Kingsman: The Golden Circle

Imagine you took five Oscar winners and Channing Tatum and put them together in a James Bond film by a very talented writer/director. Then imagine that particular James Bond film is rated R, has more gonzo action and special effects than typical, but somehow retains the same suave and classy appeal as the iconic paradigm of the genre. Then imagine if you will that the lead isn’t any of the aforementioned award winners, but rather, a young, burgeoning movie star on the brink of a breakout career, and you have “Kingsman: The Golden Circle.”

Truth be told, Halle Berry shouldn’t have won an Oscar in the first place, and Elton John is hardly known for his Academy Award, but the cast is stellar and noteworthy nonetheless. Jeff Bridges, Colin Firth, and Julianne Moore could headline just about any film on the planet, but I am delighted they chose this one. 2014 introduced us to Eggsy (Taron Egerton), a young, English lad with a skill set that earned him membership as an apprentice into the elite Kingsman spy agency. The success of the film opened the door for a new franchise, which I imagine will continue to thrive due to sheer range of appeal (and the almost certain box office draw).

This time around, Eggsy has matured to a full-blown agent, and not twenty seconds into the film we are tossed into a spectacular fight sequence that gives the audience a preview of what’s to come. Although the action doesn’t maintain the stamina promised, the scenes are expertly choreographed and delivered with a polished execution that doesn’t disappoint. Eggsy has to save the world yet again, this time from the evil (and sadistic) Poppy (Julianne Moore), whose agenda is much more endearing than that of Samuel L. Jackson in the original “Kingsman: Secret Service.” With plenty of allusions to the hypocrisy and lunacy of current drug legislation and enforcement, there are some political jabs, but it’s all in good fun because after all, the tone is wild and outlandish. Kingsman enlists the help of their American counterparts, Statesman, and together they risk life and limb to save the unsuspecting masses.

Matthew Vaughn has yet to miss the mark. Director of the surprise hit “Kick-Ass” and the strongest of the X-Men films (“X-Men: First Class”), he seems to be on a roll that will lead to a strong reputation as well as a financial boon (he also wrote and produced). His style is influenced heavily by his long-time associate, Guy Ritchie, but without the unnecessary calling card of immediately recognizable glitzy camera work. It’s refreshing, and I daresay Vaughn has surpassed Ritchie in terms of quality with this film.
When I wrote about the original, I was pretty hard on it, but after a second viewing, I came to appreciate it for the director’s somewhat unique vision. It grows on you, and I would urge you to give the original film another shot before making a trip to your local theatre for some good old-fashioned fun.

This is a rare instance of the sequel being better than the original, joining the ranks of “Empire Strikes Back,” “Aliens,” and “The Dark Knight.” You could sway me on “Godfather Part 2” as well, but I digress. The film takes that best parts of the original and improves, showing that sometimes the best formula for success in film is to just have fun and don’t try to reinvent the wheel. I appreciated the toned-down violence, and although the American Statesman were a bit too stereotypical, the absurdity works with aplomb.

If I haven’t sold you thus far, I will say that the film showcases exceptionally strong performances by both Egerton and Pedro Pascale (“Narcos,” “Game of Thrones”) who plays Agent Whiskey. They stand out among giants and make this truly worth watching. All in all, it’s a really fun film that is much needed to jumpstart the current drought of quality films out there (“It” notwithstanding). 8/10.

Mother!

In what can only be described as an existential, mind-blowing opus, Darren Aronofsky (“Black Swan,” “Requiem for a Dream”) gives us what might be one of the most ambitious cinematic allegories of the year. Polarizing by critical standards, and unapologetically true to his own vision, “Mother!” is likely to be misinterpreted by many, misunderstood by even more, and mislabeled in the annals of history as an epic failure. I beg to differ.

Before I explain my thinking, let me reduce the plot to a tangible (albeit incomplete) form; Mother (Jennifer Lawrence) awakes in her large Victorian house, situated in an undisclosed, but picturesque setting. Her husband, Him (Javier Bardem) is a successful writer, and together they are rebuilding their home after a devastating fire took nearly everything from them. Attention to every detail has been painstakingly made by Mother, as she bides her time homemaking while he struggles to overcome writer’s block. When Man (Ed Harris) and Woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) show up unexpectedly, they trigger a series of events that leads the narrative down the rabbit hole of frustrating, preposterous, and confusing, but ultimately to a spiritually enlightening and rewarding climax.

There is something unsettling about the relationship between Mother and Him from the very start, and the house itself takes on a personification that is eerily suffocating despite the vast open space it consumes. The house is where the success of this film truly begins to gain traction. Every single frame in the film follows Mother, and occurs inside the house. It’s claustrophobic without even trying.

Some might get frustrated with the confusion, even as it plays out to its finale, but I very much admire the vision by Aronofsky. Without giving away too much in spoilage, there is a certain tangible resonance even while the viewer is in the dark. There’s just enough shown on-screen to grasp large themes such as humanity, good and evil, spirituality, anxiety, control, and the circle of life. The extent of metaphor is certainly laid on thick, but it is absolutely necessary to accomplish what the director intended.

One has to resist the urge to give up on the film simply because it doesn’t make sense, because although that is certainly the case, the viewing experience is much more valuable than the subscription to typical cinematic rules or norms. Bear with the nonsense, because it will make sense hours, days, or perhaps even weeks later when you are trying to figure things out. “Mother!” is a cerebral thriller, and I respect the attempt at something so non-conformist and mind-bending. There aren’t enough film makers brazen enough to attempt such abstract polarizing fare; Chris Nolan recently (and successfully), and my personal favorite, Stanley Kubrick historically.

My initial reaction as the credits rolled was confusion and anger, so the film was an absolute success. My anger evolved into a sort of respect the longer I pondered the details that created what will go down in film lore as something unique, if not a disaster. The reviews have not been kind as a whole, and there is an argument that Jennifer Lawrence, whose role as muse may be lost in the scandalous relationship formed with Aronofsky, is wasted on such questionable content, but I disagree. All of the actors involved did a fantastic job, and the film itself, as wild as it was, left an imprint on my mind.

I have a difficult time recommending this film to any particular group, as it will likely be misunderstood or underappreciated. I don’t intend to ever see it again, but I will say with confidence that I’m glad I saw it; I’m a better film critic for it. And after all, isn’t that what the movies are all about? 7/10.

It

In 1986, Stephen King introduced us to Pennywise the Clown, and spawned a generation (or two) of coulrophobia (fear of clowns). According to rumors, the subsequent television mini-series featuring Tim Curry (1990) as the red-balloon carrying provocateur of childhood nightmares, created a boon for the child therapy industry.

The cinematic resurrection of what is arguably Stephen King’s most infamous story is ill-timed, coming on the heels of the “Dark Tower” adaptation just last month. “It” is however a terrifyingly entertaining film, even if it is a retelling. I wish I could compare to the book, but my only frame of reference is Tim Curry, and I will say, the modernized version carries a more polished, aggressive sense of violence and as a result, inspires a greater level of fear, which is just what the audience needs.

The small town of Derry, Maine has a mysterious phenomenon where every twenty-seven years, there is a rash of children who go missing. The adults are eerily oblivious and accepting of this, which is odd, but adds to the charming 1988 setting, and when Georgie Denbrough becomes one of the victims, his brother Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) and his band of loveable losers investigate. What they find is the thing of nightmares, and as they come face to face with Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgard), they discover more evil than they ever thought imaginable.

Filmmakers Andy Muschietti (“Mama”), Cary Fukunaga (“True Detective”), and Gary Dauberman (“Annabelle), deliver a strong collaboration devoid of what could have easily been its downfall; cliché. There are obviously elements indicative of the genre, and the characters make poor decisions in dire times, but we are given a new, frightening Pennywise with just the right amount of screen time and dialogue to make him a very effective clown monster.

The film isn’t just a horror flick however. There is a surprisingly strong cast of young kids led by Lieberher, Finn Wolfhard (“Stranger Things”), and Sophia Lillis. They lead the Losers Club with a sense of tragically waning innocence, and form a bond through their shared desperation as they try to survive Pennywise, and their own personal demons. The characters are written with a remarkable amount of depth considering the ensemble format, and Wolfhard and Lillis steal the show through dialogue delivery and genuine emotion.

King novels and shorts have a tradition of using children to enhance the suspense, and move the narrative along emotionally, which is traditionally challenging to successfully translate to the screen. “Stand by Me” is one of the most effective of his that comes to mind.

Enter Pennywise. Bill Skarsgard does a tremendous job taking what Tim Curry did and both honoring the spirit of the character while also updating and modernizing it with the help of more advanced and seamless CGI. His speech and mannerisms are captivating and pose just the right combination of sinister on the verge of frightening, and somewhat docile.

“It” is a refreshingly thoughtful and satisfying contribution to the horror film canon. Although I was hoping to have the bejesus scared out of me, it was ultimately a great time at the theatre. I felt transported back to my own adolescence, and was moved to empathize with the characters from start to finish. There are some pretty good scares, and there will certainly be a resurgence of coulrophobia. With an estimated opening weekend surpassing $100 million, I can’t wait until Chapter 2 comes out. 8/10.