Director: Michael Winterbottom
Stars: Steve Coogan, Rob Brydon

Synopsis: Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon embark on a road trip through Spain, sampling the restaurants, eateries, and sights along the way.

[/info]

The Trip to Spain is the third film in this Trip series and it may be one of the best franchises we have in modern cinema. The Trip and The Trip to Italy were both very delightful, but Spain may be the best of the bunch. It’s the same premise – Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon traveling and eating food – and somehow it’s still satisfying to see them riffing and bonding over shellfish. The impressions they bring with them on this particular trip are hysterical, especially the bits on David Bowie, James Bond and Marlon Brando. Like the previous two entries, The Trip to Spain is endlessly enjoyable in seeing how Coogan and Brydon try to out-do one another when it comes to their humor and impressionist work.

However, Spain is more than just silly gags, there is a human element that helps balance out the film’s sense of humor. Coogan is grappling with aging and mortality while trying to formulate the narrative of his life through this trip. He’s a two-time Oscar nominee that has a struggling career. On a side note, the jokes from Brydon’s perspective around Philomena are amazing. Speaking of Brydon, the film is intentional to paint his career in a much different light. He doesn’t have the accolades that Coogen possesses, yet the trajectory of his future looks much brighter. Those juxtaposing arcs crystallize in fascinating fashion when we see these two “characters” in vastly different places at the end, both emotionally and literally (in terms of geography).

The conversations between Coogan and Brydon are obviously funny, but they also deal quite heavily with Spanish history. And while that at times is meant for comedic relief, the film’s notions of history are mostly tapping into the idea of mortality and identity. How will history define you? We learn a lot about how Spain is defined by its history, which mirrors the emotional progression of these characters as well in terms of how their careers have shaped their identity – both in the short term and the long term.

Michael Winterbottom’s direction is also worth noting for how he captures the vast landscapes of Spain and the appetizing food that Coogan and Brydon eat throughout the film. The cinematography is beautiful, even breathtaking at times. Winterbottom does a great job of cuting to the kitchen or other people at these restaurants to help break up the conversation, making the setting feel immersive. The editing isn’t perfect, but it’s mostly effective. For a film that doesn’t need flashy direction, and Winterbottom does show restraint overall, there are nice touches that amplify this experience cinematically.

The Trip and The Trip to Italy have some glorious moments of humor, in particular the way Michael Caine is brought up in those two films. Well, Caine is briefly brought up again in The Trip to Spain and it’s fantastic. The timing of it is key. It comes of the heels of another impression, and given the jokes brought up, it was very appropriate to reintroduce Caine. There is a precision to this film that I just find impressive given this set up. The Trip to Spain is funny, smart and very well executed. The movie didn’t have to become as thought-provoking as it is, but Coogan and Brydon do a great job of providing great balance to their characters that is attainable. I can’t recommend this film enough.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]

Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writers: Matthew Vaughn, Jane Goldman
Stars: Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Channing Tatum, Julianne Moore

Synopsis: When their headquarters are destroyed and the world is held hostage, the Kingsman’s journey leads them to the U.S where they discover an allied spy organization known as Statesman. These two elite secret organizations must band together to defeat a common enemy.

[/info]

Matthew Vaughn is one the very scarce people amongst the writer/directors working in the industry today that lacks any fear of being seen as an auteur only in the category of inflated, stylized action that since his debut, he’s been known to trademark. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is another instance of this. While it does feel oddly reminiscent to the first in terms of narrative structure, it’s definitely another wildly engaging incarnation into the Kingsman universe.

Whereas most movies go wrong in the spy genre, Kingsman does right. What made 2015’s Kingsman: The Secret Service so fresh and modern, was the extravagant use of violence coinciding with the persistent Matthew Vaughn-isms that made it the contemporary, commercial flourish we’ve now seen it as. So it’s no surprise to see that within the first few minutes of The Golden Circle, Vaughn immediately transports you into a car chase. Although crowd-pleasing, the dilemma is how it just resides as a makeshift. It carries the same content as the first, but is choreographed far too much in shambles than its predecessor ever had. It’s as unenthused as it is heart-pounding but it feels like a fuse burning on both ends. Luckily enough, by the end of the resolution you should be able to forget all about the opening scene.

Although the first Kingsman was capable of deceiving audiences with Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson who were mainly being marketed as the protagonist and antagonist, it was ultimately Taron Egerton who brought a superior aspect of the movie’s charisma. That’s also apparent here. Not only are we given the characters we missed from the beginning (Eggsy, Harry, Merlin), but we’re also given the introductory to new personas. Channing Tatum, Pedro Pascal, Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry all feature compelling takes on these new characters and to be frank, by the midway point of the film you kind of get an idea on which direction each person will go in. But as the film nears the final showdown, that idea begins to fizzle out quickly. There’s not a whole lot of exploration shown for this new organization known as Statesman, which is a bit sad to think because of all the ideas they could’ve used to commence this grand, intriguing setting that would compliment with the newer faces.

At this point in Hollywood, Vaughn is well-known for his blatantly obnoxious style of filming action sequences. Although it hasn’t really thrived in all of his projects, the Kingsman series is the one where he should be proud of that it reaches its full potential. Excluding the opening scene, the last sequence of the movie where we’ve reached the final culmination from all of the previous build up has some of the most effusive and comical action I’ve seen from a spy film in quite some time. Instilled with an absurd plethora of wacky new gadgets from both Kingsman and Statesman, and you’ve got yourself one entertaining film.

Despite The Golden Circle essentially being the exact same as The Secret Service, some of their faults differ quite unexpectedly. Even if they’re pretty much identical in terms of storytelling techniques, by far the most substantial difference is Julianne Moore’s inability to wear the shoes of a dominate villain. This shouldn’t all be blamed on Moore however. The rising action and an eventual part of the climax seems incredibly pressured to be set in motion. It’s like Vaughn wasn’t entirely sure how he wanted to expand upon the finale and just proceeded without a complete plan mapped out. It also doesn’t benefit when your antagonists scheme is way too far fetched and insufficient, and merely just works for the films sake. Not to mention the continually forced emotional development for the main characters. Although it’s such a low number of flaws, it heavily damages the film exponentially.

Overall, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a fascinating and overly excessive kinetic movie filled to the brim with enthusiastic performances and solid action along with its set pieces. Even if it feels like familiar water because it is indeed a carbon copy of the first, it’s still a notable outing for Matthew Vaughn. Worthy of a watch but don’t set any expectations too high.

Overall Grade: B

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 240, coming soon.

[divider]

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writers: Darren Aronofsky
Stars: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer

Synopsis: A couple’s relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.

[/info]

Where to begin with a film like Mother!, indeed, even with a word so laden with subtext, an exclamation mark the punchline to a gag so blackly comic it straddles the realms of perception? Delirious, obscene, guttural, outrageous, preposterous: all words one can accurately level at proceedings, but Mother! really needs to consumed more than it does articulated. Darren Aronofsky has already played with the paranoid (Pi, Black Swan) and the biblical (The Fountain, Noah); his latest sees them converge on the bucolic ideal, on modest aspiration and domestic sanctuary.

The sense of unease is apparent from the outset, a scene in which the eponymous Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) wanders between an octagonal maze of rooms and staircases in search of her husband, Him (Javier Bardem). As continues apace as the film deepens, the over-the-shoulder shot of Mother beckons us into her paranoia. The spontaneous arrivals of Man (Ed Harris) and Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer), while apparently benign, begin to threaten the fragile, half-baked tranquillity of their home, despite Bardem’s struggling poet embracing the new additions. The encroachment takes an increasingly malevolent and chaotic turn with the introduction of a violent sibling rivalry, a point at which a grounded home-invasion narrative tips into something distinctly more intangible. The spirit of Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby takes over in the second act, though its referencing plays much more into the overall parable of this work than it does the more formal 1968 film. A crystallizing of evil into the joy of burgeoning new life, perhaps? A brief moment of hopeful contentment assumes so, but there are hounds at the gates.

What many take away from Mother! will largely depend on what they bring to it, though it’s hard to see much value in an exclusively literal interpretation. The breakdown of civilization, of the family unit, of Mother Earth; radical idolatry and messianic devotion are all touched on. I think. Certainly, the New Testament allegory is writ large, brothers Domhnall and Brian Gleeson channeling Cain and Abel every bit as much as Lawrence’s Mother battles for her vision of Eden. And it’s Lawrence who carries mother!. Imperceptible fractures become gaping cracks become vast chasms as her futile attempts at normalcy go begging. There’s a very conscious moment at which comprehension gives way to pure survival, a clever decision from Aronofsky to return our gaze to the intimate when it could so easily have become lost in the rubble, quite literally.

Matthew Libatique’s work behind the camera mustn’t go unnoticed. Working with Aronofsky on three of the director’s four projects named above (save Pi), his eye for balance between naturalism and fantasy is pivotal. The devolution of staid, almost button-up convention into, frankly, unfathomable territory isn’t seamless, nor should it be, but it’s commitment to Lawrence’s ability to tell a story, often through a mere glance or gesture, shows admirable restraint.

Mother! is already proving to be a divisive work, yet I challenge anyone to find fault with its ambition. The director himself has cited Luis Buñuel’s The Exterminating Angel (the bourgeoisie a point of repeated social satirizing for Buñuel) as a touchstone, while the ferocity on screen recalls the David Lynch of Eraserhead and Blue Velvet. And who else in mainstream cinema might be daring enough to warrant those comparisons? Not many, I would wager.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 239:

[divider]

Director: Zoe Lister-Jones
Writers: Zoe Lister-Jones
Stars: Zoe Lister-Jones, Adam Pally, Fred Armisen

Synopsis: A couple who can’t stop fighting embark on a last-ditch effort to save their marriage: turning their fights into songs and starting a band.

[/info]

Zoe Lister-Jones, taking the director’s chair for the first time, has created one of the most charming and surprising films of 2017 so far in Band Aid. This is also Jones’ first solo effort as a writer and she has uniquely tapped into a very human struggle that many couples deal with on a daily basis. The experience that follows is funny, endearing and emotionally moving creating a very satisfying experience.

Anna (Lister-Jones) and Ben (Adam Pally) are having a rough patch as the film opens and in a creative rut. Once a therapist suggest that they do something unique together, Anna opens up about how the two of them should start a band and create songs based off of their arguments. Ben agrees and this action leads to some fascinating sequences where we see Anna and Ben bond over music that you probably haven’t heard before.

Narratively, Band Aid does circulate some familiar territory, but Lister-Jones is diligent to never fall into any traps that suffocate the film. She does a wonderful job of breathing life into this story by letting its charm and wit produce something refreshing in seeing these characters struggle. As a result, there is a genuine honesty to how Anna and Ben connect through the songs they create together.

The true heart of Band Aid though lies in what’s underneath those songs. We come to find out about the mid-way point that this couple had experienced a tragedy some months prior to the events of this film, which has caused both Anna and Ben to hide from the pain of said tragedy. At one point, as these songs are producing positive energy, Ben decides to provoke Anna into talking about their pain. The resulting scene is one of the best of the year, where Anna cathardically reveals how she feels like a failure – especially as a women – who is unable to create anything of value. It’s a devastating moment that both Lister-Jones and Pally perform masterfully. Creating art – of any kind – has a healing power and Band Aid highlights this in ways that is interesting and new.

The film also stands upon the chemistry between Pally and Lister-Jones. They have a palpable connection that render laugh-out-loud funny moments, some heartfelt dramatic feels and music that is very singular. Simply, they are both very good and many scenes could have easily have fallen apart if not for their dynamic together. However, Lister-Jones does a great job in her direction of letting those performances linger and carry the weight of the film.

Where Band Aid slightly falters is in some of its more extreme humor and (sadly) with the neighbor Dave (Fred Armisen) character. Most of Band Aid finds itself in natural territory that most couples can relate with on an emotional level, which doesn’t blend well with cartoon characters such as Dave. Armisen is great, but his character is a mixed bag overall.

Despite a few blemishes, Band Aid is a tightly controlled delight that features fun music, engaging characters and authentic emotion. Lister-Jones has already proven herself as a writer with Breaking Upwards, and now she’s confidently tackled the director’s chair with this film. I, for one, can’t wait to see her voice her vision in later projects.

Overall Grade: A-

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]

Director: Juan Carlos Medina
Writers: Peter Ackroyd (novel), Jane Goldman (screenplay)
Stars: Olivia Cooke, Bill Nighy, María Valverde

Synopsis: A series of murders has shaken the community to the point where people believe that only a legendary creature from dark times – the mythical so-called Golem – must be responsible.

[/info]

Silhouette-strewn streets and shadowy passageways star in this English language debut for director Juan Carlos Medina, an at times intoxicating sense of time and place offering buoyancy to a plot at risk of floundering. Supported by a largely British cast, the narrative twists and turns at a rate not dissimilar from the music hall productions it depicts. And nimble it must be, for beneath the veneer of post-Dickensian London lurk an unfortunate smattering of miscues.

“Let us begin, my friends, at the end”, so are delivered The Limehouse Golem’s opening lines, playfully toying with the structural fluidity of proceedings. As the curtain draws back on 1880’s London we are immediately complicit in the film as much a work of theater as cinema. The London in question is one familiar to pop culture: of opium dens and medicinal laudanum, of prostitution and vagrancy. And into this ripe setting is Inspector John Kildare (Bill Nighy) plunged, the self-proclaimed Limehouse Golem murderer the object of his sleuthing. Paired with Constable George Flood (Daniel Mays), Kildare’s investigation soon leads him into the toxic company of a troupe of music hall performers led by pantomime dame, Dan Leno (Douglas Booth), a real-life theatre actor of the period. Told in flashback, our present concerned with Kildare’s pursuit of acquittal from a charge of spousal murder connected to the Golem at the feet of Lizzie Cree (Olivia Cooke), there’s a distinct sense of visual gluttony as we delve momentarily into each thread.

Then to the film’s overwhelming flaw: a final-act twist so telegraphed I needed the prompting of other screening attendees to perceive. From about forty minutes in the reveal is bellowing at you, a monolithic neon sign illuminating every clue under Inspector Kildare’s woefully inept scrutiny. The narrative’s attempts at diversion are timid, desperate for the conviction of its rich world-building. And it’s to the film’s credit that the dichotomy doesn’t betray the painterly pleasures of Medina’s Victorian London. Adapted from Peter Ackroyd’s novel, Dan Leno and the Limehouse Golem, the literary source does seem to be the preeminent format for this tale. Vibrant and deliciously tactile its realized world may be, but the one-sided nature of its formulaic, if spritely, unfolding leaves us craving an impossible degree of interaction; we are merely along for the ride rather than a remote contributor to the Kildare-Flood-viewer triumvirate.

Still, there is plenty to be enjoyed here. Of those on screen, Nighy in particular excels in the lead role, a role originally intended for the late Alan Rickman. It would be entirely possible for some performances to be stifled by the inevitable excesses of costumes and gesticulation; that this isn’t the case is praiseworthy. Minor plot points and (un)twisty ending aside, this is certainly worth your time. Fans of the source material might find an unexpected disconnect as they’re dragged into prison cells and out of crime scenes, but this feast for the senses more than justifies itself. All the world’s a bloody stage, indeed.

Overall Grade: B-

[divider]

Director: Andy Muschietti
Writers: Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, Gary Dauberman, Stephen King (novel)
Stars: Bill Skarsgård, Jaeden Lieberher, Finn Wolfhard, Sophia Lillis

Synopsis: A group of bullied kids band together when a monster, taking the appearance of a clown, begins hunting children.

[/info]

When examining the exterior of It, it’s not hard to grasp where all the skepticism is sprouting from. Albeit the petrifying appearance of Pennywise the Clown, the marketing team was rather stale in attempting to inflict the true horrors of such a demented story like this throughout the numerous trailers and TV spots. However, due to the masterwork of King’s novel from which this was adapted and a nauseatingly hypnotizing performance from Bill Skarsgård, it leaves behind a continuous uneasy feeling that increases as the movie progresses.

A film like It doesn’t bare anything flashy. It doesn’t possess any revolutionizing horror craftsmanship, but instead bestows exaggerated jump scares and basic beat you over the head horror antics. Despite that category of unoriginality, it’s accommodated into a project like this perfectly. Especially the decade in which the film takes place. A small, simple-minded town like this amid the near emergence of the 1990s begins to feel like it’s growing its own facade in to the films by the rising action is set in motion. It’s not how it’s incorporated, but the way it’s being exploited.

It’s somewhat refreshing to see that Andy Muschietti discloses his own sense of personal style in to such a grand horror blockbuster of mainstream media. While the movie obviously proceeded down a much darker path than it’s 1990’s predecessor, it manages to sprinkle in brief instances of the campiness that was made so iconic by Tim Curry. Muschietti certainly leaves a distinct mark on this rendering of the book which shall be remembered if it were to ever be remade.

Quite possibly the most noteworthy element regarding ‘It’ are the ample performances from each actor/actress. Bill Skarsgård is electrifying, stealing almost every fervid scene he has dialogue in. He’s absolutely frightening in every meaning of the word but also gives a genuinely integral portrayal of Pennywise. Additionally, the child actors give impressive performances too. Taking into consideration how young they are, the maturity level and skill set of each adolescent actor/actress is unbelievable at such a young age. Easily one of the strongest acting ensembles in a movie as of late, and just one of the most keen in general.

You can’t go without saying that It is liable for a couple of drawbacks. When it’s not trying to scare the soul out of you, it’s comedic presence is dialed up for a very immense amount of time. A lot of the humor is amusing essentially because it’s coming from the kids. However, the two aspects of horror and comedy, aren’t the most accurately presented here. The tone can unwittingly become inconsistent for a handful of scenes and will remain that way momentarily before snapping back. It feels as though the blueprint attached to the film might’ve been a bit scatterbrained at one point. That feeling emerges a lot more frequently than it should but by the film’s climax, it begins to settle down and ultimately balances out between the two. It’s also fair to say that towards the end of the second act, interest might be a bit diminished for some people. Topping out at 135 minutes, not only is it a bit longer than your average film, but a fair of an amount longer than a horror film. It’s pretty much inevitable that you’re going to run into problems like that for the runtime it boasts. But nonetheless, it’s nothing to seriously dwell on.

As stated before, It is definitely heart-pounding terror at its best. It’s alarmingly dangerous when presenting scares but also carries some very fascinating, soft-hearted aspects of a coming-of-age film. At the end of the day however, I’m sure it’ll give you a good scare.

Overall Grade: B+

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 238, coming soon.

[divider]