Terminator: Dark Fate

Linda Hamilton is back as Sarah Connor in Terminator: Dark Fate, and the film’s all the better for it.

When Terminator Genisys came out in 2015, I left the theater thinking, “That was fun, but I don’t need another Terminator movie.” After all, with the creation of alternate timelines, the over-complication of time travel, and drifting further and further from the “do it small and do it well” mentality that James Cameron so wonderfully infused into The Terminator way back in 1984, what could another entry in the long-running franchise possibly have to say?

It turns out a bit more than I thought.

Picking up 22 years after the events of Terminator 2: Judgement Day (director Tim Miller smartly—and boldly—ignores its latter installments), young factory worker Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes, a convincing “everywoman” and our entry into the story) has her world upended when the mysterious Grace (Mackenzie Davis) arrives. A human enhanced with Terminator-like abilities, she’s been sent from 2042 to protect her, adamant that Dani is integral to saving the world from a future that has yet to happen.

But when they cross paths with Sarah Connor, behind her dark sunglasses and determined scowl is an air of confusion. She prevented Judgement Day, way back in 1995. But as she and Dani quickly learn, the Judgement Day that Sarah and John prevented from happening wasn’t completely stopped, they just kicked the can down the road a few decades as mankind has—as it seems inevitable to do—found a new way to accidentally create the rise of an AI that seeks to wipe out mankind.

If this sounds a bit familiar to past installments, you would be right. But having Linda Hamilton back in the role of Sarah Connor, unapologetically kicking ass and taking names, is 100% the number one reason what makes this movie work. Dani is a good protagonist (the “new Sarah”, if you will), but Sarah (and Hamilton’s performance) is the anchor here—and what a huge, welcome anchor it is. The film wouldn’t be even close to as good as it was without her involvement. Even after 20+ years, Sarah (and Hamilton) is still fierce, capable, and commanding. Hamilton’s performance is seamless and you’d never know this is her first time returning to the series since T2, her performance informed by the new layers the script peels away at her character—grief, anger, obsessiveness, and a single-minded determination. Whether in a mere smirk, a look in her eyes, or body movement, Hamilton is able to convey—and convince us of—all Sarah is going through. And with two decades of emotional baggage, it’s a lot.

Tim Miller & co. made a smart move by choosing to focus on character more than past installments and it really works. The acting across the board is great, with passionate, convincing performances from all involved. From Mackenzie Davis’s fierceness, to the innocence and building intensity that Natalia Reyes infuses into Dani, not to mention the humorous, hulking, committed, and surprisingly emotional performance of Schwarzenegger, each is a welcome presence and from the minute their paths converge and they team up, their quartet really makes the movie work.

The action and set pieces are thrilling and (mostly) relentless, and the film strikes just enough of a nice balance between treading new ground and bringing up elements from past installments to be engaging. There’s also genuinely funny humor peppered throughout the script, whether in Sarah’s zingy one-liners, T-800’s dry delivery, or a character voicing what the audience is thinking. It offers moments of relief throughout the film’s frenetically-paced action sequences, as well as grounding the characters, reminding us that they’re real people with a variety of emotional states. The film has just enough moments of character-driven flashbacks and times of quiet reflection, and allowing these scenes to breath in between the big set pieces really allows the characters to grow and breathe and give the audience the chance to connect with them and be infested in their journeys.

The film drags just a bit in the middle portion (but not for long), some of the action and fight scenes a little too quick and blurry for the viewer to really be able to follow each beat, and I’m still not sure how I feel about the film’s treatment of John Connor, but overall I don’t really have much to mark it down for. I can only say what I would’ve wanted even more of what it did right—more Sarah, more flashbacks and character work, more meditation on the film’s themes. It smartly avoids what Genisys did wrong: over-complicating things. While much grander and spectacle than The Terminator, Dark Fate’s story is simple and familiar, yet propulsive and energetic, spending its time focusing on crafting engaging action and building compelling characters rather than attempting to dream up new ways for the plot to overcomplicate itself with time travel, alternate timelines, and the like, hoping that something will stick.

I really enjoyed Dark Fate and found it to be much better than I was expecting it to be. The film deals with some interesting themes (fate, forgiveness, grief, and whether or not people—and machines—can truly change), and I’d like them to take it even further in the planned sequels of the “new trilogy” Cameron is reportedly spearheading. While fans’ concerns and fatigue over Terminator re-boots, sequels, and alternate timelines is understandable, it’d be a shame if more people don’t see this because Dark Fate is better than it has a right to be, especially after all these years (and all these attempts). My main concern is the direction for future films, as they can’t keep revolving each one about the postponement of the (seemingly) inevitable Judgment Day, but damn if they don’t do it well here.

8.5/10

The Dark Tower

Idris Elba and Tom Taylor are the standouts of The Dark Tower, perfectly capturing the spirit of the books

Confession time: if the filmmakers behind The Dark Tower would’ve made a straight adaptation of the first book in the book series, The Gunslinger, I would’ve hated it. Though the series has a rabid fan base, it’s no secret—even among uber King fans—that The Gunslinger is a bit on the slow side. Not only that, but it’s kind of weird in the sense it’s very easy to picture fans reading it and thinking, as I did, “What is this? Is it a western? Fantasy? Sci-Fi?” It definitely doesn’t conform to any one specific genre. So when news broke that a film version of The Dark Tower was in production (for real this time!), I was both concerned and intrigued that it would be a mixture of aspects from the series instead of a page-by-page adaptation of The Gunslinger.

Having seen the film, is it—and the future of a potential Dark Tower film franchise—better for it? In some ways, yes; in others, no. Combining aspects of the books (specially book one, The Gunslinger, and book three, The Wastelands) makes sense on a thematic and storytelling level since the characters of Roland and Jake are tethered on an emotional level. The film’s partial New York setting also allows viewers a place they recognize which offsets the otherworldly qualities of the worlds and places familiar to Roland. On the other hand, it maybe introduces a bit too much of the series’ sprawling mythology that might throw casual viewers for a loop (pun completely intended).

So do the Pros outweigh the Cons? Is it a faithful adaptation? Is the future of The Dark Tower film series in danger? Let’s talk it.

For those unfamiliar with the basic premise, the film follows Roland (Idris Elba), the last of his people (gunslingers, sworn to protect the titular Tower) pursing revenge against a nefarious enemy called the Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey) for killing his family. But all of that changes when he meets Jake (Tom Taylor), a boy from our world plagued by dreams of Roland, the Man in Black, and a score of other things of which he should have no knowledge.

It is usually the case in book-to-film adaptations that viewers are pleased the characters look the same, but complain the essence isn’t there—the intrinsic sense of what makes them them. In The Dark Tower, the opposite is true: the characters may look a little different from their literary counterparts, but the essence—the coldness, single-mindedness, and skepticism of Roland; the innocence and bravery of Jake—is totally there. And so I wonder of viewers saying the opposite: would they be happy either way?

Idris Elba is fantastic as Roland, perfectly matching the source material counterpart’s cold, loner exterior, his single-minded determination, and proficiency with guns. He’s a commanding on-screen presence and brings an intensity to the role with his body language and expressions that the script sometimes doesn’t quiet achieve, not to mention great comedic one-liners as a fish out of water. He marvels at Coke, hot dogs and, in a particularly humorous scene, gives a New York City doctor a pair of ancient coins for her services.

McConaughey also gives a great performance as the Man in Black, harnessing the psychic abilities of children in attempt to bring the Tower down. He’s darkly comic, both fearsome and enticing, and plays the Man in Black with a sense of dark glee that lets you know he clearly enjoys causing chaos wherever he goes.

But as good as Elba and McConaughey are, it’s Tom Taylor as Jake who’s the real standout. Jake is saddled with much of the film’s big moments and Taylor couldn’t be more perfect. Ranging from portraying a haunted sadness that no one believes his dreams, to fear of the Man in Black’s pursuit, to an awe and boyish innocence regarding Roland’s origins, to a particularly pained moment in the film’s third act, Taylor nails the role and Jake’s emotional journey and it’s not hard to see why the decision was made for the film to feature him so prominently.

As good as Elba and Taylor are individually, it’s when they come together—the Roland-Jake relationship—that’s the highlight of the film. Jake’s innocence and candor softens Roland’s hard exterior, while Roland provides the role of a father figure Jake’s been missing. The scenes of them bonding, trusting, and learning about each other are pure magic, completely capturing the spirit of the books, and sure to make dire-hard Dark Tower fans pleased the filmmakers understand the relationship’s emotional beats. (Among their screen time together, one scene of Roland teaching Jake how to shoot while reciting the gunslinger’s credo gave me both chills and watery eyes.)

In addition to the film’s action sequences and Roland’s exciting final confrontation with the Man in Black (which I would’ve liked to be a bit longer), one of the things the film got completely right was the landscape of Mid-World—harsh, dry land; craggy mountains; a barren, alien landscape. The location scouting and landscape utilization is a definite plus. However, it makes it disappointing in a way because when the film got something so completely right as this, it’s barely featured before we’re whisked off to the next location or set piece—the Manni village, an ancient theme park, the Dixie Pig, Devar Toi. All of them work, but the short amount of time we’re afforded to spend in each makes me think they didn’t utilize all the cool settings to their advantage since everything moved so quickly. It’s kind of the equivalent of going to a carnival, seeing a cool ride, and your parent grabbing you by the hand to move you onto the next thing when you’ve only had a taste of the one preceding it.

Which leads into my main issue with the film: pacing and editing. The opening of the film should’ve been a smooth introduction into the world(s) viewers were about to see, but the editing, especially in the film’s first third, was so choppy, sloppy, and jarring, that all I could help thinking was that there had to have been a better, simpler, more streamlined way to introduce viewers to the characters, quest, and worlds of The Dark Tower. Early on, we bounce between Jake, his visions, flashbacks of Roland, and present-day Man in Black. It’s a little much early on. (Aside: as much as I love Jake, I feel like the film should’ve started with our protagonist, Roland the gunslinger.) Because of runtime and budgetary restrictions, it seems they were trying to introduce too much at once instead of letting the audience become introduced to the story’s various pieces at an organic, relaxed pace. It does allow itself to wind down after the climax, but the abrupt ending does leave a little to be desired. A kind of, “that’s it?” without feeding the viewer any morsel of information or intrigue to give them any reason to hope for a sequel.

To say The Dark Tower has a rich mythology is an understatement. Not only are we introduced to a mythical Tower that, if it falls, chaos will reign supreme, but there’s also the aspect of the beams that keep the Tower in place, Taheen, vampires, and ominous graffiti that reads ALL HAIL THE CRIMSON KING. Fans of the books will no doubt recognize the terminology and its implications, but it’s a lot for the casual moviegoer to take in when everything moves so quickly. I’m not so sure the film’s mythology would be completely grasped upon first viewing. While it offers exciting possibilities for potential future installments, it wouldn’t have hurt to have more expositional detail about the more fantastical elements of the story and why we should care.

Ultimately, the film is a case of “More please!” Would I have liked more action? More Roland interacting with the Man in Black, perhaps giving the viewer a deeper insight into their relationship and the mythology surrounding them? More time spent in the Manni village, the Dixie Pig, and all of the film’s other cool locations? Yes, definitely, because these are good things. What’s in the film works; there’s just not enough of it.

I have a feeling I wouldn’t have enjoyed The Dark Tower quite as much as I did if I wasn’t a fan of the books. It’s not a straight up, page-by-page adaptation (structurally or otherwise) and the editing and pacing is a little off, but it’s a good introduction into Roland’s world. The characters and acting all work, it’s escapist entertainment in the best way, and most importantly, the spirit of the novels is fully intact.

The road to a Dark Tower film was a long and rocky one, but now with its foot is in the door, there’s more than enough material for future installments and adventures in Mid-World if we are lucky enough to be invited along on them.

8/10

Atomic Blonde

Charlize Theron brings a relentless intensity, dominating physical presence, and icy coolness in this action-packed spy thriller

Move over James Bond, there’s a new spy in town…and her name is Lorraine Broughton.

For the holdouts who believe a woman can’t kick as much ass as a man, well…let’s just say you wouldn’t want to meet Lorraine in a stairway.

MI6 agent Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is tasked to go to Berlin in order to retrieve a top-secret list of undercover operatives. The only problem is she’s not the only person who wants it…and her cover is blown early on…and Germany is in social turmoil preceding the toppling of the Berlin Wall. So it’s safe to say she’s got a lot on her plate.

Theron is fantastic in the role of Lorraine, capably portraying an iciness while still letting the viewer know she hasn’t completely lost her humanity. She has a job to do, and while she’s working, that’s her priority (“I’ve never lost a package,” she says with pride to an asset she’s protecting). Theron reportedly did most (if not all) of her own stunts, and it shows. Her precision in the action scenes along with her ferocious intensity is captivating, so much so that you almost forget there’s an actual plot behind all the action. Then again, the whole film could’ve featured nothing but close-ups of her feet as she walks down Berlin’s sidewalks, pours glasses of vodka, and soaks in porcelain-white bathtubs filled with ice, and it still would’ve been captivating.

From the film’s opening seconds it’s immediately clear that in Atomic Blonde, mood itself is a character as big and important and dominating as Lorraine herself: the chilly atmosphere mixed with 80s German grunge of baggy shirts, leather jackets, and mohawks; lighting in muted blues, greens, and reds interspersed here and there with neon; grimy stairwells and buildings in disarray that somehow look…glamorous. And we can’t forget that killer soundtrack.

The music was a huge part in setting the mood of the trailer, so I was extremely glad to see it wasn’t just a marketing gimmick and was applied to the entire film. And you know what? It works. I didn’t know that seeing Charlize Theron banging spies’ heads against freezer doors to the tune of 80s pop like Depeche Mode’s “Personal Jesus” and After The Fire’s “Der Kommissar” was something that I needed, but I do! The songs are never intrusive or weirdly placed and will most assuredly have your feet tapping along as operatives are shot and strangled. Tyler Bates’ original tracks are pretty great, too, almost as if they’re unused, unearthed music from the 80s. It all works and it’s all fantastic.

The action is definitely one of the film’s main highlights, fully commanding your attention with its ferocity and skillfully long takes, so it’s a shame that there’s not more of it. There’s plenty, believe me—freezer door head-banging, exploding vehicles, ice picks to the head, and more bonkers ways to threaten, maim, and kill that will have you covering your mouth with equal parts shock and glee—but Atomic Blonde is definitely more of a spy thriller than a straight up action film. We have covert operations, double crossings, and assets to protect, everyone with their own motivations and worries about who to (and not to) trust. Unfortunately, it’s the spy parts of the “spy thriller” that ends up slowing down the action train Lorraine’s driving. It would’ve been a real treat if the entire movie had the same frenetic energy as its action scenes and set-pieces, but unfortunately the pacing is one of its downfalls. Even an action film needs to have some semblance of plot, but Atomic Blonde could’ve done more with less. If the spy aspects were not completely complicated, per se, they were unnecessary. The scenes of espionage, interspersed with a present-day Lorraine retelling her time in Berlin, tends to slow the film down and take the audience down from the high of whatever action sequence preceded it.

Aside from the pacing, my other problem (which could also be a compliment) is that it needed more Lorraine. As much as I appreciated the supporting characters and their actor counterparts (James McAvoy as Lorraine’s Berlin contact, Sofia Boutella as a French operative, and John Goodman and Toby Jones as her present-day interrogators), I couldn’t help feeling that every time they showed up, they were only taking away time we could’ve been spending with Lorraine, diving deeper into her plot, backstory, and what makes her tick. I understand having a well-rounded supporting cast of characters, but I almost feel like director David Leitch wasn’t completely aware of how much of an awesome character he had in Lorraine. Plus, since some of the double-crossings and character motivations were a bit hard to keep straight (or nonexistent), nixing some of the characters entirely in favor of additional ass-kicking time with Lorraine would have been more than welcome, killing two birds with one stone.

Theron’s Lorraine fills Atomic Blonde with such a relentless intensity, dominating physical presence, and an icy coolness, that it’s not difficult to imagine her coming back for a few sequels. It also doesn’t hurt that there’s still a good chunk of intrigue about her backstory to unpack. But if an Atomic Blonde franchise is on the horizon, to paraphrase an artist whose songs aren’t featured in the film: a little less espionage, a little more action, please.

7.5/10

Suicide Squad

Leto’s Joker and Robbie’s Harley Quinn are easily the best parts of Suicide Squad

I’d been looking forward to Suicide Squad for a while now. The promise of lesser-known DC anti-heroes brought together to stop a greater evil? Sign me up! And it didn’t hurt that once the trailers were released, they rocked: quirky characters, dark humor, and well-paired music that let the viewer know they were in for a crazy ride. Unfortunately, expectations for the film’s success grew after Batman v. Superman didn’t do as well in box office numbers or critics’ reviews. As a result, almost overnight, the hope of quality and profit in the continuing DC Cinematic Universe seemed to be riding on its red-headed stepchild.

I purposefully avoided many Suicide Squad reviews prior to seeing the movie so I could make up my own mind about the film (re: taint my excitement), but the ones I have read definitely reek of what many have already suspected: viewers going into the movie prepared to hate it (and DC films as a whole, since the same critical reactions can be read in reviews for Batman v. Superman). So, after reading these reviews and seeing the movie for myself, I have to ask: What are these “critics” smoking?

The first half of the film is great and just what I was hoping it would be: a great introduction to the Squad members, a morally shady figure in the form of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), great Batfleck cameos tied to the Squad, and a premise with the promise of unique styling, intense action, moral ambiguity, and great characters.

Most of the characters (though there are a few too many, some being relegated to the sidelines) were great, especially Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) and the Joker (Jared Leto), who are the highlights of the film, character- and plot-wise. I’d read a lot of complaints Mr. J wasn’t given much screen time, which had me worried, but he’s in a decent-enough amount of scenes to both satisfy (his role is more backstory and subplot than “A” storyline) and leave you wanting more. And Leto kills it. His Joker is more than satisfying—totally captivating, like popcorn-hand-paused-midway-to-mouth captivating—ranging from persuasive sweet-talker to scary mob boss, bouncing between affection for Harley and psychotically unhinged craziness. Which can also be said of his female counterpart and partner in crime, torn between wreaking havoc with her Puddin’ and settling down to have a normal family. As a result, Leto and Robbie’s chemistry really shines, their psychotic codependent relationship the film’s highlight. So much so that I would have loved to see more of them, relevance to the main plot be damned. Bring on the Harley-Joker spin-off!

Speaking of characters, I was also really happy that the film used the songs featured in the trailers and marketing promos. I wasn’t so sure they would. They fit with its characters and the film’s zany, balls-to-the-wall tone that it works really well.

My main issue with Batman v. Superman was that Snyder crammed so much stuff into the film that it lacked focus. Thankfully, Suicide Squad doesn’t have that problem. It has another, though, which I’ve realized is my main problem with all entries of the DC Cinematic Universe so far: the supernatural, and what I’ll refer to as The Big Threat. Man of Steel had Zod (an alien) and his terraforming device (The Big Threat), intent of destroying the world. Batman v. Superman had Doomsday (both an alien and The Big Threat), also intent on destroying the world. Which leads me to my problem with Suicide Squad’s second half. Five months after the beginnings of the Justice League first formed on the big screen to stop such otherworldly havoc, comes Enchantress. Possessing the body of explorer June Moone, Enchantress is an ancient witch (supernatural…again) upset to realize the world worships “machines” instead of entities such as herself. And because she’s upset, what does she do? Builds a machine (The Big Threat) to, you guessed it, destroy the world.

Are we noticing a pattern here?

When every DC movie has the main villain attempt to destroy the world (or even an entire city), complete with airborne circle of brightly-colored debris, it lessens the stakes quite a bit. Which is a weird kind of irony being that you’d think a world threat would raise the stakes. But because we know there’s a cinematic universe in play and that the films will continue, it disarms the threat since we know that—however it comes to happen—everything will be okay. Not only that, but in this case, Suicide Squad has an embarrassment of riches with great characters. And when they’re facing a supernatural threat, it removes the sense of surprise and excitement that should come with a film’s climax; we know the odds are against these human anti-heroes but are confident they’ll prevail anyway. Not to mention that the action sequences come dangerously close to boring repetition.

I would have preferred (and believe it would’ve made a better film) for the Squad to face off against a decidedly more human threat. For example, what if the Joker was the villain of the film, Harley torn between stopping him and joining him? Having Mr. J in this role would have given the film potential for more grounded character-driven beats and stakes that I would’ve loved to see (not to mention more focus on the Harley-Joker relationship).

But I didn’t make the film.

Instead, Enchantress—though she looks really, really cool—is kind of vanilla. If you’ve seen one superhuman (or, in DC-talk, metahuman) intent on destroying the world, you’ve seen them all. If every DC movie didn’t have the same third act with some kind of supernatural and/or alien threat, it might’ve felt a little more fresh.

Thankfully, this issue—though it’s kind of a big one, being that it revolves around the whole purpose of the Squad’s forming—is one of the film’s few. The characters, performances, soundtrack, and off-beat humor make it both an entertaining and unique entry to the DC Cinematic Universe. And while it’s not a perfect film—or even the film it could’ve been—it’s far from a disappointment.

If only critics—of both the professional and couch variety—would step back from their eager hate for popcorn entertainment enough to see it.

8/10 (right now, but I have a feeling my rating will be bouncing between an 8 and a 7.5)

Insurgent

The second film in the Divergent series, Insurgent picks up where Divergent left off, with Tris, Four, and co. on the run after Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet) ordered the attack that left Tris’s parents—and countless others—dead. This time around, Jeanine finds a mysterious box that she’s sure contains information that will prove to the world that Divergents should be eliminated. But knowing that only a Divergent can open it, orders all Divergents be hunted.

Release Date: March 20, 2015 Runtime: 119 minutes

A good chunk of Divergent revolved around acquainting the viewer with its world-building—and good world-building, too—so this time around the film is able to spend less time on introducing us to the faction system, serums, and the rules of this dystopian society in favor of more action and plot points. Unfortunately, Insurgent also expects us to be acquainted with the characters. As a result, there’s not any particularly large growth in any of the characters aside from Tris and Peter, making the film’s action feel—though exciting—rather empty since we don’t have a big enough reason to be invested in the characters involved except for those given in Divergent.

This lack of character depth also trickles down to the film’s supporting roles. Despite boasting an A-list cast (including Octavia Spencer as Amity leader Johanna Reyes, Naomi Watts as Four’s mother Evelyn, and Daniel Dae Kim as Candor leader Jack Kang), most of the film’s new additions aren’t given much to do, including those from Divergent whose only purpose with their few minutes of screen time seems to be to remind viewers, Hey, remember us from Divergent? We’re still here! Even the deaths of several characters, scenes that should have a large impact on the characters and audience, are rushed and anticlimactic.

Though the characters aren’t as developed as they could’ve (and probably should’ve) been, Shailene Woodley gives another great performance as Tris Prior. Most of the emotional beats of Insurgent revolve around Tris and her experiences, and she doesn’t disappoint. Miles Teller is also great as Peter, stealing every scene he’s in and injecting the film with sarcastic humor that really adds to his character.

In a welcome change, Insurgent hugely reduces the amount of romance that was present in both the book and last film. In its place are more action sequences and it’s exciting to watch…at first. Before long, scenes of running, shooting, and hand-to-hand combat grow tiresome as the film falls into the formula of characters running from Jeanine, getting into more trouble, and waiting to be saved. However, the special effects are pretty good (including the simulations) and the inclusion of the mysterious box that Jeanine is so dead-set on opening is a clever and engaging way to streamline events of the novel into a more cinematic product.

In the end Insurgent, while entertaining, doesn’t reach the level of its predecessor. It trims a lot of the book’s fat, but character development is trimmed too, and most of the characters—both returning and new—are underdeveloped. It’s still fun to re-visit this unique world with its intriguing premise, characters, and visuals, and it makes for a great popcorn movie, but unfortunately suffers from middle-film syndrome, a bridge between the first and last. Here’s hoping that the next one, Allegiant, is better.

7/10

The Guest

Initially I wasn’t too excited about checking out The Guest after finding out that it was directed by Adam Wingard, who directed the terribly overrated You’re Next a few years back. Thankfully, The Guest is much, much, better.

Release Date: Sept. 17, 2014
Runtime: 99 minutes

Dan Stevens plays a solider named David who abruptly shows up at the family house of his friend, Caleb, who died in combat. He knew Caleb well (at least he says) and promised him that he would tell his family that he loved them. David fulfills his promise—and more.

What is great about the film is that it works on many levels, mainly as a keep-you-guessing thriller, as it poses the question: who is David really—and what’s his true purpose injecting himself into the Peterson family? Dan Stevens is great as David, all at once polite, warm, cold, and calculating, so much so that we’re never quite sure of his true motives. Is he truly who he claims to be—just a family friend, looking to relay a message? Or is he hiding something, a secret of some kind, and looking to use the family for something sinister? With all of the Halloween visuals, could it be something supernatural? The fun of the film is trying to figure it out since so many conclusions seem possible. Unfortunately, the reveal isn’t quite as interesting or creative as some of those that viewers will no doubt come up with in their minds.

The actors that make up the Petersons are also solid as well (though Sheila Kelley as the mother is a little distracting with her constant state of surprise) and Wingard manages to give us insights into their personalities with a few scenes. The always reliable Lance Reddick also has a role as someone who crosses paths with the family.

Though the majority of the film is a solid thriller, where it falls short is its fairly abrupt transition from tense and suspenseful to scenes of all-out action. Tonally, it doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of the film and cheapens the preceding scenes of well-crafted uncertainty and dread. The film’s cat-and-mouse climax also drags on for a little too long and runs the risk of being something out of a generic slasher film. The same goes for the techno music that plays throughout the film. It’s annoying at first, but works to the film’s advantage—heightening the sense of dread—when utilized in small doses. As for the ending, I would have preferred a real conclusion rather than one that’s open ended. There are some stories that benefit from having a little ambiguity, but this isn’t one of them. It’s frustrating rather than artsy.

In the end, The Guest is a solid, intriguing, and (for the most part) well-paced thriller. It keeps you guessing until the end and although the reveal of David’s background isn’t as satisfying as the buildup, it deserves credit for making the journey getting there so much fun.

8/10

The Maze Runner

The surprisingly suspenseful The Maze Runner breaks the mold of what audiences have come to expect from Young Adult adaptations

There’s something incredibly refreshing about going into a movie blind.

By that, I mean sitting down in the theater without knowing any details about the plot (aside from the basics) of the film you’re about to see and without having seen any trailers, TV spots, or other bits of revealing marketing which, in this media heavy and trailer-for-a-trailer age, can be a difficult thing to achieve. But somehow I made it happen for The Maze Runner. And I’m glad that I did.

I had seen the trailer back when it was first released, but enough time has passed so that I had pretty much forgotten about it. With theaters already inundated with Young Adult novel adaptations, I wasn’t interested in another and just assumed that The Maze Runner would be another one of them.

I was wrong.

For every YA adaptation that has failed to attract an audience, The Maze Runner should serve as a blueprint for what to do right.

The film revolves around a group of boys of various ages living inside a rural area called the Glade which, despite its pastoral name and imagery, is not as peaceful as it seems. The Glade is surrounded by stone walls hundreds of feet high and it becomes clear that the boys are prisoners there rather than willing residents. They don’t know how they got there or why, but despite this, they’ve managed to create their own little society (which will no doubt invite comparisons to Lord of the Flies).

But everything changes when Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) enters the Glade. Through his eyes, we learn that the stone walls beyond the Glade form a maze that contracts and expands every night, with a group of boys (called “Runners”) going out each morning to try to find an exit.

As Thomas arrives, he serves as the viewer’s entry into the film, asking all the questions that we’re wondering ourselves. What’s the purpose of the Maze? Who put them there? What’s on the outside? These questions are constantly at the forefront of the film and it’s the pursuit of their answers that makes it so edge-of-your-seat exciting.

Whether exploring the relationships of the characters or the mysteries of the Maze itself (which is both simple and visually impressive) as Thomas & Co. get closer to figuring out what’s really going on, the action and tension starts early and never lets up throughout its wonderfully paced near two hour runtime; and, in exploring the maze and the mysterious creatures that plague it (with an eerie combination of organic and mechanical sounds, they’re evocative of Lost’s smoke monster), and fleeting memories of the characters’ pasts, The Maze Runner is a master class in creating suspense not just for YA films but for films in general.

What’s especially impressive about the film is that—although viewers will notice a few hallmarks that reveal it as a YA movie (such as a focus on, well, young adults)—it never really feels like it’s meant for a younger audience by avoiding the pitfalls of YA adaptations: love triangles, cringe-worthy teenage dialogue (and its delivery), and overacting, to name a few.

There are some interesting characters in The Maze Runner so I wish they had been given the chance to develop more aside from the broad strokes (but it’s also tricky since the characters don’t remember anything about themselves). As a result, a little too much is left undeveloped character-wise. The same goes, to a point, for the film’s mysteries. With the film’s central hook—who put them in the maze and why?—front and center, it’s obvious that there’s going to be questions posed. However, too many are left unanswered (which, to a point, is understandable since the book series the film is based on is a quadrilogy), giving the viewer a lot to ponder until the next installment rather than resolving a few questions while leaving some smaller ones unanswered.

The Maze Runner will still be snubbed by those bored with the YA-heavy market, but with its non-stop suspense and excitement, it breaks the mold of what theater audiences have come to expect from YA films, showing that the genre is full of surprises for those willing to be surprised.

9/10

The Purge: Anarchy

By focusing on the outside world of Purge night, Anarchy is a definite improvement over its predecessor.

Any sequel with the same premise as its predecessor runs the risk of being a little tiresome. This, too, would be the case with the follow-up to last year’s surprise hit, The Purge—that is, if it weren’t so exciting.

This time around, in The Purge: Anarchy, the focus has shifted away from the home invasion set-up of the first film—and it’s a smart decision, too. Rather than being confined to one location, the stakes are automatically raised by allowing the characters to go out into the streets on Purge night. After all, who knows what kinds of lunatics are out and about on the night of the year when all crime is legal (think Halloween night but with machine guns and torches in place of costumes and trick-or-treat bags), looking to commit murder, exact revenge, or just cause mayhem?

Anarchy also expands on many of the concepts brought up in the original film, shining a spotlight on various demographics and class systems, critiquing both government, class, and offering an insight into human nature and the horrible things people will choose to do—for revenge, for love, for fun—if given the opportunity. Whereas the first film was heavy on promises and light on delivery of exploring these ideas, Anarchy really expands on the concept and morality brought up by the Purge itself; and, as a result of this and the film’s inclusion of a central mystery, the suspense never lets up.

Anarchy also uses its open-aired setting to introduce the film’s characters in an interesting way. The film spends some time with each of them (a mother and daughter, husband and wife, and a machine gun-toting stranger), almost in little Purge vignettes, before eventually bringing them all together. Like most horror-thriller hybrids, the characters are somewhat one-dimensional, but they’re given just enough motivation and sympathetic qualities that you want to see them make it through Purge night.

By overcoming the mistakes of its predecessor, The Purge: Anarchy has proven that there’s viable potential (and material) for a Purge franchise; and, with the plot threads seen in the film, it seems like we’ve barely scraped the surface of the suspense and story possibilities that Purge night has to offer.

8/10

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

In a summer of relatively disappointing films and box office numbers, apes, despite wiping out humanity, are proving to be a salvation to the box office (and prepositional phrases).

Whether a disinterest in theaters’ offerings of big-budget sequels and blockbusters, movie time spent instead on family events and vacations, or a combination of factors, it’s safe to assume that this summer’s box office totals will come in less than last year’s record-breaking amount.

Release Date: July 11, 2014
Runtime: 130 minutes

Regardless, moviegoers are flocking to theaters to see Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (which grossed a respectable $73 million during its opening weekend), raising the question: why such a large opening when other films (original ideas and sequels alike) have failed to reach that amount? The film’s gross seems to hint both at a built-in fan base and the quality of the film itself.

The sequel to 2011’s surprise hit Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Dawn picks up ten years later from the end of the film that saw apes beginning to assert their separation from (and authority over) humans. Humanity has slowly become wiped out due to the ALZ-113 virus and apes, in their absence, have thrived. They’ve set up their own community, caste system, rules and, most importantly, haven’t seen any humans for two years, signaling that they have become extinct. However, this changes when a group of humans shows up in the apes’ territory in the Muir Woods.

Like most sequels, Dawn features a return of old characters in addition to the introduction of new ones. Andy Serkis returns as Caesar, the leader of the ape population, and if he was good in Rise, he’s perfect in Dawn, conveying every emotion, every thought of Caesar with such nuance and clearly thought-out emotion that you don’t even miss the humans. Of course, you can’t have Caesar without special effects, and they are so impressive that I imagine they will go unappreciated by the average moviegoer. In the film, the apes aren’t CGI creations; thanks to motion-capture performances by actors such as Andy Serkis and Judy Greer, they’re real. There isn’t one scene, one second of footage, where the apes look like computer simulations. Never for a moment do the effects take the viewer out of the movie or its realness and this time around Serkis and Caesar get top billing in the credits (and rightfully so). It’s clearly their film, and Serkis’ work is both technically and emotionally impressive and gratifying. (He should be nominated for an Oscar, but won’t be due to the Academy snubbing motion-capture performances.)

Unfortunately, and to the film’s detriment, the same can’t be said for the human characters. Despite boasting a cast of Jason Clarke (Malcolm, an ape sympathizer who shares Caesar’s hope that man and ape can live peacefully together), Keri Russell (Ellie, a grieving parent), and Gary Oldman (Dreyfus, determined to restore the balance of society no matter the cost), we’re never given any particular reason—either in their traits, flaws, emotions, or desires—to care for them. Instead, they’re merely used to add conflict with the apes and to raise the question if apes and humans can peacefully co-exist (if you’ve seen the marketing for the film, with apes toting machine guns and riding horses through the flame-ridden streets of San Francisco, the answer is pretty obvious). But there are times when the film makes us think that it’s possible. And it’s with these scenes of interaction and genuine emotion between humans and apes that makes me wish that the film had focused more on this rather than its antsy-for-the-climax action sequences. The reason the action worked so well in Rise was a steady and tense build-up before the eventual payoff. However, here, although we know the general aspects of where the story intends to go, the specifics are slightly unclear—Is this the climax? we wonder, Or is this? The emotional journey of the apes is loud and clear, but the human one less so, making the climax, while visually exciting, a little less emotionally involving.

Despite its deficits with its human characters and an abrupt ending, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a solid film with Oscar-quality effects and performance by Andy Serkis. We already care about the apes and their journey (both emotional and physical). That’s something that both Rise and Dawn have done incredibly well. But if you’re going to create a movie where the entire human population is about to become extinct, give us a reason—whether we’re for or against them—to care.

8/10

Man of Steel

In a summer already filled with superhero sequels, prequels, reboots, and remakes, is there room for one more? Whether the casual viewer thinks so or not is irrelevant, because Zack Snyder’s Superman reimagining, Man of Steel, zoomed—faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive!—into theaters this summer.

The film revolves around Clark Kent’s (Henry Cavill) learning about—and later coming to terms with—his Kryptonian past before embracing it to become the Superman we all know. In other words, as Clark’s Earth father—played by Kevin Costner in an honestly genuine performance relays to his son—he’s not from here. The film cleverly gives us glimpses into Clark’s past via Lost-style flashbacks using events in Clark’s present to serve as a window back into his past.

Introduce Lois Lane, a feisty, independent news reporter who stumbles onto Clark’s secret. Will she expose Clark’s otherworldly nature? Or will she keep the knowledge—that an alien has inhabited Earth for 33 years—to herself? Adams is great in the role, portraying a Lois with surety, confidence, and a touch of wonderment but unfortunately, she’s not given much to do in the film. As we follow her throughout Metropolis, it seems as if Lois is basically there to remind viewers that: Hey! Look! Someone knows Clark’s secret, and… And what? That’s just it; we never feel anything in all the mayhem—in the way of worry, fear, or wonder—as to what Lois’s actions will be—and where they’ll lead.

Produced by Christopher Nolan, it’s difficult not to compare the film to Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy—a trilogy praised for its grounded take on a superhero origin story complete with its own moody cityscapes and brooding hero. And , for the most part, those hallmarks are definitely present in Man of Steel. It’s dark and brooding (and yet ever-realistic) nature continues throughout the film reminding the viewer that—even when Kryptonian ships descend from the sky to make contact with Earth—this is not your grandma’s feel-good superhero romp. Furthermore, not once do the “becoming Superman” portions of the film become boring or cheesy—they feel real, almost as if it would be perfectly acceptable to look outside and see a red caped-man flying around the sky while shooting laser beams from his eyes and defeating alien invaders.

Though the script isn’t as tight as it no-doubt could’ve been, for the most part, the cast is great to watch with no weak performances (aside from the occasional woody Cavill). Michael Shannon is especially brilliant as General Zod, a Kryptonian military leader hell-bent on destroying Superman. Shannon plays the roll with terrifying menace and makes it clear early on that Zod is not a guy you want to meet at night in a dark Smallville alley.

Regardless of its flaws, one thing that Man of Steel gets spot-on is its breathtakingly seamless visuals. Whether in the sci-fi spectacle of the destruction of Krypton or the collapsing of Smallville, the GCI is top notch, enough so that you don’t even think of GCI. Though for as much as the GCI helps the film, Man of Steel also falls too much into that all-familiar superhero-norm of too much of a good thing: lavish set pieces—buildings, city streets, alien space crafts—for the sole purpose of destruction. Unlike Christopher Nolan’s Gotham City, we never feel anything relating to loss or heartbreak when destruction falls upon Smallville. And because of such a crutch on the big destruction scenes, it’s difficult to tell just where the climax lies. The scenes surrounding it are a feast for the eyes, but you can’t help to wonder: wait, what’s happening now?

But in a world with too many half-hearted and rushed films attempting to bring in audiences (and, let’s face it, cash) to the theater, Man of Steel provides a film that overall succeeds in storytelling and impressive visuals; and though it no doubt had potential for more character development, the film earns its status as a summer blockbuster. Not every superhero film is going to be a Dark Knight, but as Man of Steel does, they can try. And if that’s the future of comic book movies (and superhero movies in general), then I’m okay with that.

8/10