All in the Family

I admit I am a bit of a sucker for low-budget indie horror and have, as you might expect, seen my share of both good ones and bad.  For every ‘Paranormal Activity’ and ‘Get Out,’ there is an ‘As Above, So Below’ and ‘Ouija.’  There are movies that were critically maligned that I somehow enjoyed, such as the unabashedly exploitative ‘The Purge,’ and ones that critics raved about that I thought aren't very good, like the highly overrated ‘It Follows.’  The latest such movie to get a wide release is A24’s ‘It Comes at Night’ which falls somewhere in between being just so-so. 
 

‘It Comes at Night’ (don't ask me what comes at night because I still can't figure it out) can best be characterized as post-apocalyptic survival psychological suspense horror (now that’s a mouthful).  A family of three comprising of a father, mother and their teenage son (played by Joel Edgerton, Carmen Ejogo and Kelvin Harrison Jr.) live in a secluded house in the woods of an unspecified location in America.  A plague or disease of unknown origin has ravaged the world outside, and the characters’ (and by extension the audience’s) situation awareness is so limited that all we know is what’s happening in the "here and now. " When another family of three including a little boy seeks their aid and appeals to their humanity for shelter, they agree to take in the family for mutual support and companionship. However, even sympathetic gestures such as this can lead to tragedy and disaster in the end.
 

While this glacially paced movie is fairly well written and solidly acted, it is not an easy film to watch.  Not only is ‘It Comes at Night’ bleak, depressing and devoid of hope even by post-apocalyptic standards, its dark and tragic ending defies Hollywood conventions and leaves a bitter taste in our mouths.  Be forewarned.  All ye who enter this movie abandon hope because there is none to be found.

Grade: B
  

The She-Mummy

Universal Studio’s much ballyhooed “Dark Universe” appeared to be off to an inauspicious start in producer/director Alex Kurtzman’s ‘The Mummy,’ the latest incarnation (or is it reincarnation) of one of Hollywood’s classic monsters harking back to the days of Boris Karloff.  Lambasted by critics and shunned by moviegoers, ‘The Mummy’ bombed with a disappointing domestic take of $32 million on opening week and suffered a steep 60 percent drop over the past weekend.  The final nail seems to have been driven into the $125 million dollar movie’s coffin before you can ask “What the hell happened?”  Well, something funny, that’s what.  With the savvy Tom Cruise at the helm, ‘The Mummy’ proved to be a mega-blockbuster hit overseas, particularly in China.  The film has now grossed nearly $240 million worldwide, of which less than $50 million came out of the North American market.  Just let that sink in for a minute.  What would Hollywood do without the Chinese?

 

The critics are right though.  The story (credited to Kurtzman, Jon Spaihts and Jenny Lumet)  is pretty bad.  Cruise plays Nick Morton, a sleazy ex-Special Forces sergeant and shameless tomb raider who had no qualms selling priceless artifacts that belong in museums on the black market for personal gain.  When he accidentally awakened the mummy of Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), an Egyptian princess who sold her soul to Set and murdered her own family for the throne but was thwarted in her quest to become queen of Egypt, Morton must draw upon every ounce of his wits and ability in order to prevent worldwide catastrophe with the help of archeologist and out of central casting cookie-cutter blond sidekick Jenny Halsey (Anabelle Wallis).

 

The main problem with ‘The Mummy’ isn’t that it’s unwatchable.  The problem is that it cannot be judged on its own merits without comparing it to the 1999 version directed by Stephen Sommers starring Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz and John Hannah.  While that movie was no masterpiece by any stretch, it was fun and the perfect Indiana Jones-inspired popcorn flick.  By contrast, this latest is a weak effort that’s a sloppy slapdash mish mash of various influences, and the film suffered for it stylistically and tonally.  I mean, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, really?  Also, Cruise and Wallis lacked the sheer on-screen chemistry of Frasier and Weisz.  If anything, this film brings to mind another expensive and messy failure, 'Van Helsing,' whose director happened to be the same guy who directed the 1999 version.

Grade: C

 

Princess Diana of Themyscira

Superhero moviedom gets a good dose of “Girl Power” in DC Extended Universe’s ‘Wonder Woman,’ director Patty Jenkin’s highly anticipated and “trail-blazing” film featuring a superheroine in a genre overrepresented by men (just ask yourself, how many such movies end with the suffix “Man”?).  Much hand-wringing and no small amount of feminist drama, including a controversy over WW’s shaved armpit (hairy armpit "controversy"), preceded the movie’s release as Hollywood held its collective breath to see if the world is finally ready to embrace and, more importantly, financially reward a movie with a female headliner.

 

Having made more than $100 million over its first weekend in North America and twice that globally, we can all now breathe a sigh of relief.  Not that there’s really any doubt, since WW was well-received and a bright spot in 2016’s ‘Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice’ (reviewed here: Bats vs Supes: Dawn of Justice), her very first appearance in the DCEU.  Israeli stunner "what a Gal!" Gadot was nothing less than gorgeous as the Amazonian Goddess Diana Prince, the greatest warrior princess on an invisible island full of Xenas.  After British pilot and spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) unwelcomely crash lands on her secluded island paradise, she joins him and embarks on a mission outside her sheltered world to stop Ares (as in the God of War) and put an end to man’s greatest folly, which happens to be World War I at the time.

 

Relying on familiar storytelling tropes such as the opening scene in which an old war photograph from Bruce Wayne triggers her story via flashback, WW’s origin is a nostalgic affair reminiscent of the story of another idealistic red, white and blue-clad do-gooder who fought Germans during the last century in ‘Captain America: The First Avenger.’  Partly set in London during the early 20th Century, WW also provides some levity in the way of a British comedy of manners.  And even though Zack Snyder stepped aside as director this time his influence is still evident, like the 300-esque visual style and jerky slow motion action scenes throughout the movie.

Grade: A

Prometheus 2

As an aficionado of just about anything 'Alien,' Ridley Scott’s latest film in the 38-year old franchise, ‘Alien: Covenant,’ may be my most anticipated movie of 2017.  Five years after 2012's 'Prometheus,' which I thought was pretty darn good (so sue me) even if it had too much "Space Jockey" (Engineer) and too little Alien, a new installment is long overdue as far as I'm concerned.  And the gorier the better!

 

‘Alien: Covenant’ takes place in 2104, about 10 years after the events which expired, I mean transpired in ‘Prometheus.’  Centering on the crew of the space ship “Covenant” in cryogenic stasis entasked with transporting 2,000 settlers to a habitable planet dubbed Origae-6, only to be rudely awakened prematurely to deal with an on-board crisis before responding to a garbled and mysterious transmission from an unknown planet nearby which just so happened to be suitable for human habitation without the need for terra-forming.  Sounds familiar?  Needless to say, they encounter hostile Xenomorphs of various types on the planet.

 

While ‘Alien: Covenant’ is undeniably a direct sequel to the divisive ‘Prometheus,’ it can also be considered to be a prequel to ‘Alien’ and hews more closely to the 1979 original than perhaps any of the other films in the official Alien canon.  With deadly Xenomorphs skittering around the confined corridors of Covenant preying on soft fleshy things that die messily, the claustrophobia-induced anxieties and nail-biting suspense of that original Ridley Scott film are rekindled.  It's also perhaps by no accident that the movie’s heroine, Daniels "Dany" Branson (Katherine Waterston, whose pedigree is impeccable given her lineage), somewhat resembled the young Ellen Ripley.

Grade: A-

Short Live the King!

Poor Guy Ritchie.  The ex-hubby of Madonna and director of entertaining British Jason Statham‑starring crime capers such as ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ and ‘Snatch’ just can’t catch a break.  Less than two years removed from his unenthusiastically received big-screen adaptation of the campy ‘60’s spy series ‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E.’ (reviewed here: The Man from U.N.C.L.E.), his latest feature, the $175 million sword-and-sorcery epic ‘King Arthur: Legend of the Sword,’ only managed to fall on Excalibur instead and disembowel itself at the box office.  Ouch.

 

Intended as the first entry in a new King Arthur/Knights of the Round Table franchise (now in doubt undoubtedly), KA:LotS retells the story of Arthur’s (Charlie Hunnam) origin, starting from his father King Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) being betrayed by his power-hungry and treacherous uncle Vortigern (Jude Law) to his eventual restoration to the throne.  The story is a familiar one, albeit updated with the latest visual effects, a contemporary sensibility and the quippy rapid-fire dialogue that has become a trademark of Guy Ritchie movies.

 

It’s not difficult to see why KA:LotS crashed and burned so badly both critically and commercially.  This latest retelling of one of our most cherished legends is a decidedly messy affair that’s hard to digest.  While boasting a talented cast, most of whom did okay, the film is pretty much “all sound and fury, signifying nothing” while lacking substance with an over-abundance of action.  Shamelessly riding the coat-tails of HBO’s ‘Game of Thrones’ visually and stylistically, KA:LotS seems content to dish out one overblown set-piece action sequence after another, never slowing down enough to show that it cares about the characters or ponder their significance.

Grade: D 

 

Iraqi Sniper

The latest movie about America’s tragic, never-ending war in the Middle East is ‘The Wall,’ a low-budget affair directed by Doug Liman (‘The Bourne Identity,’ ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith,’ ‘Edge of Tomorrow’).  With a mere budget of $3 million and a cast of two, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and WWE superstar John Cena, ‘The Wall’ is at first glance intriguing but ultimately an unsatisfying war movie that takes a lo-fi minimalist approach.

 

Johnson and Cena play sergeants Allen Isaac and Shane Matthews, a US Army sniper team sent to investigate a pipeline construction site that’s “gone dark” in the middle-of-nowhere desert wasteland of post-war Iraq.  After patiently observing the now quiet kill zone where the private contractors were killed for nearly 24 hours, the pair broke cover in order to recover equipment only to find themselves pinned down by an unseen enemy, a cunning and ruthless Iraqi sniper who takes particular pleasure in playing mind games with his hapless victims (namely Isaac).  The only thing separating Isaac and his sadistic never-seen adversary is a length of crumbling brick wall, which provides the setting for virtually the film’s entire length.

 

Even though I’m as much a fan of do-or-die cat-and-mouse sniper duels as anyone (I thought ‘Enemy at the Gates’ was good and enjoyed ‘American Sniper’ despite its blatant rah-rah jingoism), ‘The Wall’ just didn’t hold my attention or interest long enough.  In the wake of his bravura performance in ‘Nocturnal Animals,’ Johnson proved once again that he can act (although Cena was pretty much a non-factor after he ran out and got shot), but the movie’s limited by an overly thin and sparse script that would have trouble holding our attention for 60 minutes, much less its 81-minute running time.

Grade: C-

Galaxy Quest

2014’s geektastic ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ (reviewed here: GotG) is an excessively fun and humorous galaxy-spanning romp in the MCU and a bona fide smash hit which exceeded all expectations at the worldwide box office, so it comes as little surprise that the follow-up would garner inflated expectations.  With such a tough act to follow, can writer/director James Gunn and company deliver and satisfy the legions of comic book fans renowned for their hard-to-pleaseness?  Inquiring minds want to know.

 

‘Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2’ continues the wild and wacky misadventures of our unlikely band of privateers-for-hire comprised of Peter Quill aka Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax the Destroyer, Rocket Raccoon and a pint-sized “I am” Groot, who can’t seem to shake trouble wherever they go.  After narrowly escaping the wrath of a gold-painted former employer, the motley crew of misfits are called upon to save the galaxy yet again, this time from none other than (spoiler ahead) Peter’s long-lost father Ego (Kurt Russell), who’s a god-like sentient living planet of all things.

 

Like the original, GotG2 is a candy-coated rollicking rollercoaster ride of a movie, but this time with family dysfunction at its core.  Not only did Star-Lord have a misty reunion with the dad he never knew, green-skinned Gamora was also reunited with her sister Nebula, who wanted to kill her because she blamed Gamora for what their cruel dad Thanos did to her by being “too good” in their sibling rivalries.  But the real hero in the movie is the rough-around-the-edges Ravager leader with the blue skin and red Mohawk, Yondu (Michael Rooker), who showed us in the end what being a true father is all about. 

Grade: A