The Reel World

Well, well ... it would appear that this weekend is the weekend of sequels with two movies worthy of 31 Nights of Terror. First is the return of Angelina Jolie as Maleficent. When we last saw the Mistress of Evil (which also happens to be the title for the sequel) she was more of a hero rather than villain. However, the sequel sees her return to her previous status as the feared fairy that ruled the Moors. How quickly people forget her contributions. Though not traditionally scary, the film features plenty of magic and carnage courtesy of Jolie. Additionally, the film features the return of Elle Fanning, Sam Riley, and Harris Dickson as Aurora, Diaval, and Prince Philip. With the addition of Chiwetel Ejofor and Ed Skrein, as well as Michelle Pfeiffer as Queen Ingrith, Philip’s mother, who gives Maleficent a run for her money for the title of Mistress of Evil.

In the five years that have passed since then the original film, Aurora has continued to reign as Queen of the Moors and is beloved by her subjects, and especially by Prince Phillip who works up the courage to propose marriage. Aurora accepts, but then comes the hard part: telling their parents. For Phillip the difficulty comes from her mother, who feels that their people have a right to pillage the Moors and worries about losing her son to Aurora, who rules the land she would like to acquire. For Aurora, the difficulty is much more challenging, as she has the unfortunate task of telling her Godmother, the protector of the Moors, Maleficent. Though initially apprehensive about the idea, Maleficent grants her permission. However, this is only the beginning of their troubles.

It may be similar to other sci-fi films of its kind, but Gemini Man tips the scale with action and storyline.  The CGI is incredible, and the re-aging of Will Smith amazing in this assassin vs. clone movie that will knock your socks off. Oh, and the answer is yes, Will Smith plays both parts with seamless detail. A crack shot and assassin for a US government special ops, Henry Brogan (Will Smith) has set himself up on a hill readying himself to kill someone in a fast moving train.  As the train passes by he makes the kill shot, but it almost puts a bullet in a child nearby.  Deciding to retire, he tells his boss that it’s time because there’s a good chance he’ll botch the next job.

In a small out-of-the-way village in the United States, Brogan makes his first day of retirement a chance to do some fishing.  Going to the pier he meets Danny (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the person in charge of boat rentals. His keen sense for trouble and his ability to identify when someone is not who they say they are leads Brogan to believe he’s being set up.  With the help of Danny he escapes the hit, and the two go on the run looking for answers.

“They're creepy and they're kooky, Mysterious and spooky, They're altogether ooky, The Addams Family.”

That is for those who read my Addams Family Double Feature post regarding the Addams Family theme song. Of course that is merely the first verse of the song. Have no fear, as the animated film features the full version. It must be kismet, as I had the privilege of reviewing the animated film so soon after reviewing the double feature, though I suspect that this was by design. It is also kismet that this film comes in time to be part our 31 Nights of Terror. Though this cartoon does not fit the traditional view of what a horror film is, I would argue that the subject matter is more than enough to grant it entry. Featuring a lighter tone than its subject material, this incarnation is an enjoyable experience that can be shared with the whole family, which was my experience as I was able to bring my daughter to the film with me, and I’m happy to say it got her stamp of approval.

“Art is dangerous.”  It’s a quote that has been passed around over the decades, and it’s something I tend to agree with.  Over the weeks building up to the release of the film, there seems to be a manufactured panic about what could happen when Joker releases onto the big screen.  In Aurora, Colorado, they’ve elected to not show the film as a way to not trigger local residents who were involved in the 2012 shooting. This I can understand, considering the shooter did indeed dress as the Joker when he committed his act of violence.  As for other parts of the US, the local police and military have been placed on high alert, all because people are worried about the gun violence and how it may motivate deranged fans to go on shooting sprees.  This obviously is not what the studios or filmmakers ever intended, but it is unfortunately a sign of the times that we are living in.  No one should have to fear going to the movies. The theater for many is the place for audiences to escape for two hours and forget the troubles and the horrors of the real world, and my hope is audiences will be able to do so without violent incidents.

To be fair, Joker isn’t the first film to have the spotlight thrust upon it due to its violence, nor will it be the last. A part of me wonders if the controversy was even manufactured to create more buzz for the film. After all, scaring audiences has always been a powerful tool in marketing, when you look back at the films of William Castle and Roger Corman.  For some of their films, audiences would have to sign waivers to ensure the studio wouldn’t be at fault if anything were to happen to audience members while watching the film, while having ambulances parked outside the movie house.  Is it a stretch to believe the studios would do this? Maybe.  But is it possible, considering how the box office is underperforming, that people will attempt to create buzz for the film?  And then there are the political motivations, attempting to use a film in the fight for control.  So many possibilities, so much controversy, and still as I write this the film hasn’t even been released to the masses for them to judge for themselves.

"Sometimes I wish upon a star..."

Sometimes the brightest stars shine for the shortest times. That could certainly be said for Judy Garland. 2019 marks the 80th anniversary of the release of The Wizard Of Oz. There have been plenty of celebrations, but it's fitting that we also use this milestone as a chance to do some tribute to Judy Garland, who as a young girl brought the central character of Dorothy to life for generations of movie fans. It's an entirely appropriate time to offer some empathy to her, and that's exactly why Judy couldn't have come at a better time. It's based on the stage play End Of The Rainbow by Peter Quilter. The film offers us a rather intimate look at a time in the life of the actress just a year before she died from a drug overdose.

”AQUARELA takes audiences on a deeply cinematic journey through the transformative beauty and raw power of water. Captured at a rare 96 frames-per-second, the film is a visceral wake-up call that humans are no match for the sheer force and capricious will of Earth’s most precious element. From the precarious frozen waters of Russia’s Lake Baikal to Miami in the throes of Hurricane Irma to Venezuela’s mighty Angel Falls, water is AQUARELA’s main character, with director Victor Kossakovsky capturing her many personalities in startling cinematic clarity. The film will be shown in theaters at 48 frames-per-second, double the typical 24 frames-per-second, as projectors with the ability to project at 96-frames-per-second are extremely rare today, but when the time comes that the capacity is there, AQUARELA will be one of the first films to be shown at that speed.”

When you turn on the faucet and out comes water, do you really know where it all comes from and how much of it flows on the Earth? Enter the documentary Aquarela, with its lavish cinematography of water in all forms everywhere. The movie was made by Victor Kossakovsky, in which he says that his movie “takes audiences on a deeply cinematic journey through the transformative beauty of the raw power of water.” The film is not a political statement for a cause or even a warning of any kind.

You know a movie’s bad when Brad Pitt isn’t enough to save it. However, where Ad Astra falls down is in execution of story rather than a failure on the part of Mr. Pitt. The premise was interesting: a son follows in the footsteps of his hero astronaut father to learn that his father, who was previously believed to be dead, may be responsible for catastrophic events plaguing the Earth. There is depth to the story, and the idea of human beings colonizing other planets was shown in a truly interesting and realistic manner, but instead of this being the forefront of the film, the story focuses primarily on a emotional journey that never pans out. The film also features a cast of superstars whose performances were little more than cameos. A waste of talent if you ask me. I mean, why put together a cast that includes Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, Liv Tyler, and Ruth Negga, just to have their contributions be the length of a commercial. Yes, I know that was an exaggeration, but it just seems wasteful.

Ad Astra follows Major Roy McBride as he plummets back to Earth from an apparent space ladder (interesting idea; wish they would have spent more time explaining it), when a power surge of unknown origin destroys portions of the spacecraft. Upon landing safely, McBride is informed that the source of the surges have been traced back to the Lima Project, a 30-year-old highly classified mission tasked with looking for intelligent life; this mission has significance to McBride because the mission was led by his father, Space Command legend Clifford McBride, who was thought to be dead up until this point. In that moment, McBride learns that not only is his father alive, but he is believed to be responsible for a event that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives. McBride is tasked with the mission of travelling across an unforgiving solar system in hopes of making contact with his father, as well as discovering the truth of his father’s wayward mission thirty years earlier.

"This is a story about control. My control. Control over what I say. Control about what I do."

Hustlers tells the "true" story of a team of strippers who found a way to turn the tables on their Wall Street clients and is based on a New York Magazine article by Jessica Pressler. It promises a pretty good time. I mean, think about it. Wall Street is the stuff of mustache-twirling villains these days. Brokers might have dropped beneath ambulance-chasing lawyers and used car salesmen as the people we love to hate. Throw in some strippers and a clever con that happens to target these modern bad guys, and it sounds like the kind of romp that has something in it for everybody. Well ... maybe not the Wall Street guys who go to the movies, you might say. Did I mention it's got strippers? At first blush the film reminds me a little too much of Paul Verhoeven's infamous Showgirls. The problem is that the shlock value of that film has allowed it to find its place in film history, and so it has survived in all its badness. Will the same be true of Hustlers? Or will it quickly vanish into a sea of obscurity before another couple of years are over? I have to say that I suspect it's the latter. By this time next year, you'll be asking a friend what the name of that stripper film with Jennifer Lopez was last year? Let me know if anyone remembers, won't you?

Whistleblowing is a difficult decision. You are part of an organization, and you believe in that organization. Speaking out against that organization (yes, I know I’m overusing the word) at times can seem like ratting out family. Not to mention the downside. We all say that there will not be reprisal for whistleblowing, but more often than not, there is. However, that doesn’t mean that if you see wrongdoing that you should sit idly by and do nothing. Most believe that inaction is as bad as committing the act yourself. But when the organization you are speaking out against is the United States government, that is another animal entirely. Official Secrets portrays the real-life actions of Katherine Gun, a translator who back in 2003 leaked classified information exposing a conspiracy to facilitate the war against Iraq. Keira Knightly portrays our whistleblower with an all-star cast that includes Matthew Smith, Matthew Goode, Rhys Ifans, and Ralph Fiennes.

A key factor with this biographical adaptation is historical accuracy. There are always some aspect that are sensationalized to make the story more interesting and engaging. I did some research, and as near as I can tell this portrayal is pretty accurate of the events that transpired; even the names are accurate. Katherine Gun worked worked for the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a British intelligence agency. During her employment, she received an email from a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official requesting aid in a secret and illegal operation to bug the United Nations offices of six nations: Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, and Pakistan. The purpose of the clandestine operation was to gain leverage over these countries to force their support to prompt the United Nations Security Council to approve the invasion of Iraq.

“This meeting of the Losers’ Club has officially begun.”

I don’t think I’d be exaggerating by saying It Chapter 2 might be the most highly anticipated horror film in quite some time. Two years ago when the first It hit the cinemas, sure, I expected it to be a hit, but the film went on to be a pop culture sensation.  Pennywise was already well known because of the books by Stephen King but also because of the loyal fan base of the 90’s mini-series.  Debates were heated about which Pennywise was better and more terrifying, while other debates went on about which adaptation was better.  I always felt it was unfair to compare this new version to the mini-series simply because we only had half a film, and now finally this weekend we have the conclusion to the story about our favorite Losers’ Club, only instead of teenagers they are all grown up.  Now that the wait is over, how does this film stack up alongside the first half and the mini-series? Well, I’ll say it’s better than the mini-series but doesn’t quite have the magic of the 2017 film.