Director: Gary Dauberman
Writers: James Wan, Gary Dauberman
Stars: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, McKenna Grace, Madison Iseman

Synopsis: While babysitting the daughter of Ed and Lorraine Warren, a teenager and her friend unknowingly awaken an evil spirit trapped in a doll.

[/info]

Annabelle Comes Home is the seventh movie in The Conjuring franchise and Annabelle’s third movie as the title villain. It brings back Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga as Ed and Lorraine Warren, though they only appear briefly in the film. This movie focuses on their daughter Judy, (played by McKenna Grace) and her babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Unlike other films in the series, Annabelle Comes Home doesn’t have a primary bad guy or a famous haunting it’s based on; it’s a film that features the extent of the Warren’s collection of haunted items and the cases they’ve worked over the years.

The movie opens with the Warrens acquiring the creepy doll from the three friends who gave her the name Annabelle. It’s the same footage used in the first Conjuring movie and in the other Annabelle films. The Warrens run into some trouble trying to drive the doll home, but eventually they get her there and lock her up in a glass box with a big sign that says “Positively Do Not Open”. Some time after, they go out of town on a case or on an extended date night and leave their daughter Judy in the hands of babysitter Mary Ellen. Things happen, Annabelle escapes her protective box, and unleashes a number of spirits and creepy things on the Warren’s house.

The best word I can think of to describe this movie is “fine”. It’s not my favorite film in the series, but it also isn’t the worst. It’s a decent watch, plenty of scary moments, but it wasn’t anything new and exciting. Despite being the third Annabelle movie and the seventh film in this universe, you do not need to watch any of the previous movies to understand the plot or know who the characters are. It definitely helps to have prior “conjuring” knowledge, but it’s not required.

My pick for stand out actor in the film was Mckenna Grace; she plays Judy, the Warren’s young daughter. I’d like them to keep her in the role if they continue to make movies about the Warrens. She replaced Sterling Jerins who portrayed Judy in The Conjuring and The Conjuring 2. The only plot related positive note I had for this film was that they introduced many artifacts, spirits, and cases that could be featured in future spin-offs or sequels. I think they might be leaning towards the Southend Werewolf (yes, that’s a real case the Warrens investigated) because there were a few things in the film that referenced or hinted towards that case. There is also a new entity called The Ferryman, I’m not sure if he’s based on anything the Warrens were involved with or just pulled from mythology, but he would make for an interesting addition to future films. Another bit I liked was they tried to be accurate with some of the details surrounding Annabelle and her journey to her super secure, weekly blessed by a priest, soaked in holy water container at the Warren’s home. The movie even included a cameo by a raggedy-ann doll, which is what the real Annabelle looks like.

Though the film was entertaining enough, I do have some complaints. I’m kind of done with Annabelle. I think she’s had her time as the main bad guy and it’s time to move on to something more interesting and versatile. This movie also relies on a lot of jump scares as the main scare tactic. Like most horror flicks, this one takes place mostly at night and is very dark, and at times, it’s hard to see what’s happening on screen. With all the advances in technology, there has to be a way to make nighttime scenes where the viewer can actually see what’s going on. I was also disappointed that Ed and Lorraine weren’t featured more in the film. I liked that we got to learn more about Judy, but I missed seeing the original duo in action and really want another Conjuring movie instead of a spin-off.

Annabelle Comes Home is a decent edition to the Conjuring Universe, despite its only purpose being a filler film to introduce viewers to new characters. While it’s nothing spectacular, it’s a fun, watchable film that introduces you to the many possibilities for sequels and spin-offs. It’s not the best we’ve seen from these films, but it’s definitely not the worst. All this being said, I’m still interested in seeing what else James Wan and friends can come up with for this franchise.

Overall Grade: C+

[divider]

Director: Joe Talbot
Writers: Joe Talbot, Rob Richert, Jimmie Fails
Stars: Jimmie Fails, Jonathan Majors, Danny Glover, Rob Morgan, Mike Epps, Finn Wittrock, Jamal Trulove

Synopsis: A young man searches for home in the changing city that seems to have left him behind.
[/info]

“There’s a whole generation with a new explanation. People in motion.” – John Phillips and Scott McKenzie

Our childhood dwellings are powerful creatures; they hold histories of a particular place and time that have come to define our most innocent years. But just like us, they too must grow and change with their surroundings. As is the case of Jimmie Fails and his own childhood home, a structure which takes on a personality of its own in The Last Black Man in San Francisco. It’s architecturally beautiful but belonging to a different time, before his neighborhood experienced a cultural changeover. This may sound like an overt look at gentrification in one of the world’s most expensive cities, but The Last Black Man in San Francisco takes a more indirect (and gorgeous) approach.

Based on Jimmie Fails’ own upbringing, Joe Talbot’s directorial debut is told from the lens of someone who remains ignorant toward the inevitable restoration of San Francisco. Jimmie (playing a depiction of himself) longs to reclaim his old childhood home, seeing it the way he always remembered it, through innocent eyes. But since childhood, the demographics of his old neighborhood have either changed or been displaced, primarily due to the financial complications of the current housing market. Whether Jimmie Fails is truthfully unaware of San Francisco’s redevelopment, or just simply refuses to accept it, it doesn’t matter; this makes for a film that feels beautifully nostalgic and innocent, and relatable to anyone among any race or culture who has ever felt like a stranger in their hometown.

Newcomer Jimmie Fails is terrific playing a version of himself (even sharing a story credit with director Joe Talbot). Jimmie fights to reclaim his old childhood home to the point of obsession (sometimes leading to some surprisingly humorous moments), and Fails gives a complex performance that is just as poignant as it is antagonistic. In many respects, he is just as much a victim of displacement as he is the villain of his own story, arguably more drowned in ignorance as a result of separation anxiety from his old home. Jimmie is joined by his friend Montgomery (Jonathan Majors), or Mont for short, whose desires are rooted in the artistic and the creative (he longs to be a stage director). His creative juices characterize him as Jimmie’s own “Jiminy Cricket”, his conscience and guiding light of sorts. It’s Mont who helps show Jimmie the nature of an ever-evolving San Francisco, with a performance that should just give Majors the Oscar right now (if Majors isn’t even nominated, it’s proof how ignorance also runs deep within The Academy).

Jimmie and Mont’s place in this world has changed, sometimes to the point of having to put on a persona in order to fit within a new demographic’s perception of them. Jimmie and Mont don’t give in to the stereotypes though; they stay true to their warm upbringings, refreshingly portraying the tender and humanistic side of the African American community (something Jimmie Fails has also commented on during interviews). A friend from their youth named Kofi (Jamal Trulove), however, is arguably the opposite, perhaps giving in to their community’s new perception of the toughness of black men. Despite their contrasting behaviors, Jimmie and Kofi are direct parallels of one another in their respective hypocrisies, as it relates to how their town has evolved over the years. Kofi’s conduct may arguably be a façade, a response in how he feels he should be viewed, but it’s Jimmie who blindly looks back at his prior place in this world as if nothing has changed (he even greets his new elderly white “neighbor” as if it isn’t anything strange). As stated at one point in the film, “people aren’t just one thing”; not only is it a necessary revelation (during a climatic form of “performance art”), it may also be the world’s most needed message right now.

Despite all of this, it is Jimmie who arguably knows the most about the heart of San Francisco. At one point he states that you “cannot hate San Francisco until you love it first”, showing how ignorance can be a common byproduct of gentrification and urban displacement, an ignorance demonstrated by the city’s new inhabitants for not realizing the effect they’ve had on those who built the city, but also from those who have now been displaced and still refuse to accept it. But Jimmie slowly learns to accept it, in a final scene that is simultaneously tragic as it is hopeful, despite its inevitability. It’s a signal of rebirth for Jimmie, emotionally enhanced by the film’s beautiful score by Emile Mosseri (so jazz-inflicted as if it were influenced by the musical history stemming from the Bay area), as well as Adam Newport-Berra’s ethereal cinematography. This is a film that requires San Francisco to feel like its own character, and director Joe Talbot captures the city landscapes with such cinematic immensity.

Perhaps John Phillips and singer Scott McKenzie should be proud for (inadvertently?) calling this out way back in 1967, as the tender ballad “San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair)” takes on a whole new meaning today. The Bay area’s culture may have changed, but its love still exists within its people, no matter where they are now.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]

Director: Jon Favreau
Writers: Jeff Nathanson (screenplay by), Brenda Chapman (story)
Stars: Donald Glover, Beyoncé, Seth Rogen, James Earl Jones

Synopsis: After the murder of his father, a young lion prince flees his kingdom only to learn the true meaning of responsibility and bravery.

[/info]

Lion King  opened in theaters last night and will likely dominate the cinematic landscape for the next several weeks. In terms of a family-friendly film,  you really can’t get much better than the latest in what is now a long line of Disney live-action remakes. If we are looking at the technical side of the film, it’s quite frankly one of the very best of 2019. As a film, it certainly does have some flaws. Overall, the experience was fine enough (far from the gloom and doom some of my fellow brethren have been alluding to). If anything, the biggest mistake made in regards to The Lion King is that Disney green-lit a live-action remake for a movie that should have been left alone.

Recapturing the magic of the original is a tall order for any director or cast. While the original was released in the 1990s, in essence, it was still too soon. Sometimes, somethings need to be left alone. Now director Jon Favreau does pull off some pretty amazing moments in the film. The framing of each shot (which was seemingly ripped for the storyboards of the animated classic) was remarkable. He understood the tone The Lion King needed and conveyed it to the cast. The casting of Seth Rogen as Pumbaa, Billy Eichner as Timon, and John Oliver as Zazu was a stroke of genius. Donald Glover was average as Simba (which isn’t great). However, the casting of Beyoncé as Nala ended being a terrible decision.

Now I understand that criticizing her performance will likely draw the scorn of her legions of fans, but her performance stifles a pivotal aspect of what makes The Lion King a moving experience. Nala is vital to the emotional core of the story-line and has to have chemistry with Simba (none of which was evident in the film). Listening to her deliver those lines was the definition of someone going through the motions and renders the love story rote.

Overall, there’s certainly more positive than negative in The Lion King, so it is certainly worth checking out. Just don’t expect to be blown away like you were when the original was first released.

Overall Grade: C

[divider]