Written by: Kevin Berge
I have been watching a lot of movies in theaters over the past month, and I don't have time to explore all of them in-depth. Some of them are not worth the time, but I want to at least give a rough review of how they worked or did not work for me.
That's why I'm catching up on all of these films in quick review form. I will not get into the story beats or even every element of how the film stood out but rather just focus on its essentials. These are my quick reviews of the 2018 movies Alpha, The Little Stranger, Juliet, Naked, and The House with a Clock in Its Walls.
That's why I'm catching up on all of these films in quick review form. I will not get into the story beats or even every element of how the film stood out but rather just focus on its essentials. These are my quick reviews of the 2018 movies Alpha, The Little Stranger, Juliet, Naked, and The House with a Clock in Its Walls.
Alpha will make you think: man, the real situation probably was way cooler. (Image Courtesy of: deviantart.com)
Alpha
This is an absolutely gorgeous film. It's like watching a nature documentary with a fictional story etched in loosely to try and hook the audience in. Alpha though has the most bare-bones story of the year with the film attempting to rely on visual storytelling to deliver.
The story is set 20,000 years in the past and focuses on a young boy attempting to survive while befriending a wolf. This setting allows the story to feel fantastic, almost otherworldly, and there's surprisingly little dialogue throughout the film.
The problem is that the dialogue that is there is almost completely unnecessary. It feels so underwritten that it hinders the experience. This is like if Wall-E's first act included the little robot explicitly describing how he had lived for years alone.
Because of this, the driving subtlety comes off as a mixed bag, accentuating how monotonous the story can get. There's not much story here, and I still felt like 96 minutes was too long. The film takes forever to just get to the crux of the film.
To his credit, Kodi Smit-McPhee who plays the main character Keda is impressive throughout. It's almost a one-actor show, and it probably should have been for more of the story. He nails the emotions of an empathetic boy slowly growing up through necessity.
Alpha is not bad, but it doesn't have much reason to exist. It is a completely missable film that is only valuable to those who can see it in IMAX 3D just to revel in the vibrant cinematography. Most though would likely be better off watching nature documentaries with more educational value.
The story is set 20,000 years in the past and focuses on a young boy attempting to survive while befriending a wolf. This setting allows the story to feel fantastic, almost otherworldly, and there's surprisingly little dialogue throughout the film.
The problem is that the dialogue that is there is almost completely unnecessary. It feels so underwritten that it hinders the experience. This is like if Wall-E's first act included the little robot explicitly describing how he had lived for years alone.
Because of this, the driving subtlety comes off as a mixed bag, accentuating how monotonous the story can get. There's not much story here, and I still felt like 96 minutes was too long. The film takes forever to just get to the crux of the film.
To his credit, Kodi Smit-McPhee who plays the main character Keda is impressive throughout. It's almost a one-actor show, and it probably should have been for more of the story. He nails the emotions of an empathetic boy slowly growing up through necessity.
Alpha is not bad, but it doesn't have much reason to exist. It is a completely missable film that is only valuable to those who can see it in IMAX 3D just to revel in the vibrant cinematography. Most though would likely be better off watching nature documentaries with more educational value.
Grade: C+
This Ex Machina prequel is really boring. Needs more Alicia Vikander. (Image Courtesy of: focusfeatures.com)
The Little Stranger
There were a few moments that I was genuinely engrossed by The Little Stranger. Domhnall Gleeson (Ex Machina) is in prime form as a mysteriously troubled character that is never quite as empathetic as one would expect, and he plays well off Ruth Wilson (The Affair).
That said, this is simply a movie that proves some stories do not translate well as straight adaptations from the book. The debate of book vs. film is often a bit simplistic as they are fundamentally different mediums. For this adaptation of the Sarah Waters ghost story to succeed, it needed to evolve.
Despite the consistently excellent Lenny Abrahamson (Room) at the directing helm, this never feels like a movie. It plods along with spikes of tension and violence that never feel cohesive. There's not a real rhythm to the movie, and it makes it feel like it never had a point.
The mystery of the movie is poorly established while still being fairly obvious by half way through the film. To its credit, the movie does lay its hints well, but, with nothing much to divert attention, all that is left is to stew over the details until the mystery becomes clear.
I had high hopes for the movie because of its director and star, but I knew within 40 minutes that this was just an empty experience. It's not a horror or thriller because its thrills are too sparse. It is not a drama or romance because such story elements are too empty.
This is just a case of a concept that never got off the ground. Screenwriter Lucinda Coxon (The Danish Girl) and director Abrahamson never found the right direction to take this movie, and it shows in every frame. It's a finely crafted but hollow film.
That said, this is simply a movie that proves some stories do not translate well as straight adaptations from the book. The debate of book vs. film is often a bit simplistic as they are fundamentally different mediums. For this adaptation of the Sarah Waters ghost story to succeed, it needed to evolve.
Despite the consistently excellent Lenny Abrahamson (Room) at the directing helm, this never feels like a movie. It plods along with spikes of tension and violence that never feel cohesive. There's not a real rhythm to the movie, and it makes it feel like it never had a point.
The mystery of the movie is poorly established while still being fairly obvious by half way through the film. To its credit, the movie does lay its hints well, but, with nothing much to divert attention, all that is left is to stew over the details until the mystery becomes clear.
I had high hopes for the movie because of its director and star, but I knew within 40 minutes that this was just an empty experience. It's not a horror or thriller because its thrills are too sparse. It is not a drama or romance because such story elements are too empty.
This is just a case of a concept that never got off the ground. Screenwriter Lucinda Coxon (The Danish Girl) and director Abrahamson never found the right direction to take this movie, and it shows in every frame. It's a finely crafted but hollow film.
Grade: C-
Haha, what a poor pathetic sap to think that his passion mattered. (Image Courtesy of: youtube.com)
Juliet, Naked
With so many impressively effective romantic comedies coming out this year, it is hard for a just fine romcom to stand out. Juliet, Naked is a clever idea that is played out with a slow steady structure that never becomes all that affecting.
To its credit, the movie is sweet and not simplistic though primarily just rides the charm of Rose Byrne and Ethan Hawke. That charm though is not enough to deal with the film's most sizable flaw: the lack of chemistry between the leads.
Byrne and Hawke are great in their roles, but together Annie and Tucker come off as fine friends more than two characters that would ever be romantically involved. This extends to Chris O'Dowd's Duncan, who rarely comes off as more than a man child with an obsession.
The story is enough to make for a smooth breeze of a viewing experience. I was happy to sit back and enjoy the ride, but director Jesse Peretz never seems willing to go any deeper or take any emotional chances. His messages are far too simplistic.
In particular, this is a movie about music and fandom that has all of one line to make that idea matter. It is a great line and Duncan's one redeeming moment, but it never meshes into a cohesive whole. The movie just seems to brush over the importance of music to its main characters.
Perhaps it just comes down to the four writers of the screenplay not reaching a cohesive conclusion in the creation of the narrative, but there's not enough here to latch onto. It's a romcom without driving emotion or chemistry but charming and enjoyable enough to get by.
To its credit, the movie is sweet and not simplistic though primarily just rides the charm of Rose Byrne and Ethan Hawke. That charm though is not enough to deal with the film's most sizable flaw: the lack of chemistry between the leads.
Byrne and Hawke are great in their roles, but together Annie and Tucker come off as fine friends more than two characters that would ever be romantically involved. This extends to Chris O'Dowd's Duncan, who rarely comes off as more than a man child with an obsession.
The story is enough to make for a smooth breeze of a viewing experience. I was happy to sit back and enjoy the ride, but director Jesse Peretz never seems willing to go any deeper or take any emotional chances. His messages are far too simplistic.
In particular, this is a movie about music and fandom that has all of one line to make that idea matter. It is a great line and Duncan's one redeeming moment, but it never meshes into a cohesive whole. The movie just seems to brush over the importance of music to its main characters.
Perhaps it just comes down to the four writers of the screenplay not reaching a cohesive conclusion in the creation of the narrative, but there's not enough here to latch onto. It's a romcom without driving emotion or chemistry but charming and enjoyable enough to get by.
Grade: B-
You know what would have made this way better? If Jack Black burst into song during the movie. (Image Courtesy of: pro.boxoffice.com)
The House with a Clock in Its Walls
There's something oddly nostalgic about The House with a Clock in Its Walls. It is reminiscent of old Steven Spielberg with more than a few touches of Harry Potter, and the film leans into those familiar elements. These shadows of better films make for a charming ride but not a well-executed one.
Early on, I felt like a kid again, watching this story of magic and mystery evolving. It's a fantasy for children that always works, a young boy finds out he is connected to a great power than he understands and gets over his own social issue through his hidden powers.
The problem is that the movie gets worse as it goes along. The climax is a mess of simplistic action and poorly constructed humor with only a hint of gothic horror that seemed to be developing early in the story. It is just scary enough to affect children but never enough to leave a lasting impression.
Most of the actors are coasting here on their own talent. Jack Black (School of Rock) is trying to be subdued, but he would have been better just going all out on the comedy. Cate Blanchet (Carol) is the best actor in the movie, but she's often straddled with the worst lines.
Maybe they are holding back to not upstage Owen Vaccaro (Daddy's Home) who plays the young lead, but the young actor never delivers on the opportunity he is given. He fails to make Lewis an engaging or worthy protagonist for the story in the way other young actors have in such fantasy journeys.
It's a shame because this surprise young departure for director Eli Roth (Cabin Fever) had a lot of promise and is not terrible. It just ends up failing its own intriguing set up and likely won't convince anyone this is a franchise worth continuing.
Early on, I felt like a kid again, watching this story of magic and mystery evolving. It's a fantasy for children that always works, a young boy finds out he is connected to a great power than he understands and gets over his own social issue through his hidden powers.
The problem is that the movie gets worse as it goes along. The climax is a mess of simplistic action and poorly constructed humor with only a hint of gothic horror that seemed to be developing early in the story. It is just scary enough to affect children but never enough to leave a lasting impression.
Most of the actors are coasting here on their own talent. Jack Black (School of Rock) is trying to be subdued, but he would have been better just going all out on the comedy. Cate Blanchet (Carol) is the best actor in the movie, but she's often straddled with the worst lines.
Maybe they are holding back to not upstage Owen Vaccaro (Daddy's Home) who plays the young lead, but the young actor never delivers on the opportunity he is given. He fails to make Lewis an engaging or worthy protagonist for the story in the way other young actors have in such fantasy journeys.
It's a shame because this surprise young departure for director Eli Roth (Cabin Fever) had a lot of promise and is not terrible. It just ends up failing its own intriguing set up and likely won't convince anyone this is a franchise worth continuing.
