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

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