Although I love movies based on true stories, especially those as impactful as the one in “She Said,” I was skeptical at how quickly the movie was produced. After all, the Weinstein scandal didn’t happen very long ago. While walking into the theater, I wondered if the movie I was about to see was going to be just another mediocre installment of the media-to-movie pipeline. 

Although the story is powerful, “She Said” doesn’t add much to what is already known about the Weinstein scandal. Reenacted recordings of Weinstein and testimonials of the real victims help bring the story to life. However, there’s not enough grime to make the story as impactful as it truly was.

What truly makes “She Said” are Carey Mulligan and Zoe Kazan’s performances. Mulligan, who is no stranger to playing elaborate female characters, takes on the role of The New York Times reporter Megan Twohey. In the movie, Twohey is initially investigating Donald Trump’s sexual harassment allegations amid his 2016 presidential campaign.

After taking maternity leave, Megan joins fellow reporter Jodi Kantor (Zoe Kazan), in investigating recent allegations of sexual harassment against powerful movie producer Harvey Weinstein. These claims come from actresses Rose McGowan and Ashely Judd, who plays herself in the movie. The allegations lead to a growing investigation with victims’ upsetting accounts of Weinstein’s sexual abuse.

With Twohey having a dominant personality while Kantor is more gentle, the two leads compliment each other well. Twohey’s height becomes somewhat of a running joke in the movie as it makes her appear more intimidating than Kantor. Both women are wives and mothers and their time at home takes up a portion of the movie. This highlights their dedication to exposing Weinstein even when they’re outside of the office. 

“She Said” effectively balances the story of the investigation and the stories of the victims. Rather than focusing solely on the reporters, the film gives a voice to the women affected by Weinstein’s hideous acts. With superb casting of actors who resemble their real-life counterparts, the movie successfully retells one of Hollywood’s biggest scandals.  

The post ‘She Said’ movie review: the story behind the reporters who exposed Harvey Weinstein appeared first on KRUI Radio.

The animation style of Spiderverse is a love letter to its form. It combines seemingly incongruous styles to weave together the narratives of the various Spidermen over the character’s history. Half-tone dot shading and dialogue bubbles pay playful homage to the character’s comic book origns. The fight scenes are set against neon skylines that are reminiscent of classic East Asian sci-fi animation, mixed with classic Saturday morning cartoon style and film noir.

The star-studded cast of Spiderverse is made up of pop culture icons and talented actors alike. Bolstered by award winning actors like Mahershala Ali of films like Moonlight and Hidden Figures as Uncle Aaron and the iconic Nicolas Cage voicing Spiderman Noir, the movie is filled with fun cameos by beloved actors. Here’s a quick rundown of my favorites and where you may have seen them too:

New Girl star Jake Johnson appears as Peter B. Parker.

Netflix’s The Get Down Shameik Moore appears as Miles. (Shaolin’s the DJ that we call conductor ‘Cause Shaolin Fantastic’s a bad mother- !)

Comedian John Mulaney appears as Peter Porker from Netflix’s Big Mouth and comedy specials like The Comeback Kid.

Bryan Tyree Henry appears as Miles’ father from Steve McQueen’s Widows and Atlanta.

The film is accompanied by an excellent soundtrack, featuring more pop culture icons and rappers pounding in the background as the heroes web sling down Broadway. Chance the Rapper’s Coloring Book album art even makes an appearance in a few of the scenes. Despite my intense dislike for XXXTENTACION, “Scared of the Dark” by him, Lil Wayne and Ty Dolla $ign still slaps.

The eternally fun Aminé appears on the soundtrack in “Invincible,” an appropriate song as Miles grows into his role as New York’s newest Spiderman. Post Malone and Swae Lee’s (who was previously featured on the soundtrack for Black Panther) “Sunflower” is of course iconic in the opening scene. Surprisingly, Childish Gambino doesn’t appear on the soundtrack despite Miles’s character being partially inspired by him. Fingers crossed he appears in the sequel …

The Marvel cinematic universe has grown increasingly convoluted, diluted by uninspired origin stories of man pain, lackluster de-fanged villains, and an utterly soulless and uninspiring core set of characters. These elements have all culminated into an erosion of the values superhero comics were built on: the superhero as the outsider. Since the inception of what would become Marvel comics in 1939 by the son of Jewish immigrants, superheroes have served as larger than life defenders of the marginalized and powerless.

In the words of Andrew Garfield at Comic Con in 2013, Spiderman “represents the everyman, but he represents the underdog and those marginalized who come up against great prejudice which I, as a middle-class straight, white man, don’t really understand so much.” Marvel has seen smashing successes with Black Panther and now Spiderverse, both films that have stepped away from the traditional white male superheroes that currently dominate the MCU. Despite insightful criticisms of Marvel’s diversity lite within the context of corporate America and the film industry, Miles Morales is still a significant departure from the hardline quota of white superhero movies being churned out. Finally, the Spiderman behind the mask feels like the genuine hero of the underdog.  

The post Movie Review: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Shortly after my Amazon Prime discovery, I started seeing ads for and hearing about Chalamet’s newest movie, Beautiful Boy, which opened a few weeks ago in the US. I quickly penciled it in my calendar as part of my weekend plans. Let me say, my obsession with Chalamet only grew after seeing the film.

The movie is based on the acclaimed memoirs of David and Nic Sheff, father and son respectively, who chronicle their personal experiences with addiction. Nic, who is now 8 years sober and works to spread awareness about addiction as a disease, became hooked on crystal meth as a teenager and began living on the streets, going in and out of rehab. Both Carell and Chalamet expressed an added pressure for them to portray real people, but Nic and David themselves, upon seeing the final cut, stated it in an interview was overwhelming to watch because it was so realistic and true to their reality.

Moving forward and backward in time, the film makes a wise decision in seeking to tell the story as nonlinear, since addiction rarely follows a steady and reliable path to recovery. As David, played by Steve Carell, struggles to understand how his son spiraled out of control, he thinks back to Nic as a child who loved to surf, draw, and write but has since slipped away. The concept of “everything” is a testament to David’s devotion to his son- he tells Nic that all the words in the English language don’t measure up to how much he loves him – he loves him more than everything.

Carell is exceptional in his performance, articulating a mix of helplessness, desperation yet undying love for his son, despite the pain Nic had caused his whole family.

When he gets a call in the middle of the night that Nic is in a New York hospital, David gets on the next flight out of San Francisco. Chalamet also plays Nic very convincingly, teetering back and forth between broken, weepy apologies and explosive fits of anger and frustration. He demonstrates the stark contrast between a sober Nic that smiles and laughs and wants his family to be proud of him, and a Nic that shoots up in a bathroom stall and breaks into his own house.

There are precise moments when the audience is hopeful that Nic was able to turn it around. He enrolls in college, he checks into therapy, he moves back home and plays with his two younger siblings. But each time, he succumbs to the power of drugs, even going so far as to stealing money from his kid brother to buy them.

An especially haunting scene that sticks with me is when David finds Nic’s journal that is filled with disturbing drawings of creatures with needles, scribbles of swears and descriptions of how he now sees the world in “technicolor” with his use of drugs.

The use of drugs is never glamorized, rather it is painted as the monster it is; one that destroys seemingly normal families and sends its victims down a rabbit hole, one that is increasingly difficult to climb out of. It opens up a forum for discussion on addiction and how it can happen to anyone from any walk of life. I did think to myself that this story seems to exist in a sort of vacuum. Nic’s friends are never introduced, David is never at work, there a very few important characters that not part of Nic’s immediate family. This thought did not stop me from being captivated by what I was seeing.

I recommend seeing this movie not only for its performances by the leading characters, but since it puts a face to the nationwide epidemic of addiction. The credits of the movie reveal that drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50 – an astounding and humbling fact. If you know someone who is showing Fentanyl Addiction Signs, it is never too late to get them help.

The post Beautiful Boy: Movie Review appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Flavors of Youth, originally known as 肆式青春, Sì shì qīngchūn, is a movie that explores three people in different Chinese cities: Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shanghai.

Each segment did a fantastic job of being original from the others while also keeping to the main themes of growth and nostalgia. When looking at an anime film such as this the three key elements are animation, story and sound.

Flavors of Youth is seen to have amazing backgrounds and animations of food. These are exactly what I would expect from a collaboration between CoMix Wave Films and Haoliners Animation League. CoMix might sound familiar as they were the production company for the award winning movie, Your Name.

This Japanese-Chinese co-production was based around the Chinese idiom 衣食住行, yī shí zhù xíng. This idiom means clothing, food, housing, and transport. It denotes the basic needs of life. The movie focuses three stories around this idea and how mundane things can have huge emotional importance for the characters.

The first story, directed by, Jiaoshou Yi Xiaoxing, explores that. It depicts a young man who seems to have lost a flavor of ramen

he had as a child with his grandmother. It explores his life through the dish and the different places he orders it. This story had the potential to rise and really set a high standard.

However, an unneeded, slightly creepy, unrequited love situation prevents that. Despite this, the grandmother and ramen aspect of the story was enjoyable and even got me thinking of past dishes like my Granddaddy’s applesauce. A flavor that when tried, can bring you back to your childhood.

The second story, directed by Yoshitaka Takeuchi, is plausibly the weakest vignette. It is focused on two sisters who have lost their parents. This story fails to mention or even show key details that would allow you connect with one of the sisters.

The connection to China and nostalgia get lost along the protagonist’s journey of being a model. Ultimately it comes off more of a saccharine sitcom kinda ending than one grounded in nostalgia. This was the only section handled by a Japanese director; which could attribute to the different atmosphere this one gave off considering the movie is based on growing up in China.

The third and final story is directed by Li Haoling, a director who is known for incorporating smooth yet rich animation to many of his works. It focuses on a young man who moves back to Shanghai after many years of being away. He finds an old tapes him and a young love sent to each other and through them they reconnect. However, this one had many stereotypical scenes that never really seemed fully original. It just wasn’t the masterpiece I expected from Haoling.

Flavors of Youth falls short in not only story but sometimes animation as well. The movie seemed very focused on backgrounds.

The cities and towns were simply amazing throughout the film.

A risk that comes with extensive detail in backgrounds is loss of focus
on the characters themselves. This became clear throughout the film, especially
if compared to CoMix’s animation work on Your Name.

One thing that does need to be considered is this was a co-production. An issue that can commonly unknowingly come up is difference in artistic views. While only slight, this can be seen in the three different stories, all of which were handled by different teams.

While this is more effective and time efficient it does come with its issues. This can be seen in inconsistencies in the overall artistic vision and slight difference of atmosphere in the three stories. Many times it was the soundtrack that helped set the atmosphere.

By no means was this a bad film, it just didn’t own up to either of the production staffs previous work. Another huge factor is the fact this was both translated and edited into an ‘international edition’. There are few changes in the story itself, the language doesn’t always translate best it could.

While there were many discrepancies in the film it did do an amazing job of quickly taking you through three lives in different Chinese cities. The animation flowed very smoothly and while the characters didn’t match up to the background it wasn’t anything that took away from the films enjoyment.

Overall, the film did a superb job of exploring showcasing Beijing, Guangzhou, and Shanghai through three lives. This insight, while not as intimate as the production staff had planned for, did do its job it making the viewer nostalgic.

Overall : B-

—————-
Story : C
Animation : B-
Music : B

The post Flavors of Youth: a Tasteful Nostalgia appeared first on KRUI Radio.

That is not to say that Paterson is by any means a poorly-made movie. Frankly, this is the best film of the year so far. Paterson follows a bus driver named Paterson, played with silent and pensive effectiveness by Adam Driver,  and highlights the city of Paterson, New Jersey, a setting that certainly would not plant the word “poetic” into anyone’s mind. On its face, a movie about a bus driver in a small New Jersey town would not make for interesting material. Jarmusch though, in his signature style, breathes life into an otherwise uninteresting story.

Paterson (the bus driver) lives a rigidly regulated life, waking up, no alarm necessary, between 6:15 and 6:30 each morning Monday through Friday for work. He gets home, eats dinner, walks the dog, and goes to the same bar each night to drink one beer. His wife, on the other end of the spectrum, fills her days with whatever projects pop up in her head in a sporadic nature that would make her a polar opposite from Paterson if not for her calm nature.

The most entertaining aspect of Paterson’s life, as well as the movie, are the unique personalities he runs into throughout his everyday life. College students discussing the history of anarchists in Paterson, the local bartender who captures the soul of the city of Paterson on his wall of fame, a pseudo boyfriend-girlfriend pair that is one part Romeo and Juliet, one part Abbott and Costello. The interactions and observations Paterson has with and of these people is the easiest entertainment coming out of the film. For everything else, the audience has to work a lot harder.

Perhaps I can attribute it to my aversion for poetry, or maybe I am a little too lazy when it comes to filmgoing. There are multiple sightings and discussions of twins in the film, and I am sure it is meant to say something profound about the duality of something, I just could not figure out what that something is. Similarly, the film takes much of its time actually reading aloud bits of poetry, which simply put, is not what I want to be seeing or hearing in a movie.

Aside from being a bus driver, Paterson is an aspiring poet, keeping a secret notebook filled with passages he writes about simple everyday objects and concepts. One poem is dedicated to a box of Ohio Blue Tip Matches sitting in his kitchen. Along with these poems, which admittedly are pleasing to the ear in Driver’s one-of-a-kind voice, the film has a lot to say about a lot of things. I’m just not sure what these things are.

Again, this is more a knock on me than it is against the film. A movie about a bus driver in a seemingly bland town, I can handle. Indeed there is a lot to admire and learn from in Paterson. Combining these with poetry just makes it a little bit of a jagged pill to swallow.

The Movie Dude reviews limited release movies, independent films, and smaller theatrical releases.

The post The Movie Dude: Paterson appeared first on KRUI Radio.

If you want it plain and simple, Peter and the Farm has been by far one of the best films I’ve seen this year, and definitely the best documentary I’ve seen this year.

But if you’re anything like me, you might want to know a little bit more about the film before you actually go and see it, and with director and co-producer Tony Stone’s latest feature-length, I’d say it’s definitely a good idea to know what you’re getting yourself into, especially for all my vegan and vegetarian friends out there.

Peter and the Farm opens with a camera on the dashboard of a car, looking out into the idyllic countryside of Vermont. We then are introduced to the protagonist, a rough-talking, sixty-eight-year-old, rugged individualist and the man who has been behind Mile Hill Farm for 38 years, Peter Dunning.

By all accounts, Peter seems like your average farmer just doing his thing. In an early scene, he demonstrates how he calls for his sheep compared to how he calls for his cows. He wears the same ratty wool sweater, grass stained denim, and worker boots every day. He chops wood, rides around on his tractor, and brews his own beer in his basement.

He seems to have grown accustomed to the daily chores of running a small, organic farm, so much so that in another early scene, he is visibly unfazed as he shoots one of his sheep, fails to actually kill it, shoots it again, this time killing it, and then proceeds to–in an extremely graphic matter that I actually had to cover my eyes from because it was a little too much–dismember the sheep; head, intestines, and all.

Nothing is left up to the imagination here, and Peter’s nonchalant commentary while, for example, pulling the stomach out of the sheep caracas, appears to become this early symbol for his apparent disconnect from the rest of the world, including with his now-estranged family.

Something I appreciated about Peter and the Farm is the way it addresses Peter’s back story. You never get the whole story at once, rather in pieces as it naturally comes to the surface. And it comes to the surface often, as it’s evident that Peter’s past directly impacts his present more than it probably should.

A byproduct of the 1960s counterculture, Peter was once an aspiring artist, who, pretty immediately after receiving his BA in sculpture seeks out work on a saw mill, only to severely injure and disfigure his hand to the point where he can no longer make art the way he once could. He and his first wife, enamored by the notion of organic farming, create a once prosperous business that Peter acknowledges has only been declining since the late 1990s, coinciding with the deterioration of his second marriage and the eventual abandonment by not only both of his wives, but by his four children as well. This leaves Peter where he is today– living alone on and independently tending to his 187 acres of picturesque, New England farmland.

Peter doesn’t specifically point out what was the exact breaking point for his family, but it’s safe for the audience to assume excessive drinking and his lack of exhibited emotion was probably at the root of it. The thing is that despite the unflattering way Peter, more or less, paints himself as, I didn’t really buy that he is just some stoic, apathetic jerk– and that didn’t seem to be what Stone wanted you to take away from it either.

Voiceovers throughout the film divulge incredible poetry written by Peter, elaborating on the guilt he feels for his actions, and at one point, while tossing hay down from the hayloft, and after acknowledging his discontentment over his own childhood, delivers a remarkable insight, stating, “I wish the affection for people had been received as I didn’t give it, but meant it.” That statement has been stuck in my head since I saw the film, and I think it’s because of how relatable it is, not to mention how eloquently it was put. I’d totally be lying if I said I had never felt that same exact way regarding my closest relationships–although I can’t imagine it would’ve been that nicely articulated had I verbally expressed it.

What I think is so special about Peter and the Farm is not only it’s breathtaking cinematography, but also the fact that even in the darkest moments of the film–like when sadly but not too surprisingly Peter semi-jokes that his farmhand has to hide his rifle because he speaks of suicide so often– the viewer feels, in one way or another, compassion for Peter. And this is not to be confused with pity– it’s actually nowhere near pity, and I think it’s because Peter never seems to pity himself. He carries on with his daily routine, his chores, and he never once blames anyone for what has happened, but rather, accepts it as an unfortunate aspect of his life. And in some way, Mile Hill Farm with its mesmerizing beauty and at the same time, isolated existence, seems to mirror Peter’s own existence– what was once full of plentiful opportunity and aspiration has now been eclipsed by years of adversity that I think, only someone of Peter’s age would be able to fully recognize.

Despite this bleak assertion and the fact that Stone’s documentary never really depicts Peter reaching a point of self-redemption at the end, I still wasn’t convinced that the overarching theme of the movie was to point out how much life can suck and simply leave it at that. I mean, hey, even Peter recalls that “…there have been good times. Lots of good times…” and much later on in the film declares, “Life announces itself in force– death slinks off,” suggesting, in my opinion, a more balanced conception of the reality in which we live.

At length, Peter and the Farm is a beautifully observed character study and a one of a kind film that highlights the tragedy of our past seeping into our present, what it means to be human and make mistakes, and at the very least, will definitely put some things into perspective for the viewer.

The post Fresh Bread Film Review: Peter and the Farm appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Welcome to the first addition of RomCom Rants, and article where I rant about the things I like and the things I don’t in romantic comedies.

13 Going on 30 is a RomCom classic if I’ve ever seen one. Made in 2004, this film stars Mark Ruffalo, Jennifer Garner, and Judy Greer. If you haven’t had the pleasure of seeing this movie, this brief summary is for you. Jenna Rink (whose older self is played by Jennifer Garner) is a thirteen-year-old girl who wants nothing more than to be a part of the popular crowd. The film starts off on the day of Jenna’s 13th birthday party. She has invited Tom-Tom (Judy Greer), the  most popular girl in their grade, and her best friend/next door neighbor, Matt (Mark Ruffalo).At the party, Matt gives Jenna a dream house sprinkled with magic dust.

Embarrassed that the “popular” kids will make fun of Matt’s heartfelt gift, Jenna puts it in her closet. When her party flops, Jenna locks herself in said closet and yells how she wants to be thirty, not thirteen. She chants, “Thirty, Flirty, and Thriving” as she slams her body into the shelf
that holds the dream house. The magic dust from the house falls on Jenna and the next thing she knows, she wakes up in New York City, 17 years later. The rest of the movie follows Jenna as she tries to figure out her new life.

I really love Jenna as a character. I think she is relatable. She worries about the same things I think every girl worries about at some point in their life. She worries that she isn’t pretty enough, so she overcompensates with make-up. She doesn’t think her body is filled out, so she stuffs her bra.

Personally, the first time I saw this movie I was in the third grade, struggling with these same issues. It was really good for me to see the struggles Jenna had because it showed me that you aren’t going to be the same

body type your whole life. Your body changes, but that doesn’t make you any less beautiful. Even though it appears that Jenna’s insecurities go away once she makes her transformation, I think they just take a new form, but even though she is insecure about aspects of herself, she never lets her confidence dwindle, which I think is a great thing for young women to see. Love yourself girl.

Her character is also believable because you can still see her thirteen-year-old innocence in her thirty-year-old self. She doesn’t wear clothes a 30-year-old in 2004 would normally wear. Her outfits are either bright and loud, like someone growing up in the eighties would wear, or modest and simple, like something a child would wear. This allows the viewer to sympathize with Jenna and empathize with her innocence.

Even though I love Jenna’s character, there are times where I am disappointed in her. For example.

SPOILER ALERT

When she first made her transformation, she found out thirty-year-old Jenna did not have the best morals. She was kissed by a man married to her coworker, after Jenna pushed him off her, she discovered she had been having a not so discrete affair with him. She was appalled by her behavior and left work appalled by herself. But when Matt kisses her, a soon-to-be-married man, she doesn’t question her behavior at all. She doesn’t even act like they did something wrong (compared to Matt, whose face obviously shows regret). This really shows how young and immature she truly is.

Even though Matt is obviously in love with Jenna, and has been since they were young, I appreciate the realistic ending. They do not end up together right away, he picks his fiancé because even though he knows he loves Jenna, he always knows that he made a promise to his fiance and needs to honor that promise.

It’s not until Jenna is able to travel back to her thirteenth birthday party and pick Matt over Tom Tom that they are able to have a happy ending. Even though it is sad in the moment when Matt reluctantly rejects Jenna, you are able to see how much they truly care about each other even though they can’t be together.

END OF SPOILER

The thing I like the most about this movie is how fun it is. It has several choreographed dance numbers to classic 80s song like Thriller and Love is a Battlefield.

Jenna still does things that a thirteen-year-old would do like have sleepovers and eat chocolate chip pancakes with smiley-faces on them. It really gives this movie character that not every other RomCom has. The outfits are another thing I enjoyed in this movie. I know I previously discussed Jenna’s outfits when she’s older, but the outfits she wears, as well as the other characters, is totally eighties and totally fabulous.

RAPID RANT

Most of this film is centered around Jenna’s career. Jenna hires Matt to take pictures for WORK. Jenna gets in a fight with Lucy about WORK. Jenna is focused on WORK most of the film and her relationship with Matt directly stems off her passion for her WORK. If she didn’t have a job for him to do, they wouldn’t spend so much time together and eventually fallen for each other. Even though Jenna’s career is in the limelight most of the film, it is not addressed at all in the ending. I think Jenna should get the guy but still remain a badass Magazine Editor.

If you liked what you read, you can find 13 going on 30 on Netflix. Thanks for reading.

The post RomCom Rants: “Thirty, Flirty, and Thriving” appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Summer movie season: that time of year when big budget studios throw all of their money behind the next generic, bland, product-pushing mega tentpole movie. Even with all the cynicism I treat blockbuster season, I must admit I love it.

Or maybe it is more of a love-hate relationship. Past Summers have given us Oscar winners such as Gladiator, pitch-perfect comic book adaptations including Spider-Man 1 and 2 and X2, as well as many Pixar favorites that if you don’t love, you obviously have no soul. With the good however, comes the bad. For each Dark Knight, there is a Battlefield Earth. All the Toy Story movies in the world can’t make up for any amount of Superbabies movies. So let’s see how 2016 stacks up.

Unsurprisingly, there is no shortage of action-driven “family friendly” movies that have hit theaters this Summer. While I love a solid popcorn movie more than most, it pains me to say there are not many diamonds to find this year in a sea of turds. Still, Captain America: Civil War was a perfectly crafted and solid piece of entertainment, and not without a certain level of emotional heft. Marvel finally realized that they can’t craft villains that are worth the shiny CGI they are made out of so they pitted our two favorite action heroes against each other. The result was a fast and fun film with kinetic action sequences with a physical sensibility reminiscent of a Paul Greengrass film. It succeeds where Avengers 2 failed in terms of giving its characters actual stakes. The whole world isn’t going to be destroyed, but the relationship between Cap and Iron Man takes a rather dark turn that gets viewers’ attention and actually makes us care.

X-men Apocalypse, alternately, is a hollow shell of a movie that makes me sad that I was ever so pumped for its release in the first place. Cards on the table, I love the X-men movies. It is easily my favorite comic book franchise and if anyone was going to enjoy Apocalypse it was going to be me. On a surface level, sure, it hit some of the right beats. Fassbender and McAvoy make a great leading pair and the Quicksilver showcase, much like the segment in Days of Future Past, never ceases to amaze.

However, there are too many boring characters, the plot meanders way too slowly, and the film has a huge villain problem. I’m not even sure what Apocalypse’s powers are supposed to be. I know it’s definitely not picking good henchmen. If you think an alcoholic teenager with bird wings is one of the strongest mutants in the world, you are going to have some crappy horsemen helping you usher in the end of days.

And speaking of Horsemen! The film no one was waiting for (and no one really asked for), Now You See Me 2.

If I ever meet someone who was rabidly anticipating this sequel, I will let Chris Angel levitate me in front of a bus. I see myself as a just-go-with-it kind of movie goer. When everyone is asking “Did the top keep spinning?”, or “Was Deckard actually a repilicant?”, I find myself saying “Who cares that movie was awesome!” That being said, there is only so much I’m willing to forgive.

Now You See Me 2 maybe works on a surface level of pure visual entertainment if you like crappy sight gags. Not much else is worthy of your attention. The movie is like a big ugly Christmas sweater: fun to laugh at for a bit, but once you pull at one thread, the whole thing falls apart. The slickest sequence in the film, where the Horsemen throw around a playing card with a valuable computer chip attached to it, loses its audience once you realize the entire sequence had no purpose in the plot of the film. Director Jon Chu hopes to literally distract his audience with slight of hand and tired card tricks. Sorry Jon, no one thinks magicians are cool.

2016’s blockbusters are mainly just busts, it seems. While it may be difficult to single out many bright spots in the lackluster tentpole films, there is some smaller budget fare that makes the season much more bearable. Even though it had a very brief run in theaters, Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping was easily one of the most entertaining, if under-watched films of the summer. Popstar functions as a Spinal Tap for today’s generation of pop mega-star obsessed fans. Or it works for people like me who love making fun of such folks. Being mean-spirited is fun!

Popstar is not for everyone. Its delightfully foul-mouthed and gleefully inappropriate approach to comedy may find some viewers out of their comfort zone . Andy Samberg is locked in as the Bieberesque protagonist who just wrote and produced his second album with tracks that range from how humble he his to a song made up entirely of catch phrases. The music alone is worth the watch.

Finally, Summer was good for my favorite movie of the year so far, The Nice Guys. Shane Black shows off his expertise as a buddy cop filmmaker who excels at showing off different sides of Los Angeles. I love when movies are able to show unique sides of settings we have seen many times before, and The Nice Guys runs from Beverly Hills-style L.A. to grimy urban alleyways to classy Hollywood parties. The film is anchored by Russell Crow doing his best tough guy with a heart, but the star is Ryan Gosling.

Most people have come to expect a lot of good looks and charm with some sly talk from Gosling, but the man has serious comic acting chops. His delivery, timing, and especially physical acting went well above what many comic actors are capable of. Some might say the movie suffers from plot issues, mainly in that its plot really doesn’t matter. Sure, but when it’s so damn enjoyable to watch the two leads play off each other in a delightfully dark setting, who cares?

So, would Commodus give this Summer a thumbs up or down? Probably more like a “Meh…”. While there are certainly films to enjoy I’m finding a lot more movies that really shouldn’t have seen the light of day. Maybe I’m just spoiled from last years smorgasbord of Mad Max: Fury Road, Inside Out, Trainwreck, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, and way too many other fantastic films. Or maybe I just expect too much from summer movies. All I want to do is be excited and eat popcorn. “Are you not entertained?” No Marcus Aurelius, not so much this year.

Watch and Talk is an alternative look at film. It is a column that discusses movies from all different genres. Movies are not necessarily reviewed, they are simply talked about. Watch and Talk looks at not only the entertainment value of various films, but also the cultural impacts and aspects that films can have.

The post Watch and Talk: Block Bustin’ appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Personally, I’m a pretty big fan of horror-anthologies. If done correctly, they manage to strip away much of the generally ineffective plot and character development that bog down so many horror films, and skips right to the good stuff. Of course, plot and character development are not bad things, but with a niche genre like horror that often times serves a very specific purpose, to scare the audience, these narrative devices can often times get in the way of the real thing the audience is after. Obviously not all horror films should shirk these aspects of their movies, but if you’re clearly just out to scare the audience then you often don’t really need to get to know the paper thin characters all that well. I’m a big fan of the V/H/S series, and I think they did an excellent job of really honing in on the scary moments in each short film, making the entire movie a really great time-to-scare investment.

Southbound does this fairly well to, but in all honesty I think it falls flat compared to V/H/S series. While the V/H/S movies usually played around with more generic tropes, and were only very loosely connected, Southbound explores fairly unique situations, and each vignette is clearly tied together within the same world. Unfortunately, the fact that the scary situations each short film creates are rather unique, their short time frames end up hurting the overall product. Because we’re not super familiar with the generic content, we as an audience need a little more time to understand what’s going on in each short.

Redemption and retribution for past sins is a constant theme in Southbound, and is explored in every vignette. Usually these sorts of themes make for compelling horror films, adding a sense of inevitability and fate to the drama. However, the anthology format again means that the troubled past these characters are running from is not given enough time to be explored or explained. Horrible crimes are hinted at and alluded to, but ultimately the audience is left without enough information and without enough attachment to the characters to truly feel involved.

Another major difference between Southbound and V/H/S is that each V/H/S short was a “found footage” film. Maybe I’m just biased, but for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on, I think this format works better in an anthology film. All of this is not to say that Southbound doesn’t have its moments. The inescapable demons in “The Way In/Out” are truly creepy and will surely plague my imagination the next time I’m driving on the seemingly unending open road. “The Accident” was also a particularly chilling tale, and I think it was the strongest effort throughout the film.

Overall, Southbound is an OK entry into the anthology horror genre. Don’t expect to find anything groundbreaking or particularly exciting here, but if you know you just want some cheap horror thrills, there is plenty here to deliver.

Click here to see if Southbound is playing in a theater near you. Check out the trailer for the film below:

The post Cinema Spotlight: Southbound appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Love is the newest film from infamous director Gaspar Noe. Released in 2015, the 3-D film immediately garnered attention for its use of nudity and explicit sex. Love blurs the line between art-house film and pornography in a way that is rarely seen, especially on such a wide scale. Love is not without its critics, and many of their points are valid; Love is not a perfect movie. But, it is certainly different, and for many, the film’s desire to push boundaries is enough to deserve attention.

The film follows Murphy (as in “Murphy’s Law“, which the film explicitly states in bold letters), a young father who wakes up on New Year’s Day deeply unsatisfied with his life. He receives a call from his ex-girlfriend’s (with the equally loaded name Electra) mother, asking him if he has seen Electra lately, fearing that she may have hurt herself. This call puts Murphy in a tail-spin, and he spends the rest of the film reminiscing on his passionate but volatile relationship.

Gaspar Noe is known as a boundary pushing director. His other feature length films, (I Stand Alone, Irreversible, and Enter the Void) all deal with tough subject matter, and his style of film making is designed to disturb instead of entertain. His work in Love is no different, and reminds me quite a bit of Lars von Trier‘s Nymphomaniac. Beyond the exploration of somewhat similar subject matter, and the explicit depictions of sex, the two films also share a fourth-wall breaking story telling technique. Love is filled with wild insert shots (including an ejaculating penis that is somewhat frightening to see in 3-D), harsh jump cuts, and non-linear vignettes. This is definitely an artsy film, and anyone coming into it with the same expectations they would have for a Hollywood blockbuster will be in for quite the surprise.

Despite all the sex and artsy film techniques, or perhaps because of it, Love still has its shining moments. There are moments of real and relatable intimacy between the characters. While romantic comedies may play on our happiest fantasies of love, Love brings to the forefront our darkest realities. There are moments and feelings in Love that are deeply human, but seem somewhat unexplored in movies. It takes a bold and honest look at a deeply dysfunctional relationship, and forces its audience to feel both revolted and sympathetic to its main characters. And that, I suppose, is enough for a piece of art, isn’t it?

Click here to see if Love is playing in a theater near you.

The post Cinema Spotlight: Love appeared first on KRUI Radio.