MOVIES WITH DAVE

By David stull

Holy cow, this has been a busy month for movies. Sure, there hasn’t been any big name blockbusters, but just the sheer amount of films has been insane. I’ve seen 16 movies already and the month’s not even over yet.

This week we have a movie attempting to copy the spirit and profits of the “Harry Potter” franchise, a new political documentary from Michael Moore, the tale of a town gone mad over internet leaks, and a film that made me so angry I wanted to punch a hole through the wall after watching it.

Let’s get straight to the reviews.

***

First up is “The House With A Clock In Its Walls.”

Based on the book of the same name, this movie follows ten-year-old Lewis Barnavelt (Owen Vaccaro). After recently losing his parents, Lewis is sent to live with his uncle Jonathan (Jack Black) in a creaky old house with a mysterious ticking heart.

Lewis discovers his uncle is more than he appears and is soon thrust into a secret world of warlocks and witches.

It’s really hard not to instantly think of “Harry Potter” with a synopsis like that one. And that’s exactly how the movie is advertised too.

It seems pretty clear that the marketing team behind this film are hoping “The House with a Clock in Its Walls” will become the next “Harry Potter.”

Sadly, this film is no “Harry Potter.” Not even close.

Beyond not having nearly the level of cohesive world building or sense of wonder that the “Harry Potter” franchise was dripping with, this movie lacks perhaps the most important aspect that let “Harry Potter” be the success that it was. Excellent performances, especially from younger actors.

I hate to complain too much about child actors. There’s only so much experience you can have as a 12-year-old in the acting biz. You have to forgive them if they have a few rough edges here and there.

But there’s only so much I can tolerate. Especially when the young actor is the main character for the film.

Owen Vaccaro gives an absolutely terrible performance in this movie.

He has zero conviction in his dialogue and was completely unconvincing in the role.

I’m not talking just a few bad scenes here and there. It was the entire movie. Every single word out of his mouth felt forced.

And somehow, the emotional scenes with him ended up being even worse.

There’s a moment early on in the film where Lewis is sobbing over the recent death of his parents. A good heartfelt scene to have in a movie with an orphan as a main character, but he was so shockingly bad I thought the kid was fake crying.

It was like he was supposed to be unbelievable in the context of the film and was trying to mess with his uncle for some reason. But no, we were actually meant to believe this boy was upset.

It was shocking. And sadly it wasn’t just Lewis’s character who suffered here.

All the child actors in this movie are terrible. All of them give emotionally flat or forced performances.

The dialogue for the kids doesn’t help matters either. I’m not convinced the writer for this film has ever even met a child, much less heard one speak. They all sounded so unnatural.

Even two time Academy Award winning Cate Blanchett, who plays Jack Black’s bickering neighbor in the film, isn’t nearly at her best.

I mean she’s still Cate Blanchett, so she still does better than most would in her position, but poor acting this extensive in a film points to one thing and one thing only. The director.

Before this movie and “Death Wish” earlier this year, Eli Roth was exclusively in the business of directing shock horror films. Low budget movies with excessive gore and pretty disturbing reputations.

Roth isn’t the first horror director to become a mainstream filmmaker.

Before Sam Raimi made “Spider-Man” he was best known for his work in “The Evil Dead” series and before Peter Jackson brought “The Lord of the Rings” to the silver screen he worked on spatter films like “Bad Taste” and “Dead Alive.”

Roth’s horror chops definitely show in this movie. There’s no gore obviously, but there’s still a fair amount of creepy imagery. Enough to scare some of the more easily frightened children.

Sadly, it doesn’t seem Roth has nearly the skill with actors that his other post-horror director colleagues do.

One bad performance could have just been chalked up as a bad actor. But when all of the acting in your movie is subpar, all signs point to poor directing.

In addition to the mediocre to terrible performances, the story is messy, even frustrating at times, and some of character’s actions don’t make a lick of sense.

Also what little comedy the film has is pretty poorly executed.

A big part of Jack Black’s and Cate Blanchett’s relationship in the movie is their bickering and constant name calling. It looked fun in the trailer, but unfortunately the cometic timing is just off.

Their dialogue had the potential to be funny, but like most of the film, it ended up being better in concept than in result.

But even with all the criticism I just lobbed at this film, I still think kids might enjoy it. A girl I sat next to in the theater seemed completely engrossed and was giggling her head off during the movie’s comedic moments.

I doubt it’ll end up being the next “Harry Potter” like the studio behind it was clearly hoping for, but if you can get past the poor acting and your kids don’t scare easily, this movie might make for an okay afternoon time killer.

I certainly didn’t like it though.

“The House with a Clock in Its Walls” is rated PG.

***

Next is “Fahrenheit 11/9.”

Filmmaker Michael Moore is back. In his latest documentary, Moore examines the current state of American politics, particularly the Donald J. Trump presidency and gun violence, while highlighting the power of grassroots democratic movements.

Oh boy. A political documentary about Donald Trump. I’m sure this won’t be the least bit polarizing.

This movie starts out much like Moore’s 2004 documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11,” with showing footage from election night. But instead of Moore asking “Was it all a dream? he asks “How did we get here?”

What follows though isn’t just uninterrupted Trump bashing, though Moore certainly doesn’t paint the President in a positive light.

The movie is more of a look at the political climate that lead to Trump coming to office and the reaction his presidency has generated.

A lot of the blame is pointed at major news organizations.

An entire segment is dedicated to how the networks used Trump’s image to boost ratings. Moore ends it with a quote from the CEO at CBS that summed up Trump’s candidacy quite nicely. “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”

But like I said, the movie isn’t all about Trump. A large percentage is focused on Moore’s home state of Michigan. Notably the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

He certainly isn’t a fan of Michigan’s current governor Rick Snyder. He personally holds Snyder accountable for exposing thousands of children to lead poisoning, plus the outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease that killed 12 people.

I thought for the most part Moore’s arguments were compelling, though I didn’t agree with all of his conclusions.

Plus there were a couple silly stunts, like going to the Michigan State Capitol to make a citizen’s arrest on the governor, or spraying the governor’s lawn with a firehose hooked up to a tanker full of Flint water.

Personally I don’t think antics like that help his argument much, but at least they don’t make up the bulk of the film.

I think my biggest take away from the film is Moore isn’t a fan of basically any established politician, Republican or Democrat.

He even goes after President Obama for prosecuting whistleblowers, numerous drone strikes, and most of all the President’s actions in downplaying the water crisis in Flint.

Along with criticizing current politicians, Moore interviews a fair amount of up and coming candidates. People really passionate about changing the direction the country is headed in. A direction Moore directly compares to despotism and Nazi Germany.

All in all, “Fahrenheit 11/9” is a well edited documentary and on a whole the film is never really boring.

But like everything political, I doubt this movie will persuade anyone who disagrees with Moore’s viewpoint.

Moore’s definitely preaching to the choir on this one. If you’re young and lean left, there’s a good chance you’ll leave this film emboldened and eager to vote in the upcoming election.

On the other hand if you lean right, you probably rolled your eyes the second you heard Michael Moore was releasing another documentary.

“Fahrenheit 11/9” is rated R.

***

Third this week is “Assassination Nation.”

High school senior Lilly (Odessa Young) and her group of friends live in a haze of texts, selfies and chats just like the rest of the world.

So, when an anonymous hacker starts posting details from the private lives of everyone in their small town of Salem, the result is absolute madness leaving Lily and her friends questioning whether they’ll live through the night.

This is a wild one.

It’s isn’t too often where I watch a movie and 30 minutes in I still have no idea what’s going on, but that was definitely the case here.

Turns out it was a bit more metaphorical than I was expecting. Usually that’d be a nonstarter for me, but I still ended up at least enjoying aspects of this film.

The real premise of the movie is basically asking one question. What if internet lynch mobs happened in real life?

Unfortunately, it’s something you see happen all the time these days.

Someone online will post evidence of some wrongdoing committed by someone on social media, made up or otherwise, and followers of the accuser end up whipping themselves into a frenzy, sending hateful messages and even death threats to the person accused.

That’s basically what happens in this little made up town of Salem.

Everyone is upset that their information gets leaked. These people are angry and just want blood, so all it takes is a single flimsy accusation to make the entire town go on a murderous rampage.

And beyond a slow and meandering beginning, I think the movie was executed pretty well, at least for what they were trying to accomplish.

The camera work is really creative. I absolutely love the way one of the scenes towards the end was shot.

It’s a home invasion scene where all teens are hanging out in the same house, while unknown to them, they’re slowly being surrounded by the disgruntled townsfolk and picked off one by one.

The way the camera pans around the outside and eventually through the house was just wonderfully done. And it was all seemingly shot in a one take too. All together making that scene one of the most intense and visually engaging moments in the film.

I also really liked the lighting. It almost felt like something out of a stage play with all the the spotlights drawing focus to what’s important on screen.

I have to say though, this film is not one for the faint of heart. It’s very rare for a movie to make me feel physically nauseous, but this film did just that.

Just the sheer amount of blood everywhere was staggering. Plus there’s the rape scenes, which are incredibly unpleasant in their own right.

Also while the acting is fine, the characters here don’t necessarily feel like real people. More like self-insert personifications of people for the audience to imagine themselves in their position. Either that or they were insane internet trolls manifested in the real world.

I get what the filmmakers were going for. The entire film is a metaphor whose purpose is to hold up a mirror on reality. But I would have prefered characters with a bit more depth.

This would be a hard film to recommend just the amount of blood and rape scenes. The fact that the whole thing is basically an analogy doesn’t help much.

I guess if you love gory movies, enjoy films with heavy feminist undertones, and don’t mind watching a movie whose entire plot is metaphorical, this will be right up your alley.

Sadly, for this film’s sake, I can’t imagine there’s too many people who fit that description.

“Assassination Nation” is rated R.

***

Last this week is “Life Itself.”

As a young New York couple (Oscar Isaac and Olivia Wilde) goes from college romance to marriage and the birth of their first child, the unexpected twists of their journey create reverberations that echo over continents and through lifetimes.

It’s not too often a movie actually makes me angry. Sure, there’s lots of films I don’t enjoy, some I even hate, but only rarely does a movie leave me in a seething puddle of rage, upset at everything, most of all the filmmakers behind it.

“Life Itself” is one of those movies.

The first hour or so, the film is doing everything it can to toy with your emotions. Like a little boy plucking the legs off an insect one by one, all for his sick pleasure.

The movie introduces a character and a few minutes later, oops, she gets hit by a bus.

Then it’s revealed the person who died horribly moments ago was only someone in the book Oscar Isaac was writing.

So fine, now our main character is Oscar Isaac and now he’s telling his therapist how he met his estranged wife. Fine.

Now the movie turns into a game of Mad Libs. It’s like Dan Fogelman, this film’s writer and director, sat down and wrote the most juvenilely offensive things he could think of and threw them into a script. Most of which I can’t repeat in this family friendly publication.

Suffice it to say, the movie is filled to the brim with expletives and overt sexual innuendo.

I’m no prude, but there has to be a point to it all. Otherwise the writer just looks like an immature teenager trying to get a rise out of his stuffy old parents.

None of it even got a laugh, it was just trying to be shocking for the sake of being shocking.

And all of that is just the first 30 minutes of the movie. Later on the movie decides that showing just one woman get hit by a bus wasn’t enough, so they hit another woman with a bus, and this time she’s pregnant.

Then a few minutes later someone commits suicide with a handgun fully visible on screen, because I guess watching a pregnant woman die just wasn’t cruel enough.

After that, suddenly the movie skips forward a decade or so, we’re treated to a few brief scenes with Mandy Patinkin, a criminally underused actor in my opinion, and the movie skips forward another 10 or so years.

And then we get to watch the same pregnant lady get hit by a bus again, this time from a different angle, because once wasn’t enough I guess.

Next, out of nowhere, we’re suddenly transported from New York to Spain and we’re introduced to a completely new set of characters, including Antonio Banderas.

I hope you didn’t get attached to anyone in the movie before, because you basically never see them again. I’m not kidding.

Also I hope you enjoy reading subtitles, because the majority of the remainder of the film is in Spanish, including a scene where Antonio Banderas monologues his life story for 10 minutes straight.

But at least the movie stops being relentlessly cruel at this point.

Now it turns into a condensed tale of love followed by mistrust, all before fast forwarding a couple decades and quickly connecting the Spain and New York stories together.

Then, as the film is wrapping up, the movie tries to spoon feed the audience a final positive message about life and love. An incredibly stark turn for a movie that began with a woman getting hit by a bus.

They even have someone narrating at the end explaining to the audience how profound and beautiful this story was, going as far to imply that anyone who criticizes the movie just doesn’t get it.

Maybe, just maybe, this movie isn’t being universally panned by film critics because they simply don’t get it.

Perhaps they think this is a clumsily made movie with a horribly mishmashed plot and poorly developed unengaging characters.

It’s even possible that critics don’t enjoying watching a film that takes a sick pleasure in toying with the emotions of its audience by throwing in as much shock value as possible for zero purpose.

Maybe this is just a genuinely terrible film.Onethatnoone else should have to

suffer though.

“Life Itself” is rated R.