Ad Astra: A Space Movie that Hates Space

As much as NASA, JPL and pretty much every Star Trek fan loves the idea of humanity diving head-long into distant space travel, colonizing planets and, perhaps, contacting some form of intelligent life, most people are more down-to-Earth (no pun intended) on the whole idea of traveling too far from a planet where, you know, we can actually breathe. This is not saying that space travel is necessarily a terrible idea or the concept of habitats on the Moon and Mars are horrible ideas that will doom us to never learn from our mistakes (because we'd just be putting our own species somewhere else to propagate and destroy a planet that didn't have life to begin with). Its the idea that many people who promote such practices are using the idea of Mars and other potentially colonization-ready planets as an excuse to avoid problems that the same intelligence and ambition could probably fix if they focused just a little bit more attention closer to home. Hence the concept of James Gray's Ad Astra, a movie that tries to yell this at you with all the eloquence of a sledgehammer to the face.

Okay, to be nice, Ad Astra isn't necessarily a bad movie from a strictly film perspective. It does try to stay a little bit on the side of science a la Interstellar and Brad Pitt, despite not really being in his comfort zone here, is still pretty well cast for a part that spends 40% or so zooming in on his face while he tries to argue philosophically with himself for a two hour movie (yes, he actually does this). And, yes, even the whole film's twist (what's the point of dedicating one's entire life to a noble cause if you wind up alone in the end because of that pursuit) is a rather sad yet hopeful turn from a genre usually about people floating through space and doing seemingly impossible things (he does some of that to). In all, a pretty interesting companion to Christopher Nolan's Interstellar with better character development and none of the nonsense about black holes and time travel. Plenty to love for the space nut in us all.

Unfortunately, mostly due to the movie being a much bigger “tell don't show” kind of movie, people coming here to see astronauts float through space and visit far away planets (or, in this case, the Moon and Mars) will be sadly disappointed at just how lackluster said locations are. The Moon and Mars bases are both bland, uninteresting way points for Roy (Pitt) and his journey further out of the solar system and many attempts to make the settings more interesting (Moon Pirates?) are either too ridiculous to acknowledge or too nihilistic (what country capable of putting a base on the Moon would actually need to harbor Space Pirates?) to be entertaining. So, you know, more like Interstellar.

As for watching it, good luck finding anything else out this weekend. I heard Rambo came out and, if you want to anger people who like to attribute movies to real-life violence, you could always go see a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran fight a drug cartel. Or, if you're one of the ten non-critic people on the planet that actually watches PBS, you could go see all the actors get stuffy about simplistic things on Downtown Abbey. Sorry but, with competition like this, Sad Spaceman seems to the most entertaining bet.

James Gray (The Lost City of Z) continues to make heady, mostly lackluster movies with Ad Astra, a too-smart-for-its-own-good, family drama in space that could serve as a running headshot for Brad Pitt. After discovering that his hero astronaut father might still be alive and releasing a space pulse from his last known location at Neptune, Roy McBride (Pitt) agrees to a mission through human space civilizations in an attempt to contact him all the while lamenting how his own ambitions about space travel have doomed his more Earthly relationship with his estranged wife. Big name actors (Donald Sutherland, Tommy Lee Jones) will pop in and out repeatedly, the extent of secrecy around Roy's mission will be so easily compromised it will be ridiculous and we will somehow be able to travel to Neptune within six months without the use of sub-light travel. It's too dark for sci-fi fans and too sci-fi for drama fans. Good luck with that.

My score: 5/10. Is it weird I was really wanting the sci-fi movie to end with the astronaut going home and reconciling with his wife? Is that even considered a climax in this kind of thing?

It Chapter 2: Just Couldn't Cut It

Since I've officially read Stephen King's mammoth opus to childhood It twice now – once in conjunction with The Stand (word of advice: don't ever do this) and the other time right before Chapter 1 released – I consider myself to have an at least fledgling understanding of the book and its various eccentricities. So, before you begin jumping to conclusions about how lackluster I might feel about the second half of a five hour movie, let it be known that the book is overly complicated, prone to leaps of illogical actions by the protagonists (The Ritual of C.H.U.D. MAKES NO SENSE) and might have the worst payoff for a 1100-page read that I can imagine (the fate of Tom Rogan still ticks me off). So, after saying this, is it really any surprise that Chapter 2 just couldn't pull off the magic of its predecessor?

Look, despite the problems I'm about to list off, Chapter 2 is still a pretty well-made movie with a few surprises even for me (because of the whole read-the-book-twice thing). The cinematography is still just as excellent as its prequel, the script flows well enough and the transition between horror and humor is sometimes so jarring that you have to think about the joke for a moment to realize just how funny it is in context to the scene. Throw in a phenomenal casting job lead by a returning Bill Skarsgard in a much more limited role and Bill Hader as the literal voice of the audience and the whole movie even manages to carry its surprises for its extended run time. It was a nearly 3 hour movie that didn't actually feel like it. Take that, Endgame!

Unfortunately, the writing tends to show its hand far too much, leading to scenes that felt like they would have been better utilized in Chapter 1 but the script writers didn't think about it until 2 years later. Its cute that Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor/Jay Ryan) builds a secret clubhouse and that it plays any significance in Chapter 2, but why wasn't it even mentioned in part 1? Also, why was Pennywise (Skarsgard) so anxious to bring the Losers back to Derry when they very nearly killed him last time? The whole point of the Losers losing their memories of Derry and finding unbelievable success in their adult lives was so they would have very little reason to risk their now-wonderful lives on a seemingly fool's errand to kill their worst nightmare. I'm aware its probably too much to ask for logic in a movie about a bunch of nearly forty-somethings returning to their childhood home to destroy a child-eating demon clown (or whatever Pennywise is), but it would have been nice if Part 2 could have stood alone like its predecessor and finished its fight on its own terms.

As for watching it, got anything else to watch this weekend? Let's be honest here: if you saw Chapter 1, you're totally going to watch Chapter 2 even if its for no other reason than to see how they try (and only sort of succeed) in tying off the massive loose ends. I've can honestly say I've seen worse movies starring a clown in a supporting role.

Andy Muschietti (Mama) continues to sow his horror roots with It Chapter 2, a decently-made, if maddeningly less interesting, attempt to follow up his most successful movie with a satisfying ending. When Pennywise returns from his 27 year slumber to once again feed on the children of Derry, Mike (Isaiah Mustafa) takes time out off his Old Spice commercials to call back friends that only he remembers in hopes of killing the creature once and for all. Along the way, Ritchie (Hader) will continue to say things the audience is feeling by occasionally even pointing out plotholes, Eddie (James Ransone) will have the most perfect job ever for a hypochondriac ever and the scriptwriters will frantically recall all the child actors because they will realize they forgot to shoot some random scene inherently important in the sequel. Don't feel bad, movie makers. Part 2 just isn't filmable in a satisfying way.

My score: 6/10. Sadly, Mike started using lady-scented body wash and no longer uses Old Spice to smell like the man your man can be. That's probably the reason Pennywise can smell his fear. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Roma: An Art Movie For Artists (And No One Else)

There's a subgenre in Hollywood. Beyond the endless parade of cash grab superhero, sci-fi, budget horror and romantic comedies, there is a movie genre known as the Art House Movie. There's nothing wrong with an AHM. Some are exceptionally well-made (Moonlight), with great thematic elements (The Florida Project) and even enable long-forgotten actors to finally nab whatever award-season gold that has been eluding them over their long, sometimes illustrious careers (Little Miss Sunshine). The genre is merely a different type of hook for the ever expanding fishing rod of Hollywood. Some movies (well...almost all of them) are built as disposable, loud reels of scattered humor and forgettable plot to pull in that big fish of monumental profits for the sake of paying for the shiny, fragile hook. Others (mostly the AHM stuff) are meant to nab the slightly less valuable (but totally more braggadocios) fish known as OSCAR. For Alfonso Cuaron's latest Roma, I sense gold plating over cheap tin in its future.

Okay, look, if you like movies as an art form (which means you are either a filmmaker, wannabe filmmaker or a critic), you will probably love Roma. It's beautifully shot, heartfelt, well-acted, nearly perfectly directed and, like pretty much every Cuaron movie ever made, guides its viewer, seemingly by hand, through the story it weaves while still making you feel like you might have missed some minute detail because you had to blink too many times at one point. Throw in newcomer Yalitza Aparicio as the put-upon Cleo and Marina de Tavira as a strong mother trying to allow a disintegrating marriage to fall apart gracefully and you have the beating heart that is the very theme of the entire story: Ordinary people with ordinary lives with real meaning behind all that ordinary. And I DARE you not to cry when that realization comes.

Unfortunately, like mentioned before, Roma is a piece of art strictly for art's sake, meaning that, outside of the ever shrinking circle of film majors and critics, the reasons for watching this becomes pretty non-existent when compared to the much less weighty fare that actually draws audiences this time of the year. This, plus the fact that it was pretty much made for an audience of perhaps ten to fifteen people (Cuaron, his immediate family and the housekeeper he dedicates it to) pushes it further behind the brick wall of of accessibility already erected due to the obvious language barriers (the movie is in both Spanish and Mixteco).

As for watching it, are you planning on following any of the post-Oscar buzz to the theater? Since the Oscars are (as of this writing) two hours away and counting and Roma is currently the hands-on favorite to not only win some of the big categories but win big for both the best (its a beautiful film) and worst (it feels like it was nominated more for the “woke” Hollywood nonsense than its obvious artistic value) of reasons, its probably a great time to watch it conveniently if you have the time (it IS a Netflix original, after all). Have you already reached that point where you would rather shove sharp objects into your eyes rather than give Hollywood the satisfaction of watching one of their heavily-awarded, artistically heavy movies? Well, due to the whole “It's on Netflix” thing previously mentioned, you can easily watch this without giving Hollywood any of your money and still enjoy this film for what it is. Its a good movie that you can watch and still stick it to Hollywood. What's not to like (other than the whole forced-to-read-subtitles thing)?

Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity) goes for what should be his third Oscar (but is actually only his second) with Roma, a love letter to the woman who raised him as a child growing up in Mexico City. When Cleo (Aparicio), a domestic servant who helps Antonio (Fernando Grediaga) and Sofia (de Tavira) care for their four children in the 1970s Mexico City district of Colonia Roma, discovers that she is pregnant, she finds her dilemma coinciding with the dissolution of Antonio and Sofia's marriage as well as the chaos of the still-ongoing Mexican Dirty War of the era. I'm not saying anymore. Go watch it yourself.

My score: 9/10. The fact that a person named Yalitza Aparicio is nominated for Best Actress this year seems to confirm my long-held belief that Oscar voters hate statue engravers and nominate hard to pronounce/spell names merely to torment said engravers into watching the ceremony to discover how bad their eventual headache will be. Freaking Hollywood sadists...

The Upside: Middle Ground

The truest slippery slope in all of film might just be the concept of the comedic drama (or dramatic comedy depending on how you look at it) and its constantly shifting allegiances between the two genres. If its too humorous, it becomes too funny to be taken seriously and devolves into just another forgettable comedy that fails to get its more serious aspects across to the audience. If its too serious, it fails to capture the ever coveted audience it needs to sustain any kind of run in theaters and, ultimately, gets relegated into the too-full-of-itself-to-enjoy type of movie most audiences not only avoid like the Measles vaccine in Clark County, Washington but will probably forget completely about anyway before they even manage to leave the theater. In the case of Neil Burger's newest stab at the genre with The Upside: well...they nailed the comedy enough, I guess.

Okay, to be nice for the sake of people who somehow keep Kevin Hart employed outside of stand-up, The Upside is a pretty fun movie with enough charm to nearly sustain its run time, some entertaining performances from the actors you would expect such work from (Nicole Kidman, Bryan Cranston) and even manages to surprise with its half-hearted take on a Hart-lead dramatic role. Throw in some surprisingly heartfelt direction by the guy guilty of starting the Divergent nonsense and some decent cinematography that feels just a little to high in the quality department for this type of movie and you tend to have something resembling a good time for about two thirds of the movie. Hey, two thirds can work sometimes!

Unfortunately, despite the mostly stellar acting involved, I was never truly invested enough in these characters to look past the very formulaic plot that tends to plague these kinds of productions. Is Dell (Hart) a former lowlife trying desperately to turn his life around but stuck in a nihilistic rut of being well-meaning but lazy? Check. Is Philip (Cranston) totally going to get a new lease on life in a shockingly fast way that seems to come out of nowhere and, when everything comes full circle, kind of feel rushed and unbelievable? Check. Will they have a big falling out over something that feels kind of pointless to the grand scheme of the movie and make their big “breakup” argument drag on just long enough to where the audience will start checking their phones? Check. Regardless of the fun characters, the movie never feels like more than a sum of its weakest parts and, when it comes time to shelf the likes of Kidman or Cranston, these flaws burn so brightly they blot out anything resembling the fun time you would expect from the comedy side of this kind of equation.

As for watching it, got anything better to do this weekend? Lego 2 (brilliantly subtitled “The Second One”) is out and likely to absorb most of the population with children and, while its still kind of stuck in its own slow buildup phase, Glass will likely take up anyone interested in weird, undefined movies about people staring seriously at stuff so...go for it if you want to see a movie most of the normal people will probably watch because its one of the few they can get into with minimal hassle? Hey, its not the choice I would make to waste two hours of my life again, but I'd be lying if I didn't say its fun parts (barely) outweighed its mediocre parts. Is that a win in any of your categories?

Neil Burger (The Illusionist) goes from making head trips and teen romance to making old guy buddy comedies with too much dramatic flair with The Upside. Desperate to remain out of prison and constantly trying to make things right by his estranged son and ex-girlfriend, Dell(Hart) lands a job as a medical auxiliary for Philip (Cranston), a billionaire quadriplegic widower whose biggest flaw is he made one big mistake the put him in a chair for the rest of his life. Where am I supposed to go with this? Ex-Con and Billionaire become friends for seemingly innocuous reasons that are covered up by some humor, both get on each other's nerves and somehow bond, both break up awkwardly because the movie was apparently becoming too entertaining and we needed to see some drama we didn't ask for and everything gets tied off with a neat little bow at the end that might as well have been attached to a package marked “Friendship Conquers All”. I've seen cornier.

My score: 7/10. Goodbye, Albert Finney. There are some fish not meant to be caught...

Bumblebee: An Actual Transformers “Film”

You've probably heard my constant rants about Michael Bay and his seeming inability to make anything resembling a movie when it comes to Transformers. There's the classic criticism (they're just a bunch of explosion reels), the more in-depth (the characters are more archetypes than actual characters) and, of course, the usual anti-Bay rants (he obviously hates making the movies and, therefore, tortures us with this garbage). Unfortunately, seemingly because of some weird obsession with keeping Bay happy, Paramount has, for over a decade, pandered to this no-talent hack and given us not one, but five of the worst movies ever burnt onto celluloid. Now, with Bay seemingly finally ready to relinquish his stranglehold on this franchise and let someone, anyone, give it a try, we are presented with Bumblebee, a film the franchise doesn't deserve but sorely needs.

Are you ready to be shocked, readers? I, a person who would rather jab wire hangers into his eyes than watch another Transformers movie (for the sake of a less painful experience), LOVED (you read that right) Bumblebee. The action was kinetic and interesting, the direction was heartfelt, Hailee Steinfeld played a female character who wasn't just brainless eye candy, the humor was actually funny rather than juvenile and, get this, when robots fight, you can actually TELL THEM APART. That's right! They no longer look like some gonzo nature show about the mating rituals of tin foil. Gone are the Red Bull-infused action shots, the seemingly testosterone-induced bouts of misplaced masculinity and the idiotic spinning camera always looking up at everything. Instead, we get a heartfelt love letter to what Transformers could be if the filmmakers can just back up a little and tell an actual story.

Unfortunately, while the movie finally gives us wonderful human characters with actual, you know, character arcs, the movie does stutter on occasion when it comes to some of the less developed amongst their ranks. Jorge Lendenborg's Memo was a a fun but underutilized character who seemed to be just above a complete throwaway near the end and, while I did like Charlie's (Steinfeld) family, they ultimately felt more like placeholders meant to bring her back to the real world when the adventure was finally over. Weirdly enough, I began looking forward to the giant robot fights by the end. Who knew?

As for watching it, do you rigorously defend the first five movies in this franchise as some kind of misunderstood genius? Watch this movie and feel really dumb about that opinion. Did you force your way through those previous movies surgically digging for any kind of diamond in the garbage that was that collective series' apparent forte? Consider this one your long-awaited award for all your suffering. Its a Transformers movie with a Win-win scenario! My brain hurts now.

Trevor Knight (Kubo and the Two Strings) takes his animation street cred and uses it to make the first Transformers film that could actually be called a film with Bumblebee, a heartfelt, charming, almost E.T.-like movie about giant robots and their predilections toward world saving/domination occasionally interrupted with giant, transforming robot fights. When mechanically gifted Charlie (Steinfeld) finds a totaled VW Beetle in a junkyard, she repairs it and discovers Bumblebee, an alien rebel fighter sent to Earth to establish a forward base for the Autobot resistance against the Decepticons. Other angry robots show up to wreck things, threads of friendship are woven and John Freaking Cena not only plays a real, honorable character but has the strongest character arc in the movie. Am I...becoming a Transformers fan?

My score: 9/10. Seriously, why hasn't the whole argument about trusting the Decepticons not come up until six movies in? They're called DECEPTICONS.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse: The Costume Fits Eventually

The thing I've noticed most about Sony Pictures, other than their inability to make anything (Ghostbusters) worth (Annie) watching beyond some form of fanboy hate-watching, is that they never quite seemed to understand the full extent of what they purchased from Marvel when they originally gained the rights to Spider-Man back in the early 2000s. Sure, they obviously gained the titular character, the ability to change his powers as they saw fit (the webbing thing) and his most iconic villains (Doctor Octopus, Rhino, Green Goblin), but they never seemed to understand just how much the Spider-Man comic book universe had expanded over its five decade-plus run. With Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse, they seem to have finally acknowledged how far the series can truly go and, shockingly, have made something worthwhile of the fandom they hope to entice.

On the scale of Spider-Man movies currently in existence, from the weirdo Japanese version where he slapped people (a LOT) to the multiple-trailers-in-a-movie-that-forgot-it-was-supposed-to-be-a-movie Amazing Spider-Man 2, Spiderverse ranks just below its Tobey MacGuire counterparts in terms of quality. It's a great introduction of non-comic fans to the newest Spider-Man, Miles Morales, finally introduces Spider-Gwen as more than just a Peter Parker potential love interest and manages to not only make these characters endearing but somehow make their repetitive origin stories feel original per character (they all pretty much became heroes the same way). Throw in the best soundtrack for a teen-oriented superhero movie since...ever and compliment it with a worthwhile story undoes all that nonsense from Amazing Spider-Man about being “chosen” and you even have a movie that tries to have fun with its own premise without those stupid halfhearted sequel promises common place among these kinds of movies. See, Sony? You CAN make a good Spider-Man movie without advertising your stupid franchising ambitions.

Unfortunately, while all of the hero characters are fun and at least well-drawn, the movie ultimately suffers from the seesaw problem of too many characters misbalanced by the movie not being necessarily long enough to accommodate all of them. As much fun as it was to watch Peter B. Parker (Jake Johnson), Gwen Stacey (Hailee Steinfeld) and Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) rely on their chemistry to make the plot work so well, the later introductions of Spider-Ham (John Mulaney), Peni Parker (Kimiko Glenn) and Spider-Man Noir (Nicolas Freaking Cage) felt rushed and forced the chaotic but fun plot into the realm of chaotic and confusing. You had me hooked, Sony! You didn't have to overthink it halfway through!

As for watching it, are you a Spider-Man fan? If so, you've probably already seen this and read most of the comics currently running on sale on Comixology and you should probably consider going outside for a little while. Have you never really been that interested in comic book heroes to begin with? Good luck with the late December offerings of the Oscar contenders no one really wants to see. Have fun with that choice.

Bob Perischetti and Rodney Rothman debut and help Peter Ramsey (Rise of the Guardians) finally make a good movie with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, a nearly encyclopedic review of everything Spider-Man that Sony has been sitting on while cranking out their Spider-Man-colored garbage on us for two decades. You know the story: Miles Morales (and everyone name Peter Parker, apparently) gets bitten by a radioactive spider and blah,blah,blah with great power comes great responsibility blah, blah, blah learns the importance of being a hero and blah,blah, blah meets a bunch of versions of himself from alternate universes and proceeds to give bad guys the worst day of their lives via Spider-Man group punches. That last part was a new one (and pretty awesome).

My score: 8/10. Dear Sony, please, considering that you kind of just fixed the character, don't lose your collective minds and try to pull a Superior Spider-Man arc on us. The world didn't deserve THAT trainwreck when Marvel pulled it on us.

Ralph Breaks The Internet: All the Fun of a Therapy Session

There's something to say about animated movies and their sequels. Barring VERY few exceptions (Finding Dory, Toy Story 3, Shrek 2), they've been underwhelming garbage (Shrek 3), forgettable toy commercials (Minions) and, even in the face of Pixar, pretentious cashgrabs (Cars 2). Now, with Disney ONCE AGAIN not realizing that leaving a good thing alone might be for the best, we have Ralph Breaks The Internet, which begs the eternal question no one ever seriously asks: How much therapy does Ralph really need?

Please, readers, heed my warning: if you have fond memories of Wreck-It Ralph, be they the strangely humorous take on videogames or the more serious view of a midlife crisis, this is not a movie you should ever see or even have a need to think about. Outside of a few well-placed gags (that were, incidentally, already shown in the trailers) and a few one-off references to the original, nothing here comes off as memorable or even worthwhile. Bland new characters, broken old characters, internet humor that never comes off as anything more than misplaced or poorly timed and an overarching narrative about how Ralph (John C. Reilly) still really, really needs some kind of videogame therapist (the character has some serious personality problems). Throw in a completely wasted cameo by Felix (Jack McBrayer) and Calhoun (Jane Lynch) and you even take out two of the more endearing aspects of the original movie. What happened, Disney?

Fortunately, while the casting is mostly for stunt purposes, it does, on occasion, shine through the muck that is its own screenplay. Casting the original voice actresses for their princess parts was both brilliant (they can still pull these characters off decades later) and subversive (it gives the actresses a chance to tear into their own iconic characters and their stupid tropes). And, while Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) was little more than a humorous placeholder in the original (she represented Ralph's desire for acceptance and his willingness to gain it), the internet version at least carries the weight of an interesting character going through her own existential crisis for once. See? Ralph isn't the only one feeling the ravages of time (I think that's a good thing).

As for watching it, don't. Go see the original, feel yourself tear up a little near the end when he comes to that realization about what's important to him and just pretend that's where it ended. Don't bother with this garbage, don't lose your respect for the hurdles the character or those he considered his friends went through (Fix-It Felix's original subplot might be one of the best in any animated movie ever) and just pretend Disney thought this whole corny idea up AFTER a script had been made instead of it being forced on whatever potentially talented screenwriters ended up with the unenviable task of making a sequel to a movie that never asked for it.

Rich Moore and Phil Johnson try to capitalize on their original success with Wreck-It Ralph by ruining the character as a whole with Ralph Breaks The Internet, a mostly humorless, shallow effort that takes a movie about a man accepting the needs of others over his own pursuit of happiness and just re-breaks the character and exacerbates his insecurities. When Sugar Rush is accidentally broken by an arcade patron, Ralph (Reilly) and Vanellope (Silverman) must venture into the megalopolis that is the internet to find a replacement part to save her game. Along the way, characters as shallow as Buzzfeed appear for the sake of “cool” effect, Vanellope goes through her own existential crisis in the form of an always-online racing game and Ralph just breaks under the pressure of his own selfishness (again). I've seen bad sequels that make me only want to ever remember the original. I've never seen one that makes me dislike the original for unforeseeable reasons.

My score: 3/10. Seriously, Disney, get Ralph a therapist! This AA stuff obviously isn't working and he's an emotional minefield of misplaced attachment and egotism.