Movie review

Review of “Warcraft”

The orc world of Draenor is almost dead. Orc leader Gul’dan (Daniel Wu) plans on using a form of magic called fel to open a portal to another world full of life called Azeroth. Fel requires energy be drained from living creatures and plants to power it so Gul’dan gathers up the last remaining life on Draenor to open the portal and send a raiding party to gather up more life to sacrifice so the rest of his horde can be brought through later. One of his soldiers, Durotan (Toby Kebbell) brings along his warrior wife Draka (Anna Galvin) who is close to giving birth. During the journey through the portal, Draka goes into labor and delivers a stillborn child after arriving in Azeroth. Gul’dan removes the life force from a deer and imbues the child with fel, bringing it to life. The orc raiders begin attacking villages and collecting prisoners to sacrifice to the fel. Military commander Anduin Lothar is informed of the raids and looks over some of the dead villagers. He discovers a mage named Khadgar (Ben Schnetzer) is at the barracks that hasn’t identified himself. Khadgar believes there’s something more going on than raiders attacking the villagers and Lothar allows him to examine one of the bodies. One corpse expels a green mist when Khadgar looks him over. Khadgar knows it is the fel and urges the Guardian be called in. Medivh (Ben Foster), the Guardian of Tirisfal, is entrusted to keep all the realms of Azeroth safe with his magic. King Llane Wrynn (Dominic Cooper), once he is informed of Khadgar’s concerns, approves summoning Medivh. Lothar informs Medivh about the threat while Khadgar waits in the library. While there, he notices a shadowy figure in front of a particular book. As he approaches, the figure disappears but Khadgar puts the book in his bag. Medivh, Lothar and Khadgar go to King Wrynn where Medivh explains how dangerous the fel is and how the orcs must be stopped. King Wrynn sends a scouting team to who is attacking the kingdom but they are ambushed by orcs and several are killed. Medivh uses a spell to force the fel out of those orcs who are infected by it and they die. Durotan isn’t infected and he and some other orcs escape. A half-breed orc named Garona (Paula Patton), treated as a slave by the orcs, is captured. Durotan realizes the fel is what killed Draenor and he believes the only way the orc can survive is to kill Gul’dan. Garona is offered her freedom in exchange for loyalty to King Wrynn and is sent on a mission with Lothar and others to spy on the orcs. Durotan finds Garona and offers to meet with King Wrynn to form an alliance to defeat Gul’dan.

“Warcraft” is based on a massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG for short) that at one time had about 12 million active subscribers but the last available information from late 2015 put the number at 5.5 million. Blizzard Entertainment, the company that created the game, obviously would like to both build up the number of users and generate income in other ways from the property hence a movie. The game of Warcraft would seem to be fertile ground for a genre film with the various realms, clans and magic wielders to work with. Since a movie has an end and the game doesn’t, it requires a story be crafted that can weave all the threads into a watchable and entertaining whole and that’s the problem with “Warcraft.”

The script certainly has a great deal of world building in it. We are introduced to several characters, fantastical creatures and magic in the first few minutes. As the movie continues, more characters, backstories and political intrigue is added to the mix. There is a great deal of information to process in “Warcraft” but none of it really adds up to become an interesting story. The little there is merely in place to set up a sequel and possibly several more films. It’s like the screenwriters decided to put off figuring out a good story for the next installment. If this movie was free then I’d be more forgiving but since I had to pay, I prefer having something far more interesting and engaging to watch.

While “Warcraft” is mostly visually interesting the orcs, who get almost as much screen time as the humans, don’t quite measure up to the quality of other CGI/mo-cap characters like those in the “Planet of the Apes” reboot and the most recent “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle” films. They have a decided “video game” look about them as if the digital artists didn’t quite have time to add all the final touches. All the scenes involving the orcs, especially when they are in large numbers, look flat like they are pictures cut out and glued to the screen. The interaction between the digital orcs and live-action actors also looks a bit odd in a couple of battle scenes. It appears the actors weren’t exactly sure where the orcs would be and don’t react to them until they are struck by their weapons. It was rather obvious in the battle that occurs in the woods.

None of the actors are particularly memorable in their roles. Of course, all the orcs are buried under CGI makeup so judging their performances is more difficult. The humans are all very serious in their characters with the only one showing much in the way of life is Travis Fimmel as Lothar. He gets to be a bit playful at times, especially with Khadgar; but he also must deal with the tongue tangling names of the various characters and realms and try to keep a straight face while doing it. He is also saddled with a somewhat inappropriate romance that flares up at a noticeably inopportune time. That bit of story really lands with a thud and could have easily been left out.

“Warcraft” is rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy violence. The orcs wield massive hammers and axes that likely kill any human with one blow. There is very little human blood and not much orc. We see an orc limb cut off and several orcs and humans are run through with swords. There is one human death that is particularly enjoyed by the orc that kills him. Foul language is not an issue.

There are a great many moving parts to the story of “Warcraft.” There are alliances, betrayals, governmental squabbling, jealousy, love, magic and much more. Sadly, it doesn’t add up to a coherent story with much of interest to say. “Warcraft” is what “Back to the Future II” was accused of being: A very long trailer for the next installment. While there are some interesting visuals of magic being used and fantastical flying creatures like gryphons and massive eagles used as transportation, all the pretty pictures aren’t enough to overcome the lack of story and the feeling that “Warcraft” is incomplete.

“Warcraft” gets one star out of five.

This week there’s a fish out of water story along with a fish in the water story. I’ll see and review at least one of these films:

Central Intelligence—

Finding Dory—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows”

The four mutated turtle brothers Leonardo (Pete Ploszek), Donatello (Jeremy Howard), Michelangelo (Noel Fisher) and Raphael (Alan Ritchson) continue to fight crime in New York City from the shadows. After capturing Shredder (Brian Tee), the boys convinced TV cameraman Vern Fenwick (Will Arnett) to take the credit so the Turtles could remain a secret. Fenwick has let the attention go to his head. April O’Neil (Megan Fox) is keeping an eye on Dr. Baxter Stockman (Tyler Perry), a renowned scientist that April has discovered is going to help break Shredder out of police custody. One of the guards escorting Shredder is Casey Jones (Stephen Amell) who dreams of being a police detective one day. The Foot Clan attacks the convoy and the Turtles try to stop Shredder from escaping but Dr. Baxter has an alien teleportation device and whisks the criminal away. A couple of thugs calling themselves Bebop and Rocksteady (Gary Anthony Williams and Stephen “Sheamus” Farrelly) also escape by conventional means. Jones, embarrassed by the criminals escape, vows to catch them and prove his worth to Police Chief Rebecca Vincent. Shredder’s teleportation is intercepted by a creature from another dimension. Kraang (voiced by Brad Garrett) is a brain that lives in the midsection of a robot body. It seems Dr. Stockman’s teleportation device belongs to Kraang and is part of a trans-dimensional portal generator. Kraang makes a deal with Shredder: Find the other two pieces of the portal generator that are hidden on Earth and Kraang can bring a massive weapon called the technodrome to facilitate his and Shredder’s taking over the Earth. Shredder agrees and Kraang sends him back with a mutagenic chemical so Shredder can create soldiers that can defeat the Turtles. He recruits Bebop and Rocksteady and the chemical turns them into massive creatures that look like a warthog and a rhinoceros.

The plot synopsis (and I left out plenty) sounds ridiculous and it isn’t much better watching the whole story on screen. “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows” is a silly mixture of CGI mayhem, poorly constructed story and enough mindless technobabble to try the patience of even the most forgiving sci-fi fan. In other words, it’s your typical Michael Bay movie.

Bay didn’t direct “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows” but the producer’s bombastic stamp is all over the film. From the strange Day of the Dead-looking Halloween parade (is there such a thing in New York) to the frenetic action scenes that often are difficult to follow, director Dave Green, directing his second feature after “Earth to Echo,” apparently studied Bay’s style and decided to emulate it. While the film has a great deal of energy, thanks largely to the CGI characters and a brilliantly snarky Will Arnett, it doesn’t have much direction, jumping from scene to scene and location to location at a pace that can leave the audience dizzy.

The more complex action scenes also leave a lot to be desired as the more CGI elements there are on the screen, the more difficult it is to clearly see what’s going on and make out any detail. Much like the “Transformers” series of films, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows” is far easier to watch when the action is less crowded. That is most obvious in the final battle at the film’s much too long in coming end. As more and more bits and pieces are added, the Turtles and Kraang become less and less distinct.

These films are also not exactly showcases of great acting. From the wooden Megan Fox to the hyperactive Stephen Amell, none of the human characters are given much of anything to do that could make them stand out against the computer generated heroes and villains. If anyone gets the short end of the script stick it is Laura Linney in a role that appears to have been written by someone who just liked being mean to people for no good reason. Linney’s Rebecca Vincent is a ballbuster of the highest order. She runs roughshod over anyone and everyone for what seems like the hell of it. Perhaps this is some covert way to showing us how a woman in a traditionally male job has to be twice as tough and twice as good to be respected. Considering the rest of the film, I doubt the script would get that deep. This seems like a role that is supposed to straddle the line of good guy and bad guy but comes off as just plain bad.

“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows” is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence. There are various weapons used throughout the film. Guns are fired but no one is shown getting shot. The Turtles fire manhole covers from a converted garbage truck in their first battle with the Foot Clan striking several bad guys who were probably very seriously injured or killed but that isn’t shown. Police cars are blown up. Two CGI characters are locked in a storage container and blown up with a hand grenade but they apparently survive largely unharmed. Foul language is widely scattered and very mild.

Out of curiosity, I looked back at my 2014 review of “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and had many of the same problems with that film as I have with this one. From the jumpy editing and muddy action to the two-dimensional human characters, it all seemed strangely familiar. With two similar films having two different directors, it almost makes me think Michael Bay may have more to do with these films than we know. Perhaps a hint was dropped about this when a cosplay Bumblebee showed up in the Halloween parade scene.

While this new film shares many weaknesses with the first movie, “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows” does have some amazing CGI characters that interact with the real actors and the environment in a believable way. Hard core TMNT fans may find plenty to love in this movie but about the only thing I can find to praise is the animation. Otherwise, this movie is like a getting a pizza delivered cold with the wrong toppings…a disappointment.

“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows” gets two stars out of five.

This week, there are two “2’s” and the big screen debut of a MMORPG. I’ll see and review at least one of the following:

The Conjuring 2—

Now You See Me 2—

Warcraft—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “Money Monster”

If there are superstars in the world of financial television then Lee Gates (George Clooney) is then is the brightest. Gates’ show Money Monster features flashy graphics, back-up dancers and garish costumes. Gates would be unable to put together his show without long-time director Patty Fenn (Julia Roberts) who is able to deal with her star’s inability to stick with the script. While the show is live on the air, delivery man Kyle Budwell (Jack O’Connell) walks on the set with a pair of boxes. When Gates sees him the host asks if the boxes are for him. That’s when Kyle pulls out a gun and takes Gates hostage. Patty cuts the feed but Kyle notices the screen going black and demands to be put back on the air or he will kill Gates. Patty puts the show back live and Kyle pulls out a piece of paper and begins giving a speech about how the system is rigged against the average working man. He blames Gates for his losing $60,000.00 in a stock called IBIS Global Capital that Gates called safer than a savings account but had crashed the previous day, losing $800-million in value due to what the company called a computer glitch. IBIS CEO Walt Camby (Dominic West) was supposed to be a guest live on the show but cancelled at the last minute. Kyle orders Gates to open one of the boxes and inside finds a vest wired with enough plastic explosives to kill everyone within 50 feet. Kyle has his thumb on the button of a dead man’s switch and if he lets go, the vest will explode. Kyle wants answers and he intends to get them even if he has to kill some people. Patty, talking to Gates through a wireless earpiece, tries to keep the host calm and feed him information about Kyle and IBIS as well as suggestions for keeping Kyle engaged, his thumb on the bomb button and his finger off the trigger.

The trio of George Clooney, Julia Roberts and Jack O’Connell makes “Money Monster” an engaging and entertaining film despite the fact the three are never on-screen all at the same time. Their characters create a kind of ultimate dysfunctional family that manages to coexist and even thrive despite their massive flaws. The film works largely because these three give riveting performances despite the weaknesses of the story that on closer examination doesn’t hold up that well.

Clooney is in full “Clooney” mode at the beginning of the film. Gates is full of himself, enamored with his lavish lifestyle and connections to the movers and shakers of Wall Street and big business. He believes his own hype and enjoys the benefits of his position. Later, after seeing the influence his words have on people like Kyle, Gates realizes his power over people’s lives and it puts the shallowness of his own day-to-day into perspective.

Gates begins to show signs of Stockholm syndrome and starts to feel empathy and pity for Kyle. He and Patty do everything they can find out what happened with IBIS and why Kyle lost all his money. That aspect of the story feels a bit implausible. Patty gets in contact with various contacts they have used in the past to track down what happened and why. It all falls together a little too neatly and makes for a crowd-pleasing conclusion to a story that is somewhat reminiscent to 2015’s far superior “The Big Short” that showed, when playing with people’s lives and savings, there is no happy ending.

The entire “hostage held on live TV” aspect of the story is a cheap gimmick that only works in a movie. A scene late in the film (that appears in the trailer) where Kyle and Gates walk down a crowded New York City street surrounded by cops and bystanders attracted to the news story is utterly ridiculous and would never be allowed to actually transpire. The scene this walk leads to is also completely unbelievable.

Despite these implausible aspects of the story, the film works as a piece of pop culture entertainment. It provides clear good guys and bad guys and even manages to turn the person with the gun into a victim of a rigged system. The feel-good aspects of the film overcome what in many other movies might be considered nails in the coffin and make “Money Monster” into a highly watchable financial thriller.

“Money Monster” is rated R for language throughout, some sexuality and brief violence. There are a couple of shootings with very little blood. We see some sexual acts with very little nudity. I’m surprised the brief drug use isn’t mentioned but there is some of that as well. Foul language is common throughout the film.

Director Jodie Foster has managed to turn “Money Monster” into an entertaining film despite some glaring and obvious issues. Her terrific primary cast of George Clooney, Julia Roberts and Jack O’Connell also has a winning chemistry that creates sincere interest and empathy. If any lesser elements had been in place, “Money Monster” would have been a losing proposition.

“Money Monster” gets four stars out of five.

This week three comedies hope to make you laugh your way to the box office. I’ll see and review at least one of these films.

The Angry Birds Movie—

Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising—

The Nice Guys—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Reviews of “A Beautiful Planet” and “Keanu”

A Beautiful Planet

Images of Earth taken from the International Space Station are the stars of “A Beautiful Planet,” a 3D film shot with IMAX cameras. Narrated by Jennifer Lawrence, “A Beautiful Planet” highlights the sights of majestic beauty and natural awe visible from 250 miles in orbit including the dancing lights of the auroras, the shining of manmade lights from major cities at night and the wonders of seeing mountain ranges like the Himalayas and the twisting course of rivers such as the Nile while zooming overhead at 17,000 miles per hour. Adding to the beauty of nature is the wonder of seeing it in IMAX 3D. The viewer can see how the clouds are floating above the landscapes and the snowcapped mountains tower over the valleys below. Films such as this one really show off the capabilities of the IMAX 3D format.

We also get a look inside the space station as the film was shot by the astronauts themselves. Life in the zero gravity environment of the ISS is obviously quite different than here on the surface; however, there are enough similarities to make it recognizable to the average earthling. The astronauts have various jobs to do including keeping track of where every piece of equipment is lest it float off and get lost. They work out on specialized exercise gear to reduce the muscle and bone loss inherent during long periods of weightlessness. They need to keep clean and we watch an astronaut washing his hair while spherical droplets of water cruise past the camera seemingly close enough to reach out and grab. While a bizarre way of life, the international crew members, from the US, Russia, Japan, Italy and numerous other countries around the world, are shown adapting to it and seeming to enjoy it. While incredibly dangerous and requiring getting used to the stomach-churning sensation of being in constant freefall, “A Beautiful Planet” makes living on the International Space Station seem almost fun.

What isn’t fun is Jennifer Lawrence’s narration. I’m sure she was told to deliver the script in this way; however, it sounds like she’s trying to explain calculus to third graders. Her slow and plodding style became distracting after a time. Considering the beauty of the images, that’s saying something. It required a certain amount of effort to ignore her and just focus on the screen as the islands of the Caribbean floated by or Paris lit up at night zoomed past.

“A Beautiful Planet” is rated G.

As someone deeply interested in science and the space program “A Beautiful Planet” is exactly the kind of movie I want to see. It shows what happens when countries put aside their political differences and work together to increase knowledge and the betterment of humanity. It also doesn’t hurt that NASA and the other space programs of the world give us incredible images of our planet…the only one known to possess intelligent life. I believe you should show your intelligence and see this film.

“A Beautiful Planet” gets five stars.

Keanu

Cousins Clarence and Rell (Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele) are extremely close. When Rell experiences are painful breakup with his girlfriend, Clarence heads over to comfort and support him. Before Clarence arrives, Rell hears scratching at his door. He opens it to find an adorable kitten he takes in and names Keanu. Having Keanu gives Rell a reason to live and focus his energy on other things besides his heartbreak. Clarence and Rell go out one night to see a movie. When they return, Rell’s home is in a shambles as someone has broken in, stolen some items and taken Keanu. Walking across the driveway to his weed dealers’ house, Rell asks Hulka (Will Forte) if he knows anything about the break in. Reluctantly, Hulka suggests it may have been a drug gang he’d started working with called the 17th Street Blips. Hulka tells Rell and Clarence the gang’s headquarters is at a strip club. Clarence and Rell head to the club to see if Keanu is there. Adopting thug personas, Clarence and Rell are introduced to the head of the 17th Street Blips, Cheddar (Method Man). He has Keanu but calls him New Jack. Bragging about how many people they’ve killed, Clarence are Rell are mistaken for a hitman duo called the Allentown Boys by Cheddar. Cheddar, impressed with the reputation of the faux-killers, asks if they can go with his crew, including Hi-C (Tiffany Haddish), Trunk (Darrell Britt-Gibson), Bud (Jason Mitchell) and Stitches (Jamar Malachi Neighbors), on a drug run and show them how professionals work. In exchange for their help, Cheddar will give them Keanu, a.k.a. New Jack. Clarence does not want to be involved in drugs but Rell talks him in to it. What none of them know is Keanu has been through several different owners’ hands, none of them good people. The kitten’s past is going to catch up with all of them.

“Keanu” is a very funny movie. It hits a few lulls over its 98 minute run time but they are brief and the funny parts of the movie more than make up for the slower parts. Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele are two very funny comedian/actors that have proven their talents in everything from “Mad TV” to their own show on Comedy Central “Key and Peele” to a guest starring role on the first season of “Fargo.” Now that their show has wrapped up the talented duo can work on other projects and their first is “Keanu.” It is encouraging to see they are able to maintain a fairly thin premise for the duration of a whole movie. I’d love to see what they could do with something more complicated.

Key and Peele are chameleons, able to slip on various personas at the drop of a hat. They do that several times during “Keanu.” This may sound kind of mean but Key’s character in the film is about the whitest black man ever to appear on screen. Clarence loves George Michael music. That’s about all he listens to in his minivan. Yes, I said minivan. His hitman character actually turns that into a plus as he’s driving around with the gang members. Peele also modifies his character to fit whatever mood is required. Rell really wants Keanu back and uses all his hood/banger machismo to try and intimidate Cheddar. It kind of works but all backfires on him as well.

The story, while ridiculous, follows a fairly predictable arc. I was afraid it would fall into the trap of creating a love story where none needed to or could exist; but, Key and Peele are far too smart to be so mundane and they turn what looks like a possible romantic moment between Rell and Hi-C into a funny bit of business.

All of the gang characters are stereotypes of young people with bad family histories and not a great deal of education. While they are shown doing bad things from time to time, none of the secondary characters are so awful they can’t be likable. The exception to that is Cheddar who is just an all-around bad dude and he won’t give Keanu back to Rell. Method Man, while not a great actor, is very good as Cheddar. He has a believable hard edge that makes him an intimidating character.

Some might argue that, aside from Clarence and Rell, no person of color in the film is anything but a criminal. That occurred to me as I was watching the film and it troubled me a little bit. While the driving creative force of “Keanu” is a talent pair of African-Americans, most of the minorities in the film are shown as criminals. Does the fact that Key and Peele made the movie exempt them from criticism of stereotyping young black and Hispanic people as predisposed to becoming violent felons? I think it’s a question that deserves to be looked at.

Another problem I had with the film is it tends to lean too heavily and too long on a joke before moving on. One scene in particular involves Clarence and some of the gang members sitting in a van while Rell and Hi-C do a drug deal. The film cuts back and forth between Rell in the house and Clarence in the van trying to spin George Michael music on his phone into something the gang members would respect. Clarence creates a story about what a tough guy George Michael is and how he didn’t have a father growing up and suggest he killed former Wham bandmate Andrew Ridgeley. It takes some time, too long in my opinion, before he has the guys in the van singing along with Michael. It eventually works out to be a somewhat funny scene but could have been better if it had been a little shorter.

“Keanu” is rated R for violence, language throughout, drug use and sexuality/nudity. There are a couple of shootouts along with individual shootings and threats of shootings and stabbings. Gore is minimal and is largely limited to a couple of pools of blood and a hole shot through a character’s hand. Drugs are shown being used in various forms. Topless stripers are visible briefly for a couple of scenes both on a stage and in a dressing room. Foul language is common throughout the film.

While the film is silly and unbelievable in all aspects, “Keanu” is still a fun way to kill 98 minutes (stay to the end of the credits for a brief bonus scene suggesting a possible sequel). Key and Peele will probably have a very long career in movies, TV or whatever medium they choose to display their talents. It also doesn’t hurt they used several very cute kittens in the role of their title character. The showbiz saying of avoiding working with babies and animals apparently doesn’t apply when working with a baby animal as both lead actors come out looking great when paired with their furry costar, even though Peele is very allergic to cats. He used allergy medicine to get through his scenes involving the seven kittens used in the film. Sometimes art demands sacrifice.

“Keanu” gets four stars out of five.

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

This week is the outbreak of war, Marvel’s “Captain America: Civil War.” I’ll be seeing and reviewing it next.

Captain America: Civil War—

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKrVegVI0Us

Review of “Elvis & Nixon”

Just before Christmas in 1970, the biggest rock and roll star in the world, Elvis Presley (Michael Shannon), is sitting in his Memphis mansion of Graceland watching three TV’s simultaneously. Flipping through all the channels, Elvis comes across various news reports about a protest against the Vietnam War, illegal drug use and radical minority groups demanding civil rights. Disgusted with the condition of America, Elvis shoots all three TV’s with his ever present .45. Elvis goes to the Memphis airport and boards a plane for Los Angeles to pick up his friend Jerry Schilling (Alex Pettyfer) who works as a film editor for a movie studio. Elvis convinces Jerry to accompany him on a trip to Washington D.C. On the flight to the nation’s capital, Elvis writes a letter on American Airlines stationary to President Richard Nixon (Kevin Spacey) offering to become an undercover drug enforcement officer. Elvis and Jerry hand deliver the letter to a gate at the White House where it gets into the hands of Dwight Chapin (Evan Peters), Deputy Assistant to the President. He then takes it to fellow presidential assistant Egil Krogh (Colin Hanks) and the two take the letter to White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman (Tate Donovan) arguing that having a popular figure like Elvis seen meeting the President could boost his likability with a broad cross-section of voters. Haldeman reluctantly agrees and allows Chapin and Krogh to approach Nixon with the idea. Nixon says no but when Jerry and fellow Elvis friend Sonny (Johnny Knoxville) meet with the White House aides, Jerry suggests involving Nixon’s daughters. Unable to say no to his daughter Julie, Nixon reluctantly agrees to see Elvis.

Based at least in part on an actual event, “Elvis & Nixon” takes a lighthearted approach to the subject matter turning a meeting between two of the most iconic figures in American history into a farce. Both men are utterly clueless about each other and about real life, turning their get together into a comedy of inappropriate behavior and ridiculous requests. As funny as this part of the movie is, the true strength of “Elvis & Nixon” is the relationships between the singer and his friend Jerry Schilling, as well as the work relationship between Dwight Chapin and Egil Krogh. Both are stellar examples of actors perfectly cast in well-written parts.

First and foremost, praise must be liberally heaped on to the two actors in the title roles. Both Michael Shannon and Kevin Spacey are brilliant as Elvis and Nixon. Each could be forgiven for turning their characters into the kind of silly impressions we’ve seen on numerous television shows; however, each man does subtle things to suggest they are the character while bringing unique aspects to these two well-known men.

Shannon gives Elvis a quiet dignity while at the same time infusing the music icon with a simplistic view of life and the world. He wants to see the President so that shouldn’t be such a big deal, after all he IS Elvis. The script provides Elvis with a level of depth and understanding of how he is perceived by those around him and by the public that is at times heartbreaking. Elvis knows he has become a caricature and the gold jewelry and sunglasses is part of his costume. He is also aware of how some in his circle see him as a conduit to fame and wealth. Elvis is generous to a fault to those that work for him and he knows how some of his entourage takes advantage of that. While being aware, Elvis can’t help himself as the script makes it clear trying to buy people’s love and appreciation comes from a feeling of insecurity. Despite these fleeting moments of clarity, Elvis is also a bit self-deluded, thinking he can implant himself unrecognized with radical groups and drug dealers to work undercover for the government. This misplaced idea of how he can singlehandedly bring down these perceived threats to the country are almost as sad as his understanding of how some in his posse see him as a bank. Shannon’s dedication to both sides of Elvis’ personality as shown in the script is commendable.

Kevin Spacey, also known for playing another corrupt president in “House of Cards,” does a terrific job portraying Nixon. Showing the famously un-hip president giving in to the demands for a picture and autograph from his daughter, as well as the political benefits of being seen with one of the most popular entertainers in the world, shows the most powerful leader in the world capitulating to the desires of his then 22-year old youngest child. Spacey does a pretty good impression of Nixon, emphasizing his hand gestures, stooped posture and his frequently written about feeling of inadequacy. Both with his aides and with Elvis, the script has Nixon express his views about growing up poor, having to work hard with nothing handed to him and his opinion on the looks of Jack Kennedy. Spacey’s performance really comes alive during these bits of dialog as well as when Nixon is angered about something. Never falling into a comedic caricature, Spacey delivers a believable performance of a well-known historic figure.

Alex Pettyfer, Colin Hanks and Evan Peters all are terrific as Jerry Schilling, Egil Krogh and Dwight Chapin respectively. Schilling is portrayed as a friend of Elvis wanting nothing in return. He merely wants to help his friend fulfill what he sees as a somewhat silly dream. Pettyfer gives an honest and grounded performance. It is also one that by the end of the movie sees the character grow into something different than when the film starts. Pettyfer is one of the few people within the Memphis Mafia that is able to tell Elvis the truth and isn’t looking to get anything from the relationship except friendship. Both Colin Hanks and Evan Peters, wearing simple business suits and slicked back hair, are the epitome of political underlings. Close to power but without any real power of their own, Krogh and Chapin are enthusiastic about their work in the White House but realistic about the man they work for. They see his weaknesses and attempt to mold what they say to the President in a way that will mostly likely guarantee acceptance of their ideas. It is a masterful bit of writing and it is delivered with zest and enthusiasm by Hanks and Peters.

The overall story of the film, while somewhat inconsistent, manages to capture the period of the early 1970’s and the different Americas contained within the one country. The separation of black and white culture, one that largely still exists today, is put into stark contrast by the film by never showing black and white people in the same places except by necessity. There is an obvious division of race that isn’t seen by Elvis even while he’s in the middle of it. The paranoia of Nixon and those on the right about the various movements within the country as well as the ramping up of the war on drugs is also captured by the movie. The whole point of Elvis desire to meet with the President springs from the feeling the U.S. was being overrun by communists and hippies. Law and order and patriotism are what Elvis wanted to spread around the country through his undercover work. Just like almost everyone else, the movie shows Nixon hoping to use Elvis to further his own agenda. Imagine that, a politician using a celebrity for political gain.

“Elvis & Nixon” is rated R for some language. The “F-Bomb” gets dropped by several people over the course of the film. There are also a few scenes of smoking.

While it’s a small film from a director that doesn’t have that many features under her belt, “Nixon & Elvis” deserves to be seen by as many people as possible. It isn’t a deep and meaningful film. It doesn’t shine a light on the human condition and illuminate our place in the universe. “Elvis & Nixon” does nothing but entertain, putting two of America’s biggest cultural icons in a room together and letting the goofy chips fall where they may. It is a refreshing respite before the beginning of summer blockbuster season.

“Elvis & Nixon” gets five stars.

The countdown clock to “Captain America: Civil War” is nearing zero but we have one more week before the CG fireworks begin. This week, there’s a cat kidnapping, maternal musings and animated…animations coming to a screen near you. I’ll see and review at least one of these films.

Keanu— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9zy27apgI8

Mother’s Day— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BPr217zLps

Ratchet & Clank— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZqmL677X-g

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan, on Anchor search Stan the Movie Man and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “Hello, My Name is Doris”

Doris (Sally Field) has recently lost her mother after many years of caring for her. This meant Doris put her own life on hold as her brother Todd (Stephen Root) went to college and started a business and a family with wife Cynthia (Wendi McLendon-Covey). Doris has a job in accounting at a clothing company. She runs into John Fremont (Max Greenfield), a new employee, on the elevator ride up to the office and is instantly smitten with him. Doris knows their age and experience difference makes a relationship with John impossible but she cannot get him off her mind. While attending a talk by motivational speaker Willy Williams (Peter Gallagher) with her best friend Roz (Tyne Daly), Doris decides to take his advice and turn “impossible” into “I’m possible” and approach John. Not knowing exactly how, Doris gets advice from Roz’s 13-year old granddaughter and sets up a fake Facebook profile and asks to be friends with John. He accepts giving Doris full access to his information including what music he listens to and the places he’s been. Doris uses this information to become closer with John including showing up at a concert of electronica artist Baby Goya and the Nuclear Winters (Jack Antonoff). Not only is Doris spending more time with John but she’s also discovering a whole new world of people and ideas she never knew existed. Doris feels more alive than she has in years; but this newfound life is putting a wedge between her and Roz as well as causing Doris to ignore the cluttered state of her home and the hording tendencies of her late mother that she is continuing.

“Hello, My Name is Doris” is both uproariously funny and emotionally devastating. It takes a look at a largely ignored section of the US population, those over 60, and shines a light on how society and pop culture views this massive segment of American life is irrelevant. The film’s main protagonist eventually learns to stand up for herself and say “Look at me! I matter!” despite what her co-workers and the rest of life might think. It also flips on its head the common trope of an older man becoming involved with a younger woman and makes us reconsider how we react to that pairing. The movie is somewhat subversive in that way and I really liked it.

Sally Field will probably be ignored for an acting Oscar when awards time rolls around again but she shouldn’t. This is an amazing performance from an actress that has won two Oscars for her work in “Norma Rae” and “Places in the Heart.” Had the film been released later in the year, Ms. Field might need to clean off a place on her mantle for a third. Field is mesmerizing as Doris. Part of the performance is the wardrobe choices made for the character. Wearing clothes that look 40 years out of date, with her hair piled on top of her head (including a wig) and kitty-eye glasses, Field embodies what looks to be a stereotypical cat lady (the character does have one cat). Meek and timid, sometimes living in a fantasy world where John sweeps Doris off her feet, Field wrings every bit of life and emotion she can out of a character that might have very easily been two-dimensional caricature. Field makes Doris a worthy underdog that the audience roots for. I sat in my seat in the theatre trying to figure out a way Doris and John could be together that would work emotionally for the audience and make some kind of sense for the characters. I wanted them to live happily ever after and that much personal investment by me can be fully credited to Sally Field’s performance.

Max Greenfield is also excellent as John. While annoyed and confused at first by Doris’ attentions, John begins to see more in his co-worker than an eccentric old woman. Greenfield is a flexible actor that can mold himself to fit the character he plays. Whether it is Schmit on “New Girl,” Nick on “Ugly Betty” or Gabriel on the latest season of “American Horror Story,” Greenfield is able to modify himself to fit what the character needs. That may sound like acting 101 but not all actors are able to fully immerse themselves in a character like Greenfield. His performance as John is a perfect everyman. John is not spectacular in any way and yet Greenfield makes him a character I wanted to know more about.

The rest of the supporting cast, Kumail Nanjiani, Rich Sommer, Natasha Lyonne, Elizabeth Reaser, Beth Behrs and those previously mentioned, round out Doris’ world in a full and believable way. Not everyone is terribly likable with her co-workers barely knowing anything about Doris and hardly considering her worth the effort to get to know, her brother and sister-in-law considering her more of a nuisance than a family member and the rest of the world largely being unaware of her existence. While many of the supporting cast gets only minimal screen time they do the most with their performances with a particular standout being Kumail Nanjiani who turns his character Nasir into one that usually has a shining bit of dialog.

“Hello, My Name is Doris” turns the May-December romance on its head with the older woman perusing the younger man. For some reason we believe there’s no way a young man would be the least bit interested in an older woman. While society doesn’t seem to have the same issue with an older man chasing a younger woman the reverse is almost seen as more shocking or taboo and I don’t get it since I think both are gross. While I enjoyed the movie a great deal the idea of such a large age difference in a romantic couple (between the actors it is 34 years) kind of gives me the willies. I personally would much rather be with someone romantically near my own age as that person would have similar life experiences. Dating someone much younger, while it might be exciting in the short term, would probably mean having a huge difference in life references like Paul McCartney being in a couple of bands that formed, were hugely successful and broke up before this relative child was born. Dating someone significantly older might mean having only a few years of good health before the aged partner might need long term health care. It doesn’t seem fair to the younger partner to be saddled with something as demanding as caring for a sickly mate.

Another thing the movie explores is how those entering their “Golden Years” are often ignored and forgotten about. That is especially damning for Hollywood since most actors, once they reach a certain age, are relegated to supporting roles. There aren’t many movies starring an identifiably older actor. Those that do are usually surrounded by a much younger cast as is the case in “Hello, My Name is Doris.” What this movie does to counteract that is to make most of the younger characters vacuous and self-centered. During the post-concert party Doris attends with John, she encounters several people who share with her their love of making their own chocolate and other pursuits that sound so hipster you expect to see a beard and fedora magically appear on their faces and heads. Her co-workers are equally clueless to the point of being unaware Doris’ mother had recently died. They are so wrapped up in their own lives and keeping up with the latest trends they have no time or interest in Doris. It takes John asking questions about her for the rest of the staff to realize she is a person. It is quite an indictment on the self-absorbed nature of our social media-obsessed culture.

“Hello, My Name is Doris” is rated R for language. The F-Bomb gets dropped enough to turn a PG-13 movie into an R; however, the majority of the language is concentrated in two scenes.

I really needed to see “Hello, My Name is Doris” after the cacophonous disaster that was “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” It is a simple movie about people with exaggerated but believable problems that don’t need to punch someone or blowup a building to tell a story. It is the perfect antidote to blockbuster fatigue. It may wrap up a little too neatly; but “Hello, My Name is Doris” is still a mature look at modern love complicated by time and a little mental illness. I’d take a little film like this over a dozen polished Hollywood epics.

“Hello, My Name is Doris” gets five stars.

A comedy and a first-person action flick open this week. I’ll be on vacation but I just might drop in to a nearby multiplex to watch and then review one of the following:

The Boss—

Hardcore Henry—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan, on Anchor search for Stan the Movie Man and send email to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”

After witnessing the massive destruction in Metropolis and aiding in the rescue of some of his employees, billionaire Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) who also fights crime across the bay in Gotham City as Batman, decides measures need to be taken to protect the citizens of Earth from a being who could conceivably destroy it. Alexander “Lex” Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) agrees and uses his considerable power and wealth to gain access to the spaceship that brought General Zod (Michael Shannon) and the other Kryptonians to Earth believing there may be a way to defend against Superman (Henry Cavill) amongst its technology. Lex has also been scouring the sights where other alien technology crashed and has discovered a large glowing green rock of kryptonite. Lex knows it will weaken and possibly kill Superman and so does Batman. Meanwhile, Kentucky Senator June Finch (Holly Hunter) is holding hearings on Superman and his actions, caused by his rescue of Lois Lane (Amy Adams) from an African warlord and the deaths of several innocent villagers. Looking to gain information about Lex and his involvement in criminal activities, Bruce Wayne attends a reception at Lex’s home. While there he runs into Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) who has taken a piece of technology Bruce was using to spy on Lex. With Bruce distrustful of a super powered alien and Lex Luthor plotting and pulling strings in the background, the stage is set for a showdown of massive proportions with the last son of Krypton.

Very few movies have been as highly anticipated as “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” Ever since it was announced at San Diego Comic Con in 2013, fan boys and the internet clamored for the tiniest nugget of news, set photos and fuzzy cell phone footage. The film, the kickoff of DC /Warner Bros. Pictures extended movie universe, was obviously an attempt to cash in on the comic book movie craze started by Marvel/Disney. However, instead of introducing one character at a time in their own stand-alone movies like Marvel/Disney did, DC/Warner Bros. decided to give us three of the heaviest hitters in their line up in one movie: Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. These characters and the story of the movie are meant to set up 10 or more films featuring Aquaman, Cyborg, Flash, Green Lantern and Shazam along with the super team of Justice League. I expected tons of CG special effects, explosions, destruction and the titular fight between Batman and Superman; but what I didn’t expect was such a plodding, tedious, convoluted and largely ineffective goulash of a movie.

While there isn’t much that’s good about “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” I will start with what I liked. All the worries about Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman were unfounded. Affleck handles the dual role as well as a script this bad can allow. Affleck treats both Bruce and the Bat as individuals. His performance is nuanced in a way that creates a clear division between the two even when Bruce is doing some detecting and Batman is trying to be caring and compassionate in a scene near the film’s end. Affleck may not have been everyone’s choice when his casting was announced (myself included) but he shows he’s worthy of the cape and cowl.

Gal Gadot’s casting as Wonder Woman also received a fair amount of fanboy hate; however, she also is very good. Able to be sultry as Diana Prince and a kickass warrior as Wonder Woman, Gadot’s performance should silence most of her critics. While she doesn’t have that much screen time as either character she makes quite an impression nonetheless.

Not everyone comes off as well as Affleck and Gadot as Jesse Eisenberg makes some odd and unfortunate choices in his performance as Lex Luthor. Eisenberg, either by choice or direction, turns Lex into something of a rambling madman. He gives a nearly incoherent toast at a fundraiser held at his home that sounded like he was having a mental breakdown or a stroke. His interactions with people are filled with odd and inappropriate gestures, such as putting a piece of candy in a senator’s mouth. Lex is super intelligent and obscenely wealthy but he has some serious daddy issues and a wildly inflated sense of self-importance. All these things go into making an interesting super villain but the external choices made in playing the role turn Lex into mostly a distraction rather than a threat.

Henry Cavill continues to play Clark Kent/Superman as seriously as he did in “Man of Steel.” His role in this film is nearly relegated to that of supporting player as the movie focuses primarily on Batman. Cavill is a perfect physical choice to play Superman. He may not be the best actor but he certainly has the face and body for the role. Cavill and Amy Adams still share absolutely no chemistry as a romantic couple. Their one scene where they are supposed to be playful together in a bathtub is rather uncomfortable to watch. Adams sometimes looks like she isn’t sure what to do despite her role largely being limited to either that of a supportive or concerned girlfriend to an alien.

The rest of the cast does as well as can be expected with the only standout being Jeremy Irons as Alfred. Irons manages to be a voice of reason and snark to Bruce Wayne. While Bruce usually ignores Alfred’s advice Irons delivers his lines with both a sense of concern and thoughtfulness.

The story of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is extraordinarily complicated. What it boils down to is Batman doesn’t trust Superman, Lex doesn’t like either of them so he plots to insure they battle and kill each other. That simple plan gets rolled up into congressional hearings, human trafficking, African terrorists, Russian mobsters, alien monsters and more. Wading through the labyrinthine plot will test the attention and endurance of most moviegoers. The jumpy editing doesn’t help make the story any more coherent. Scenes start and end abruptly with sudden changes of location, tone and character. It makes it so the audience is getting yanked in multiple directions for no apparent reason. It all combines to turn what should have been a fun and exciting movie into a torture test that takes childhood memories of our heroes and grinds them into dust.

“Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action throughout, and some sensuality. There are numerous fights of various types throughout the film. Some are more violent and graphic than others. Guns and knives are uses and we see people shot and stabbed but there is no blood or gore. We see Superman use his heat vision to kill people in a dream sequence but that is also not graphic. One character is shown being impaled through the chest. The bathtub scene is the sensuality of the film although Gal Gadot does wear some revealing dresses as Diana Prince. Foul language amounts to two instances that I remember and both are mild.

I generally base my reviews on how entertaining I found the film. In this instance, I am tying my level of entertainment to a bodily function that I will keep as clinical as possible. When I saw “The Dark Knight” with a running time of two hours and 32 minutes I needed to go relieve myself pretty urgently by the end but wasn’t in any hurry for the movie to be over because I loved it so much. When I saw “The Avengers” in 2012 it clocked in at two hours and 23 minutes and by the end I had a full bladder. While I could feel the need to go to the bathroom, I didn’t care as I was mesmerized by what I saw on screen and didn’t want it to end. By the end of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” my bladder was again full but I was more than grateful for the film to be over so I could take care of business. If a film can’t take my mind off the need to go to the bathroom then it doesn’t have my attention and it hasn’t been entertaining. It may be a crude method of determining the quality of a movie but it is rather accurate.

“Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” gets one star.

This week there is only one new film in wide release so a couple of art house movies are on the radar. I’ll see and review at least one of these:

God’s Not Dead 2—

Hello, My Name is Doris—

Knight of Cups—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “Miracles from Heaven”

Christy and Kevin Beam (Jennifer Garner and Martin Henderson) live on a small ranch in Texas with their three daughters Abbie, Anna and Adelynn (Brighton Sharbino, Kylie Rogers and Courtney Fansler).  Ten-year old Anna has been having trouble keeping her food down and experiencing abdominal pain and swelling.  Several exams and specialists haven’t been able to figure out exactly what’s wrong with Anna until the pain becomes so severe she has to be hospitalized and a surgical procedure performed.  The doctor discovers Anna has a condition called pseudo-obstruction motility disorder.  All the food, water, even air she swallows doesn’t move through her intestines so it sits and festers causing gas, infection and constant pain.  The Beams are told there is little treatment and no cure for Anna’s condition but Dr. Nurko (Eugenio Derbez) in Boston is the leading expert in the field.  Despite not having an appointment and the waiting list for Dr. Nurko being nine months long, Christy and Anna fly to Boston to try and see him.  After being told they couldn’t see Dr. Nurko, Christy and Anna are eating dinner in the hotel restaurant when they meet a waitress named Angela (Queen Latifah) who immediately takes a liking to the mother and daughter and offers to show them around Boston.  While visiting a museum, Christy gets a call saying an appointment opened up for the next day.  Dr. Nurko playfully examines Anna but tells Christy there’s only so much he can do.  As Anna’s condition deteriorates, Christy questions her faith in God and wonders why he would let her little girl suffer so much.

“Miracles from Heaven” is considered a faith-based film; but unlike more militant entries in the genre like “God is Not Dead” or “Left Behind,” “Miracles from Heaven” prefers to deliver its message wrapped in a softer and gentler package.  Instead of treating the audience like a bunch of faithless heathens, the film prefers to assume the viewer is already acquainted with belief and open to hearing its message.  This kinder approach is aided by an excellent cast and touching, emotional story that doesn’t push religion too hard even when scenes are shown in church.  It also leaves any conclusions one might draw from the events depicted up to the audience.

Jennifer Garner is terrific as the determined yet somewhat frantic mother looking to find a treatment to end her daughter’s suffering.  Garner gives Christy Beam equal parts motherly love and mother bear protectiveness.  A scene in a hospital emergency room when Christy will not take another “she’s fine” for an answer shows how the mother bear is willing to bare her claws and make sure her cub is protected.  Garner and the script give Christy the kind of humanity that many of these films fail to provide for their main characters.  Christy has doubts, she questions where God is in all of this and wonders what His plan could possibly be that would cause her daughter so much pain.  It is a very relatable performance for anyone who has had a loved one deal with a chronic or terminal condition.  There is also friction between Christy and her husband Kevin due to financial pressures caused by his recently expanded veterinary practice as well as the stress of Anna’s illness.  None of the issues or arguments shown in the film come off as trite or shrill.  Anyone faced with equal pressures would probably crack from time to time as well and Garner performs these meltdowns with believable emotion.

Young Kylie Rogers is also excellent in the role of Anna.  She displays a maturity in the more emotional scenes that belies her youth.  One particular scene late in the movie is especially heartbreaking as Anna, exhausted from rounds of tests and suffering from abdominal pain, tells her mother she wants to die to make it all stop.  It slams the audience back in their seats to hear a child wish for death and Rogers’ performance makes us believe her words.  Rogers, who has an impressive list of acting credits considering she’s been in the business for only four years, exhibits a depth of understanding unusual for someone of her age.  She may become the kind of child superstar not seen since the early work of Elle Fanning and I am looking forward to seeing her in more projects.

The movie is based on a book of the same name written by the real Christy Beam.  I’ve not read the book other than skimming through the available sample pages on Amazon so I’m not sure exactly how closely the the film follows it; however, there is a scene in the film that I have a hard time believing occurred in real life.  After church, Christy is approached by two women and a man who question why God hasn’t healed Anna yet and suggest it may be due to some sinful behavior of Christy and Kevin’s or possibly even Anna herself.  This initiates Christy’s loss of faith as she refuses to return to church with these people.  First, I understand what her anger.  If someone questioned the character of my 10-year old daughter because she was struck with an incurable disease the congregation would have to pry my hands from around that person’s throat.  But more troubling is the screenwriters apparent need to add more conflict and emotional injury to a story that already had plenty of reason for Christy to question her belief system.  Heaping on a group of stereotypically hypocritical Christians seems unnecessary and something of a jab at Christianity itself.  While there are certainly people in probably every church who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk, the way it is handled in the film feels clumsy and heavy handed.

“Miracles from Heaven” is rated PG for thematic material, including accident and medical images.  There is nothing objectionable in the film.  No alcohol or tobacco is shown being consumed and no foul language is used.  All the medical imagery is either x-rays or other diagnostic images.  The accident is a bit tense and some very young viewers might be upset.

“Miracles from Heaven” tells a very sweet story of family and faith without getting too preachy.  Some critics argue it is preaching to the choir but I believe the softer approach is probably more effective at reaching into the hearts, minds and souls of the audience.  The film never bangs you over the head with its message and even allows some room for discussion once the miracle of the title occurs.  A heartwarming and emotional story along with great performances from Jennifer Garner and Kylie Rogers make this faith-based film one you can believe in.

“Miracles from Heaven” gets four stars out of five.

It’s sure to be a big week with a couple of costumed freaks pounding away at each other along with a surprise sequel to a surprise hit from 2002.  I’ll be seeing at least one of these films.

Batman v Superman:  Dawn of Justice-

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2-

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “10 Cloverfield Lane”

Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is leaving her fiancé after an argument. While driving down a dark country road, Michelle has a traffic accident and wakes up sometime later in a concrete block room, hooked up to an IV and wearing a knee brace that is chained to a pipe on the wall. She soon meets Howard (John Goodman) who tells her he found her on the side of the road in her overturned car and brought her back to his home and saved her life. Howard tells Michelle they are in his underground bunker because some kind of attack has occurred and the air is toxic making it impossible for her to leave. Michelle doubts his story despite confirmation of an attack from Emmet (John Gallagher, Jr.). Howard’s assistant in building the bunker. Michelle smashes a bottle on Howard’s head, steals his keys and runs to the double steel doors to escape. As she is about to open the outer door, a neighbor woman begs to be let in. Her skin is covered in lesions and she begins smashing her head on the small window, demanding to be let in. Michelle begins to believe Howard is telling the truth and the trio settles into a routine of watching movies, working on jigsaw puzzles and listening to music on a jukebox. Soon, Howard’s controlling nature and a few clues found in his belongings lead both Michelle and Emmet to plot a dangerous escape plan.

“10 Cloverfield Lane” is not exactly a sequel to JJ Abrams 2008 monster movie “Cloverfield.” Abrams is a producer on the new movie but it was developed from a script that originally had nothing to do with that first film. Instead, “10 Cloverfield Lane” should be considered a companion piece to “Cloverfield” that doesn’t require you to have seen the original film to enjoy it and understand what’s happening. It is a showcase of both storytelling and acting with enough tension and suspense to keep your eyes glued to the screen and your hands gripping the armrests for nearly its entire running time.

The movie is shot mostly within the confines of the underground bunker, giving it a feeling of claustrophobia and ramping up the tension. While the characters can escape from one another they are never very far away from their roommates. It is the kind of setting where paranoia feeds on itself and the slightest disagreement can quickly spiral out of control. First time feature director Dan Trachtenberg displays a strong command of space and fills it with quiet moments that always feel like spring-loaded traps waiting to release their violence on the characters and the audience. Once the story moves underground there is a palpable sense of foreboding and the innate knowledge of approaching calamity. It is a film that reaches through the screen, grabs your collar and demands your attention.

John Goodman is spectacular in the demanding and complex role of Howard the benefactor/jailer of “10 Cloverfield Lane.” Howard’s bulk, as well as his possession of a gun and the keys to all the doors, presents an intimidating obstacle to freedom for Michelle and Emmet. Goodman’s Howard reminds the pair they would be dead without him and he feels they owe him gratitude and strict obedience for his hospitality. Goodman plays Howard as a man on a razor’s edge. He can switch from fatherly to threatening in a heartbeat if he senses some kind of treachery or betrayal. Goodman, best known for his sweet and funny portrayal of Dan Connor on the sitcom “Rosanne,” has shown himself to be a more than capable actor in feature films. “10 Cloverfield Lane” really lets him exercise his acting chops in a film that will likely find a wide audience.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is the kind of strong and capable female character frequently demanded by those looking for better movie roles for women. Winstead’s Michelle is smart and capable, doesn’t need a man to save her and is more than willing to fight for herself against overwhelming odds. She questions Howard’s story of the attack and encourages him to do more than hide out underground. While Howard has more information about what’s going on than he is willing to share, Michelle pushes him to the point of his lashing out. It is his reactions and some other evidence that leads Michelle to attempt an escape. If there is a problem with her character it is her suddenly acquired ability to create something out of practically nothing. She becomes a female MacGyver as the movie goes on. While these abilities keep her alive they also stretch believability to the max. It’s a minor complaint but it did kind of stick out to me.

Rounding out the cast is John Gallagher, Jr. as Emmet. I think his character is there to keep the dynamic between Howard and Michelle from getting too creepy too quickly. Emmet is a buffer character that is simple and pure. He’s like a puppy that follows at its master’s heels and only wants to please. Emmet helped Howard build the bunker but describes getting through the door once the attack started as a fight. Despite this, Emmet is still loyal to Howard, believing everything he says. Emmet is a character that is surprisingly important to the story. If he was gone, the movie would have a completely different tone.

“10 Cloverfield Lane” is rated PG-13 for thematic material including frightening sequences of threat with some violence, and brief language. There is a car crash that is very violent. There is also a nearly constant threat of violence throughout the film. There is an image of a woman with what appear to be burns on her face. A character is shot and, while not seen, there is a spray of blood on the wall. A character is also severely burned.

There is only a passing mention of something possibly connected to “Cloverfield” but it is so minor it would be easy to miss it; however, the end of the movie does connect the two films and answers a few questions left dangling from the first film. If you haven’t seen the first film, that isn’t an impediment to enjoying this film as it stands alone and works as a psychological thriller without knowing anything about the giant monster that attacked New York. Still, there is something there for fans of the first film with the possibility of more tangentially connect stories to come. I am looking forward to more movies from this universe.

“10 Cloverfield Lane” gets five stars out of five.

The showdown between the two titans of the DC comics universe is just a week away; but this week, we get the third film adaptation from a YA book series as well as a faith-based drama. I’ll see and review at least one of these films.

The Divergent Series: Allegiant—

Miracles from Heaven—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and contact me via email stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Reviews of “The Other Side of the Door” and “Zootopia”

(Edit:  The audio for my review was messed up so I have deleted it and I do not plan on rerecording.  Sorry for the inconvenience.)

The Other Side of the Door

Michael (Jeremy Sisto) is an antiques dealer based in Mumbai, India. He lives there with his wife Maria (Sarah Wayne Callies) and their two children Lucy and Oliver (Sofia Rosinsky and Logan Creran). A traffic accident leaves Oliver dead and Maria devastated to the point where she attempts suicide. Their housekeeper Piki (Schitra Pillai-Malik) lost her daughter some years earlier and tells Maria of a way to say a final goodbye to Oliver. There is an abandoned temple far into the country where Maria must spread Oliver’s ashes on the steps then close and lock the door behind her. She will be able to briefly speak with Oliver once the sun goes down but must not, under any circumstances, open the door. Wanting more time with her son, Maria opens the door and allows Oliver’s spirit to cross over from the land of the dead to the living. It accompanies Maria home where strange and disturbing things begin happening.

“The Other Side of the Door” has the elements to be a fair to middling horror movie. It does a pretty good job of establishing a spooky atmosphere, troubled and troubling characters and consequences for not following the rules. What it fails at is capitalizing on the good points with quality scares and involving all the major characters in the meatier parts of the story.

Poor Jeremy Sisto’s character is pretty much done with the story once he impregnates Maria. Left out of or in the dark for the majority of the story, Sisto is only seen occasionally throughout the film as either a hard working or deeply concerned husband and father. Once the supernatural elements begin to develop his Michael is nowhere to be found. When he is brought in near the end of the film, his role is as the doubter that only gets pain and injury for his trouble. Leaving Michael out till the end is like if the “X-Files” kept Mulder and Scully apart until the last five minutes of the episode. Michael could have started skeptical then, as he saw more weirdness, became more of a believer and actually could have helped in the movie’s somewhat messy finale; however, for some reason he is considered as nothing more than an afterthought.

Sarah Wayne Callies is tasked with doing most of the heavy lifting in the movie. She is saddled with the more emotional role and is also the reason all the bad things happen. While Callies may be the best thing about the movie, there is still a kind of vacancy to her performance. Her reactions to weird happenings around her home feel a bit inappropriate at times. A book falls from a shelf and a chair moves near the edge of the dead boy’s bed, encouraging Maria to sit down and read the ghost a story which she happily does. Maybe the character is in shock and is just happy to have something of her child back in her life; however, if it was me I would have run screaming out of the room. There are other odd reactions to the presence of her dead child’s spirit throughout the film.

There has recently been a great deal of talk about diversity in Hollywood and I thought a film set and shot in India would probably be a showcase for Indian actors. I was wrong. Apart from Suchitra Pillai-Malik playing a housekeeper and a few scattered brief speaking roles, there are no Indians performing in any major parts. While the city of Mumbai and the Indian countryside are briefly displayed, the focus is squarely on the white characters. A few local actors play the parts of a cannibalistic tribe that follows Maria around after she visits the temple but their sole purpose is to act as boogeymen and provide the occasional mild scare.

“The Other Side of the Door” is filled with tense set ups and mild scares. It never manages to pull off a really frightening moment. Seeing the spirit of Oliver manifest itself as a rotting corpse, while explained later in the film, doesn’t make a great deal of sense. The budget for the film appears to have been fairly low as there isn’t much in the way of special effects. A walking/crawling death demon appears to have had its appearance borrowed from “The Grudge.” If your expectations are low or you are easily frightened, “The Other Side of the Door” may be precisely what you’re looking for, otherwise stay away.

“The Other Side of the Door” is rated R for some bloody violence. The movie doesn’t deserve an R rating because that violence comes very late in the film and isn’t that graphic or gory. PG-13 probably would have been more accurate. We do see Oliver as a rotting corpse on a couple of occasions. We also see dead birds on the ground that quickly rots before our eyes. Foul language isn’t an issue.

While starting out with an interesting premise and spooky environment, “The Other Side of the Door” squanders what it’s given and presents the viewer with just another mediocre mildly tense horror flick.

“The Other Side of the Door” gets two stars out of five.

Zootopia

Judy Hopps (voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin) never let her small size get in the way of her big dreams. Growing up on a carrot farm, Judy always dreamed of being a police officer in the gleaming metropolis of Zootopia where animals of all types, from the biggest predator to the smallest prey, lived together in harmony. Judy attended the police academy and figured out ways to use her small size to her advantage graduating at the top of her class. Zootopia mayor Leodore Lionheart’s (voiced by J.K. Simmons) new inclusion initiative means Judy will be the first bunny on the police force. Her boss Chief Bogo (voiced by Idris Elba), a massive water buffalo, is unimpressed and assigns Judy to traffic detail writing tickets for parking violations. Soon Judy hears of 14 missing person cases all involving predators. A photograph connects one of the missing to a red fox named Nick Wilde (voiced by Jason Bateman) who considers himself a great con man. Confronted by Judy and threatening to use his own words against him to send him to jail, Nick reluctantly agrees to help Judy track down one of the missing predators. Judy and Nick soon discover there is a dark side to these disappearances that may tear all of Zootopia apart.

“Zootopia” is a simplistic film that manages to hide a deeply subversive message under its bright and colorful surface. It’s the kind of message that might upset some commentators in this contentious election year and could start arguments on talk shows. The subversive message I speak of? Don’t discriminate based on your fears and assumptions about those different from you. Shocking, I know.

“Zootopia” spends a great deal of time setting up its alternate universe where animals evolved (I know, another contentious word during an election cycle) beyond their base nature of being either predator or prey and began working together to establish a society that led to the city of the title. It is a fully realized world with high-speed elevated trains and various environments reflecting the homes of each type of animal. Rainforest, desert, savannah, tundra, and tiny rodent town are all explored and designed in a way that makes sense given the different needs of all the various sized animals. Visually, “Zootopia” is stunning with buildings one might expect to see in Dubai. While bright, the color palate of the film manages to avoid becoming a jangled mess and creates a world that is wild and imaginative yet still pleasant to look at.

The story of “Zootopia” takes a bit of time to develop and that’s great as it gives us more of an opportunity to get to know the characters, primarily Judy and Nick. There is a surprising bit of chemistry between the two even when they are at odds initially. The unbridled enthusiasm of Judy and the cynicism of Nick work to create a kind of combustible emotional mixture that at times explode into either humor or drama. Both Ginnifer Goodwin and Jason Bateman are terrific in their voice parts. There is playfulness to both characters that the combination of the voices and the visuals really brings out.

I don’t want to ruin the film for you so I will keep specifics of the plot to myself; however, it is a rather sophisticated plan that takes a good deal of the movie’s 108 minute run time to unfold. As more details are revealed it makes the audience more and more curious about what exactly is going on. Any guesses before a certain point in the film will undoubtedly be wrong but feel free to join with your child and try to figure out the specifics. It is this plan that gets wrapped up in the ultimate message of looking past stereotypes and avoiding uneducated judgements. While parents will feel a bit beaten around the head and neck with the lesson the film tries to teach, the rest of the movie’s humor and action should soften the assault.

“Zootopia” is rated PG for some thematic elements, rude humor and action. There are some chase scenes and a couple of threats of violence that may disturb the very youngest viewers. There are also a few jokes about how well rabbits multiply. The theme of discrimination and mob mentality might cause some discussion after the film. There are no language concerns.

“Zootopia” is the kind of film children and parents will both find enjoyable. From the goofy humor, the action and the bright colors to the message, this children’s film is one that is fully packed for audiences of all ages. Perhaps it should even be mandatory viewing for presidential candidates. They might learn something whether they like it or not.

“Zootopia” gets five stars.

Four new films hit screens this week. I’ll see and review at least one of these:

10 Cloverfield Lane—

The Brothers Grimsby—

The Perfect Match—

The Young Messiah—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.