Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

I love Harry Potter. I've read the books multiple times (including the side books) and I've seen the seven movies even more. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them wasn't as good a story as the HP movies, but it did a great job expanding the Wizarding World and I kind of liked the new characters. The Crimes of Grindelwald is heartless, boring, meandering, and dumb. Beyond the performances of everyone but Johnny Depp and Ezra Miller (who are charisma vacuums who kill every scene they are in with their wooden, boring acting) and a few new creative beasts, there really isn't anything else here to enjoy. Even the cinematography is bad. There is a scene with a character as a school desk and the camera's just swaying about like the cameraman is standing on a boat in the ocean; it was literally nauseating. The CGI is would be fine if it wasn't such a big part of the movie. For a 2018 movie with a 200 million dollar budget, it's okay I guess, but I expected better. The entire movie just isn't as fun or colorful as i'm used to from HP, I get that it's foggy London, but it's far too dark and dreary. The biggest failure is the story. The script is fine but the actual plot is just awful. JK Rowling can write a solid book, but movies are clearly not her thing. At about two hours and fifteen minutes, The Crimes of Grindelwald feels really long because nothing really happens; this movie feels like it's only purpose is to be a bridge to the next one. The little bit of story that we do get is boring and I think Rowling has lost a hold of her story. There are some twists or revelations that really uncharacteristic of the characters or just don't make sense. I guess this works with the plot holes and breaking of the rules of how magic works in the Harry Potter Universe. Apparently, regular, average wizards could cast spells silently 80 years ago. A handful of times, we even see the killing curse used without the Avada Kedavra incantation. The HP lore says that the killing curse can only be performed by a very powerful wizard and requires a genuine willingness and at times desire to commit murder. Even Voldemort usually has to speak the words and it's his signature move, so for some nobody auror to cast it spur of the moment without the verbal cue is dubious at best. To not spoil the terrible story, I won't say anymore. The fact is, however, that if you are a Harry Potter/Wizarding World fan, you know you are going to see this no matter how bad everyone says it is. Had I known just how bad it was, I'd have seen it anyway because I love this world. I just hope you can temper your expectations enough to not be a heart broken as I am.

Red Sparrow

Red Sparrow seems to think that a confusing story is the same as a complicated story. It's clear that Justin Haythe set out to tell a new version of the worn out Cold War Russian spy/espionage film and on some levels he succeeded. The dialog is pretty good and Francis Lawrence got some solid acting out of the cast and the cinematography was acceptable but Red Sparrow is so slow and hopes that constantly spinning the audience around can replace any real action or solid character development. Jennifer Lawrence's character (who sports an absolutely terrible and inconsistent Russian accent) isn't well defined and to a certain point we are supposed to be on the edge of our seat wondering who's side she is on and what her motives are, but the level at which she unexpectedly pivots and makes terrible decisions is just plain confusing. The basic idea is that she was a top class ballerina who is forced into retirement after an injury. Her uncle talks her into Sparrow training where she learns to use her sexuality as a weapon in her assignments. I was expecting a lot more action, but Lawrence doesn't get any physical training, so I guess it makes sense not to have big choreographed fight scenes, but the political espionage just isn't strong enough or well written enough to keep my attention. A show like Game of Thrones has solid characters like Little Finger and great writers who know how to craft a mutli-layer "3D Chess" level of politicking and deception and espionage that we can have runs of multiple episodes with no action and we eat it up and ask for more. Red Sparrow is just not well written enough to pull off an espionage/spy movie with out having action scene tent poles. We get a couple of torture scenes that have some poorly executed gore (there's a scene where someone is being skinned on the back of the shoulder and they show it from the side and and even when we see the area, it isn't skinned at first; it takes them a few cuts before someone realized to do the makeup on the area) but that's it. If you make a straight comedy movie and don't write in any drama, your movie better be pretty damn funny. Red Sparrow only has its dense, confusing spy/espionage story and its just not goof enough to fuel the movie. Lawrence's actions often don't make sense and the twists are poorly executed. Red Sparrow is a well acted movie that is technically fine, but it's not enough to save the hollow and muddled story.

Sorry to Bother You

The trailers for Sorry to Bother you paint it as another stupid "White People Bad" racism cliche. It has all the hallmarks of another ham-fisted SJW film that spends 2 hours punching you into submission. Sorry to Bother you certainly does deal with racism and classist issues, but it does it in an actual film. Boots Riley handles the social commentary very well and manages to take a worn out message and present it in a unique light and actually make a point in an honest, real way. Sorry to Bother You is so much better than the trailer portrayed it. The issue is that if someone wanted to see the movie the trailer shows, they are going to be so confused and if someone else just wanted well handled social commentary delivered in a standard drama/comedy, they are going to be even more confused. I refuse to go much farther into the plot, because experiencing it blind is the best part. All I'll say is that goes off the rails pretty fast and gleefully plows through the forest; it's like the From Dusk till Dawn twist. It's very stupid, crazy, and nonsensical, but it's fucking great. Every 20 minutes I'm telling myself "This is so dumb, why the Hell is this a movie" and it was wonderful. For writing and directorial debut, Boots Riley has a very clear voice and a ridiculously unique style that I have never seen anything like. A big part of me really wanted to hate it because the trailer pissed me off so much, but Sorry to Bother You is damn near five stars. Some of the actors weren't the best, most of the comedy didn't work, and it is pretty unfocused, but as much as I hate long movies, I'd have sat there for another hour just to see what more ridiculous shit Boots Riley can pull out of his head. It's crazy and so very, very stupid and yet it's an affecting commentary and an incredibly solid cluster fuck of a film.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul

The Long Haul doesn't feel like the next installment in the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series. The new cast is mostly okay. The new Greg does his best, but doesn't have the inherent arrogance Greg has in the books and Zachary Gordon really mastered. Alicia Silverstone and Bootleg Bob Saget don't have the same motivations this time, I can't complain about their acting. The only casting that stick out is new Rodrick. I'm not sure if Charlie Wright is a community theater graduate or perhaps he dabbles in cabaret, but he is comically overacting the entire time. I don't mean he is comedic, because he is certainly not, but how outrageously off the mark every line he gives. Manny is a toddler, so I can excuse the terrible acting of the twins because they are literally like 3 years old. Charlie Wright is miscast by being cast at all. Beyond the face lift of the cast, the story of The Long Haul trades in the "being a kid sucks and Greg is an asshole" plot of the first three for a generic "family road trip goes wrong" story. Beyond the characters having the same names as they did in the other three films, they share nothing with The Long Haul. We see Rowley twice, Greg doesn't interact with any of his school peers, and now Mr. Heffley is a workaholic and Ms. Heffley is a bitch; great job! Perhaps letting the director write the co-write the script is to blame, but he wrote it with the author of the book, who you figure would know his characters. In general, if we remove "Diary of a Wimpy Kid:", we are already making the film better. The Long Haul is an okay effort that is only hindered by being linked to the massively superior predecessors with this being a sequel and not a reboot. I get that the original cast has gotten older and Zachary Gordon is 20-something, but every High School movie/TV show has 80% of their cast being almost 30, so just give me my cast from the first three back. #NotMyRodrick

Bright

Everything about Bright is a true achievement in being terrible. For a movie with a very interesting world and a cool premise, Max Landis and David Ayer and the cast managed to create true dog shit. The largest problem lays with Landis's terrible script with some of the worst dialog I have ever heard and Will Smith's acting and (what I can only assume to be) ad-libbing. Every single actor/actress does a terrible job, but I pin at least half of that on Landis. All of the dialog is so stilited and the general plot is so full of holes, so slow and bogged down with nonsense, and incredibly ham-fisted with it's obtuse social commentary. Will Smith is a real actor who has real acting skills, he has two Emmy nominations and five Golden Globe nominations, and although there are a few bad spots on his IMDB page, he usually does a fine job. His performance in Bright is essentially just Will Smith being Will Smith who exclusively speaks in pop culture references (which raise a few questions about the world of Bright [Shrek exists in a world where humans and orcs have lived together for thousands of years?]) and curse words. I guess no one wanted to make Will Smith mad so they let him make whatever stupid quips he wants, but it becomes clear that no one making this film gives half a fuck. As bad as the script and plot are (which is a true testament to Landis's ability to punish the audience) it's almost possible to overlook how terrible the the CG and fight choreography are. The explosions and blood spray are below Windows Movie Maker quality and big fight pieces make no sense and are incredibly lazy and confusing. This movie is so stupid that it can't even follow its own rules. Suspension of disbelief only works when the movie works within its own world. Every 15 minutes, Bright does something that either makes no sense or defies the rules it created. I won't go into it much of it to not spoil anything, but a big part of the movie is the hunt for and protection of a magic wand. In Bright's world, only a "bright" can even hold a magic wand. If any non-bright touches a wand, they instantly explode. There is apparently no way to know if someone is a bright or not is to grab a wand and see if you blow up or not and they make it seem like brights are rare. So, given this, why does everyone seem to think that they are a bright and try and grab the wand? One minor character even manages to and even though they don't become a burst of goo, there is no way it makes sense for them to be a bright. Bright makes no sense and is easily one of the worst movies I have seen. From a technical stand point, the camera work is fine, the sets are fine, the sound equipment works and was mixed properly, but this is only place Bright can get any points. It's stupid. It's stupid, and dumb, and it makes no sense. I usually disagree with the opinion of the media critics 95% of the time, but I have to agree with them here. I like lame Sci-Fi, Action, and Fantasty movies; I legitimately like Suicide Squad (David Ayer and Will Smith's previous collaboration) and I get nothing positive out of Bright. Unless you are looking for a movie to trash with your friends while you are trashed, stay far away from Bright; it is terrible. TERRIBLE.

Marrowbone

Marrowbone is another drama being mismarketed as a horror movie. While I would agree that Marrowbone has some thriller elements, I felt that fear in the horror sense as much as horror felt through dread. Aside from the disappointment upon the realization that the trailers mislead me, Marrowbone is is a very solid film. All of the acting is great (although George MacKay doesn't really portray pain very authentically), the set is both beautiful and haunting, the camera work makes some memorable scenes, and the story is compelling. The Spanish title is The Secret of Marrowbone, which is a much better title. While I wasn't satisfied with the ending they chose and I still have unaddressed plot holes that still bother me, Marrowbone drew me in and I was pleased with the journey.

My Blue Heaven

My Blue Heaven is okay. The acting is serviceable, although never did I believe that Steve Martin was an Italian Mob guy. I didn't find it particularly funny; I laughed two times and those were more out of shock. The plot, which Wikipedia tells me is vaguely based on the same guy who inspired Goodfellas, isn't exactly a new or unique idea, but it has some potential as both a fish out of water and an odd couple story. My Blue Heaven is fine; there isn't anything terrible, nothing drew me out of the film (except Steve Martin's casting and the choice to use title cards to occasionally change perspective), and I never was confused or disappointed with the story beats, but I was never impressed or fully invested. I picked this movie at random and didn't know what I was watching until the title appeared. I was excited to see that I was going to see a movie with Steve Martin, Rick Moranis, and Joan Cusack, but they are all misused and easily could have been replaced with any other B-list actor. Again, it's fine. It's okay. I didn't dislike it, but there are plenty of better movies to have given that hour and a half to.

Walkabout

Walkabout is incredibly slow and uneventful. The acting is surprisingly good and the cinematography is solid for the time (although there are quite a few still frames that stick out and don't mesh), but as a film, it wasn't a fun watch. Walkabout isn't really about enjoyment, though. Walkabout has a message it wants to convey and it does it very well. David Gulpilil, the aboriginal actor, only ever says one word in English and he's hardly an actor at this point in his career, but his body language and his eyes convey more emotion and storytelling than any words could have. I don't imagine this would be a film people watch 20 times, but it is a solid vessel for an important message. I hate preach films and I usually detest movies that try and coast by on being "an important film". Just that phrase "important film" I find nonsensical, but while Walkabout is primarily about its message, everything else works well enough to still be a real film. If you can tolerate the slow pace and aren't turned off by the constant hunting scenes (which I can only assume are real) Walkabout is look into a culture we hardly see and a beautiful nature film.

House on Haunted Hill

Even for a film from 1959, House on Haunted Hill incredibly boring, badly acted, and the effects are awful. I've seen much worse, but this was the longest hour and fifteen minutes I've spent watching a film. It has value for its influence on film, but beyond that It doesn't have much to offer.

Good Time

I can only assume people were joking when they told me Good Time is a good time. It most certainly is not a good time! Good Time is very uncomfortable, anger inducing, and depressing and I enjoyed every minute of it. Easily the highlight is the color palate with most scenes being lit by neon lights or the glow of a TV or a distant street light. As dark as the movie went tonally, seeing Robert Pattinson's face lit up by a neon red light is beautiful. Personal preference, but I'll watch a movie just for the neon lighting and Good Time uses it as a great counter to the dirty feel of everything else. The story was my least favorite part, but the acting, cinematography and score work so well that it didn't bother me that much. I say the acting it great, but really I mean that Robert Pattinson and Benny Safdie are great, everyone else is really just a way to move the plot forward and are fine (except Barkhad Abdi who just doesn't connect). If you've only seen Pattinson in the Twilight Saga (I'll admit that's the only time I've seen him) where no one acts and just recites lines with dead eyes, this is such a departure and he really delivers a believable and authentic performance. The story isn't perfect, it's got some pacing problems and a few "Why are they doing that?" moments, but it's a very compelling story that is just so dark and grim, but still manages to carry heart. The plot sets Pattinson as the protagonist, trying to help his mentally challenged brother after they leave home but it's really complicated whether or not you want to root for him. The ending isn't what I expected or wanted, but it is a solid ending and it works for the film. Good Time is not a movie that most people will appreciate or even want to watch if they know what it's really about, but if you can respect a fully dark and bleak film that doesn't let up it is a worthwhile film that has something to say.