I quite liked "Smile" from two years ago. It was a horror film based on a contagion, very much like another horror film I enjoyed "It Follows". Because these are modern films and the audience is primed for on screen horror and not just psychological horror, we will see some traumatic and nasty death scenes. The violence and gore provides the opportunity for make-up professionals to indulge in their darkest nightmares and then share them with us. "Smile 2" provides plenty of those moments and carries on a somewhat suspect theme from the first film which will come up in a moment.
The conceit of this sequel is that the contagion. which finally manifested as a monster at the end of the previous film, has entered into the life of a highly visible subject, pop star Skye Riley. I did not re-watch the original film before venturing out to see this new iteration. I have some vague memories of what the rules are for the parasite to be able to infect someone. This may be important at the climax of the film, but the multiple steps and preconditions are mostly ignored here so we get immediately to the central problem. Skye, who is played by actress-singer Naomi Scott, is recovering from a car accident that physically mangled her and killed her actor boyfriend. During the film, we get flashback episodes that reveal what was going on in her life at the time of the accident. There was drug use, and a break with her longtime friend Gemma. Skye appears to be on the road to recovery when her need for painkillers that violate her sobriety, brings her into contact with someone already infected.
Horror movies can succeed for a lot of reason, and one of them is that they grip us from the beginning. Although I have always maintained that "Jaws" is not a true horror film, it did do that very thing with the opening death of Chrissie. "Smile 2" manages this feat by playing out an opening where we see how the previous film has connected the malevolent force to a new set of characters. The tense confrontation between the police officer from the first film, and a couple of drug dealers is graphic and frightening. The payoff is also gruesome, although mostly unrelated to the process of being infected. If you have not seen the first film, you might be confused as to what is going on. Even if you are, I still think you will be hooked.
Movies like this are often faulted for using jump scares to goose the audience, and sometimes that is a legitimate criticism. It is an easy way to get a rise out of the paying customers. When used effectively however, a jump scare can make the film feel so much more lively. "Smile 2" has about five of these jump scares, two of which make the film story more effective and they exist for more reasons than just a quick "boo". The most disturbing scenes however, play out a bit more slowly. There is a truly disturbing scene where Skye is threatened in her own apartment by someone she knows to be a deranged fan. The slow reveal of those moments contain some disgusting visual references that make the scenario even more horrifying.
[Warning] I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible in my posts, but there is something that I need to mention and it may reveal more about the plot than you want to know. I will not give away anything specific but I will remind people that you cannot trust what you see being played out on the screen. The characters may sometimes be visualizing their own nightmares, and those may not be the actual events. This is a key element in the ultimate plot, and it was one of the things that is both creative and frustrating about the movie. It is close to the "Wizard of Oz" than it is to "The Sixth Sense" and it may undermine your appreciation of the film, as it did for me.
The ultimate payoff in the movie is an interesting take of the premise, and it could lead to subsequent films that will be much broader in scope that the two films we have seen so far. Writer/Director Parker Finn has found a niche with this concept, I hope that it is nurtured and creative in subsequent films, but there are dangers as well. I was not expecting to enjoy this film as much as I did, and although I am a little nonplussed at the way the plot plays out, the movie did make me smile.
Suffering from the flaws of many horror films these days, "Heretic" still manages to be a fascinating variation on the premise. This is in large part due to the casting of Hugh Grant as the antagonist and the charming performances of the two lead actresses, Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East. This is basically a three person set piece, but the setting is an elaborately designed house with a subterranean structure that will add to the mystery and sense of dread that pervades the first half of the movie. The deceptively inviting bait includes the charming Mr. Reed, played by Grant, who at first seems the most innocuous of potential threats.
Thatcher and East play two Mormon missionaries, Sister Paxton and Sister Barnes, out for the day on their bicycles, looking to spread their faith. The opening section includes the uncomfortable cold calls and interactions with locals on the street. Sister Paxton, has no new converts and seems to be losing confidence, especially after she is humiliated by some teen girls that she had approached in a friendly manner. Sister Barnes is a little more pragmatic, and maybe weary of proselytizing, but both she and Sister Paxton seem committed to their beliefs, even as they discuss some world challenging truths around them. They are not just doing cold calls however, they have a list of homes that have indicated an interest in their faith, and one of those is the house off the beaten path of Mr. Reed. Set in an idyllic property, off the road, boarding a forested area, the Reed house looks friendly enough and when the mature, somewhat distracted Hugh Grant, answers the door in his patterned old style cardigan, the girls are nonplussed at his invitation to converse in the house. When they learn that his wife is supposedly baking in the kitchen, they accept the invite with very little trepidation.
This is all set up for the most interesting part of the film. Mr. Reed confronts the girls with a series of questions and challenging statements about faith and their beliefs in particular. As the purported wife does not appear, there is hesitation by the young women about proceeding. The dawning realization that they have been trapped in the house forces them to continue the facade of their visit. The carefully crafted politeness of the girls runs into the mildly rude but intellectual challenges of Mr. Reed. Grant is perfectly cast for this section of the film, he is clear in his beliefs but expresses them with the stuttering pace that he has been well known for in his other roles. He treats the girls like students in his own introduction to theology lecture, and paints a nasty image of organized religions based on their similar origin myths. His attempts to sow doubt in the girls seems plotted to force them to make a choice, which is ultimately meaningless in his eventual plans. His whole spiel is really just a cruel twist of a mental knife in the minds of the victims he is trying to create.
The living room and then the study of the Reed house, are decorated to invite confidence in the visitors, but as they move deeper into the house, the production design makes the floorplan more ominous. Once the girls pass the threshold into the basement structure, the film becomes a much more traditional film. Although there are a few twists thrown in to tie the escape section to the theological discussion in the early part of the film, those plot points make little sense. My friend Lisa Leaheey has said you can't judge a horror film by it's ending. If she is correct, we should disregard the last act of this movie, because it feels like an overworked attempt to vindicate what came earlier with a tradition horror element. I will say that I had an interpretation of the final resolution that was different from others, so maybe there is something here that is a little more challenging.
Because it is shooting high and tries to do something different, and it has three excellent performances, I am going to recommend the film. If you want a more complete and intelligent exit to the movie, you will be a little disappointed. I often find that I like movies in spite of their flaws and this would be one of those. I compared it to a film from two years ago, "Barbarian". A terrific opening is squandered by conventional horror tropes in the second and third acts. "Heretic" is not quite as egregious in it's failures, so in contrast it is the better film. I also think the difference is enough to recommend it.
[I have included the video of the podcast from the LAMBcast, which featured this film, in case you want to hear and see more.]
There are at least two kinds of stupid movies. The first kind are those that defy logic or character or screw up a concept, and they leave you pissed off. The best example I can think of from this year is "Longlegs", which has so much going for it and then trips over itself in trying to be unique, and it ends up offending you, or at least it did me. The other kind of stupid movie is one that is outlandishly idiotic from the get go, but is entertaining because of it' stupidity. Lots of old school comedies with Jim Carrey fit this category. "Venom The Last Dance" fits into this second category. It is dumb, nonsensical and full of stupid dialogue, but it is entertaining enough while you are watching it that you don't resent it.
What this movie has going for it is Tom Hardy, monologuing while pretending to be talking to the symbiotic creature inside of him, the alien "Venom". He is basically doing an Abbot and Costello routine all by himself. Now of course it took a ton of other people, actors, production designers, VFX artists and code talkers, to make this movie, but the only thing that is memorable about it are the exchanges between Hardy's Eddie Brock and his Symbiot Venom. There are a few laughs in the midst of CGI mayhem and convoluted plot twists, but that's about it.
I have seen the other two Venom movies and I remember almost nothing about them. I think a couple of characters from those films pop up in this film but I am not sure. In a week I can say I have forgotten all three films completely.
I have always had a soft spot for animated films. Maybe as a Boomer, I was strongly influenced by the ubiquitous Looney Tunes and Hanna-Barbara product that I was exposed to. When I looked back on my top ten lists from the fifteen years I have been writing on this blog, I saw animated films on a regular basis. There were years when I had as many as three animated films in my top ten, and one year, an animated movie was my favorite of the year. This has not been the case in the last couple of years. I'm not sure if I just missed great films, or if the animated movies I did see, were not hitting with the same impact.
The director of "The Wild Robot" is Chris Sanders, who made one of those films that may top a decade list of animated movies, "How to Train Your Dragon". This heritage gave me a lot of hope, and along with the images I'd seen from the film, I had pretty high expectations. For the most part those expectations are met. This film manages to find a warm beating heart in a mechanical device, without the presence of any human characters. It does rely on anthropomorphic animals, but most animated films do that so it is not really a criticism. "Roz" is a robot, improperly delivered to a wilderness island, and she attempts to fulfill her programming by accomplishing an assigned task and then returning to the manufacturer. The technical difficulty of getting a signal to be returned is a slight artifice that allows for some drama in the third act, but it is in the task programming that the story really takes place.
With a robot as your main character, you might expect to be detached emotionally from the story, but as we have seen with "Wall-E" and the Star Wars films, robots develop when they interact with others, and Roz get to interact with the wildlife which inhabits the island. The two characters that are most important to our robot are "Fink" a fox that is initially an antagonist, but ultimately becomes a confidant and mentor/friend to Roz. If there is one reservation I have about the film, it is with the lack of resolution to "Fink's" fox coat. The otters and geese in the film have authentic detail, but throughout much of the film, Fink looks like a cartoon from an inexpensive kids cartoon. I know sanders can do better because his previous feature was "Call of the Wild" in which a CGI dog was the star and was very convincing. The visual criticism aside, the rapport between Roz, voiced by Lupita Nyong'o and Fink, played by Pedro Pascal, is really very effective. The third leg to the emotional tripod of the film, is a gosling that Roz assumes responsibility for, that Roz names "Brightbill". The A plot centers around the three of them, trying to get Brightbill ready for migration off the island.
The B storyline involves the other wildlife on the island. The animals are at first frightened of Roz, and downright hostile at times. The racoons do their best to dismantle Roz, and the bear on the island would happily assist them. The most amusing character in the film is the possum mother, "Pinktail" who sees that Roz is not really a threat and begins to help Roz have a purpose. Catherine O'Hara voices the wise and not overly maternal Pinktail. Her interactions with the brood that clings to her are hysterical and will keep you chuckling for the whole film. Other animals in the story include the Bear I have already mentioned, and a wise older goose who is willing to take Brightbill under his wing for the migration. Bill Nighy gets some moments of warmth voicing this sage fowl named "Longneck".
In the third act of the film, the C plot becomes the main plot. Returning Roz to the manufacturer feels like a tacked on threat that is exaggerated to create a sense of jeopardy. Another robot becomes the antagonist and we get a replay of the battle at the end of "Return of the Jedi". It is visually superb but feels a little inconsistent with the rest of the story. The situation however allows Roz to reemerge as the hero of the film, assisted by the other legs of the tripod. It is a satisfying sequence, even if it belongs to a different story.
All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed "The Wild Robot". It is strong enough to make an end of the year list, but it does not reach the heights of Sanders "How to Train Your Dragon".
It would not be possible to write about this movie without the context in which I saw it. The world has changed so much in the last ten years, many of those changes are subtle and may go unnoticed by some people. I however, have noticed. I notice that theaters are often empty when new films are playing, that films which have some serious issue to discuss get ignored off of the screens that they manage to play on when they do get a release. I have noticed that it is a disparaging phrase to say "Your Dad will like it." In the last couple of years, there have been a few films I was lucky to catch in a theater, which almost certainly would have earned that back handed compliment, films like "The Covenant", "The Greatest Beer Run Ever" and "Fly Me to the Moon". These were films aimed at an mature audience, and they were lucky to get any screen time in a theater. While they are of varying quality, they deserved the time I was willing to give them, and they earned a lot more respect than some films which have been huge box office successes, but which are barely real stories or movies. Whenever I have written about them, I have made an effort to give them serious thought (even when they don't deserve it, I'm looking at you "Barbie"). When I see a movie like "Juror #2" being dismissed as "Your Dad's new favorite movie", it frustrates me. Even when those are complimentary due to the old fashioned quality of a film, it sends a message to potential viewers that there is something here that is not for them.
Warner Brothers has made it clear that they feel the same way about this film. It is not for you. The have given it the most token of releases. It is on thirty-five screens around the country. As far as I can tell, in the state of Texas, where I live, it is on one screen in Dallas. Texas with thirty plus million residents, the second most populous state in the country, has one theater showing "Juror #2", the latest film from cinema treasure Clint Eastwood. I saw some spin on one entertainment site suggesting that this was a limited release because the film would only open in the single digits and that Warner Brothers did not want Eastwood to be embarrassed by a flop. If you believe that, let me tell you about the golden opportunity to invest in property in California City. Also I have a bridge you might like to buy in the New York area.
I had to drive two hundred miles one way to see the movie in a theater opening weekend. That is three hours on the Interstate from Austin to Dallas. After the movie, I had the same three hour trip back. I can't say I would always make a trip like that to see a Clint Eastwood project, after all I skipped "J. Edgar", "Hereafter" and "15:17 to Paris" completely. Yet the disrespect that Warner Brothers has shown one of their most productive and creative collaborators was so offensive to me, I felt compelled to make the effort. Oh, and I am glad I did.
"Juror #2" is a thoughtful story about responsibility and justice. Nicolas Hoult stars as Justin Kemp, a man who has turned his life around and found sobriety, but who has been tested by brutal circumstances. He is committed to doing the right thing, but is faced with another test and it is one that has severe consequences for others. As we follow his story, we can easily identify with his dilemma. He knows the truth in a criminal case that he is serving on a jury for, but revealing that truth would be devastating to him personally but also to the two people who will be depending on him in the future. What is the right thing to do, where does justice come in? Justin is also not the only one wrestling with these issues.
Maybe people will see this as an old fashioned movie because it feels like an update of "12 Angry Men". Courtroom dramas lack the fireworks of an action film or comic book movie, but they offer drama that can be completely compelling if told properly, and Eastwood and his team are doing that here. Screenwriter Johnathan Abrams, has constructed a plausible if unlikely scenario, for our central characters to confront. What is even more plausible is the dynamic in the jury room. We don't get the same kind of character detail for most of the jurors that we did in "12 Angry Men", but we do get enough of their attitudes and opinions to understand the arguments that will ensue. Marcus and Yolonda are the two jurors that resist the direction that Justin tries to lead the jury in. They challenge his rationale for hesitating to quickly render a guilty verdict. We know that Justin is motivated both by seeing justice done and self preservation, but his strategies are exactly the temperate thinking that one would hope a jury would engage in before deciding a man's fate.
There are complications in the process however, and Harold, played by J.K. Simmons , is both an ally to Justin's cause and a threat to him. So another set of ethical questions get raised in the story. I said earlier, that Justin and the jurors are not the only ones wrestling with these questions. Both the prosecutor and the public defender have serious moral conflicts that they face. The prosecutor is played by Toni Collette, who in an interesting side note, played Hoult's mother twenty years ago in the film "About a Boy". Faith Killebrew is being tested in a manner similar to that of Justin. One of the eternal issues in our justice system is the conflict over winning a case versus doing the right thing. Prosecutor Faith begins to doubt the validity of her own case. I try to avoid spoilers in these posts, so I will not provide any more details here, but let it be said that the resolution of the film does not leave anyone looking like a moral giant.
Finally I want to take note of the performances. Nicolas Hoult has to hold the film together as a good man conflicted by a bad situation. We can see anguish underneath some of the choices that Justin is making in the film. There is also palpable fear registering as he confronts one of his fellow jurors over the decision they must make. Toni Collette starts the film with a slight Southern accent, the film is set in Georgia after all, but I don't think she was as committed to it in the later parts of the film. Outside of the accent issue however, her performance is strong, registering doubt and resignation at the right moments. Chris Messina plays public defender Eric Resnick, who convinces us that he is convinced of his clients innocence. He has a light touch with the guilt trips that he imposes on Collette's character, which seems to reflect the professional relationship the two of them were likely to have.
This movie forces us to think on moral issues surrounding the way the justice system works. As most of us are aware, it is often an ugly process that emphasizes technical fidelity to the rules rather than finding a just result. The current internet outrage over the State of New York, seizing a squirrel and a racoon and destroying them, is an example of the same kinds of power issues this film presents. Regardless of who wins, everyone who wrestles with a pig ends up covered in muck. It's too bad that Warner Brothers decides that they wanted to tussle with film fans. So far Clint has stayed out of the marketing muck, and has stuck to drawing us a picture of the imperfections in all of us.
A year ago we went to a performance of the Austin Symphony Orchestra performing the score for the original "Star Wars" with the film being presented on the screen above the orchestra. I've attended several concerts using this approach including screenings of "The Godfather" and "Jaws". As long as the movie is compelling, it is hard to go wrong. Another thing that makes it hard to go wrong is performing the music of film maestro John Williams. "The Empire Strikes Back" is the original sequel to the continuing Star Wars franchise and it is especially vibrant when it comes to the music.
The heroes themes in the original film are the motifs that make that film so memorable. "The Empire Strikes Back" does not exactly subvert the importance of heroes, but it does make the theme of the main villain the most iconic piece of music from the film series next to the main theme. "The Imperial March" that accompanies Darth Vader through most of this film is found in commercials, at football games and being hummed by kids and adults, the same way the theme from "Jaws" is. It is an easily identifiable music riff which indicates the presence of the bad guys or something ominous happening.
Live music always makes the score feel more rich and full. Watching the violin bows sawing up and down or hearing the horns strike that right note are thrilling experiences. Even when you might be transfixed by the screen, an orchestra cannot be ignored when it is right there with you. The Austin Symphony is full and accomplished at playing these scores. The arrangements seem to give the individual instruments enough room to shine even in an ensemble performance.
I suspect that we will be getting "The Return of the Jedi" next year in the pop series that we subscribe to. That would be perfectly fine to me. However, instead of moving on to the prequel Star Wars Movies after that, I think a change up by covering Indiana Jones would be completely rad.
