FURY Is Beautifully Brutal, But Not Quite Great

FURY Review:

FURY has a lot going for it, but ultimately, it seems torn as to what kind of movie it wants to be. Director David Ayer tends to gravitate towards pulpy, hyperviolent action. But his best film, the underrated End of Watch, went beyond that and mixed tense action with fleshed-out character drama and operatic storytelling. FURY looks to achieve something similar, but it feels like a message movie in search of a message. War is hell, we know, but what we don't know, really, is who the characters are that populate the movie's nightmarish battlefields. There's not quite enough there to give the film the poignancy it needs to 100% resonate. But even so, there is enough in FURY to make it well worth watching: namely, truly epic action and warfare that, thanks to a great cast, provides plenty of excitement.You sort of wish that Ayer had just gone full pulp, and done the comic book war movie that he seems to have wanted to make. But the part of the film that wants to be Saving Private Ryan won't let that happen. And so we're left with an entertaining mash-up of Private Ryan and Sgt. Rock that feels like something striving for, but just missing greatness.

The film takes place in 1945, during the final days of World War II. Hitler's armies are on the defensive, but rather than surrendering, Hitler decides to make one more desperate, bloody push as the allies roll through Germany. Helping to lead the allied charge is Don "Wardaddy" Collier (Bradd Pitt), a squinty-eyed tank commander who's been to hell and back with his battle-tested crew. The names read off like the roll call of an old war comic book: Wardaddy, Gordo, Bible. Oh, and The Walking Dead's Jon Bernthal plays a wild-eyed loose cannon nicknamed "Coon-Ass." It's a motley crew of soldiers, and after one of the unit is killed in a harrowing battle, he's replaced, sure enough, by a fresh-faced recruit - Norman - whose military experience to this point was mostly behind a desk. And so Norman - played by Logan Lerman of The Perks of Being a Wallflower - serves as our eyes and ears into this world of death and danger, swagger and scarred psyches. Norman is thrown right to the wolves, too. Nearly as soon as he joins Wardaddy's crew, the tank is dispatched to head straight into the abyss, to ward off the stronger and sturdier German tanks that stand between the allies and final victory.

Lerman is a fantastic actor, and he really is the heart and soul of this film. Sure, he plays a part that's all-too-familiar in these sorts of movies - the boyish, virginal, rookie whose moral compass has not yet been tainted by the harsh realities of war. But Lerman really elevates the part, keeping you hanging on Norman's every action and reaction. It also helps that the well-oiled tank crew he's thrown in with consists of such great actors. Pitt is at his best as Wardaddy - bringing a sort of John Wayne, stoic cool to the leader who, nonetheless, has that far-off look in his eyes that tells us he's seen some serious $#%& in his day. Michael Pena is also excellent as Gordo, the sane one in the group. His opposite is Bernthal's Coon-Ass, who amps up his Walking Dead shtick to eleven, playing the would-be badass who might hug you or kill you at any given moment, depending on how drunk he is. Bernthal is the new king of playing the unhinged loose cannon, and he does a great job with it here. Surprisingly, Shia LeBeouf is also pretty damn good as Bible, the soft-spoken preacherman who tries to keep the faith even in the seemingly godless arena of battle. Who knew - when LeBeouf is restrained and deliberate as he is here, he can actually act, and even bring a real sense of gravitas to the role. Suffice it to say, the cast is top-to-bottom fantastic, and seeing these actors interact is one of the best parts - if not the best - of the film.

Ayer gives the film a gritty look that lacks the grandeur of many war films, but still feels epic in a smaller, more confined way. The thing of it is that the movie - like its characters - loves the tank (named "Fury," hence the movie's title) that sits at the core of this tale. And the tank - with its cramped, unforgiving, claustrophobia-inducing interior and dusty, grey-metal exterior, is what gives the movie its central aesthetic. The movie makes great effort to put the viewer into that tank, and the film does a fine job of both making you feel like you're there in those cramped confines, and of showing the rhythm of the tank's operation. There's a certain pleasure in simply watching the members of Wardaddy's team operate this heavy machinery, and the movie revels in all the little details that make the tank go.

FURY is brutal. Ayer never shies away from hardcore violence, and he seems hellbent on showing us just how hellish war can be. But to what end? There's a slightly strange tonal inconsistency here. Read between the lines, and the message is that war is falsely glorified by would-be heroes and soldiers, but that ultimately it's ugly, deadly, and a waste of human potential. In a way, it's a fascinating statement to make in a World War II film, as so many films about "the last great war" tend to glorify it, and tend to gloss over some of the death and violence for the sake of not undermining the righteousness of the cause. So there is a potentially interesting and bold point to be made - that even this righteous war was brutal, ugly, and more so a human tragedy than a human victory. But that message that Ayer seems to want to convey never 100% resonates, and is mired in some thematic messiness and a lot of action that seems to strive to be cool rather than look-away ugly.

It's a tough line to walk, and FURY at times feels torn as to what sort of movie it is and what, exactly, it wants to say. But if looked at solely as a semi-pulpy men-on-a-mission movie, it's pretty damn good. Guys like Pitt, Bernthal, and Lerman are good enough and charismatic enough that you don't necessarily need a ton of backstory or character-centric moments for their characters to feel compelling. And the "mission" itself - the journey of this movie - is in and of itself a pretty captivating and riveting one. I just think that extra oomph and thematic focus is missing that would have elevated this from "very good" to "great."

My Grade: B+

GONE GIRL Is Dark Satire and Riveting Filmmaking

GONE GIRL Review:

- With a David Fincher film, you know you're going to get dark. But GONE GIRL, adapted from the novel by former Entertainment Weekly writer Gillian Flynn (who also wrote the film's screenplay), is dark and darkly funny. GONE GIRL is satire - a pitch-black comedy about modern marriage and media spectacle, an over-the-top send-up of a mutually-abusive relationship that downward-spirals to absurdly depraved places. Flynn's sharp sense of humor, of-the-moment zeitgeistiness, and pop-culture obsessiveness are all there on screen - and so this is a Fincher film that feel like few others in the director's cannon. And that makes it a bit of a tough nut to crack. The impulse at the outset is to view the film's central mystery with the same sort of grim seriousness as, say, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. But soon enough, the unraveling layers reveal a story less grim and more fun - a story that becomes increasingly crazy and satirical as it goes. Though the film is lengthy, it remains consistently engrossing. Each new twist of the knife is delivered with cool, unflinching style from Fincher and team - but also with the keen sense of a self-aware airport-thriller page-turner. All that is lacking is a feeling of psychological completeness. As the central couple, Nick and Amy, unravel, they begin to feel less like real people and more like characters in a primetime soap. Fitting, in a story all about the ways we spin our lives into deceptive narratives. But not 100% satisfying as we, the viewers, attempt to understand what goes on inside the heads of Nick and Amy. Still, the film begins and ends with narration wondering just that - and so too are we left to wonder just what these characters are thinking as they manipulate each other in increasingly extravagant fashion. What goes on behind closed doors in all of the crazy, mixed-up tabloid-fodder relationships that consume our pop-culture news-feeds? It's a fascinating thought-exercise, and you can't help but admire a film that raises so many interesting questions about the couples that fuel these types of stories. As crazy and unreal as Nick and Amy seem, every day we're surrounded by real-life stories that echo this seemingly-over-the-top fictional one.

GONE GIRL gets a lot of mileage from playing with perspective and unreliable narrators. When we meet Nick and Amy, it feels like we're being set-up for a somewhat conventional troubled-marriage scenario. Amy's diary entries spin the narrative one way, and Nick's frustrated venting to his twin sister spins things another way. But what Fincher and Flynn do rather brilliantly is to hint that all is not as it seems. The film zig-zags through time, methodically allowing us to put the puzzle pieces together. But from the moment we learn that, in the present, Amy's gone missing, on her five-year wedding anniversary - potentially kidnapped, or worse - we know that something is clearly off ... we're just not sure what. And so begins a very well-laid-out guessing game, trying to figure out what and who to believe, even as we strain to understand the bizarre (yet disturbingly familiar) relationship between the two.

Rosamund Pike, as Amy Dunne, is the clear breakout here. In last year's Jack Reacher, she was a standout, perfectly tailoring her performance to that film's pulpy tone. She pulls of a similar feat in GONE GIRL, except that the role of Amy evolves into something much more complex and layered. The Amy we think we know at the start of the film is not the Amy we come to know by its end - and in between, there are several different iterations of the character - masks worn by Amy to deal with different people in her life. Pike keeps us guessing as Amy, but in between the character's soapier and more melodramatic moments, there are also moments of real pain, anguish, rage, and despair. Of particular note are some of the scenes late in the film between Amy and a scorned-but-still smitten would-be lover, Desi, played by Neil Patrick Harris. At this point, we know more about the true Amy, but still, seeing her interactions with Desi proves shocking. It helps that Harris does a fantastic job of portraying the character as a delusional and needy obsessive, oblivious to the fact that he's being played.

Ben Affleck is also quite good as Nick. The actor is a natural to play the part - in particular, he brings the real-life meta element of being a tabloid star whose troubled romances have made headlines. But Affleck's dude-bro affability is a match for Nick's similarly affable, bordering-on-glib personality. And Affleck does a good job - similar to Pike - of letting real moments of rage and frustration peak through the facade of camera-ready chillness that Nick projects. Indeed, there is something "off" about Nick from the start, and Affleck skillfully keeps us guessing. That said, the enigma of Nick is perhaps the most troubling part of GONE GIRL. Whereas Amy's true self is revealed to us in grand, so-that's-what's-really-going-on fashion, Nick remains a bit of a mystery. It's hard to say too much without spoiling the plot, so I'll just say ... I was left just a bit wanting with regards to Nick. For a good portion of the film, I got him. But by the film's finale, I was just a bit baffled at where he ended up. My issue is that Flynn and Fincher seem to operate with a definite - and admittedly attention-grabbing - ending in mind for this story. But only one character's journey to that endpoint - Amy's - feels entirely plausible within the (very heightened) reality of the film.

The film is filled with some really great and notable performances, aside from its two main leads. I already mentioned Neil Patrick Harris, but another standout is Kim Dickens, as the dogged detective tasked with investigating Amy's disappearance. In a film rife with morally-compromised characters, Dickens plays one of two who is interesting for her relative dedication to truth and justice. The other positively-portrayed character is Margo, Nick's sister - played wonderfully by Carrie Coon. Margo's journey parallels that of the viewer. At first, she is a sympathetic ear to Nick, as he complains about his Type A wife. Then, she is a staunch defender of her brother, as accusations circle him following Amy's disappearance. However, her faith is shaken as more ugly truths about Nick's character come to light. It's a great performance from Coon that really helps to ground the film to an extent. Tyler Perry is also quite good as media-friendly celebrity lawyer Tanner Bolt (great character name), who takes on Nick's case and helps try to turn the media circus around Amy's disappearance in Nick's favor.

The cast is good, though some characters do seem a bit underdeveloped. In particular, I was curious to better understand Amy's parents. They are portrayed as rather frigid one-percenters, but there is clearly something more to them that isn't quite fully explored in the film. One of the story's most intriguing elements is Amy's status as "Amazing Amy," the real-life inspiration for a series of children's books written by her mother. Clearly, growing up in parallel to the fictional Amy did some damage to the psyche of the maybe-not-as-"amazing" actual Amy. But the parents seem wholly oblivious when it comes to the awkward position they've put their daughter in.

Still, the movie does a good job of drawing the parallels between Amy having been forced to play the part of "Amazing Amy" as a child, and her adult self's ability to play other parts to fit other needs. Here is where Flynn's sharp writing really crackles - in Amy's embittered interior monologues about needing to play the part of the "cool girl" for Nick and other guys like him, about having to be, in essence, a woman that only really exists in pop-culture-infused male fantasy. But what is GONE GIRL saying about the battle of the sexes, if anything? With so much of the film about he-said, she-said, and about how Nick and Amy's stories are perceived by their friends, family, the media, and the public, it's easy to make the movie into one giant think-piece about men, women, feminism, misogyny. Nick is a jerk, in his own way - no question. But I think the story is less about Nick's individual flaws than it is about the flaws of Nick and Amy's relationship. The film seems to say that in a me-centric world, the reality of a relationship becomes less important than the way that it helps tell a story to the outside world. The relationship becomes less about love and more about securing a personal "win." For many, marriage is the ultimate Facebook status update, the ultimate life promotion, the ultimate status symbol. But viewing things in those terms has an undeniable dark side, and that to me is what GONE GIRL is really about - ensuring that our own personal story is perceived as one of triumph, no matter the actual truth or cost to ourselves or others. This is, and long has been, the guiding principal for any number of celebrity couples - think the Kennedys, the Clintons - but in an age of social media broadcasting, it also becomes the way in which all of us, to an extent, lead our lives.

And so GONE GIRL becomes the ultimate bad date movie - a sordid look at the modern relationship that, in its own way, is as much about the darkness within as Fight Club or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, as as much about who we are today as The Social Network. Like I said, I do think that the movie misses the mark just a bit when it comes to giving us a clear view of what makes some of these characters - in particular Affleck's Nick - tick. But the achievement here is that it takes the framework of a trashy thriller and makes it about something more. Pike kills it as Amy. And David Fincher delivers another must-see.

My Grade: A-

THE ZERO THEOREM Is Another Satirical Journey Into the Imagination from Terry Gilliam

THE ZERO THEOREM Review:

- First of all, let's just put this out there: Terry Gilliam is one of those great, great directors and creative minds who, honestly ... I'm just glad that he is still making movies. Even when those movies are flawed, they are fascinating, stunning to look at, and great conversation-starters. So to those who found flaw in Gilliam's latest, THE ZERO THEOREM, and who have decided to gleefully trash it, I say for shame. I'm not saying to just give it a pass. I am saying to talk about it in the proper context. For me, this is a film that yes, falls short of Gilliam's greatest sci-fi films like Brazil and 12 Monkeys. But man, there is still so much goodness here. Visually, thematically, performance-wise. THE ZERO THEOREM may ultimately end up as "advanced studies" in the Gilliam syllabus, but even so, I'm glad for the two hours to once again spend inside the genius director's brain.

THE ZERO THEOREM takes place in a cluttered, colorful, surreal version of the future that is one part Brazil, one part Idiocracy. In this skewed future-world, garish ads follow you wherever you walk, everyone dresses like they worship at the alter of Lady Gaga, and, to add to the sensory overload, it's rare to see anyone walking sans screen held at eye level and earphones blocking out external noise (no wonder the ads have to be so in-your-face - otherwise, no one would ever notice them). One unique denizen of this world is Qohen Leth (the great Christoph Waltz) - a worker-bee who, when he's not at his job working for a number-crunching conglomerate - keeps to himself in the renovated, cavernous cathedral he calls home. The cathedral used to be home to a monastic order, and Qohen himself is monk-ish, in a way. He is bald, he keeps to himself, and he lives his life based on a strange sort of faith. Years ago, Qohen received a phone call in which a celestial voice promised to tell him the meaning of life. So excited was Qohen that he dropped the phone and accidentally hung up. Ever since, he's been waiting for that voice to call him back and give him his answer. Obsessed with the call-that-may-never-come, Qohen asks his Big Brother-like bosses to let him work from home, so that he might not miss that call. Though they think him insane, Management (embodied with enigmatic, good ol' boy charm by Matt Damon) grants Qohen his request, as they have a project for him to work on solo. Qohen's usual workday involves a strange routine of him in a circle of similar worker-bees, peddling a bike and plugging away at a never-ending geometric puzzle with an XBOX-like controller, working on an endless equation that will never be solved. Now, Qohen is to work on an even more intense version of this sort of puzzle - solving the Zero Theorem - the equation that will prove that all life is meaningless and doomed to end and disappear forever into the void. Zero must equal 100%. Everything equals nothing.

Once his work on the Zero Theorem begins, Qohen becomes even more obsessive and hermetic than he already is. However, given the importance of his work, Management sees fit to continually send him help to deal with his mental stress. Regularly-scheduled online therapy sessions with a tightly-wound psychiatrist only aggravate Qohen. More effective is the introduction of Bainsley into his life. The stunning Bainsley (Mélanie Thierry) meets Qohen at a party (that he's forced to go to by his boss), and takes a liking to him. But Bainsley is - as is seemingly everything in this world - just a tool of Management, sent into Qohen's life tokeep him calm and focused. Even as Qohen's feelings for Bainsley begin to feel more real, it becomes increasingly apparent that she, like so much else, is not what she seems. Everything equals nothing. The same goes for Bob, the teenage son of Management - a whipcrack-smart programmer sent to help Qohen with the Zero Theorem. In return for Qohen's help, he promises to get him his phone call. But is that claim legitimate, or just a way to keep an insane man on a leash?

As you can probably gather, there's a lot of stuff in THE ZERO THEOREM about life, the universe, and everything. But where the movie perhaps falls a bit flat is that it never quite connects all of the dots in order to say something that seems sufficiently urgent and cohesive. There are a ton of fascinating ideas in the film about what it all means, but you also never feel like there's a singular thesis statement underlying it all. Maybe that's part of the point (everything equals nothing), but still ... Case in point, pretty sizable scenes are dedicated to showing Qohen and Bob bobbing and weaving as they solve their videogame-like puzzle in search of the elusive Zero Theorem. But what are they doing, exactly? What constitutes failure vs. success in the game? It's all sort of abstract and vague, but then why show us so much of it? Certainly, Gilliam intends to convey the tedium and pointlessness of the puzzle, but there isn't enough definition. The reasons why Management is so hellbent on solving the Zero Theorem aren't 100% convincing, and neither is Qohen's singular need to get that phone call. Unlike, say, Brazil, where Jonathan Pryce's character drives everything, here, the characters feel a bit more like props to inhabit this strange future. Bainsley is another example - she is a "hooker with a heart of gold" archetype, but there is a certain dimension to her character that seems to be missing. Like Qohen and others, she feels not-quite-fully-realized.

What does feel more fully realized is the world of the movie. Here is where Gilliam's artistic eye really shines. The movie looks amazing, and every scene, every location, is brimming with incredible detail, imagination, and eye-popping color. I don't know how Gilliam does it. But I do know that in a world where CGI and f/x so often look bland and cookie-cutter, seeing a master like Gilliam do sci-fi world-building of this order and magnitude is truly thrilling. I assume that Gilliam is working with a fraction of the budget of your typical sci-fi blockbuster. But how many other directors so painstakingly hand-craft every detail of their films to achieve this sort of artistry?

Gilliam's vision is also complimented by the talented actors in the film. Christoph Waltz is fantastic as Qohen. He crafts this unique character who is everything-phobic, reclusive, and on the brink of madness. Qohen refers to himself in the plural, "we" instead of "I," putting even more emphasis on his status as a drone, one small cog in a vast collective. Like I said, I do wish there was just a little more to Qohen's character and driving purpose, but man, Waltz makes him memorable nonetheless. Same goes for Mélanie Thierry as Bainsley. I wanted more from the character, but Thierry makes her incredibly memorable. Not just with her pin-up girl beauty, but with the way she - in conjunction with Gilliam's direction, evokes Old Hollywood glamor while still coming off as thoroughly post-modern. Lucas Hedges as Bob is perhaps the one weak spot - he's good, but he's a little too 2014-seeming, and not quite able to fully adapt his acting to Gilliam's surreal sci-fi tone.

The world of ZERO THEOREM is one that any film fan worth his or her salt needs to check out. Gilliam goes big here, and tries to weave together a profound satire about the ways in which non-reality passes for reality in our lives, thus rendering everything as pointless. Between the lines, there is some real food for thought about how, in an increasingly synthetic and virtual world, we doom ourselves to a void of our own making. That's the irony of Management's search for the Zero Theorem - what they seek to quantify is already apparent all around them. I suppose the fault here is that the film's profundity is mostly all in the little details - the great bits of satire and humor and world-building - but a lot less so in the driving narrative arc. Qohen's story is less interesting than that of the wonderfully weird world that surrounds him. But hey, like I said, give Gilliam credit for unleashing his imagination and giving us something so unique. I'll still take THE ZERO THEOREM over most movies any day of the week.

My Grade: B+

THE MAZE RUNNER Is Solid Prologue to a Bigger Story

THE MAZE RUNNER Review:

- By now we all know the standard YA novel-to-movie adaptation template. Basically, a high-concept sci-fi/fantasy/horror premise (vampires, werewolves, post-apocalyptic dystopias) gets "CW-ized" (for lack of a better term), and tweaked and optimized so as to best appeal to a target demo of teenage girls. This leads to a lot of movies in the genre that seem to squash their own potential, by forcing MTV VMA-ready actors and melodramatic love triangles into films that could have been better if not for all of their pandering. Sometimes you get some happy accidents (i.e. the great Jennifer Lawrence cast as Katniss in The Hunger Games). But more often than not, I tend to view these movies as less-than their non-YA counterparts. THE MAZE RUNNER, however, makes a real go at being something more than just another YA movie. In many ways, it reminded me as much of 80's kids adventure movies like The Goonies as it did The Hunger Games and its ilk. The film avoids a lot of the usual trappings of the genre. With no shoehorned-in love triangle, some moments of true brutality and danger, and a Twilight Zone-ish mystery at its core, THE MAZE RUNNER definitely feels like a different breed.

That doesn't mean that this is a perfect movie, though. THE MAZE RUNNER never quite nails the Twilight Zone-ish vibe it's going for. It suffers a bit from Lost-itus, where characters answer questions with questions for no good reason, and characters never seem to ask the right questions, or follow-up. That sort of thing is a pet peeve of mine, unless it's done really, really well and the entire tone of the story is conducive to that sort of mysterious vibe. THE MAZE RUNNER has a Twilight Zone-ish premise, but there's little about the movie's aesthetic that feels dreamlike or surreal. Everything is visualized in standard blockbuster fashion. That's not to say there aren't some great action scenes and fun moments - but, given the mysterious nature of the premise, it would have been cool if the movie's aesthetics made more effort to match it. Director Wes Ball shows off some really solid action set-piece chops - many of which have an additional element of sci-fi horror to them. But what he doesn't really do is give his film a real mood or atmosphere beyond standard YA movie stuff.

That mysterious premise is this: a group of boys finds themselves stranded in a glade surrounded by a vast, high-walled maze. None have any memory of their past, except for their name. Every month, an elevator shoots up from underground and deposits a new boy in the glade. For a while, there was chaos, but the first boy who arrived in the glade - Alby - became the boys' leader and helped establish order and rules. A group of "Runners" was created from the fastest and strongest in the glade, tasked with exploring the maze and trying to map it, in hopes of figuring out a way to escape. However, the maze is constantly shifting, making navigation difficult. In addition, it's filled with roaming monsters called Grievers, whose sting is deadly. Despite that, the boys live in relative peace, but their world gets shaken up when Thomas arrives. Thomas is determined to figure out how to escape the maze - rules be damned. Thomas' arrival signals a new chapter. There are hints that Thomas himself has knowledge of the people who created the maze and sent the boys there. And when yet another person arrives in the glade - this time a girl (the first ever) - suspicions are aroused when it's clear that she knows Thomas, even if she doesn't remember how or why.

It's a cool premise, no question. But I'm also not sure if there's enough substance here to really make the film flow well. Here's the thing: the basic plot points I just summarized invite dozens of questions about the true nature of the maze, the back-story of the boys, etc. And those questions, inevitably, are at the foreground of the entire movie. But the hints at answers only really begin to come at the very end of the film, and even then, they feel more like teases for the already-greenlit sequel. Plus, a lot of seemingly key plot points are left mostly unaddressed at all. Case in point: the first girl to enter the glade, Teresa - other than her memory of Thomas from before the glade, she is pretty much a non-character in this film. Who was she? Why was she the first and only girl to enter the glade? Why was there a note attached to her saying she would be the last? All of these issues will presumably be addressed in future movies. But for now, in this one, it feels unfulfilling.

Dylan O'Brian, from MTV's popular Teen Wolf, is the lead. He does a nice job, and really shows some good range in the film. His character, Thomas, shakes things up in the glade by being proactive and not settling for the status quo - and O'Brien is good at playing the desperate-but-determined Chosen One, who may or may not also have a dark side. There are a couple of other interesting turns in the movie from relative newcomers. Aml Ameen has a real presence as Alby, the wise-beyond-his-years leader of the boys. This guy could go places. Also good is Blake Cooper as Chuck (seemingly a bit of an homage to Chunk from The Goonies), the lovable younger kid who is like the goofy kid brother to a lot of the glade boys. Thomas Brodie-Sangster, from Game of Thrones, is also good as Newt, the spritely friend of Thomas' who helps him learn about the glade and the maze. As Teresa, Kaya Scodelario doesn't have a ton to do, at least not yet. But she seems to have the chops to be a compelling franchise co-lead, so I'll be curious if the character steps up in future installments. Scodelario definitely seems capable. Finally, I'll give a shout-out to Will Poulter, who I thought was so great way back when in Son of Rambow, and has now emerged as a go-to young actor to play slightly off-kilter antagonists. In this movie, he does a great job as Gally - a volatile kid in the glade who resents Thomas' quick rise to influence among the group.

I mentioned earlier that the film has some great action scenes. To reiterate, there's some really good stuff here, and a lot of it feels surprisingly dark and horror-infused. The Grievers are truly creepy creatures, and there are some legitimately riveting moments in the maze as Thomas and his friends try to escape their clutches. Later in the film, the Grievers stage a full-scale attack that is fairly awesome and flat-out scary at times. The movie doesn't pull punches here, and key characters are killed in the melee.

Ultimately, I liked THE MAZE RUNNER, but this film on its own felt pretty insubstantial. Because the film has minimal Lord of the Flies-esque infighting among the boys, the focus here is really on the overarching mystery. So the strength and weakness here is that this first film feels like a mere prologue to something much bigger. The hints we get towards the end at the big-picture mythology here are pretty intriguing, no question. But it remains to be seen if subsequent films make this one seem better in retrospect. As is, THE MAZE RUNNER is a solid-if-not-mind-blowing sci-fi adventure flick that will, ultimately, be judged on the strength of the franchise as a whole. So yeah, those sequels had better be good. No pressure, guys.

My Grade: B

THE GUEST Is a Badass, Twisty, Pulp Thriller

THE GUEST Review:

- Director Adam Wingard is quickly becoming a favorite filmmaker. I loved his previous film, the surprisingly fun and clever horror movie You're Next. That film was marketed as a run-of-the-mill home invasion flick, but it turned out to be a twisty, funny, subversive, smart genre-bender that gave me the same sort of giddy cinematic thrill as classics like Evil Dead. It was one of the big movie-going surprises of last year. So I was pretty psyched for Wingard's follow-up, THE GUEST. And luckily, the movie does not disappoint. Wingard switches genres in this one, going from horror to action/thriller. But the DNA of the film is clearly the same as that of You're Next. Wingard is exciting as a director because he clearly loves playing around with genre and messing with audience expectations. On many levels, THE GUEST feels familiar. Stylistically it calls to mind classic 80's-era pulp movies. With its pulsing synth score and ominous tone, it clearly pays some level of homage to the works of John Carpenter. But in many ways, the film feels new and unpredictable. It subverts expectations at every turn, and squarely aims to shock you with its many sharp-left-turns. So many films today feel homogenized and by-the-numbers - with stories that unfold as if in direct response to market testing and four-quadrant appeal. But here, we get to sit back and get caught up in the simple pleasures of rock n' roll filmmaking - storytelling that is designed for the sole purpose of thrilling an audience and delivering awesomeness. I guess I can sum it up by simply stating that both You're Next and THE GUEST are infectiously fun - both got my creative juices flowing and made me want to go and write and make stuff and test the limits of what could be done within their respective genres.

To say too much about the plot of THE GUEST would be to ruin the fun. But the basic, initial premise concerns a soldier named David (Downton Abbey's Dan Stevens) who pays an unexpected visit to the home of his fallen comrade-in-arms' family, the Petersons. David ingratiates himself with the parents of his slain friend, telling them that he had promised their dying son that he'd look after them. David is invited to stay with the family. He helps mother Laura with chores. He drinks beers and acts as a sounding board for father Spencer. And he acts as big brother to outcast teen Luke, helping him deal with school bullies. In short order, David is a beloved member of the Peterson household. Beloved by all, except for older daughter Anna. The 20-year-old has some suspicions about David (offset, at first, by her crush on him). She wonders: is David, perhaps, not quite what he seems?

The mystery around David doesn't play out how you might expect. Like I said, the movie seems to take great pleasure in messing with its audience, and creating multiple "WTF" moments where things suddenly veer in some pretty crazy directions. The pacing of the movie is also seemingly designed just to screw with expectations. The movie teasingly lingers in certain scenes, raising the expectation that the other shoe is about to drop ... only to pull back and prolong the tension. Then, suddenly, the film will smash-cut into some giant tonal shift and the effect is jarring, but also a lot of fun given the element of surprise. The movie leaves you with a constant feeling of "where is this all going?" But in a good way. Trust me.

Dan Stevens really does a fine job here as the enigmatic David. He's asked to pull off a monumentally tough task - paint a portrait of who this guy is, all while keeping his exact nature a mystery. But Stevens deftly hints at David's true self, letting the cracks in his well-maintained facade occasionally show. It's a captivating turn - calling to mind that of Ryan Gosling in Drive. In fact, the entire movie evokes Drive's 80's-throwback aesthetic and hypnotic, music-video vibe. Like Drive, THE GUEST is 80's-grindhouse pulp as art-film homage. Nu-wave cinema that self-consciously subverts and twists the conventions of B-movie action films and thrillers.

In You're Next, one of the most interesting subversions was the way in which Sharni Vinson's character proved to be more than meets the eye. There's a similar trick pulled here with Maika Monroe's resourceful Anna. Again, don't want to spoil anything - except to say that Anna is another Wingard female lead who has more to her than initial impressions might indicate. Give credit to the script by Simon Barrett, which keeps revealing added layers to its key characters as the film progresses. Monroe is a great find, and really nails the part of Anna. Similarly good is Brendan Myer as teenaged Luke, whose complicated relationship with David proves to be one of the film's most fascinating dynamics. I also, of course, have to mention the presence of the great Lance Reddick in the film. Reddick, much missed by me since Fringe went off the air, is the best in the biz at playing the stoic badass - and he does so here to pulpy perfection.

What's interesting about THE GUEST is that, despite its pulpiness and B-movie aesthetic, there is also, I think, some potentially interesting social commentary at play here as well. Wingard has some things to say about war and America and the military, and the movie provides some interesting ideas to mull over post-watch. To that end, there is also a lot of humor in the film - a lot of social satire and a lot of deadpan, self-aware quirk. Again, it's all about having fun with genre and genre conventions, and sort of knowingly subverting things and pushing the limits of storytelling.

The film perhaps is a little too flippant in terms of what it ultimately reveals about its lead character. A lot is kept vague and/or left to the viewer's imagination, and occasionally, potentially interesting plot-points get trampled over by the movie's need to constantly shock and surprise. I guess what I'm saying is: as much as I admire Wingard's enthusiasm for eliciting "WTF" audience reaction, I do also wonder if, by that driving the film, he's ever-so-slightly sabotaging the movie from being as great as it could be. I could see a version of THE GUEST that, were it a little less inclined to wink at the audience, might actually be a stronger film. 

But man, in terms of sheer B-movie badassery, THE GUEST is pure pop entertainment. Wingard, similar to guys like Tarantino or Nicholas Winding Refn, joyfully genre-mashes in a way that embodies the pure joy of cinematic storytelling. The film features plenty of thrills and plenty of insane, over-the-top action. Individual scenes are often mesmerizing, unfolding in trippy, psychedelic fashion. But what's most fun about the film is the anything-goes rock n' roll attitude. By-the-numbers this is not. Always excited when a movie like this comes along, and even more excited to see what's next from Wingard.

My Grade: A-

THE SKELETON TWINS Cuts Deep

THE SKELETON TWINS Review:

- For years, Bill Hader was the unsung MVP of Saturday Night Live - the modern-day Phil Hartman who simply elevated the quality of any sketch by virtue of being in it. Hader was effortlessly funny on SNL, but there was also a manic darkness to many of his characters that made you wonder if he might have a Jim Carrey-like ability to transition from comedy to drama. Well, wonder no longer. Bill Hader absolutely kills in THE SKELETON TWINS, a dramedy in which he gets to be very funny, but also show some previously-unseen dramatic depth. This is, quite simply, a total breakout performance for the SNL alum. The film pairs Hader with SNL colleague Kristin Wiig. The two play brother and sister, and the chemistry between them is incredibly naturalistic. There is a sense of intimacy with this film that helps to sell the drama. The laughs are bigger and the gut-punches hit harder because there is such a clear sense of authenticity that these actors bring to the table. The result is that, while THE SKELETON TWINS has some flaws, it's so earnestly likable that you can't help but be won over. Hader and Wiig's fantastic performances seal the deal.

The movie - from writer/director Craig Johnson - opens with Hader's Milo and Wiig's Maggie each contemplating suicide. Milo goes through with it first, and just as Wiig is about to do the same, she receives a call from the hospital that her estranged brother tried to off himself. The two live on opposite coasts and haven't spoken in ten years, but Maggie goes to see her brother - a failed actor living in LA - and convinces him to come live with her and her fiance in New York. So yeah .. as you can tell, the tone of this one is comedic, but the humor is decidedly pitch-black.

However, that's not to say that the film isn't ultimately uplifting. The characters go to some dark places, but the great joy of the film is seeing this brother and sister duo - who have each arrived at a pretty bleak place in their lives - help each other up and into the light. Before that can happen though, Milo and Maggie each have major obstacles to overcome. Maggie is married to Lance, a likable-enough lunkhead played by Luke Wilson, in classic Luke Wilson fashion. Lance is a pretty solid dude, but his basic-bro lifestyle is a bad match for Maggie. Maggie keeps her unhappiness repressed around Luke, only finding solace by going behind his back and cheating on him with any number of random men. Milo, meanwhile, seeks to get out of his failed-actor funk by reconnecting with an old lover. Problem is, the old lover (played with creepy cowardice by Modern Family's Ty Burrell) is Milo's old high school English teacher, with whom he had a nearly life-ruining affair as a teenager. Suffice it to say, both siblings are seemingly locked into downward-spiraling behavior patterns. Their only hope, cheesy as it may sound, is each other.

And again, what might have been unbearably emo somehow works in the capable hands of Hader and Wiig. The rawness of their performances - and the comedy chops they bring to the table to keep things from getting too self-serious - allow the movie to reach unexpected heights. The highest of those heights is an instant-classic sequence in which Hader's Milo turns up Starship's cheesy 80's ballad "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now" and coerces Wiig's Maggie into joining him in the lip-synced duet. Maggie resists at first, but soon enough, she gives in to the moment and, finally, Maggie goes full-Wiig, and Hader goes full-manic-awesome, and the scene is just transcendent in its sheer joy and greatness. And yet, as hilarious as it is to see these two SNL vets get goofy and riff off each other, there's a real power to the scene as well. The music provides the catalyst for these two troubled siblings to lift each other up out of the darkness - a theme that comes into play repeatedly throughout the film.

At times, I do think the movie overdoes it a little. The more cynical part of me had a few moments where I was tempted to roll my eyes a little, and shake my head at the contrivances the movie throws at us in order to get to some of its big emotional-catharsis moments. Still, Johnson does an admirable job of making most of the movie's emotional beats feel earned. The director seems to have a definite knack for creating and maintaining a moody, absorbing aesthetic.

THE SKELETON TWINS is a really worthwhile indie flick that is elevated by two fantastic lead performances. We've seen that Wiig can do more dramatic roles, but this to me is a coming-out party for Bill Hader as a more-than-viable dramatic actor. He's hilarious in the film, but also brings real rawness and pathos to the character of Milo. He and Wiig make even the smallest moments in this movie memorable.

My Grade: A-

THE CONGRESS Is Mind-Bendingly Strange and Ambitious

THE CONGRESS Review:

- I love a good weird movie, and THE CONGRESS is one of the strangest I've ever seen. That said, it's one of those gloriously ambitious films that very nearly completely collapses under its own weight. One thing's for sure: it's incredibly hard to talk about in a critical manner. There are so many interesting ideas and memorable visuals and astounding performances in this film ... and for that reason, I say it's a must-watch. But, there is also much about the movie's plot and creative choices that just left me scratching my head, wondering what was going on and waiting for some other shoe to drop that would make the puzzle pieces fall into place. That shoe, as you can probably tell, never quite comes. In fact, THE CONGRESS is unique in that it keeps getting increasingly nonsensical as it goes. It begins as compelling social-commentary science-fiction. It ends as an animated acid-trip that has quite possibly gone totally off the rails. Like I said though, I can appreciate this sort of thing, and enjoy a beautiful disaster if it at least has enough substance to stick with me. And THE CONGRESS, if nothing else, sticks with you. There has never been another movie quite like this one.

The film stars, and is about, Robin Wright. The actress who made a splash way back when with The Princess Bride, and who then turned down big roles in order to carve her own path in the movies. Of late, Wright has seemingly been everywhere, and seems to be in the midst of a full-blown career resurgence - popping up in several recent films, and helping to anchor popular Netflix TV series House of Cards. But THE CONGRESS willfully ignores that last part. Instead, it portrays a fictionalized version of Robin Wright who is an exaggerated take on her real self. This Robin was the belle of the Hollywood ball in her prime - a promising young actress with the world at her fingertips. But because she refused to play ball, and insisted on bucking the system, she now finds herself approaching middle age and wanting for work. Left to her own devices, Wright would prefer to work only on projects that speak to her, but there are extenuating circumstances. This Robin Wright has two kids - one of whom, her son, is very sick with a debilitating illness. To care for him, the actress needs income, and so she reluctantly agrees to participate in a new process that will change the face of entertainment forever.

At the prodding of her manager (Harvey Keitel), and a devilish studio chief (a fantastic Danny Huston), Wright agrees to have her voice, body, and movements scanned and turned into a virtual actor - an actor who is, forever, a young Robin Wright fresh off The Princess Bride. Wright grapples with the decision to literally sell her soul to the studio, but ultimately succumbs and goes through with it. This decision, and the gorgeously-shot, ominously disturbing and heartbreaking scanning process, is what comprises the first third of the film. And here's the thing: this first section of the movie is completely gripping. As I watched it, I was pretty sure I was watching the beginnings of a new science fiction masterpiece. Wright's performance is off-the-charts excellent. And Huston - wow, the guy just exudes sinister sleaze and is absolutely, terrifyingly great.

Then something weird happens - the movie flashes decades into the future. We see a sixty-something Robin Wright drive into some sort of high-security compound, where she's an invited guest and featured speaker at the studio's (satirically called Miramount) keynote address. But the address doesn't take place in the real world. It takes place in an animated virtual universe - a shared mass-hallucination induced by popping some pills. In this world, people are free to assume whatever form they'd like. And so anthropomorphic cartoon animals cavort with with multi-limbed aliens. Apparently, the future looks like hand-drawn 2D animation.

There's something undeniably fascinating about this segment of the film. In particular, I got a huge kick out of the satirical glimpses at the scanned Robin Wright's movie superstardom. The virtual Robin is a megastar - featured in her own neverending sci-fi action franchise and trained to answer banal interview questions with the unflinching poise of royalty. However, the more time we spend in the virtual world, the less things make sense. The movie seems to drop the more grounded sci-fi edge of its opening in favor of anything-goes chaos. The 2D animation here is eye-popping and colorful, but the movie gets a little carried away with showing off the endless possibilities of the format. In turn, we lose track of the "rules" of this world, and it becomes increasingly unclear what's happening and what the stakes of the film are. When the "real" Robin Wright has her big Network "mad as hell" moment, what could have been a riveting scene is mired in so much oddball surreality that it's hard to know quite what to make of it.

Eventually, the movie takes an even odder turn when it again flash-forwards in time. I won't spoil anything, except to say that a new character is introduced, voiced by Jon Hamm, who becomes an ally of Robin's, and eventually more. Again, there is some absolutely fascinating stuff going on in the movie's final third. But there's also the feeling that we're watching a half-finished sketch play out before us. The longer the movie goes, the more it becomes clear that we seem to be missing key details about the story. I think that there's a certain type of sci-fi story that can get away with playing fast and loose with plot and plot detail, and exist more as a dartboard for out-there ideas. But THE CONGRESS' first third sets up such a strong sci-fi premise that it's disappointing to see such a jarring tonal shift later in the film. I also became increasingly frustrated the more I realized that the film's narrative was playing out as if relayed by a really stoned guy who was leaving out a lot of important information.

And yet ... man, this movie, as trainwreck-y as it may get towards the end, it downward spirals in a fashion that's completely engrossing. A lot of that is Robin Wright. She's phenomenal in this film. Particularly in the live-action segments, but also in the animated ones. There's no question that this is a passion project for her, and it's clear that she's putting her all into this. She perfects a certain just-left-of-reality affectation in her acting that makes her character feel real, yet also lends itself to the film's increasingly surreal tone and bizarre narrative turns. I give Wright a ton of credit for putting it all out there, playing herself, and holding nothing back - she, more than anything else in the film, allows us to buy into all of the movie's weirdness.

There's a lot to pick apart here, but I also do think there's a lot to praise. Like I said, it's one of those movies ... you can find fault, but you can't deny its insane level of ambition. The movie could have just been a pretty basic-but-compelling sci-fi parable about an actor going to extremes to achieve cinematic immortality. But it takes a hard left turn and also becomes a cautionary tale about a society so ready to immerse itself in user-generated fantasy that reality itself is all but left behind. And then it takes a further turn into the great unknown, becoming a surreal fable about a society divided between haves and have-not, in which those not able to join in on the endless youth and riches of the omnipresent virtual world are left to suffer in a cracked and crumbling real world. THE CONGRESS took me to some really interesting places, and presented ideas and concepts and images that I won't soon forget.

So yeah ... I am left wondering how to grade this flawed yet fascinating epic. For sheer ambition and richness of imagination, I lean towards a more favorable assessment. THE CONGRESS is a movie well worth watching, discussing, and sharing with friends. Writer/director Ari Folman swings for the fences. And sometimes, you wish there was more of that in film. Watch it. Discuss it. Just be prepared for that discussion to include multiple utterances of "WTF."

My Grade: B+