Following Her Brother’s Passing, a Young Woman Attempts to Contact Him

Kristen Stewart in "Personal Shopper"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

A ghost story is something that offers many possibilities in film, as it can offer pure horror, such as in “Insidious”; genuine emotion, such as in “The Sixth Sense”; or hilarity, such as in the original “Ghostbusters.”  The subject of ghosts is deeply rooted in any culture, so it’s always fascinating to see how this topic is approached in a visual medium.

Director Olivier Assayas gives us a rather unconventional ghost story with his film, “Personal Shopper.”  Although it’s occasionally hindered by several shifts in tone, it still benefits from unsettling atmospherics, some creepy imagery, and a top-form performance from its lead.

Maureen (Kristen Stewart) lives in Paris and works as a personal shopper for a model.  On her own time, she communicates with ghosts, attempting to communicate with her deceased twin brother, while also coming into contact with other spirits.

Kristen Stewart offers one of her finest and most moving performances to date.  In the role of someone who feels a strong loneliness in the months following her brother’s death, Stewart’s work in this film pulls you in with her low-key approach to her character as Maureen involves herself in the supernatural, perfectly and quietly conveying the intensity of how much she misses her sibling, all of which makes her sadness much more powerful to watch.

With the help of Yorick Le Saux’s cinematography, the film offers some haunting and memorable imagery, with one shot in particular near the end that will give you some serious chills.  In the scenes where Maureen spends time in her brother’s home, we are given some unnerving long takes around his darkened house as Maureen explores the possibilities of there being spirits within the home.

Despite the occasional chills and creepy atmospherics, the screenplay by Assayas takes an intriguing approach to ghost stories, as it focuses more on the main character’s need to contact her deceased brother than trying to scare you, all of which gives us thought-provoking scenes as Maureen tries to make sense of her supernatural abilities.

A problem with the screenplay, however, is how it often feels like it has two types of movies going on at once, with one being an emotional ghost story, and the other being a psychological thriller, and the film would have been better had it stuck with the former the whole way through.

Although the film has this problem, credit should be given to Assayas for being able to give each of these two ideas their own distinct feel.  He creates an unsettling, yet solemn feeling when focusing more on the ghost story portions, and he makes your pulse quicken when the narrative veers into thriller territory.

It’s always rewarding to see filmmakers experiment with types of stories that have been around for a long time, and while “Personal Shopper” does have an issue its narrative, this is an admirable effort, regardless.  If you want to go to the movies and are in the mood for something different, Assayas’ film will give you much to ponder, as well as make your spine tingle a couple of times.

Final Grade: B+   

King Kong Returns with All of His Regal Destruction

Tom Hiddleston and Brie Larson in "Kong: Skull Island"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

The following review is from a guest contributor by the name of Matthew Williams, a friend of mine and fellow movie buff whom I met in Rider University’s Alternative Film Club.

The most famous ape in cinema is back, and boy, does he make an impression in director Jordan Vogt-Roberts’ “Kong: Skull Island.”  All of those commercials that show Kong beating his chest and snarling don’t express the true sensation of sitting in the theater and having those roars blaring at you through the speakers.

This movie is a violent romp in a beautiful locale that follows a group of scientists and Vietnam War-era soldiers as they survey an uncharted land with the aid of a tracker and photographer.  Almost immediately, they realize not only does the island belong to nature itself, but that it has a very angry protector, and they are intruding on his territory,

Let’s be honest, most moviegoers don’t go to films like this for character arcs or pathos, clutching bags of popcorn and fountain drinks with tears running down their faces.  If you want that, there are probably still some Best Picture nominees out there; or “Logan,” for that matter.  What you want is spectacle.  You want to feel that sweet, angry catharsis of a giant ape clobbering anything and everything in its wake.  

What this movie needed to do is not forget that it was a monster movie, regardless of the fact that this is a departure from what we have seen in previous “King Kong” movies.  I don’t need to get to know any human protagonist too deeply, as their motivations can’t be bigger than getting to know the island itself, and I don’t need to be drowned in faux scientific exposition since all of those things take away from the monster-thriller/adventure aspect.  I guess I like more ‘fi’ in my ‘sci-fi.’  

What brought me into the theater was the cast, but what kept me on the edge of my seat was how big and fantastic everything was.  I remember when I was a tyke and I saw my first kaiju movie, “Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla,” and I thought for the briefest of moment that the world was maybe a bit larger than I thought, that there were larger things than dinosaurs and my toy box could come alive on my television screen.  In recent memory, “Kong: Skull Island” is the closest thing to have approached that same idea on the scale “Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla” did.  “Pacific Rim” and 2014’s “Godzilla” were very much human stories, but this time around, the monsters, their power, and their presence are just as, if not more important than the human drama in the background.

The best thing about this movie isn’t that the CGI is immaculate or that the music will have you grooving to one of the best playlists to be assembled for a movie in a while, but that King Kong, the title character, is never lost in the plot *cough-“Godzilla”-cough*.  He roars, stomps, and smashes though the entire runtime, which is what’s needed because this is his movie, and he has to be present.  The film may not provide much in the human-character department, and it definitely feels like it’s trying to race to an even bigger sequel *cough-Marvel-cough*, but what it does, it does well.  It’s big and loud the whole way through and doesn’t feel ashamed to be so.

Let’s check off what you can expect: Kong and a plethora of grotesque, skyscraper-sized opponents?  Check and check.  Guns, ammo, explosions, and rubble? Checks all around.  One-liners?  Check.  A breakneck pace that won’t let you stay in one conversation for too long?  Check.  Human fodder?  A terrifying check.  John C. Reilly surprising us with the best performance to watch?  Check.  A talented cast?  Check.  Samuel L. Jackson raving in that way only he can?  Check.

For those who don’t already know, King Kong will soon share the same screen space as the Godzilla we saw in Gareth Edwards’ 2014 film in a planned cinematic universe called the MonsterVerse.  So far, we only have two other movies planned out, or at least announced, but “Kong: Skull Island” is a welcome installment.  With “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” coming out in 2019 and “Godzilla vs. Kong” in 2020, the next few years have some monster-movie epics to garner much anticipation. 

Until then, all hail King Kong as the champion of expectations exceeded.

Final Grade: B+

Even as a Lego, the Caped Crusader is at His Crime-Fighting Best

Batman (voiced by Will Arnett) and Robin (voiced by Michael Cera)
in "The Lego Batman Movie"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

In 2014, “The Lego Movie” became one of the best cinematic surprises of that year when, instead of being a shameless marketing gimmick to sell the popular toys, it turned out to be a surprisingly funny, clever, and visually dazzling film with a heartfelt message that champions the power of imagination.  While that movie had a profusion of unique characters, one of the standouts was Batman, for whom Will Arnett provided a terrific voice performance.  

I have to admit, when I first heard there was going to be a spin-off involving his character, I was worried it would just turn out to be the cash grab “The Lego Movie” succeeded not to be.  However, this is not the case with “The Lego Batman Movie.”  Although it doesn’t quite reach the heights of the first Lego film, director Chris McKay delivers an energetic and enjoyable continuation of these building blocks’ big-screen adventures.

In Gotham City, Batman/Bruce Wayne lives his life fighting numerous criminals and saving the day.  But despite his success, he can’t help but feel lonely in his mansion and always be troubled by his parents’ deaths, all of which cause him to be unable to hold onto any meaningful human connections.  But when Gotham faces danger from the maniacal Joker (Zach Galifianakis), Batman must get over his fear of relationships and enlist the help of his newly adopted son Richard Grayson/Robin (Michael Cera), his butler Alfred Pennyworth (Ralph Fiennes), and Barbara Gordon/Batgirl (Rosario Dawson) to help him foil the Joker’s devious plans.

Arnett, Cera, and Galifianakis provide the best voice performances of the cast.  Arnett continues his comical and gravelly tough-guy voice à la Christian Bale from the “Dark Knight” trilogy; Cera is hilarious as Batman’s hyper and eager-to-please sidekick; and Galifianakis is wildly entertaining as the Batman’s dastardly nemesis.   

However, the one problem with this film’s voice roster is how, even though the three central cast members turn in very funny work, it’s the supporting characters who, although the voice actors do a fine job with the material they’re provided, their roles aren’t quite as memorable; whereas “The Lego Movie” had many distinctive characters, whether they be main or supporting.

When a screenplay has too many writers, it faces the risk of having a clash of multiple visions.  However, despite “The Lego Batman Movie” having five screenwriters (Seth Grahame-Smith, Chris McKenna, Erik Somers, Jared Stern, and John Whittington), the film manages to tell a cohesive story with a clear idea in mind.  The narrative comes loaded with clever jokes, as well as pop-culture references that don’t feel like they were included for the sake of being hip.  Even with the film’s wealth of jokes, the writers are able to flesh out a heartfelt story of Batman and his difficulty connecting with others.  And although the movie’s ending is a tad similar to that of the first film, the story as a whole is still a delightful ride.

Just like directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller’s work on “The Lego Movie,” Chris McKay employs an endless amount of gorgeous and eye-popping animation.  He builds this installment into a lively action-adventure that keeps the jokes and impressive visuals coming at a lightening pace throughout the film, while also skillfully incorporating the emotions involved when dealing with Batman’s loneliness.  And with the help of a fun story from the film’s quintet of writers, McKay is able to harness the sense of creativity that stems from these building blocks and brings us an entertaining film that has something for viewers of any age, adding an inventive approach to Batman on screen.

Final Grade: B+

After Many Years, a Farewell to the Wolverine

Hugh Jackman in "Logan"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

The “X-Men” movie franchise has been going on since 2000, and up until this point, it has consisted of a main trilogy, a prequel trilogy, two spin-off films that focused on Wolverine/Logan, played ferociously by Hugh Jackman, and last year’s “Deadpool.”  Appearing in every installment of the series (except “Deadpool”), Wolverine has been one of the best aspects of the franchise, even in “X-Men: First Class” and “X-Men: Apocalypse” where he only had a cameo.  This is a character Jackman has played for 17 years, and there was never a moment during that time where I thought he should give up the character.  

However, we are now at the point where Jackman has come to an end in this part of his career, but he concludes his portrayal of this character on the highest of notes.  Director James Mangold, who helmed the second solo Wolverine movie, “The Wolverine,” brings us “Logan,” the final installment of the famed mutant’s trilogy.  In a film that’s thrilling, dark, emotional, and brutal, Mangold gives us a poignant good-bye to this beloved character and an “X-Men” movie that ranks among the best of the franchise.

It’s the year 2029, and Logan, who’s healing abilities have begun to decrease, works his days as a chauffeur while living in a secret hideout across the border in Mexico, where he takes care of an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart).  Soon, circumstances arise that have them come across an 11-year-old girl named Laura (Dafne Keen), who has claw-like powers similar to Logan’s.  When a group known as the Reavers, led by Donald Pierce (Boyd Holbrook), come after Laura, Logan and Professor Xavier will do what he can to protect her at any cost.

Jackman gives this performance his all and imbues it with a tragic frailty on a level we’ve never seen before with his character.  He uses that and pairs it with a world-weary persona that brings us the most emotional portrayal of Logan yet.  What makes Jackman’s performance so memorable is how well he transitions from the unstoppable mutant we once knew in previous films to someone who is now forced to face his own mortality.  This is the dramatic depth that’s a bit of a rarity in big-budget films these days, and it’s a relief to see that, in between the bits of humor that we have come to enjoy in Logan’s character, Jackman’s last outing as this iconic hero is every bit as moving as it should be for the legacy he has built in the realm of comic-book films.

Patrick Stewart, who has been flawless as Professor X ever since he took on the role, turns in work that’s as heart-rending as Jackman’s.  Having portrayed this character for as long as Jackman has played Wolverine, this is the best performance Stewart has given as Professor X.  Like always, Stewart’s character provides the much-needed wisdom and unconditional love towards Wolverine and Laura as we’ve seen him give his many students.  And even though Stewart gets a chance to provide a few entertaining witticisms throughout the film, he never lets it detract from the overall seriousness of his role that has him facing a decline in his strength.  Just like with Jackman, this is a performance that marks a poignant end to what will be one of the most memorable performances in the superhero genre.

Dafne Keen, in her film debut, is one of the best new additions to the “X-Men” film universe.  Although her character doesn’t talk until the final third of the film, she makes a great use of facial expressions to allow us to get an idea of what’s going through her mind as she experiences the world in a way she never has.  And in the scenes where her character must fight, Keen unleashes a fury of war cries as her victims find themselves on the wrong side of her claws, showing just as much of an unforgiving persona as Wolverine does when he’s in a fight.  All of this shows that, despite being a newcomer, Keen has the talent to hold her own while sharing the screen with the talents of Jackman and Stewart.

Although Boyd Holbrook is threatening enough as the main villain, the one problem is that the writers don’t provide his character with more than just his basic motivations.  The menacing attitude Holbrook gives to Donald Pierce makes him fun to watch, but a character as celebrated as Logan needs to have a villain who can match his depth, but Pierce doesn’t quite achieve that.

The screenplay by Mangold, Scott Frank, and Michael Green, which is inspired by Mark Millar and Steve McNiven’s graphic novel “Old Man Logan,” not only offers an action-packed superhero story, but it also reaches a level of character study not seen in the first two solo Wolverine films.  With this being the end of Logan’s arc for Jackman, the screenwriters take this opportunity to explore their main character as he enters a different stage of his live, one where he must confront the prospect of his death.  Given how long we’ve watched this character, Mangold, Frank, and Green succeed in delivering a narrative where we see Logan as someone who is more broken-down than ever, providing his character with a deepness that’s needed in order to make this final chapter of his story be the conclusion that Logan merits.  

Side note: the narrative’s third act has a fun, mutant twist to “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.”  

Mangold delivered some exciting action sequences in “The Wolverine,” but with “Logan,” he’s able to step it up considerably, due to the film’s R-rating.  He brings us unflinching scenes with Logan fighting his way through many henchmen with a level of ferocity we’ve never seen in these films, and with this being the end of Jackman as Logan, I can’t imagine the proceedings going any other way.  However, in between these scenes, Mangold brings a great deal of focus when he concentrates on the relationships between Logan and Professor X, and that of Logan and Laura.  When the film calls for action, it’s fast-paced; and when it comes time for the character-driven scenes, he doesn’t rush them, but instead lets them play out the way they should and brings a level of emotion that we only seem to get from superhero films once in a while.

It’s hard to think that we won’t be seeing Jackman as Wolverine again, but viewers can be reassured that “Logan” is a true honor to the cherished character that we have seen on screen for all of these years.  This is the end of an era for the “X-Men” film series, and what an era it was.

Final grade: A-