One Movie Punch

Today’s movie is “The Ritual” (2017), the intense supernatural thriller based on Adam LG Nevill’s novel, adapted for the screen by Joe Barton and directed by David Bruckner. Joe Barton also wrote last year’s oddly appealing “iBoy”, another novel adaptation and also picked up by Netflix. I walked into this film having only watched half the trailer, so if you want the same experience, stop now and come back. Spoilers ahead. 

“The Ritual” begins with a group of friends working on planning a holiday, having trouble coming to consensus, and giving up on the night. Rob (Paul Reid) and Luke (Rafe Spall) enter a convenience store in the middle of a robbery. While Luke hides out of sight, the criminals steal Rob’s wallet, then split his skull, killing him while Luke escapes relatively unscarred.

Fast-forward six months. Luke and the other remaining friends, including Phil (Arsher Ali), Hutch (Robert James-Collier), and Dom (Sam Troughton), are hiking in Northern Sweden in memory of Rob. On the way back to the lodge, Dom injures his knee, and the four decide to take a shortcut through the woods to save time. And then things go completely insane.

The consistency in the art direction is incredible, blending into the already ethereal locations in Romania. The monster design blends into the aesthetic, and is delightfully measured in its reveal. And the melding of Luke’s hallucinations with the forest, particularly the chase scene, took my breath away. My only criticism is the ending, being too abrupt and too open-ended, which while great for the overall allegory, is hell on the invested viewer.

“The Ritual” (2017) does an excellent job layering themes and story, keeping the viewer off-kilter and guessing the entire film. Fans of supernatural or independent horror films will not be disappointed, and fans of art composition will be delighted. The film is a great, well-constructed film about the simultaneous importance and emptiness of rituals. Like Valentine’s Day.

Rotten Tomatoes: 68%

Metacritic: 58

One Movie Punch: 8.4/10

“The Ritual” (2017) is not rated and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “The Cloverfield Paradox” (2018), the surprise installment in the Cloverfield universe announced during this year’s Super Bowl and made immediately available on Netflix. The film follows the crew of the Cloverfield space station, which is attempting to generate a nearly limitless power source. After multiple failed attempts, they succeed, ripping themselves into another universe and wreaking havoc on their space station.

I have mixed feelings about the Cloverfield approach to films. On the surface, the idea is undeniably clever, giving a lot of leeway to curate loosely connected genre films in an asymmetrical fashion. “Cloverfield” (2008) was such a fresh take on the giant monster film, both slightly nauseating to watch given the camera work, but amazingly rendered. “10 Cloverfield Lane” (2016) took a hard left into a psychological thriller, with extremely loose ties made somewhat clear in the last ten minutes.

And now, we have a third installment, set in space, with almost countless references to space thrillers that have come before. The story feels like too much, missing the focus of the previous installments, jumping between an isolated space station setting and the events unfolding on the ground, not to mention a completely different dimension and whatever space madness begins to happen. And when the direct connections are made to the first film, the reveal just falls kind of flat.

The ensemble cast turns in a decent performance, although we never really get to know much about any of them except their nationality and which languages they speak. The most defined relationship is between Hamilton (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and her husband Michael (Roger Davies), which bridges the two storylines. Chris O’Dowd provides comedic support as Mundy. And there’s a fun cameo by Donal Logue, who literally wrote the book on “The Cloverfield Paradox”.

I’m a sucker for science fiction films, so despite the weird tone differences and mashed together feel of this film, I don’t hate it as much as others. I do have some concerns for future installments, especially if the story is as haphazardly thrown together as this script. And I have a lot of criticisms as well, but in the end, I enjoyed it, probably against my better judgment.

Rotten Tomatoes: 18%

Metacritic: 36

One Movie Punch: 6.4/10

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

It’s Marvel Monday and we’re continuing the Road to Infinity War. This week’s installment is “Iron Man 3”, the last solo film for Tony Stark, reprised by Robert Downey, Jr. The film picks up with Tony suffering anxiety attacks in the wake of “Marvel’s The Avengers”, struggling to understand his relationship to the suit and to Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), while some bad decisions come back to haunt him.

Shane Black brought the film to life with a $200 million dollar budget, which paid off with $1.2 billion at the worldwide box office. The script was written with Drew Pearce, and does a great job melding the famous Warren Ellis story “Extremis” with a clever take on The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) that avoids any of the latent racism in the original character. Aldritch Killian (Guy Pearce) and Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) are redrawn to resonate with modern politics.

The cast is solid. Robert Downey, Jr. has the role of Tony Stark perfected without becoming too much of a cliché. Gwyneth Paltrow turns in her best performance yet, even becoming a superhero of her own before it’s taken away. Don Cheadle returns as... *giggle*... Iron Patriot. Guy Pearce and Rebecca Hall make a great, if somewhat awkward pair of villains. I extremely enjoyed Ben Kingsley’s performance of The Mandarin, especially given the third act reveal.

On top of a great story and cast, this film contains some incredible action scenes, particularly the assault on Stark Manor and the activation of the House Party Protocol. I can’t even imagine how many hours went into making each scene look so real. And while this film has the same denseness of “Iron Man 2”, it somehow doesn’t feel as overwhelming or cluttered. Oh yeah, don’t skip the somewhat non-sequitur post-credits scene.

This film marks a sort of end to the Iron Man movies, although Tony’s story, and part of Rhodey’s and Pepper’s, would continue in “Avengers: Age of Ultron”, “Captain America: Civil War”, and “Spider Man: Homecoming”. And of course, he’ll be back in “Avengers: Infinity War” and the still untitled fourth Avengers film set for 2019. I’m already curious how far ahead Feige is thinking, and whether we might see Riri Williams make her debut for a whole new generation of Iron Man films.

Rotten Tomatoes: 80% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 62

One Movie Punch: 8.4/10

“Iron Man 3” is rated PG-13 and is available wherever you enjoy movies.

Today’s movie is the 1918 silent picture “Tarzan of the Apes”, the original, incredibly racist adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ unabashedly racist novel, starring Elmo Lincoln as Tarzan and Enid Markey as Jane Porter, who would both go on to reprise their roles in the sequel, “The Romance of Tarzan”. The rights to the film were purchased from Burroughs for around $55,000, or close to $1.3 million with inflation, plus 5% of all profits. It also grossed $1.5 million at the box office, or $35 million today.

During last year’s challenge, I ended up watching the latest Tarzan reboot, “The Legend of Tarzan” (2016), starring Alexander Skarsgård, Margot Robbie, and Samuel L. Jackson. It got me thinking about just how many adaptations have been made, which apparently includes five silent films, forty feature films or serials, five animated films, twelve television shows, and seven documentaries. Not to mention the original twenty-four novels.

I struggle a lot with early American fiction, particularly the casual and sometimes direct racism of the pulps. I’m simultaneously enthralled by Lovecraft’s sense of the macabre and Burroughs’ sense of adventure as much as I am appalled by their blatant racism. And especially so with the entire Tarzan premise, a white man who is raised in the jungle and somehow learns to survive better than darker skinned people who have lived there for hundreds of years. Even the 2016 movie couldn’t shake the structurally racist setup, even with major changes in Tarzan’s relationship to the locals and the inclusion of a black American character.

This initial silent adaptation doesn’t curtail the racism at all, almost doubling down on the source material, adding visual costumes and caricature direction to Arab slave traders and Black natives/cannibals and “civilized” White explorers. It was the height of privileged film making in 1918. It is completely unacceptable now. And yet, compared to today, it is downright progressive for the time that Alice Greystoke asks “Is courage only for men?” and Jane Porter says “Tarzan is a man, and men do not force the love of women.”

I have to admit that it was probably unwise to review this film during Black History Month. I was looking for a film from a hundred years ago to review, so finding any viewable progressive cinema from the time is a challenge. Honestly, I feel like the coming of “Black Panther” (2018) is probably the final nail in the coffin of Tarzan as a usable intellectual property, with probably only the sanitized Disney version of the character to remain. And I don’t think anyone will complain.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 3.4/10

“Tarzan of the Apes” (1918) is not rated and can be viewed in full on YouTube, if you want to waste your time.

Today’s movie is “Seeing Allred”, the biographical documentary about Gloria Allred, civil rights attorney known for high-profile cases. Roberta Grossman and Sophie Sartain directed the film, compiling and distilling Allred’s extensive media appearances while taking a behind-the-scenes look at more recent cases, particularly victims of sexual harassment and assault.

I’m not a fan of political punditry, no matter how well intentioned, nor really a fan of the modern legal system, which systemically favors the wealthy. I am a fan, however, of people working to challenge both arenas, including Gloria Allred. And unlike most talking heads, Allred has not just talked the talk, but also walked the walk in challenging systemic sexism and representing the voiceless, while being targeted by smear campaigns and vicious satire.

The legal system has changed a great deal over the past fifty years, especially the role of politics and the media in high profile cases. Effective prosecution or defense now requires building political support and having a consistent, focused media message. Allred’s career has been at the bleeding edge of these new intersections, developing an early mastery of using the media for maximum effect, never shying away from an opportunity to give a voice for equal rights.

“Seeing Allred” (2018) does make some odd storytelling choices. The first half bounces between Allred’s work representing the women assaulted by Bill Cosby and an overview of Allred’s early life and extensive legal career. The structure changes just over halfway, though, bringing in a list of Allred’s other cases and accomplishments, which while impressive, seem to clutter the overall narrative. With a list of accomplishments as long as Allred’s, I would have appreciated more focus and detail on a single major case like Cosby’s and its repercussions.

Overall, “Seeing Allred” (2018) is a solid, if somewhat meandering documentary about an amazing woman, who has devoted her life to fighting for equal rights against some of the most powerful people in society. I may not always agree with her politics, but I admire her dedication to continue fighting within a systemically unjust judicial system to challenge and change our systemically unjust laws. Thanks for all you’ve done and continue to do, Gloria!

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: 66

One Movie Punch: 7.0/10

“Seeing Allred” (2018) is rated TV-14 and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “Winter’s Bone” (2010), the Oscar-nominated family drama based on Daniel Woodrell’s novel, directed by Debra Granik and developed for the screen in collaboration with Anne Rosellini. The film received nominations for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actor.

The film follows Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence), a seventeen year old daughter taking care of her sick mother and her two younger siblings after her father is arrested for cooking crank. Her father, Jessup, was released on bail after signing away the family property, but has been missing, presumed dead. Ree and her Uncle Teardrop (John Hawkes) must find her father, or his remains, in order to prevent their family from being evicted.

Jennifer Lawrence is INCREDIBLE in her breakout role, earning a well-deserved Oscar nomination for Best Actress. Ree feels so real, both separate from and a part of her environment. John Hawkes turns in an amazing supporting role as Teardrop, leaving a lasting impression. Their relationship on screen is subtle, yet deep, more raw emotion than expression. The rest of the cast also turn in above average performance, each representing a new challenge for Ree to face and face again.

I’ve thought a lot about where “Winter’s Bone” fits into entertainment history. I can only imagine that the success of “Breaking Bad” and “Sons of Anarchy” helped to turn a meaningful story about crank dealers in the Ozarks into a feature-length film. I also kind of think that the success of “Winter’s Bone” made the idea of last year’s “Ozark” a possibility. Not just for the inclusion of hard drugs, but stories about rural, white criminal enterprises in various forms.

“Winter’s Bone” (2010) is an amazing film, playing on themes of family and poverty and community and criminal enterprises, with bleak but beautiful settings and consistent art direction. It doesn’t pull punches and goes to some very morbid places, but delivers a great story with a wonderful cast. If you can handle some brutal moments for the sake of an incredible film, then you won’t be disappointed.

Rotten Tomatoes: 94% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 90

One Movie Punch: 8.8/10

“Winter’s Bone” is rated R and is streaming on Hulu.

Today’s movie is “Icarus” (2017), the Oscar-nominated documentary from Bryan Fogel about the Russian Olympic doping scandal surrounding the Sochi Olympics, told through the lens of his relationship with Grigory Rodchenkov, one of the alleged masterminds. Bryan and Grigory work together to extract Rodchenkov from Russia with data and testimony for Olympic officials. Their work leads to a temporary suspension of Russian athletes from the 2016 and 2018 Olympics.

“Icarus” began as a documentary by Bryan Fogel to use a doping regime for an intense cycling race, to demonstrate that doping affects performance and to show how easy it was to cheat the doping tests. Bryan meets Grigory as part of his research, and they work together to beat the system. The first forty minutes documents this journey, with an anticlimactic ending after two non-performance related setbacks. Around this same time, the Russian doping scandal was starting to get traction, and the documentary pivots to focus on the scandal.

The pivot in focus frustrated me a great deal. The first portion of the film feels so different from the second, much larger portion on the scandal, and after the pivot, feels irrelevant. The second portion has more interviews and meetings, and a lot less action, albeit with a different kind of tension. I still want to see the film that was intended, trying to beat the doping system.

“Icarus” gained popularity riding the wave of anti-Russian politics, which are once again in fashion. There’s no denying the impact of the documentary, given the suspensions on Russian athletes and the bureaucracy surrounding the Olympics. However, I don’t feel compelled by which super athletes are cheating, especially given the range of subject matter within the Best Documentary category. I also think the documentary will suffer by the now competing and much more horrific Olympic scandal involving the U.S. Women Gymnastics team.

My personal feelings aside, the documentary is well produced and certainly tells the story that Bryan Fogel intended. I felt mostly engaged, except for some slower moments during interviews. Bryan stumbled into the story of a lifetime, ground zero of an emerging scandal, and the result is a quality documentary, although maybe not Oscar worthy. The Academy will let us know.

Rotten Tomatoes: 92%

Metacritic: 68

One Movie Punch: 7.2/10

“Icarus” (2017) is rated TV-14 and is streaming on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “On Body and Soul” (2017), the Hungarian film nominated for an Oscar in the Foreign Language Film category, written and directed by Ildilkó Enyedi, and distributed by Netflix. The film follows two shy co-workers as a slaughterhouse, Mária (Alexandra Borbély) and Endre (Géza Morcsányi), who discover they share the same dream as deer in an unknown winter forest.

The imagery is stark and raw, filmed in an actual slaughterhouse and utilizing real footage of live cattle and carcass processing. So, if it seems to look real, it is, not an exercise in amazing practical effects. It might put off many viewers, but it also provides a heavy, mortalistic tone to offset the mystical connection between the main characters, and intense foreshadowing for later events.

The film reminded me at times of Shane Carruth’s “Upstream Color” (2013), particularly in the animal-based connections causing or driving a romantic love story. However, instead of focusing on the connection, Enyedi’s story focuses on the developing relationship. Enyedi brings a unique sense of juxtaposition to her style, adding double meanings into everyday actions, showing larger processes at work outside the core relationship.

Borbély and Morcsányi give excellent performances. Mária feels a bit like Temple Grandin, with highly functional autistic behavior and working in a slaughterhouse. Endre is slightly muted in presence, even if having the lion’s share of the dialogue. I found myself engaged in their chemistry and sympathetic in their personal struggles. The supporting cast also provides the right amount of feedback on events without taking the focus away from the relationship.

“On Body and Soul” (2017) is a great film that will likely have a limited audience, even with distribution by Netflix and an Oscar nomination. Experimental/mystical science fiction is not everyone’s go-to genre, and the slaughterhouse scenes may be too intense or distasteful for others. However, fans of great composition or the edges of science fiction will definitely enjoy the film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 90% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 77

One Movie Punch: 8.6/10

“On Body and Soul” (2017) is not rated and is streaming on Netflix.

Today’s movie is “Moonlight” (2016), the Oscar winning masterpiece from Barry Jenkins. I don’t know if this podcast is going to be a review so much as an exposition on how much this film impressed me, especially for his second feature-length film, eight years after the ambitious and underrated “Medicine for Melancholy” (2008). Get ready for a love fest.

Everything is built on the story, based on a semi-autobiographical play by Tarell Alvin McCraney, and structured as a triptych of key moments in the life of Chirone, the focus of this character study. Jenkins and McCraney developed an amazing screenplay, striking the right perspective and pacing into each section, with the right elements tying everything together in the end.

An amazing cast brought the screenplay to life, not only for Chirone (Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, and Trevante Rhodes) or his friend Kevin (Jaden Piner, Jharrel Jerome, and André Holland), but also for persistent characters like Chirone’s biological mother Paula (Naomie Harris) and surrogate mother Teresa (Janelle Monáe), and, of course, the Oscar winning performance of Juan by Mahershala Ali. The cast for Chirone and Kevin in particular make you believe it is the same person at different points in their life, an incredibly difficult feat requiring expert direction and performances.

You can really tell from the set locations that Jenkins and McCraney grew up in Miami, finding just the right angles and filters to capture awesome color patterns, and, of course, excellent use of light and shadow, particularly at night. And finally Joi McMillon and Nat Sanders bring the film together in the editing room with some amazing composition, and excellent music choices and score from Nicholas Britell. A24 picked it up for production, their first. Talk about setting the bar high for the future.

I can’t believe I waited this long to watch the film. It has a balance of strong, unique subject matter and perspective in a realistic representation of their environment. It also makes me excited to see his next film, an adaptation of James Baldwin’s novel “If Beale Street Could Talk”, utilizing most of the same excellent crew from “Moonlight”.

Amazing.

Rotten Tomatoes: 98% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 99

One Movie Punch: 10/10

“Moonlight” (2016) is rated R and is streaming on Amazon Prime.

Today’s movie is “Marvel’s The Avengers” (2012), the final chapter of Phase One in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the next film on the Road to Infinity War. The film that would attempt something new: weaving four separate movies together into a single storyline. Hype saturated the media surrounding the release, creating a tall order for Joss Whedon, who was selected to make it happen, with a meager $220 Million budget. The rest is literally history.

If you think about nearly all of the previous franchises, they engage in literally sequential storytelling. Each sequel follows mostly the same characters, usually upping the ante on expectations, progressing the story episodically. The Mission Impossible franchise follows Ethan Hunt. The Nightmare on Elm Street franchise follows Freddy Krueger (or his surrogates). The genius of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is taking four unique perspectives and bringing them into a single, mostly cohesive narrative.

The film made over $1.5 Billion at the box office worldwide, undoubtedly a commercial success, but was also a mostly positive critical success. I chalk up most of the negative bits of criticism, including my own, to either personal taste differences or haters who were hoping it failed from the start. I’m in the personal taste differences column, just to be clear.

The story was well conceived, pulling on just the right elements from all five previous films to bring the narrative together, playing to their strengths and course correcting weaknesses. Mark Ruffalo seamlessly integrates into the group as Bruce Banner, replacing Edward Norton. And Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) feel elevated to equal members, despite not having solo movies, although a writer has been hired for a Black Widow film... finally. Everyone else turns in a top performance, especially Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson, who would later leave for “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”, now in its fifth season.

My major criticism is that the film was too rushed, likely desperate to keep the length around two hours. The ending just sort of happens, and while now I can binge on the next films, I remember leaving the theatre wanting even more, and not in a good way. I wanted more Hulk. I wanted more Black Widow and Hawkeye. I wanted a proper ending instead of everyone eating shawarma and some Thanos side eye. I’m probably the only person willing to sit through three hours, though. Ah well.

Rotten Tomatoes: 92% (CERTIFIED)

Metacritic: 69

One Movie Punch: 8.4/10

“Marvel’s The Avengers” (2012) is rated PG-13 and is available wherever you enjoy movies.