Director: Adam Robitel
Writers: Leigh Whannell
Stars: Lin Shaye, Leigh Whannell, Angus Sampson

Synopsis: Parapsychologist Dr. Elise Rainier faces her most fearsome and personal haunting yet – in her own family home.

[/info]

When your horror film isn’t let loose until Halloween is a three-months-ago deal (read: January), worry. Or don’t; the firstborn of the Insidious saga came to on April Fools’ and it was a massive success. The Last Key, however, finds thrill in being a joke. By doing more to entertain the connotations surrounding its release frame rather than thwarting them, the fourth trek into The Further resembles what awaits when one duplicate their abode’s metallic pass at most Houston Home Depots: a dud.

The Last Key, as with the last three installments, begins in a house — the one this time belongs to the family of fan-favorite septuagenarian psychic. Since young, Elise (Ava Kolker) is “other dimension”-sensitive, an ability mom (Tessa Ferrer) tacitly accepts, younger brother (Pierce Pope) semi-respects and father (Josh Stewart) despises. Remember the series’ constant emphasis on how this particular gift both helps — locating the lost — and harms — opening yourself to evils? Elise doesn’t know, and a family member has to pay. It’s a strangely and refreshingly non-Insidious opening: the pacing is measured, Joseph Bishara’s possessed strings are muffled, and there is a slight tip of the balance toward the dramatic over the horrific. Don’t worry, the jump scares remain, but under Adam Robitel’s direction the atmosphere and characters get to simmer a bit before the next “bang!” Something to be glad, indeed, for finally a sliver of elegance is introduced to the franchise’s non-horror beats.

Then the goodness vanishes once the story zips to 2010, the year Elise (now Lin Shaye) meets her end. And judging from the fact The Last Key is the second time the character is “Han-surrected” (like another Universal’s mega-franchise), that year is also when the series’s go-to writer, Leigh Whannell, did a regrettable storytelling move. It’s not known how much Whannell was influenced by The Taking of Deborah Logan, a 2014 found-footage and jump scare-rich possession fare Robitel directed and co-wrote, but this film also prefers telling less-enthralling aspects of the plot the more it goes on. With Deborah Logan, it’s cult malarkey over scientific throughline; here, there’s a perplexing coziness to the most awkward and wonkiest form of jokes, drama and — rather incredibly — creature. Rather than mustering a stifled chuckle, we become infuriated (all right, we get it, sidekicks to the psychic). Rather than be anxious about Elise’s well-being, who is forced to return home after a distressing call from an utterly superfluous character (Kirk Acevedo), we feel, at best, zero stress. Rather than feeling terror at the key-for-fingers ghoul’s (Javier Botet) looks and the way it imprisons (mainly women) victims, one of them is Elise’s niece (Spencer Locke), we struggle to remember that a ghoul is around.

Also, its name is Key Face. Glad no one in the film utters it out loud.

Only Shaye refuses to astral-project herself toward parody or unmemorable territory, it seems. The genre veteran tries, so much so one has to admire, but since The Last Key refuses to do anything that will make it a quality sequel to the prequel and, through the introduction of a Further-aware relative Imogen (Caitlin Gerard), a respectful send-off, she can never deliver the film from detritus. So now the series has returned to where it started, finishing the last loop when no one exactly asks it to do any looping. That said, Blumhouse fare being Blumhouse fare, the next film has 80 percent of happening, and if that’s the case let’s hope the next one can overpower its Last Knight moment. Alternatively, it can live up to the “last” in its title.

Overall Grade: D

[divider]

Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: David Scarpa, John Pearson (novel)
Stars: Mark Wahlberg, Michelle Williams, Christopher Plummer

Synopsis: The story of the kidnapping of 16-year-old John Paul Getty III and the desperate attempt by his devoted mother to convince his billionaire grandfather Jean Paul Getty to pay the ransom.

[/info]

As the screen transitions from pitch black, it fades in on a black and white frame of early 70s Rome—greeted with one lustrous tracking shot of John Paul Getty III amidst a buzzing city of natives and streetcar traffic. Where we’re then greeted with a voiceover of the privileged lifestyle of a Getty. “It’s like we’re from another planet,” he says. As he directly declares that due to their massive financial stability, they’re not like you. But one time, just once, they were. Hopefully yet sadly, you’ve all heard the now scandalous story of Kevin Spacey’s recent controversy and the startling decision Ridley Scott made to replace his role in the film with Christopher Plummer. Even with the fascination of that appalling ordeal, All the Money in the World stands on its own as an unprecedented crime thriller.

Hopefully for the film’s purity, even in respite to the correlation between the incident with Spacey, most people will try to distance that away from the critical reception, because Scott does something truly marvelous here. His solitary ways of presenting a story is undergone through a few narrative jumps. Basically showing us three different perspectives of the situation at hand, from Fletcher Chase and Abigail Getty, played brilliantly by Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams, to John Paul Getty III with his reclusive kidnappers, and ultimately J. Paul Getty moving between his (multiple) estates and media scrutiny. However, there’s not one person that feels like a main character. Every portrayal is so evenly balanced, which often times provides the best commentary between storylines due to no one’s desire to outperform one another. Once he peaks the viewers already high interest and hooks them with his dramatic plot roots, there’s no going back.

In all simplicity, this cast is loaded. The three most marketed actors combine for 8 Academy Award nominations and an overwhelming amount of other recognition and awards. Mark Wahlberg hasn’t ever been as intense and refined in a role. Obviously trying his hardest but looks as though he’s giving minimum exertion. Michelle Williams is an absolute gem. Having 4 of the 8 combined nominations she adds this to her list as another home run. She’s as straightforward and fluent as they come. Ah, and how could I forget about Mr. Plummer. The most experienced and perhaps the most admirable actor on the film’s résumé. The nine days they had to shoot his role was brutal from what was heard, but by God he’s electrifying. So grounded. I’d love to see more love for his expertise in the coming weeks.

The scarcity of flaws is quite frightening considering the vulnerability the film possessed with the ongoing reshoots they had underwent. Although there’s a couple of nitpicks to be found, the vitality of them aren’t substantial. Throughout the film, minds may start to wonder about the “What could’ve been?” and the what-ifs of the whole Spacey situation. Not that that’s such an awful thing, but it takes a bit of the genuity away from the present event on-screen. Something as equally mind-pondering that they couldn’t completely navigate away from, is the huge key element of continuity. Once again falling back on the reshoots, not all of the wrongdoing should be unloaded upon the cast and crew, but much like my other issue, it stirs up the brain and gets you thinking over all the changes made. However, I’m not going to severely penalized them because of unruly misfortunes.

I can only imagine how difficult the post-production process was for a film like this even without the reshoots. Crafting something as time-consuming as this could’ve only been vigorous dedication for Ridley Scott, but thankfully the excellence of the screenplay provided a piece of a safety cushion for him. The almost atmospheric presence of Scott’s knack for assembling suspense is felt earlier than expected. He sets the tone within the opening sequence and it remains just as consistent, if not more superior with the progression of the film. He might be aging, but he’s only getting better. He’d be one of the obvious choices for director of the year and maybe, just maybe, it’ll come to fruition.

All the Money in the World is a vast success. Just the film’s journey into theaters is enough to prove that statement, but the inner workings of the film are just as powerful as any other category it pertains. In spite of those couple frail setbacks, I’m not afraid to say this was intrinsically flawless. It deserves more totality of the acknowledgement it’s receiving and not to be put down because of someone’s repulsively, intolerable behavior.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 254, coming soon.

[divider]

Director: Alexander Payne
Writers: Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor
Stars: Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Christoph Waltz, Hong Chau

Synopsis: A social satire in which a man realizes he would have a better life if he were to shrink himself to five inches tall, allowing him to live in wealth and splendor.

[/info]

In about now or the next hour, two Norwegian researchers (Rolf Lassgård and Søren Pilmark) will perfect the procedure to Lilliputianize us and, through that, stop the doomsday clock from truly reaching midnight. As expected, “downsizing” grows popular and vaults to the top of everyone’s to-do list: the science community, TV watchers, radio listeners, and a Matt Damon dressing up in Omaha Steaks polo shirt.

So far so good; still synapses-igniting and discussion-worthy. Had craft been chosen over concept, Downsizing would have remained so and avoided a spectacular self-immolation.

There is a plot; it’s just told in a drunken fashion. There are messages; they are just communicated in a way that guarantees zero absorption. So enamored with its premise that the film’s “similar titles” section will be corporate presentations – all flash and prohibited from revealing inner workings. Consequently, Alexander Payne’s latest is as non-Alexander Payne as can be; far from an intended “large-canvas science-fiction social satire” and more of an occasion for well-known faces to wander in sleek places production designer Stefania Cella dreamt up and, at times, indulge themselves in some genius scale duperies from d.o.p. Phedon Papamichael’s camerawork.

Back to Damon. Yes, he is credited as “Paul Safranek,” a fact we’re reminded quite regularly since everyone can only get half of his full name right, but it’s a struggle to see the character when the star delivers the lines, emotions and developments with diminishing conviction. It’s The Great Wall all over again, minus the white savior part. Christoph Waltz shadows Damon, too; his Serbian playboy guise completely retreats into the actor by the film’s end. So is Udo Kier. Same with Jason Sudeikis, gallantly turning up his cocksurety to maximum only to be in three scenes. What exactly is going on here? Is there a competition to see who is the most unconvincing actor? No, but all signs point toward people realizing they are part of a show that is designed to undercut them, and now disillusionment is setting in.

Only one person rises above. Well, it could have been two – note how an acutely dramatic Kristen Wiig is introduced and then tossed aside. If there is one thing Payne can be proud of out of Downsizing, it’s that he has given Hong Chau a chance to bat in this awards season. The actress, whom industry’s standards would classify as an unknown, trounces all her co-stars at every given turn as the broken-accented and magnanimous maid-slash-dissident Ngoc Lan Tran. Chau is also sensitive enough to overpower through the screenplay’s bewildering efforts to be as non-compelling as possible (ready for yet another verbal exposition after a visual one, or one more sermon about society’s ills?). In fact, her performance is so remarkable that Ngoc Lan’s presence is perpetually gargantuan. After The Last Jedi, Vietnamese-American performers earn another on-screen victory in 2017; it’s a shame that this film’s lame returns might not give Chau the edge that Kelly Marie Tran will – theoretically – have.

But no way can Chau alone saves the day. For a film that has priorities as one of its delivered-via-bludgeoning themes, Downsizing ironically opts for the poorer choice, exploring its universe on its own and through that selfishness renders almost all other aspects incompetent. Safe to say the next hour post-screening will be full of frustration and confusion at how such a funky idea and the talent involved did everything except expanding our minds.

Overall Grade: D

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 253:

[divider]

Director: Michael Gracey
Writers: Jenny Bicks, Bill Condon
Stars: Hugh Jackman, Michelle Williams, Zac Efron, Zendaya

Synopsis: Inspired by the imagination of P.T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman is an original musical that celebrates the birth of show business and tells of a visionary who rose from nothing to create a spectacle that became a worldwide sensation.

[/info]

Even with the pervading social media marketing and it’s somewhat baffling three Golden Globe nominations, The Greatest Showman garnered a bit of a harsh welcoming in to this year’s crowded Oscar season. Perhaps signs point to it being “…that film that beat out The Big Sick,” in the Comedy/Musical category at the Globes. However, once more audiences are able to see the film and come to the realization that with its appealing nature in relation to colossal organizations like SAG, HFPA, or even The Academy, they’ll see it’s ideal family-fun bait for awards voters.

The Greatest Showman could’ve came out 3-4 years ago and would’ve still delivered the same minuscule impact it had commercially and critically. And despite its undertone of musical schlock, I’m not going to ignore the delight that’s to be found in it. In terms of historical accuracy or even an authenticated depiction of one of the true greatest showmen of our existence, P.T Barnum—played wonderfully by Hugh Jackman—there’s an obvious lack of depth. However this is not to be blamed on Jackman or any other supporting actors like Michelle Williams or Zac Efron and Zendaya. It just never quite establishes a clear focal point and as the third act draws near, everything shifts out of focus. Basically transitioning between storylines and/or musical numbers, the scatterbrained themes and narrative are off putting when being frank.

The true secret weapon that keeps this from being a horrendous dumpster fire is the capability of having the composers from La La Land on their roster. It shares the compassion and sing/dance along factor that the latter did so well and then some, including the familiar voices from Hugh Jackman and Zac Efron as well as new musical greenhorns like Michelle Williams. The terrain it’s exploring is nothing shallow of old but the way they ostentatiously portray the jubilation of these “different” people is unmatched. Alternatively, having that be your secret weapon and strongest suit for a musical is the perfect stepping stone to construct around, but when there’s no regard taken for the characters you’ve built then what’s the point? Indeed the most frustrating component of this is well, that. To see a film boast the glorious and over-saturated euphoria reminiscent to classic musicals only to reveal a plethora of one-dimensional characters and transient story arcs is needless to say, disappointing.

I had slightly brushed over the flourishes of Hugh Jackman and his supporting cast, but don’t be in dismay now as there’s no misinterpretation here. The synergy amongst the top billed characters burns through every dedicated frame or musical number. It’s kind of grateful to see such diversity in a distinct film such as this one but it’s pleads aren’t meant to satisfy the media or the studio. It’s not effortlessly shoehorned in which makes it ingenious in its own right. I’d look forward to a collaboration between these actors if they’d be able to work with one another again.

As mentioned in the opening, I’d hope most agree that the film supported some of the most copious marketing when reflecting on any other projects entirety from this year. Even with the abundant trailers, TV spots, social media banners, and even Amazon box packaging (what?!), they’re scrambling to a dead end. Having their central demographic target families during the holiday season only administers an insurmountable lack of income. Especially because of all the competition it has from previous weeks to its current release week. It couldn’t have picked a worse time to come out, yet I can’t necessarily blame the studio as they probably thought they were partaking in the correct move.

The Greatest Showman is heavily flawed, I wouldn’t even call it good, but there’s definitely pleasure to be found in the performances whether it be part of acting or singing. Even witnessing the unraveling of this extravagant circus come alive as ebulliently as it’s portrayed is worth admission if you decide to see it. Hopefully it won’t get completely lost in this year’s tremendous heap of films, but don’t expect it to be at the top either.

Overall Grade: C+

[divider]