Cold Pursuit turned out to be like nothing I had imagined, and yet, just what I thought.

What do I mean by that?  Good question.  Well, the film itself was not like other type of revenge films that Liam Neeson has become quite well-known for, and yet shares much of the same DNA of that kind of film.  About halfway through the movie, I made a decision.

This is a satire of revenge films.

After making that analysis, lots of things that did not make much sense worked much better.  The comedy, which might seem to be trying too hard to be dark, makes more sense and fits the tone more.  The types of characters and their development can be understood.  Everything works better.

Either that or I am reading way too much into this movie.

Liam Neeson plays Nels Coxman, a snowplow operator in the city of Kehoe, Colorado, about 3 hours outside of Denver, and he is constantly busy clearing paths for the vehicles to even move.  So much so that he is dubbed the “man of the year” by a grateful community.

However, his ideal and happy life takes a dark turn when his son winds up killed by drug dealers, sending Coxman into a downward spiral.  It destroys his marriage to Laura Dern (who is criminally underused in this movie) and sends him to the verge of suicide.  When Coxman discovers that his son was not involved with the drug dealers but was, instead, an innocent victim, he turned his vitriol outward toward the drug dealers that were to blame.

The fact that Liam Neeson is the star of the movie helps give this credit because he is so involved in other types of this genre.  Here, Neeson plays a man who does not seem to be former military or trained assassin.  He is a snowplow operator.  Still he becomes a killing machine and continually disposed of the bodies in the same manner, a way he saw on TV.  That seems to me to be a shot at one of the typical tropes of revenge movies and using Liam Neeson to personify that is awesome.

The villains are all strange and eccentric, but go against the type you would normally see in revenge flicks.  The main villain, Viking (Tom Bateman) is just a total bizarre drug lord who is all over the place.  We see his relationship with his son (Nicholas Holmes), which was strange as could be.  Viking wanted his son to eat a strict diet and act in certain manner and could not see that he was anything but what he had wanted.  Nicholas Holmes’s character was not your typical child in these film either and his eventual connection with Liam Neeson was very sweet.

There was a very funny bit that happened every time someone was killed during the movie, and there were a lot of people killed during the movie.  The body count was definitely high but I thought they did a decent job of maintaining the violence level.  There was blood, but the scene was not just about the blood that was spilled.

Watching this as a satire/spoof makes some of the characters fit better too.  There was a character named The Eskimo that could be looked at in a different light in a satire of revenge movies.

As a satire, the ridiculously generic movie title works too.  Just sayin’.

I was entertained by the movie.  Of course, if I were looking at this with a different spectrum, then I could see many problems, but as I approached this as a satire, those problems turned into positives.

Or I am completely off track.

3.9 stars

Peter Jackson’s documentary They Shall Not Grow Old has been released in the theaters after a few special showing through Fathom Events.  I got a chance to see it today and the film is a technical marvel and very difficult, at times, to watch.

Jackson took footage from World War I and updated it, colorized it and revitalized it.  It is amazing what he was able to accomplish with the technology of this age.  We saw example of the film that he started with in Jackson’s own introduction to the movie and then we saw how it was transformed into more than that during the film.  No matter what you may have thought about the film, being able to restore this film and keep it available for history is a tremendous accomplishment.

The film has amazing and powerful moments to it as well as we hear from voices of people who had been there narrating the story as we discover the truth of how this time affected these soldiers.

I will say that it started a bit slow but the story really took off as the midway part of the film began.  There are facts that I never would have thought about mentioned in the movie that really highlight the unsanitary, unfavorable situation these soldiers found themselves thrust into.

My favorite part of the film was the section where it talked about the German soldiers that had surrendered.  They were treated more humanely than I would have believed and even acted as men carrying stretchers for wounded.  This section truly accentuated the lack of difference between the British and the Germans, going as far as to implicate that the soldiers did not really want to be fighting, despite the constant barrage of weaponry going on around them.

There were brutal scenes as well, spotlighting the horrors of war and the results of such a battle.  Both sides were shown in their suffering and there were moments that were unbelievably challenging to watch.

Compelling and challenging, They Shall Not Grow Old is an accomplishment on a grand scale for Peter Jackson, who dedicated this film to his grandfather who fought in World War I in the British army.  It not only is a historical document, but also a commentary on the superfluous war.

4 stars

Director Dan Gilroy, who last teamed up with Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler, teams up with the actor once again in the new Netflix film, Velvet Buzzsaw, a horror/thriller centered on the art world.

A series of painting were discovered after the death of the artist who created them.  The paintings fueled a sensation among the art world, bringing out the worst in everyone involved, particularly the greed.

And those people whose greed led them to profit from the painting begin to end up dead.

The film has a great deal of mood about it as the supernatural force contained in the art eliminates the art lovers one at a time.

There is a strong cast in Velvet Buzzsaw, led by Jake Gyllenhaal and Rene Russo. Once again, Gyllenhaal is able to transform himself into the character of Morf Vandewalt, an art critic who is as taken by the mysterious art as he is with the people in his life.  Morf wants to write a book about the artist, but the research he does turns up some details that makes one wonder.

Along with Gyllenhaal and Russo, we have Toni Collette, Zawe Ashton, John Malkovich, Natalia Dyer (Stranger Things) and Tom Sturridge and all of them do a fine job taking eccentric characters and bringing them to life.  Now, there are not too many of them that are especially likable, but as they slowly become victims, there is a pleasurable feeling to their ends.

I thought the film started slowly, but by the second act, I was fully engaged by what I was watching.  I was fascinated by the back story of the artist, Ventril Dease, and wanted more on him.

The film also serves as a satire of the art world, and in this way it is even more vicious than the horror movie.  There is a vapidity on display here that attracts the art denizens to these paintings that stir up such a darkness inside each person.

There are some truly funny moments here too, especially poor Natalia Dyer who has to keep finding these victims of the paintings.

As I said, the beginning took awhile for me to fully get involved, but once I did, I liked what I saw.  Despite its inconsistencies overall, Velvet Buzzsaw is a worthwhile piece of art.

3.5 stars

When I could not get to Serenity last weekend, I had pretty much decided to let this be one of those movies which I allow to slip past me.  I mean, I heard negative word of mouth, the Rotten Tomatoes score was in the 20s and it bombed at the Box Office.  No need to see it.

Then I listened to the Critically Acclaimed podcast.

Critically Acclaimed is a podcast featuring internet critics William Bibbiani and Witney Seibold. Every week, they review the new releases as a part of their podcast and I have enjoyed listening to their intelligent discussions on the films.  They raise topics and discussion points with wit, acuity and sophistication in ways that you do not typically hear from other online critics.  Ironically, many times I seem to disagree with their opinions, but that does not take away from my enjoyment of hearing their well-reasoned analysis.  Film is all subjective.

On the last episode (linked above), both Witney and Bibbs had seen the latest Matthew McConaughey/Anne Hathaway film, Serenity  and reviewed it.  Not only did they review it, but they went into full spoilers because of a certain twist that they indicated was in the movie.

Having no intention of going to Serenity, I decided that I may as well listen to the review and enjoy what they had to say.  And I did.  I enjoyed their review very much.  So much so that I decided that I needed to see the film that they were describing.  Thanks a lot, fellas.

In Serenity, Baker Dill (Matthew McConaughey) was a fisherman on an island called Plymouth Island, and he was not having much success.  Much like Captain Nemo, Dill was obsessed with the capture of the Beast, a gigantic tuna that had continued to elude him.  When former flame Karen (Anne Hathaway) arrived in Plymouth with a tragic tale of abuse at the hands of her current husband Frank (Jason Clarke), Dill had his past crash back in his face, especially the existence of and the well-being of his son Patrick (Rafael Sayegh).

Karen had come to Plymouth Island with a plan.  She wanted her ex to take Frank with him out on his boat fishing, get him drunk and toss him overboard for the sharks to eat.  Her tale of abuse and violence did not sway Dill at first, but the arrival of Frank on the island made it clearer that something had to be done.

This seemed to be a dark noir tale of revenge and retribution for Frank’s sins, despite a strange island and a community of people that could be considered weird.  However, I knew what the twist was, thanks to Critically Acclaimed, so I was watching the film with the power of prior knowledge.  That only made everything I was seeing all the stupider.

SPOILERS

From here on out, I am going to be speaking in spoiler talk, because I agree with Witney and Bibbs that you cannot effectively talk about how stupid this movie was without revealing the twist that colored everything about my review.

It was revealed that the entire Plymouth Island and everything around the island was actually a digital, video game world created by Patrick, who apparently was some kind of computer genius.  This twist was hinted at early in the movie (and not at all subtly) and it was revealed to Dill midway through. The whole thing was a game that Patrick was playing.  A fishing game.  How exciting.  What was his purpose?  To spend time with dad?  No, he doesn’t put himself in the game until the end of the film in one of the silliest parts.  The whole catch the beast tuna bit is the game that Patrick has yet to master, since Dill has never caught him.  Plus, it was dropped as a main storyline into the film.

But worse than that was that someone should probably check on the mental condition of Patrick.  Not only does he create this whole world, he makes his father (who we learn died in the sand in Iraq during time in the military) be down on his luck.  Dill drinks heavily.  He makes his dad basically have sex with a woman (Diane Lane) for money.  He has his dad and mom have rough sex on the boat, not to mention the fact that he wants his father to kill his step-father.  For what purpose?  In the end, Patrick had killed Frank himself, but it is unclear when this happened.  Was it after the death in the game?  Did it give him the courage?  If so, shouldn’t this have been a premeditated murder instead of the self-defense that it seemingly turned out to be?

And it appeared that the island itself was working against him as Duke (Djimon Hounsou), the man who worked with Dill on his boat, was actively trying to keep Dill from killing Frank.  The woman, Diane Lane, Dill was having sex with had a son (I think) played by Garion Dowds who appeared out of nowhere a couple of times and dropped into situations that prevented the killing from happening.

It was implied that the creator (Patrick) was creating the rules for the games, and if that was the case, why was he throwing these obstacles into the path of his father?  It made little sense before the big twist and after it, the story made zero sense.  That does not speak well for your big twist.

Sure, the film does try to do something original and daring, but it failed miserably.  The film truly missed its mark and was better prior to the twist.  Maybe the film would have been better if the island was actually a magical place that was working to try and keep Frank alive and to save the soul of Dill.  Maybe it could have been some kind of purgatory and these characters were all dead (except for Patrick, who would have had some kind of mystical connection to his father).  A vibe like LOST sometimes had might have played better.

By the way, we never saw any sort of connection between Dill and Patrick so we had to accept the fact that they loved each other.  There were some flashbacks to a time when they went fishing, but Patrick was three years old (according to the movie…and was a different actor) and he may not have remembered that at all.  All we saw of Karen was a mean spirited woman plotting for the death of her husband.  Is that how her son saw her, because he had to program her avatar in that manner.  There was no chemistry between Dill and Karen and, near the end, when she tells him that she did love him, I simply did not believe it.  I believed that he was only good for what she needed.  Maybe the abuse was meant to humanize her, but it did not help me like her at all.  Hell, I liked the prostitute Diane Lane played way better and I thought she had more connection with Dill than the mother ever did.

I am glad I saw this because it will have a special place on the worst list at the end of the year.

1 star

The second film from last year that I had not seen but found on iTunes today was Assassination Nation.  Film critic and Schmoe Mark Ellis had loved this movie. which it made his top 10 favorite list.  That had made me interested in seeing this.

I will say this.  I really enjoyed this movie considerably more than Susperia, the other film I saw on iTunes today.

This film was brutal and rough.  The film shows the bad behavior of kids, social media and the underscore of hatred of other people.

An anonymous hacker reveals personal messages and online histories to the community, ruining lives.  The community turns violent and begins to target the girl Lily (Odessa Young) who the people blames for the hacking.

The film is like Bad Girls meet the Purge.  Directed by Sam Levinson, the movie is angry and mean, but also darkly funny.  It is bloody and violent.  It shows the dark side of the human race and how cruel people can be to one another.

I watched a lot of this with my mouth open.  It was surprisingly deep and has some serious themes going on here, which surprised me.  I found this to be quite an impressive film, better than I thought it was going to be.

4 stars

With the cold temps, I have had a chance to watch a couple of movies that I missed during the 2018 year, movies that were never in theaters around here but are now on iTunes.  The first of these was Suspiria.

I had heard both extremes of this film. Some people loved it and called it one of the best films of the year.  Others could not stand it and thought it was horrible.

I fall into the latter category.

I did not like this movie at all.  I found it a confusing, weirdly pretentious art house film that tried to be more than what it was.  I was bored ten minutes in and the shock value did nothing for me.

This is a film inspired by a 1977 Italian film of the same name.  This has lots of blood and viscera as well as dancing without music.

Tilda Swinton and Dakota Johnson were in the film but, honestly, I did not care for anyone so I barely registered what I saw.

I really did not like this movie.  I appreciate the attempt at something weirdly different, but not this different.

1.2 stars

Mads Mikkelsen stars in Polar, a strange mix between John Wick, Red and Sin City.  An attempt to turn the violence from a revenge flick into something artsy, splashed with bright colors and cartoon-like imagery.  Unfortunately, there are too many competing tones for this film to maintain itself.

Duncan is an assassin for hire preparing to retire from the business.  The company for which he works sets up to pay out a huge amount for their assassins on their retirement and is due to pay Duncan 8 million dollars.  The company, instead of paying out, has a hit squad that murders the soon-to-be retired killers and has the money revert to the company.

Problem is that Duncan is one of the deadliest assassins in the world and trying to bring him down becomes a real threat to the safety and success of the villainous Mr. Blut (Matt Lucas).

There are two (if not more) competing tones to this movie and it spent a great deal of the film’s run time bouncing back and forth.  That made the film difficult to watch.  There was also little fun as most of the violence was mean-spirited and lacking that cool kill type that you see in the better revenge flicks.

This one might fall into a B-movie at best, and Mad Mikkelsen is actually pretty good.  The rest of the film is too much of a cartoon and does not create the kind of stakes that it needs.

There is a side story with Duncan and Camille (Vanessa Hudgens), a woman who lived in a cabin nearby Duncan, that could have been considerably more interesting if it had been given priority in the film, but as it is tossed in without much explanation or care, when the twist comes, it does not feel earned or effective.

There is a lot of crudeness and unnecessary exploitation that turns ugly.  There are some attempts to humanize Duncan that fall completely flat.  He is truly a horrible person.

It had a few moments and Mads Mikkelsen is good, but there is not much more that is worth the time.  Watch The Punisher instead.

2.4 stars

The Lego Movie was quite a surprise because I never thought that a film about Legos would work.  However, it was amazingly funny and had a huge heart.  You knew that this would lead to a sequel.  So after a Lego Batman and a Lego Ninjago films, we got a sequel.  Unfortunately, it cannot match the first film.

I got a chance today to catch an early screening of The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (why not the Second Piece?) at Cinemark which was cool.

There were many good things about The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part, but there were more negatives here than the first one.  I was worried about that since I was not a fan of the trailer they dropped for this sequel.  Still, I liked the movie overall.

Things have gone poorly for the Lego world, as there appeared to be a dark and sad apocalyptic world.  The people of the word worried about an invasion of aliens, who had been arriving and causing all kinds of destruction.

When the aliens come back and kidnapped Lucy (Elizabeth Banks) and Batman (Will Arnett) along with three others, Emmet (Chris Pratt) built a ship and followed them into space.

The voice acting was great and the film had some really wonderfully clever dialogue.  It was funny and the CGI was solid.  There were some really great parts of the movie.  It was a good watch.  I enjoyed just about every song and I liked the meta jokes that were sprinkled throughout the film.

However, there were several problems that I could not get avoid.  First, though the film is clever, it may not actually be as clever as it thinks it is.  Second, the film was predictable.  In particular, any part SPOILER that was involving the “ourmomageddon” was so obvious that it caused eye rolls.

Then, the biggest issue I had with the film was any part that involved the kids in the real world who were playing with the Legos.  It took me out of the film every time.  It felt forced.  As if they knew the reveal in the first film was an amazingly emotional reveal and made that film special so it was going to work again and this time they would use it more.  The problem was that did not work again.  It was too much.

I mentioned the music and I thought it was great.  At first, I thought the music was going to be overused as well, but I found myself jamming along with each song.  There were some extremely catchy songs.

I love Lego Batman.  He is perfectly presented and is one of the most consistently funny aspects of these films.

So, while I had some disappointments with this movie, I did enjoy seeing it and I really believe that the creators took a big swing at doing something great.  Unfortunately, they came up short of great and fell into good instead.

3.1 stars

I was not a fan of the promotional material for this movie.  I was not looking forward to it.  However, this is another example of the promotional material (specifically the trailer) not doing a film a favor.  I truly enjoyed this movie.

The Kid Who Would Be King was considerably better than I thought it would be.

Alex (Louis Ashbourne Serkis) was your typical kid, bullied and put upon, living with his mother and not knowing anything about his father.  After standing up for his friend Bedders (Dean Chaumoo) against two of the baddest school bullies, Lance (Tom Taylor) and Kaye (Rhianna Dorris), Alex was chased into a construction site.  After escaping from the bullies, Alex discovered a sword stuck in a stone.  He pulled the sword out and started everything happening.

Little did he expect that this sword was the actual Excalibur of King Arthur and that Morgana (Rebecca Ferguson) was preparing to return to take over Britain.  Merlin (Angus Imrie/Patrick Stewart) arrived to try and mentor the young Alex in what he needed to do to prevent Morgana from returning.

This movie was considerably more emotionally poignant than I ever thought it would be.  It seemed as if it were going to be a childish action film that you would need to be 12 to enjoy.  However, there was much more heft to the film than expected.  The characters were real and had real arcs.  The story had some great beats to it and I liked the way it developed.

Now, I tell you, that the finale was a bit too much for my taste… stretching credibility too much, bu tit did not ruin what had come before it or what would come after.

The kids were all solid and did a great job acting.  It was awesome to see Patrick Stewart once again too.  This was one of the best versions of King Arthur’s legends in quite a while.  There was a magic to the movie.  It reminded me a bit of Harry Potter.  It was not quite that level, but it was very enjoyable.

4.25 stars

When I was a young geek, I used to love the old time comedy teams.  I loved Abbott and Costello, The Marx Brothers, The Three Stooges (to a lesser extent) and the tandem of Laurel and Hardy.  These comedians made me laugh and when I saw that we were getting a biopic of the life of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, I was excited.

Then, I saw Holmes and Watson and it tempered my excitement for the performance of John C. Reilly as Oliver Hardy, because he was so bad as John Watson.  However, I knew John C. Reilly was better than what I had seen in that travesty, so I kept my fingers crossed.

John C. Reilly was absolutely amazing as Oliver Hardy in this film, putting any doubts I may have had to rest.  Both Reilly and Steve Coogan, who was Stan Laurel, perfectly embodied the two comedic greats (and EYG Hall of Famers).

The relationship between Stan and Ollie was at the center of the film, and it showed that the relationship had a few cracks in it.  The film focused on a time near the end of their careers when Laurel and Hardy toured Great Britain.  The film dove into a time in the past when Hardy had done a film with a different partner because Laurel had been fired and Hardy was still under contract.  That “betrayal” seemed to stick with Stan and colored some of his thoughts about his partner.

It also showed Stan Laurel as the driving force behind the comedy of the pair, while Hardy listened to the suggestions and put it into effect.

The charm of both lead actors really carry this movie.  They do an amazing job of becoming Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy and their performances were spot on. It had to be effective or else this movie would not have worked at all.  The recreation of the stage show was wonderful and, especially the two doors bit, was just awesomely funny.

There were a couple of songs in the film that were sung mainly by John C. Reilly that were beautifully rendered.  And the final performance of the well-known dance was suspenseful and dramatic.

The arrival of Stan and Ollie’s wives, played by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda, brought another level to the relationship and showed the world what it must have been like to be married to showmen like these men.  Both actresses brought a new energy to the screen when they were there.

Sure, Stan & Ollie may not have been as deep of a biopic as you could get, but the film was an enjoyable experience and was delightful.  I enjoyed the entire movie.

4.2 stars

I went to iTunes this morning so I could see the film from 2018 called The Wife.  It was another one of the movies that did not come around here (or if it did, I may have missed it).  Honestly, I would not have searched this film out if Glenn Close had not been nominated for an Oscar (and won a Golden Globe) for this performance.  I like to see the main award films and The Wife was clearly one to see.

After seeing it, I can understand why Glenn Close may be the favorite to win in the Best Actress category, but, to be honest, I did not love the movie.

I mean, it was fine.  I am giving it a fresh review, but I would never watch it again.  The strong performance from Close is what elevated this into consideration.

Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) is an acclaimed author and up for a Nobel Prize for Literature.  And behind the great man is an even greater woman, Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) who has spent years sacrificing her own desires and dreams to support and encourage Joe’s success.

I thought Jonathan Pryce was excellent here as well, so there were two very strong performances, but the story was okay.  It did not grab me the way that I thought it might.  The film felt like another movie that I had seen this past year and I had trouble getting past that.

Christian Slater was there too.  He was playing a jerk who was writing a book an Joe and he was searching for a scoop.

The film showed us the life of this couple from their early days in flashbacks while they prepared to accept the Nobel Prize.  This story telling choice was fine, but it suffered whenever Close (or Pryce, to be fair) was not on screen.

I have seen this story before and the only reason this is memorable at all is because of Glenn Close and Jonathan Pryce.  If you want to see a master class of acting skills, watch Glenn Close’s performance. she is tremendous.  Otherwise, The Wife is average.

3 stars