"Wind River": Lacking Energy and Engagement

Sometimes a film with great cinematography a beautiful landscape isn't enough to keep my attention.


"Wind River" is about Cory Lambert, played by Jeremy Renner, who is a tracker and wildlife expert living in Wyoming.  Lambert finds a dead body, which prompts a rookie FBI Agent, played by Elizabeth Olsen, to come investigate.  After seeing Lambert's skills, he is recruited to help solve the murder.


Renner's accent is kind of botched in this film.  All the Wyomingites talk very softly and somewhat muffled, which makes it hard to understand what many of the people are talking about.  Renner does a passable job, but it wasn't always convincing.  In fact, until the end, I thought his performance was mediocre.  I didn't like the personality of the character Olsen played, but she did a much better job in her role.


To be honest, I thought the first hour or so of "Wind River" was pretty underwhelming.  Not much happens, and many of the actors use very subdued performances.  There was one big sequence where the situation became intense, but the events and style made the film boring. 


"Wind River" seems to be no fun whatsoever.  I know that the tone is supposed to be serious and bleak, but the acting is so dry, and the landscape is too simplistic.  Even though the nature is gorgeous, the bland color palette doesn't really complement the depressing and intense story.  This film needed to be darker or have a different element to engage the audience.  The repressed emotions in the performances weigh the film down because the viewers can't feel anything.


Also, this plot is actually somewhat predictable for a thriller.  I could see where the film was going for almost the entire runtime, which isn't good because the plot is the most important aspect for engaging the audience in a film like this.  There's not much intellectually going on under the surface, and most of the characters are very blatant in their traits. 


Even though "Wind River" was disappointing for a majority of the runtime, everything started picking up in the third act.  This is when the film started taking some chances and became more personable, which earned my attention back.  The last 30 minutes or so are actually pretty great, with a lot more emotion and compelling performances.  However, when looking at the piece as a whole, I can't say the overall experience was a positive one for me.


"Wind River" is a mystery movie that will most likely not go down as one of the greats.  I believe a lot of people that saw the film enjoyed it, but there's quite a bit holding this one back.  That being said, the ending was very powerful, and you will most likely enjoy "Wind River" if you are a fan of tense crime-thrillers.

"Eighth Grade": Memories of an Important and Uncomfortable Time

This was one of the worst theater experiences I've ever had, but the movie was worth it in the end.

"Eighth Grade" is written and directed by Bo Burnham and stars Elsie Fisher as Kayla, an awkward teen who is known for being really quiet in public but has a loud personality that she rarely displays.  The film follows Kayla's last week of the eighth grade, in which she tries to become popular while avoiding contact with her "uncool" dad.


Before covering my thoughts on this film, I feel like I need to describe the filmmaker first.  Bo Burnham is a YouTube breakout star, musician and stand-up comedian.  Even though Burnham is a comedian, he isn't very traditional in his comedic style.  He often relies on comedic songs with an emphasis on the quality of the music, and he projects a very unique personality through his on-stage persona.  He recently stopped performing because of anxiety issues, but it appears that these feelings helped inspire Burnham to create "Eighth Grade".


If "Dazed and Confused" is the 70's personified, then "Eighth Grade" is this that film for this new internet era.  These films are very dissimilar, but the way both these films generalize their generation is very similar.  The perspective of Kayla may not be exactly as one would experience, but "Eighth Grade" definitely resembles the sentiment millenials will remember from this time in their lives.


First of all, "Eighth Grade" isn't a straight-up comedy with traditional jokes.  Much of the humor comes from the spot-on portrayals of these typical middle-school personalities, and not everything that happens is humorous.  There's a lot of drama and teenage angst in almost every scene, even when nothing is really happening.  At times, this feels like a documentary because of the current pop-culture references and how all the characters look and act their age.  However, the most important aspect of this film is, much like the real-life experience of eighth grade, there are a lot of awkward moments in this film. 


I was constantly cringing throughout the runtime of "Eighth Grade" because the film was going for extreme realism, which means the younger characters act shy and very unlike adults.  Kayla had many tedious interactions with other characters because that's how people are at this age.  This works to the film's advantage because whenever someone looks back on their past actions, they're bound to regret at least a few of them.  However, there were people in my theater that constantly laughed at everything from the purposely unfunny humor to the meaningful and uncomfortable moments; either I don't have a sense of humor or a few people were being way too obnoxious.  I think much of this laughter could have been related to how the audience members dealt with the discomfort they were feeling, so maybe this is just a movie you shouldn't see in the theater.


YouTube had a large influence in Burnham's rise to fame as a teenager, so it's incorporated into parts of this film.  Kayla makes unknown YouTube videos about topics relating to emotions going on in her life, and they're probably my favorite parts of the movie.  This allows Kayla to isolate her real personality, and it's very interesting to see her act as this figure she wishes to be in public.  Not only does it come off as complex, but it also shows the range of different emotions that teenagers go through during this fragile time.


As I touched on before, all the performances are compelling and authentic.  This film does an excellent job of creating this tense and occasionally atmosphere.  The direction is somewhat playful, many times slowly following Kayla go into these uncomfortable situations.  The filmmaking is high quality, and I have minimal issues with the style.


The music is somewhat pop-influenced, but it also contains a lot of odd synthesizers and an electronic feel.  I wouldn't say that I enjoy the soundtrack, but I do think it fits the film in an odd way; the instruments feel artificial, yet the melodies seem explorative and in-the-moment. 


The ending of this film really came together for me.  Even though there was still some tense and painful awkwardness, most of the moments towards the end have a perfect message for teens struggling with the same problems as Kayla.  It's a nice, feel-good finish that made me really appreciate how dynamic this film is. 


"Eighth Grade" achieves everything it wanted to do.  Burnham had a great vision for this piece, and everything came together really well.  Even though I didn't think this film was amazing, I'm really looking forward to what Burnham does in the future.  He has shown great filmmaking fundamentals in this film and he is known for being extremely creative, inventive, and funny.  In the future, though, I'd like to see Burnham do something either a bit more serious in nature or extremely goofy.

"Sorry to Bother You": Extremely Creative, Uneven and Incomplete

It seems like every other movie I see is really weird.  I don't know if this generation's filmmakers are creatively branching out or I just seek out strange films, although it's probably a bit of both.


"Sorry to Bother You" is about Cassius "Cash" Green, a man working a lowly telemarketing job with his friends who think they are getting underpaid.  Everything changes as Green hones his craft through the development of a "white voice", which allows him to start making a lot of sales.  However, as he moves through the ranks, he leaves his former workers and remorse behind in order to achieve "success".  


This film seems like it's marketed as a comedy.  While this film is very funny at times, I took the film as more of a silly quasi-futuristic piece with some very serious moments.  At times, the world this film projects feels like a more realistic and straight version of "Idiocracy", wherein the stupider characters are replaced with more artsy ones.  This artsiness does get in the way of the bigger picture, though; "Sorry to Bother You" doesn't take itself seriously enough to have the emotional weight it should've.


Despite what you may have heard, this film isn't mainly about racism.  Sure, the inciting incident is racial and there is a lot of race-related elements going on in the workplace, but I don't think that's point of this film.  The concept this film presents is an updated tale about the American Dream.  Cash's "white voice" is not literally about race; how Cash speaks symbolizes a change in attitude.  Most people only want to make a change to the system when they're not the ones benefiting.  Cash sells out and becomes engrossed with the money he craves, which isn't an entirely original idea.  However, the way "Sorry to Bother You" enacts this change of heart is very believable and relevant. 


Even though I think this film is getting a little too much credit from critics, there is still a lot to enjoy about this film.  The soundtrack is very poppy, groovy, distorted and experimental.  I really enjoyed how it sounds indie yet trendy, which matches how this future is presented.  The standout performance in this film has to be Lakeith Stanfield, who I had recognized from small roles in "Get Out" and "Straight Outta Compton".  His performance as Cash is very subdued, but he is a very relatable character.  In fact, this entire film feels very real.  Every main character has a distinct personality that isn't exaggerated to the point where the performances become too cartoonish.  The characters all feel like real people set in a slightly fictional reality, which is why the film is so relatable. 


As I sort of touched on before, this film's tone is a bit too inconsistent for my liking.  "Sorry to Bother You" has a style that is artistic, playful, and somewhat goofy.  However, the film's relevant socio-political message is very serious and even scary in the context of how this world works.  When these two styles blend, the result is much more conflicting than satisfying.  Maybe this would have worked better if the film felt more segmented, as the film does have a pretty definitive moment that changes the direction of the plot.

"Sorry to Bother You" wraps up its story in a messy way.  The third act contains a few highlight moments from the film, but it also has a lot of the weakest plot elements.  I think the ending should have been a bit more morose for the message the film is trying to convey.  When this film does take a turn towards the beginning of the third act, there are two decisions the main character can take.  I think the movie would have been a lot more powerful if Cash chose the other option, but I understand why the film goes in this direction.  With the decision Cash chooses, the plot doesn't fully explore the implications of what would happen in the real world.  For a while, I thought "Sorry to Bother You" was going to say something very significant and unique about the system we live in.  This was a fallacy, though; the film rushed itself to a conclusion when it should have made this finale the most important and drawn-out part of the movie.  The last big scene felt very basic and out of place, like it should have been in a completely different movie.  As I already stated, this movie has a lot of realism with character motivations, but the ending felt a little bit empty and underwhelming.  Movies are supposed to be entertaining and interesting, after all; realness is not always the perfect fit.


Besides my issues with the ending, there are also some problems with the editing in the film.  The lip synching on the main actor is so poor because Cash often moves his lips very subtly when he speaks.  This is kind of a nitpick, but it's extremely noticeable and took me out of the experience a few times.  There are a few awkward editing transitions as well.  There are a lot of good intentions to make this film stand out, but it doesn't really benefit the piece as a whole.


All in all, "Sorry to Bother You" is an odd, quirky delight.  The film does have a few flaws, but it is definitely worth your time to check out if you're interested.  However, if you are hoping this film would have a substantive message, I can't say these themes fleshed out enough to satisfy serious viewers.  "Sorry to Bother You" had the opportunity to be something really special, but it just ended up being pretty good.

"Skyscraper": Predictable, Unoriginal, and Satisfying

The trailer for this film is a very honest representation of this movie as a whole.  If you watch the trailer for this movie, you can probably tell if you would enjoy watching this film or not.


"Skyscraper" is yet another attempt for Hollywood to pander to Chinese audiences because they have the largest market.  The film stars Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, who plays the role of a man who lost his leg in an accident and loves his family.  "The Rock" needs to save his wife and kids from getting burned alive in the largest skyscraper in the world, which is in China. 


I wasn't originally planning to see this film, but I was able to go for free because there was a promotion at my local theater.  While I don't regret going to see "Skyscraper", there is very little that distinguishes it from any other run-of-the-mill action blockbuster.


This is a disaster movie.  If I wanted to, I could nitpick this film all day.  There are logical inconsistencies in quite a few places, but that's a given with a film like this.  There would be a lot more deaths if this occurred in real life, but then movie would be a lot more depressing.  Most of the dramatic moments come from unrealistic situations and predictable reveals.  The acting in this film isn't good either, especially with the kids.  However, if none of this bothers you, then "Skyscraper" is a perfectly fine action flick.


"Skyscraper" does seem to steal from a lot of action setpieces and plot points from other movies.  Everything I enjoyed seems to have come from another film that has done the concept a lot better.  There are a lot of elements from films like "Die Hard", "John Wick: Chapter 2", "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol", "The Fugitive", and I'm sure there are a lot more. 


However, the greatest strength of "Skyscraper" is its ability to constantly have lots of stuff going on.  There are a lot of twists and turns that viewers might not necessarily see coming, even if the film clearly broadcasts how the conclusion of the film will go down.  Most importantly, the film constantly felt like it was building up to something, then had a pretty satisfying conclusion; this is integral to a movie like this.


This film was so much better than I thought it was going to be.  A lot of my enjoyment came from cheesy scenes and unintentional comedy, but I would be lying if I wrote that I wasn't impressed by a little bit of the cinematography and plot elements.  It was a fun time and somewhat refreshing to see a film that has low standards yet achieves everything it is going for. 


Even though I was constantly engaged, I can neither recommend nor discourage seeing this film.  Nothing is done poorly enough to bother most audience members, but there is nothing that stands out as being spectacular either.  It is a competent action film, see it if you want to and you probably will get what you expect.

"It" (2017): A Discussion About Mainstream Horror

You already know what "It" is; it's the scary killer clown movie.  I don't want to write a complete review of this film because I find it to be rather pointless.  The film has been out for about a year, and everybody who wanted to see "It" has already seen it.  Also, I can't say much about the film that hasn't already been said.  However, I will give a short paragraph of my thoughts for those who are interested.


My quick summary is that I thought it was a solid film.  Some of the juvenile humor is grating, most of it is pretty good though.  "It" really wasn't that scary, which is an issue.  There are a few scary moments, but the film seems as if it's holding back.  There wasn't any lasting impact for me, but the film was a fun ride while it lasted.  Overall, it's a very quality mainstream release that I would recommend.


This movie made a lot of money, which means other movies are going to copy what made "It" such a huge success.  Even though this film is a remake of a popular television mini-series, the success of "Stranger Things" helped created a market for this teenage-driven horror.  One of the main actors from "Stranger Things" has a prominent role in this movie, and the tone of the film is juvenile at times.  I am predicting that there are going to be a lot more middle-school aged teenagers in horror films and films in general as a result of this blockbuster.


What interests me the most is how this film goes about its horror.  As I previously stated, "It" ended its horror sequences too quickly, which made the horror aspects much weaker than they could have been.  Almost all of the horrific moments in this film seemed to be paced very quickly.  The film didn't last too long on one horror scenario until the end, but there were a wide variety of sequences throughout the film. 


Instead of focusing on one scary idea, this film uses the children's fears to bring a diversity of experiences to the film.  The main reason I'm assuming these horror sequences are so short is for the filmmaker to fit a lot of them in the film.  A lot of teenagers have very short attention spans, and this film capitalizes on that by making each scene very short.  I could argue against this because I think the greatest horrors have long build-up, but I think this is a very good thing for the horror genre.


Even though I can't see "It" having as much of a visceral impact as other horror films, I think this film opens a nice market for more multi-faceted horror films.  This film is a comedy and a drama, which creates a nice bridge to open more people up to horror.  Both the female main character and the school bully have quite traumatic backstories, which brings a more real-life horror aspect to the film.  This film has a lot of really good traits that appeal to a wide array of audiences, which makes the horror genre feel less isolated.


Even though "It" is inappropriate for some younger teens, I would almost recommend this film as a transition point for younger viewers.  I could see this film warming a lot of people up to more intense horror films, which I find very commendable.  There are some disturbing images and some vulgarity with sexual references, but it's somewhat tame by today's standards. 


My only hope is that films like "It" continue to push boundaries by supporting the horror genre.  "Scary movies" are often completely overlooked by a large group people because they don't like feeling scared.  While this is understandable, the genre needs a bit of a revival to show audiences the pleasure of watching a film like this.  There needs to be more great horror films that are both conventional, accessible and not too scary.  While I thought "Hereditary" was a triumph in horror cinema, it doesn't have a wide audience appeal because it is so weird and intense.  People need to understand that there are different levels of scary and experience how fear can be utilized with other genres to provide a more all-encompassing film experience.

"American Made": Oddly Made

Some film adaptations go the extra mile to recreate the vibe and appearance of a certain time period.  This film tried too hard to do this. 


"American Made" finds Tom Cruise out of his typical action-blockbuster movie roles.  Instead, Cruise portrays real-life CIA pilot Barry Seal.  Seal flew secret missions for the U.S. government in the 1970s, then got caught up in some shady business ventures to make some money on the side.  The story is really interesting and a bit disturbing.  In fact, the greatest aspect of this film by far is its narrative.


The acting in this film is nothing special.  Despite Cruise having an accent and playing an anti-hero, he's still very similar to the character he plays in other films.  Even though the acting in this biography is on-par or a little worse than other films in this genre, I would still consider it one of the high points of the film.


The problems of "American Made" are almost all related to the filmmaking.  Since most of the events in this film actually happened, the directing takes on a more casual approach to give the film some more realism.  One of the techniques this film uses is shaky cam, which is when the camera is shooting on an unstable base and wobbles a little bit.  This did help with some realism during some intense scenes, but it became a little annoying during the scenes when characters are just talking.  There are also some random changes in focus and awkward zooms that I found over-exaggerated yet pointless.  There are many other conventional techniques that this film could have used to better express the same concepts.


Personally, my greatest issue was the look of the film.  "American Made" tries to achieve a vintage style reminiscent of the era it came from, but a lot of the shots come off as off-kilter and ugly-looking.  The film has a color palette that often overpowers the shot, which makes the frame look oversaturated.  Sometimes the picture looks very blue, other times it's yellow.  The film probably changes its color once every minute on average.  There are scenes where the color will change two or three times.  It's distracting and doesn't improve the experience in any way beyond trying something new.


There are some good shots in this film.  There are a wide variety of locations that make some parts of the film seem gorgeous.  However, this is ruined by the overpowering color tints and some overexposed lighting.  Maybe the footage was messed up and this was the only way to save what was already recorded, but it seems like an intentional choice.


Finally, I thought this film also suffered from a few unlikable characters, notably JB.  It's fine to have despicable characters in a movie until they become irritating.  Then, these actors bring the film as a whole down because not many audience members want to see something annoying and infuriating on-screen, especially if there's no point or message behind it.  I understand that this is how the story goes, but they didn't need to focus on these obnoxious moments.


Overall, this film is a very mixed-bag.  The filmmaking in "American Made" seemed experimental in a bad way, and I still think the look is poor for a studio release this large.  However, every person I've talked to said they enjoyed the film.  The story in this film is so interesting that I have to recommend it to people interested in true-stories of wealth and corruption.  The people that will have a distaste for this film are the ones that are bothered by the filmmaking; I didn't even notice many of the flaws until my second viewing.  The history this film covers is so good, I just wish the technical aspects could match it a bit better.

"Love Means Zero": Very Amateurish and Disappointing

"Love Means Zero" is a documentary about one of the most notorious coaching figures in the history of professional tennis, and it could have been so much better.


I have been around the sport of tennis for most of my life, and almost everybody knows about Nick Bollettieri.  This man is a character with such a powerful presence on the court, even when he doesn't know what he's talking about.  I've heard Bollettieri mention Mother Teresa and the pope a few times, and I personally find the two figures to have some similarities to Bollettieri's mentality.  There is a lot of tough love; Bollettieri is very aggressive and somewhat cruel to his students, but he also creates a passionate bond that promotes self-confidence.  Bollettieri has coached me personally a few times and I've heard him give a few speeches, so I was excited to see his larger-than-life personality to come to the big screen.


Unfortunately, this film doesn't do this man the justice he deserves.  The direction this film takes to Bollettieri does little to those already familiar with him and scrutinizes the man on an extremely basic level.  Not only does this film fail to dig into the specific details of this man's life, but it's also dull and uninspired.  I can see what the director was going for and the shortcomings surrounding making a film about this subject.  However, it still comes off as a mediocre experience at best.


This movie would have been a lot better if it replicated the Boris Becker portion.  I really enjoyed this part because Becker knows how to give an interview in an interesting way.  There was also a lot of footage used from Becker's old television matches, which helped enhance the story being told.  I also like how "Love Means Zero" showcases Bollettieri's charisma.  From my experience, Bollettieri talks big and comes off as a little disingenuous, and I got that from this film.  I wish his disposition would have been used even more prominently because this film kind of fails at showing the importance of this man.


In an interview, director Jason Kohn said he altered "Love Means Zero" when Andre Agassi declined to be involved in the film.  I do respect how Kohn changed the film to be more focused on Bollettieri's relationships with his students, but it seems like the footage was cobbled together in order to save the film rather than take it into a new direction.  For the last quarter of the 20th century, Bollettieri worked with a majority of all the top tennis players in the world.  Even with all these coaching achievements, the film is unable to find more than ten people to interview, and less than half of them have been real players for Bollettieri.  Maybe this is because the film could not get anyone else, but without these other players "Love Means Zero" feels empty.


The interviews in this film are conducted so poorly.  I know this may seem like a nitpick, but it is very important for a filmmaker to use quality information and set it up in a way that is entertaining.  "Love Means Zero" resorts to the interviews with Bollettieri becoming conversations between him and the filmmaker.  When the director becomes a character in a documentary, there is something wrong because it takes the attention off the subject.  At times, the filmmaker is able to hit Bollettieri with something that is emotional and delivers a complex emotion.  Although this is impressive, Kohn fails to cultivate a greater response.  Instead of getting something more out of Bollettieri, it seems like Kohn is holding back.  While some of the other interviews do have emotional moments, they feel unimportant because the former players being featured weren't really Bollettieri's stars.  At the end of the film, I could hardly remember anything that made Bollettieri stand out as the main role.


Technically, the filmmaking was proficient yet messy.  There need to be more cuts between interview bits.  The footage goes too long and cutting to b-roll would be an easy solution.  I find it hard to enjoy the film when the editing and structure is done this sloppily.  Also, the film seems like it is ordered based on the chronological order of how Bollettieri's interviews were conducted.  This makes "Love Means Zero" feel like series of vignettes relating to Bollettieri instead of one large tale of Bollettieri's life.  I disagree with almost all the music in this film.  Most of the music does not fit with the scenes and took me out of the experience.  It got to the point where music with vocals was playing over the interview and I couldn't focus on what the person was saying because the singing was mixed too loud.  Finally, I don't think the lighting and quality of the interview shots fit well into the documentary format.  There are a lot of great cinematic shots at the beginning and end, but I don't think they aid the storytelling in any way. 


I understand the premise and title of this film.  Kohn is implying that the business side of Bollettieri has overtaken the love for his students, which results in many unhealthy relationships.  I get what this film is trying to do, and "Love Means Zero" does achieve some of this.  I don't think this concept is for this film, though.  Despite his traits, Bollettieri acts like he cares so much for all his students.  While he does tend to pick favorites, Bollettieri's coaching model is based on love and making the players believe in themselves.  Even though he wanted all this fame and attention, there is something uniquely compelling about Bollettieri.  He is both inauthentic and extremely genuine, and it doesn't even come off as conflicting.  This combination of energy, inspiration, and camaraderie with his students provided the perfect atmosphere to produce some of the greatest tennis players of all time.  So, even though Bollettieri was a bit greedy and this strategy ruined many relationships in the long-run, this man was all about the love.


You don't even have to look into Bollettieri's past successes to see how incredible he is.  This is an 86-year-old tennis coach that is still teaching and speaks as if he's the greatest because he believes it.  I went in wishing for an epic documentary about this figure with six ex-wives and the first ever full-time tennis academy.  I want to hear more about the Nick Bollettieri who abandoned his family and made his students live through hellish conditions at his academy in his quest to make his figurative children great.  I want to see Bollettieri's greatest pupils react to their past academy experiences and explain the love he shared with them.  Even though it wouldn't have been the most flattering portrayal of Bollettieri, it doesn't need to be.  All this film needed to have was intense emotion and fun storytelling.  "Love Means Zero" has very little of both.


The allure of Bollettieri is how the absurd amount of confidence he had in himself took him from a man with very little tennis knowledge to one of the greatest figures in the game.  Sure, he gives out a lot of crap, but the man is a salesman and he will make you believe that you could jump and touch the moon.  I know I am being harder on this film because I am already familiar with a lot of this history, but there is something different about this man that isn't being presented here.  Even though he never won a professional tennis match in his life, he became one of the biggest tennis celebrity in his own right.  The greatest sin of this film is how it misinterprets Bollettieri's character.  Whatever one may think of him, he was definitely unlike any coach from that time period. 


This man was both the villain and the hero for all these kids growing up.  All I got from this film is that Bollettieri liked to pick favorites and he paid the price.  Despite Bollettieri's actions, his intentions were good.  No character study about a man this complex should be this clear-cut.  Ironically, this two-minute clip from the film does a better job explaining the character of Bollettieri than the rest of the film does.  If you really want to learn about this astonishing individual and why he was so successful, watch this 20-minute TED Talk instead.