Director: Nicholas McCarthy
Writers: Jeff Buhler
Stars: CTaylor Schilling, Jackson Robert Scott, Colm Feore, Paul Fauteux

Synopsis: A mother concerned about her young son’s disturbing behavior thinks something supernatural may be affecting him.

[/info]

The “creepy child” horror genre is nothing new, but it’s still an effective way to spice up a scary movie and give an entire auditorium full of people nightmares. The Prodigy pulls ideas from its successful predecessors while trying to inject new ideas in the film.

The Prodigy focuses on an eight-year-old boy, Miles, who is behaving strangely. He’s having violent outbursts, having weird dreams, talking in his sleep in weird languages, and just being generally creepy all the time. After a number of incidents his parents decide it’s time to get him checked out and see if Miles just needs therapy or there’s something more nefarious going on.

Jackson Robert Scott, who plays Miles, does a good job at portraying the creepy kid without being too cliché. I just hope he isn’t scarred for life for acting in this movie. He was believably disturbing and terrifying, and probably the best thing about the film. Taylor Schilling (known for Orange is the New Black) plays his mother, Sarah, also does an okay job but in the end, I didn’t really care what happened to her character. I spent most of the movie yelling at her for not realizing there was something seriously wrong with her kid. She was kind of a spaz or oblivious most of the time, I understand that a mom never wants to see the worst in her kid, but she was so in denial it was annoying. Her husband, played by Peter Mooney, was a much better judge of character but wasn’t around enough to be of use. The film mostly focuses on the relationship between Miles/Creepy Miles and his mother. Another decent character in the movie was one of the therapist characters, Arthur Jacobson (played by Colm Feore). He didn’t have a huge role in the film, but he had an important bit and it was done well.

Some positives for the movie were the score. Music is usually a big factor for me in horror movies and if it doesn’t work it ruins the whole film. Joseph Bishara, known for The Conjuring and Insidious series, did a good job setting the ominous and creepy tone for the film. I also liked that they tried something new with the “possessed kid” shtick. Without giving away the plot, it’s not a rip off of The Exorcist or other demon related horror movie. The only other time I’ve remember this kind of “possession” used or mentioned was in an episode of Criminal Minds, so it was a nice change. Another highpoint for me was a fellow theatergoer who happened to make loud comments about a cat on screen or when a character made a bad decision. Normally this would annoy me, but his perfectly timed “Kitty!” or “Uh Oh” while the rest of the theater was dead silent just added to the film.

This movie had a lot of negatives for me. One example was continuity issues. A prominent feature of Miles’ character is his heterochromia; he has one bright blue eye and one hazel. In many scenes it looked like Miles had two brown eyes. At first, I thought this might be a clever plot device or hint at if it’s good Miles or bad Miles, but it ended up either being bad editing, lighting, or a mix of the two. This movie was very dark, lots of running around the house at night without turning on any lights so it was hard to see what was going on at times. Side note – WHY do characters insist on saving electricity in a horror movie?!? Just turn the lights on people! It will save your life. Another negative for me was this had a lot of cliché horror bits in it. A dog that immediately senses that something is wrong, and no one pays attention to, annoyingly oblivious characters, and the film mostly relies on jump scares. Even the opening credits seemed like they were ripped off (or payed homage to) The Omen or The Exorcist with that drippy red font. The film really felt like a two-hour long episode of Criminal Minds with a paranormal twist.

Overall, The Prodigy wasn’t a bad film, but it wasn’t great either. It’s full of jump scares and tense moments, so it does its job as a horror movie. However, there isn’t any benefit to seeing it in a theater, and will be as satisfying at home should you decide to seek it out. I recommend it to fans of the genre who are just looking for something new to watch, but it’s nothing super special or memorable.

Overall Grade: C

[divider]

Director: Mike Mitchell
Writers: Phil Lord (screenplay by), Christopher Miller (screenplay by)
Stars: Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Tiffany Haddish, Stephanie Beatriz

Synopsis: It’s been five years since everything was awesome and the citizens are facing a huge new threat: Lego Duplo invaders from outer space, wrecking everything faster than they can rebuild.

[/info]

When the slogan of your movie franchise is “everything is awesome,” everything must maintain its awesomeness in order to conform to your previously established paradigm. In other words, the sequel must also be awesome. While The Lego Movie 2 does not equal the excitement and well-packaged fun of the first, it exists as a worthy follow-up and hangs on to the heart and soul of the franchise.

It’s been five years since the events of The Lego Movie. Strange DUPLO aliens have brought the citizens of Bricksburg to the brink of extinction. Now living in a dystopian society, a mysterious figure arrives and promptly kidnaps several of Emmet’s (Chris Pratt) friends, including Lucy/Wyldestyle (Elizabeth Banks). Emmet sets off on his rescue mission to save his friends, but along the way meets allies and enemies who test him at every turn.

The surprises of the original film are somewhat tempered, as we as an audience understand the connotations to the strange words and locations the characters mention. However, as one pieces together the subtle clues, the film still manages to wriggle out of those assumptions and delivers a few unseen gems that astound. This is the struggle of the sequel. Once an audience is educated in the language and laws of the filmic world, then the stakes are raised on how much can remain hidden from the audience’s expectations. Writers Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are keenly aware of this and manage to keep the audience guessing, which makes the film immensely entertaining for adults as well as children.

The themes of The Lego Movie 2 are deeper and more complex than those of the first film. Cynicism, masculinity, the ability to change, and empathy are all tied into an extremely entertaining popcorn movie. The jokes and the visuals come pretty fast, as they did in the first film, but this time the weight of the action and characters seems to threaten to crush everything that’s awesome. However, this never happens as the film deftly manages to be both subtly serious and outrageously silly. The deeper themes allow adult audiences to ponder the serious complexities, while kids will delight in the fever dream of colors, sounds, and musical numbers (and there are several well-timed numbers). This balance really helps when the perceived rules are thrown out the window and the film goes on to defy physical and temporal boundaries. Because of the trust and care instilled in the first half of the film, the audience accepts these breaks from reality, only due to the lack of reality inherent in the rest of the film. In other words, we accept the rules and understand the brittleness of the rules, but don’t seem to care at all when and if they are shattered.

In short, The Lego Movie 2 is a fantastic romp in a world of childhood dreams that can be enjoyed by adults and children alike. The all-star voice cast is superb, and the writing is top notch. The film plays with expectations and subverts those expectations to the delight of all, even as it tackles complicated themes. While not being the original, The Lego Movie 2 still manages to blaze a trail of its own, and deservedly takes its place in this brilliantly engineered franchise.

Overall Grade: B

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 312!

[divider]

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]