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.

The Hitman's Bodyguard

An interesting premise blending two of the action genre’s most interesting occupations, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” is an action buddy comedy in the vein of “Lethal Weapon” or “Rush Hour” with one stark contrast; they are nemeses. It’s a spy versus spy of sorts, and I love the marketing angle and the casual way in which they are selling the idea. On paper, it’s actually pretty great. But I have one major problem that exacerbates the whole film.

Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) is a AAA rated executive protection agent until he loses a client in a predictable opening sequence. The incident relegates him to what appears to be the shell of a man protecting B-list clients, although his skill set is still top notch. Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson) is a legendary hitman with a flawless execution. They are naturally thrown together when Kincaid is scheduled to testify against a Russian warlord (Gary Oldman) and he needs protection. What ensues is the typical reluctant bonding experience where both begin to appreciate the other’s craft and they each learn a little something about themselves, softening up a bit and growing both professionally and personally.

The action is fantastic. Great chases, explosions, fight scenes, and a very humorous banter. But Samuel L. Jackson will be sixty-eight years old in December. He’s in great shape for his age, but how many sixty-eight year olds can out-gun Interpol special forces agents? How many sixty-eight year olds can jump from a roof or get shot through the leg and keep running? I haven’t met many, but I would absolutely love to meet one. That’s my main gripe, and the fact that he can’t get through a sentence without cussing isn’t something that necessarily offends my sensitivities as much as it offends my respect for the man as an actor. He’s a one-trick pony, and more power to him for making his living spouting the same vulgar rhetoric every movie he’s in, but for me it gets a little old. Just like him.

Ryan Reynolds is his typical self as well. Full of one-liners and witty comebacks, he’s definitely more believable as an action star because, well, he is one. He carries his character just fine, but as half of the equation, it just doesn’t work to carry a whole film.

The plot being as simple as it gets, this is a fun film. It exceeded my very low expectations, but make no mistake. This is no “Lethal Weapon.” In fact, this rates pretty low on the buddy action comedy scale, but it is two hours of entertaining, mindless, popcorn-munching viewing. Take a little comfort in that, and I’m sure that the box office will reflect the audience’s desire for just that.

Novice director Patrick Hughes (“Expendables 3”) delivers a pretty impressive set of action sequences, but not a whole lot more. The film lacked some of the grit of some of the previous buddy films of the genre in favor of a more comedic approach, but that can be forgiven easily in the name of entertainment. I have a soft spot for Mel and Danny, but do recognize that that was nearly thirty years ago, and the general taste has changed significantly. One’s own personal influence only has so much clout when recommending entertainment to a broader audience after all.

If you’ve seen everything else and you’re looking to kill some time, or just stay cool on these dog days of summer, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” will do better than some, but trust me, there’s much better film out there right now (see “Wind River.”) 6/10.

Logan Lucky

Steven Soderbergh, the man behind the “Oceans” trilogy, “Magic Mike” films, and one of my personal favorites, “Out of Sight,” returns to the genre that has been his bread and butter; the light-hearted, slightly cerebral, slick heist films. Let’s be honest, he’s made heists look pretty cool numerous times on the screen (and easy to boot), and that’s part of the holdup here. There isn’t much going on that we haven’t seen before plenty of times. Criminals who have thought of every little detail, while the audience is just a little bit in the dark until the reveal at the end.

“Logan Lucky” is a typical West Virginia redneck larceny story, with not so typical characters. The Logan brothers, Jimmy and Clyde (Channing Tatum and Adam Driver) put into play a scheme to rob the cash room of the Charlotte International Motor Speedway during a NASCAR race. They enlist the help of criminal Joe Bang (Daniel Craig) and his two nephews, Fish and Sam. Throw in the Logan sister, Mellie (Riley Keough) and you have your crew. In the periphery, Katie Holmes is Jimmy’s baby mama in a bit of a misguided parallel storyline, although her performance is the best she’s done in quite some time.

The acting is terrific, and the leads all seem to be enjoying themselves from start to finish, particularly Daniel Craig who plays a hardened safe-cracker with a good deal of prison clout. Driver is given the role of quirky and dry comic relief, and Tatum packs on a few pounds and shirks his usual charming good looks in exchange for a chance to play a flawed, yet likeable lead.

There is a lot of opportunity here for character development, with Dwight Yoakum, Seth McFarlane, Katherine Waterston, and Hilary Swank standing out as well-played characters, but the film moves along too quickly, which is a double-edged sword. The heist is certainly the looming endgame, but Soderbergh likes to pace his films quickly, refusing to linger on any scene too long. This doesn’t allow us to get to know any of these characters quite well enough, and that’s a bit of a shame.

“Logan Lucky” was written by Rebecca Blunt, a possible pseudonym with speculation by numerous sources that it might actually be Soderbergh or his wife, Jules Asner. As of now, there hasn’t been any credit taken, but this makes for an interesting sidebar trivia item, which is something consistent and admirable about the director. He certainly knows how to make movies fun, and it shows on screen. This might be his greatest strength, and it redeems any lingering reservations about any redundancy in his style. Sure, you could probably line up his heist movies side by side and you would notice more than a few similarities, but there is a certain levity that jumps from the screen in his contributions to this genre. The actors seem to be caught up in the mirth as well, and that adds a certain intangible effect to his movies that make them enjoyable in the end.

In terms of the screenplay itself, there is a bit left to be desired. There’s no back story, no motive for the heist in the first place, and nothing compelling to make us root for any of the characters to succeed beyond it being a bunch of rednecks knocking over NASCAR. The West Virginia redneck setting is simply a ruse to get the audience to forget that they’ve seen this all before. At least three times.

“Logan Lucky” gets points for execution and acting, but lacks originality. It’s like “West Side Story” doing “Romeo and Juliet.” Great film, clever change of setting, but ultimately a completely recycled story. If you can get past this little detail and just let the experience wash over you, I bet you might find this film pretty dadgum entertaining. 7/10.

Wind River

I would be extremely remiss if I didn't share my thoughts on the exceptionally crafted "Wind River." The latest concoction of writer/director Taylor Sheridan, this will certainly cement his place among the most talented and thoughtful double threats in the game today. After 2014's "Sicario" and last year's "Hell or High Water," he's continued his gritty and realistic storytelling narrative with a particular homage to the forgotten women of the Native American reservations, and he's done it by letting the story (and perhaps one particular character) do the talking.

Although set in rural Wind River, Wyoming, it's a true Western at heart. The best Western since "No Country for Old Men" mind you. The setting is chilling. Literally. Sub-zero conditions in the spring in the Rocky Mountains, we find a young woman barefoot and frozen to death. Ruled a homicide, the local tribal police call in the FBI, and we meet agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen). She enlists the help of local fish and wildlife hunter Corey Lambert (Jeremy Renner) and with chief Ben (Graham Greene), they begin the search for the guilty murderer. As the clues lead them where they don't want to go, they search for justice for the woman's family, and closure for the community.

The brilliance is in the small things. From the supporting characters who make the most of single scenes, to the stationary camera shots just perfectly capturing the majestic setting. There is a melancholy sense of beauty, desperation, and isolation while presenting it in a freezing climate that makes you shiver in your seat. The dialogue is witty, but not contrived. It drives the narrative like a well-oiled machine, whether it's the whimsical ruminations or the necessary prose targeting the audience.

The climactic finale should go down in history as one of the finer and more harrowing extended scenes in recent memory. In fact, I couldn't stop thinking about it for nearly a day. Sheridan has a way of bringing out the raw, primal emotions in his actors, whether he's behind the camera or the written narrative. Taylor Sheridan is simply my new favorite (Sorry Coen Brothers). He is a master of the modern Western in the way that can only be compared to author Cormac McCarthy.

Jeremy Renner delivers what might be his finest performance yet, even moreso than "The Hurt Locker." He embraces his character and shows us the pain he carries behind his eyes in every scene, while being the heroic semi-reluctant protagonist that the film needs. In fact, this performance will almost make you forget about Hawkeye, who is clearly the weakest of all the Avengers.

"Wind River" is simply stunning. It currently sits atop my best pictures of the year, and it will take something quite stunning to knock it off its perch (there are a few contenders on the horizon). I would expect five awards nominations; actor, picture, director, writer, cinematographer. With an August release, the odds are stacked against the film at this point, but I for one won't forget about it anytime soon. 9/10.