One Movie Punch

Today’s movie is “Brad’s Status” (2017), the heartwarming drama written and directed by Mike White. The film follows Brad Sloan (Ben Stiller), a middle aged man taking his son Troy (Austin Abrams) on a college trip, which evokes all sorts of narrated thoughts about his own life and the meaning of success and wealth.

If you’re thinking this film is an examination of the real and false worries experienced by the middle class, you would be correct. It was the first thought I had watching this film, the feeling that while Brad is jealous of his former college friends’ success, his life is perfectly fine and that he’s better off than most other people in the world. And then, Troy’s Harvard friend, Ananya (Shazi Raja), tells Brad just that, which shifted my entire view of the film.

Ben Stiller is great in this Amazon Studios film, which feels like a nice companion piece to last year’s Netflix original, “The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)”. The scripted narration matches his performance so well, really giving you the feeling of the tumultuous thoughts and feelings in his mind. I especially enjoyed how he thought his friends were living clashing with how his friends actually were, once he reached out to them. And the entire film is punctuated by wry humor.

I’ll admit, I really identified with Brad as a character, and have had similar struggles with understanding the purpose and value of my own life. I know that the last thing we need are more films about white, middle aged men struggling with feelings of inadequacy. But I also want to believe that the struggles of Brad in our changing society are also happening to other people, folks who need to be deprogrammed from a competitive mindset and to remember the passions that their youthful convictions.

“Brad’s Status” (2017) is a heartwarming, introspective film about the meaning of life, success, wealth, and parenthood. Ben Stiller turns in a great performance from a great script, tackling a somewhat overused premise with grace, honesty, a few smiles, and at least for me, a few tears. If you like heartwarming films, or want to see Ben Stiller in one of his better roles, this film is for you.

Rotten Tomatoes: 82% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 71

One Movie Punch: 8.4/10

“Brad’s Status” (2017) is rated R and is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

Today’s movie is “Human Flow” (2017), Ai Weiwei’s extensive documentary about the global refugee crisis, the largest since World War II. Ai Weiwei travels to refugee camps and migration paths in 23 countries, capturing and presenting segments of the migration process and the diversity of treatment for 65 million refugees worldwide.

Ai Weiwei is a Chinese artist, working in multiple forms, including documentaries. He is also an outspoken activist who criticizes the current Chinese government, and has been in more than one life-threatening situation because of it. So, getting to see his take on the global refugee crisis caught my interest. The film focuses mostly on man-made refugee crises, whether war or oppression or persecution, with only a few references to climate-caused refugees.

In fact, there’s almost too much in the documentary, at two hours and twenty minutes, but that’s because he went to 23 different countries to see both the common and unique struggles of each refugee community. Ai Weiwei uses smartphone cameras, a few mounted cameras, and high definition drones. The drone shots in particular capture some truly breathtaking scenes and provide new perspectives on the scope of the crisis, especially the slow rises and descents. He also blends everyday scenes that feature genuine human activity with some intentionally constructed and directed shots, especially with the smartphones.

I have two major criticisms for the film. First, I wish more time had been allocated to discussing the upcoming environmental refugee crisis, especially from densely populated coastal cities. Without any major progress on slowing climate change, the number of environmental refugees will quickly outpace political or combat-displaced refugees. And second, the film does a great job of showing the crisis, but it falls short of identifying solutions, which will need to be as varied as the causes and as unique as every situation.

“Human Flow” (2017) is an extensive documentary about the global refugee crisis, which will only worsen as the climate continues to shift and sea levels continue to rise. This film captures both the best and worst of the refugee crisis, framing the story from multiple perspectives, and delivering a massive overview of a crisis caused by many factors. If we can’t figure out how to manage massive migrations as a species, then we may be in for a very difficult century.

Rotten Tomatoes: 93% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 77

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10 

“Human Flow” (2017) is rated PG-13 and is streaming on Amazon Prime.

Today’s movie is “White God” (2015), the Hungarian drama film directed by Kornél Mundruczó and written in collaboration with Viktória Petrányi and Kata Wéber. The film follows Lili (Zsófia Psotta), a thirteen-year-old girl, and Hagen (Body & Luke), a mixed breed dog who is abandoned by Lili’s father, Dániel (Sándor Zsótér), refusing to pay a special tax levied on mixed breed dogs.

Warning: Spoilers ahead!

So, let me answer the burning question – why “White God”? Mundruczó said it’s based on South African author J.M. Coatzee’s novel “Disgrace”, an allusion to how the dogs see (and are treated by) humans as a God, and love them more than they love themselves. The dogs are subjected to apartheid-like conditions, but that’s about where the comparisons between the novel reference and the film end.

Mundruczó worked with a 250 dog cast for this film, having to create the horrific journey of Hagen being trafficked to a dog fight trainer, who juices him and forces him to fight another dog, not to mention being sent to a mixed breed shelter to be executed. The journey of Hagen is so well told, with excellent camera angles and music choices to really sell this otherwise unlikely story, not to mention the excellent use of music as a part of the story. 

The last major section of the film involves Hagen leading all the mixed breed shelter dogs out into the city, beginning a trail of revenge to take out all those humans who used him and so many other dogs. I found myself torn between absolute horror at each scene and having empathy for the dogs at the same time. And with the film’s final, powerful scene, we understand the absolute limits of the allegory.

“White God” (2015) is one of the most unique films I’ve ever seen, one that borders on the edge of surrealism through great storytelling, excellent composition, and a willingness to take huge risks. If you can stand some graphic scenes, and don’t mind intentionally artistic films, then you’ll definitely appreciate this film, and may even roll a tear or two at the end.

Rotten Tomatoes: 89% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 80

One Movie Punch: 8.8/10

“White God” (2015) is rated R and is streaming on Netflix.

Okay, so here’s part two of our special double up this week on the Road To Infinity War. We’re back on track to review “Thor: Ragnarok” (2017) on April 23rd, just four days before “Avengers: Infinity War” debuts on April 27th. If you want my thoughts on “Black Panther”, dial back to Episode 050 on February 19th.

Spoiler alert: I loved it.

So, for Marvel Muesday, today’s film is “Avengers: Age of Ultron” (2015), the second team-up film, written and directed by Joss Whedon. The film follows up with the Avengers re-assembling to take out the secret Hydra strongholds revealed in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” (2014), in particular, a research lab in Sokovia experimenting with Loki’s scepter, which contains one of the Infinity Stones, and two mysterious powered individuals.

And then things get really weird. Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) discover an artificial intelligence protocol while examining the stone, and decide to try integrating the Ultron Protocol, a worldwide network that could meet cosmic threats. And so is birthed Ultron (James Spader), who heads to Sokovia and teams up with Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) to take down the Avengers.

And then. And then. And then. So much story. All beautifully rendered with excellent costumes, and nearly everyone in the previous movies showing up to battle Ultron in the end. It feels like three hours of story crammed into two hours and twenty minutes, with some mashed in backstory for Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and a lot of steps to introduce Phase 3.

Some parts read very different after seeing Phase 3. It is a major setup for “Captain America: Civil War” (2016) and by extension “Spider-Man: Homecoming” (2017), but it also contains seeds for “Thor: Ragnarok” (2017) and “Black Panther” (2018). Watching it this time around, large and small details would trigger little epiphanies, and this effect is one of the massive strengths of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” (2015) is still a great film, but unfortunately falls slightly short of nearly impossibly high standards the MCU has created for themselves, and everyone else. It is overloaded with story, but also chock full of easter eggs that come alive on the way to “Avengers: Infinity War”. It can be criticized, but it is still wonderful and well worth the time investment, even for repeated viewings.

Rotten Tomatoes: 75% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 66

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10

“Avengers: Age of Ultron” (2015) is rated PG-13 and is available wherever you enjoy movies.

It’s Marvel Monday and... wait, what’s that? They did what?! Marvel moved up the timeline for “Avengers: Infinity War” to April 27th?! Well, yeah, I’m excited, who isn’t, but this whole Road to Infinity War thing is a bit screwed, now isn’t it? All right then, we’ll double up. Tune in tomorrow for “Avengers: Age of Ultron”, but for now...

Today’s movie is “Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014), James Gunn’s amazing introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a film that truly defied all expectations. Written in collaboration with Nicole Perlman, the film introduces the most unlikely band of misfits that come together to, naturally, save the galaxy.

The film follows Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), also known as Star-Lord, who is abducted at a young age right after losing his mother by Yondu Udonta (Michael Rooker), and made into a member of the Ravagers, a mercenary space army. Fast forward twenty or so years, and we find Star-Lord in possession of one of the Infinity Stones, which is being sought by Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) to conquer the galaxy. In a series of unlikely events, eventually Star-Lord runs into the rest of the team to fight off Ronan’s destructive ends.

The cast is insane. Zoe Saldana as Gamora, Thanos’ daughter and traitor to Ronan. Dave Bautista as Drax the Destroyer, whose family was murdered by Ronan. Vin Diesel as Groot, the walking tree thing. And especially Bradley Cooper as Rocket Racoon, the foulest mouth in the galaxy. Everything comes together with great costumes, gorgeous colors in the spacescapes, and insane special effects, including a ginormous space battle.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” hits all the right notes in the script, somehow smashing together a cohesive adventure journey, prison escape, an expanded role for The Collector (Benicio del Toro), and Howard the freaking Duck. Two hours feels like much less than that, and repeated viewings, for me, haven’t diminished anything. It is an excellent first act for this team, and the sequel certainly didn’t disappoint, but we’ll get there.

“Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014) absolutely stunned me when I saw it in the theater. It seemed like a risky way to introduce the space side of Marvel, but from Peter Quill’s abduction to the team’s formation and epic journey around the galaxy, you begin to realize it was the absolute best way to do it. And $773 million at the international box office shows it could pay off as well.

Rotten Tomatoes: 91% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 76

One Movie Punch: 9.2/10

“Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014) is rated PG-13 and is available wherever you enjoy movies.

Today’s movie is “The Warriors” (1979), the cult classic directed by Walter Hill and written in collaboration with David Shaber. The film is based off Sol Yurick’s 1965 novel about a near future when gangs that control neighborhoods are beginning to organize. Despite opening to poor reviews, the film went on to make a modest profit and continues to influence multimedia today.

The story follows The Warriors, the gang who runs Coney Island, who are travelling to Van Cortlandt Park to attend a meeting organized by Cyrus (Roger Hill), the leader of the Riffs. Cyrus has a vision of unifying the gangs, but is killed by a member of The Rogues. In the chaos that follows, The Warriors are blamed for Cyrus’ death, and a call goes out to the other gangs to capture The Warriors, dead or alive. The Warriors begin a long journey back home from behind enemy lines.

The story is actually pretty great, and the aesthetic is delightfully ambitious. Each gang has a comic book quality, almost torn from the pages of street-level heroes like Daredevil or Batman. And the original music is really good, although some other choices are quite dated. I remember hearing Barry De Vorzon’s tracks and more than a few choice dialogue samples showing up in new tracks and mix sets.

There are some major flaws, however, particularly the dialogue, which is not only too canned, but quite casually homophobic. The cast was whitewashed, changing the novel’s non-white protagonists into white lead characters, which was rumored to have been a corporate decision. And the journey ends up feeling too rushed, once it gets going, and some scenes just feel thrown in.

“The Warriors” (1979) has major flaws, but it also has something that has stood the test of time. The world has expanded with a substantial prequel added to the video game version. Paramount and Hulu are working with the Russo Brothers to develop a television series. In a world where dystopias like “The Walking Dead” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” are finding success, “The Warriors” becomes a viable intellectual property. If you can get past its flaws, then you’ll probably see the possibilities as well, and that’s what makes it a cult classic. Its potential.

Rotten Tomatoes: 89%

Metacritic: 63

One Movie Punch: 7.0/10

“The Warriors” (1979) is rated R and is streaming on Hulu and Amazon Prime.

Today’s movie is “The Outsider” (2018), the post World War II crime drama directed by Martin Zandvliet and written by John Linson and Andrew Baldwin. The film follows Nick Lowell (Jared Leto), a former American GI who saves Kiyoshi (Tadanobu Asano), a member of the Shiromatsu Yakuza clan. Nick is offered work with the Yakuza after being released from prison, and lands right in the middle of a gang war.

Spoilers ahead.

This film has definite strengths and weaknesses. The biggest weakness, unfortunately, is Leto’s performance, which feels cold rather than the intended sociopathic. His love interest, Miyu (Shioli Kutsuna), also Kiyoshi’s sister, turns in a rough performance, almost a caricature. And I’m surprised they even kept Emile Hirsch in the film, given his rather limited role.

On the other hand, I love the setting a great deal. Osaka in the 1950’s is a wonderful setting to tell stories, and the costumes, sets and music all do a great job bringing it to life on screen and in the editing room. The film has above average direction and cinematography. If this were just a film about a Yakuza gang war, everything would have been in place, with the right amount of in your face, graphic gangster activity you would want from a crime drama.

But let’s face it, making a story about a gaijin who struggles for acceptance, and ultimately being better Yakuza than most, is just about the worst kind of whitewashing you can do. It was my one major fear with the premise of this film, and it really sucks that the film ended up right in that place. And along the way we lose the rich interplay between foreign interests, rising crime syndicates, and the struggles of a country recovering under occupation, which would have been a better use of the two hours.

“The Outsider” (2018) could have been a vehicle for so much more, and while the film has great direction and costumes, it ultimately suffers a great deal by the story and Leto’s performance. Fans of historical dramas and period pieces will appreciate the world they brought to life, if they can stomach the violence. However, if you aren’t into real gangsters doing real gangster shit, you will probably want to take a hard pass on the film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 9%

Metacritic: 29

One Movie Punch: 5.2/10

“The Outsider” (2018) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “Moonrise Kingdom” (2012), directed by Wes Anderson and written in collaboration with Roman Coppola. The film follows Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) and Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward), two star-crossed, twelve-year-olds who decide to run away from their home on New Penzance Island in September 1965, and the antics surrounding their rescue.

Wes Anderson has one of those aesthetics that people either love or hate. I have been a fan of his style since seeing “The Royal Tenenbaums” in the theaters, probably my first introduction to a director with a specific style. I haven’t loved everything he’s been involved with, but I maintain that anyone should be able to appreciate it. And he’s been lucky enough to find critical and commercial success in the process.

With that success comes access to great talent, and “Moonrise Kingdom” has an amazing cast outside of the central tween relationship. Long-time collaborator Bill Murray plays Suzy’s father, along with a smaller role for Jason Schwartzman as Cousin Ben. Frances McDormand plays Suzy’s mother, who is having an affair with Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis). Tilda Swinton plays a social services representative. And cigarette smoking Scout Master Randy Ward is played by Edward Norton. Each gets their moment to shine without taking too much away from the main story.

The story for the film is deceptively simple, and that plays out in the entire aesthetic, from the generalized names for the various locations, to the complimentary costumes, to the handmade sets with incredible details and scope, making possible some amazing long shots. Everything oozes nostalgia, making this film feel like someone remembering their childhood from long ago.

“Moonrise Kingdom” is a deeply nostalgic, fantastically designed dramedy that could only come from Wes Anderson’s mind, which also means folks will either love it or hate it. I ended up liking it and appreciating its vision and execution, and now I’m looking forward to Anderson and Coppola’s upcoming collaboration “Isle of Dogs”. If you like Wes Anderson, or quirky independent cinema, then this film is for you.

Rotten Tomatoes: 93% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 84

One Movie Punch: 8.6/10

“Moonrise Kingdom” (2012) is rated PG-13 and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “Disneynature: Born in China”, the 2017 release from the long running Earth Day release schedule from Disneynature. The film was directed by Chuan Lu and English narration is provided by John Krasinski. The film is a compilation of different animal families in the Chinese wilderness: the giant panda, the snow leopard, the golden monkey, the crane, and the chiru, or Tibetan antelope.

I have two major criticisms with this documentary. The major criticism is that there are too many animals for only 79 minutes, which is probably blasphemy for the animal lovers out there. The minor criticism is that with too many animals, the film ends up only really focusing on three families, specifically the giant panda, snow leopard, and golden monkey. And both criticisms create problems with storytelling and composition.

The stories that are ultimately told in this film don’t have enough time to build connections with the animal families. We just get the highlights every season, albeit with incredible footage. And it’s not just the story being told, but how it is told. The narration for this documentary makes the mistake of confusing a G rating with being childish, with cartoon noises and anthropomorphized dialogue between the various animals. Which makes more difficult scenes, like Dawa’s fate, seem underdeveloped, and by extension, has troubles delivering.

The main strengths of this film, along with the other Disneynature releases, are the breathtaking scenery (particularly the time lapse and drone shots) and the engaging animal videos. I don’t think you can truly appreciate the level of detail on the small screen, but in our increasingly urbanized environment, even the modest wilderness shots can engage the viewers. I almost think you could watch the film on mute and get the same effect.

“Disneynature: Born in China” (2017) is too much documentary for such a short timeframe. In fact, I suspect much of the footage captured for this documentary was recycled for “Disneynature: Ghost of the Mountains”, which was released in the US two months after “Born in China” last year. If you don’t mind very high-level looks at the animals mentioned, or are just a sucker for nature documentaries, then this film is for you.

Rotten Tomatoes: 83%

Metacritic: 57

One Movie Punch: 6.8/10

“Disneynature: Born in China” (2017) is rated G and is streaming on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “Ravenous” (2017), the Québécois zombie survival film written and directed by Robin Aubert. The film follows disparate groups of survivors across the countryside, whose stories weave in and out as the body count rises. The film stars Marc-André Grondin, Monia Chokri, Charlotte St-Martin, Micheline Lanctôt, and Marie-Ginette Guay. Caution: spoilers ahead!

I don’t have a lot of experience with Québec and its unique history and culture. I know I’m missing a lot of context when it comes to this film. I just want to say that up front. So, in some ways this film is also a peek into the land and people in Québec for me, knowing full well that the zombie survival horror genre is probably not the best way to educate myself.

“Ravenous” is an interesting, if somewhat recycled take on the zombie survival horror genre. The zombies are not only zoombies (fast zombies), but also have some pack hunting mentality and bizarre collecting habits. It’s clear the zombies are meant to be a metaphor for both consumerism and overconsumption, but I feel like my lack of context prevents me from seeing more subtle metaphors about modern day Québec. I do wish there had been a few more answers, however, particularly about the unique behaviors in this film.

The film also has some tone problems, not just within each storyline, but especially when they finally come together. The more humorous, almost comedic elements can disengage the viewer from the looming atmosphere surrounding the characters. It also cheapens the more intentionally artistic scenes, which taken by themselves are really well constructed. And perhaps, again, if I had better context, I might read everything differently.

“Ravenous” (2017) is a mostly engaging zombie survival horror film, with just enough weirdness. It asks more than it answers, and shows more than it tells, with great practical effects and lovely scenery. I found it well made, with a few tone issues, but a fun movie for anyone who loves the zombie genre.

Rotten Tomatoes: 89%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.2/10

“Ravenous” (2017) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Netflix.