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?

Thor: Ragnarok: Weird Avenger

Through the entirety of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, its main players have managed to not only fulfill their individual role but also stick completely to them (Iron Man is the smart one, Captain America is the wet blanket). While this helps viewers relate to these characters by humanizing them, the one Avenger that never quite manages this humanity is the most obvious: Thor the Thunder God. While the rest of the universe tries to maintain some semblance of varied reality, Thor is more a super powered version of Flash Gordon (insane plotlines, goofy villains, unintentionally hilarious dialogue). Apparently realizing this wonky 70s vibe of the series, director Taika Waititi (that name's just fun to write) has decided to just take the whole concept, crank the crazy up as far as possible and roll with it. The result: the best Thor movie currently on the market.

Yes, Thor: Ragnarok, despite being the third entry in what is considered to be the least interesting Avenger movies, is awesome. The plot is ridiculously fun, the improvisational script is hilarious and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) continues to be both the most relateable villain (he just wants what he thinks is his) and, perhaps, the greatest anti-hero Marvel has yet to offer (he's still capable of good deeds even if they do not benefit him). Throw in a continuing-to-improve Chris Hemsworth as a more relateable Thor (he's funny because of the fish-out-of-water aspect) and the previously mentioned wonky 70s aesthetic that complements the Thor mythos so well and you have what the Thor movies should have been from the beginning: a quirky, almost-joking story about a thunder god who fights evil with a hilariously tiny hammer and his awesome hair. Hey, stupid fun is still fun in my book.

Unfortunately, despite the mostly stellar cast, the movie ultimately suffers from having too many stars at the top. Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and Doctor Stranger (Benedict Cumberbatch) are both criminally underused in this entry and, probably because it runs north of two hours, the movie tends to drag around segments not tightly related to the actual plot (the Hulk Arena bit is overlong and outstays its welcome). Throw in a rather jarring transition mechanic that leaves too many dangling threads (your invested in a sequence that abruptly stops for something less interesting) and you have a movie that mostly nails it but can't seem to stick the landing where it counts. You're already awesome, movie! You don't have to drag yourself down for the sake of the boring side plots.

As for watching it, got anything better to do? While Ragnarok remains in my mind as the best of the Thor trilogy, it will likely benefit this weekend from a complete lack of competition. Do you love the Avengers movies and follow them religiously? You've seen this one at least three more times than I have. Do you hate superhero movies in general? Chances are nothing I say will convince you and this isn't the movie for that. Do you like the weird 70s and 80s sci-fi (Flash Gordon, Tron)? This is a loving homage to that era and that's the best compliment I can give it.

Taika Waititi (What We Do In The Shadows) expands upon his Team Thor web shorts with Thor: Ragnarok, a colorful, mostly great look at what would happen if Thor got trapped in a Pink Floyd album and just rolled with it. What do I say without spoiling anything? Thor (Hemsworth) gets into a pickle involving his sister and death goddess Hela (Cate Blanchett) and must find a way to save his people. Along the way, Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) will smash things, Loki (Hiddleston) will have humorous flashbacks from the first Avengers movie and you won't be able to get Led Zeppelin's “Immigrant Song” out of your head for the foreseeable future. Thank you, Marvel?

My score: 8/10. Is it weird that this movie makes me kind of nostalgic for the 1984 sci-fi movie The Dungeonmaster? Probably weird...

Stranger Things Season 2: More like Season 1.5 (in a good way)

Due to the fact that most current horror movies treading around movie theaters are either some version of a shameless retread (Jigsaw), a shameless cash grab sequel (Insidious 4), a shameless attempt to show off non-existent talent in a failed attempt at relevancy (Tyler Perry's Boo 2!) or a pretty awesome comedy that totally tricks you into believing its just another run-of-the-mill horror flick (Happy Death Day), how about I just review a TV show for a change? Sound good? Good! Here's Stranger Things Season 2.

The thing most critics, and, as a byproduct, most viewers, of the Netflix original series Stranger Things seemed to like about its first season was usually built more around what it wasn't (an E.T./Stephen King hybrid) than what it actually was (a confidence-free, bygone-era sci-fi series that ran too short and had little real need to exist in the first place). Regardless of the quality that Season 1 actually displayed, most people tended to roll over themselves either praising a poorly written throwaway character (Shannon Purser's Barbara) or not realizing that no one in the Byers Clan (Wynona Ryder, Noah Schapp, Charlie Heaton) was actually that interesting. And, while the the season was able to salvage itself in the final two episodes with some downright amazing production value (The Bathtub might be one of the best hours of television in Netflix's history), the season ultimately struggled with anything resembling a cohesive narrative, instead being forced into a lousy cliffhanger ending and a tacked on “Coming Soon” moment that felt pandering at best. The Duffer Brothers' (the creators) response? Make a second season and ANSWER THE STUPID QUESTIONS. The result? What season 1 should've been: an awesome E.T./Stephen King hybrid that focuses on its talented young cast and its own mythology. Why did it take a year to figure THAT out?

Yes, readers, Strangers Things 2 is the awesome we were promised that finally delivers in the amazing way we should have expected. The new additions to the cast (Sean Astin, Paul Reiser) are fun and show unexpected depth, new group member Max (Sadie Sink) is both a welcome female foil to the boys club she joins while displaying enough vulnerability to make you care about her and Eleven (Millie Bobby Brown) is just as awesome as you would expect a telekinetic middleschooler to be. Throw in a competent narrative that finally tries to give the audience nuggets of information about its own universe (The Upside Down actually makes a little more sense now) and you have the easiest reason to argue with Netflix about extending their episode allotment. Its like the entire season was dedicated to answering its own stupid questions. That's meta.

Unfortunately, much like season 1, the short episode run (9 this time) tends to feel cramped with the amount of information they are trying to feed us and, as a result, certain plot threads feel like filler segments meant to draw something out that didn't need to be explored in the first place. Eleven's weird journey to Chicago to find her adoptive sister (Linnea Berthelsen) felt like little more than a training montage that expanded over an entire 50 minute episode before being completely abandoned for the sake of the main plot and Sheriff Hopper's (David Harbour) two-episode adventure into the Upside Down was both underwhelming and forgettable. Maybe these were just arcs meant to be explored in later seasons and I'm just being nitpicky, but it felt like the writers were trying too hard here. You managed to impress me in 9 episodes, guys. You don't have to trip over your own legs trying to take a victory lap.

As for watching it, yeah, go for it. Considering the lackluster catalog currently running through Netflix (Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, 13 Reasons Why) that seem to be absorbing resources from much better productions (The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt), this feels like a breath of fresh air in terms of creators understanding what paying customers actually want to see. Go for the pretty outstanding young cast, stay for the gonzo plot lines and Cthulu monsters. What else would you need for the Stephen King fan in you?

The Duffer Brothers (I'm not naming them because that's literally how they name themselves) finally, mercifully find their footing in a series that has more popularity than value with Stranger Things Season 2, a brilliant follow-up that does what follow-ups are supposed to do (close narrative gaps, fix plot problems, explore characters properly). What can I say here? Have you seen season 1? Go watch it, temper your disappointment, watch season 2 and then wonder why they didn't just combine both seasons and thereby spare us all the suffering of having to wait a year for all those stupid loose ends to tie up. Need more convincing? A telekinetic tween uses her mind powers to fight inter-dimensional slime monsters named after classic Dungeons & Dragons villains. The nerd power is strong in this one...

My score: 9/10. Does anyone like this idea of me reviewing TV series? Or is it just more of me ruining your favorite TV shows by pointing out their inconsistencies and lack of intelligence? If that second part is the case, I can promise to never review Big Bang Theory or Supergirl out of the fear of making you feel like you've given up too much of your life watching underwhelming and overrated TV shows. Did I just ruin those shows for you?

Blade Runner 2049: Same Setting; Still not Interesting

Are you ready for a horrific reality, People-Who-Think-Blade-Runner-Is-Awesome? Here it goes: the movie isn't great. Sure, it has a pretty interesting setting, Rutger Hauer was a lot of fun with his depressed wax on existentialism and, for the most part, the movie does a pretty good job in the whole world building department. But, let's be honest, the story and pacing are mind-numbingly boring, the movie is known more for its nauseating number of recuts and, despite its influence, the whole “Are we real?” question that movie seemed so anxious to ask in every version was so much better delivered in the dozens of Japanese homage movies made in its wake (Ghost in the Shell, Akira). Now, with so many recuts, obnoxious fanboy arguments about its place in science fiction and even the weird foreshadowing of Ridley Scott's personality (the existential angst is strong in that man), Hollywood has finally just gone the sequel route. The result: a passable sci-fi movie set in the world that you probably love with little or no context to care. Good job, Hollywood?

Look, from a clear aesthetic point of view, Blade Runner 2049 is a beautiful movie that never misses a chance to show off its weird future world. Future Los Angeles is still just as much a sight to behold as it was in 1982, there are partially successful attempts to reconcile the original's themes with the sequel's story, and, in an about face from the original, most of the cast (instead of just Rutger Hauer) put in enough work here to make me actually believe they cared this time around. Even in the hands of weirdo director Denis Villeneuve, the movie feels like the people who made the original memorable were still involved in some heavy degree. That's dedication.

Unfortunately, much like its predecessor, the movie is still an overlong, mostly predictable (even I saw the twist halfway through the movie) chore of a movie whose only memorable quality is its commitment to its own nihilism. Sure, you could argue that some of the action scenes (at least the ones you can see properly) play out well enough to understand, but it all comes down thematically to the same stupid question Ridley Scott asked back in 1982 and just can't seem to escape from now that he's almost 80. “How do we determine what is real in an artificial world?” just isn't that interesting of a question this time around.

As for watching it, got anything better to do this weekend? Considering it was the only major release and Friday the 13^th is coming with the promise of seemingly better action movies (The Foreigner), better horror movies (Happy Death Day) and even better historical dramas (Breathe, Goodbye Christopher Robin), my best suggestion would be to just take an off week this time around. Are you an unrepentant fan of the 1982 original and cover your ears to its myriad criticisms? Knock yourself out here.

Denis Villeneuve (Arrival) continues to make aesthetically beautiful, if thematically frustrating, movies about existence without deeper meaning. Basically, replicant Blade Runner 'K' (Ryan Gosling) discovers a conspiracy involving older model replicants that could cause a war between human factions and machines. Along the way, Harrison Ford will appear and act like he really needed a paycheck, hologram assistant Joi (Ana de Armas) will somehow display more depth than most characters despite being a soulless, body-less A.I., Robin Wright will sell her throwaway character's part for all its worth and, when it finally ends after two-and-a-half excruciating hours, you'll feel like the whole mess of a plot was literally for the sake of nothing while scrambling for deeper meaning. Thanks, Hollywood, but I already own every season of Rick & Morty. I don't need any more case studies on existential nihilism.

My score: 4/10. Seriously, if you want to have an existential crisis AND be entertained, just watch Rick & Morty. It's the only show that makes you laugh from the humor and cry at the horrors of existence in the same breath.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle: The Sequel NO ONE asked for

For those of you who just couldn't be bothered to see it or the rest of you who see Matthew Vaughn's name next to a movie and black out because he's not the most recognizable name, 2014's Kingsman: The Secret Service might have been one of the most entertaining, irreverent and psychotic action comedies of the last few years that sold its premise (lisping meglomaniac trying to take over the world) simply by taking a played out genre trope (overly courteous British agents) and blowing it all up with well-timed bouts of humor that tended to hit more than they missed (you will either love or hate the big finale; no middle ground). Regardless of where you stand on the film's merits, it was an honest take on an under-read comic book and, by the grace of Vaughn, sold itself for every cringe-worthy setpiece and joke it could muster. How does Vaughn follow-up his arguably best movie? By making a sequel no one asked for. This is the part where the world groaning about sequels starts to have a little more hold than usual.

Sadly, despite its pedigree, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a movie with literally no reason to exist in any form. Not only does it expand too much beyond its comic book origins (which were already stretched thin with the original movie) but the premise (meglomaniac without lisp tries to take over the world) and the iconic action sequences of the original (the Colin Firth fight) are cribbed almost verbatim from its prequel. The narrative doesn't flow, the new characters feel like an old Oscar nomination check sheet for the sake of name recognition and the movie makes commits the cardinal sin of relying too much on its predecessor to fill its own plot holes. Kingsman worked fine as a stand alone movie BECAUSE it didn't need or promise any sequels in an era made up of little else.

Fortunately, if you can escape the inevitable deja vu of a movie trying too hard to recapture its glory from its superior big brother, there are small gems to find. Pedro Pascal's Whiskey is a fun, almost endearing character bogged down only by a late-game plot dump that seemed forced by the two hour-plus movie somehow running out of time. And, despite being a prime example of gimmick casting in a movie full of it, Elton John was both funny and wildly entertaining as a warped parody of himself. Say what you will about the man, seeing a 70-year-old, feather-laden musician kick a bad guy in the face with platform shoes while slyly winking at the camera almost makes the insulting nature of the joke funnier than it should be. See? Gratuitous overkill CAN be awesome if it sells it right.

As for watching it...just go watch the original and be happy you didn't fall for all the advertisements about the sequel being some kind of awesome expansion on the canon of the now pointless series. Better yet, just wait a few months and randomly search “Elton John fighting” and you'll likely stumble across the only aspect of this movie that warrants any of your time. Seriously, has the “good” movie season started yet?

Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class) makes what can only be described as his first truly awful movie with Kingsman: The Golden Circle, a bloated, overly self-referential experiment in cinematic overkill that takes the good will of its predecessor and wastes it all trying to make you watch the same movie you saw three years ago with more moving parts and worse plotting. Having been rebuilt after the events of the first movie, the Kingsman intelligence agency is promptly decimated by a drug cartel known as the Golden Circle because...I'm not exactly sure. Their wonky world domination plan and the actual destruction of Kingsman don't really make any sense outside of being bad plot devices to push the bloated script onto additional set pieces people still didn't ask for. Take the previously mentioned advice to watch a cool 30-second clip of Elton John kicking a guy in the face to “Saturday Night” and just be glad you didn't waste your money again this week. Its sadly too late for me.

My score: 2/10. Is it weird that I want to see more action sequences involving Elton John kicking dudes in the face to his own music? Probably weird...

American Assassin: Tom Clancy for Dummies

Back in the 80s, for reasons that really defy logic, the classic spy genre of literature changed from your basic premise of debonair-spy-steals-microfilm-and-probably-kills-the-bad-guy-to-prevent-a-sequel to something... darker. While this was mostly because the bygone era of the genre changed with the times, it wasn't helped by the fact that, with the threat of total nuclear war dissipating to an almost non-existent conclusion, it was harder for readers to fathom why any spy would actually behave in a way that would encourage an angry nuclear power to retaliate. As a result, novels became more about the analysis and characters who were less James Bond and more Jason Bourne, more likely to just kill the threat rather than play baccarat and argue about martinis. Now, with even that whole section of the genre beginning to jump into the Age of Terrorism, Hollywood has decided to latch onto the premise (ten years too late) for the sake of filling their docket. The result: a decently acted but ultimately bland action movie with little reason to exist outside of a Hollywood number crunch.

Hey, I can be nice here for a bit: American Assassin works great if you like Michael Keaton and his wonky brand of acting. Despite being in a movie far below his own pedigree (the man was in Birdman for crying out loud!) and probably being the only guy who thought to earn his paycheck (he's the only guy who seems to be selling the hammy dialog), Keaton excels as an angry spy trainer with a simple mixture of mystery (which isn't actually that mysterious) and a more gritty performance than was probably warranted. Despite what I'm about to follow this paragraph with, know that the ultimate reasons for this movie's failure never have the line “Because of Michael Keaton” in it anywhere. Got it? Good.

Unfortunately, with Keaton safely in a bubble and removed completely from the movie, this is little more than an amateur attempt at a cheesy spy flick; never really knowing if it wants to go for gritty (because of Keaton) or it prefers the action approach (via its poorly choreographed fight scenes and shootouts) or if it wants to rely on its poor attempt at modern intrigue (via dialog that feels like it was read off of a teleprompter). Regardless of the promised premise of an angry man (Dylan O'Brien) seeking revenge for his losses and inadvertently becoming a super spy, nothing ever works how its supposed to. There's no character investment, none of the story really goes anywhere and, when it finally over, the only real advancement you feel is that you've wasted about two hours of your life watching the equivalent of a Tom Clancy short story while your waiting for better movies to come out and justify the movie theater's existence again (it's been a REALLY bad year at the movies).

As for watching it, don't. You could argue that, because it has O'Brien and because he was kind of awesome in those two Mazerunner movies (before that franchise was killed) he might be able to move onto another action franchise with his own on-screen charisma, but this movie doesn't actually require him to be anything more than a bland, blank slate character with only the tiniest of motivations to actually be doing what he's doing. You know what? Go watch It (the movie with the clown; not the pronoun for this movie) and be happy that Kingsman 2 is coming and there might still be hope to salvage this consistently awful movie season. Seriously, this movie season needs to die already.

Michael Cuesta (T.V.'s Elementary) tries to make his first big-screen action movie and pretty much proves he needs to stick with television with American Assassin, a wonky, unintelligible train wreck of an action movie that, save for the grace of Batman (Keaton), pretty much relegates itself to the bargain bin come rental time. To avenge the death of his fiance at the hands of terrorists, Mitch Rapp (O'Brien) joins a CIA offshoot known as Orion and tries to sound interesting for the rest of the movie. What's there to say? Stuff blows up, most of the characters basically deliver their lines phonetically and every single actor acts like they'd rather be anywhere else but in this movie. You were probably awesome in book form, Mitch Rapp. Maybe you should've stayed there...

My score: 3/10. Dear next week's Kingsman 2: please be a passable movie with relatable characters and an interesting story. That is literally your minimum requirement at this point.