A Quiet Place: Deafening Dread

If my review of Hush is any indication, I love movies that know how to get sound (or lack thereof) right. When this is done properly, particularly in the thriller/horror genre, it lends itself to a sense of dread far and beyond what any typical slasher movie can offer. When this sound perfects silence, however, we the audience become just as much a victim as those we root for to survive. It instills in its audience both a sense of foreboding (knowing that something bad will happen) tempered only by the false flags and red herrings that come with the territory (we all jump at innocuous sounds that are harmless in anticipation of the truly bad things to come). With John Krasinski's major debut film A Quiet Place, this aspect as been honed to near perfection.

Yes, readers, A Quiet Place is awesome simply by exceeding your expectations of a horror movie. The limited script and sound design cast a shadow of dread over ever frame, the peaceful setting and ambient noises make every sudden loud noise shock and terrify for what it may bring, Millicent Simmonds is both brilliant and endearing without uttering a word and, mostly due to the film's almost religious dedication to the power of silence, even its quiet moments do little outside of making you wonder what will happen next. It does horror without seeming to try and it does so to a near perfect balance. How did a modern, big budget horror move pull something like this off?

Unfortunately, much like Hush before it and due to the previously mentions terror-filled silence, most of the actual scares here equate to either jump scares (compounded by the audience's anticipations) and the traditional you're-looking-in-the-wrong-direction-BOO misdirection common among movies of the Insidious or Conjuring brand of horror. While this isn't bad at first, it begins to become rather predictable as the movie nears its conclusion and, as a result, tends to deaden viewers to what was certainly a twist Krasinski was hoping for when he direct the climax. This, mixed with the common post-apocalyptic trope of not really explaining what the monsters are or exactly how they destroyed the world in a few short years, tends to cause unanswered questions that linger long after the closing credits. If your big takeaway from a post-apocalyptic horror movie is “How did it come to this?”, you probably lazed around the script writing process.

As for watching it, can you sit quietly in a theater for ninety minutes? If so, go for this and enjoy not only a pretty awesome movie but the fact that your sitting in a theater with many people unable to do that, making the movie scarier based just on the jumpier audience member's reactions (which are sometimes more fun than the movie's more boring filler parts). Do you tend to fidget when a movie's becomes uncomfortable? Good luck being the center of attention when those around you scream because you accidentally shook a cup of ice in a dead silent theater (which is also pretty hilarious). It's a horror movie win-win! How often does that happen?

John Krasinski (he's that guy everybody likes from The Office) makes a stellar major studio debut with A Quiet Place, a dread-filled, white knuckle ride with a frustrating, yet simple to follow, premise. After the humanity has been wiped out by indestructible, alien-like creatures who hunt by sound (the movie never explains exactly what they are), the Abbott family tries to survive by living in complete silence on a isolated farm in the woods. Minimal sign language will be learned, you'll constantly be staring at the corners of the screen for potential jump scares, Emily Blunt will sell her weary and protective mother role for every ounce of emotion she can squeeze out of her face and you will probably spend the majority of the movie telling yourself how tough you must be for not jumping at that last jump scare when HERE'S THE REAL THREAT! BOO!

My score: 8/10. I know I'm supposed to be sad and mournful when [spoiler removed] dies for making too much noise, but I just couldn't bring myself to cry for someone who died so stupidly. Much like the case of teenagers and Tide Pods: Don't weep for the stupid or you'll be crying all week.

Ready Player One: A Nerd's Fever Dream

There's something to be said about entertainment and its evolution since the late 70s. This, despite what you might be told by the bygone era, has been a time of strange upheaval in Hollywood. Gone are the days of thinking science fiction is for the geeks of our species or that high-minded concepts should be consigned strictly to the drama genre. And, while its more recent missteps have become more glaring due to the art of cribbing previous, better directors' styles, it still remains a not only lucrative but pro-intelligence branch of cinema. How do authors respond to this phenomenon? Write a book with as much pop culture that you can cram into a few hundred pages, add a few future world fears to the mix, and just roll with your own personal geek love. Shockingly, this works for Ready Player One in ways I didn't think possible.

Before I begin talking about how awesome this movie actually is, please know that, if you are a fan of Ernest Cline's novel, chances are the plot progression won't be something you are fond of. Gone are the random arcade cabinet encounters, the more adult-oriented themes, the more-than-a-little obscure movie and videogame references and, of course, the actual set up to the big multi-billion dollar contest that takes up the bulk of the novel. Most of these things have been streamlined down to near oblivion not only for the purpose of editing (the movie is still 2 and a half hours long) and for accessibility (no more corporate murder), but also for the sake of character arcs that the book sorely missed (the main bad guy actually has a personality this time).

Fortunately, if you can ignore some of your fanboy-induced hysteria from the book and just embrace the insanity that is the movie, you will find what can best be described as a nerd's beautiful fever dream. This is a movie designed not for the masses but for the poor kid living in front of his Atari 2600 in his 1980s attic and having weird, dancing E.T.s floating around in his dreams. The characters mostly match up and manage to remain endearing, the challenges of the contest, though dumbed down, are still entertaining and the final battle is just as brilliant and weird as you would expect for something involving the Iron Giant taking on Mecha-Godzilla to a Twisted Sister song (yes, that actually happens here). Is young Spielberg somehow back?

As for watching it, yes, do that. Despite being a fan of the book, even I am hard-pressed to find flaws in the edited down film version. Sure, you miss out on unnecessary sequences where the main characters play arcade cabinets for sparkly keys and weird riddles, but, in its place, you get to see what would happen if you took a virtual vacation into Stephen King's The Shining with no previous knowledge of the plot (it might be the funniest scene of the year so far). Feeling like your not ready for the kind of commitment to 80s culture this film shovels? Good luck watching Black Panther for the tenth time.

Stephen Spielberg (every good 80s movie ever) basically reclaims his position as a nerd director with Ready Player One, a colorful, bonkers, funny look at what would happen if the people of the future became obsessed with the 1980s all over again. As the world dies from overpopulation and inflation of currencies, its people escape into the online world of Oasis, an MMO-style online universe whose economy is the strongest in the world. When its progressive-minded existence (everyone is welcome) is threatened by an evil telecommunications company, Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) and his friends seek out a mysterious Easter Egg hidden within the world in order to gain control of Oasis for its players. Yeah, its really weird, but its a good weird.

My score: 8/10.

A Wrinkle in Time: Progressive Blackmail

There's a term used to describe the act of exploiting people and their emotional state for monetary gain known as Emotional Blackmail. In movies, this term refers to the act of using guilt on an audience to cover up a movie's myriad flaws by focusing instead on some offhand social climate issue like sexism (Ghostbusters), racisim (Black Panther) or news-related trauma (Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close) to cover up the fact that the movie not only has very little to say but also isn't very good and, if you happen to point that out, you will likely be labeled as sexist, racist or one of the many other “ists” because you have the nerve to call a bad movie bad. The good news: it seems Ava DuVernay's well-intentioned Wrinkle In Time may be the first movie completely immune to this treatment. We're finally becoming intelligent human beings again!

In case you haven't caught my meaning, A Wrinkle In Time is nothing short of a disaster in filmmaking. The plot is thin even for a ninety minute movie, the acting is stiff and boring, the direction is exactly what you would expect of DuVernay (limited direction with some hints of decent filmmaking ability) and the whole thing resides under an umbrella that reeks of progressive proselytizing. It's not so much that you SHOULD be liking the movie so much as you should feel bad for disliking it. Thanks, Hollywood, my lack of guilt was starting to give me confidence in life.

As for good...you could probably have a nice nap in the big, quiet theater? In all honesty, I fought sleep less than forty minutes into this movie and, outside of a gonzo cameo by Zach Galifianakus, nothing really came off as memorable so much as heavy-handed. Outside of leaving the theater wanting to punch ANYONE in the face for calling someone by two first names (talking to you, Charles Wallace!), this might be a movie best left to the annals of film history as a well-intentioned effort that falls flat because the talent involved was more interested in things like symbolism and meaning rather than entertaining the people whose money they hope to take for it. So, yeah, bring a nice pillow.

As for watching it, Thoroughbreds is out and, while its a very acquired taste, its far and away better than this fluffy tripe. Afraid your fellow Oprah fans will never let you live it down if you don't waste your time and money suffering through this garbage? Time to find new friends! Have fun with that choice!

Ava DuVernay (Selma) proves once again she just doesn't have the talent to make a fun movie without the innate obsession of making it “important” with A Wrinkle In Time, a heavy-handed, heavily-processed guilt trip about how we should respect everyone regardless of color or creed that should have been about a bunch of kids fighting shadow aliens with the power of happy thoughts (okay, the book is kind of weird too). Several years after the disappearance of their father, siblings Meg (Storm Reid) and Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) recruit boy-next-door Calvin (Levi Miller) to go on what can best be described as an LSD-fueled trip through a kaleidoscope with the help of three oddly-named women/goddesses (Oprah, Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kaling) to save their father (Chris Pine) form the IT, a darkness-feeding evil entity that floats through space and spreads unhappy thoughts. Alcohol required.

My score: 2/10. Apparently, since Wrinkle has officially tanked and cost Disney upwards of $100 million, DC has decided to get in on this action by offering DuVernay the director duties for Old Gods. Is DuVernay the new Hollywood tax write-off or something? 

Thoroughbreds: When Beautiful People Get Ugly

There's a lot that can go wrong when you try to portray nihilism (the belief, in feeling or otherwise, in nothing) on film. In some cases, it transforms into a simple case of a sociopath trying to manipulate those with too much empathy (TV's Hannibal). In others, its played for a few forced laughs for the sake of a bad stoner comedy (The Big Lebowski). Or, in the case of Corey Finley's debut thriller Thoroughbreds, it plays with the trope of a buddy comedy before asking the ultimate uncomfortable question: what happens when a nihilist meets her soul mate in the form of a ticking time bomb?

Let me explain something to everyone who might have seen the trailer and developed some premature ideas about the plot: this movie isn't for everyone. The humor is hit or miss, Anton Yelchin (in his final role) is kind of pointless and has little of substance to do here, the actual motives behind what Amanda (Olivia Cooke) and Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy) are trying to do border more on preservation of a beneficial status quo than anything resembling nobility and, in all honesty, if you're here to see two teenage girls commit a horrendous and violent act, know that anything with actual violence happens off-screen. This is an indie thriller at heart, preferring to let the audience use their imaginations when it comes to actual heinous acts being committed.

Still with me? Good. The movie, despite being “different” in every sense of the word, is also freaking awesome if you have the stomach for what it implies. Cooke is both terrifying and disarming as a teenage girl with sociopathic tendencies and weird proclivities about what she might have done to a horse. Taylor-Joy is unsettling as a spoiled princess whose world of privilege and freedom is crumbling under the weight of her pompous stepfather (Paul Sparks) whose only real sin is the ability to call her on her own selfishness. Throw in some great cinematography and a complimentary score that coats the luxurious setting in a small film of uncomfortable sleaze and you have a dark comedy/thriller with a twist of the ages. It wants you to look away despite not having much to actually show you.

As for watching it, have any long distance travel plans this weekend? Being decidedly of the indie category and suffering both from a.) a first-time director and b.) being the last film of a dead (and only vaguely recognized) actor hurts this movie in the long run and, also due to the behemoth that is Disney, you're more likely to find twelve showings of A Wrinkle in Time (which is awful by the way) before you find this one on a single screen. Feeling dedicated regardless because you don't want to sit through a terrible movie that will only be remembered for its obnoxiously progressive message? Seek this one out if you dare! It's totally worth it.

Corey Finley shows off his directorial debut with Thoroughbreds, a vaguely Hitchcockian take on Heathers where murder is in the air and its only a matter of time before all the pent up rage comes to a bloody head. Recently released from psychiatric treatment following a horse murder (seriously), nihilist Amanda (Cooke) reconnects with her former best friend Lily (Taylor-Joy) and, realizing that Lily is slowing unraveling while under the thumb of her overly demanding stepfather, offers to help kill him. Caught in the web is Tim (Yelchin), a drug peddler and wannabe kingpin whose ambition far outweighs his talents and is inadvertently blackmailed into the plot out of fear of a potential third strike. When the plan becomes unraveled, Lily is forced into desperate measures to ensure her own continued lifestyle. Basically, a spoiled, rich girl doesn't get what she wants and really bad things happen. I promise you'll never hear a rowing machine the same way again.

My score: 7/10. Honestly, why did Disney think it would be a good idea to take A Wrinkle in Time, an at-best forgettable book, and turn it into a movie that no fan would have asked for. And why did they put Ava DuVernay, a terrible director balanced by a somewhat decent filmmaker, in the director's chair? Isn't that a mixture destined for failure?

Annihilation: Cool Premise; Awful Execution

The thing about high-minded science fiction, other than the fact that it tends to lose its way through too much science and not enough fiction, is that most movies that qualify for that particular subgenre tend to feel like the script was written long before the ending was even considered. When this happens, such movies tend to feel like well-acted (Contact), well-scripted (The Arrival) set ups for endings that, because of the overly high expectations placed upon them by their unique plots, never ever live up to what audiences will expect from the movie. Oh, hey, Annihilation! Ready to join the club?

Let it be known that, despite what I'm about to say about this particular movie, it never quite qualifies as awful even after it hits the two hour mark, runs into the more-bit-off-than-chewable conundrum or when it finally tries to say anything of meaning but merely falls flat due to all the dangling threads it leaves behind. The acting ranges from good to great, the premise (wonky alien thing engulfing large amounts of land and...turning them) is cool and well scripted and it even tries to balance its dramatic elements with a visually stunning setting and booming score. If this hadn't been a sci-fi movie that promised answers to its many bonkers scenarios, this would have been a fun, if high-minded, sci-fi attempt in the vein of Bladerunner or Ghost in the Shell.

Unfortunately, despite first act efforts that seem to be to the contrary, Annihilation ultimately becomes just another bland, too-smart-for-its-own-good sci-fi movie. The characters start charming but eventually turn into every science officer in every bad sci-fi movie ever (they try to feed you science instead of fun-sounding nonsense), the actual plot is heavy-handed and lacks basic needs for this kind of movie (it isn't fun to watch because it spends too much time trying to educate) and that previously mentioned sound design tends to get thrown out in the third act for what can best be described as “let's deafen the audience so they don't notice we have nothing worthwhile to say”. There are flutters of The Martian attempted here (serious talk tempered by some levity), but it's shallow and never tries to deviate from its source material enough to make anyone care.

As for watching it, Black Panther is still in its wonky coronation phase so, if you haven't seen it yet, this is probably your chance before the regret of being swallowed up by all the misplaced hype so, you know, go see that one instead. Otherwise, Every Day is out if you want to watch a pretty fantastic young actress (Angourie Rice) act her age for once (that's not actually a good thing come to think about it) or you could, like me, just watch the entire Mythica movie series on Amazon (don't do that either). So... Black Panther again?

Alex Garland (Ex Machina) follows up a pretty intelligent, entertaining sci-fi movie with a pretty intelligent sci-fi movie that doesn't quite know how to entertain with Annihilation, a well-acted, abysmally-paced, well-shot piece of cinematic sci-fi that exists solely to be swallowed up by the bigger, better-advertised movie currently in the next theater. When her long-missing husband (Oscar Isaac) suddenly appears on her doorstep with life-threatening, scientifically impossible symptoms, Biologist Lena (Natalie Portman) joins a military expedition into Area X, a region of Florida hit by a meteor exhibiting odd biological behavior, in a desperate attempt to save his life. Wildlife will look both horrifying and awesome, the characters won't be around long enough for you to care about them, and you'll likely leave the theater with that weird, unsatisfied taste in your mouth that, if you're really unlucky, will compel you try to read the book series which will loop back around to making the author think people actually care about his books which will make him want to make more movies in an endless idiot loop for the rest of record-able history. Or you could just put a stop to it now and AVOID IT.

My score: 4/10. On second thought, watching the Mythica fantasy series (a five movie series funded by Kickstarter) wasn't so bad. It's basically a bunch of SyFy channel quality movies with meh acting and occasionally funny dialogue. Also, it has Kevin Sorbo in, like, four of them. I think that last one is a win...

Downsizing: All Self-Righteous; No Self-Reflection

While I don't personally hate most individuals on this planet, I'm not ashamed to say I hate a certain group of people with a fiery vengeance. Said group are morons who try to act self righteous without realizing that, despite their openly spoken intention, are mostly doing the “right” thing because it benefits them in some purely selfish way. For an easy example, merely check out the line at your local Apple store to find said people retweeting celebrity speeches they find via their iPhone 9 while they are waiting in line for the iPhone X. They seek to be above the herd of unwashed masses; never realizing that their actions merely lump them into another group of people whose members are referred to by those said unwashed masses at “some idiot”. Now, with Downsizing trying once again to act progressive and make Matt Damon relevant, they've managed to merely make him some asshole.

Downsizing, despite its weird theme, is little more than an exercise in narcissism by its makers. The characters range from bland and forgettable to blatantly obtuse, the message (save the world by mostly taking yourself out of it) sells itself by promoting selfishness more than anything, and Damon's character is so one-dimensional I openly started referring to him as “some asshole” by the end of this long-in-tooth, short-in-brains wannabe sci-fi movie that acts like 90% of the doomsayers currently clogging up every news feed on the planet: they aren't doing it because they want to save the world so much as they want to feel good about being told they are right. The result is a hollow experience that will likely be remembered more for your frequent checking of your phone rather than anything that ever happens on screen.

Fortunately, like most bad movies he's in, Christoph Waltz seems to exist purely to save movies like this and does so with all the flare and charm you would expect of him. Backed up phenomenally by Udo Kier as his equally nihilistic brother and complemented by a memorable turn by Hong Chau as his housekeeper, these three characters serve as the sole saving grace of an otherwise forgettable, preachy movie. No act of “environmental consciousness” escapes their wrath. No pseudo-hero complex survives without their innate ability to turn a buck by separating the self-righteous tools of the miniverse from their inflated money. This movie should have been about them!

As for watching it, got anything better to do this weekend? Black Panther comes out in a few weeks so...you know, wait for it or something. Have too many hours in an afternoon to kill? This might make a good substitute for a nap if you can find comfortable enough seats. Otherwise, avoid at all costs.

Alexander Payne (The Descendents) continues to make preachy, nonsensical movies for himself instead of mass consumption borne out of some crippling fear of money and success with Downsizing. When WASP Paul (Damon) decides to do his part for the environment and shrink himself to an eight centimeter man (it makes slightly more sense in context), he finds that the world is just as selfish and shallow in Tiny Town as it is in the actual world, forcing him to take a long, hard look at his own motivations and, upon seeing the error of his idiotic ways, continue to make the same mistake because he's more comfortable being some idiot that being someone who actually ACCOMPLISHES SOMETHING. Christoph Watlz will say hilarious things, Hong Chau will have the best pillow talk conversation EVER and you'll spend most of this two-and-a-half-hour snoozefest wondering what mistake you made in life to deserve the punishment of sitting through this tripe. Quality time...

My score: 2/10. Seriously, Hollywood. Is January your new September or something? I get you have awards season stuff to think about, but its not like those outcomes haven't already been decided months ago. Can't you just leave your awards darlings alone and try to feed the poor movie-going public something that they can file under “didn't make me want to eat my own brain”?

The Shape of Water: A Love Story Multiplied By Ick Factor

The thing most people probably need to remember about Guillermo del Toro is that the man might be the greatest monster movie creator of his generation. No subject is too weird, no concept too taboo. The man just seems to despise things that would be considered normal by society and finds a way to both twist them into monstrosities of cinematic creepiness and imbue them with the soul necessary to make any audience sympathize with these grotesque characters and whatever weird plight they happen to be going through. He does this by having the talent to ask the questions no sane audience member or other filmmaker has EVER had the urge to ask first. In the case of The Shape of Water: what if the lady being kidnapped by the Creature from the Black Lagoon...was just some kind of weird bestial foreplay?

Yes, like most del Toro movies, Shape is awesome. The dark aesthetic of a 1960s America in the height of Cold War hysteria lends the film a paranoid overtone, Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones are brilliant without ever uttering a word, Octavia Spencer and Richard Jenkins are fun as outcasts living their own versions of a broken American dream and the actual wonky concept (What if a girl could fall in love with a fishman?) is sold for ever amount of discomfort it can muster. This isn't your grandparent's kind of monster movie. This is a creature feature told through the eyes of a fishman whose only question winds up being “Why am I surrounded by so many monsters?” It rips us for our pettiness and makes us the monsters. How mind-blowing is that?

Unfortunately, while Hawkins and Jones work mostly due to their excellent pantomime skills and a lot of work was done to hammer home the big message of accepting differences, Michael Shannon's government stooge uber-patriot ultimately feels like a miscast in an otherwise stellar group of actors. I won't criticize Shannon for taking work when its offered, but creating a by-the-book character who's personal beliefs drive him off the rails just doesn't feel like something the man is able to handle here. Shannon is fun as a philosophical psychopath. A person who destroys for his own inward obsessions and unshakable beliefs in his own concepts of good and evil and, ultimately, this character just doesn't play to those strengths. Seriously, how did they make Michael Shannon bad at something?

As for watching it, go for it. I'd be lying if I said the concept (a love story with fish) isn't wildly off-putting or how they convey that message (it involves flooding a bathroom) isn't uncomfortable to watch play out, but this is still del Toro at his best: a fairy tale that plays like a nightmare but still wants the fair tale ending. If anything, it just proves once again that the man has a vision that only he will ever be able to bring to fruition (not sure if that's a compliment or a blessing).

Guillermo del Toro (Pacific Rim) proves once again that no one makes weird Cthulu monster movies quite like he does with The Shape of Water, a beautifully filmed, pleasantly awkward, fish-out-of-water (literally) love story that no one could have seen coming. While working her night shift as a cleaning woman at a government-funded aquatic research lab, mute outcast Elisa (Hawkins) enounters Amphibian Man (Jones), a captured fish-man hybrid who is being held for medical experimentation by a ruthless government stooge (Shannon) for the sake of further study into atmosphere testing for the still young space program. When she finds out they plan to euthanize and dissect the creature, she absolves to free him back into the ocean and...love ensues? Seriously, this is the weirdest romance ever. Don't question how its possible. Don't wonder what she's thinking. Just go see it for yourself.

My score: 8/10. I will never look at aquariums the same way again. Thanks, Guillermo del Toro?