Mortal Engines

So there is a post-apocalyptic fantasy epic here that probably could have been a decent, unique movie... too bad I often confused this movie with Alita Battle Angel for some reason.

Mortal Engines is an adaptation of a book that I never read. It takes place years after a vague event where society was wiped out by a super weapon and eventually built itself back up to be kind of a better society with cities on wheels, cities in the sky, and a lot of steam punk machinery and visuals that deserved a much better movie.

The movie follows two main characters, Hester Shaw (played by Herra Hilmar) and Tom Natsworthy (played by Robert Sheehan). They come together through unusual circumstances as Hester has a vendetta against the hero of the city of London, Thadeus Valentine (played by Hugo Weaving).

The two start the movie on the moving city of London but they spend most of the movie trying to get back there and there are a lot of twists, turns, and detours that the two take to flesh out the world that they live in while Hester is being hunted down by Valentine's people and a resurrected cyborg named Shrike (voiced by Stephen Lang). And while that may not have totally registered, it does kind of underline the weird and unique elements of this world that this movie could have explored but really doesn't because this movie is rushing through to get through a billion things in the 2 hour run time they were granted by Universal Pictures.

Seriously, there is so much here. I've never read the book, but it is clear that there is a whole mythology and lore behind this story that might have been explored more in an initial draft or a planned trilogy. As it stands though, we get dropped in this world that reminds me of the video games Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite and a bunch of lore I don't care about that I'd much rather they just made a Bioshock Infinite or Dishonored film instead of attractive white people in cyber punk trench coats: The Movie!

We get the journey of these two characters played by Hilmar and Sheehan, who by the way have no chemistry whatsoever. But then we have Hugo Weaving doing his thing, which in the grand scheme of things, he's actually not written as that evil of a guy, you just know him as the evil guy because he's Hugo Weaving. But then there's a subplot with Hugo Weaving's character's daughter (played by Leila George) and a totally random dude who I never really understood who he was (played by Ronan Raffery). The subplot really goes no where and those two did not need to be in the film besides exhibiting some attractive white people in cyber punk trench coats.

But then the main characters get mixed up with terrorists/sky pirates led by Anna Fang (played by Jihae) and the plot turns into a resistance fight against the "man" and honestly, the movie never made clear to me who was the bad guy or who was the good guy. Like I know it because you assume the main characters are aligning themselves with good guys, but I had no idea who these people were, I had no idea if they were going to fight with them or if they were going to betray the heroes at any point.

AND THEN THERE'S THE RESURRECTING CYBORG THAT RAISED HESTER SHAW!!!

How was that the most sidelined plot of the entire movie?

Some of the performances in this film are fine. Hugo Weaving is always entertaining and I don't know many performances he phones in. Hera Hilmar not only gives a good performance, but her character is actually written relatively well as a girl struck by tragedy early on in life and finding a new purpose in her life while dealing with the hauntings of the past. Is it original? No. But I thought she actually was giving a better performance than the movie she was in deserved.

I am not really a fan of Robert Sheehan. I didn't really like him in Umbrella Academy and I really didn't like him in this film. His character is one that has been written a billion times over as the young man of poor stature (probably an orphan) who wishes to be more, and circumstances pulls him into adventure. It's an overdone character and Sheehan not only brings nothing to it, he's not that interesting. I also found it funny that they alluded to a romantic interest between him and Hester Shaw but I came out of the film thinking that he was probably gay.

It just speaks to the lack of chemistry between the two leads. By the end of the film, it definitely seems like Hester is going off on an adventure with her gay friend Tom and I actually would have respected the movie more if it had gone that direction.

Overall, Mortal Engines is a film that I wish would have been given more attention. I've heard rumors that Peter Jackson was supposed to direct it, but he was pulled off to direct The Hobbit Movies and it was punted to Christian Rivers. But I think there was an opportunity to create the next epic trilogy, if there had been more time given to the story that clear seems to be better than this movie portrayed.

I mean there's a FREAKING RESURRECTED CYBORG wrecking havoc in this movie. There is no reason why this movie shouldn't have been a lot of fun.

And I think the biggest thing that bugged me is that the efforts of this film, especially when it comes to adapting a creative idea and the visual effects, could have been directed towards a well known property with some name recognition to it. I would have loved to see Peter Jackson support, if not direct, a Bioshock Infinite film, or a Star Wars film with this kind of visual and creative adaptation. Obviously, I would have liked to see this new and unadapted story be adapted well, but if you're going to throw resources towards a movie, why not make it something notable.

I think I just want Peter Jackson to have either had more resources towards this movie, or have him direct a Bioshock/ Star Wars film.

But overall, Mortal Engines is a visually beautiful movie. But the story is a mess, the performances are hit and miss, and they underutilized a FREAKING RESURRECTED CYBORG plotline! It reminds me of the movie Eragon where it is clear there is a lot of lore behind this story, but not nearly enough time and resources to really develop it in a way that elevates it to the level of the great novel adaptations.

But those are my thoughts on Mortal Engines. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Black Swan

Watching a Darren Arenofsky film is seriously asking yourself, do I want to have an uncomfortable experience or not. Is it gonna be mind bending? Yes. Is it gonna be super weird? Yes. Is it totally worth it? That is a very hard question to answer.

Black Swan follows the story of a ballerina by the name of Nina (played by Natalie Portman). The story picks up just as the dance company is deciding who to pick as the new star ballerina and of course, Nina is vying for that spot, and she does get it to perform Swan Lake as the White and Black Swan.

I won’t pretend to know anything about ballet, but it is pretty clear that for these ballerinas, this star role is a big deal. And the whole movie is how this role slowly eats away at Nina in her obsession to be the best embody both the light and the dark sides of the part. At the start, Nina receives feedback that technically she's very good and perfect for the white swan part, but she lacks the passion and improvisation of the black swan.

The journey of course is colored in by supporting characters who affect Nina’s personal journey in very unique ways. One is the overbearing, kind of pervy dance company manager (played by Vincent Cassel). Then you have Nina’s over protective mother (played by Barbara Hershey) who seems to be living vicariously through Nina. You have the retiring star ballerina who Nina is replacing (played by Winona Ryder). And a rival dancer who Nina connects with on a very unique level (played by Mila Kunis).

On one hand, this is a story about the high stakes lifestyle of a female ballerina, dealing with competition, sexism, and personal ambition and insecurities. On the other hand, its Daren Arenofsky saying don’t believe what you’re watching because nothing you know is real and you’re gonna need to watch this film a couple times to really understand the message I’m trying to force across to you with all my symbolism and such.

I think the most entertaining part of the movie is when it gets a little spooky and you're not really clear what is real and what is in her head.

The movie plays tricks on the audience just as Nina's mind seems to be playing tricks on her and Natalie Portman does a great job facilitating the very uncomfortably visual transformation she seems to be going through to embrace this dark side when she starts off very naive and kind. She won a freaking Oscar for this film (in what seems like it was a weird year), but nonetheless, I think its definitely worth at least the nomination.

 I'm also kind of amazed how cerebral the plot became even though it was about a ballerina.

One thing I did enjoyed /hated was how familiar the cat-yness that occurs between these ballerinas. I did have a small stint in theater and I know how performing can affect people, even when its much lower stakes than the ones presented in this film. To these ballerinas, the performance is the most important thing and they understand the politics of it. It’s interesting seeing the ways in which those politics and back stabbing drama plays out in a subject that may not seem that important to me, but the movie is able to convey how important it is to women like Nina who are performing for that top slot. Furthermore the legacy emotions that go behind performing being a family business as well as the misogyny and sexism that we’ve come to be pretty familiar with in the Me Too era.

A notable performance other than Portman's is obviously Mila Kunis. I think Kunis is a good actress, I just think she needs roles that play to her strengths and this one really does.

One other thing that really works about both Kunis and Portman is that they do play their sides of the "Swan" coin pretty well. Kunis is the black swan and Portman is the white swan at the beginning of the film. The film does a really good job at fleshing out these roles and the two play off each other very well to show the eventual transformation of Nina.

One thing to note that is pretty impressive is Portman, Kunis, and all the other female actresses commitment to the role of a ballerina at the New York City Ballet Company. Not only are they ridiculously thin, they colored in the world they existed in pretty well and it made the environment perfect for some Arenofsky visual screw arounds.

I think as far as Arenofsky films go, this one is probably one of the more attainable one. His films like mother! and Noah take on more heady and cerebral almost spiritual topics. I'm sure you could draw something spiritual out of Black Swan, but I think the reason it had such an appeal in 2010 was because it was more akin to a psychological drama rather than a philosophical think piece. I imagine if you're a hardcore Arenofsky fan, this one doesn't have the same ooomph the other ones have, but its a little more mainstream.

Like most Arenofsky films, there are a lot of visuals in the film that are pretty disturbing and with all these thin women dancing around, I couldn't help but think one of their legs were going to snap. Its pretty obvious the film is not for the faint of heart.

I don't know if I'd call this a horror film and I know some of my friends who are hardcore horror fans would not call it a horror film, but like the last few films I've checked out, it's intellectual horror which is becoming one of my favorite genres ever. There are some jolts that might get ya if you're not expecting them, but I think it works for the film and the eerie unique visuals the story is using to be told.

Overall, Black Swan is another film that I've waited far too long to finally check out but every once in a while you gotta watch an Arenofsky film and then wait a year or so. The performances in the film, especially Portman and Kunis's are very good, and the visuals, though disturbing are really fun and spooky for this really cerebral inside look into a woman's psyche. I'm not sure I'd wanna re-watch this film, but thinking about the other Arenofsky films, I think I'd re-watch this one before any other films of his.

But those are my thoughts on Black Swan. What did you think? How has that movie aged in the 10 years since it came out? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Hannibal (Season 1)

I'm not sure how Silence of the Lambs and serial killers became one of the themes of my social distancing times. I think I've been telling people that I've been getting into horror to distract from the horrors of real life but that seems dramatic. I also heard someone on a podcast talk about Hannibal and it seemed like the right time to check it out. I'm just saying, this might not be the only serial killer movie or TV show I review in the next few weeks.

Hannibal is a prequel series to the same series that brought the iconic movie of Silence of the Lambs to the big screen. The series mainly stars Mads Mikkelsen as Dr. Hannibal Lecter before the events of Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs. He provides psychological advice and support to a unique FBI agent named Will Graham (played by Hugh Dancy) as he hunts down serial killers with his unique perspective and approach to gathering evidence.

The show also stars Laurence Fishburne as Jack Crawford, Will's boss pushing him to track down these killers, and Caroline Dhavernas who plays Dr. Alana Bloom, a fellow FBI psychologist who has a somewhat confusing role in all of it that mainly boils down to a romantic interest for Will. I know she does more and I do think Dhavernas does a decent job in the show, I just know the show needs a weak link and she's probably the least well written, only showing up every once in a while to create some romantic drama with the troubled Will Graham.

I think one of the strengths of this show is the unique characters of Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter. Graham is an interesting character because they explain him as having complete empathy and being able to use that empathy and his imagination to recreate crimes in his mind and help find the killers. Every episode has a sequence where the crime is recreated but its Will doing it, and these are done really well.

My one issue is that, especially in the beginning, he's treated kind of like a child or a person with special needs (even mentioning that he's probably on the spectrum) and he becomes a bit of a blank slate that is figuring out these crimes, often with that slate being colored in by the help of a serial killer in Hannibal Lecter.

And of course we get to the only reason this show was green lit, Dr. Hannibal Lecter played by Mads Mikkelsen.

Mads Mikkelsen is a very good Lecter. Half of what's going to draw people into this show is him maneuvering behind the scenes, manipulating others, and avoiding getting caught.

The main manipulation worth mentioning is that of Will Graham who Hannibal spends the entire show poking and prodding without giving himself away and driving Will's mental state spiraling farther down.

And on a funnier more devious note, if you're watching the show, you probably know a little bit about Silence of the Lambs and the nickname of Hannibal the Cannibal. The show also makes it clear that Hannibal is a cannibal and he spends the whole show cooking and you're never really sure if he's feeding people human or not.

And that's the other half of the appeal of this show. How far this show was able to take this premise, especially on a network like NBC in 2013.

This show is not for the faint of heart. I debated even showing some of the imagery from this show because it is truly horrific. I think one thing was how this show was probably right on the edge of what kind of gore you could show on network television no matter how late it aired. But what's more, the gore and horrific imagery is used to create a really cerebral experience as you watch this FBI agent envision these murders and slowly seem to lose his mind.

Its entertaining because you start to question how much of it is Will losing his mind and how much of it is Hannibal messing with him.

Now the show is not perfect and I think that's mainly due to the limitations and requirements it needed to meet as a network TV show in 2013. If this show was pitched today, it'd be an 8 episode season with tight succinct stories and even deeper characters.

As it stands, despite having some great characters. Hannibal is your typical serial killer of the week procedural. Victim is killed, Will does his re-enactment of the crime, investigation happens, killer is brought in or killed. Rinse and repeat.

Now again, I have to give the show credit for the imaginative ways they can create different kinds of serial killers and unique ways of murdering people. But the show really lost some steam halfway when it felt like they were just riffing and making weird murderers show up for no reason. There's a whole subplot half way through with one of Lecter's other patients played by Dan Fogler and that was the point in the show where it really started to slow down and feel monotonous.

Now the long form of 13 episodes does allow for there to be a lot of build up with the character you can tell the show cares about. Obviously there is Will and Hannibal, but Laurence Fisburne's character Jack Crawford is fleshed out pretty well (though not as well as Will and Hannibal), as well as the daughter of one of the first killers, Abigail Hobbs (played by Kacey Rohl) who is pretty interesting. The show delves into the deranged versus the mentally ill and explains that that line is often blurred.

But then there's tertiary characters that the show clearly didn't know what to do with but needed to create to be the forensic experts that do autopsies and give the diagnosis's that Will and Jack can't.

Characters played by Hettiene Park, Scott Thompson, and Aaron Abrams (and I would even include Caroline Dhavernas in this list sometimes) are just there for that tertiary role and sometimes give bad comic relief but are mainly pointless.

The show sometimes doesn't know what to do with Hannibal at times but since the show is named after him, they have to engage him in one way or another, often times in ways that wouldn't really make sense if this was realistic. Furthermore on that, the fact that he is so involved all the time makes it a little unbelievable that people don't suspect him of wrong doing more. I know part of that is information bias because as the audience we know everything and that's what helps in some of the suspense, but I did have moments where I getting frustrated with the obtuseness of character for the sake of the plot.

Also there's this tabloid writer played by Lara Jean Chorostecki who has her moments where she's really interestingly utilized, but other times they just feel like they need to remind the audience that this is a character in the show.

Also Gillian Anderson is in the show and this isn't really a critique, but that woman is uniquely stunningly talented.

All in all, the show is pretty well crafted. I would add that there are some ham fisted homages to Silence of the Lambs just for funsies. But overall, the show seems like it was trying to break from the mold of network television shows at a time where premium and well crafted shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and House of Cards were really starting to take off and would shape the future of TV story telling onward, but I imagine Hannibal is probably one of those that is one of the more underrated during those times.

I will say the show has made me want to revisit True Detective Season 1, because I think that show might have overshadowed Hannibal as it was able to take steps that Hannibal couldn't. But that doesn't mean that I don't recommend the first season of Hannibal, though I recommend it with the caveat that you need to be prepared for some horrific imagery and dark subject matter. But the show is well acted, it is cerebral and mind bending, and despite some slow episodes in the middle, the show pushed the boundaries of what could be shown on network television.

But those are my thoughts on Hannibal Season 1. What did you think? I'm also starting to read Red Dragon. For those who have read the books, how does the show compare to the books and/or the movies? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog!

Thanks for Reading!

A Quiet Place

A theme among the films that I'm reviewing while I'm social distancing is that a lot of them are films and TV shows that were pretty big over the last year or so, but I didn't see them for one reason or another. With a movie like A Quiet Place, it was a combination of I'm not a huge horror movie fan unless I force myself into it, AND there was a hype around that film that I sometimes instinctively don't want to get wrapped up in.

Unfortunately, I waited far too long and ended up getting parts of the movie spoiled for me. I knew a lot of the premise of the film as well as an idea of the way it was executed, but I didn't see it in action, and boy did this movie not disappoint.

A Quiet Place follows the story of a family a year into what seems like an alien invasion of monsters that hunts its prey through the sense of sound. Its not totally clear what happened, but context clues and the fact that society has essentially ended gives you a fascinating open ended mystery into the actual event.

The Abbott family is made up of Lee (played by John Krasinski), his wife Evelyn (played by Emily Blunt), and their children: their deaf daughter Reagan (played by Millicent Simmonds, who was actively sought after for the role because she was deaf), Marcus (played by Noah Jupe), and their youngest Beau (played by Cade Woodward). A side note worth mentioning is that I at no point actually knew these characters names throughout the film. I only knew them because I looked it up in preparation to write this, and yet I never thought about that once while watching the film.

A Quiet Place distinguishes itself from other post-apocalyptic films, not only by the unique monster that they created for the plot, but the protagonists they chose to follow. Yeah, shows like The Walking Dead follow families, but none of them had the family be full of hurdles that makes the threat more real. Reagan is deaf so she can't hear when the monsters are around, they make it clear Marcus has some kind of asthma or an ailment. And of course, throughout the majority of the movie, Evelyn is pregnant.

The other really fascinating part of the film is seeing this family having adapted to the apocalypse and living a new normal in a world where they can't make a sound.

All of them know sign language, they do chores silently, they paint certain boards in their house that they know won't squeak. It just feels like a lived in world that not only was interesting, but allowed you to get to know the characters in how they dealt with problems and survived with one another.

Once again, I find myself reviewing a "horror" film that is not really a horror film. I think there were actually more jump scares in this movie than Doctor Sleep, but that didn't really take away from the fact that this is more of a suspenseful drama than a straight up horror film and if John Krasinski follows in the same footsteps as Mike Flanagan by creating these horror films that focus more on relationships and drama, I think he's got a really bright future as a director. Like Doctor Sleep, if you're looking for a legitimate horror movie that isn't going to make you cry, A Quiet Place isn't the movie for you.

What I will say is that the movie utilizes suspense very well. For the best effect, watch the movie in as much silence as you can handle because with the lack of dialogue, your hearing just heightens and the movie is super suspenseful.

The movie is also really well acted. I think I had been distracted by the bad writing of Jack Ryan to start thinking that maybe John Krasinski just isn't that great of an actor, but this movie made me do a 180 on that idea. Him and Blunt obviously bring it, but the kids are really good too. And it all happens with very little dialogue throughout the film.

What's more, its a pretty quick movie. I think I might say I could have gone for a more, but at the same time, the story is so concise and it almost feels like a short film rather than a feature length film. In the 90 minutes, we get pretty attached to this family and I can't wait to see what Krasinski does with the second, whenever it finally comes out.

The closest thing to a criticism would be the creature design of the monsters. Without giving too much away, they do look like a familiar monster that happened to be in a popular TV show on Netflix. But even that criticism isn't really fair because their mechanics and relying on sound is unique in its own way.

I think my worry is that the sequel just won't be as solid just based on the direction they head it. I haven't watched any full trailers but I've heard enough about it in passing that I could see a very distinct possibility of it not being as good. This movie is so tight and focused on this family that I'd be a little worried when they start adding more ingredients to the recipe.

But the difference is, I will be seeing the next one in theaters because I am invested now. I wish I could say more but I don't want to get into spoilers and the more you don't know about this film, the more fun the execution is.

I highly recommend this movie even if you're not a horror fan because it really is done beautifully, acting immensely well, and is a solid film that I definitely took too long to finally check out.

But those are my thoughts on A Quiet Place. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Cop Out

I went to this movie in 2010 with my dad and honestly, I remember having a pretty good time. It was a good time because it was one of the first Rated R films I went to in the theaters, my dad and I were both fans of Tracey Morgan, and I had a dumb sense of humor back then. And watching it now, I can only wonder if my dad thought it was funny then or if he was just entertaining a 17 year old kid who let's be honest hadn't really found himself and wouldn't for at least another decade.

Cop Out follows the story of NYPD Detectives Jimmy Monroe (played by Bruce Willis) and Paul Hodges (played by Tracey Morgan). They are doing a pretty formulaic comedic buddy cop romp against a Mexican cartel.

The bigger part of the film is that Jimmy has a daughter (played by Michelle Trachtenberg) who is getting married and he has to sell a rare baseball card to get the money to pay for it so he can show up his ex-wife's new husband (played by Jason Lee). The baseball card is stolen however but Sean William Scott doing an audition for Deadpool but badly, and the two stories collide as the baseball card is offered to the two detectives by the Mexican Cartel if they can retrieve a stolen car with valuable cargo.

So the plot seems like it should be pretty straight forward. It's stoic 2010 Bruce Willis as we started to realize that the less hair he has the less he cares about projects, and Tracey Morgan doing Tracey Morgan riffs. But somehow the movie not only manages to fumble a pretty straight forward, albeit formulaic 80's buddy cop premise, it throws in a bunch of twists and turns that just feel weird and pointless.

Its worth starting with the films two leads, Morgan and Willis. I guess I understand where Kevin Smith's mind was with these two. They are really polar opposites. Morgan is loud and emotional while Bruce Willis is quiet and stoic. And what's kind of funny is that you can kind of tell Bruce Willis is trying really hard and failing to not laugh at Morgan throughout the entire film.

But their friendship never really feels like anything. It never feels like there is any growth or tension between the two. And whats more, they don't play off each other very well. Morgan is loud and obnoxious, but Bruce Willis is just not really good at countering that in ways that land. I'll give Smith some credit that on paper this sounds like a match made in heaven, but it doesn't execute well.

And then there's Sean William Scott...

Again, I'll give credit where its due. I can see where an annoying criminal would be a funny foil to these two and Scott is always so close to making me laugh. He really reminds me of a Ryan Reynolds rough draft that just needs a couple more bad movies to hone that wise cracking humor.

However, he's weirdly utilized, showing up for a small period of time then disappearing until later on in the film. And when he is on screen, again, he just doesn't hit that mark.

And he's kind of a good example of how scattered this movie is because there are so many loose little side quests and B plots these guys go on when in reality the plot should be super straight forward.

Kevin Pollack and Adam Brody play a duo of rival cops that just kind of meander around the film and they're weird because they're not incompetent, they're not evil, and most importantly they're not funny. They're just there and I had honestly forgotten about them. And that's weird because time has told us that both these guys are really funny and there are so many routes they could have gone. They could have had them be obnoxious foils to the main characters, they could have been the cops that just get shit on the entire movie. But instead they're just two generic white guys that the movie cuts away to for no reason.

Same goes for Rashida Jones who plays Tracey Morgan's wife who he thinks is cheating on him. This plot leads no where and wasted time.

Then half way through the film they add this chick and the movie becomes Transporter or something. Ana de la Regura plays a woman mixed up with the cartel and suddenly, instead of Bruce Willis and Tracey Morgan trying to get the baseball card, the mission becomes to save her and bring down this cartel.

And again, I don't think Kevin Smith didn't have a goal in mind. It's clear he wanted to make buddy cop comedy very much in the vein of Beverly Hills Cop or Bad Boys. You can tell from the tropes, the music, the action, all the ingredients are there but they just don't mix at all.

The movie also has some serious tone issues.

Like its clear in the first scene that the movie is a comedy. And its clear that Kevin Smith wanted to make a Rated R comedy. But somewhere, the movie lost track of the line between Rated R comedy and straight on parody. If this movie was trying to be satirical or a parody of 80's buddy cop comedies that I could understand some of the choices, but the movie never feels like its self aware.

At this point, I don't think anything I'm saying isn't anything people haven't said over the ten years this movie has existed. I think I'm more late to the party because I remember actually laughing quite a bit at this movie... in highschool. As it stands now, this movie is rough. Real rough.

But those are my thoughts on Cop Out. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

Doctor Sleep

There's always the conundrum, do you read the book or watch the movie? For me, Doctor Sleep was a unique case because I have never read The Shining (still working on it), but I blasted through Doctor Sleep. I loved the Stanley Kubrick movie and I am realizing I love Mike Flanagan's movies. So I think subconsciously I needed some space between reading the book and watching the movie. But I knew that social distancing provided the perfect time to finally check and see how it stood up to the book.

As usual, I'll try and remain objective, not solely drawing comparisons to the book, but with this one it might be a little hard because it does stray very closely to the book. If you haven't read Doctor Sleep, do yourself a favor and check it out, even if you've seen the movie because there are some pretty good contrasts to be made.

Doctor Sleep is the sequel to The Shining and follows the story of Dan "Danny" Torrence (played by Ewan Mcgregor). It's been close to thirty years since the events of The Shining and Dan is a recovering alcoholic who runs across a young girl named Abra (played by Kyliegh Curran) who reveals to him that she has the shining as well. So it's kind of a student becomes the teacher as Dan figures more about this girl and eventually learns that there is a group of weird vampire-like beings who feed on individuals with the shining looking for her.

Rebecca Ferguson plays Rose The Hat, the leader of this cult of vampires and I'm stealing this from a joke I saw on Twitter, but the biggest crime of this movie is that women are going to start to wear hats like the one she has on throughout the movie and thinks its cool and it's not. Only Rebecca Ferguson will be able to pull that hat off for the rest of time.

One thing worth noting is that Rose and her group of vampires, while they are the villains, are given a backstory and cause that the audience will be at the very least empathetic towards. They're still very evil and are no doubt the bad guys, but it was great seeing that on screen because I think in the book I kind of saw them as always outmatched by Dan and Abra. In this, not only do they manage to put the main characters on their toes a little more, but you sympathize with the reason why they're doing what their doing. By no means should you condone what they do, but it is a unique take the horror antagonist.

The movie is cast pretty well with Mcgregor and Ferguson bringing notably excellent performances. Kyliegh Curran is good, although I would argue she's written the weakest. The movie focuses a lot on Dan and Rose and their separate journeys and while Abra is a big part of the movie, I feel like they kind of rushed through some of her backstory and growth and left that to a sequel I'm not sure I want to happen. (I'll talk about that near the end)

One thing that really amazed me from the beginning was how closely Mike Flanagan adapted the book into film, while also paying a lot of homage to the Stanley Kubrick film. Adaptation is always difficult because its never clear what absolutely needs to get cut and what doesn't. But from the start the movie hits a lot of notes I didn't think they would touch. There are obvious cuts if you've read the book, but they're not any that ruin the story or feel like you're missing anything.

That being said, while I enjoyed how closely it kept to the book, I'm not certain everyone will. And that might be an issue with the book honestly, it takes place over a long period of time and they needed to condense the time period of things quite a bit to make things work, while also adding some elements that not only improve some of the criticisms I had with the book, but also connect it to the Kubrick film.

I think its pretty masterful in how the movie takes elements from both the Kubrick film (including some visuals) and both of the books, while also making some new additions to the film that in my opinion mostly improve upon the source material. You'll even see some familiar faces. This might be giving a little away, but the movie doesn't rely on de-aging or digitally photo shopping people's faces, they just get good actors who happen to look like characters you'll recognize from the Kubrick film to make that blend between the two sources pretty unique. 

It's pretty well known that Stephen King didn't like the Kubrick film and I think Flanagan wanted to embody some of the themes and elements from the book that Kubrick didn't include, while also remaining in a world that seems familiar to people who saw the Jack Nicholson film. If you're like me and like both the movie and book, you're going to like the Easter Eggs, homages, and additions they add to find a happy medium with this movie.

It should be noted that as far as horror movies go, this one is pretty tame. Again, part of that is due to the source material as this is one of King's books that focuses more on atmospherics rather than out right scares.

For me, it's perfect. I love atmospherics. For people looking for a scary movie with jump scares and everything, this is not gonna do much for you. Now I don't recommend it for children, it is rated R and it is a Stephen King book, but its definitely a little more of a thriller drama than it is a horror film.

I think one thing I was kind of conflicted on with this film is its approach on themes and character growth and development. Adaptations are difficult in general and this movie already had the challenge of adapting a sequel to a book while also creating a sequel to a movie and something needed to fall to the way side, otherwise the movie was going to be 3+ hours long and one improvement this movie does not need is more time.

I'm not saying the movie doesn't have emotional moments, I just don't think it was the focus of the film. The movie focuses more on the fantastical horror elements of the Stephen King universe (masterfully by the way), while also trying to pay homage to Kubrick.

But because of that, the movie breezes over some of Dan's internal struggles and even some pretty big questions of the afterlife that I would have liked to see more of. And even if they didn't hit the moments that I loved from the book, I do feel like they touched on some emotional moments of Dan's feelings towards his father and his past at the overlook hotel, but even that felt breezed over.

It is worth noting that there are a lot of things, especially near the end that might have a bigger impact if you've seen The Shining.

I love Mike Flanagan's work, but I am noticing that he doesn't always hit emotional themes out of the park as much as he could unless he's doing long form TV like he did with The Haunting of Hill House. But I also wonder if he was holding some of it back for a potential sequel.

I won't dig too much into this because it has the potential to be spoiler-y, but the movie definitely indicates Flanagan's willingness to stay in the Stephen King Universe, and I am all for that. I just don't know if there needs to be a "Shining 3", especially if a book hasn't been written by Stephen King. I didn't think there needed to be a sequel to The Shining, but I guess I was wrong about that, so who knows.

My point is, I like Flanagan in the Stephen King Universe. He did a great job with Gerald's Game and in totality, this movie too. I just want him on the right projects, not drawing from a well that doesn't need to be overdrawn from.

Overall, I really enjoyed Doctor Sleep. I was thoroughly entranced with the film the entire time and it rekindled a desire to check out more Mike Flanagan films and read more Stephen King. I think the movie does get only surface deep where it could have dug a little deeper and there is a slight inclining that some parts lighter than others because it was being set up for a sequel. However, I really enjoyed it overall and definitely recommend it, especially if you're a Stephen King fan.

But those are my thoughts on Doctor Sleep. What did you think? Did you read the book? Did you read the Shining? Did you only see the Kubrick film? How does all of it stand up in 2020? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog!

Thanks for Reading!

A Star is Born

I made a point to not see this movie right away for the fact that everybody was talking about it in 2018. Then I reached a point where it wasn't in the conversation anymore and I kind of forgot it in 2019. Then a virus happened and I figured it was time to see what the hype was all about.

A Star is Born is a film that is the third remake of a film made in 1937 and no I haven't seen any of the previous versions so I can't really speak on how it rates.

The film follows the story of a country rock artist by the name of Jackson Maine (played by Bradley Cooper) who has pretty much peaked in his musical career and has started to decay into an alcoholic with a hearing problem. Then he meets a waitress named Ally (played by Lady Gaga).

Jack recognizes her talent right away and through a string of events, and a really catchy song, he displays her talent to the world and the two start a relationship that is the centerfold of the entire movie. You spend the entire movie watching his career sink while her career rises and how that affects their relationship.

Now, I would argue that Bradley Cooper starts out this film coming off as a little bit creepy and definitely should have posed a lot of red flags to Lady Gaga's character. I guess he's supposed to come off as charming(?) but to me I was waiting for there to be a real conversation about Bradley Cooper kind of abusing some power dynamics over this woman who has nothing and then is given A LOT in a short period of time.

I do think this is remedied as the movie goes on. Cooper and Gaga have a lot of chemistry in this film and it is a romance movie so I guess you can overlook some of those issues as long as the chemistry and the relationship for the majority of the movie is good. And it is, for the most part.

What was probably supposed to be the purpose was to show how the relationship might have been doomed from the beginning but the improvement of it along the way makes it even more tough near the end? And these two do a really good job playing off one another. Not only are they musically talented, but they both deliver really good performances. It's interesting thinking about it now because everyone has collectively agreed that Lady Gaga gave a good performance, but I imagine when this movie first came out, that might have surprised a few people. I'm glad that she did such a good job.

And I guess my viewing experience suffered because I think I was expecting more. I don't really know what I was expecting since this isn't really my kind of film to begin with, but I think I was expecting something else and when the movie overall was good, but not great, it might have tainted my perspective.

I think if you want to set your expectations for this movie, its that its a pretty formulaic band movie combined with a romance. Performers start up from nothing, have a pretty explosive start with a happy montage in the middle and things go awry pretty quickly in circumstances that may or may not be egged on by the manager but also just because the characters face that tension.

A Star is Born doesn't do it badly, it just does what we've seen before in other band movies, just from the perspective of a couple with differing levels of success. It's a good look into two people either rising or falling from fame and the drama that comes with them starting a relationship.

Aside from Cooper and Gaga you had a good performance from Sam Elliot that I really wish would have been fleshed out more. Also Dave Chapelle's in that movie for a very short time for like no reason.

A Star is Born is a good film. It's not mind blowing. It's just good. I think one of the last effects of this movie will be the music because it does have some good tunes that I'll probably end up checking out on Spotify here soon. It also has some good performances worth mentioning from the weird year that was 2018.

Maybe it hit people more in 2018 because it was a breath of fresh air in a year that I don't remember having a lot of great non-blockbuster films. But for me, the movie was fine. It wasn't bad at all, I just don't know how big of an impact its going to have on me long term. And that's fine too. Movies don't always have to have that long term effect to be considered good. This movie was good.

But those are my thoughts of A Star is Born. What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should watch in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

Thanks for reading!

The Lion King (2019)

So... I get it. Its 2016, Jon Favreau just made Disney a bunch of money with a live action Jungle Book that utilized CGI to create photo realistic animals in a really well done way. The obvious question is, how can we capitalize on this and the obvious answer is The Lion King. But I have to believe someone in that meeting had to be like, it's not a live action remake because there are no humans in Lion King and as realistic as they are, the animals are still computer generated... so wouldn't it mean we're just doing another animated Lion King?

And I think I could forgive that if the movie was bringing anything new to the table... but if you're going to watch any animated version of the Lion King, there is a masterpiece that was made in 1994 and this one in 2019 ain't it.

By the way, this has the chance to be a really short review or a long one depending on how long I wanna rant on this film.

You know the story of The Lion King, this movie is banking on the fact that you do.

The king of pride rock Mufasa (voiced by James Earl Jones) has a new son named Simba (voiced by JD McRary as young Simba and Donald Glover when he's older). His brother Scar (voiced by Chiwetel Ejiofor) wants to be king so he plots to take the throne. The plot of Hamlet. Simba goes into exile and meets some jokers Timone and Pumba (voiced by Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen) who teach him the philosophy of Hakuna Matata. Eventually he comes back when his girlfriend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a kid, Beyonce Knowles as an adult) comes to find him. Plot of Hamlet.

So I'm going to talk about the good things first...

The CGI is pretty good. I think it probably got a little underplayed when this movie came out because we had already seen it in The Jungle Book, but it shouldn't be discounted that the CGI team should have been top billed.

Also, the soundtrack is still really good. Hans Zimmer and Elton John sure nailed it back in 94 and this movie does not forget that.

Um... the cast sure is a lot of names I recognize...

Now the confusing thing about this movie is that it is almost a beat for beat, scene by scene remake of the 94 cartoon. The 94 cartoon is amazing so wouldn't you think that this movie would be amazing too? Wouldn't it be the same as when a video game is remastered?

Well, because the movie is a shot for shot remake, it is automatically compared to the 94 version and the 94 version was just able to do more because it wasn't trying to animate these lions how lions actually act, they animated the lions to be characters.

Sure they may look great, but the biggest problem is that the animated animals are so realistic that its hard to convey any kind of emotion, especially no where near the emotion that they were able to do with the 94 version.

Furthermore, the lack of emotion from the animation puts a lot of the owness on the voice actor and it does not matter how big of a name you get, there is a difference between voice acting and live action acting and not everyone in this movie is good at it. James Earl Jones is a phenomenal voice actor. So it didn't matter how much he was phoning it in for a paycheck, he still arguably had the best scenes because he just knows how to do it well.

On top of that, because the movie insisted on being a shot for shot remake, you're subconsciously comparing this film, and the voice acting to the 94 film. And I'm sorry, the person who got screwed the most was Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar.

Scar is a great villain due to a combination of the way he's animated in the 94 version and the unique way Jeremy Irons voiced him in that film.

Yes, Ejiofor has a great voice, but its commanding, its not conniving. Scar's whole thing is that he's the brain and Mufasa is the brawn, so its not as stark of a contrast when you've got the commanding voice of James Earl Jones compared with Chiwetel Ejiofor's commanding voice. Furthermore, he's probably the worst animated out of them all with just a weird washed out grey color. I'm sorry Ejiofor just got screwed.

But while we're on Scar, something that these live action films have been doing is unnecessarily going back and redoing some of the "plot holes" people pointed out in the animated films. But this film, since its a shot for shot remake, doesn't even do that. In fact it further pulls open those plot holes and makes us wonder why there weren't more questions to Scar when he comes back claiming Mufasa AND Simba are dead. I'm not asking the movie to fix these plot holes that didn't even take away from the original that much, but it goes to the point that this movie was too lazy to make anything remotely new out of it.

And honestly, not even the soundtrack saves the film at times because despite being 118 minutes instead of the succinct 88 minutes the 94 version was, this movie still feels rushed at times. When it comes to the soundtrack, in the 94 version the soundtrack was succinct with the action going on in the film. A perfect example is when Simba tries bugs for a second and the upbeat music of Hakuna Matata does this thing where the music reflects the feeling of someone eating bugs for the first time. Its succinct with Simba's face as he cringes but then realizes its slimey yet satisfying and the upbeat music starts again. In this film, that moment is rushed through, giving us no facial expressions because real animals don't have those, and yet that gross out music moment is still in there because the soundtrack is basically on auto pilot. If you're going to just recreate the exact same movie, you have to understand why the first movie was so good and worth remaking. Otherwise, you're not hiding the fact that you're just doing this make money very well.

Overall, this movie is pretty bad. And whats worse is that it's bad and its a clear cash grab. And what's worse than that is that nothing will be learned because this movie made over a billion dollars last year.

Not only does it bring nothing new to this classic story, it doesn't totally understand the ingredients that were originally used to make the classic story in the first place. You would get a similar result by playing the soundtrack of Lion King in the background of an animal documentary like Planet Earth. Sure its pretty to look at and the soundtrack is great, but at the end of the day you're just looking at super realistic animals with no emotions or expressions behind any of the dialogue or action on screen.

The good news is, Favreau won any lost credibility with The Mandalorian so I guess that's okay for him.

And the truth is, this is not a live action film. It is just really good animation. So if you have to choose between an animated story of The Lion King, choose the superior one, the '94 version.

But those are my (probably not that original) thoughts on The Lion King (2019). What did you think? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog!

Thanks for Reading!