Director: Nadine Labaki
Writers: Nadine Labaki (screenplay), Jihad Hojeily (screenwriter)
Stars: Zain Al Rafeea, Yordanos Shiferaw, Boluwatife Treasure Bankole

Synopsis: While serving a five-year sentence for a violent crime, a 12-year-old boy sues his parents for neglect.

[/info]

Capernaum loosely translates itself as “chaos” in the opening title card. It’s also the best title of the year, it’s got a snappiness to it. It also describes the film that follows perfectly, a messy, tedious and miserable experience, but primarily, Capernaum is chaotic. From the camerawork, meant to invoke a sense of realism, to the plot progression, it’s a film in disarray, confusing misery with authenticity. It’s a work of dire and unpleasant abrasiveness which isn’t supposed to be enjoyable per say, but commonly, other works of this type have competent filmmaking to back it up. To make things worse, the entire progression of pain is filtered through an absurd filter of of a courtroom framing device.

In these scenes, we follow twelve year old Zain (a genuine Zain Al Rafeea), who has decided to sue his parents because they gave birth to him. This triggers a series of flashbacks, which makes up the majority of the film. In these flashbacks, follow Zain with his parents (a great Fadi Yousef, and Kawsar Al Haddad), his sister Sahar (Haita ‘Cedra’ Izzam), along with other siblings, and others around him making the way through the harsh climate of Beirut. These opening scenes sour the movie in a long-term way, setting up messy filmmaking, constant chaos, and consistent dire circumstances.

The strangest part of all is that parts of this film are supposed to be improvised. Director Nadine Labaki setup different scenes and let certain actors run wild, but it’s odd that she didn’t direct them away from these situations. Every scene places Zain in danger, or constant and wrenching struggle and somehow only gets worse from there. It’s harrowing and genuinely horrific to watch, but I don’t believe it acts as good art. As good as the intentions are, the film isn’t compelling enough. It continues to up the ante in different painful ways, making the feel equally unpleasant and poorly made.

The blunt visuals and queasy yet constant score makes Capernaum feel like a work of docudrama, especially with the casting of non-actors. You could compare this in creation with The Rider, another acclaimed Sony Pictures Classics film from 2018. Where these two differ is Capernaum uses a whack-a-mole hammer to tackle a subject that should have used a paintbrush. Something as genuinely interesting as this deserves a clearer focus, a better directorial style, and a cohesive point. It hammers and hammers towards making a point by giving us a tour of explicit pain and struggle without any subtlety.

Overall Grade: C-

[divider]

Director: Joe Cornish
Writers: Joe Cornish
Stars: Louis Ashbourne Serkis, Dean Chaumoo, Tom Taylor, Rhianna Dorris, Angus Imrie

Synopsis: A band of kids embark on an epic quest to thwart a medieval menace.

[/info]

There have been many adaptations of the Arthurian legend for film and TV. These range from serious gritty drama, romantic comedy, a Monty Python version, television teen dramas, and a handful more for younger audiences. Joe Cornish’s The Kid Who Would Be King is an adolescent adaptation that is meant to be entertaining for both children and adults. The film is getting mixed reviews so far, but I belong to the group that enjoyed it.

The Kid Who Would Be King is a coming of age adventure story that parallels themes from traditional King Arthur legends. Evil sorceress and popular King Arthur antagonist Morgana has been imprisoned for hundreds of years- but an imminent eclipse and the current unharmonious state of the world (maybe a hint to Brexit?) will give her the opportunity to escape. Main protagonist Alex (Louis Ashbourne Serkis, son of Andy Serkis) happens upon mythical sword Excalibur, pulls it from a “stone” (concrete and rebar), and finds himself at the center of a medieval adventure. He recruits his best friend Bedders (Dean Chaumoo), and bullies-turned-allies Lance (Tom Taylor) and Kaye (Rhianna Dorris) to help him save the world using a children’s book of King Arthur stories as their guide. They are also aided by a quirky, sometimes teenage, sometimes old man, Merlin – portrayed by relative newcomer Angus Imrie and the legendary Patrick Stewart.

Though the King Arthur stories have been subjected to Hollywood remakes over and over again, I didn’t find this film cliché and I didn’t feel like it was something I’d seen before. It had a lot of 80s fantasy adventure movie vibes, which I love. The electronic 80s-tastic score reminded me of a mix between Ladyhawke (but not as cheesy) and Stranger Things. It also included are some fun bits from myths that aren’t usually found in these movies. Like the island of Tintagel, portraying Merlin as a teenager because he ages backwards, and showing Merlin’s proclivity for shapeshifting (specifically into a kind of falcon). I’ve seen some criticism of teenage Merlin, but this films portrayal is accurate to the original stories and I thought it fit well in a kid’s movie. Angus Imrie was one of my favorite things about this film and I hope to see him in more things soon. The messages covered in the movie were also good. They were mostly standard kid film things, like bullying and single parent struggles, but they were handled nicely and didn’t feel forced into the story.

Even though I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I do have a few critiques. First is my problem with the CGI. There are times it felt a bit cheesy and not as well done as I had hoped. Morgana is supposed to be this super powerful sorceress and is one of the most prominent antagonists in Arthurian legend, but she was a bit of a letdown. It wasn’t bad enough to ruin the movie, but I expected better. Another thing I have a slight issue with is the way Merlin performs magic. He uses a kind of finger-tutting, which is cool, but felt like it was ripped off from The Magicians. I’m not too upset by it, it just felt unoriginal. The other issue many people had with Merlin is he didn’t help out enough, he kind of left the kids to fend for themselves, but this another nod to the legends. Merlin is traditionally a teacher or advisor, not an all-powerful magical savior.

Overall, The Kid Who Would Be King is an entertaining and successful modern retelling of a King Arthur story with many nods to Arthurian myths. The themes and messages of the film were relatable and thoughtfully packed in a whimsical coming of age adventure. So far, I’ve liked director/writer Joe Cornish’s work and look forward to what he does in the future. In my opinion, this is one of the best kids King Arthur themed movie since the animated Sword in the Stone (1963).

Overall Grade: B

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 310:

[divider]

Director: Steven Knight
Writers: Steven Knight
Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Diane Lane

Synopsis: The mysterious past of a fishing boat captain comes back to haunt him, when his ex-wife tracks him down with a desperate plea for help, ensnaring his life in a new reality that may not be all that it seems.

[/info]

When making a mystery, it can be difficult to stick the landing. An interesting premise can lead you to sit down and give a movie a shot, but it is the twist or surprises within the film that can make you question why you sat down in the theater once the credits start rolling. Thus when I went to go see Steven Knight’s newest neo-noir mystery thriller Serenity, I had already heard that this movie was going to be something you weren’t going to forget for a long time and once this movie was done, I agreed that this was something that I would never forget but not in a good way. And from accounts, Serenity is at times a captivating, entertaining film that turns into a nonsensical mess by the end leaving your empty and questioning every aspect that went into the decision making process in creating this story.

The film follows Baker Dill (Matthew McConaughey), a captain of a fishing that takes tourist out on his boat to go a fish. Baker is a troubled man that is trying to forget about his past while becoming obsessed with catching this big tuna fish that he has named “Justice.” He is also a man of repetition, continuing to do the same thing every day, hoping that the outcome is different so he can finally catch that fish that is haunting his dream. But this obsession is more than just about catching a fish, it is about escaping the family that has left him and that he has left, for reasons that we never find out. He has his first mate Duke (Djimon Hounsou), who he has a mixed relationship with considering he blames him for his bad fortune in never being able to catch Justice and thus when he runs out of money for gas for his boat, he runs to Constance (Diane Lane) is obliged to give him money for sexual favors. Everything is going along as they always go for Baker till his ex-wife Karen (Anne Hathaway) returns into his life one night, asking him to do something for her that will change both of their lives. Karen asks Baker to kill her new husband Frank (Jason Clarke), the man that she left Baker for and is now physically abusing both Karen and their son Patrick (Rafael Saige). If Baker takes Frank out of his boat, kills him, and rids that man out of her and their son’s life, then she would be willing to give Baker 10 million dollars as a reward for ending their suffering.

At this point, you are wondering what is the big deal, this film doesn’t sound like it is that bad, seems pretty straight forward. Well while all this is going on, there is a mysterious man in a business suit named Reid Miller (Jeremy Strong) that is running around the island, looking to talk to Baker, but is always missing him. So when Baker decides to take on Karen’s offer to kill Frank, Reid confronts Baker and thus the twist of the film is revealed, and it is one of the most confusing, dumbest twists I have seen in a film in a long time. I will not be spoiling the twist because it is one of those you have to see to believe and I would never take a moment like that away for anyone but it is at this moment where the film lost me. I was very forgiving to most of the plot holes in this film, the strange character decisions and dialogue, the questionable directing choices that Knight makes with quick whips and zooming in and out of the camera in certain scenes. But once that twist came to the surface, and we were going down the rabbit hole, a rabbit hole that made no sense to me what so ever, the film loses all sense of what the rules are and what it was trying to accomplish while getting us to the finish line.

I will give this movie some credit, in that it is scrappy in trying to get you back on board by the end of the film. There is an emotional connection to Baker and his son Patrick that I did feel by the end of the film when I was watching it. But upon reflection, the emotional thread is empty for me because of everything that led up to those closing scenes and the confusion within the surprises that makes the viewers mind scramble in trying to understanding of what is going on. Thus when we are given the touch/troubling moments at the end, I don’t believe we are given enough time to compress everything we have seen on screen to care about this father, son relationship at the end or feel good about the conclusion of this film. Knight’s script for Serenity is a jumbled case of trying to cram everything he wrote down on a check list before writing the first draft and seeing if he can get it in because he doesn’t want any stone to be unturned. McConaughey, Hathaway and the rest of the cast try to do their best with what they are given but what they are given is ridiculous at times and doesn’t add up to anything worth a damn when you think back on it. Sometimes a simple story is all we need in a thriller, leaving the bells and whistles out can be a good thing and that is what the first half of this movie is, a simple story, much like Knight’s last feature film Locke. But when he reaches for the stars, Knight fails to catch anything, thus leading me to admire what this film could have been, instead of what we were given.

Overall Grade: D

[divider]

Hear our podcast review coming soon on Extra Film!

[divider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbrOMrjhyvI

Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Writers: M. Night Shyamalan
Stars: James McAvoy, Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Anya Taylor Joy, Sarah Paulson

Synopsis: Security guard David Dunn uses his supernatural abilities to track Kevin Wendell Crumb, a disturbed man who has twenty-four personalities.

[/info]

M. Night Shyamalan’s Glass is a film that’s been 20 years the making. 2000’s Unbreakable was always meant to be the first of a new trilogy but as time went on it appeared as if it was never going to happen. Then, all of a sudden, in 2017 a little film called Split upended everything and threw us back into the world of Unbreakable without us realizing it until the end of that film. So, here we are now with Glass, a film we all knew would crystallize the now dubbed Eastrail 177 Trilogy. And after all this time, how did Shyamalan fare with rounding out this interesting and different comic book universe? Well, it’s not The Last Airbender or Lady in the Water bad. However, it’s not Unbreakable or even Split good either.

Glass opens with David Dunn (Bruce Willis) two decades after the events of Unbreakable, who now owns a home security store and is continuing to use his supernatural abilities to render justice. He tracks down Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) who has four teenage girls locked up in an abandoned warehouse. The two clash but are caught by the police and psychologist Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson). Dr. Staple takes Dunn and Crumb to a nearby facility to test and help them understand that maybe their “abilities” are just a mental state instead of being supernatural. We also learn at this facility is Elijah Price, aka Mister Glass, who is being tested for the same ailments. As things play out, because it is M. Night Shyamalan after all, there are many twist and turns that cloud what is true and what isn’t.

Fundamentally speaking, Glass has something compelling to offer in terms of comic book mythology, the origins of it, how Dunn, Price and Crumb found their identities through each other and why their presence has been muted in a broader sense regarding the outside community. Perhaps their so-called identities are nothing more than self-delusion. Shyamalan questions, and suggests, that everything he established in Unbreakable and Split is nothing more than facade – that these films are actually psychological thrillers wearing the mask and cape of superhero movies. This idea is complimented beautifully in the film by a juxtaposition of Dr. Staple deconstructing the tropes of superhero movies and comic books, with that of Casey Cook, Joseph Dunn and Mrs Price, who are eagerly seeking the origins of comic books to reaffirm the identities of Dunn, Price and Crumb. On paper, Shyamalan incisively orchestrated some fascinating ideas with intricate layers that tap into why we believe in heroes and villains.

However, Glass unfortunately gets bogged down in overtly precise plot mechanics and not trusting the audience to keep up that it falters in the narrative progression and thematic clarity. There’s just too much going on and the film isn’t able to balance all of its ideas and storylines properly. As a result, the film becomes a clunky mess that isn’t quite able to fully realize the arcs of its protagonists or its interesting thematic undercurrent.

Additionally, the characters of Dunn and Price are thinly utilized, amplifying those faults. After that great opening, Dunn is nothing more than pawn that is used a surrogate for the film’s action sequences. It’s unfortunate as Bruce Willis gives a great performance when deployed effectively, but sadly those moments are far and few in between. Price, in all his glory, doesn’t really come into the fold until the third act. So, like Dunn, his presence is dramatically stifled despite having a heavy presence in Glass‘ major thematic ideas. Crumb is the only character, other than Dr. Staple, who carries both dramatic and emotional weight in the film. He’s heavily involved narratively and James McAvoy gives another striking performance as he seamlessly transitions from one persona to the next. It’s easy to laugh off this off at the end of 2019 when we start talking about the best performances of the year, and I’m not suggesting it will be, but he should at least be talked about more often. He’s that good and by the end he conjures a pathos that’s genuine and sincere.

Glass is a film that’s hard to grade. Or even recommend. If you’re into comic book lore and looking for ambitious ideas that explore the foundations of what make comics interesting, then it’s an easy recommendation. However, if you’re just hoping for a good movie to take your date to, then it’s rolling the dice a little bit. There’s no denying that Glass has editing and balancing issues. It’s the most problematic of this trilogy. But it also might be the most provocative to talk about and unpack. It’s neither a complete failure or an utter success. Maybe that’s what’s most appropriate, though, as our main protagonist were broken people looking for something deeper. Whatever the case is, these are the kinds of passionate experiments that we need more of in cinemas.

Overall Grade: B-, I think?

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 309

[divider]