Movies with DAVE

It looks like I had myself yet another five movie weekend this week. And what a variety.

We have a biopic about the first man to walk on the moon, a film based on the real life story of a famous female French author, a star studded mystery set in an old motel well past its prime, a western starring John C. Reilly, and a movie based on the popular children’s horror books by R.L Stine.

Let’s get to the reviews.

***

First up is “First Man.”

This film is a look at the life of the astronaut, Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling), and the legendary space mission that led him to become the first man to walk on the Moon on July 20, 1969.

It always seems like one studio or another is releasing a movie with a focus on space around this time of year.

It all started with “Gravity” back in October of 2013, a frantic film about a woman (Sandra Bullock) trapped in Earth’s orbit fighting to survive.

Ever since that movie became a box office smash hit, fall has become the season of heady, highbrow science films.

2014 had Christopher Nolan’s odyssey through the cosmos with “Interstellar,” 2015 received an adaptation of a popular science fiction novel about a man trapped on Mars with “The Martian,” 2016 brought an extremely thoughtful exploration into extraterrestrial communication with “Arrival,” and 2017 saw the sequel to one of the most influential sci-fi films of all time with “Blade Runner 2049.”

Now here we are in 2018 and this time it’s Damien Chazelle’s turn.

Best known for writing/directing critical darlings “Whiplash” and “La La Land,“ Chazelle is clearly a very talented filmmaker and it definitely shows in this latest film of his.

From the first scene, this movie puts you right in the cockpit with Neil Armstrong. The film doesn’t let you just be a simple observer, you’re in the thick of things whether you like it or not.

Most of the camera work in this film is very close up, giving an extremely claustrophobic feel. It’s like they actually throw you in the rocket itself. You get to hear every creak of the metal and feel the force of being strapped to the tip of what is essentially a giant controlled explosion.

Frankly, it’s terrifying.

It really shows the magnitude of what these men went through all for the benefit of mankind.

At a moment’s notice, anything could go wrong. With the stakes so high it didn’t take much. Just one mistake, one little miscalculation often ended with the loss of life.

But this isn’t a movie solely focused on the Apollo 11 mission.

Like I said in the synopsis at the start of the review, this is a movie about the first man to set foot on the moon.

And unfortunately for this movie, Neil Armstrong the man makes for a pretty unengaging main character.

By the accounts I’ve read, Neil was a very shy and modest man who did his best to avoid the spotlight whenever he could.

With that kind of person to draw inspiration from, I thought Ryan Gosling portrayed Neil quite well. Unfortunately, from an emotional standpoint it made for a character that I found extremely hard to connect with.

He just wasn’t all that charismatic of a person. A great man? Sure. Courageous? Without question. But personable? Not so much.

For someone like me who only really becomes invested in stories showcasing compelling characters, it made for a hard movie to truly become invested in.

Luckily Neil’s wife Janet, played by Claire Foy, is a bit more relatable than her husband.

Being faced with the very real possibility of losing her husband took a massive toll on Janet, especially after seeing her friends lose their own loved ones. I couldn’t imagine living with the kind of stress she did.

Beyond the Armstrongs, none of the other characters in the film are given much depth.

Buzz Aldrin (Corey Stoll) is there, but this movie just makes him seem like an unlikeable jerk who says whatever’s on his mind without thinking of anyone else.

Whether that was accurate to real life I’m not sure, but they certainly don’t paint the second man to ever set foot on the moon in a good light in this film.

But this doesn’t seem like a movie that cares to sugarcoat history, and I can appreciate that, along with what seems like a massive attention to detail on the film’s part.

Also, this is far from an inspiration feel-good movie. Don’t go into this film expecting to leave swelling with patriotic pride and full of wonder at the beauty of space.

The only emotion I felt at the end of this movie was relief. Not because it’s a bad film, but because it was so up close and intense. It was only after the credits started to roll that I felt like I could finally stop holding my breath.

All in all, this is a very well made film. Not my favorite of Damien Chazelle’s work certainly, and definitely not an easy film to recommend to casual moviegoers, but it’s quality work all the same.

If you’ve ever wanted to know the feeling of being blasted off into space, but like myself don’t  have the skills or fortitude to join NASA, this is definitely a film to check out.

“First Man” is rated PG-13.

***

Next is “Colette.”

After marrying a successful writer known as “Willy” (Dominic West), Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette (Keira Knightley) is transplanted from her childhood home in rural France to the intellectual and artistic splendor of Paris.

Soon after, Willy convinces Colette to ghostwrite for him. She pens a semi-autobiographical novel about a witty and brazen country girl named Claudine, sparking a bestseller and a cultural sensation.

I knew absolutely nothing about this film going into it. In fact I didn’t even realize this was based on a true story until the movie was over.

I can’t say I’ve read much classic French literature, heck I can’t even say I’ve read too many American classics.

Regardless, I found the story of Colette to be an interesting one. And it’s one I probably would have never heard of if it weren’t for this film.

The movie pretty much only focuses on Colette’s early years, with a spotlight not only on developing her writing ability, but also her relationship with her serial philanderer of a husband, not to mention Colette discovering her blossoming sexuality.

The story is pretty straightforward with no-frills attached. No gimmicks whatsoever, but I still found the film compelling throughout.

I enjoyed the performances here as well.

Despite being a complete scumbag in the movie, Dominic West still manages to make the character of Willy charismatic and even charming.

It’s a tough balancing act to portray someone who made a career out of taking advantage of others’ talent and hard work, but I think West did well here. Unfortunately it’s all too easy to see how someone like Colette could fall for Willy despite how exploitative he was.

And Keira Knightley, while perfectly adequate here, isn’t doing anything outside her wheelhouse with her depiction of Colette. Honestly it reminded me a lot of her role in “Pirates of the Caribbean.” Nothing new, but it worked just fine and Colette made for an interesting enough character.

Overall I enjoyed this movie pretty well.

No single element is going to blow your socks off, but if you’re like how I was before this weekend and know absolutely nothing about Colette, a woman who was well ahead of her time  in my opinion, this film would make for a great jumping off point.

“Colette” is rated R.

***

Third is “Bad Times at the El Royale.”

Seven strangers, each with a secret to bury (Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Jon Hamm, Lewis Pullman, Dakota Johnson, Cailee Spaeny, and Chris Hemsworth), meet at Lake Tahoe’s El Royale, a rundown hotel with a dark past.

Over the course of one fateful night, everyone will have a last shot at redemption before everything goes awry.

Now this is a movie I’ve been looking forward to for awhile.

It seems to have everything going for it. A talented star-studded cast, an interesting location, and it’s written and directed by the same man who directed “The Cabin in the Woods,” which was one of my favorite films of 2012.

Sadly, I didn’t think this movie nearly lived up to its potential.

On the positive side of things though, the acting in this film is great all around.

It seems like Jeff Bridges almost never gives a bad performance, and this movie is no exception. I especially liked his interactions with Cynthia Erivo’s character. In fact, dynamic between the two of them is probably my favorite aspect of the film.

Also, as a side note, Cynthia has an absolutely beautiful voice and hearing her sing in this movie was simply a treat. She broke into song often and I loved every second of it.

But unfortunately, while the performances were solid all around, what really held this movie back was the dialogue and storytelling.

This film wanted so much to be a Tarantino flick akin to “The Hateful Eight” or “Pulp Fiction,” and while this movie does have some of the brutal violence Tarantino is known for, it lacks the snappy writing or compelling characters that Tarantino is truly celebrated for.

Sure, all the characters have some kind of secret they’re hiding and it’s interesting to see what that secret is, but I never felt like the story did anything all that compelling with our character’s hidden truths.

With this cast, the potential for greatness was definitely there, but the execution just wasn’t good enough.

I think what disappointed me the most was probably Chris Hemsworth’s character.

I absolutely adore Hemsworth in other movies, especially since filmmakers have started to discover his surprisingly great comedic ability, but his skill was just wasted here.

He was just the monkey wrench to throw into the mix during the last third of the film. There was zero depth to his character. He was just a crazy man. Sure, he’s still fun to watch, but he was way underutilized here.

And while the setting of a motel located square on the California-Nevada border is cool in theory, beyond a few early scenes they don’t really do much with that either, and the whole thing amounts to nothing more than a gimmick for the trailers.

All in all, I wouldn’t call this a bad movie. The performances are too good for that. The story and dialogue just weren’t up to par, and because of that the movie definitely drags at times.  

An ambitious film to be sure, but not well executed enough to live up to its potential.

“Bad Times at the El Royale” is rated R.

***

Fourth is “The Sisters Brothers.”

Set in the 1850s, this film follows brothers Eli (John C. Reilly) and Charlie (Joaquin Phoenix), two hitmen on the trail of a chemist (Riz Ahmed) with a unique secret formula desired by their employer.

This was not at all the movie I was expecting it’d be.

When I saw the film was starring John C. Reilly I automatically assumed this would be a comedy. And indeed that’s exactly how the movie is billed, but if you’re going in this expecting a laugh-a-minute gag fest, this film will leave you sorely disappointed.

If there’s any comedy at all, it’s from the film’s often morbid and overly gruesome situations. The movie got some laughs out of me here and there just for how shocking and ridiculous it all was, but it’s definitely not a traditional comedy by any means.

Honestly, I not quite sure what to make of the whole thing.

It felt like I was thrown right in the middle of the story when this movie started. The first hour or so seemed extremely unfocused and it took me a while to piece the narrative together because of it.

I’m still not all that clear on what Jake Gyllenhaal’s character was originally trying to accomplish.

Apparently he was a detective assigned to bring the chemist to our assassin brothers.

But why hire out a detective when you have a pair of hitmen who are known for tracking people down though? Or if you have the detective, why not just use him to bring the chemist in?

Maybe I missed something, but I don’t see the point for the redundancy beyond to serve the plot later on in the film. I like Gyllenhaal, don’t get me wrong, but his presence didn’t seem very well justified in my opinion.

The brothers don’t really do all that much in the first half of the film either beyond get sick. One from a spider bite and the other from an overabundance of booze.

Thankfully the second half was much more straightforward. I still wasn’t quite sure what the story was building to, but at least there was some plot progression.

Turned out it wasn’t building to all that much considering how anti-climatic the final few scenes were, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t at least enjoy aspects of this film.

The brothers were fun to watch

interact together, despite, or maybe because, all their squabbling. Plus Reilly’s and Phoenix’s performances were both quite good in this movie. You’ll hear no complains about the acting from me.

I’m just not sure what to make of the plot. It’s definitely a movie more about the journey than the destination. I don’t know if the journey is compelling enough to justify sitting through this entire film though.

I have no idea who I’d recommend this film to.

Definitely don’t go see this if you’re expecting a conventional comedy. Maybe if you enjoy dark comedies, but even then don’t count on too many laughs.

“The Sisters Brothers” is rated R.

***

Last this week is “Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween.”

Based on the popular children’s horror book series by R.L. Stine, this spinoff of the 2015 film sees the return of Slappy (Mick Wingert), a living ventriloquist dummy, as he seeks to wreak havoc on a small New York town by bringing Halloween to life.

My goodness this movie is such a disappointment. I wasn’t expecting much based on the trailers for this new one, but this sequel managed to fall even below those low expectations.

It had a fun story, likeable characters including Jack Black as R.L. Stine himself, a piercing dry wit that left me laughing my butt off multiple times, plus an entire host of imaginative monsters.

If you like “Goosebumps” and you haven’t seen the 2015 film, you are definitely missing out.

Of course since the last “Goosebumps” movie did gangbusters at the box office, a sequel was a no brainer, but unfortunately this latest one has none of what made the last movie great.

The acting is mediocre to downright terrible. The only glimmer of talent came from Jack Black reprising his role as Stine, but sadly he was only thrown into a few scenes and mostly at the very end. And all it did was highlight how awful the performances were from everyone else.

The story is a complete retread of the last movie, except worse. I guess Slappy is the only marketable villain the “Goosebumps” franchise has because they use him again here, except this time he feels far more lifeless.

The dummy is back at it again, except this time instead of releasing all of Stine’s monsters locked away in his books, Slappy just has the magic power to bring things to life.

The effect is basically the same and we even see the return of favorites like the Werewolf and the Abominable Snowman.

But again, bringing back those returning characters only goes to show how inferior this film is to the 2015 movie.

The special effects for the monsters is shockingly bad here. I mean the previous films wasn’t exactly a masterpiece as far as CGI (computer-generated imagery) goes, but it was at least competent enough to be believable.

It’s strange, because it looks like they used the same character models on the returning monsters, they just made them look worse.

It’s like when you turn the settings down in a video game to make it run better on your computer, except this was a feature film.

I don’t get it. There’s no excuse to be so cheap considering how well the last film did at the box office.

But cheap out they did.

Everything about this movie seems low quality. Just the look of it feels like a throwaway, low budget, made for TV flick. And the previously mentioned terrible acting doesn’t help that image one bit.

Please don’t see this movie.

The filmmakers clearly didn’t put any effort into making it, so there’s no reason anyone should make any effort to watch it either.

If you’re wanting a child friendly horror flick, go watch the 2015 “Goosebumps.” Avoid this garbage cash grab of a sequel.

“Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween” is rated PG.