Director: James Wan
Writers: Carey Hayes (screenplay), Chad Hayes (screenplay)
Stars: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Madison Wolfe

Synopsis: Lorraine and Ed Warren travel to north London to help a single mother raising four children alone in a house plagued by malicious spirits.

[/info]

The Conjuring ended up being one of the better horror films about demonic possession that I have seen in awhile. Part of what made The Conjuring a successful horror film was the camera angles, and although you can tell when the scares were coming, James Wan still surprised us. The acting was great and the story was told beautifully. Can James Wan do it again with a follow-up? Well, the Insidious sequel may have been disappointing in the end, but The Conjuring 2 is a pulse-pounding 134 minutes that keeps you entertained the entire time.

The Conjuring 2 brings Ed and Lorraine Warren to London, England to investigate another incident regarding paranormal activity. The story follows single mother, Peggy Hodson (Frances O’Connor) and the supposed events surrounding her home, and in particular her youngest daughter Janet Hodgson (Madison Wolfe).

The 1973 classic film The Exorcist is still the best movie about demonic possession because, at the time of that release, filmmakers didn’t have the technology we do today to utilize cheap jump scares. The scares were done the old fashioned way with excellent writing and a sense of realism. I bring all this up because what you enjoyed about the first Conjuring film is different from the sequel, and in my opinion is better than the first. There are far fewer moments where people will jump. In fact, at the screening I attended, I do not recall anyone screaming as they did during the first one.

Having the setting shift to London might be a small difference to some but for me, I think it changed the whole dynamic of the film. The tight-knit community, modern style houses, and furniture (blended with the paranormal), makes for a more efficient scare than a typical setting in a rural area in the states. This same type of thing worked for the brilliant horror film The Witch. I’m not exactly sure what it is, but something about British accents and horror films seems to work. James Wan knows how to tackle genre and it’s because of that, I believe he will do an excellent job directing Aquaman.

In the 134 minutes, you would expect there to be more character development, but I think for this film the lack of character development works, because not knowing anything about this family makes the ride that much more enjoyable. The Conjuring 2 reuses the same elements from the first film (heightened sound effects, moving furniture, and dark corners) but add in the terrific acting of O’Connor and Wolfe, and you have a successful film that I highly recommend.

Overall Grade: A

Director: Bryan Singer
Writers: Simon Kinberg (screenplay), Bryan Singer (story)
Stars: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, Oscar Isaac, Rose Byrne, Evan Peter, Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Kodi Smit-McPhee

Synopsis: With the emergence of the world’s first mutant, Apocalypse, the X-Men must unite to defeat his extinction level plan.

[/info]

DIRECTION
Bryan Singer may not be the most dynamic director working today but after watching X-Men: Apocalypse, one thing is clear to me; he knows X-Men. The first two X-Men films arguably set the table for the superhero buffet we get to eat from every single year, and for good reason. In fact, in some circles, X2 is one of the best superhero films we’ve seen to date. After taking a hiatus from the series after X2, he returned in 2014 to direct X-Men: Days of Future Past, which I personally think is the best film in the X-Men Universe so far. And now here we are with X-Men: Apocalypse, the ninth film in the X-Men series, also directed by Singer. Apocalypse is arguably the worst X-Men film he’s directed but the X-Men comradery is there and the poignant individual character moments that make the X-Men who they are resonate by the end. Singer knows the characters and it’s apparent here. The problem with the film is that Singer is out of balance exploring all of the X-Men characters as well as trying to give us a grander story revolving around the Apocalypse character. Singer can’t figure out the right mixture and because of that, the end result is quite messy. However, it’s an ambitious mess that spends a lot of time with the heroes, their emotions and what drives them in the middle of the conflict. Singer may be presumptuous and lacking precision, which ultimately does hurt the film, but the character pathos is handled well and it’s what Singer uses to overcome the narrative hurdle.

[divider]

SCRIPT / THEMES
Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) is the world’s first mutant, and after an event causes forces him out of a 2000-year-old slumber, he awakens to find the world in a disastrous state. He then sets out to find his Four Horseman so he can once again take over the world and create it the way he thinks it should be. Simultaneously, Magneto (Michael Fassbender) has settled down with a wife and daughter and is trying to live the life that his old friend Xavier (James McAvoy) would want him to. It doesn’t quite go according to plan and eventually Magneto goes back to what is instinctual to him. While all of that is happening, Xavier is continuing to build his school and we see new students, such as Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), Scott Summers (Tye Sheridan) and Kurt Wagner (Kodi Smit-McPhee) adjusting to their life at the school. After Magneto is recruited by Apocalypse to be one of the Four Horseman, it sets in motions a series of events that intertwines all of these characters, which forces them into a fight they may not be ready for.

As mentioned above, the juggling act of this screenplay was a bit too much for Singer to handle as a director. Singer, as well as writer Simon Kinberg, could never find the right balance of character exploration and over-arching narrative exposition for the film to come together in a coherent way. Apocalypse’s arc, if you can call it that, is scattered and lacks narrative reason. There’s a basic understanding of what he wants but it’s trite and eventually irrelevant to the film. Singer and Kinberg are more interested in the heroes, their inner turmoil and their struggle together. They are concerned with how the emotions of all these characters (especially Magneto, Xavier and Mystique) tie back to X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past and how that influences the new characters introduced here. Singer intentionally pauses the film to remind us of that character growth we’ve seen, and not strictly as a call back, but to show us how it plays into the actions of these characters in X-Men: Apocalypse. There is a continual progression that is rooted back to the previous films of this franchise and Singer is not interested in forgetting that progression. It mattered for the characters in those other films and it matters to them right here and now.

That kind of character work really resonates when you see Magneto experience trauma and how it impacts Xavier, whose response is now rooted in hope. A hope he had to learn in Days of Future Past and is now crucial to Apocalypse, narratively and thematically. This through line of hope, as well as overcoming shame and your past, carries a lot of weight and it’s fleshed out well in the heroes of this film. Singer and Kinberg fail in creating a whole experience but the character focus is robust and in the end emotionally satisfying.

[divider]

RELATED: Sing Street Movie Review

[divider]

PERFORMANCES
The performances of the film are also key to Apocalypse overcoming it’s flaws. James McAVoy and Michael Fassbender give their all here and they make their characters’ emotional journey come alive on screen. Jennifer Lawrence doesn’t have as much to do here compared to First Class and Days of Future Past but she is still more than serviceable. She brings it when necessary. Tye Sheridan and Sophie Turner are stand outs among the new cast. They perfectly set the foundation for who their respective characters and arguably do it better than their predecessors in the first X-Men film. Kodi-Smit McPhee is also very good hiding behind Nighcrawler’s accent and aesthetics, he’s pretty unrecognizable. Evan Peters is worth noting as well and if you enjoyed the “Quicksilver Scene” in Days of Future Past, buckle your seat belts once again. Oscar Isaac is fine in the Apocalypse role, despite being under utilized. Isaac is a great actor and he still manages to give Apocalypse a presence even though it is extraneous in the end.

[divider]

SCORE / SOUNDTRACK
This never gets talked about enough with the X-Men franchise, which has consistently featured some of the best scores in the superhero genre. John Ottman, who wonderfully scored Days of Future Past, is back again for Apocalypse and he does not disappoint. Sure, it would have been great if Ottman kept Henry Jackman’s Magneto theme from First Class but where Ottman loses opportunity, he gains with adding a strong emotional undercurrent to these films. Ottman’s score beautifully reflects Singers emotional approach to this film and it does make for some hefty scenes throughout.

[divider]

FINAL THOUGHTS
X-Men: Apocalypse is a disjointed film and it does fail to balance it’s different objectives, ultamately suffocating the over-arching narrative, but it does so trying to pursue character. A lot of blockbuster’s (looking at you Transformers and Ninja Turtles) don’t even attempt chasing character and as a result they become mindless experiences that may or may not be fun. Bryan Singer, however, does care about character and poignantly gives it to us knowing that the film may suffer for it. Personally, I’ll take that kind of ambition any day of the week.

Overall Grade: B

Director: Don Cheadle
Writers: Steven Baigelman (screenplay), Don Cheadle (screenplay)
Stars: Don Cheadle, Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor

Synopsis: An exploration of the life and music of Miles Davis.

[/info]

Miles Davis was one of the most important and innovative jazz musicians of his time, and arguably of all time. Like the best jazz music, Davis was someone that never played by the rules; his music varied from post-bop, modal jazz, fusion, funk, or whatever was stylistically progressive at the time. Whatever it was, Miles Davis was there innovating, and as a result he creating some of the most interesting music from the ‘50s into the late ‘70s, music that never obeyed the rules of musical conformity. Don Cheadle does the exact same thing with Miles Ahead, a fragmented and experimental biopic that refuses to obey the laws of narrative. And why would it?  Simple, because it shouldn’t. As a result, Miles Ahead is the most interesting and unique biopic in years, and certainly not for everyone. But for both Davis and jazz lovers (such as myself), this film is nirvana.

Directed, co-written and starring Don Cheadle, Miles Ahead never tells the audience about Miles Davis, but instead shows; it allows us to experience and feel the man he was. It intelligently chooses to focus on Davis as he was in the late ‘70’s, a time when he was no longer putting out great music, and was a deeply broken man. He is approached by news reporter Dave Brill (Ewan McGregor) who is tasked with writing his comeback story, a comeback being forced upon Davis by the execs at Columbia Records, most notably that of Harper Hamilton (Michael Stuhlbarg).  This period is juxtaposed by flashbacks of Miles Davis in his prime, in the late ‘50s into the mid ‘60s (a period of classic albums such as Kind of Blue and Sketches of Spain), and his romance with Frances Taylor (a brilliant Emayatzy Corinealdi). This shows us the two sides of who Davis was, where he started and what he had become, and yet the reasons why he becomes such broken man we see is irrelevant; what matters is how you interpret it, like you would a great jazz piece or any piece of fine art, and Cheadle’s decision to explain very little adds to the film’s charm.

What continues to add to the film’s charm is its narrative structure, its frantic and improvisational editing style, creating a very fragmented and jarring experience. It is here that Miles Ahead may lose many of its film goers, yet it is also here where I felt won over. Don Cheadle has said he wanted Miles Ahead to feel less like a biopic and more like a companion piece to Miles Davis’s music; jazz music is all about improvisation (just listen to the structure of Davis’s classic fusion albums, such as the extravagant Bitches Brew), which in turn allows Cheadle’s filmmaking to act as symbolism for the film overall. It represents Miles Davis and his desire for free artistic expression, something he admires but is not always reciprocated by his listeners, creating yet another juxtaposition in the varying viewpoints of jazz music.

The use of flashbacks, frenetic direction, and improvisational symbolism, all this makes for a film that is thematically about juxtaposition, the jarring and distinctive differences at two points in one’s life. What causes that? It could be many things, and Miles Ahead demonstrates many interpretations. It shows how artists change and progress over time, a progression depicted in their art, but how their audience isn’t always well versed in that change. Constantly Miles talks with his avid listeners who state how much they love his old material, creating a negative perception from Miles himself that listeners don’t have the time or patience for his artistic progression. This arguably ties to a moment in the film’s climax, where Miles indirectly states why he does not want to do a comeback, and it is surprisingly heartbreaking.

None of this drama wouldn’t work if it wasn’t for Don Cheadle’s career-best performance, already in the running for my pick for best acting performance of 2016 (even though we still have a ways to go). If I have any complaints with the film, it revolves around some of the supporting cast; great actors like Ewan McGregor and Michael Stuhlbarg just aren’t given enough to do, but much of that can be forgiven as this is a film about Miles and only Miles.  Despite this, Miles and Dave Brill do share pivotal moments together that ultimately shape both men, such as a great “boxing” scene in Miles’s basement. That’s the other thing that satisfies the Miles Davis fanboy in me, and that’s the fan service to his music; the boxing (a reflection of not just his love for boxing, but his soundtrack album A Tribute to Jack Johnson), the album covers of Someday My Prince Will Come and Miles in the Sky, the basement performance of the great tune “Nefertiti”, portrayals of great musicians such as Gil Evans and Herbie Handcock. All this shows Don Cheadle as not just a fan himself, but one who also wants to pay appropriate homage and respect to this great artist.

The film’s title (taken after his classic 1957 album) is more than appropriate, showing a man who was constantly ahead of the game. In the end, despite your perception of the artist and his art, the legacy lives on, and his influence will continue to do just that, influence. Like the best jazz music, this film will be a divider, creating its own juxtaposition in its viewers. But isn’t that the point of great art? Like the title of his most notable tune, I just have to say, “So What?” So what if you didn’t care for it, Miles Ahead still ranks as one of my favorite films of the year so far.

Overall Grade: A

Director: Shane Black
Writers: Shane Black, Anthony Bagarozzi
Stars: Russell Crowe, Ryan Gosling, Angourie Rice

Synopsis: A mismatched pair of private eyes investigate the apparent suicide of a fading porn star in 1970s Los Angeles.

[/info]

DIRECTION
Shane Black has certainly cultivated his own following over the years, which started with his Lethal Weapon connections, then picked up steam with the cult-hit Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and finally going mainstream with Iron Man 3 back in 2013. The way Black conjures unique characters in crazy situations with clever plot developments is quite impressive, so it’s no surprise he’s been able to find an audience. He’s able to use simple tactics that make for a fun, movie-going experience and The Nice Guys is no different. From a direction standpoint, Black’s biggest victory are the performances he gets from Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe, who carry (almost) everything in this film. Black uses some great editing techniques to deliver some humor and his camera work at time amplifies the chaos of the story, but it’s mostly Gosling and Crowe who make those elements engaging. Still, you have to credit Black as a director for, not only gathering those performances, but taking advantage of them by being deliberate with how he pursued those characters. There are moments where Black will set up a certain notion before pulling the rug out from under you. The narrative may be a little overwritten but Black is purposeful in his direction and he makes certain themes feel visceral, and simply hysterical, by being as intentional as he is in this film.

[divider]

SCRIPT
Shane Black the director is a treat in The Nice Guys but as a writer, he and co-writer Anthony Bagarozzi do stumble a bit. The Holland March (Gosling) and Jackson Healy (Crowe) characters are compelling in their own right and their scenes together are a riot. And as mentioned above, Black and Bagarozzi are deliberate in their approach to the individual characters. March is a private investigator but he’s somewhat of a mess and everything he does seems to go wrong. Yet, he also has moments where he showcases he’s very capable of being a good P.I. We see several scenes where you think March has fallen down the rabbit hole and climbed out of it before Black undercuts your expectations and we see March is still in the hole. Healy is more of the straight-man here but he also has a few surprises along the way.

Now, the irony in all of that, while Black and Bagarozzi are deliberate with the March and Healy characters, the film overall feels too calculated. The screenplay pays attention to the details in parts but loses clarity on the whole. As a result, the characters are fascinating but the overall narrative never knows what it wants it to be. And while The Nice Guys is meant to be a set-up for fun banter between March and Healy, the aesthetic of the film isn’t structured like Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice for example, where the disjointedness of that narrative is purposefully all over the place to symbolize a drug-fueled state of mind. The plot does have it’s purpose in The Nice Guys and therefore it’s lack of clarity isn’t well earned.

Additionally, there’s exposition and a few major developments that are lazily written and become extensively contrived, halting any momentum the film does build. There’s especially a big mishap with a certain character near the third act where this character makes a sudden left turn that has zero explanation. Some may argue that none of that matters but the film’s lack of clarity does hinder the overall experience. The Nice Guys goes out of it’s way to set up a mystery but then decides it doesn’t care to answer it fully, which will leave some audiences frustrated.

[divider]

THEMES
The screenplay may be a bit messy but thematically there’s some interesting notions here about parenting, the effects of sex and violence on children and how that effects parent/kid relationships. However, the heart of the film is centered around these ideas of innocence and virtue in a world lacking those convictions, which ultimately ties beautifully with those aforementioned notions. The opening scene of the film see’s a young boy witness a car crash, who then proceeds to the crash to find a naked woman lying on the ground. He takes an action that opens up the idea of virtue in a moment where his world was not innocent. This through line is carried robustly by Holly March (Angourie Rice), the daugther of Holland, who is the moral compass of The Nice Guys. Continually throughout the film, she finds herself in situations of indecency, violence and even L.A. smog (beautiful symbolism), yet she yearns for that virtue and innocence that no one else seems to care about. Black wonderfully juxtaposes those realities and ties them in perfectly to the progression of the (Holland) March and Healy characters.

[divider]

RELATED: Sing Street Movie Review

[divider]

PERFORMANCES
It goes without saying but Gosling and Crowe are great in this film. Gosling’s physical comedy and charming attitude is quite impeccable and how that rubs up against Crowe’s intimidating but sympathetic presence is amazing. As great as they are, one could argue that Rice is even better. Narratively, Holly may stifle some of the film’s momentum and she is put in situations that are somewhat eye-roll worthy but Rice’s performance is stellar and the way she carries the film’s themes is impressive for her age. On the flip side of that coin, Kim Basinger gives a rather bad performance and the use of her character is wasted. Keith David and Matt Bomer are cartoon characters but given the film’s second half chaos, they somewhat work here.

[divider]

SCORE / SOUNDTRACK
David Buckley and John Ottman get the nod to score here and while overall it’s nothing too memorable, it does fit the 1970’s aesthetic quite well. The soundtrack is the real winner here, featuring hits from the The Temptations, KISS, Earth, Wind & Fire, Bee Gees and more. The soundtrack and the score do work well together and helps engage the audience into the world Black is creating.

[divider]

FINAL THOUGHTS
Let’s be clear. Yes, the screenplay has it’s flaws and some of the performances aren’t great, but the film overall is still entertaining. It’s maybe a disappointment if you’re a big fan of Shane Black but the witty dialogue and alluring characters make up for wherever the film is a letdown. There are some affecting scenes between Holly and Holland, as well as Jackson, that crystalize the film’s main themes and motives in satisfying fashion. The nods to Chinatown are quite apparent but effective in homaging the classic. In fact, our good friend Josh Larsen said it perfectly in a tweet, where he said The Nice Guys is like Chinatown after it’s had a few drinks. That is a perfect summation of The Nice Guys because while the film narratively and aestetically does nod it’s head toward Chinatown, it stumbles around, slurs it’s speech and acts completely random at times. Like a good friend who’s drunk and doing silly things, you just can’t help but laugh at them.

Overall Grade: B