Movie review

Review of “IT Chapter 2”

The Losers Club has returned to Derry, but it isn’t a happy reunion. All but one of the childhood friends has moved away in the 27 years since they defeated the demon clown Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard). Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa) works in Derry and has been keeping an eye out for any strange murders. As the Derry Carnival is starting, a young gay man is beaten by local youths and thrown off a bridge into the river. Pennywise pulls the man out of the river and bites out his heart. Body parts of the young man are found, and Mike hears of the death on the police scanner. When he investigates the scene, he knows Pennywise is back. Mike contacts the rest of the Losers: Beverly Marsh (Jessica Chastain), Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy), Ben Hanscom (Jay Ryan), Richie Tozier (Bill Hader), Eddie Kaspbrak (James Ransone) and Stanley Uris (Andy Bean) has all moved away and found successful careers and variously successful relationships. Also, they’ve all mostly forgotten their lives in Derry. Mike contacts each of them and they all return to their childhood home, except for Stanley. Mike explains Pennywise is back, but he has a plan to kill the clown once and for all. Mike spent time with a local Native American tribe and believes he has learned enough of their magic to kill Pennywise. The rest of the gang is skeptical and most plan on leaving, but Mike convinces Bill the plan will work and their experiences since returning to Derry leads them to believe they must try.

“IT Chapter 2” was one of my most anticipated films. I loved “IT Chapter 1” and was looking forward to diving into what promised to be a carnival haunted house full of scares and suspense, plus some humor, as the adult versions of the Losers Club would likely mirror their childhood counterparts to a great degree. Director Andy Muschietti crafted a winning formula in the first film, set box office records for a horror film and was deeper than most scary movies with believable relationships between believable characters. Perhaps my expectations were too high for the sequel, as “IT Chapter Two” isn’t the kind of carnival ride I was hoping for.

Translating a dense work like a Stephen King novel in a movie script must be a daunting task. King is not known for his economical prose. “IT” also contains a sex scene between the Losers that would have been difficult to put on screen in a form audiences wouldn’t find offensive. As with all book-to-screen adaptations, material must be cut, combined and truncated to fit within a film narrative. While this was successfully done in the first film, apparently meeting with approval from King himself, the second film may have tried too hard to avoid cutting material thought too important to be left out. “IT Chapter 2” suffers from having too much material to choose from.

The film moves at a leisurely pace, never feeling like it was in any hurry to get from one Pennywise kill to another. While starting with a bang, the movie then takes its time by reintroducing us to the adult versions of the Losers Club. Each is allowed the time to establish how much of their childhood character remains and all but one is instantly recognizable. The adult Ben Hanscom is tall and buff and easily speaks his mind to those in power. He’s a successful architect with six-pack abs. Otherwise, all the Losers maintained the characteristics of their youth. Under pressure, Bill still stutters, Eddie is still a hypochondriac with a wife similar to his mother, Beverly has married an abuse man similar to her father, Richie still has a smart mouth that makes him a hit as a standup comic, Mike is stoic and smart, working in the library in Derry, and Stanley is still shy and frightened of almost everything. These reintroductions take a while and are somewhat duplicated by a scene where they meet for the first time back in Derry at a Chinese restaurant. Between this and the parts of the movie where they go looking for totems from their past to sacrifice in a ritual that may lead to Pennywise’ demise, the movie spends a great deal of time showing us who these people are, and were, as there are flashbacks to when they were kids. Much of this feels redundant, as we’ve seen the first movie and know these kids as well as we ever will. Since none of them seem to have grown much emotionally, spending a great deal of time showing us who they are now is a waste.

These long stretches of character time are broken up by appearances from Pennywise and the monstrous forms he assumes. He becomes a giant statue of Paul Bunyon, a gangly old naked witch, a leper, Bill’s dead brother Georgie, and the decaying corpse of Patrick Hockstetter, a victim from the first film. These moments are the best parts of the film as we see the Losers Club facing their fears and usually screaming and running away. I realize a horror movie must have the quiet times to set up the scares, however, “IT Chapter 2” takes so much quiet time that the scary parts feel like they don’t last long enough to make it worth the wait.

Much like the first film, “IT Chapter 2” isn’t that scary. The first film did a great job of building tension and dread even if the monster moments weren’t that shocking. Perhaps knowing what was coming (the appearance of Pennywise and its other forms) took the edge off the scares. Maybe they weren’t set up as well as the first film. The only time I was truly frightened was when Beverly went back to her father’s apartment to retrieve the postcard with Ben’s love poem. She had to pry off a baseboard and some large cockroaches scurried out. That moment made me jump. Otherwise, “IT Chapter 2” lacks any significant scary moments.

Some of the CGI monsters in the film aren’t very good. The old naked witch is clearly animated, along with a monster that faces off with Eddie in the basement of a pharmacy. It’s like they didn’t have time to finish the CGI to make it look the best they could. Maybe they didn’t think they needed to put the finishing touches on the texture of the skin or the oozing of the rotting flesh to get the point across. I knew what I was looking at, but also knew it looked fake.

Finally, and I won’t spoil anything, the ending seemed silly. They are battling an immortal enemy and the way they face off against it was similar to a playground fight. It left me feeling I’d wasted my 2 hours and 45 minutes and also threw away the goodwill from the first film. As I’ve gained more distance from the movie, I’m writing this more than 24 hours since I walked out of the theater, I’m discovering more aspects of the film I find lacking.

“IT Chapter 2” is rated R for disturbing violent content and bloody images throughout, pervasive language, and some crude sexual material. We see a gay couple beaten up with one thrown off a bridge into a river. Pennywise mouth grows rows of sharp teeth that kill three people on screen, with one victim exploding in a spray of blood. There are two stabbings, one in the chest and one in the face, and a hatchet is buried in one person’s head. One person is buried alive and another is locked in a bathroom flooding with blood. A character is impaled with a giant claw. Pennywise, the form of a child is drowned then, in another form, shot in the head. The crude sexual material is the insults hurled between Eddie and Richie. Foul language is common.

A bright spot in the film is the performance of Bill Hader as adult Richie Tozier. Hader is the expletive-filled voice of reason amongst the Losers. He is the everyman that says what everyone else is too polite to say. Hader and James Ransone (adult Eddie) play off each other well and is the closest thing we have to the energy and memory of the first film. Sadly, those two and Skarsgard’s Pennywise are all that will remind you of “IT Chapter 1.” The rest of the film is otherwise a lifeless slog that squanders a very good cast and a terrific villain.

In my video review I gave the film three stars but, in a first, “IT Chapter 2” is now downgraded to two stars. It is a disappointment.

Two new films open this week. One is an arthouse mystery while the other features Jennifer Lopez as a stripper. I wonder which one I’ll see. Whichever, I’ll see and review at least one of the following:

The Goldfinch—

Hustlers—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.

Review of “Ready of Not”

Because of the recent spate of mass shootings with multiple deaths, violent media has come under more scrutiny as a scapegoat.  Numerous studies have shown violent movies, TV shows, and video games do not cause violent acts by consumers of such media in reality.  That doesn’t stop pundits and politicians from naming media as a cause for violence in society.  Instead of members of Congress doing something concrete to fight the use of assault-style weapons against innocent victims and removing the ban on federally funded research of gun violence, they would rather blather away on opinion shows, playing to their base and ignoring their responsibilities.  Universal Pictures decided to not release its “rich hunting the poor” satirical thriller “The Hunt” as a response to recent mass shootings and a tweetstorm from President Trump.  The 2014 Sony comedy “The Interview” was yanked off the schedule when North Korea threatened terrorist attacks against theaters because the film showed the (spoiler alert) assassination of Kim Jung-un.  North Korea can’t feed its people, so I doubt they could carry out numerous attacks (or one) on theaters in the U.S.  Popular media is an easy target for those looking to place blame for all of society’s ills, so it’s a surprise that satirical suspense comedy “Ready or Not” didn’t attract more controversy.

Grace (Samara Weaving) is marrying into the wealthy Le Domas family.  The Le Domas family made all their money from making and selling board games over the last four generations.  Grace was raised in foster homes and has always wanted a forever family.  She believes her marriage to Alex Le Domas (Mark O’Brien) will make her dream come true.  While she feels like patriarch Tony Le Domas (Henry Czerny) doesn’t think she’s good enough for his son, Alex’s mother Becky (Andie MacDowell) welcomes Grace with open arms.  Other family members in attendance are Alex’s younger brother Daniel (Adam Brody), Daniel’s wife Charity (Elyse Levesque), and elderly Aunt Helene (Nicky Guadagni).  Arriving after the ceremony is sister Emilie (Melanie Scrofano) and her husband Fitch (Kristian Bruun).  Alex tells Grace of a long-standing family tradition:  Every new person marrying into the family must play a randomly selected game.  The game could be anything from backgammon to checkers to Old Maid to anything else.  Prior to the game announcement, Tony explains that his great-grandfather Victor Le Domas made a deal with a man named Mr. Le Bail where Le Bail would help create the Le Domas fortune if the Le Domas family established the tradition.  Grace is confused but goes along as this is now her family.  An old wooden box received from Mr. Le Bail is used to select the game.  A card pops out of the box that says, “Hide and Seek.”  Tony explains Grace can hide anywhere in the house and must stay hidden until dawn to win.  As Grace goes to hide, the family members all select antique weapons collected by Victor.  The Le Domas family scatters through the house looking for Grace as she is not just the newest member of the family, but a sacrifice to maintain its good fortune.

“Ready or Not” focuses its satire squarely on the super rich.  The head of the Le Domas family brags about buying four professional sports teams since he took over the company.  Adam Brody’s Daniel says, “The rich are different.”  In this family that is taken to a ridiculous extreme.  Much of the film is about how conventional ethics and a sense of morality is totally ignored by the Le Domas to maintain their status quo.  Grace must die before dawn in order for the family to remain rich and powerful.  Despite the pain and suffering Grace will go through, the Le Domas do not care.

While it is totally unintentional, there are clear parallels to what we’ve seen in the news about the rich and powerful and what they are willing to do.  Harvey Weinstein would flex his film making muscles to force young women to have sex with him in exchange for roles in the films he was producing.  Jeffrey Epstein uses his wealth and power, along with well-placed friends, to silence the young women and girls he sexually abused for decades.  There are countless examples throughout history of rich and powerful (usually) men taking advantage of those less fortunate and abusing them for their pleasure.  Is it any wonder most of these abusers end up in prison or dead once one or a few of the abused gain the courage to say, “Enough!”

What is at first for Grace a fight to survive soon becomes “Enough” for her.  The transformation from frightened waif to angry warrior takes a bit of time.  However, when the transition occurs, Grace takes on the mantle of hero instead of victim.  While the film does follow a fairly standard structure of peril, escape, capture, escape, there are moments of originality and sheer joy in watching our hero find the strength to cross another hurdle and escape another trap.  Grace may become a new feminist hero.

Samara Weaving is wonderful as Grace.  While the supporting cast is all very good, including Adam Brody as the conflicted, alcoholic Daniel, the movie lives or dies on Weaving’s performance, and the film thrives.  Weaving plays Grace as an everywoman.  She wasn’t raised in wealth, had to work hard to get where she got and considers herself lucky to be marrying a great guy like Alex.  Weaving immediately connects with the audience as she practices her vows early in the film and throws in a few lines about how nervous she is.  It’s an endearing moment that makes us appreciate Grace as one of us (assuming you aren’t obscenely wealthy).  As the film descends into the madness of the game, Weaving gives Grace the determination to live despite having guns stuck in her face on multiple occasions.  She doesn’t become Rambo or the Terminator, but Grace is resourceful and willing to get down and dirty (in one scene, literally) if need be.

Something you might not expect from “Ready or Not” is that it’s funny.  There are some very big laughs in the film at the most inappropriate times.  I don’t want to give anything away, but the final scene with the family leads to some of the biggest laughs of the whole film.  The humor comes more from the situation and how absurd it is opposed to actual jokes.  You laugh because if this happened in real life, you’d either scream or faint.  When you see it in a movie, your natural reaction is laughter followed by the thought, “Glad that didn’t happen to me.”  “Ready or Not” is filled with these moments.

“Ready or Not” is rated R for violence, bloody images, language throughout, and some drug use.  There are some very graphic shootings, stabbings, and an arrow in the mouth.  A waste pit filled with corpses leads to a character vomiting.  A young boy gets punched in the face.  A woman is beaten to death with a box, leaving a large pool of blood around her head.  The ending of the film is very gory.  Drug use is suggested with white powder under a character’s nose then that character being shown using cocaine.  There is also mention of a cannabis edible.  Foul language is common throughout.

I have only one complaint about the film.  The event that sets up the ending felt a bit contrived and convenient.  I won’t give anything away, but Grace is able to escape her murder a little too easily considering the family believes they have everything to lose if she isn’t dead by dawn.  That said, “Ready or Not” is a very fun thriller that delivers great tension, gory kills and some big laughs.  If you’re looking for something that isn’t based on a comic book and isn’t a sequel, this might be perfect for you.

“Ready or Not” gets five stars.

Only one new movie this week and I will definitely see and review it.

IT: Chapter 2—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.

Review of “Good Boys”

Max, Thor and Lucas (Jacob Tremblay, Brady Noon and Keith L. Williams) are the Bean Bag Boys, so named due to their sitting on bean bags at Thor’s house. They are in sixth grade and their world is changing quickly. Max has a crush on Brixlee (Millie Davis) but is too scared to talk to her. When he’s invited to a party by the super cool Soren (Izaac Wang), Max is told it is a kissing party and Brixlee will be there. Max is panicked as he, Thor and Lucas don’t know how to kiss. An ill-advised internet search leaves the boys scarred and clueless. Thor suggests using the drone belonging to Max’s dad (Will Forte) to spy on his neighbor Hannah (Molly Gordon) and her boyfriend Benji (Josh Caras) and watch them kiss. While flying the drone, Max and Thor fight over the remote control and land the drone close enough for Hannah and her friend Lily (Midori Francis) to capture it. The boys go to the house to ask for it back, but they refuse, trying to teach the boys a lesson in respecting women. Thor steals one of the women’s purse that contains the party drug molly. The boys will exchange the purse and drugs for the drone, but the exchange goes wrong and the drone is destroyed. Max must replace the drone before his father gets back from a business trip as his dad told him not to touch it as he uses it in his work. The Bean Bag Boys will work together and go on numerous adventures to replace the drone, avoiding getting grounded and going to the sixth-grade kissing party.

“Good Boys” may be about sixth graders, but you must be 18 to see the film as it is filled with cursing, drugs, drinking and sexual references. It’s a shock watching these children, and they are all children, saying curse words, using sexual jargon incorrectly, sipping beer and handling S&M equipment. But you shouldn’t be put off by the cruder aspects of the movie as “Good Boys” is more about tweens on the verge of becoming teens and all the pressure that puts on their friendship.

There are layers to “Good Boys” that go beyond the cursing and sex. Max is dealing with a burgeoning interest in girls and his insecurities. Thor is being bullied to give up his love of singing and musical theater. Lucas’ parents tell him they are getting a divorce. Each is facing some very grown-up challenges and they are not prepared for them. The adventures they go on to replace the drone are a reaction to their issues. It’s like one last quest as they transition from little kids to slightly older kids.

As often happens with children, the boys fear if they get in trouble, it will be the end of the world. Their parents will no longer love them, they will never have any friends, they will not be able to kiss any girls, in other words, their lives would not be worth living. While there are consequences for their actions, the boys learn important lessons about dealing with their problems, how to treat others and crossing a busy highway is insane.

“Good Boys” is rated R for language throughout, drug and alcohol material and strong crude sexual content. Procuring molly is a big part of the story. There is also weed smoked by a college student and blown in the face of one of the kids. Sipping a beer also plays a big role in the film. Sex toys are shown, and sexual references are made throughout the film. Foul language is common and coming mostly from little kids.

“Good Boys” is a coming of age story that is set a bit younger than most. Sixth graders discovering who they are and what life means (filtered through their inexperienced minds) isn’t usually the focus of an R-rated comedy, but producers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg have a history of creating crude comedies in unexpected ways. A cute and diverse cast makes the shocking content even more shocking, generating big laughs and a couple of moments that make you think. Pretty impressive for a film filled with foul language and sex toys in the hands of tweens.

“Good Boys” gets five stars.

This week I’ll be reviewing “Angel Has Fallen” for WIMZ.com. The other movies coming out are:

Overcomer—

Ready or Not—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.

Review of “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark”

I love scary movies. Always have. When I was a kid, a local TV station would run a 4 o’clock movie with themes and, around Halloween, it would be horror movie week. In my memory, those films would be from the British movie studio Hammer. Frequent lead actors would be Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing along with several familiar looking British actors whose names I never knew. There would be stories of vampires and werewolves and witches and demons and curses. The violence was minimal and usually only suggested. The scene of driving a stake in the vampire’s heart showed the hammer raised up high and brought down with the sound of a “thunk” as it struck the killing blow, then the vampire’s wide-eyed surprise at being bested by a mortal. You wouldn’t see the hammer actually hit the stake or enter the vampire’s chest. Any blood was minimal and only showed dripping from the vampire’s lips or the two perfect punctures in the victim’s neck. These movies, which were a decade old by the time I saw them, enthralled me and gave me the shivers as well. Modern horror usually doesn’t hold back on the gore. Each new scary movie also seems to be an effort to establish a franchise with low-budget and high-profit films with numerous sequels cranked out. “Paranormal Activity,” “Saw,” “The Conjuring,” “Insidious” and more have cinematic universes that have been very profitable, however the films they’ve produced haven’t actually been very scary. My biggest issue with modern horror (whether psychological or supernatural) is they don’t actually quicken the pulse of anyone other than the investors that bankrolled these films. Now, Guillermo del Toro has produced a horror film based on the book “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” and it appears poised to introduce a series of sequels. Given this first installment in a likely series, I have hope for these films.

Stella Nicholls (Zoe Colleti) lives with her single dad Roy (Dean Norris) in the small Pennsylvania town of Mill Valley. It’s 1968. The war in Vietnam is raging as are protests against it. Nixon is about to be elected president and it’s Halloween. Stella goes out with her friends Auggie (Gabriel Rush) and Chuck (Austin Zajur) for one last night of Halloween pranks as they are getting to old to dress up and Trick-or-Treat. The high school jock and bully Tommy Milner (Austin Abrams) has picked on this trio for years and Chuck is looking for revenge. As Tommy and his friends drive down the street past the friends, one of them grabs their bag of goodies that is actually filled with old dirty clothes. Auggie and Chuck begin pelting the car with eggs. As Tommy backs up the car, Chuck throws a flaming bag of poop through the open window, landing in Tommy’s lap, causing him to wreck the car. The bullies chase after Stella, Auggie and Chuck on foot. The three friends hide in a drive-in theater, getting in the car of Ramon Morales (Michael Garza). Ramon is passing through town, following the harvest as a migrant worker. After some conversation, Stella offers to show Ramon a real haunted house. She guides him to the Bellows house. The Bellows established the town in the late 19th Century and built a papermill. The youngest Bellows child Sarah had a physical deformity and was locked away in a secret room. The legend is she would tell stories through the wall to children that would visit the house even though she was never seen, and these stories would cause the children to die of a mysterious illness or poisoning. While exploring the house, Stella and the others find the room where Sarah lived, and Stella finds her book of stories. Soon, new stories begin appearing in the book, featuring names of Stella’s friends who begin to disappear. Stella, Auggie, Chuck and Ramon scramble to find a reason for these disappearances and a way to stop them.

“Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” is a fun and frightening film. It understands that horror can be lighthearted while also causing the pulse to quicken. It isn’t an easy mix, but writers Dan and Kevin Hageman and director Andre Ovredal find the right mix of laughs, silliness and terror to make the film an easy watch and easy to recommend you watch.

The characters in “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” make the film relatable and, to an extent, believable. Zoe Colleti plays Stella as a depressed and broken young woman, dealing with a mother that abandoned her and her father and feeling that she is responsible. We aren’t told why she feels that way and it doesn’t matter as she isn’t. Watching this young woman carry the weight of what she feels is her unlovability around like a ball and chain is painful. Colleti never overplays the drama in her character’s life, but it’s always there just below the surface. As the story plays out, we see it break through as Stella expresses that every bad thing that has happened to her, and now her friends, has been her fault. While I was never a teenage girl, I do remember thinking all the bad luck I experienced in high school was because I was a terrible person that didn’t deserve happiness. While those years are far behind me, I still remember the sting of rejection when a girl didn’t want to go on a date or not being selected as drum major of the marching band. While I didn’t have a vengeful ghost causing my friends to disappear, I could relate to how Stella felt and that is thanks to Colleti’s performance.

The look of the film adds to the scares. The spirit of Sarah is represented by a dark shadow that slides along the walls and ceiling, filling the room with a dread of what’s to come. The creatures that appear are grotesque in their rotting and/or deformed shapes. One, the Jangly Man, may cause nightmares for younger viewers. The creature can fall apart into its components: Arms, legs, torso and head. It can then reassemble itself if it needs to get somewhere its full body cannot. It has a voice like nails on a chalk board and it moves in a way that is indescribable. There is a pot full of body-part stew, a pimple exploding with spiders, a boy puking straw and more. It is a film that works hard to make you squirm in your seat and it usually succeeds.

“Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” is rated PG-13 for disturbing images, brief sexual references, thematic elements, language, racial epithets and terror/violence. We see a person stabbed through the back with a pitchfork with the tines poking out the front, but there is no blood. The pimple/spider scene may have your skin crawling. A character eats a mouthful of stew that contains a human toe. There are at least two creatures that appear to have been buried and raised up partially decomposed. There’s a brief scene showing one of the characters fishing poop out of the toilet. One of the creatures is rammed by a car into a garbage truck. There’s a creature that looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy let himself go and grew long black stringy hair. The racial slur “wet back” is said a couple of times and we see police assume the Hispanic character is a criminal because of his race. The sexual reference is so mild I don’t remember what it was. Foul language is scattered and mild.

Early in this review, I complained about watered down horror franchises that lack any real scares. “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” manages to have some truly tense and frightening moments while still being rated PG-13 and being what is likely the kickoff of a horror franchise. Whether the quality and popularity of future chapters in this sage are worthy of critical praise and your entertainment dollar will depend on the quality of the story, the acting and if the scares are kept at a high level. Guillermo del Toro had been hit and miss over his career, creating masterworks like “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “The Shape of Water” while also putting out the overwrought but beautiful “Crimson Peak” and the busy and underperforming “Hellboy II: The Golden Army.” I want to see more stories that scare me in the dark of a theater, and I want del Toro to tell them to me.

“Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” gets five stars.

Several new films open this week and I’ll see at least one of the following:

47 Meters Down: Uncaged—

The Angry Birds Movie 2—

Blinded by the Light—

Good Boys—

Where’d You Go, Bernadette—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.

Review of “Apollo 11”

On July 20, 1969, a spindly-looking craft set down on the surface of the Moon. Inside were two astronauts from the United States, Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, taking the voyage that had been dreamed of since the first human looked into the sky and saw a face (or what we’ve interpreted as a face) staring back at him. It was a mission first suggested to the American people by a president that would not live to see it succeed. While the real goal of Apollo was to beat the Russians to the Moon, what it became was a rallying point for Americans at a time when the Vietnam War and the struggle for civil rights was tearing the country apart at the seams. The mission that lasted just over eight days, captivated the imagination of not only the United States, but the world and is chronicled in an amazing documentary titled simply “Apollo 11.”

The film has no narrator and uses the communications to and from Mission Control and newscasts of the time to tell the story. It is a smart choice to use NASA’s archival audio and video footage instead of recreations as there’s something cheap looking when actual events, especially ones that are documented as thoroughly as Apollo 11, have sets and actors employed to reenact events. A recent documentary series about the space program on NatGeo is filled with recreations and I had to turn it off after 10 minutes as it bored me. “Apollo 11” is far from boring.

The film puts up a countdown clock to important events, such as the launch and the ignition of the third stage breaking the astronauts out of Earth orbit and sending them to the moon. Despite these events being 50 years old and, spoiler alert, everything works out just fine, the countdown and a score that adds tension to these moments that are well known, adds building pressure as the clock moves to zero. It is a brilliant idea to increase the excitement of these events that were exciting and scary enough if they were experienced in real time.

Much of the technology, including the lunar lander and its ascent stage, were largely untested. The computers that would guide Armstrong and Aldrin to their landing sight were rudimentary at best and, as the astronauts approached the Moon’s surface, easily overwhelmed. Recent interviews with NASA officials that were there at the time, believed the chances of success were 50-50. While there had been numerous space flights putting men in Earth orbit and two manned flights orbiting the Moon, landing was an infinitely more complicated endeavor. The film is a testament to the technological advancement, dedication and bravery of everyone involved in getting the astronauts to the Moon and back again.

As a seven-year-old child, I remember watching the poor quality black and white TV images as Armstrong stepped off the ladder of the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) and made history. While I knew what I was seeing was a big deal (I was a huge follower of the space program), it is only as I got older and learned more that I began to realize just how amazing seeing those images was. “Apollo 11” is a much needed reminder that we can do good and important things if we focus our thought, talents and treasure on a goal with no expectation of financial gain. Many earned a profit from our exploration of the Moon, but it wasn’t a requirement. That is the attitude we need if we are going to continue to make strides in space and on the ground. In other words, we’re screwed.

“Apollo 11” gets five stars.

This week, I’ll be reviewing “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” for WIMZ.com. (Warning: Trailer may contain NSFW language)

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.

Review of “Midsommar”

Dani (Florence Pugh) has suffered an unimaginable loss when her mentally ill sister kills her parents and herself. Her emotionally distant boyfriend Christian (Jack Reynor) has been considering breaking up with Dani for a year but lacks the courage to do it. Six months after the tragedy, Dani accompanies Christian on a trip to Sweden with his friends Josh (William Jackson Harper), Mark (Will Poulter) and Swedish native Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren). The Americans are with Pelle as he returns to his small village deep in the Swedish wilderness called Harga. They are his guests for a festival in the village that is only held every 90 years. Harga is a close-knit community where everyone dresses in white, there’s a ritual for everything and nature is worshipped and revered. Josh, like Christian, is a graduate student working on his doctoral thesis. Josh is studying the summer solstice rituals of various cultures, including the version practiced in Harga. Everyone in Harga is warm and welcoming, happy to see the newcomers and looking forward to sharing their bounty and the festival with them. As the Americans see more of the festival, they are horrified by what is considered normal by the Hargans. Soon, the summer solstice festival will become a moment of truth and decision for Dani, Christian and the other visitors.

“Midsommar” is an acid trip of a movie. There are moments when fantasy and reality are indistinguishable, and images of beauty are splattered by levels of gore that I’ve rarely seen. It is a film that is both gorgeous and ugly, sweet and sour, and filled with warmth and frigidness. It is also a movie I could not take my eyes from and wanted more when it ended.

“Midsommar” is a film that is sold as a horror film but that is not true. It is a mix of genres while not being any one of them. I suppose “thriller” might be the most accurate slot in which to file the film, but that still isn’t quite right. “Midsommar” is a slow burn, presenting as a domestic drama at first before gradually oozing its way into a nightmare. It’s a film that requires patience and a willingness to allow the story to play out in its own time.

One of the most distinct things about the film is the cinematography. Vast landscapes are filmed with the love of a parent for a child. There is a shot that moves from right side up to upside down and stays inverted for a very long time. Drugs are consumed on a couple of occasions, both voluntarily and involuntarily, and that affects the way scenes are shot. There’s nothing flashy about these scenes and that’s what makes them so amazing. If you see the film you might not notice what I’m talking about, but there are moments when solid objects flow, oscillate and warp. It is done subtly but adds so much to the hallucinatory nature of these moments and the film in general.

It is also a movie that takes a close look at toxic relationships. There’s the obvious one between Dani and Christian, but there’s also the ones that surround them. Christian and Josh go from friends to enemies when Christian decides his doctoral thesis will focus on Harga, piggybacking on Josh’s research. Mark doesn’t like Dani and encourages Christian to dump her. Mark is passive-aggressive towards Dani and she feels his enmity towards her. The residents of Harga notice these cracks in their friendship and subtly use them to split the visitors apart. This could be an allegory for politics as those in power, and hoping to stay there, find the fracture lines of those that disagree with them and apply pressure to cause a fissure.

Maybe I’m looking for a meaning behind everything in this movie since I have to believe writer and director Ari Aster has that in mind. There is so much going on in both the foreground and the background, from the movements of the extras to the designs on the walls of the barn where everyone sleeps, that is clearly designed to tell the story without actually telling the story. We are given clues of what’s to come, but it just appears to be set dressing or random visuals to support how quirky the village is. All these clues of the madness to come are delivered in bright colors, mostly in daylight, and with a smile. Aster’s genius is showing you what’s going to happen without giving away any of the surprise. Even after having told you this, should you see the movie, you won’t see what’s coming. It’s a brilliant bit of film making.

The gore in the film is shocking in its suddenness and its extremeness. Usually, gore in horror movies is so over the top and expected (it’s a horror movie after all), its appearance loses some of the impact. In “Midsommar,” the gore is unexpected and is so visceral, so…gory, it is shocking while also being almost welcome. Much of what passes in movies of all genres for violence is so stylized that it loses the ability to move us. In “Midsommar,” the gore that happens early on, that tells us this isn’t your dad’s horror movie, will move you. You know something bad is about to happen, you expect what you’ve seen before, but you get something soooooooo much worse. It’s a shocking scene that works within the context of the movie despite having what’s come before being so idyllic. If you have a weak stomach, you will be tested by a couple of scenes in “Midsommar.”

“Midsommar” is rated R for disturbing ritualistic violence and grisly images, strong sexual content, graphic nudity, drug use and language. I won’t go into a lengthy description of the violence and gore on display other than to say there are rocks, giant mallets and fire involved. There is a bizarre and unsexy sex scene near the end of the film. There are a couple of scenes featuring full frontal male and female nudity. Drugs are ingested both voluntarily (psychedelic mushrooms) and involuntarily. Foul language is scattered.

The reactions to some events of the film may leave you wondering why anyone would stay in the village after seeing them. I wondered that as well. There isn’t really a satisfactory answer to that question other than the characters didn’t feel like they could leave. They were guests in a friend’s home village, witnessing another culture’s ways, and some of the characters believed they should stay to absorb all the events in context before making any judgements. It doesn’t really work in my brain as a reason, but it’s the best I can come up with.

Ari Aster’s “Midsommar” is a weird experience, but one I’m glad I had. It’s a film that demands your attention but in the politest way. It lulls you into thinking this is going to be almost a travelogue then collects your passport and won’t give them back. You’re stuck with the rest of the audience as you take a journey into a Swedish “Twilight Zone” that would make creator Rod Serling say, “That’s too much!” It is visually stunning in every conceivable way and will have those willing to go for the ride with an open mind wanting more by the end. I loved “Midsommar” and need to go back and watch Aster’s “Hereditary” to see if I missed out on his madness early on.

“Midsommar” gets 5 stars.

Disney’s remake of “The Lion King” is the only new film opening this week. I’m not interested in seeing it and may either take the weekend off or see something else that I find more intriguing. Anyway, here’s the trailer:

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.

Review of “Annabelle Comes Home”

After an investigation, Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) bring the doll called Annabelle to their home. Lorraine figures out the doll is a beacon for spirits and the Warrens put it inside a special display case, made with glass from church, and blessed by a priest. Once the display case door is locked, Lorraine can tell the evil is contained. The display case is in a locked room along with the most dangerous items the Warrens have collected during their years of investigations. A year later, the Warrens are leaving for an overnight investigation. Their 12-year old daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) will be watched over by a babysitter named Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman) who will spend the night. Mary Ellen’s friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) reads a newspaper article questioning whether the Warrens are frauds and learns of their paranormal past. She arrives at the Warren house after they leave with an agenda: Her father has recently died, and she hopes to contact his spirit using items from the Warren’s collection. Because of the newspaper article, Judy is being bullied at school and her friends are refusing to come to her upcoming birthday party. Judy is a sensitive to spirits like her mother and is seeing the ghost of a dead priest watching her at school. Daniela finds the keys to the locked collection room and looks around, touching numerous items and asking for a sign there’s a spirit present. Annabelle moves forward and bumps into the glass, getting Daniela’s attention. She unlocks the case and puts Annabelle back in her chair, but she forgets to lock the display case door. When she leaves the room, Annabelle again leans forward and this time, she escapes. Soon, everything in the collection room begins causing trouble for Daniela, Mary Ellen and Judy.

“Annabelle Comes Home” is the seventh entry in the “Conjuring” universe of films. Annabelle, along with the Nun, are the two big bads that have spun off into franchises of their own. Perhaps we’ll get a team-up film where the two demonic entities join forces to try and defeat the Warrens. But that’s another movie for another day. “Annabelle Comes Home” almost manages to overcome its genre conventions and tell a decent story with some scares thrown in to keep its fans happy. Sadly, almost is only good enough in hand grenades and horseshoes, and “Annabelle Comes Home” gives up the ghost as the inevitable happy ending approaches.

The main themes of the film are loss and acceptance. Katie Sarife’s Daniela is dealing with the loss of her father in a car accident. She is desperate to reconnect with her dad and get closure following his sudden passing. Her desire for contact overrides her doubt about the paranormal and her fear of the unknown. She abandons reason and safety to find peace and comfort. You see the same thing happen when the grief-stricken attempt to drown their sorrows with alcohol and/or numb their feelings with drugs. In all those examples, the pain remains, and the outcome isn’t good.

McKenna Grace’s Judy is being ostracized because of her parent’s work. She’s considered a freak and is the target of bullying at school. Judy is in a tough spot as she is about to enter her teenage years, hit puberty and get her first glimpses of adulthood. Adding parents that are the targets of public scorn and suspicion adds a nearly intolerable level of pressure for such a young and sensitive girl. Judy and Daniela begin an unlikely friendship, finding comradery in their different struggles. It’s this bonding, along with Mary Ellen, that forms the backbone of the story.

This exploration of female friendship and shared struggle is actually well done and engaging, considering this is a horror movie. The three don’t blame each other for the trouble they are facing (despite Daniela’s actions being the cause) and work together to contain Annabelle. They form their own little non-traditional family when there’s no one that can help them.

McKenna Grace gives a wonderful performance as Judy. She’s calm in the face of all the weirdness and uses what her mother has taught her about the spirit world to guide Mary Ellen and Daniela through the danger. Grace has a poise and maturity one might not expect for a 13-year old. She’s believable as the already experienced ghost buster and her character lacks the precocious snark that might be added in a less well thought out script.

While the story of female empowerment in the face of demonic threat is well done, the final act undoes most of the good work that sets it up. Director Gary Dauberman, who co-wrote the script with producer James Wan, falls back on haunted house scares in an overstuffed finale. Several things in the Warren’s collection get a moment in the moonlight as the film turns up the attempted scares per minute to maximum. I say attempted because nothing much in the film causes the pulse to quicken even a little bit. An early scene with spirits coming from a graveyard is effective, but that’s about all that managed to startle me. The movie does a good job of building tension but never quite pays it off, then it throws everything at the audience in a frenetic ending that becomes tiresome.

“Annabelle Comes Home” is rated R for horror violence and terror. There are some blood-covered ghosts, a werewolf, a horned demon, corpses with coins on their eyes and the spirit that guides them to the afterlife, the ghost of a priest with very dark eyes and a cursed suit of samurai armor. We see part of an exorcism, a stabbing, a werewolf tries to kill a character, a ghost pukes itself into the mouth of another character, a demonic TV shows a bloody future for one character and a demon tries to suck the soul out of a character. There is also some ghostly throwing of characters in various scenes. Foul language is mild and only occurs two or three times. Why the film got an R rating is a mystery.

Looking at my review of “Annabelle: Creation,” I have many of the same opinions about that film as I do “Annabelle Comes Home.” Both films have quality performances from young actresses but waste their efforts by building tension and setting up scares, but never delivering quality frights. This film tries to have quantity instead of quality as it throws everything at the audience in the last 20 minutes in hopes to score some scares, but the lackluster boogiemen won’t threaten anyone’s bladder control.

The “Conjuring” films and their spinoffs are wildly successful, taking in a worldwide gross so far of over $1.7 billion on films with a combined production budget of $139 million. That’s about 13 times return on investment. People keep paying to see these films, so the studio will keep making them. I haven’t found any of the films I’ve seen in the series to be very scary and “The Nun” was laughably bad. Perhaps I’m too jaded or too old to be affected by these films the way the makers intended, but scary should be scary no matter how old I get, and this film just isn’t scary.

“Annabelle Comes Home” gets three stars out of five.

A superhero and horror are on tap for the holiday week with both films opening prior to the weekend. I’ll see and review at least one of the following:

Spider-Man: Far from Home—

Midsommer—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.

Review of “Dark Phoenix”

Jean Grey (Sophie Turner) has been the ward of Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) since a car crash caused by Jean’s powers killed her parents when she was eight in 1975. In 1992, the X-Men take on the rescue of the astronauts onboard the space shuttle Endeavour that’s been crippled by a solar flare. While Jean is on the shuttle, the solar flare strikes the shuttle which should have destroyed the space craft and killed Jean. However, Jean absorbs the energy that isn’t really a solar flare. On the ground, Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult) gives Jean a medical exam and finds she is physically fine, but her mutant powers are off the scale. Meanwhile, during a dinner party, a woman hears her dog barking. She goes to investigate when she is attacked by aliens, one of them taking on her appearance. More aliens are with her and shapeshift into other human forms. They are a race called D’Bari and her name is Vuk (Jessica Chastain). They are looking for the energy Jean absorbed and plan on using it for evil purposes. That energy has changed Jean, overcoming mental blocks put in place by Xavier to protect her from her past and is causing her to hurt and kill those around her. Jean finds Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) at his protected island refuge for mutants, hoping to find a way to deal with her new power. When a military team arrives to capture Jean, she destroys one of their helicopters and has a tug of war with Erik over the other before he can push it away, saving all the soldiers from Jean. He tells her to leave as she is endangering his mutant enclave. Vuk finds Jean and tells her she can help her discover the truth about her abilities and that the X-Men fear her and will try to kill her.

With the purchase of 20th Century Fox by Disney, “Dark Phoenix” is the last X-Men film for a while. It is also the worst reviewed of the series with a 22% on Rotten Tomatoes and had the lowest opening weekend of the franchise with just $33 million. It was plagued by poor audience response in test screenings, reshoots, on-set script revisions and budget overruns. Projections put “Dark Phoenix” losing $100 million or so. It is by all measurements a complete failure…and yet, I liked it quite a bit.

The film has several good performances, including a brief appearance by a very young actress. Summer Fontana plays Jean Grey at the age of eight. She possesses a seriousness and maturity that is striking for someone of her young age. It may be the best performance in the film as it is the most memorable.

Sophie Turner and James McAvoy are also impressive in their final turns as Jean Grey and Charles Xavier respectively. Turner, once she is empowered by the cosmic energy, is in turns frightened and questioning, then powerful and aggressive. Jean is unsure of what has happened to her and Turner captures all Jean’s confusion. It’s like a child entering puberty and being unsure of what is happening to their body and mind. Jean is filled with power and when she uses it, people get hurt. Perhaps scaring Jean even more is she likes the feeling of losing control. Turner turns Jean’s switches in personality into believable moments as a woman with new gifts begins flexing her muscles, despite the consequences.

James McAvoy has a nice bit of character growth in “Dark Phoenix.” McAvoy’s Xavier enjoys the moment of acceptance the X-Men are getting, especially after Jean, Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) and the rest of the team save a space shuttle full of astronauts. Charles is getting congratulations calls from the President of the United States and good publicity for mutants on the news for a change. He’s basking in the warm glow of good feelings and it’s going to his head. He believes he’s doing everything for the betterment of mutants, but he’s also feeding his ego. Charles borders on smarmy when he’s dealing with VIP’s and he’s dismissive of Raven and Hank when they question his motives. McAvoy delivers a performance that leads the audience to dislike the character for perhaps the first time in the series. It’s a bold choice to turn a character from fatherly to bad step-fatherly in what is likely your last outing. McAvoy is always fun to watch, especially in “Dark Phoenix.”

There are numerous action scenes and they all work very well and look great. The scene of the X-Men saving the astronauts that really kicks off the story is an exciting start. Kodi Smit-McPhee’s Nightcrawler gets a chance to shine as a big part of the rescue. The bit of smoke or whatever that’s supposed to be left when Nightcrawler uses his power gets amped up this time and blocks the audience’s view at tense times to build suspense. Tye Sheridan’s Cyclops gets to blast his way into the action and play a major role. Evan Peters’ Quicksilver helps as well, despite the lack of gravity. The whole scene lets the audience know there are some impressive special effects to follow.

“Dark Phoenix” has a feeling of finality to it. It is the last entry in the 20th Century Fox version of the X-Men. While the Disney purchase of the studio was an unknown future when this film was being written, “Dark Phoenix” says goodbye to some characters and puts a period on other character’s relationships. There doesn’t seem to be anywhere else to go with this version of the characters and the film’s makers appear to know that. Many of the actors may also be at the end of their contracts and recasting might have been in the future if the Fox sale hadn’t happened. Looking at the reviews and the box office, perhaps it’s time for this version of the franchise to come to an end.

“Dark Phoenix” is rated PG-13 for brief strong language, action, disturbing images, intense sci-fi violence and some gunplay. There are numerous fights and battles but very little blood. Gunfire is limited and is mostly aimed at aliens that are able to withstand it without injury. There are a couple of scenes when the aliens use a power to cave in people’s chests. Foul language is limited, but the film uses its one allowed “F-bomb.”

The X-Men have always been a metaphor for the struggles of minorities and the outsiders of society. Despite all the super heroics and special effects, “Dark Phoenix” continues this tradition. It even mirrors the apparent acceptance of the different and the backlash that inevitably happens. It’s an interesting view on society that I hope will be continued by the folks at Disney when the X-Men eventually make their appearance in the MCU. While this film hasn’t been welcomed with open arms, I enjoyed it, found it exciting both in the action and the visuals, and a good way to wrap up this version of the X-Men. Make up your own mind, but I liked it.

“Dark Phoenix” gets five stars.

I’ll be reviewing “Shaft” for WIMZ.com.

Also opening this week is “Men in Black: International.”

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.

Review of “Godzilla: King of the Monsters”

Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) works with the Monarch project. She and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) live near a Monarch facility in China, where an egg of the larval form of Mothra is about to be born. Dr. Russel has designed and built a device called Orca that emits audio signals that can attract, aggravate and placate creatures like Mothra and Godzilla. Monarch has discovered there are nearly 20 Titans scattered around the planet, most of them in hibernation. After Mothra breaks out of its egg, eco-terrorist Alan Jonah (Charles Dance) and his mercenaries attack the Monarch facility and kill everyone except the Russell’s. He takes them and the Orca. Dr. Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) is testifying before a congressional committee when he’s informed about the attack in China. He contacts Dr. Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler), Emma’s ex-husband and Madison’s father. He left Monarch after a family tragedy caused by Godzilla and he wants all the Titans to be killed. He joins with the military and Monarch technology director Sam Coleman (Thomas Middleditch) going after Jonah hoping to retrieve Orca and save his ex-wife and daughter before Jonah can release a three-headed creature Emma refers to as Monster Zero: King Ghidorah.

“Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is a visually spectacular film. The creatures are amazing to look at. I wish there had been a scene where images of the monsters were frozen, and the audience is taken on a visual tour of each creature. With four main monsters and four or five secondary creatures, fans of the original Toho “Godzilla” films should find plenty to love in the film. Sadly, those hoping for a more well-rounded movie with a coherent story will be disappointed.

“Godzilla: King of the Monsters” has what 2014’s “Godzilla” lacked: More Godzilla. We also get plenty of King Ghidorah, Mothra and Rodan. Perhaps this is too much of a good thing as the various kaiju battles begin to all look alike after the second or third clash. Granted, the first few fights are between different combinations of Titans, but the general look of each fight becomes familiar. The fights are also dark and frequently shown up close, so it’s easy to lose track of which beast is doing what. It’s the kind of issue I have with some fights between humans in movies, and it’s probably done for the same reason: To hide things that don’t look as good as the film makers want them to.

While it is an embarrassment of riches with the number of monsters and their amount of screen time, the weakest part of the film is the human story. There are numerous human characters, each with their own moments to shine and most with their specific stories and none of them is very interesting. The fractured family dynamic between the Russell’s feels tired and recycled from 1000 other movies. The film, written by director Michael Dougherty and Zach Shields, is probably trying to give us characters we can relate to. With all the madness of giant monsters battling all over the planet and likely killing millions, the script is trying to make us connect with a divorced and grieving couple and their daughter when their drama is the least important part of the story.

Eco-terrorist Jonah is under-developed, and his motivation is best described as murky. He’s clearly the bad guy as he’s British and carries himself with an air of superiority, but he’s a blank slate with a line or two of dialog to explain his reasons for his actions. It doesn’t make much sense and fails to justify his violent attacks.

The history and purpose of the Titans gets more fleshed out in this film and that also doesn’t make much sense. Without giving too much away, the Titans are the original apex predator on Earth and have for some reason gone dormant. Our nuclear tests in the 1940’s and beyond awakened Godzilla as he feeds on radiation. All the Titans, except for one, bow down to Godzilla and follow his lead. Why don’t the Titans annihilate humanity and claim the planet for themselves? Our weapons have no effect on them, so they could easily wipe us out. Godzilla seems to be our protector, but why? All humans did in the first film was try to kill him. He doesn’t appear to be capable of higher cognitive functions, and in this film acts on instinct, so why has Godzilla apparently adopted humans as his pets he’d die to protect? I’d love a web series or section of the next film that would explain in a logical way why Godzilla chooses to be our hero, because so far there’s no reason.

“Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is rated PG-13 for sequences of monster action violence and destruction, some language. There are numerous fights between various combinations of kaiju. One of the monsters is beheaded. Another is impaled with a stinger. There are various other injuries suffered by the monsters. We see several people shot in an attack early in the film. We see scattered dead bodies at another location. Foul language is scattered, and the film uses its one allowed “F-bomb.”

“Godzilla: King of the Monsters” isn’t terrible. It just isn’t great. The film falls into a trap of depending on lots of CGI monster battles and using a tired storyline for the human characters. Initial reports from early screenings indicated the film was spectacular. Visually, it is. However, the film gets dull in spite of the massive kaiju battles. It’s fine, but it should have been much, much more.

“Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is gets three stars out of five.

The last chapter for a franchise and an animated sequel opens this week. I’ll see and review at least one of the following:

Dark Phoenix—

The Secret Life of Pets 2—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.