Reviews

The presentation: I suppose I MOSTLY feel duped because I paid for a ticket to watch something that I probably should have watched on YouTube. I don't think that people shouldn't make movies just because they don't have the funds for it, but I *do* feel like I can judge it on its quality if it chooses to cut corners. The green screen looks terrible, and this is barely "directed." Conversations are shot super close up, and the actors fall out of frame frequently. The effects look like Red Letter Media videos when Mr. Plinkett's house was floating at the bottom of the ocean. I don't even really feel like calling this a movie.

The DC property: I suppose if it stripped all of the IP away, some might still frame it as a "Joker origin story." But I still don't believe that the solution was to lean into it. It undercuts its trans journey message with...superhero fiction. This movie wants you to take it seriously and as a joke at the same time. And as for the boldness of copyright infringement, "Escape from Tomorrow" is also, similarly, not good, despite its ballsiness to try to slip it by Disney.

Only the actors and quick, cutaway gags are worth mentioning.

This is much more "enjoyable" than its predecessor, and it's not solely because it doesn't contain the toxic Anthony. I felt so disappointed by the flat direction in the first film, and I was delighted to see more chances taken in this one. There is more life and color in Part II, and some meta moments were really quite surprising.

This *feels* like it was made for television, as if it were an episode of CSI (with all of the quirky side characters). Only worse.

Kirby Bliss Blanton is fine here but a lot of the other actors deliver some stunningly bad work (the two geeks are unbearable). And the poor special effects make this truly feel amateurish.

Listen, it wasn't ALL bad. Just the discount Tim Curry lead actor, the gross color grading, the little girl's crying chops, the mixing of the music, the editing, the dubbing, the emotionally manipulative third act...

Whyyyy was this two hours?

I caught this at a Drive-In double feature with "Palm Springs." I think that pairing made this pale in comparison.

I will say that I was VERY impressed with the production design and the special effects; nothing looked cheesy or unrealistic (I haven't found any budget information anywhere yet). And that's about it. Theo James has the looks of a young De Niro or James Franco from time to time, but he (or his character) is quite charmless.

It's strange that this reminded me of "Moon" so much, when you consider that the director of this film worked on "Moon" back in 2009. But that film is buoyed by an engrossing Sam Rockwell performance. And "Ex Machina" has the balance of Domnhall Gleeson and Oscar Issac's performances. Theo James can't really anchor this whole movie. The other actors are fine, but seem ornamental.

This is above-average for its design, but middle-of-the-road for just about everything else.

Based on the mostly positive reviews for this, it looks like I'm in the minority here (wink), because I don't think that this film quite worked the way it should have, or the way it could have. It's quite rare that I leave a moviegoing experience feeling dissatisfied, but I think that the movie set high expectations with a very cool premise, but then lost it in a mess. I can break down my thoughts into two categories:

1. Plot

The notion of "precrime" is pretty slick, and I don't mind that the first 20 minutes of the movie spend time explaining and demonstrating it. But it sets rules and guidelines that are ultimately broken by the end, leaving me quite confused as to why I should buy into these plot points in the first place. I don't really find myself feeling like they are plot holes, but more that the premise becomes loose and messy. To be reductive, in a movie where beings are predicting the future, there really shouldn't be too many surprises or plot twists, right?

2. Tone

This is what stuck out to me first. This movie plays it pretty straight, and doesn't have comic relief characters (like Goldblum in "Jurassic Park). So when the first big fight scene breaks out, the tone shifts and things start to get quite silly (bumping a breakfast table, interrupting a student practicing saxophone), and then all of a sudden it feels like "Men in Black." I welcome moments of levity, but the ones here did not feel earned. Any cheerful or "funny" moments really stuck out from the rest of the film.

I won't dock it any points for weird SFX or anything, even if I think that the "conducting" while using touchscreens looks super forced and unnatural.

Ultimately, its 145-minute runtime allows it to explore more plot twists. The movie doesn't necessarily feel long or slow, but it does have a moment towards the end where it felt like it should have ended. I think the script was trying to do way too much, and resulted in having four separate stories that barely dovetail gracefully.

I don't feel inclined to give Spielberg or a Williams much credit here. I think there are some cool sci-fi moments, and some good performances (though I don't think that anyone delivers a Top-5 performance here), and that's why I feel like a 6/10 rating is appropriate.

Worth seeing for its harrowing final act and for Michael B. Jordan's performance, "Fruitvale Station" is a strong effort with good intentions. My issue is that I wish Ryan Coogler trusted the material more. I'll explain:

The film opens with the real footage from that fateful night, setting the stakes for the rest of the film. But then it takes us through an average day in the life, and throws in events to emotionally manipulate the audience. If the other point of the movie (besides depicting the murder) was to have us get to know Oscar Grant, I would have MUCH rather seen events throughout his life, good and bad. Maybe even scenes played by a child actor. But it would mean more to me to see his life, then to see how he spends a collection of 70 minutes on one random day leading up to that night.

The incident with the dog, and the weed, and his encounters with others that day are fabricated. And sure, other films do this all of the time. But Oscar Grant's story was worth telling on its own, without any fabrication. His fate is TRAGIC, and we didn't need any embellishment. I also was very turned off by the actress playing his girlfriend, who was a major distraction. Octavia Spencer was solid as always, but some of the other supporting characters were weak.

Of course, I'm more angered by the real-life events than I am the movie. But I come here to rate films, and I think a 7/10 is right in line with how I feel. It does wonders with its sub-$1MM budget, but is no masterwork, and could have felt stronger as an expanded film about his life, or a short film about that event only.

Despite what you may have heard about this "flop" of a followup to "Donnie Darko," you may actually have an appreciation for this, depending on your tastes. I'm about to reference about 10 other films, so buckle up.

First of all, I expected to hate this movie, and I really didn't. There's no reason for me to have any attachment to this film, apart from being intrigued by it after it was trashed on "Sardonicast." I got it stuck in my head on vacation in San Diego last August, but was hesitant to spend 140+ minutes on a movie I might hate. I'm glad I saw what the fuss was about. I don't regret seeing this.

Recently, "Under the Silver Lake" (1) had a similar fate to "Southland Tales." David Robert Mitchell followed up his very successful "It Follows" (2) with a convoluted tale of mystery and intrigue in L.A. And it flopped. It's a bit of an ambitious mess, and was compared unfavorably to David Lynch's masterpiece "Mulholland Drive" (3). But if you dug "Silver Lake," this could work for you. Both that and "Southland" have similar absurdist wanderings, and a sense they aren't taking themselves too seriously.

If you have the appreciation for overstuffed films like "Synecdoche, New York" (4) or "Magnolia," (5) you may be able to find the good in Richard Kelly's work. Clearly, he's trying to cram a lot in this film, and whether it all works is debatable. But if you think that "Synecdoche" is brilliant and perfect, yet you look past the odd, head-scratching choices like an old, naked man being walked down the street on a leash, or an unexplained blimp that hovers in the warehouse, don't be so quick to turn your nose up at similar odd occurrences in Kelly's movie - like a mega-zeppelin or a floating ice cream truck.

Of course, the huge difference is that "Synecdoche" and "Magnolia" are both sprawling films that try to reach you on an emotional level. I'm not so sure that S.T. is trying to do the same thing. It has some odd sci-fi elements to it, and doesn't slow down to explore emotions or motivations really. And if you have a good eye for tone, you can tell that this movie is meant to be kind of a joke.

Which brings me to what I think are similar comps - "Inherent Vice" (6) and "The Big Lebowski" (7). (Isn't it kind of interesting that most of the movies I've referenced so far are set in L.A.?) Both of the above films are notoriously confounding and non-sensical. Both contain plots that don't necessarily resolve everything cleanly, and have odd tonal shifts. Yet both have their cult followings, and are examples of how great auteurs can play with story. What about the random musical number in "Southland?" Haven't we seen similar surprises in "Lebowski" and "Magnolia?" And didn't those throw you off the first time you watched them?

The HUGE difference here is that Kelly is nowhere near the level of director or writer that PTA, the Coens, Lynch and Kaufman are. It's one thing to have a confusing plot, but to have so many moments of exposition is a bad look, and most of it comes from Justin Timberlake's voice-over narration. Additionally, maybe Star Wars can work as an "Episodes IV-VI," saga, but don't throw us into the middle of your sci-fi epic at episode IV and expect similar results. To even hint that we should read your supplemental material beforehand is (whisper it) pretentious.

In retrospect, "Donnie Darko" (8) is kind of guilty for the same thing. It's a mind-bender, but makes more sense if you watch the director's cut? Be deliberately vague and commit to it! Even "2001: A Space Odyssey" (9) has a lot that's explained in the book. But Kubrick wasn't in charge of the book, Arthur C. Clarke was, and Kubrick opted for leave a lot out of his film, in order to challenge the viewer.

What baffles me about "Southland Tales," (and maybe what hurts it the most) is the casting and the acting. Maybe Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson hadn't found his footing as an actor just yet, but his choices are ODD. He delivers lines almost as if he is parodying a confused Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix." And he widens his eyes and twiddles his fingers. And it's distracting. And the cast contains a handful of ex-SNL cast members (Cheri Oteri, Nora Dunn), and some "is that who I think it is?" cameos from John Lovitz and Kevin Smith. If this was meant to fully be a comedy, this casting makes sense. But the problem is that Sean William Scott turns in a (pretty decent) dramatic performance, which seems to shift the tone pretty dramatically. And Timberlake's presence is fun but his role doesn't feel fully developed. It doesn't seem like the pieces fit together at all, even if the cast is huge and exciting.

Whether you love or hate this film, I feel like I can guarantee that you will be baffled by it at the very least. But this can be fun if you want to take a ride. It satirizes a lot of modern politics, and comes across like an absurd dystopia...kind of like..."Idiocracy." (10) Everyone who criticized it for its bang-you-over-the-head messages and preachiness may have missed the fact that this film is pretty tongue-in-cheek, and there are very few moments where it stops to tell you how important it is. Other films are guilty of that; "Southland Tales" is not.

If any of the 10 films I mentioned are in your wheelhouse, give this a shot.

I feel like I just watched the director's cut of a better movie. A 136-minute runtime is not an issue on its own, but it must be earned. This film took too many detours, and chose to stoke the fire by rehashing the same horrors. Let's just say that there is MORE than one assault in this movie. Strangely, the film also has some odd editing choices, not including dream sequences that derail the momentum.

Personally, I don't like what they did with the main character. Yes, they gave her layers by not making her a perfect superwoman, but they also made her inactive at crucial moments. The audience buys into her plans of action, and we want to see them through; she doesn't. The final portion of the film is less satisfying than we would want, based on how crazed she is for revenge.

It's not boring, but it gets repetitive. It should be challenging with its subject matter, not with the quality of its craft and storytelling.

This is not a must-see. It's moving, but not essential.

Please take my review with a grain of salt. Period pieces/costume dramas are not really my thing. But I liked Gerwig's take on "Little Women." And the trailer for "Emma." had the energy of "The Favourite."

If you're at all like me, and you are interested in this film because of that energy from the trailer, I'd like to tell you that you will he disappointed. This does not have any edge, nor much snark.

There is nothing "bad" about this film at all. Maybe some of the editing and camera placement is odd, but I'm not subtracting points for that.

But, what's the hook?

I found nothing particularly special about this film. Sure, the costumes are nice, the music is sweet, and Taylor-Joy is solid. But there was nothing compelling. The saddest thing I could say here was:

I felt nothing.

I didn't laugh once. I was never shocked. I never got choked up. I didn't feel a single strong emotion for this whole film (not even a negative one like boredom or hatred).

So I suppose that I find this film to be very forgettable. See it for yourself and ask yourself what's special about it. What will you remember a year from now?

It's another English film with pomp and frills and everyone is romantically interested in one another. It would be easy to confuse this with so many other films.