Moonlight and La La Land.

Fighting the intolerant world with love.

When I think of why the year of 2016 draws me back so often, the obvious answer is that it was the beginning of the end. It was a year dominated by a world divided, one that struck those down that dared to stand up. Politically, racially, economically, the world had reverted back to a time most thought was long past. Yet, in the response to all of this, the people began to fight back in any way they knew how. For me though, the year was one that revolved around one main idea: love. While many aimed to divide us, the artists fought back with acceptance, with warmth and love in all forms. I have already spoken about Arrival and its approach to a genre generally associated with violence, but all of my ten favourite films from 2016 revolved around love. Two of the best deserve to be noted, for they told stories that stick with me still to this day.

Moonlight was more than just important for the time that it came out, it was essential. The story of a gay black man trying to find his place in a world that appeared to hate him, resonated with me in a way that I could never have predicted. The universality of our search for love and acceptance, the harshness of a coming-of-age story so real that I had to resist the urge to look away, Moonlight left me with hope when it could have left scars.

La La Land was hard to ignore because of the amount of attention that it was getting on the awards circuit, but it was one that deserved every bit of praise that it received. It presented a modern day musical that was every bit as magical as the movies that inspired it. Its unrelenting optimism shone through in a time that had very little.

While Moonlight and La La Land share very little at first glance, it is their outlook on the world that brings them together, and why the two of them are remembered today. Moonlight is as real as any film that I have experienced. The film features performances that one would never know were performances at all. I forgot altogether that I was watching a film, instead I was living the life of Chiron alongside him. As a straight white male, this may seem rather disillusioned. I am not assuming that I can understand the struggles that the characters in the film faced as though I had faced similar struggles myself, but writer and director, Barry Jenkins, did such a fantastic job at portraying these moments in time, that in that theatre, I was there with them. The film follows Chiron through three points in his life. When he was just a boy, he was known as Little, as a teenager he was Chiron, and as an adult he was Black. We come to understand not only who he is, but why he was these different versions of himself and what made him tick. It is not an easy film to watch. Chiron, and the other characters around him, especially his friend Kevin, and his mentor, Juan, are so likeable, relatable and genuinely portrayed, that any action against them is felt deeply and painfully. There is plenty of pain to be felt, as Chiron’s life is not an easy one, but through that pain we also find hope. The moments of joy are louder than any hate, something that I would like to believe to be universally true. The three acts of the film are very distinct, and the second is one of the greatest pieces of storytelling that I have ever witnessed, as it cut right to my core. Moonlight is a realistic drama, with an all black cast, and a story that is completely universal, shouting love from the rooftops for all to hear.

Whereas Moonlight is grounded in reality, La La Land is one large dream picture. From the colour palette to the lighting, staging and direction, the film is begging to whisk the viewer away from the harsh world around them, escape to Hollywood and lose oneself in the love story of two people who were bound for each other. I would be lying if I said that the film had me hooked right away. The first two numbers were filled with spectacle, dazzling visuals and joyous tunes, but they didn’t convey emotion in the same way that traditional musicals have. By the time that the two leads had their first dance together though, I was completely hooked. This was a story about one thing: love. Sebastian’s love for jazz, their shared love of Hollywood, their love for each other, the list goes on. After the first two songs, the music was incredibly emotional, using mostly instrumental pieces, cutting directly to my core. Of course, the chemistry between Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone was phenomenal, allowing us to relate to both of them, despite their inhuman good looks and talent. The film is filled with wonder, and yet, when it comes down to it, director Damien Chazelle has an understanding of what is real and what isn’t. That doesn’t stop his film from being filled with optimism even in its darkest moments. The film was magical and everything I wanted out of a romantic tale.

The visuals were stunning, the writing succinct and beautiful, the emotions rich and poignant. Both films are filled with delights even in the darkest of times, stirring emotions inside of me that I didn’t know I had. I related heavily to their characters. I came out of the theatre from both feeling overwhelmed, yet safe, knowing that there was still genuine love in the world.

I encourage you to seek out both of these films, knowing that you can rest assured that there will always be some good in the world. I know that I need that now more than ever.

Moonlight and La La Land – 5 out of 5 stars.

CB

Christine.

Grim actuality.

I left the CAIM today again for the first time in probably a week. Terrified though I may have been, I needed to stock up on resources. I didn’t see anyone, but every piece of dirt that moved made my skin crawl. I’ve always battled with anxiety, but this time it is actually warranted. I could run into a group of people at any time. Toronto is after all one of the largest urban centres on the continent. You may wonder why I continue to fight to live considering all that has happened. After my wife passed away, I was certain that my life was over. I was actively looking to die. But when my life was actually threatened again, the urge to live kicked in, and I knew that I wasn’t ready to go. My work here at the CAIM has become much too important to give up now. I knew people that did choose their own way out. Instead of facing the horrors of life, instead of risking getting the disease, they simply wanted out. Humans are strong, but sometimes that’s not enough. The film that I watched tonight deals with mental illness, in a very realistic fashion. Those who do not deal well with the topic of mental health should steer well clear of this film.

Christine tells the true story of a news reporter in the 1970’s who struggled with depression. The story of Christine Chubbuck is well documented, but I will avoid going into spoilers as best I can. The film follows her journey at a local television news network, as the local interest reporter. She is immediately recognizable for her serious demeanour, antisocial behaviour and passion for her work. This is her story through and through, with other characters interjected only to further our understanding of her life and reasoning for her actions. She is a character that drives others away constantly, but through strong writing and an incredible performance from Rebecca Hall, we come to not only empathize with Christine, but also understand her actions.

This entire review could be turned into a character study, for this is someone that hasn’t been explored properly in film before. She is distinct, with character traits that set her apart from the many film protagonists seen today, and it only furthers our interest to know that this is a completely true story. I originally saw this film at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2016, and even though I knew the story, I found myself drawn into this tale, not expecting what was to come.

Christine is like any of us. She has a stable job, she has people that support her, and yet, she struggles to find intimacy or the success that she desires. The need for perfection consumes her, which she pours into her work. We are thrown into the deep end of her story, not going from the beginning of her career, but instead right into her deepest fears. The film is paced slowly, allowing us to get to know every aspect of her life. Whether it is supporting her mother on her meager salary, her obsession with her coworker, or her serious problem with accepting help from others, there is depth to this character that is rarely seen in other movies. I would not consider this an ensemble piece despite there being plenty of talent surrounding Rebecca Hall, including one of my favourites, Michael C. Hall. This is one woman’s story, the others just come in and out of the piece when needed.

The lead performance from Rebecca Hall is truly transformative. I found it impossible to recall her work in other films until I actually went and looked it up, because she completely changed the way that she spoke, with very distinct, careful diction. She takes us through the many challenges she faces, showing the slow unravelling of her character, but never descending into overemotional territory. This is also to the credit of the writer, Craig Shilowich, who gave her time to transition through the different periods in her career and points of mental being. Shilowich uses Christine’s time teaching the kids at the hospital to tell us Christine’s inner thoughts, where at other times he leaves it up to Hall to get them across with her actions.

This is not a piece that uses invisible direction. 2015’s Best Picture winner, Spotlight, was an incredible film, one which used simple camera work to allow the performances and story to take centre stage. Here, the director has opted for a much more hands-on approach, using the camera to tell us the story along with the work of the characters on screen. I actually prefer this approach to filmmaking, but here it works both in its favour and against it. Some of the shots, such as filming Christine while the interest of the scene is taking place elsewhere is expressive, giving us even more moments with her to understand just what she is thinking. While others, such as using an incredibly shallow depth of field transitioning between characters was distracting and didn’t seem to serve a purpose other than to add style. Antonio Campos did a great job overall working with his actors and creating a visually interesting film, but I was taken aback by some of his choices to the point of being pushed out of the moment. This may not be as distracting to others however.

So who would this film appeal to? This is a deep character portrait, one with a brilliant performance from its lead actress. It delves into her mental illness, leaving us breathless in the final act. The film earns its ending, something that can’t be said for a lot of films. That may seem like an odd comment to be making about a film based on a true story, but a lot of screenwriters would have struggled to make us emotionally invested enough to care beyond pure shock value. This film should be seen by anyone that enjoys a strong drama, but should be warned that it is a slow film, though one that is very powerful if the time is invested. I would not recommend it to anyone that has triggers related to depression. This is a very hard watch. If you can handle living in someone else’s life for two hours, one which deals with very dark themes, then this would be something that you should definitely watch. Christine is an excellent piece of filmmaking, one which could have been a much different movie in lesser hands, but here it is a strong work that teaches us something. Reality is more terrifying than fiction.

4 out of 5 stars.

CB

The Handmaiden.

Desire.

The Handmaiden is the latest in director Park Chan-wook’s long line of intensely unique films. His work can be recognized for its extreme violence, shocking twists and unhinged characters, and this film only furthers those elements. I remember seeing the film back at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2016 and hearing the director speak. He joked that this was his most longest and most dialogue heavy film. Those elements allowed him to play with his characters like never before, and amazingly never feeling like they are weighing the film down. Though there are many similarities to his other films, this also happens to be his funniest, creating an interesting blend of humour and unpredictability.

The Handmaiden takes place in 1930’s Korea and tells the story of a common street thief who has been employed by a scam artist to work as his latest target’s handmaiden. The film follows her struggles to carry out the plan that her boss laid for her, please her new mistress as she pretends to be a practiced handmaiden, and fight the feelings that she develops during her work. To say anything more would ruin the many turns that the film smartly lays out.

Thematically, this is a very interesting film. Everything revolves around the idea of desire. Whether that be the desire of riches, flesh or freedom, every character has different, and very clear intentions. The film plays out in a three act structure, but to play with the audiences expectations and to fully develop the perceptions we have of the characters, the first act runs for the majority of the screen time. This allows us, the audience, to come to understand, or at least seem to understand, the many wants of the characters presented to us. It is to the credit of Park Chan-wook and his fellow screenwriter Chung Seo-Kyung, that all of the little details that come to be relevant later in the film are recognizable, interesting and yet never obvious enough to draw our attention away from the main plot. By the end of the film, we have a complete understanding of what has taken place, despite the many diverging stories, the betrayals and deceit. Of course, for several minutes during the more challenging moments, we may be left stranded in an ocean of questions, but when all is revealed, we feel as though we have been given all of the pieces and only then put them together. There is not a singular reveal at the end that is impossible to see coming. The ending is earned, and if you pay close enough attention, you may even put it together before it reaches its conclusion.

The content of the film is very mature. There are large portions of the film dedicated to very stimulating sex scenes, some of which will make even the most experienced filmgoer blush. The violence is not toned down here either, despite the humorous nature of the film. What is shown is vivid, with excellent sound design creating properly cringe inducing moments. This is the first time that I can remember laughing out loud during Chan-wook’s films. They have often been funny in an ironic sense, or filled with dynamic characters that make one chuckle, but the dialogue in The Handmaiden takes a very funny, hard look at gender, society and violence itself. The lead character, Sook-Hee is especially interesting, as she develops over the film, we grow to care for her. Her portrayal by Kim Tae-ri is superb, showing a deep understanding of what makes her character tick, but also bold enough to tackle the very graphic moments in the film. The cast as a whole do a fantastic job bringing us into their world.

This film won’t be for everyone. It is very long, coming in at nearly two and a half hours. The majority of the film is purely dialogue, only occasionally dipping into thriller territory. What is there though will certainly carry you through the next portion of the film until the next stimulating jolt of electricity. The long first act will put off many, but if you can make it through the world building, you will be rewarded by a last hour that doesn’t let up. This isn’t for the feint of heart. Those who are squeamish should not approach this film, but if you enjoyed Oldboy then this will certainly be up your alley. It also won’t be for those who like to shut their brains off during a film. This is one that you need to actively be paying attention to, whether it is for the subtitles in both Japanese and Korean, or for the subtle character moments, it requires your full attention.

This is a unique film, one that I’m sure to watch again one day just to notice the many things I missed upon my first viewing. If you enjoy mysteries, thrillers or foreign comedies, this should be near the top of your list. This is certainly one of Park Chan-wook’s best.

4 out of 5 stars.

CB

The Stanford Prison Experiment.

Unchecked power.

I saw someone. At least, I think I did. It’s not often that I leave CAIM anymore, but now I’m not sure staying here is such a great idea. I mean, the goal is to one day have someone find this place and enjoy the luxuries that I have, but I’m not sure I’m ready for that just yet. I’ve been here for about two months and it is just starting to feel like home. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t terrified. I just saw the first person I’ve seen in more than four months. I don’t know if they saw me, but what if they followed me here? I’ve been meaning to set up security measures, but I’ve been so busy gathering supplies, going through the records, and frankly, taking time to relax that I haven’t gotten around to it. I’ve put a lock on the doors, but that’s as far as I’ve gotten. All it would take would be a pair of bolt cutters or a vehicle and they could be in here no problem.

I am lonely. There is no denying it. I would love for a companion, but since losing my wife, I can’t trust anyone. She was my everything. If this person I saw was just a single soul like me, I guess things wouldn’t be too bad, but most likely, they are part of a travelling group, and that’s when things get messy. You see, the world was thrown into chaos when the virus struck. Governments were toppled, families were divided and religions were abandoned. That didn’t last long though. Groups emerged with their own leaders. At first it seemed like these were to help those who had survived, but with unchecked power comes brutality. These weren’t elected officials, they were men and women who were taking advantage of the situation to grab influence and become the new authority. The stories that I heard in those early days when I was still in contact with others made my stomach churn. Leaders gone mad, killing those who uttered a word against them. New religious groups killing for their gods. Or in the case of those that I encountered, men driven to the edge, turning to their desires and feeding off of the flesh of other men.

I truly do hope to meet another person someday, but that day is not today. I’m not ready to put myself in the hands of someone else. Until order is restored by the will of the people, where we are held accountable for our actions, there will be no peace.

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a dramatic retelling of the 1971 experiment that took place at Stanford University. The experiment took 24 male students, divided them into guards and prisoners, and planned to watch their behaviour over the course of 14 days. Many will know the experiment, as it is a well documented piece of psychological history, one that has been recreated multiple times, but to watch it unfold before your eyes is an entirely different experience. This is a difficult piece to watch, but for all the right reasons.

At the centre of the story, you have the head professor, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, as played by Billy Crudup, a man who is so passionate about his work that he allows the results to become more important than the experiment itself. However, it is the cast of prisoners and guards that brings this film to life. Assembling some of the best young talents in Hollywood today, the film features the work of Ezra Miller, Tye Sheridan, Johnny Simmons, Ki Hong Lee, Thomas Mann, and many others, all of whom are used to great effect. I would go as far as to say that several of the actors turn in their best performances to date. The acting is uniformly superb. The dynamic between the guards and the prisoners is tense, bordering on unbearable. In particular, Ezra Miller as the rebellious Prisoner 8612, and the guard known as “John Wayne” portrayed by Michael Angarano, played off of each other to create scenes that were downright sadistic. Miller has a vulnerability that few other actors possess, causing us to feel his pain in every moment.

The film runs about two hours, meaning that there is plenty of time to explore each character that is presented to us. They are broken down, both literally and figuratively. Even the guards, who bully the prisoners physically and mentally are shown to be just boys who have been given every opportunity to become their worst selves. Right from the opening moments, this is an intense film. It opens with the interviews of the students who wish to be a part of the experiment. The tight editing provides few moments to let your mind wander, and the sparse score only highlights the already uneasy moments. This could have been a dull slog, or a preachy film condemning the actions of researchers, but smart choices with script keep it from veering into melodramatic territory. While it certainly doesn’t praise the actions of the researchers or the guards, the filmmakers allow us to come to our own conclusions, asking as many questions as possible about the experiment, its participants and the results. The writing is first-rate, taking actual moments from the experiment and replicating them onscreen, so as to keep the dialogue and actions as genuine as possible. The tension is always building. By the end of the first day it is hard to believe that it can get much worse, but by day five you genuinely wish that things would return to that time. My one major criticism of the film is that because the characters are so relatable, and they are always being tortured in one way or another, the film feels impossibly long. I could never take my eyes away from the screen, nor do I think many could, but it is exhausting. There are no moments of levity, leaving us with only drama, never allowing us as the audience to breathe. This is not a film that I plan to watch again, as it takes an emotional stamina that I’m not sure I have. It is an in depth look at the psyche of these characters, one that won’t leave me soon, but I’m not sure that I could bring myself to go through it again.

Before I leave off this review, it is also important to mention the talent behind the camera. Kyle Patrick Alvarez created a very physical experience, causing intense claustrophobic feelings for myself. At all times, the camera is capturing the emotions of the characters, the pain, the anguish. The script is tight, but without a director who could work with the actors to create such intense situations with believable performances, the film would be nothing. This is an excellent film, one which will have me thinking for a long time to come. If you enjoy a good drama, this should be near the top of your list. This is an important subject, one that should never be forgotten. It shows how deep we can go as humans. In such a short span of time, even though the participants knew they were all being watched, it is shocking to see what they resorted to.

Worst of all, it shows that even the best of us can become monsters if our power goes unchecked.

4.5 out of 5 stars.

CB

Stranger Things.

Fear the true villain.

I would be lying if my mind didn’t often wander to dark places. One day I will tackle all of my thoughts on religion, of existence in a world without rules, my place as a human in an animal kingdom and what it all could mean. Going back and watching certain pieces of television and cinema create deep lines of thought that leave me with far more questions than answers. When I decided to re-watch Stranger Things, I didn’t realize how nostalgic it would make me. It questions the existence of government organizations, their purpose and whether their work is right or wrong. It makes me realize that I know very little about the virus that wiped out the population of the world. How does one virus travel so fast? How did it come into being? If not now, then when will I get the answers I so desire? I will find answers.

Stranger Things is a show that should never have clicked with me the way that it did. It was a love letter to 80’s science fiction, from the aesthetics, to its characters, writing, and especially music. Having not grown up in the 80’s, and without parents that felt any sort of love for that particular period and genre of cinema, I didn’t have any connection to films such as The Goonies or E. T. the Extra-Terrestrial when I was younger. I did eventually see them, and I appreciated them for what they were, but I didn’t have nearly the emotional investment that others seemed to have. So when I sat down and started watching Stranger Things, I had no idea how deep it would sink its hooks into me. But I loved every minute of it.

When a young boy goes missing after a night of role playing, his best friends set out to find him. That is when they come across a young girl named Eleven who harbours strange and unsettling powers. Everything they think they know changes in an instant. Stranger Things introduces a dark tone immediately, setting up the story for the series before the opening credits even roll. The opening five minutes of each episode hold more drama and intrigue than most shows manage in their hour long runtime. The heavy synths that play ominously in the background help amplify the already tense atmosphere. The tension builds and is easily sustained due to the fact that we as an audience care about the characters right from the opening moments of the show. I may have related to the kids on the show more than most, having grown up in a family that played Dungeons & Dragons regularly (a big part of the show), but right from introduction of these characters, we empathize with them. They feel more than real. They pass their emotions onto us. Whether it’s the young boys who just want their best friend back, the mother of the missing boy and her struggle to keep sane, or the police chief who is reluctant to take on the case, every character is fleshed out. We get glimpses into their lives that explain why they act the way they do, and the writers have given us moments between the different characters in a wide variety of situations so that they are able to build over the course of the show’s eight episodes. Each character has clear goals, desires, fears and frustrations. Even the typical jock of the show is a likeable character. He is someone we have come across before, but is more than he initially appears. I can’t stress how important the characters are to the success of the show. Even without the mystery surrounding the disappearance of the boy, or the introduction of Eleven, I would have gladly kept coming back episode after episode to be with these characters and just go on adventures with them.

So how does the actual central mystery of the show hold up? It is nothing we haven’t seen before, but it isn’t meant to break the boundaries of the genre. It is meant to expand them and tap into our nostalgia. The writers of the show take the classic monster element of so many 80’s tales and blend it with concepts that were popular at the time in other genres. It works because it is always as creative and fun as it is actually a mystery to the viewer. It doesn’t take a cinephile to figure out what is going on within the first few episodes, but the pure horror of the reality they have created, paired with our genuine desire for these characters to succeed in their quests, makes for entertaining viewing. However, the show did introduce some mysteries that were left unsolved, mysteries that still have me working through different theories days after watching, which is always a good sign. Seeing the mystery unfold is an experience unto itself, as even at the most obvious moments, great writing and some of the best direction on television elevate this to must-watch status. I hadn’t heard of The Duffer Brothers before this show, but their work spoke for itself. Everything that was shown on screen had a purpose, something that so many shows ignore. The show somehow feels grounded despite how campy the idea of the show actually is. Great acting is certainly to be noted, especially from Millie Bobby Brown, who plays Eleven, and David Harbour, who plays the police chief, Jim Hopper. The excellent synth heavy score always elevated my experience, never distracting from moments. Some expertly placed period songs were also a welcome element, placing us in the scene with the characters. One has to mention the set design and the lighting as well, as both are top notch. The characters fit into a world that feels real, and they look beautiful while doing it.

If there was one warning that I would give, this show earns its TV14 rating. It is genuinely disturbing at times, with graphic imagery, a terrifying monster and tension. Oh the tension. That shouldn’t ward off people that don’t like horror. There are few, if any, jump scares, but it does build throughout the season to a very intense finale. This all leads back to us caring about these characters though. If we didn’t care what happened to them, it wouldn’t feel this way at all. I definitely say it is worth the risk of at least trying out the first episode.

This show has more intrigue and pure entertainment than any other show of its year. It was the must watch show of 2016, and frankly, one of the best Netflix produced shows that ever came about. If you want to invest a few nights in a binge worthy and seriously addicting drama with some of the most interesting characters ever put to screen, please, take the time to sit down and check this show out.

Stranger Things.

5 out of 5 stars.

CB

Suicide Squad.

Supposed superiority.

The Suicide Squad comic was a completely different take on the superhero formula. Instead of focusing on a team of heroes, they would focus on a band of villains, forced into acting in the favour of the public. This allowed for a darker tone, a different type of humour and plenty of social commentary. Unlike the comic that it was based on, the movie adaptation of Suicide Squad failed to deliver on any of those fronts. The movie felt like it was a first draft, one that hadn’t quite settled on who their characters would be.

The producers of Suicide Squad seemed all too happy to take characters with long histories, squander their best qualities, and then have them merely exist with nothing to do. Some of the best villains from the Batman roster were present in the movie, from Killer Croc to Harley Quinn, Deadshot to the Joker himself. Yet only one of the characters seemed to have a purpose, and luckily he had an actor ready to take the lead in a blockbuster film. Without Deadshot, as played by Will Smith, this movie could have been a lot worse than it is. Smith’s natural charisma, paired with an arc in the film that felt genuine and relatable, allowed him to lead this team of misfits into the most dull of situations, and still have them at least be watchable. To put it lightly, he carried the film. The rest of the characters were either under-utilized, mishandled or completely squandered. The Joker is the most obvious example, bringing about the worst version of the clown ever put on screen. Since Jack Nicholson brought him to the big screen, every iteration of the super-villain has been distinct and memorable, mixing dark humour with insanity and intelligence, but never losing that balance. Mark Hamill’s take on the character had a huge fanbase from Batman: The Animated Series, and certainly Heath Ledger’s Oscar winning performance from The Dark Knight managed to bring a sense of realism to the outlandish character, while still retaining what makes the character brilliant. In this latest version though, the Joker feels less like a mad genius and more like a generic gangster. Jared Leto nails the psychopath aspect, but completely fails to bring the other elements of the character out. He is reduced to a lavish-living gang lord, more interested in money and his own appearance than in bringing Gotham to its knees. Had he been left out of the film, other than during Harley Quinn’s origin, it would have left us with a stronger impression of the character. Harley’s origin is important though, as it provided the movies strongest scene, something that I will get into later. Harley’s character is also done a disservice here, reduced to the most obvious (but least interesting) of her attributes: her physical appearance. Margot Robbie does an admirable job with what she is given, but she is mostly regarded by all of the characters, save Deadshot, as a piece of meat as opposed to a villain of equal stature. To get into the other characters would spoil large chunks of the film, but just know not to expect more than two-dimensional takes on otherwise interesting characters. Some are there for no reason at all, while others serve single situation purposes. However, worth mentioning briefly is the main villain, Enchantress. Not only is she poorly acted by Cara Delevingne, but her character has unclear motivations and powers that are never defined for the audience, but worst of all, the way her character acts and talks is completely inconsistent throughout the movie. Sometimes she appears to be speaking in Old English, other times she uses perfect modern American english. For a character that is over 6000 years old, it felt strange to hear her tell a character that he “doesn’t have the balls” to go through with his plan. She is one of the movies weakest elements, and unfortunately that is a big deterrent considering how important she is to the overall plot.

The story of the movie is nearly non-existent. The first half of its runtime is spent telling us how incredibly villainous these characters are, while the second is devoted to the standard fetch quest and big-bad showdown. Nothing happens in the movie that isn’t telegraphed well in advance, meaning that without the expensive visual splendor, there is nothing to hold the audiences interest. Dialogue can save a simple plot, but here it is reduced to one liners, most of which, as I remember, were given away in the trailers for the film when it came out. What’s there is uninspired, out of character or downright misogynistic. At one point, a character punches a woman in the face, and then to play it for laughs he says, “She had a mouth”. This doesn’t even mention the amount of times that Robbie’s character is gawked at by not only by the characters around her, but by the camera itself.

What the film does have going for it is visual splendour. The budget is nearly unmatched, meaning that the effects are top-notch, and the cinematography at times is also well worth mentioning. Though we only get them at the beginning, the neon colour palette is a nice touch, one that was quite different than any of the other comic book films that were put out at the time. But while the visuals might work in its favour, the sound is overbearing and far too on-the-nose. The way that music is used at all times reminds me heavily of Zac Snyder’s Sucker Punch, and not in a good way. Far too often, the lyrics of the songs were literally saying what was happening on screen. Perhaps the worst offender was Rick Ross and Skrillex’s “Purple Lamborghini“, a heavy rap song playing as the Joker and Harley drive down the street in, you guessed it, a purple Lamborghini. Not only that, but it is played at a volume that overpowers the dialogue, telling us that a moment is intense instead of showing us. However, there is one magical moment that uses music brilliantly, one moment that literally had me sit up in my seat and forget everything else. As I mentioned above, the origin of Harley Quinn is a moment that stood out as pure movie bliss. To say exactly what happens would spoil it, but it is a perfect amalgamation of cinematography, direction, writing and music that brings the Joker and Harley together, a scene that will forever define their relationship in the DC movies. It is beautiful and haunting, powerful and subtle. That moment alone left me feeling positively towards the rest of the movie, and I will definitely be watching it again to relive the magic.

For those that simply want an action movie though, this might be something that would interest them. There are more than enough action scenes to fill two movies. Bullets fly around at even the most quiet of times. The testosterone is palpable. It is well shot, never relying on shaky movements, and each character gets at least one moment to show off their powers. I hate to say it, but if you just go along for the ride and ignore the logic behind the story, you might just enjoy yourself.

Would I recommend the film though, despite all of its flaws? This film isn’t remembered as poorly as critics scored it at the time, but it still isn’t good. It is a mediocre movie, with plenty of bullets flying everywhere, big budget effects and loud noises. It is exactly what summer blockbusters are defined as. This isn’t the introduction to the villains of the Batman universe that I wanted, but in more capable hands, the characters do grow and become more interesting. Watch this if you enjoy superhero films, but The Dark Knight this is not.

2 stars out of 5.

CB

Star Trek Beyond.

Resuscitation.

The problem was never that Hollywood ran out of ideas. There were plenty of brilliant screenwriters in the world. Producers at the big studios were just afraid to take chances on new properties. We received “reboots” of long dormant franchises that were completely unnecessary. You only have to look at the likes of Bewitched, Terminator Genysis or Fame to see that making a movie solely for profit is never a good idea. Audiences may not always have the best taste (Transformers I’m looking at you), but they aren’t stupid. They can tell when someone puts passion into projects. Not all franchises are created equal either. Even though I just made fun of Transformers, that franchise was a prime example of a series that made for a great reboot. Take a cheesy cartoon and update it for the adults that grew up with it, inject just enough action and humour for the kids in the audience as well, and you have a fresh film series. I don’t think Michael Bay did a great job with the films, but it isn’t hard to see why they succeeded. As opposed to something like the 1998 reboot of Psycho, starring Vince Vaughn. Nobody was asking for that, and they certainly didn’t have the talent behind the camera to remake a film by one of the all time great directors, Alfred Hitchcock. One franchise that did need a reboot, however, was Star Trek. It had been a long time since the films or the television series were relevant, but the world that Gene Roddenberry had created was full of content just waiting to be explored. The characters were just as loveable as when they were on the original series, the science was just as clever and imaginative as ever, and in the hands of J. J. Abrams, it had the talent behind the camera to breathe new life into the nearly dead franchise.

Star Trek Beyond is the third movie in the rebooted series of Star Trek films. The first two films were critical and commercial successes, and were two of my favourite science fiction films of early 21st century. They combined intelligent scripts with heart and humour, while not getting bogged down in their lore. Some fans found that they relied a bit too heavily on fan service, but I enjoyed all of the nods to past films. They certainly weren’t perfect, as can be seen with the whitewashing of Khan, but they were undeniably fun movies that moved along at a brisk pace while always finding time for great character moments. So does Beyond carry on that tradition under the direction of Justin Lin, or was this film the beginning of the end for this series of films?

The answer lies somewhere in-between. This was the first in the trilogy of films that I didn’t leave the theatre grinning from ear to ear. By no means was this a poorly made film, but its errors were more noticeable under the new team. First and foremost, the story lacked the same punch that the previous films had. What was really a simple story of a crew stranded without a ship became needlessly messy by splitting the story into four parts. By separating the crew, it allowed for interesting character interactions that we may not have gotten otherwise, but some worked better than others, and it was difficult keeping track of all of the crew members when the story kept jumping around. The new characters were visually interesting, but neither the villain nor the new heroine provided anything of substance to the franchise. I wasn’t upset when they weren’t in future installments. Screenwriters Doug Jung and Simon Pegg (Scotty in the film), did a great job at providing quips for their characters, but when it came to moving the plot forward, they seemed to opt for what seemed most convenient and visually interesting, not what made the most sense. I’m all for the suspension of disbelief, but even for a Star Trek film, Beyond made some rather large leaps in logic. This isn’t to say that the film isn’t entertaining, because it certainly is. There were several moments in the film where I found myself leaning forward in my seat, anxious to see what happened next. However, this is purely popcorn affair. When the film attempts to have dramatic moments, that is when it falters most. The dialogue is funny throughout, but some of that is unintentional. Whereas previous entries in the franchise have excelled at techno-babble, in Beyond the writers seemed to struggle creating believable jargon for all of their wild solutions, leading to the viewer being taken out of the moment. Their dialogue simply didn’t sound like natural discourse.

A large portion of this film is action though, and here it mostly delivers. Without giving anything away, there are several creative uses of contemporary equipment in the film, all of which brought both humour and energy to the picture. Director Lin certainly knew his way around a battle sequence, but where he wasn’t quite as strong was in character moments. Unnecessary camera flourishes were common. I am a firm believer that camera work should be driven by the story. If the camera movement is taking me out of the moment, such as rotating needlessly during a routine dialogue sequence, it is more distracting than stylish. Lin did a solid job though, and the change of directors wasn’t too jarring despite Abrams’ distinct style. What was more noticeable was the change in cinematographers. Both Star Trek and Into Darkness were beautifully lit by Daniel Mindel, and his unique use of colour and lens flares were sorely missed. By contrast, this film felt oddly flat. It is still an attractive film with great effects, but I was able to tell immediately Mindel wasn’t attached to the project.

I have probably been rather harsh on the film, and as I said at the beginning, it definitely isn’t bad. I just came away from it, back when it was in theatres, and when re-watching it now, disappointed. This is a franchise I love, and after two extremely strong entries, this felt like a step backwards. I loved being able to spend more time with Kirk, Spock and Bones, but when the action comes before those characters, it is harder to enjoy our time together. I think with a little bit more time, the script could have been polished up, and then we could have had something really special. As it stands, this was an enjoyable, if oddly jargon filled, entry in the Star Trek canon.

3.5 out of 5 stars.

CB

The Invitation.

Communal misery.

If you are reading this, chances are that you have already experienced plenty of violence in your life. The world we live in is a harsh one. It wasn’t always like this. Certainly violence has been a prominent part of society, as I have touched on in the past, but it was unlikely that most Canadians would actually hold a gun in their lifetime, or use a knife for anything other than preparing food. We would hear horror stories on the news of mass killings, but often they felt like they happened in another world. Violence was seen as the easy solution to complicated problems. The idea that there were disputes over race or gender equality in the 21st century still appalls me to this day. The fact that they led to violence appalls me further. We never did see the day where there was complete harmony among all people. Many had trouble coping with the tragedies that took place. Some turned to religion. Others turned away from it. Some took action to bring about change. Others hid from the world, believing it to be a lost cause. Nobody had answers though. Now we live in a time where violence is the norm. Everybody is armed. It has nothing to do with race, sexual preference, or religion. When it comes down to supplies, or shelter, few people wish to talk it out. And still, none of us have the answers of how to deal with loss despite losing so many.

The Invitation is a film that examines what it means to lose someone, and the effect that it can have on those that knew them. Will has been invited over to his ex-wife’s house for a lavish dinner party with old friends. This is made incredibly tense by the presence of her new husband, and the fact that they split up over the loss of their son two years earlier. So what was her intention when inviting him?

Directed by Karyn Kusama, most well known for Jennifer’s Body and Girlfight, the film is a tight piece of psychological suspense. The picture starts out with a dark and unsettling scene on the way to the party, and it doesn’t let up the tension until the credits roll. This is a very slow building film. The 100 minute runtime is used to great effect, ramping up the level of paranoia until it reaches its breaking point and all is revealed. This is first and foremost a mystery, and a very good one at that. What works best with the film is that it wears its intentions on its sleeve, but constantly makes you as the viewer feel paranoid for feeling the way you do. Will, as the lead character, is merely acting as the lens for the audience, showing us what we need to see to build up our suspicions, only to disprove them moments later. Everything we are shown is very purposefully placed before us, whether it is what we believe it to be or not. Kusama cranks up the tension by using believable characters who react as they should in situations that are at the best of times awkard, and at the worst, downright unbearable.

The acting is incredible across the board, showing us what it can mean to lose a loved one, how hard it can be to accept friends back into our lives after long periods of time, and the different ways people deal with what life throws at them. The screenwriters did an excellent job at creating these characters to feel like real people, but also to put them in unbelievable scenarios and still come across as genuine. They are often as shocked as we are. Often times you can tell that they are trying to act as polite as possible, while really wishing to be as distant from the situation as possible. Logan Marshall-Green as Will is a particular standout, for he takes on a very emotionally distraught character, one which in other hands may have pushed us away, and makes him completely relatable and sympathetic.

The entire movie is about what the intention behind the dinner party has been. The film ended up going down the exact route I thought it was, but it did such an excellent job at redirecting my attention, and deflecting my expectations that I didn’t mind. When things do get revealed, they are done in such a surprising way that they feel fresh. There is also an excellent twist at the very end that completely changes the idea behind the reveal.

Between likeable characters, strong direction that keeps us guessing the entire film, a constant sense of dread throughout, and a bold reveal that takes the movie in an entirely new direction, I found myself enthralled from the beginning to the end. It is a simple idea for a film, one that reminds me of The Gift but without the jump scares, and it works on almost every level. The film was predictable in the sense that it is what I thought it was going to be, but things are done in such a way that they feel fresh. I don’t know that it is a film that I would watch more than once given its nature as a film based off of its sense of surprise and suspense, but I can easily recommend it to those that enjoy a good mystery.

4 stars out of 5.

CB

’71.

Desolation.

Once we were able to see past the immediate tragedy of it all, my wife and I were able to find some enjoyment in this new world. We made it our mission to finish as much of the gelato in the world as we could before it expired. We spent hours in empty movie theatres screening classic films such as Casablanca, playing all sorts of video games, and blasting music on the surround sound systems. We were able to try out luxury cars, visit museums without any lines, and wander empty beaches at sunset. We truly did believe we were the last ones alive. Had it not been for her, I would never have survived. She helped me to keep my head, a routine, and most importantly, purpose in this new world. So when we did eventually run into others, everything changed. No longer was this our world, a place where we could walk freely and enjoy the life we had been given. It turned into a world of fear and trepidation.

’71 is a terrifyingly accurate depiction of the world in a time of conflict. Gary Hook, played by Jack O’Connell, is an Irish soldier deployed to prevent further conflict between the Protestants and Catholics in the country. On a routine raid, Hook is separated from his fellow soldiers when he has to chase down a boy that stole a gun, only to barely escape death as the IRA (Irish Republican Army) show up and open fire. The story follows Hook as he attempts to survive the night and get back to the barracks.

From the opening moments, the film is filled with an intense energy that grips every fibre of your being, dragging you through the tribulations of Hook, whether you are prepared for it or not. Director Yann Demange expertly wins over your allegiance by introducing Hook as a loving older brother, a caring and dedicated soldier, one who is just trying to do his part. This is not a tale of black and white characters. Everyone is doing what they think is best, not for their own benefit, but for the larger conflict at hand. For this reason, no one is to be trusted. This creates tension between not only the different people in the film, but between Hook and his surroundings. Every building has to be treated with apprehension, as what lies on the other side could be his end.

Demange imbues the film with personality, treating his camera as its own character. Whether crawling in the dirt during army drills, or zooming in on boys kicking around a ball in the yard as if from a home video, the lens always finds a way to enhance the story and the inherent tension already amplified by the situation that Hook finds himself in. Just as impressive is Jack O’Connell’s performance. The entire cast is excellent, bringing a sense of realism that is rarely found in Hollywood depictions of conflict, but O’Connell especially steals every scene he is in, while speaking very little. He has a physical presence about him that is both intimidating and vulnerable. There are several moments in the film that I could feel his pain as if it were my own. To say that it is hard to watch at times would be an understatement. His journey is filled with close calls and endless amounts of pain.

The film finds itself sitting at just over 90 minutes, a perfect length for a film of this sort. It felt long, but not in a bad way. Quite the opposite in fact. I felt like I had spent all night with this character, barely escaping death on several occasions, and felt the full impact of its ending because of the length of the journey. Yet, it was short enough that the anguish didn’t overstay its welcome. I was not fatigued, but deeply emotionally invested. With that said, the one major critique of the movie that I have is that the ending lasts several minutes too long. I find that a lot of films feel the need to wrap up their endings too neatly. There was a perfect closing shot for the film, one that would have left the ending open to interpretation, something that this film had expertly done up to this point. It is still a powerful ending, one that you may not see coming, but it was overextended, feeling out of place in such a concise piece of work. It is a small complaint though, one that is overwhelmingly overshadowed by the work as a whole. The world that is built here is tangible. I truly felt as though I was within the conflict in Ireland. I was heavily invested in the story of this soldier, the world of Ireland in 1971 and knowing that others have understood what it means to be truly alone and afraid.

4.5 out of 5 stars.

CB

Mr. Right.

Fecal jocularity.

We all searched for our Mr. or Mrs. Right. Despite the fact that there were billions of people on the planet before the contagion, there were very few people that were actually compatible. You had to take a lot of things into consideration, such as who you found attractive, if they had your sense of humour, you shared similar interests, political viewpoints, cleanliness, lifestyles… the list goes on. When you finally found that person where everything clicked, you had to hang on and never let go. So even if your husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, partner, friend, teammate, etc, turns out to be a serial killer, at least hear them out before running for your life.

Mr. Right stars two of the most talented actors of the pre-apocalypse. Anna Kendrick was a favourite of mine from the early days when she played Scott Pilgrim’s older sister, and Sam Rockwell won my heart over in one of my favourite films, The Way Way Back. So despite the fact that I had never heard of this movie, I needed a romantic comedy full laughs, romance and those two beautiful human beings just being their charismatic selves. And boy, does Mr. Right not deliver.

Any film that can make Sam Rockwell seem boring is clearly doing something wrong. In the film, he plays a hitman who just happens to be turning his life around, when he runs into a beautiful girl named Martha at the convenience store, played by Ms. Kendrick. Martha has recently broken up with her boyfriend when he not only cheated on her, but tried to make it better by inviting her to join in on the action. The set up is filled with potential, but thanks to some poor direction and worse writing, I found myself longing for the two stars to be in any movie but this.

The most glaring problem is that these characters are neither charming nor realistic. I couldn’t buy the fact that Mr. Right was supposed to be this perfect man, when his sense of humour was calling other people “poopy heads”. That was just one of many fecal related jokes in the movie, none of which landed. I also couldn’t buy that Martha would fall so deeply in love with Mr. Right in one day that she could overlook the fact that he kills people for a living. Her character progression throughout the movie is nonsensical. One minute she is completely horrified that this man she just met plays with knives for fun, the next minute she is inviting him to throw them at her. If having multiple personalities was the character choice they were going for, they really didn’t make that clear enough. Mr. Right himself is likeable enough, in part due to Rockwell’s game performance (he really did try), but also because he clearly does feel bad for his actions. His character is a nice guy, albeit one with a terrible sense of humour, but we don’t get anything else out of him. In other words, there is a serious lack of depth. He is a nice killer, something that we have seen countless times before, and done much better than this.

The plot for the film doesn’t help the characters either. The movie starts out with plenty of avenues to explore, but ends up going down the most trodden path. It doesn’t stray from the tried and true formula of the romantic comedy, nor the hitman love story that we have seen before. Even Mr. and Mrs. Smith explored the dynamic between people keeping secrets from each other better than this movie. There are no repercussions for the actions of any characters. That leaves us with no drama. So if there is no drama, bland characters with unclear motivations and unbelievable arcs, are then what are we left with. The aforementioned humour certainly doesn’t help, as it is all directed at the most base level audience. There is nothing intelligent about any of the jokes. The visual storytelling and humour don’t add anything to the package either. The direction for the film feels oddly out of place. More than this even being a romantic comedy, it is an action movie. Only the action scenes feel tired, as if the director was too lazy to move the camera. For all of the shooting, stabbing and dancing that this film features, it doesn’t feel visceral in the least, and yet it feels the need to fill the screen with blood.

So does the film succeed at anything? Both Kendrick and Rockwell commit to their performances, but you can tell at times that they know that their dialogue is pretty amateurish. I felt especially bad for Kendrick in the last 15 minutes, as her character continues to devolve into unbelievable territory. There really aren’t any redeeming qualities. And to think that there was a time after that I thought Max Landis was going to be Hollywood’s next iconic screenwriter. Oh how I was mistaken.

For a cast that was so right, this movie just feels so wrong.

1.5 stars out of 5.

CB