Director: James DeMonaco
Writers: James DeMonaco
Stars: Frank Grillo, Elizabeth Mitchell, Mykelti Williamson

Synopsis: Two years after choosing not to kill the man who killed his son, former police sergeant Barnes has become head of security for Senator Charlene Roan, the front runner in the next Presidential election due to her vow to eliminate the Purge.

[/info]

The Purge series, which started in 2013, has been a sort of guilty pleasure for me because the main premise of the films has been intriguing. If you are unfamiliar, The Purge is an annual event that runs for 12 hours on March 21 to 22, from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m., during which all crime is legal (including murder), and all police, fire, and medical emergency services are unavailable. In the first two films, high ranking officials are given immunity from being disturbed. The Purge (2013) was pretty decent, but I hated The Purge: Anarchy (2014).

The biggest issue I have had with both films have been useless and annoying characters that were plagued by a weakening plot. To date, the most annoying character I have ever seen in a movie was Cali in The Purge: Anarchy. Cali was one of the good ones, so I knew that she would never die as I was hoping, especially with Crossbones protecting her. The Purge: Election Year corrects all the issues of the previous films.

Leo Barnes (Frank Grillo), two years after the events of the last film, is now working as head of security for U.S. Senator Charlene Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell), the front-runner in the next U.S. presidential election. Roan lost her family in a Purge event 15 years earlier and is vowing to end the annual purge, which is strongly opposed by government leaders. For the first time in Purge history, no one has immunity, and can you guess who the prime target is? Sadly it’s not Cali from the previous film; it’s obviously the senator. The plot is pretty similar to the last film as we have Barnes and company battling to survive the night.

This time around director/writer James DeMonaco makes very simple changes in the same plot that makes a world of difference. Barnes is joined by other characters, but now the characters are much stronger, more developed and add something to the team. The script can go in so many directions with a film centered around violence, but the fact that Roan wants to end the purge makes for an intriguing target and creates a conflict that makes sense.

I hate sequels because I think most of the time they are unnecessary. I think having the first two films differ from each other was a bad idea because we never knew how the characters in the first film changed after the events. Having a direct sequel to Anarchy, we already know how the events affected Barnes, and we can cut the back story. DeMonaco does an excellent job introducing new characters and provided just enough about them that we want to root for them. The Purge: Election Year is the first time I have rated the third installment of a film series higher than any others.

The Purge: Election Year is a successful sequel and is proof that the director corrected mistakes from the previous movies and ended up with a rewarding cinematic experience.

Overall Grade: B

[divider]

Hear our review of The Purge: Anarchy here:

[divider]

Director: Rebecca Miller
Writers: Rebecca Miller, Karen Rinaldi (story)
Stars: Greta Gerwig, Ethan Hawke, Julianne Moore, Travis Fimmell

Synopsis: Maggie’s plan to have a baby on her own is derailed when she falls in love with John, a married man, destroying his volatile marriage to the brilliant Georgette.

[/info]

I’m not terribly familiar with Rebecca Miller’s other films, such as The Private Lives of Pippa Lee, The Ballad of Jack and Rose or Personal Velocity, but they are more serious, emotional dramas from what I know about them. Meaning, Maggie’s Plan is Miller’s first foray into the comedic realm, and while she doesn’t 100% stick the landing, she mostly gets it right. It doesn’t hurt either when your star is Greta Gerwig, who is the queen of indie comedies, especially when they are set in New York as we see in Maggie’s Plan.

Maggie (Greta Gerwig) works at a small college in an administrative position, “a bridge between art and commerce,” as she puts it. And while she has a good job, her life isn’t where she wants it to be. She yearns to be a mother. However, that’s a problem when you can’t hold down a long-term relationship, so she is seeking a sperm donor. After some debate with her friend Tony (Bill Hader), who is against the idea, she settles on an old college friend in Guy (Travis Fimmel), who was a math whiz but has decided instead to be a top tier pickle farmer. Well this plan of hers is interrupted by John Harding (Ethan Hawke), who works at the same school as Maggie and the two start to develop an unexpected romance. However there is a problem; John is married. His wife Georgette, who also works in academia, is pretty successful but it comes at the cost of their marriage fizzling out. To give more details away would be doing you a disservice but let’s just say, the relationships between Maggie, John and Georgette gets rather interesting. And let’s not forget, Guy also appears at some point later in the film too.

The screenplay on the surface may seem trite but it’s actually smart and viscerally honest as it relates to how people react to one another. Sometimes, it is a little too honest when it comes to that idea and character reactions in Maggie’s Plan. The film also flips expectations on their head as far as romantic-comedy tropes go and it takes some rather clever turns near the third act. The dialogue is snappy and witty with some great humor thrown in as well.

Of course, it’s really the performances that make this film, which are so charming and magnetic. Gerwig plays a character that may seem a bit familiar if you’ve seen her in other Noah Baumbach films but she owns the role. She impeccably treads this line of competence, or the lack thereof, and stability, all qualities that make Maggie fun and engaging. Gerwig is simply the rhythm of Maggie’s Plan and she is the heart of the movie’s charm.

Ethan Hawke is equally as charismatic and wonderfully chews on intellectual and philosophical dialogue, a skill set that he maneuvers perfectly to never feel too distant from the audience. I mean, he is an expert in the field of “ficto-critical anthropology” after all, so he needs to be smart. However, Hawke reminds us that he is also human and full of emotion like everyone else. Like Gerwig, Hawke perfectly treads that line and makes the character compelling and sympathetic.

The unsung hero of the film though is Travis Fimmel as Guy. Here is a guy, no pun intended, who is smart (again, he is a math whiz and successful business man) and full of genuine reaction. He is a gentleman who just wants to do right by Maggie. He may be a bit socially awkward but you can tell there is honesty behind Fimmel’s eyes that speak to the heart of this film thematically. And huge credit to the screenplay and Miller’s direction for keeping much of Guy’s history mysterious. There is earned ambiguity behind his character that shines through in Fimmel’s performance. There is a scene halfway through where Guy runs into Maggie on the street, and near the end of the scene there is a close-up on Fimmel’s face that speaks a thousand words and is one of the best moments in 2016 when it comes to film. He is a true highlight of Maggie’s Plan.

Most of the problems of Maggie’s Plan lie in a few awkward transitions, which probably come from a lack of experience in the genre on Miller’s part, and also Julianne Moore’s performance. I love Moore as much as everyone else but her over-the-top, eccentric performance is rather jarring and doesn’t tonally fit with everything else. Additionally, the writing of her character is rather thin, making it harder for Moore to make Georgette feel fully fleshed out. Most of the writing and directing of this film is pretty good, but you can tell that Miller is dipping her toes into comedic waters and it made for a few slip ups.

Overall, Maggie’s Plan is a solid film full of alluring characters and a story that does surprise you in certain regards. It’s a fun experience and one that I can fully recommend that you check out.

Overall Grade: B+

[divider]

Hear our full Extra Film review here:

[divider]

Director: Whit Stillman
Writers: Jane Austen (based on her novella “Lady Susan”), Whit Stillman
Stars: Kate Beckinsale, Chloë Sevigny, Xavier Samuel

Synopsis: Lady Susan Vernon takes up temporary residence at her in-laws’ estate and, while there, is determined to be a matchmaker for her daughter Frederica — and herself too, naturally.

[/info]

When it comes to Jane Austen, it often feels like people either love her work or don’t care for it at all. Rarely have I seen the middle ground in my experience with her. Regardless of what you may think of her, the fact is, she can be pretty dang funny and director Whit Stillman certainly brings that to life in Love & Friendship. Stillman was nominated for Best Original Screenplay back in 1991 for Metropolitan, so it’s no surprise to see that the screenplay for Love & Friendship is the film’s strength, alongside superb performances.

Due to recent changes in her life, Lady Susan Vernon (Kate Beckinsale) temporarily takes residence at her in-laws’ estate, which comes at quite the surprise to her family at first. Soon after arriving, Frederica, Lady Susan’s daughter, joins them and you can soon tell that she would rather stay with her grandparents than with her mother. However, that doesn’t stop Lady Susan from pursuing her goal of playing matchmaker for Frederica, who wants nothing to do with what her mother is up to. Simultaneously, there’s a romance that blossoms for Lady Susan in the process, which complicates matters further and it all leads to some rather interesting situations.

While that synopsis seems rather trite, Stillman’s writing is actually quite refreshing. The screenplay is hysterical and interweaves both satire and genuine character development in a way that is pretty charming. Austen’s commentary on English society in the 1700’s and how relationships worked back then is not only funny, but it’s also smart. There’s some great questions brought up about gender roles, women’s placement in men’s lives and how silly the stereotypes were back then. Ironically enough though, some of that satire is just as prevalent today, sadly. In some ways, Love & Friendship was Jane Austen’s version of The Lobster.

Stillman’s writing certainly makes those themes felt throughout the movie but his direction is wonderful as well. The art direction is beautiful and juxtaposes the satire of the film really well. You are immediately supplanted in 1700’s England with lush cinematography that is aesthetically very pleasing to look at. The costumes, buildings and ambiances are authentically lucid. Stillman also implements some meta techniques to introduce the characters and setting, which felt very Deadpool-esque and was also quite funny in execution.

All of that said, you can’t talk about the film Love & Friendship and not mention Kate Beckinsale, who is as endearing as ever. The funny thing about that, as compelling as Lady Susan Vernon is to watch, she’s actually the best movie villain we’ve possibly seen in 2016. Forget Apocalypse, forget Shredder and Krang, forget Lex Luthor, forget Gul’dan, Lady Susan is the best movie villain we’ve seen this year. The way she uses charm and beauty to connive and manipulate is incredible. Lady Susan may not want to take over the world like the aforementioned villains but she is determined to get her way and isn’t concerned with who she hurts in the process. Don’t get it twisted, she is not a saint or a hero. She isn’t evil per se but that doesn’t mean her actions are good either. You are not going to be rooting for her at the end of this film. That said, she is still captivating to watch and holds a lot of the root to this film thematically regarding gender roles. And Beckinsale brings all of that out in Lady Susan in such engaging fashion.

Love & Friendship won’t be a film for everyone. The dialogue used here is exactly what you think of when someone says the words “Jane Austen” and it will be jarring initially. However, once you settle into the film, it’s easy to track and the story takes some fun and humorous turns that you can enjoy. The performances all around are great. Tom Bennett steals every scene he is in as Sir James Martin, he is just a riot. Morfydd Clark is also worth noting here too. The only major issue with the film is the movie’s third act, which does meander a little bit and the final scene abruptly ends without tying some things up smoothly. Outside of that, the film is a joyride that I’d recommend.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Hear our Extra Film review here:

[divider]

Director: Yorgos Lanthimos
Writers: Yorgos Lanthimos, Efthymis Filippou
Stars: Colin Farrell, Rachel Weisz, Ben Wishaw, John C. Reilly, Léa Seydoux

Synopsis: In a dystopian near future, single people, according to the laws of The City, are taken to The Hotel, where they are obliged to find a romantic partner in forty-five days or are transformed into beasts and sent off into The Woods.

[/info]

If you read that synopsis above and you fail to get excited, then Yorgos Lanthimos is simply not a filmmaker for you. The Lobster has been hailed by many as one of the most original film in years and in some ways, it certainly is with that concept. Lanthimos is no stranger to interesting concepts as it relates to relationships. His 2010 film Dogtooth saw a family where a mother and father wouldn’t let their children leave the house until they were old enough when their “dogtooth” would fall out. A few years later, Alps explored a group of people who started a business where they would impersonate the recently deceased in order to help their clients through the grieving process. Both films are bizarre but fascinating explorations of how relationships rule our lives. The Lobster is no different and it’s one hell of a biting satire on romance.

David (Collin Farrell) has recently divorced from his wife and as the Law states, singe people must be taken to The Hotel, where they must find a romantic partner in forty-five days or they are transformed into the animal of their choosing and sent off into the wild. Once David arrives at the hotel, with is brother who was transformed into a dog after failing at The Hotel, he starts adjusting to his life there and how he can find a partner. The hotel has certain rules though and you must follow them accordingly or there is punishment. After forcing his way into one relationship, which ends arduously, he escapes the hotel to find himself among The Loner group out in the woods. The Loner group has their own set of rules which juxtaposes The Hotel but similarly David is seeking companionship, which he finds in the Short Sighted Woman (Rachel Weisz) and the cost of that could be severe.

Lanthimos isn’t a director known for emotion or romance but The Lobster is romantic in the most bizarre, funny and honest way possible. The relationships depicted in The Lobster certainly have a slight cynical viewpoint, while showing the absurdity of things we consider normal, however it’s well balanced with genuine connection between two people in the oddest of circumstances.

The Lobster, on the surface, works as a social allegory about romanticism but what’s brilliant about the film is how Lanthimos structures the film to give the film an ever evolving dynamic narratively and thematically, which deepens the allegory and shows every side of the coin. The first act works as social commentary on societal expectations of relationships and how they are supposed to look. It features hilarious skits that The Hotel put on to showcase the “dangers” or the “normalcy” of romance and it works as wonderful anti-relationship satire. The second act sees David in The Loner group, which allows its members freedom, unlike The Hotel, but they are not allowed to flirt or engage in romance. The third act becomes something else entirely as well, where Lanthimos’ vision unfolds before your eyes and cynicism starts to peel away for optimism. The climax reflects this idea that singledom isn’t the answer either making The Lobster, in its strange but somewhat hopeful way, feel romantic.

The irony in all of this, given the film’s very original premise, is how thematically it tackles the oldest notions known to man. The Lobster, and its heart, is about human connection. Lanthimos develops a setting where he’s able to strip back all of the distraction of modern living and focus on the instinctual, visceral yearning of what connection does to a person. In the middle of that, Lanthimos also takes time to question the motivation of companionship. Is it just human nature? If we are all “animals” and geared for survival, why do I need companionship? Those are honest and valid questions that Lanthimos never answers but ambiguously just poses throughout the film.

Lanthimos’ storytelling and direction is brilliant but The Lobster‘s success isn’t just about what he brings to the table. Collin Farrell is terrific and perfectly dead pan throughout the whole film. Every action, facial expression, and word of dialogue out of Farrell’s mouth features a dry sense of humor that plays well with the satire but also feels grounded for his character. Rachel Weisz is also very good, especially near the film’s climax where her character is full of nuances. John C. Reilly doesn’t have a lot of screen time but he’s very effective when he is there.

Overall, The Lobster is one of the smartest films of 2016, so far. The writing is intelligent and has some really funny commentary about how romance is perceived today but it’s never too cold. Lanthimos is genuinely interested in depicting how true romance can survive in a world lacking of joy and authenticity. Lanthimos’ attention to details makes the experience even more engaging and gut punching, especially when you see random animals just walking in the background while characters are reflecting or having conversation. As a result, The Lobster is endlessly fascinating with characters you want to see more of and a world that is a truly unique experience.

Overall Grade: A

Director: Luca Guadagnino
Writers: David Kajganich (screenplay), Alain Page (story)
Stars: Tilda Swinton, Matthias Schoenaerts, Ralph Fiennes, Dakota Johnson

Synopsis: The vacation of a famous rock star and a filmmaker is disrupted by the unexpected visit of an old friend and his daughter.

[/info]

Jealously fueled by eroticism and sexual history, within the rock n’ roll lifestyle. A Bigger Splash introduces these interesting notions with vibrancy, exuberance, and (of course) eroticism, all backed by some fantastic performances.  It also, appropriately but unfortunately, blows its load too soon and runs out of said things to say by the midway point, and simply coasts along instead of progressing. I should also preface by saying that I had not seen I Am Love prior to seeing A Bigger Splash, so this was my first experience with director Luca Guadagnino. Perhaps I was a bit unprepared.

A Bigger Splash depicts a high profile couple on vacation in Pantelleria; famous rock star Marianne Lane (Tilda Swinton, nearly channeling her inner David Bowie) and photographer Paul (Matthias Schoenaerts). Their vacation is interrupted by an unexpected visit by their old friend Harry (Ralph Fiennes), accompanied by his daughter (Dakota Johnson). Harry is a friend of Paul’s and an old flame of Marianne’s, and unfortunately his sexual urges for her may still remain.

It is here that fuels the sexual yet jealous fire of the film’s primary themes, stated above.  Harry is essentially an uninvited guest, whose baggage is packed with an unwanted tension during Paul and Marianne’s desire for a peaceful vacation. I feel Harry is someone many of us can relate to; we all have that friend that likes to “wheel” his or her way into our private getaways, uninvited mind you, and whether that is fueled by sexual history or anything else depends entirely on you relationship with that friend. In the case of Harry, his history with Marianne and braggadocio-like manner as a rock n’ roll producer (Fiennes has a great dance scene to the Rolling Stones’ tune “Emotional Rescue”), that fuels Paul’s own jealousy. As a result, an erotic journey of lust ensues between our four leads.

All these interesting notions are fully explored in the film’s effective first third, and then ceases to progress. It repeats itself too often, and thus continues to become less engaging as it aimlessly coasts along. It does become clear that the film is moving toward something arduous, and the film’s final act is indeed such, but too much repetition makes way for stale delivery. Keeping with the rock n’ roll aesthetic of the film, imagine your favorite rock album, listening to it all the way through from beginning to end, and that immersion you feel as the final note fades away. Now instead of that, imagine just listening to only one of the songs on that album over and over again; it’s great at first, then slowly you become sick of it. That’s A Bigger Splash in a nutshell.

It cannot be denied that A Bigger Splash is beautifully shot, and the performances by Fiennes and Swinton (who hardly speaks in this film) are indeed fantastic. Even Matthias Schoenaerts, who was great in last year’s The Danish Girl, has a few moments to shine here (too bad Dakota Johnson becomes too lost in the shuffle, a slight insult to her own talents). But I can’t help but feel that Guadagnino never explores the film’s erotic notions or rock n’ roll tendencies to its potential, and that makes for a disengaging experience. Perhaps I just didn’t “get” it all, but as it stands, it’s less of a big splash and more of a small ripple.

Overall Grade: C+

Director: Dave Green
Writers: Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec
Stars: Megan Fox, Will Arnett, Tyler Perry

Synopsis: As Shredder joins forces with mad scientist Baxter Stockman and henchmen Bebop and Rocksteady to take over the world, the Turtles must confront an even greater nemesis: the notorious Krang.

[/info]

The creative minds at Warner Bros and Disney, please never have Michael Bay involved in any of your superhero films, because this man is singlehandedly ruining the Transformers. And now even more so the Ninja Turtles. The problem is that Bay is involved with properties that are well-known and are poised for “success” due to the name alone. Michael Bay is back, as are the Ninja Turtles. And when the best thing about your movie is Megan Fox’s acting, then you know your film is in trouble. TMNT 2 is wrongly titled Out of the Shadows because this is movie should have never been made. I didn’t like the first Ninja Turtles film at all, but after seeing the sequel, the first one was much better and wasn’t filled with nearly as much nonsense.

The overly-large Turtles ( Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, and Donatello) come into conflict with scientist Dr. Baxter Stockman (Tyler Perry), who they find out is, of course, working for the returning Shredder (Brain Tee). The film feels the need to add Bebop and Rocksteady (Gary Anthony Williams and Stephen “Sheamus” Farrelly, respectively), Casey Jones (Stephen Amell), and even Krang (Brad Garrett).

Let’s start with the only positive for this film and that is the performance of Megan Fox. Megan Fox does more in this movie than any of the turtles, and one thing that still bothers me is how just like Transformers, she never seems to get dirty no matter what blows up around her. The movie added characters for no reason. Casey Jones was not needed in this film at all; it’s evident that Stephen Amell is doing Oliver Queenish things as Jones. Two villains that were not necessary and didn’t need to be added were Bebop and Rocksteady. The point being is that there were too many unnecessary characters.

The Goliath turtles fight more among themselves than with any of the villains, and when they do engage in combat, they are a victim of atrocious CGI. I hated this film and hoped that it ends right here, but chances are it will still continue because kids love this new take on the turtles.

The 3D was pointless, and I really cannot recommend this movie to anyone unless you have kids. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows has jumped into my number one slot as worst movie of the year so congrats to Bay and director Dave Green for such an achievement.

Overall Grade: F