanics are the backbone of a film with little emotional resonance (story), it shouldn’t be on anyone’s watchlist. That’s not a film worth anyone’s time.
Director: Chloé Zhao Runtime: 2 hr 36 mins Rated: PG-13
Studio: Marvel Studios Screenwriter: Chloé Zhao, Patrick Burleigh, Ryan Firpo
Cast: Richard Madden, Gemma Chan, Angelina Jolie, Salma Hayek, Lauren Ridloff, Barry Keoghan, Lia McHugh, Brian Tyree Henry, Kumail Nanjiani, Ma Dong-seok, Kit Harington, Bill Skarsgård
Eternals is everything a decade’s worth of MCU films couldn’t do; it tells a complete, complex, and compelling story, with a strong plot, from beginning to end. A story where you didn’t know how it or the characters would end up. When you spend a decade establishing characters, building up an ensemble to fight together, you expect them to win. You expect them to make it to the end of their respective standalone films, so there’s little mystery there. How you get from Iron Man to Endgame is largely spectacle. Flash over substance.
Eternals is more substance over flash, and many movie-goers hate that. Over the years, the MCU model conditioned people to expect less story from Marvel films, which are padded with costumes, CGI, and action. Don’t despair. Eternals have plenty of CGI and action woven more intrinsically within this detailed, rich story.
Perhaps this is part of what many disliked. Details. Being required to listen and pay attention; when it’s not a spectacle, that’s what films need. Perhaps it’s the openly gay couple with a kid? Get over yourselves. Maybe it’s the sex scene? Hm, that one is fair. Up to this point, you could take young kids to see their favorite superhero in what has been a G/PG rated aspect of this topic in the MCU thus far. Well, kids grow up. Comic characters are not just for kids, nor have they ever been. Eternals isn’t dark and deranged like Zack Snyder’s comic book character depictions. Eternals fall in the middle. I’ll grant you this tiny spoiler if you’re on the fence about this film based on this point. It’s tastefully done. Sure it’s clear at one point two of the characters are lying down and don’t have clothes on anymore, but it’s from the collarbones up. Take from that what you will.
Image: Marvel Studios, composite by Kirsten Acuna/Insider.com
Exploring this further, Eternals has a well-rounded, diverse cast. There are black people; one of whom is deaf, white people, an Indian character, Asian characters, a Spanish character, and a kid. This large cast ticks off a bunch of boxes with ease and not for the sake of ticking off boxes. I appreciate a well-rounded, talented cast that lets the film be about the story-not character-specific. In prior MCU films, one or two characters always managed to show up even when it wasn’t their standalone film like the film wouldn’t work without their inclusion. While Eternals have costumes, you should consider them more as uniforms, extensions of their powers, and ship. In this manner, this ensemble is without the brightly colored spandex costumes and accompanying ego trips. It’s all the better for it.
Fans, however, may not feel better about the film’s opening sequence. They’ll need to read the screen. This isn’t a bad thing! It certainly sets the tone for the movie and the upfront departure from every other MCU project to date. It provides needed backstory in a format that consumes less screen time and budget. This format will not resonate with every viewer, but it’s an essential blip in the overall runtime of the film. It’s hardly the first film to use this tactic. So, read it without complaint. It’s also an important reason to remember to show up and find a seat before the film starts!
Celestial image from the MCU Image: Marvel via Screenrant.com
Eternals has gotten mixed reviews, and I’m going to point out why you should ignore the naysayers. 1. Marvel didn’t put nearly the marketing effort into hyping this movie as others. It’s like they didn’t know how because 2. They are obscure characters with no prior buildup 3. The teaser trailer did nothing for this movie. Please ignore it. 4. It’s not all Hulk-like smashing, gun-heavy violent 5. The box office sucked. On that last point, when American films come out usually, other countries see them first. China is an excellent example of this, and they opted not toallow Eternals into their theaters. When that happens, the studio will see fewer zeros from ticket sales. That’s just a fact. Couple that ban with still touchy post-Covid theater options, and it’s clear those previous metrics for evaluating a hit or flop need reassessment ASAP. With all that against it, tossing that all aside and Eternals should be considered a box office hit.
Chloé Zhao did a bloody marvelous job bringing together a large ensemble that portrayed characters worth being invested in. A cast who have great chemistry and energy that are believable and meaningful. Full of details that make the plot move along at an incredible pace, with seamless cinematography. Zhao tells a consistent story whose themes are just right and impactful. The audience can understand their story, who they are, why they are on Earth, their purpose, and how it all fits together in the MCU, which is a fair point after Thanos.
Kumail Nanjiani is Kingo in ‘Eternals’ Image: Marvel Studios via SYFYWire.com
Moving forward, I sincerely hope that the house of mouse doesn’t “Disney-fi” future work with the Eternals within the MCU because this fresh infusion of characters is a palate cleanser. The right amount of serious and grownup to intermix with the sassy, zany and quirky characters left doing projects with the MCU.
Eternals is worth a spot on your watchlist and your time. Make sure to stick around for the two end credit scenes; one’s at the very end. Cheers!
Director: Grant Sputore Rated: PG Runtime: 1 hr. 53 mins
Studio: Rhea Films/Netflix Screenwriter: Michael Lloyd-Green
Cast: Clara Rugaard, Rose Byrne, Hilary Swank
What is it with Netflix and robots? Is it just me? What is with the mass appeal of dystopian or apocalyptic premises in the last decade of screen media in general? Okay, if people didn’t like it or were sick of it, such projects wouldn’t get made. That doesn’t mean they all should.
So here’s I AM MOTHER with robots and the end of the human race. Hardly an original concept. After some extinction-level event wipes man from the Earth, robots inherit it. “Mother” is a nanny bot, voiced by Rose Byrne. Mother’s function is to repopulate the human race from a secret bunker with over 60K human embryos. She grows one, a female, and calls her “daughter” (Rugaard). Why just one? Mother needs to practice being a good parent before going all out. Here’s my first question, how would she handle more than a few? She’s the only robot. Then again, I had Alien and Prometheus vibes (sans actual aliens), so what do I know. Over time Daughter grows into a teenager, fully educated by Mother and curious about the world beyond the bunker. Who wouldn’t be?
Hilary Swank in ‘I Am Mother’ Image: Netflix via theguardian.com
Daughter’s safety and sheltered existence are challenged one day upon “the wounded woman’s” (Swank) arrival. Seriously, Swank’s character isn’t even credited with a name, just a description. If you’re the last of your kind, do names matter? Unlike Daughter, who didn’t need one, Swank’s character is an adult and probably had one at some point, so it leans towards degrading. I digress on this point.
Through a series of events, “the woman” ends up in the bunker (sorry, baby spoiler) and causes Daughter to question her life and Mother. The rest of the film is a letdown to the ideas planted of what viewers think is coming. Instead, it has strong echoes of the Alien franchise merged with Terminator and Star Trek’s Borg. As badass as that mashup implies, it culminates in nothing. It’s poached ideas that are left undercooked.
Embryo from ‘I AM MOTHER’ Image: Netflix via Arstechnica.com
I AM MOTHER is a better-wrapped product than others whose packaging is recycled content. That’s all this film is. The script and performances were as flat as a sheet of paper. Watching this out of sheer boredom, I AM MOTHER has the appeal of lukewarm coffee, completely worth tossing aside.
There are so many (better) original films out there to spend your time on, some I mentioned. This film, however, has no place on your watchlist- unless you like unoriginal crap.
Director: Robert Zemeckis Runtime: 2 hr 23 mins. Rated: PG-13
Studio: 20th Century Fox/Dreamworks Screenwriter: William Broyles Jr.
Cast: Tom Hanks, Helen Hunt, Wilson the Volleyball
FedEx executive Chuck Noland (Hanks) is an obsessively punctual, high-strung perfectionist of time. And an apparent workaholic. This film starts out days before Christmas 1995. Everyone who ships goods at that time of the year is probably temporarily high-strung. Except for Chuck, that’s his normal. Christmas night, Chuck sets out on a FedEx shipping plane bound for Malaysia when they get caught in a storm and knocked off course.
The plane crashes, and Chuck is the sole survivor. He washes ashore on a small island.
In Cast Away, Hanks gives an astonishing performance that displays a physical transformation and highlights the emotional and mental toll a person can suffer in isolation.
We all hear background noises every day, noise pollution, and become almost accustomed to it. In Cast Away, the background noise is the ocean. The waves, coconuts dropping, or the storms during storm season- that’s it. That lack of noise is something Hank’s Noland has to learn to endure. A lack of sounds is just one form of Chuck’s isolation. In that way, the sound editing in this film is vital.
At one point, Chuck makes it to the top of his island, and it is small. It highlights to Chuck, and the audience, how univocally screwed he is. How alone, and how little Chuck has in the way of resources. The shot emphasizes the ocean’s vastness and how utterly cut off he is. On top of the internal anguish, Chuck has to deal with, which is its own form of a co-star, he has the ocean and island. Both are his nemesis, along with time and the weather. That might be a bit deep for some, but it’s true.
Tom Hanks in ‘Cast Away’ Image: 20th Century Fox via EntertainmentWeekly.com
Chuck isn’t the only thing that ends up washing ashore. Some of the FedEx packages do as well. This film is entirely fictional, so no real people lost goods to a guy named Chuck to utilize as he saw fit. That genius lies with the writer. Seriously if you were stuck on an island and could have one item, what would it be? I’d say the TARDIS. But screenwriter William Broyles Jr. was able to grant Chuck’s character multiple things that on their own are bizarre in a tropical island setting. That’s the beauty in it, how to be resourceful when you have little or nothing to work with from the start.
In that resourcefulness, Chuck befriends Wilson. Wilson is the brand name of a volleyball he finds. If you end up talking to yourself and answering too, it’s less crazy if you feel like you are talking to someone/thing. And Wilson helps Chuck move along this incredible journey of being lost at sea, marooned on an island, and surviving; to deal with the isolation. The attention to detail to make the story believable is well thought out. The editing crafts the progression of time, creating a good pace. For a two-and-a-half-hour film, it moves along nicely.
Tom Hanks and Wilson the volleyball in ‘Cast Away’ Image: 20th Century Fox via IMDb.com
Tom Hanks gives an energetic, compelling, emotional performance in that allotted time. Part of that time is on Chuck’s attempts to escape the island. So the purpose of his character isn’t just how to deal with isolation, but can he escape it? Does his character find resolution from his conflict? The answer also ties in with what makes this film different from others in its genre.
What would you do if you were alone on an island? How would you endure? Cast Away makes the audience ponder these questions without directly asking. It’s a mark of a great film. Cast Away is an excellent film to add to your watchlist any time of the year.
Director: Danny Boyle Runtime: 1hr 34 mins Rated: R
Studio: Pathé/Searchlight Pictures Screenwriter: Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy
Inspired by: Aron Ralston’s novel “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”
Cast: James Franco, Amber Tamblyn, Kate Mara, Clémence Poésy
127 Hours is a short film that aims to draw in audiences based on the appeal of its leading man and that it’s based on real-life events. In 2003 real-life Aron Ralston set out on a day trip in Utah’s Blue John Canyon and suffered an accident that pins his arm in-between the rock face and a boulder. Ralston records what he believes to be his last days explaining how he ended up in the state he was, for whoever finds him one day.
Since this film is based on Ralston’s book about the incident, he lives. That’s not a spoiler. It would be if someone else wrote a book about Ralston’s accident.
It isn’t easy to create a film where you have, essentially, one character. This character has what amounts to an exterior monologue the entire time. This dialogue conundrum is layered with the setting. The majority of the film centers around Aron (Franco), who’s stuck in a highly isolated canyon crack. From a cinematography perspective, Danny Boyle did an excellent job showing the landscape and how it related to Aron during the day and while he was trapped. It helped to cement the seriousness of his predicament for the audience. The director also recreates the real Ralston’s actual camera log. In doing so, we have a performance by Franco that is a one-man show. He has to physically work in a minimal space, on a rope, where he mentally and emotionally swings like a pendulum as time progresses.
James Franco as Aron Ralston in ‘127 Hours’ Image: Pathé via IMDb.com
While Franco brings much-needed energy to this story and its underlying messages and themes, it would have been better as a TV movie. Today this type of film is more likely to be picked up by a company like Netflix, which didn’t start original content till 2013. 127 Hours isn’t a terrible movie, but it’s the kind of film you only watch once, in school on substitute day, or as an airplane film. Sadly, the trailer for the film gives too much away, leaving little to be surprised by.
While the messages and lessons of the film to the audience are important, so no one has a Ralston-like “oops” moment, 127 Hours is forgettable as a movie. Forgettable isn’t worth a watchlist spot.
Director: Bong Joon-Ho Runtime: 2 hr. 6 min Rated: R
Studio: Moho Films Screenwriter: Bong Joon-Ho, Kelly Masterson
Cast: Chris Evans, Ed Harris, John Hurt, Tilda Swinton, Octavia Spencer, Song Kang-ho, Ko Asung, Jamie Bell
Snowpiercer is a French comic brought to the big screen by South Korean director Bong Joon-ho. The year is 2031, and the entire world’s remaining population lives aboard a train that never stops moving, or everyone on it will freeze to death. Just like the rest of the world did almost two decades prior. Humanity is an endangered species, and the train is the Hotel California. You could check-in, but you’re never going to leave.
This train generates energy by constantly moving, and since the great freeze means it can never stop. It does one lap around the globe each year. The train, this snowpiercer, was created by a man called Wilford, who divided the train into three parts. The elite at the front, poorest at the end, and the workers in the middle who service the train. The inhabitants at the back endure much. They live off of gelatin-like “protein bars” and nothing else. They have their children taken, live in squalor, and are executed periodically to reduce the population. These individuals are never allowed beyond the train’s tail. So, surprise, they sometimes revolt. In Snowpiercer, they try again, with a new plan, to make it to the front and control the engine. After all, those that control the engine control the world, such as it is.
I watched this film begrudgingly. I stopped it mid-film three times and took days in between to finish it. There needs to be more attention to detail for a plot like this to work on screen. Expand upon what’s not in the original material, or ignore it and make it better. He’d hardly be the first moviemaker to do so. This film has a trailer that holds up this movie to be far more exciting than it is. A film shouldn’t create so many questions and not answer them.
‘Snowpiercer’ staring Chris Evans and Jamie Bell. Image: Moho Films via RogerEbert.com
The beginning of the film drops the audience into a story in progress. While it’s not difficult to catch on to the plight and goals of the characters, it is a little confusing. Utilizing this tactic is problematic because the viewer isn’t invested yet in the characters. Bong Joon-ho’s choice to cast Chris Evans as Curtis and Octavia Spencer as Tanya aren’t enough. Both are phenomenal actors, but their addition to this cast was to grab more Western viewers, not because actual acting was required.
Initially, the director didn’t want to cast Chris Evans because he was too fit. Malnourished from living in poverty, it would be hard for anyone to believe he was from the tail car. All the people there are frail. So, instead, he’s covered in clothing to hide his bulk. On that logic, I’d like to point out that he cast Octavia Spencer! No disrespect to her, but she’s a heavy-set woman. It’s the reverse logic of not wanting a physically fit person cast. After almost two decades on a train in squalor-like conditions, she’d be thinner. She’s the only plus-sized person I saw in that section. So back to my point about more Western eyeballs.
Child labor in ‘Snowpiercer’ Image: Moho Films via the Nerdist.com
The logic of this film makes zero sense. The train isn’t that big when you think about it or see shots of it. How is livestock raised or food for so many people aboard a train? How do you maintain the train? Where do the spare parts go, how do you make more? At what point do you run out of clothes, supplies in general, on a ride you can’t stop? How many people have to die every year to sustain everyone else?
Now, cultures other than mine find eating insects acceptable, okay. What’s not okay is how it’s depicted in this film. Besides being excessively disgusting, where did they all come from? The squalor from the tail and the production/growth of food alone isn’t enough to generate that many insects frequently enough to be used as they are in this film. Remember, they are all dead outside the train.
Protein bars for every meal in ‘Snowpiercer’ Image: CJ Entertainment via Filmschoolrejects.com
If I, or you, were boarding this life-saving train on day one, one of the many questions I would want to be answered is, what about the tracks? This train rides around on one gigantic loop around the Earth; what keeps the tracks from freezing so much the train doesn’t derail after months or years? Everyone dies if too much snow blocks a section and stops the train. These are no small questions, and someone could have dreamed up an answer and brought it up with relative ease, but no. Instead, the audience is dropped into a story where the plot is to take the engine car or die trying. In a gritty, difficult to watch (camera work), violent hail Mary to overthrow an authoritarian dictator and his lackeys.
As dystopian, apocalyptic-like, fate of humanity films go, Snowpiercer is a dull, thinly plotted, implausible train wreck despite the otherwise talented ensemble. It’s not worth the hype many gave it nor a place on anyone’s watchlist.
Directed by: James Gunn Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 2 hrs 18 mins
Studio: Marvel Studios Screenwriter: James Gunn
Cast: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Kurt Russell
‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2’ Teaser Trailer from Marvel Studios
So here we find our Guardians of the Galaxy, again, as the MCU’s tenth film. The Guardians are hired by a race called the Sovereign to save their planet’s power supply from becoming a dimensional-jumping onto-slug’s dinner feast. That plays out how it does, with the Sovereign chasing them across space for offending them. Remember, Rocket (Cooper) is a part of this group.
Along the way, they encounter a pair (Russell and Lementieff) who claim to know Quill’s (Pratt) father. Vol. 1 focused on Quill’s mom’s issues, so it follows that James Gunn would make Vol. 2 about his father’s issues. So, Peter, Drax (Bautista), and Gatorade (Saldana) go with the pair. Rocket and Groot (Diesel) have another task, including dealing with the incredible Karen Gillan’s Nebula.
‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2’ Pom Klementieiff, Dave Bautista, Chris Pratt, Kurt Russell, Zoe Saldana Credit: Marvel Studios via IMDb.com
In Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, the characters explore places and ideas that change how they view family and the universe. It’s touching moments like when Rocket gets a therapy lesson from Yondu of all people, with the humor and action that ground the story and moves it along with ease. The soundtrack helps too! Gunn’s starship of misfit toys and the well-selected tracks mesh so well. It’s another dose of quirk, the opposite of the Avengers ensemble, and it’s incredible how it all comes together. Plenty of people have posed the question ‘team Iron Man or team Cap’ over the years. What they should have been asking is, are you team Avengers or team GotG? Really, who would you want to save the universe?
As a sequel, the surprises of the characters’ personality traits and Gunn’s outlandish style is gone for the audience in Vol.2. Thankfully, it’s not gone-gone. Gunn’s focus is always the characters so the story feels like it’s organically in response to them.
Michael Rooker and Bradley Cooper in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2’ Credit: Marvel Studios via Forbes.com
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 is a fun, energetic, semi-dirty follow-up to Vol. 1. While not all the jokes hit their mark, plenty still do. The comedic style is still there, just like the tone and spunk of the first one. The story is solid, considering it focuses on Quill’s daddy issues. Full of sass and wit, it also has substance and continued character development, which is essential when characters will be seen again and again.
Personally, I think that Yondu and Baby Groot steal the film overall. Share your thoughts on your favorite Guardian character in the comments!
If you enjoyed Vol.1, you’d love Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 just as much. So it should be on your watchlist!
Watch List Reviews 