Director: David Lowery
Writers: David Lowery (screenplay), Toby Halbrooks (screenplay)
Stars: Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford, Oakes Fegley, Karl Urban

Synopsis: The adventures of an orphaned boy named Pete and his best friend Elliot, who just so happens to be a dragon.

[/info]

The early days of the summer blockbuster was a magical era, producing films of epic excitement on a grand scale without sacrificing genuine honesty, drama, or affable themes. Adults grew up with these films for not just speaking to them so personally, but because it arguably made them better people, a trait most evident in the very best fables and fairy tales of old. David Lowery’s Pete’s Dragon looks to this past, and simultaneously with its indie spirit, ahead to the future. It is genuine, human, and simultaneously fantastical and grounded. It is also the most honest and soulful fairy tale Hollywood has given us in years.

It’s easy to forget that Pete’s Dragon is yet another entry in Disney’s string of live-action remakes, and that doesn’t really matter; aside from having an orphan boy named Pete (Oakes Fegley) who befriends a dragon he names Elliot, David Lowery’s film shares little to no connection with the original (yet far from classic) film from 1977. In this version, we follow orphan boy Pete, who due to unfortunate circumstances loses his family while on a trip in the woods (an opening that will go down as one of the most devastating moments in Disney history) and ends up finding survival by means of a large furry dragon.  He names this dragon Elliot, after his favorite children’s book, and there he and Elliot reside together for the next 6 years. That is until he is discovered by forest ranger Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) who intentionally takes Pete in as a sort-of mother figure. What follows, well, let’s just say it gets real.

Watching a now 11-year old Pete adjust to civilization after 6 years in isolation is presented as it would really be; it is saddening. And in its sadness the film’s true star emerges, that of co-writer and director David Lowery himself. Lowery’s flair and experience for indie filmmaking (present in Ain’t Them Bodies Saints) is so uncannily blended with the existing Disney formula, making the most gorgeous version of this story imaginable. His direction is artful and masterful, the cinematography is stunning, and his pacing never rushes along.  How great it is to get a family film that doesn’t feel the need to zip along so rapidly, and instead take its honorable time. Lowery certainly shows more than he tells, but he also makes you feel, and the ability to inform by being felt is one of the most admirable talents for any director who has it, and Lowery has it. He trusts his audience, and we come to trust him.

With Lowery as the film’s unofficial star, the film still wouldn’t work without the right Pete or the right Elliot.  Oakes Fegley continues 2016’s streak of winning child performances, and his depictions of childhood loneliness and isolation, for a child who ultimately has no family, is wonderfully authentic. It’s not all dour and drab, as Pete does strike a gorgeous friendship with young Natalie (Oona Laurence, easily one of the best child actresses working today). And yet, it is Pete’s interactions with Elliot the dragon that are at the heart of the film, with their relationship fully established in a nearly wordless first third; pitch perfect filmmaking and storytelling from Lowery. The digital artists behind Elliot’s facial expressions cannot be praised enough, and how that translates to the film’s thematic notions goes beyond the realms of digital artistry.

Pete’s Dragon is a surprisingly weighted film that deals with loneliness, recovery from long-term isolation, and the preciousness of nature, all of which only scratches the surface. At its core, it’s a film dealing with the repercussions of unaccepting that of which are unknown or understandable, but more importantly the rifts and disagreements that brings upon family.  Grace and her father (a wonderful Robert Redford) don’t just not see eye to eye on the existence of Elliot, but ultimately on the natural world itself, and it’s easy to sense that a distance has formed between them. Gavin’s (Karl Urban) lust for capturing Elliot is fueled the disagreements he has working for his brother Jack (Wes Bentley); “I always thought I could count on family,” Gavin says at one point in the film, essentially creating a character who is less villainous and more in pain. These rifts between family members justify each character’s instincts and motivations, with Lowery even completing their arcs in a wonderfully executed bridge sequence, one that could have easily went for bombast and instead chooses restraint.

But in the end, familial love and understanding prevails, wrapped up in a beautiful epilogue that sums up the film’s notions in a well-earned bow. Sure, it follows the Disney formula perhaps too faithfully for some, with only a few narrative contrivances thrown in for good measure, but for how often I say a film should be “how” it’s about versus “what” (thank you for the quote Roger Ebert) it’s great to see Lowery have faith in simplicity and subtlety, making way for genuine authenticity. Just like Elliot, the film has a heart and soul, further amplified in aesthetical choices from Daniel Hart’s beautiful folk-inspired score (one of the best scores of the year), and a handful of gorgeous original songs by the likes of The Lumineers and Lindsay Stirling.

In what can only be considered a truly mediocre summer movie season, Pete’s Dragon emerges with honesty and authentic beauty, and carries that beauty on its wings as it flies forward. It’s destination – one of my favorite films of the year.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our full review on Episode 182:

[divider]

Director: Robert Budreau
Writers: Robert Budreau
Stars: Ethan Hawke, Carmen Ejogo, Callum Rennie

Synopsis: A re-imagining of jazz legend Chet Baker’s musical comeback in the late ’60s.

[/info]

It’s not just the name of a song, but a reflection of Chet Baker’s own destiny. Much like the modal jazz music of its time, Born to be Blue is a film drenched in sadness, a melancholic expression often reflected in the best of the jazz genre made famous in the 1960’s. It is a film to be felt, not so much shown or told, and all the better for it. In a modern age when biopics are too focused on historical accuracy and telling its audience absolutely everything, Born to be Blue rightfully chooses to focus on singularity, both in narrative and mood.

Like Miles Ahead earlier this year (about the great Miles Davis), Born to be Blue is a jazz-infused biopic, this time telling the story of jazz trumpeter and vocalist Chet Baker. Focusing primarily on his life in 1966 (intelligently focusing on one point of the central figure’s life), Baker is hired to play himself in a movie about his first time doing heroin, and is soon touted for a musical comeback, all as he romances his current flame Jane (Carmen Ejogo), the actress hired to play Baker’s opposite. Jane is a fictional character, a hybrid of all Baker’s women in his life; in fact, this entire film is a hybrid in fact and fictional storytelling, similar to Miles Ahead earlier this year. One could even argue that both Miles Ahead and Born to be Blue should be viewed as a sort-of double feature, not just because Miles Davis himself is also featured in Born to be Blue, but for how these movies are also aesthetically similar. Writer and director Robert Budreau crafts a film that is at once experimental and incredibly melancholy, and just like Miles Ahead those aesthetics play beautifully into the film thematically.

As expected, Ethan Hawke gives one of the year’s best leading performances. For a film primarily about sadness itself, Hawke emulates this torment and sadness in all the needed ways.  Two scenes show this; a painful scene in a bathtub in which Baker attempts to keep playing his trumpet despite getting his teeth bashed in after a mugging (cringe-worthy in a well-earned way), and a moment with his father, played beautifully by Stephen McHattie, creating a realization that Baker’s choices will lead to someone becoming unhappy, whether that’s Baker himself or those around him.  It’s devastating, and sometimes hard to watch, but well-earned in its execution.

Carmen Ejogo as Jane (and Elaine respectively) represents that harm on the outsider, a result of Baker’s life choices, but there is still joy to be had, a great juxtaposition that makes for a good argument. Essentially playing two roles, the beauty in Ejogo’s performance is how each of these two respective characters are indeed reflections on each other; they both endure and suffer just the same, but a balance is still needed for when those moments of suffering cease for moments of love and affection instead. As a result, Ejogo gives one of the best supporting actress performances of the year, and the film doesn’t work without her balanced characterization.

As a lover of classic jazz music, I may be a little biased toward films like this, but the truth is Born to be Blue succeeds in exactly what it wants to do.  In the end it boils down to a single decision, a realization that no matter what path is taken, someone is always saddened; Budreau is fully aware of this, and through his writing, directing, and even choice of jazz songs to fit the soundtrack (sort of the antithesis to the vibrancy of Miles Ahead), he crafts one of the most somber films of the year. This is perfectly reflected in the film’s final minutes, arguably one of the best endings to a film all year; no matter what, in how all our decisions impact others (whether it is Chet Baker, Jane, Elaine, or even Chet’s family), one of us is born to be blue.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Hear our full review on a previous Extra Film:

[divider]

Director: Greg Tiernan, Conrad Vernon
Writers: Kyle Hunter, Ariel Shaffir, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, Jonah Hill
Stars: Seth Rogen, Kristen Wiig, Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Bill Hader

Synopsis: A sausage strives to discover the truth about his existence.

[/info]

Let’s be honest. At some point in our lives we have all made sex jokes about hot dogs. If you haven’t, then you must have lived a sheltered life. Seth Rogen knows how to relate to people, and if you are making an R-rated movie about anthropomorphized food, the sexual tension between foods is going to lead to a plethora of obvious sausage jokes. Surprisingly, Sausage Party is Rogen’s most complete movie; that is, more than just sex and drugs. Rogen’s movies are not always very funny, because his repetitive motif of jokes has become stale over the years.

Shopwells is a supermarket where various groceries all dream of one thing: To be chosen by a customer and taken to the “Great Beyond” (outside the gleaming automated doors in a cart). The various foods from around the world are kept under control by an unprovable belief system, managed by the “Gods.” They believe that they will only be picked if they remain pure of spirit. This fear prevents sausages like Frank (Seth Rogen) and buns like Brenda (Kristen Wiig) from conjoining. If this sounds preposterous, stay with me. It all comes together through clever writing and visual gags, all cultivating into being one of the best films of the year.

Nothing is off limits in Sausage Party, so in typical Seth Rogen fashion there are racial and homosexual jokes, so be forwarned if you offend easily. The script is very predictable and drags on at times. There are, however, a few scenes that jumpstart the story, and without them I think the story would have fallen flat. A returned Honey Mustard (Danny McBride) exposes the truth about the great beyond which leads to a pretty good 45-minutes of entertainment.

One concept that made this movie great is the fact that humans can interact with the food, which finally answers my lifelong question of if I could interact with my food what will we talk about before I consume them. I know I am not the only one who thought this?

There really isn’t much more to say about this film as you already know what to expect, so if you are a fan of Rogen then you will absolutely love this film. Even if you are not a fan of Rogen, there are still plenty of bright spots. Sausage Party has an insanely creative ending and further cements Rogen in the juvenile behavior stereotype that you will either love or hate.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Director: Paul Greengrass
Writers: Paul Greengrass, Christopher Rouse
Stars: Matt Damon, Tommy Lee Jones, Alicia Vikander, Julia Stiles

Synopsis: The CIA’s most dangerous former operative is drawn out of hiding to uncover more explosive truths about his past.

[/info]

Anyone that listen’s to the InSession Film Podcast will know that we are big fans of the Bourne franchise. On a recent Extra Film podcast, we raved heavily about the original trilogy starring Matt Damon and even argued how The Bourne Ultimatum is one of the best action films of the last twenty years. So, when it was announced that Damon and director Paul Greengrass were coming back to the franchise, many people, including us, were very excited.

Paul Greengrass wastes no time sling-shooting nostalgia into Jason Bourne. As the film opens, John Powell’s recognizable Jason Bourne theme subtly rings while Greengrass hands the audience a visual montage of the series so far. It has been nearly a decade since we last saw Bourne, but it only two a few seconds for Greengrass to immediately supplant the audience back into this world. We catch up with Bourne (Matt Damon), who is of course off the radar, when Nicky (Julia Stiles) finds him in Athens to give him more information about his past as it relates to the old Treadstone program. The information Bourne learns is very personal to him, which causes him to seek more answers from the U.S. government. In the process, C.I.A. agent, Heater Lee (Alicia Vikander) feels that she can bring in Bourne alive and this leads to some interesting twists and turns throughout the film.

On the surface, the script by Greengrass and Christopher Rouse will feel trite and “been there, done that” within this franchise. However, it’s actually one of the smartest things about Jason Bourne. Thematically speaking, tackling notions of “history repeating itself” is relevant to our society and culture today, so the idea that another Treadstone would come along but with modern technology and social media, is brilliant on paper. Greengrass’ direction in the first act beautifully laid the groundwork for that idea to resonate, however, he and Rouse’s script becomes so consumed with subplots and trying to be clever, that in the end it out-wits itself. As a result, Jason Bourne becomes a missed opportunity that fails to take advantage of a great idea.

The other major problem of Jason Bourne is how Greengrass and Rouse overwrite the plot without the right clarity. Bourne has been off the grid for nearly a decade, why would he get involved once more? That’s the question that Jason Bourne had to answer. Well, they do answer that question, albeit a bit contrived, but it is enough for the film to work. However, Greengrass and Rouse tediously interweave subplots into Bourne’s backstory that are cheaply artificial, which shackle’s Bourne’s motivations. In turn, Bourne’s actions in the film’s climax accidentally contradict everything we knew about Bourne. The final confrontation between he and another C.I.A. official lacks lucidity and is ambiguous in all the wrong ways. Bourne simply isn’t the same character we saw in the original Bourne trilogy, at least from a writing standpoint.

Damon on the other hand, is as good as ever. He slips back into this role with superb ease and takes complete control of the character. Where the writing of Jason Bourne fails, Damon certainly makes up for it in his performance. Vikander, accent aside, is also very good. Her physical acting is off the charts in this film. Her accent though, is very distracting. Tommy Lee Jones is, well, Tommy Lee Jones.

The action of this film is very good. The shaky cam is used heavily of course, but that is what we have come to know from Greengrass and how he shoots his action scenes. Greengrass’ technique perhaps becomes overkill when the action stops but when the energy of Jason Bourne ramps up, Greengrass does his thing and it’s engaging to watch. The car chase in Las Vegas especially, is one of the better action scenes of this summer.

Jason Bourne isn’t a bad film, in fact there is pure fun to be had here. However, it is disappointing in the end given what we should expect from Greengrass and Damon. The absence of Tony Gilroy (who wrote the screenplay for the original Bourne trilogy) is felt here. The main culprit of Jason Bourne‘s problems lie with Greengrass and Rouse’s script, who just didn’t quite have a handle on what motivates these characters. The film had some great ideas on paper, but in an attempt to be astute, the ideas are taken too far and Jason Bourne unfortunately becomes more unbalanced than it wanted to be.

Overall Grade: B-

[divider]

Hear our full review on Episode 180:

[divider]

Director: Justin Lin
Writers: Simon Pegg, Doug Jung
Stars: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Idris Elba

Synopsis: The USS Enterprise crew explores the furthest reaches of uncharted space, where they encounter a new ruthless enemy who puts them and everything the Federation stands for to the test.

[/info]

When J.J. Abrams re-launched Star Trek back in 2009, he embarked on a journey that was incredibly risky. He set out to bridge the gap between life-long fans of the show (and previous films) and new fans who perhaps weren’t familiar with the franchise. And if you ask me, he mostly succeeded in that venture. Star Trek: Into Darkness continued that trend but Star Trek Beyond was the first film without the Star Wars: The Force Awakens director. Instead, Fast & Furious veteran Justin Lin took the helm for Beyond. Additionally to that, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung took over the writing duties for this third installment. Depending on who you ask, that may be a good thing. New fans of the franchise may be disappointed in the departure from Abrams and company but many pure Trek fans were calling for this new iteration of Star Trek to get back to its roots.

Regardless of your expectations and experience with Star Trek, one thing is clear. Star Trek Beyond is a completely different animal than its predecessor. Sure, it has the same characters and actors but overall Beyond is much more contained and tonally very different. In fact, it doesn’t feel like it’s even a part of this rebooted series.

Beyond opens with the USS Enterprise crew halfway through their five-year journey when they come across a new Federation base called Yorktown. After an unknown entity breaches Yorktown, the USS Enterprise crew is sent out to find answers. This leads them to an unknown plant that results in catastrophe for the Enterprise as well as its crew. From there, they must use their resilience and determination to escape the planet and save Yorktown from imminent doom.

The small-scale approach to Beyond is sure to work for die-hard Trek fans, however Pegg and Jung’s script is overly calculated and intensely precise. Instead of focusing on characterization, or God-forbid continuity, Beyond‘s narrative is mostly concerned with setting up call back’s and delicately manufacturing the next action sequence. As a result, the film relies heavily on artificial contrivances. The attempts at inserting character drama, such as Captain Kirk’s potential promotion, is laughable and forced. The touches of heart behind Spock’s conflict is affable on paper, but again, in execution it’s rather unearned.

Similar to Into Darkness, Beyond has antagonist problems as well. Idris Elba’s Krall is sadly dull and his motivations are lacking coherency, to put it nicely. Even Elba’s vocal work, which is usually riveting, is underutilized in this film. The twist with Krall in the film’s climax is sympathetic, but in context of the film, it simply misses the mark.

That said, Star Trek Beyond does have some fun and for experienced Trek fans, this will feel like an elongated episode of the old Trek you love. The interactions between Spock and Bones is really great. Karl Urban is hysterical as ever in this film. The scenes between Checkov and Captain Kirk will keep you on the edge of your seat, as well as the “Sabotage” fight sequence. The visuals depicting Yorktown is quite stunning and will leave you wanting more.

Star Trek Beyond isn’t a bad film by any means, but its contrivances and off-focused writing stifles the film’s momentum and kills all continuity from the previous two films. Again, some fans will like that and others will struggle to invest in this third installment.

Overall Grade: C+

[divider]

Hear our full review on Episode 179:

[divider]