"The Boxtrolls" Review

From the creators of Coraline and ParaNorman, comes a new claymation film based off of the Alan Snow book Here Be Monsters. A young boy named Eggs (Isaac Hempstead Wright) is raised underground by a group of engineering monsters labeled Boxtrolls while a “Red Hat” named Archibald Snatcher (Ben Kingsley) attempts to capture them. As the Boxtroll’s numbers dwindle, Eggs is forced to go to the surface and rescue his adopted father.

I love Claymation. Even when the claymation isn’t anything special, there’s a certain charm to it that gets me. The amount of labor that goes into making the characters move and react makes the film feel intimate. Even when the story wasn’t very intriguing, the claymation was mesmerizing - especially during the action sequences. 

The movie follows a watered-down version of the standard Hollywood formula. The story hits all of the standard beats, but the beats seem kind of forced and don’t carry as much weight as they normally should. The result is a strong start that slowly loses its focus and motivation. The clichéd “foreign person adjusting to our everyday life” sequences were also surprisingly weak. The jokes and situational-type humor could be copypasted into any movie with a similar sequence. The whole time it just felt as if the filmmakers were just trying to get through the second act.

Some of the characters in the film are a lot of fun. And some of them are pretty annoying. By far, the most entertaining characters are the antagonists. Ben Kingsley gives a good performance, but the scene-stealers are his side-kicks. Played by Nick Frost, Richard Ayoade, and Tracy Morgan, they discuss mortality and the dichotomy of good vs. evil. These characters provide the majority of the film’s self-awareness, which is definitely much-needed. Elle Fanning plays Winnie, easily the most annoying character in the film. I get that the point of the character is that she’s supposed to be somewhat abrasive, but the humor didn’t really work. Every time she was on screen, I was wishing that she wasn’t. While The Boxtrolls had some interesting physical movement, I couldn’t help but think that they were just Despicable Me rip-offs.

The Boxtrolls is a lot of fun if you’re 7 years old. It’s entertaining if you’re older as well, but it’s nothing too special. It’s still significantly better than a majority of other animated kids movies, but it’s still not quite a universal experience for both kids and adults. There’s just not enough subtlety to everything. I still enjoyed myself quite a bit though, even if a large portion of why was because of the animation style. 6/10.

"The Equalizer" Review

Loosely based off of the 80s TV show of the same name that you probably vaguely recognize for its appearance in The Wolf of Wall Street, The Equalizer is the latest action movie vehicle for Denzel Washington. Reteaming with Training Day director Antoine Fuqua, the story revolves around a blue collar man (Washington) with an ambiguous past, who takes on a series of Russian gangsters after they assault and kidnap a young call girl (Chloë Grace Moretz). 

You remember the Lonely Island song "Cool Guys Don't Look at Explosions"? Because The Equalizer does. When we get to the clichéd scene with Denzel Washington blowing up a building and casually walking away, it just seems to fit. The whole movie is the epitome of the male machismo fantasy. If you want to see Denzel Washington beat up people up like there's no tomorrow, this movie is for you. Because despite a calm and calculated start, that's all this film is. By the time we reach the climax, the movie becomes self-parody. I didn't realize that I needed a 20 minute sequence of Denzel Washington shooting people in slow motion with hardcore stock action music in the background, but evidently I did, because it was absolutely hysterical. 

With exception to one Russian man who gets a couple hits in for some inexplicable reason, Denzel wins every fight with magnificent ease, which is an impressive feat, considering that extras appear out of thin air. And he's so charismatic while he does it. He's really the saving grace of this movie. He's not exactly doing anything new or innovative with his performance, but he's just so cool. Although he doesn't do much, he does it so well. Unfortunately, his performance can only carry the movie so far.

Not that the other performances are bad, per se, but they're all kind of average and expected. There are no outstanding supporting roles or anyone who even really breaks out of their caricature. Chloë Grace Moretz plays a call girl who talks with Denzel at the beginning and end of the movie, but I can't see anything other than Chloë Grace Moretz doing her annoying lip raise and reading lines. Johnny Skourtis plays Denzel's coworker, and despite the actor's obvious charisma, never develops into much more than a plot device. And Martin Csokas plays the main Russian villain, but comes across as nothing more than a cartoon. There are no inherently bad performances here - in fact, many of the actors are very fun to watch - but none of the characters are given enough to come across as real people.

Subtlety also isn't this movie's strong suit. Early on in the film, Denzel's character is reading The Old Man and the Sea, and states to Moretz's character that, "Old man's gotta be old the old man, fish has gotta be the fish." It's not the first time in the film that a metaphor is shoved down your throat, and it certainly isn't the last time. The film lacks the self-awareness necessary to make it fun, but if you want to watch some mindless ultraviolence, it's not too painful. 4/10.

"This is Where I Leave You" Review

With an all-star cast including Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Jane Fonda, Adam Driver, Rose Byrne, Corey Stoll, Dax Shepard, and Kathryn Hahn, This is Where I Leave You is the adaptation of Jonathan Tropper's novel of the same name. Directed by Shawn Levy, the story follows 4 children who sit Shiva in their mother's house after their father dies. It's essentially August Osage County, only with comedians. 

When each of the characters are introduced, they are introduced as clichés. However, as the film goes on, these clichés are developed pretty well. By the end of the film, all of the characters still seem like clichés, but they also all seem like real people. It's obvious that a lot of effort went into the creation of these roles, but everything that the characters do seems forced and predictable. However, I can't fault the movie too much for this, because it seems to be the intent of the film makers, as this conundum is referenced several times by the characters in the movie.

A large part in the creation of these character-cliché hybrids likely lies in the strength of the performances. Everyone is given time to shine, and everyone gives a fantastic performance. The style of the film allows for there to be a large number of different conversation pairs, and somehow everybody has chemistry with everyone else. Everybody has so much charisma that you're never left waiting for a new character to come on screen.

Although it's generally entertaining all the way through, it's also very one note. You could probably walk into the film at any time and still feel the same way about it. The whole movie is just characters talking and fighting and trying to figure out their lives. It never really leads to anything though.

This is Where I Leave You is manipulative, but it's charmingly manipulative. It's not astounding in any sense, but I don't feel like it aims to be a big critic nor crowd pleaser. Despite the constant fighting, it's a quiet film. I enjoyed it, but I also recognize its faults. 7/10.

"The Maze Runner" Review

There’s a joke somewhere here about how The Maze Runner takes a wrong turn, but I’m not going to make it. Based off of the popular young adult novel by James Dashner, this film is about a group of teenage boys who live in an isolated environment with no memories of their previous lives. Completely enclosed by a large maze, they try to find their way out of the “Glade” while a new boy arrives with supplies every month. After Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) arrives, things start to change, for better or for worse.

As is the case with a lot of young adult fiction, The Maze Runner suffers heavily from Special Snowflake Syndrome. Special Snowflake Syndrome occurs in these movies when none of the other characters are more than blatant stereotypes, and the protagonist is treated as “special” while only exhibiting relatable traits. This feeds on our desire to relate to the hero and feel special, even when there’s nothing that exceptional about us. In this film, Thomas is mainly different from the other boys because he’s curious about things. He also does unjustifiably brave things that you’d like to think you’d do when fantasizing about being in this reality. Not that any of this stuff is damning for the film, but it makes it hard for me to differentiate this movie from other movies in the same vein (like The Hunger Games and Divergent), despite claims of a darker tone. 

Although none of the performances were really exceptional, at least all of the actors were relatively charismatic. Similarly, although none of the special effects were all that innovative, they were all executed well enough to where they didn’t take away from the story at hand. None of the actors were really given more than a bland archetype to work with, but they were entertaining to watch nonetheless. I would have liked to see a little more controlled character development though, because all of the time spent on character development in this film was just to further establish assumed roles like the tribe leader, antagonist, uncorrupted child, etc. It’s just a little disappointing, as I feel like some interesting character dynamics could have been explored, rather than focus all of the energy into the mystery of the maze. A $34 million dollar production budget is tiny compared to similar movies (The Hunger Games and Divergent were $78 and $85 million, respectively), yet the film doesn’t feel cheap. That said, the creature design for the “grievers” is just a mechanical spider, which feels like an obvious choice. And when inside the maze, there’s not a lot of variety in shot choices.

Normally, continuity errors aren’t significant enough to mention in a review like this, however, in The Maze Runner, it’s hard to focus on much else. Starting with 0, a new boy is released into the glade every month, and it’s said that this has been happening for 3-4 years, so there should be somewhere around 40 boys, minus the significant chunk that were said to have died while fighting each other, or in the maze. There is a shot of a wall with all of the names of the boys in the glade, and it appears as though there should be 20 or so guys left, tops. However, 35 “Gladers” are credited. And it seems as though not everyone was credited, because in some shots it appeared as if there were 50-60 or even more people there. Imdb.com even claims that there are 60 boys. And when the boys are ambushed and several are captured with the implication of a massacre, there are 20 or so guys left when we emerge. I’m relatively certain that I’m not nitpicking when it comes to things like this because it was all I could think about for the duration of the film. These decisions show a level of laziness and preference of aesthetics over logic, which just feels kind of patronizing. 

I’ll admit that mystery surrounding the glade and the reason that the boys are there is intriguing though. I enjoyed myself a lot more in the first half than in the second half when the filmmakers started their haphazard attempt to explain things. The aggravating thing is that the questions that are chosen to be answered aren’t the one’s you care about. Everything else is left for you to find out in the sequels. This doesn’t appear to be an artsy decision in the context of the film though; this comes across more as a lack of motivation and understanding. There’s a difference between having a background and making a conscious decision to not explicitly tell the audience, and not really knowing the background and desperately avoiding being called out on it. The ending is also just a big “Screw You!” to the audience. From the appearance of characters to add drama, to an unnecessary tearjerker moment, to the reveal of the reason that the boys are in the glade, the ending sums up the film as whole - desperately unfulfilling and kind of aggravating. 4/10.

"The Drop" Review

Containing the last on-screen performance of James Gandolfini’s career, The Drop is a story about a bartender who finds himself in the midst of a robbery. The subsequent investigation delves into his and his neighborhood’s past while he struggles to take care of new challenges in his life. What’s notable about this film is that Dennis Lehane, author of Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, and Shutter Island, wrote the screenplay based off of his own short story. The director of the film is actually Belgian, known for the Academy Award nominated Bullhead, and this is his first English language film.

The exciting thing about this film is that it doesn’t hold your hand so you can figure the narrative out. There are no flashbacks to explain what events people are referring to, and the result is an fascinating character study, as well as an intriguing crime story. You enter the film with certain preconceptions about each character, and you get to have them challenged throughout. I feel like multiple viewings of this film would yield different experiences each time, as you get more insight into the plot as well as each of the characters.

A large part of what holds this film together are the brilliant performances. Tom Hardy stars as Bob, the bartender in question. Nailing his Brooklyn accent, he emulates a sort of quiet confidence that is nothing but charming. You end up spending the entire movie trying to figure out what type of guy he is because there are so many different layers. The legendary James Gandolfini goes out with a bang as the complicated Cousin Marv. And the ensemble is also very strong, with Noomi Rapace, Matthias Schoenaerts, and John Ortiz all giving fantastic performances.

With such a dark subject matter, it wouldn't be hard for the film to get exhausting and monotonous. However, the movie's subtle humor helps break up the pacing, and Bob's subplot with Noomi Rapace's character provides some much-needed relief. The film is strangely charismatic, and I found myself smiling along with the movie a lot more than I probably should.

I really enjoyed this film, but I probably won't be recommending it to everyone I see. It's too slow and intimate to be a mainstream crime drama, but not weird enough to be an art film (Killing Them Softly comes to mind). If anything that I've said has piqued your interest though, I'd give it a shot. It was definitely a pleasant surprise. 9/10.

"No Good Deed" Review

Starring Idris Elba and Taraji P. Henson, this horror-thriller is about a mother who lets a violent sociopath into her home under the guise that he is a car accident victim. As the night progresses on, his true motivations are revealed and the mother is left to fear for herself and her children’s lives. Sam Miller, known for his TV work, directs, and the film stylistically feels like it belongs on television, rather than the big screen.

Subtlety is one thing that this film lacks. No Good Deed wastes no time in letting you know that Idris Elba’s character is unstable, and will give you audio and visual cues as to when he’ll do something dangerous. As much as the script tries, it never goes much beyond portraying a blatant cliché of what it imagines being a sociopath is like. Idris Elba gives a good performance though, and I feel like his character would be more convincing with some different editing choices. With the exception of Taraji P. Henson’s Terri though, none of the other characters feel like real people; they all serve as plot devices.

The story is all very predictable and one-note. Since the film is taken from a cookie-cutter formula, you anticipate everything that happens before it happens, completely derailing any intended tension. There is one plot twist near the end of the film that provides a nice change of pace, but the more you think about it, the less sense it makes. No Good Deed is really a film that you have to shut off your brain for.

As a PG-13 horror-thriller, most of the horror is from cheap jump-scares, and most of the tension is from Idris Elba not being in frame when the camera cuts back to him. Not that an R rating would have improved the movie much, but everything in the film seems a bit toned down. There’s about a half-hour in the middle of the movie where it feels like it’s building towards something, but the film never gets there, and relies on the same caliber scares throughout.

I can’t hate this film though. It just doesn’t last long enough to be painful. It’s nothing that will stick with you - in fact, you’ll probably forget about the movie while you’re watching it, but it’s incredibly adequate. It’s reasonably entertaining, and that’s all it aims to be. If you don’t go into the film with expectations that it’ll be anything exceptional, I don’t think you’ll be hugely disappointed. 5/10.

"As Above So Below" Review

From the creators of Quarantine, a remake of the Spanish horror film [Rec], comes a new found footage genre movie taking place in the catacombs of Paris. Led by an alchemy scholar named Scarlett (Perdita Weeks), a group of explorers go underground in attempt to find the Flamel Stone. Eventually getting trapped, they realize they must continue to go further down in order to get out. Along the way, they encounter several super spooky items and people, like a piano, a ringing phone, and a long-lost friend.

Nothing in this movie makes sense. There are blatant continuity errors, like cameras that magically hold themselves in the air, characters that appear out of nowhere, and the assumption that whipping a camera around the general area of the secret markings will provide readable content. All of the philosophical and scientific explanation is mumbo-jumbo intended to seem intimidating and meaningful while not actually saying anything and encouraging the viewer to not really pay all that much attention. And the character motivations are practically nonexistent, existing purely to move the plot from point A to point B. Initially, this all is pretty infuriating, as it treats the audience as if they are stupid and appears as though the filmmakers didn’t even try. However, after enough exposure, it all becomes funny. The nonsensical logic eventually borders on self-parody, and the film becomes comedic in a “this is stupid and ridiculous” sort of way.

If you’re scared by bad character development, this movie is for you. All of the roles are blatant caricatures, and any attempt to delve deeper into their personalities simply establishes them further as cartoons. The main character, Scarlett, is a hardcore academic who has “2 PhDs, can speak 4 languages along with 2 dead ones, and is a black belt in the martial art of Krav Maga.” She’s attempting to find the Flamel Stone because her father went mad trying to find it. Benji, her cameraman, exists to hold the camera and make mistakes that push the plot forward. And they even have a French Navigator, Papillion, whose job it is to act confused and scared in a French accent.

For the first hour or so of the film, nothing particularly scary happens. The movie aims to create a creepy and mysterious tone that will pay off in the climax. Unfortunately, all of the aforementioned stupidity takes you out of the film, and the moments that are supposed to be scary come off as weird and dumb. There is no tension as to whether the characters will live or die, so whenever they come under attack, the absurdity is more prevalent than the horror. The final half hour is fast-paced and insane though, so the film is entertaining, even if not in the way that is intended.

The best thing that I can say about As Above, So Below is that it doesn’t overstay its welcome. Not that it was truly welcome in the first place, but the pacing doesn’t drag long enough for the film to be boring. It’s a complete mess throughout, but it has the sense to just get in and get out. The lunacy of the film is still exhausting and tedious, but it never gets too painful. If you still want to see the film, see it with friends, that way you’ll be able to make fun of it afterwards together. 3/10.

"The Identical" Review

The Identical is a piece of art. Simultaneously, it is one of the best and worst movies that I’ve ever seen. There are likely some no-budget indie films that are less proficiently made that never see the light of day, but those are mostly unwatchable. Similarly, there are some comedies that are so stupid and obnoxious that they are regularly labeled as ‘unlikable’ by most critics (think Movie 43, InAPPropriate comedy, or anything by Friedberg and Seltzer), but those are just aggravating and a waste of time. The Identical, however, is awful in the most charismatic way. It’s a “so bad that it’s good” movie, but not because it’s incompetently made (like Troll 2, The Room, or Birdemic: Shock and Terror). It’s a serious film that looks and sounds like it’s serious, but completely misses its mark. I doubt that I’ll be able to fully describe the brilliance of this film in a single review, but I’ll give it a shot. It truly is an experience.

The story starts with a depression-era family (you can tell that it’s the depression because it’s in black and white) finding out that they gave birth to twins, Drexler and Dexter Hemsley. Not able to afford raising both of them, they give one of them to a Reverend (Ray Liotta) who talks about his wife’s miscarriages in his sermons. Dexter is renamed Ryan Wade and grows up in a religious household while Drexler becomes an Elvis-like singer. Ryan, played by Blake Rayne, becomes a big fan of Drexler, also played by Blake Rayne, but doesn’t notice or seem to care that he looks exactly like him. Ryan becomes a Drexler Hemsley impersonator and has to deal with a lack of creative fulfillment and feeling like a disappointment to his father, who wanted him to become a pastor. There’s also a very strong religious sentiment behind the film. It never directly impacts the story, but is incredibly present in the dialogue. 

Everything that exists in the story exists to move the plot forward, whether or not it actually makes sense. The plot seemed like a string of loosely connected points that were held together by some tenuous transitions. Character motivation came second. It’s as if the filmmakers thought “Okay, we need this to happen in the film, how can we manipulate the characters?” The characters are essentially props in the story.

Among the most notable of the continuity errors in the film is how old everyone looks. In one particular scene, Blake Rayne and Seth Green play high schoolers. The only problem is that both of them are 40 years old and look like it. Having older actors play high schoolers is pretty common, but they both looked middle-aged. Characters don’t seem to age throughout the film. Ray Liotta looks exactly the same when he receives the extra twin as he does 17 years later. Later on in the film they give him white hair, but he still looks like he’s the same age. This might seem like it’s not that big of a deal, but I assure you that when you’re trapped in the theatre it becomes the funniest thing ever. It’s a subtle aspect of the film, but it goes a long way in providing a ridiculous, yet serious atmosphere.

The main reason that the film is as wonderful as it is is because it takes itself very seriously. It’s also obvious that the filmmakers had a vision and stuck behind it. Most bad movies you see are so unwatchable because they’re cash-grabs that the filmmakers didn’t really care about, but you can tell that that’s not the case for The Identical. Ray Liotta was even an executive producer on the film, feeling a connection to the story because he too was adopted. Seth Green also wasn’t in it for quick cash. He says he joined the film because he connected with the theme of the struggle of having someone else tell you what you should do with your life. He even learned how to play the drums for the film. And Blake Rayne saw a lot of himself in the role, as he was an Elvis impersonator before he became an actor. The passion that went into making this movie is what makes it so enjoyable. The film isn’t funny because the filmmakers didn’t know how to operate a camera correctly or the actors gave awful performances. None of the technical aspects of the movie were great, but they weren’t laughably bad. The film is funny because the people involved cared about what they were doing, but it didn’t turn out as successfully as anticipated.

The Identical is only 107 minutes long, but it feels like it’s over 4 hours. And it’s perfect every single moment. It’s like watching a trainwreck, it’s awful, but you can’t seem to look away. I took some friends with me to see the film, and while they all agreed that it was the worst movie they’ve ever seen, none of them wanted to leave the theatre. I’m confident that seeing The Identical is some sort of rite of passage and I came out stronger for making it through. I encourage you all to see this movie and let it wash over you. Don’t turn it off. Don’t take a break. Just experience this movie. It’s exhausting, but so worth it. 1/10.