Call Me By Your Name

            As I’ve been catching up on some of the big name movies that are up for the Academy Awards, I wanted to take a moment to focus on a contender that has a lot to do with this month in particular. February means Valentine’s Day for a lot of people out there, so when seeking out a romantic escape from reality, you want to have the perfect movie to settle down into. And this year, the Academy Awards has some big forbidden love stories nominated this year; with a major one being the critically praised, Call Me By Your Name.

            Set in Northern Italy in the year 1983, an archeology professor invites an American graduate student named Oliver to come work as his assistant. While there, Oliver and the professor’s son, Elio, start to form a blooming relationship with a sort of “will they, won’t they” conflict to them.

            Currently, this film has been nominated for some heavy categories at the Oscars, including Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, and Lead Actor for Timothee Chalamet as Elio. A majority of the praise comes from just how the romance between Elio and Oliver develops throughout the film, despite the age difference between them. And many say that this feels like a truly revolutionary coming-of-age love story about sexual discovery.

However, upon further observation, Call Me By Your Name not only doesn’t live up to the kind of impact Moonlight left on me, this movie doesn’t even deserve to call itself Oscar worthy. I know I’m going to piss almost everyone off when I say this, but Call Me By Your Name to me, ended up as just being this year’s “Oscar Gay Movie.” It was what people addressed Moonlight and Brokeback Mountain as, and it’s what this movie is, only it just degrades itself into the clichéd boring art house melodrama that nobody gives a shit about. Disregarding the fact that these two were different age ranges and two guys, there’s nothing that interesting I found about either Elio or Oliver. And I don’t think part of that’s to blame on the script, as James Ivory is a brilliant writer, with his adaptation of Howard’s End being a shining example of his work; I just feel like the film’s editing and pacing make the story feel padded out heavily. Sure, the cinematography is beautiful, but there are so many tracking shots that make the film feel like an eternity to get to; you could have edited this down by forty minutes, and it would have been easier to sit through.

            As for the performances, the only actor I didn’t like in this was Timothee Chalamet; granted, I liked him in Lady Bird as the poetic douche boyfriend, but he’s so lifeless in this. He just looks so bored to be there, like he doesn’t even realize that he’s supposed to be in character. Whenever I see him with Armie Hammer or Michael Stuhlberg, you can clearly see that they’re on a completely different level than him. I don’t exactly know if that was how he was directed, but something was clearly off here. Maybe if they had gotten someone like Dylan Minnette, Logan Lerman, or Darce Montgomery, they might have brought something to this character that was supposed to be there.

            I’m sure there are people out there praising the movie as one of the most heartfelt stories they’ve seen, and more power to you if you believe that. I tried to like this, but I can’t see this as anything other than the same Oscar bait love story we’ve seen before; just because it’s with a man and boy, doesn’t change how pretentious it is. It’s not among the worst films I’ve seen this year, but it is still one of the worst Best Picture nominated films I’ve seen in a while.

Rating: D+

Top 15 Worst Films of 2017

Top 15 Best Films of 2017

Thor: Ragnarok

            As 2017 begins to come to a close, so do the last of the comic book movies arriving in theaters this year. I do have to admit: despite Spiderman Homecoming and Kingsman The Golden Circle, this year was actually one of the better years for comic book movies, and that’s saying something, considering both 2015 and 2016 had only one comic book movie each that I loved. I've already discussed my thoughts about Justice League in my rant last time, but let's talk about a good comic book movie, Thor: Ragnarok.

            My opinions with the Thor trilogy have been mixed when compared to everyone else’s. I thought the first film was alright for what it was, but nothing really special, and I’m actually in a minority that not only loves the sequel, Thor: The Dark World, but I actually like it more than most of the other MCU movies. I thought that the character development was better than the slower pace of the first movie, the action scenes were something that I didn’t get from the first Avengers movie, and it had some of the better laughs that I’ve had with any film that year.

            However, after the decline that Marvel was having, at least with me, with Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America: Civil War, as well as Marvel Studios not being the best when it comes to third installments of trilogies, I didn’t really have high expectations with the finale of the Thor trilogy. It was only after seeing the teaser in theaters, something that I actually watched more of than any other trailer they released, I was pumped for another adventure with Thor.

            When the goddess of death, Hela, escapes from her prison and destroys his hammer, Thor must now fight to survive a gladiator prison planet, run by the Grandmaster. In order to return to Asgard, he must team up with a fallen Valkyrie, his trickster brother Loki, and the Hulk, who has become the Grandmaster’s champion fighter, so they can stop Hela and prevent the coming of Ragnarok.

            Once again, Marvel Studios keeps on improving the Thor series, because this film kicks ass! Thor: Ragnarok is the best of the trilogy, which is not too often that you see from a third installment of a film series, especially with comic book movies. Everything that was done right with the previous two movies is doubled, and with the problems that I had with them being near completely absent. The action scenes and visual effects are such a feast to the eyes, from Thor and Hulk’s rematch to the finale on the Rainbow Bridge, all of it just breathes new life into uncharted grounds. We get to see more of the worlds across the Thor mythos, as well as bridge together the Guardians of the Galaxy civilizations into context, leading up to the character assembly in Avengers: Infinity War, but in a tasteful manner, unlike some other MCU entries.  But what is especially memorable about the movie is the comedy; it’s not as outlandish and raunchy as what Deadpool would bring, but it still manages to get you laughing at almost every instant…aside from the few jokes they used from previous MCU movies, like Banner falling but not transforming as he hits the ground.

            Chris Hemmsworth succeeds with his reprisal of the titular god of thunder himself, but you can tell that his character has a more humorous approach. You see Thor act cockier than usual, like if Tony Stark rubbed off on him, as well as be playful with allies, but still in that egotistical manner that Thor can be known for. That’s not to say, the film’s without its softer moments, because he does know when to tone it down and take matters seriously. Tom Hiddleston’s return as Loki was pleasantly welcoming, as he has just as much charm and hilarious dialogue as he did in The Avengers and Thor: The Dark World. Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/the Hulk was a very refreshing addition to the film, and quite a clever way to incorporate the Planet Hulk storyline from the comics from under Universal’s nose. I also love the buddy/rivalry that Thor has with the Hulk, similar to the one he has with Loki, but more physical; not only that, but seeing the two go head to head again since the first Avengers was deeply satisfying.

            Cate Blanchett as Hela easily steals it, helping add to Marvel’s good streak of movie villains; while her character does appear the second she’s mentioned, as well as a little underdeveloped, Blanchett deliverers this sinister presence that just commands you to submit. No mercy, no surrender, and bitter on every level, Blanchett just commands it all. Jeff Goldblum as the Grandmaster is also very hilarious, in all of his Goldblum glory. Tessa Thompson and Karl Urban also have some good parts as well, both with their own history of dealing with Hela before and after her imprisonment. Sir Anthony Hopkins is always great as Odin, Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange was a delightful appearance, and even Liam Hemmsworth and Matt Damon get cameos too.

            As far as I’m concerned, Thor: Ragnarok is another lucky Marvel masterpiece that I’m glad to have seen. Plus, it’s easily the best superhero movie playing in theatres right now, so might as well take the better option. The comedy really works, the action scenes are kick ass (especially when Led Zepplin kicks in), the characters are work well with each other, and it has some pretty good build up to Avengers: Infinity War. But don’t forget, we still have Black Panther to be more excited about first.

Rating: A-

JL Failure, and What the DCEU Should Do?

It's been a week since it released, and "Justice League" has just barely grossed $30 million past its budget. It's still not enough for Warner Bros. to break even, because it would need to make $700 million to break even, and that's not even counting the marketing. Considering their previous entries (except Wonder Woman and Man of Steel) and seeing the film for myself, it's not surprising that their third superhero team-up movie turned out to be as big a disappointment. And with how they ended up pulling some of their future films off the schedule, all while pushing for Wonder Woman 2 for a November 2019 release, it was only a matter of time before they realized they messed up badly. Whether it's because of directors dropping out for reshoots, putting too much into one, cutting out characters or important moments, Warner Bros. has dug themselves into a deeper hole than they did last year. Even DC fans are having a "Phantom Menace" realization that what the studio is doing is messing everything up.

Now the question remains, where will they go from here? Well, here's what I would suggest: don't do a reboot. Marvel Studios has been in this position before, when they started rushing "Iron Man 2" after "The Incredible Hulk" was a box office disappointment, mixed in with issues happening with Edward Norton behind the scenes. "Iron Man 2" is a very mixed bag, but you have to at least thank that movie for helping keep Marvel Studios going, so they could get to "Thor," "Captain America: The First Avenger," and the box office juggernaut that was "The Avengers." Since then, Marvel has been making hundred million dollar successes, even with their weaker installments.

A while back, I remembered reading something that my brother's friend was discussing about how the "X-Men" franchise was able to pull itself out of the grave after the back-to-back failures that were "X3" and "Origins: Wolverine." Later, we got "X-Men: The Beginnings Trilogy," which has been relatively successful, and fixed the problems that those films made, without going complete reboot. Not only that, but they gave us "Deadpool," which went on to be the highest grossing R rated film of all time, with a sequel coming out next summer. They also have their horror installment, "The New Mutants," scheduled for April, and it so far looks pretty good. Or hell, look at "Logan," which wasn't much of a superhero film than it was a family western drama; it was both a financial and critical success, with some people saying it might even get potential Oscar recognition. Not only were the "X-Men" films getting back on their feet, they began trying new things.

We've seen what happens when too many reboots are constantly thrown at audiences, thanks to meddling from companies like Universal and Sony. Earlier this year, Universal's THIRD attempt at a universe franchise with "The Mummy" sank faster than it could even start, and it's key writer, Alex Kurtzman, left afterwards. "The Amazing Spiderman" films, whether you like them or not, they were box office successes, despite some fans constantly bitching and barely even giving them a chance. Every Spiderman film has at least grossed $700 million each, those two included, so Sony could have easily continued on. However, after the North Korean hacking and executive meddling from then CEO, Amy Pascal, they got cold feet and had to strike a deal with Marvel to keep afloat, but that's a whole other can of worms entirely.

What I'm suggesting is that DC needs to accept what they have, move on, and try to improve upon it. I want more of Henry Cavill's Superman, Ben Affleck's Batman, and especially Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman; and after "Justice League," I want more of Jason Mamoa's Aquaman, and I'm hoping his film next year will be like what happened with "Wonder Woman." If they do want to do a reboot, then they should just do what "X-Men" did, and just go for time travel and parallel universes, something DC has been known to do. They had planned on doing a "Flash" movie, possibly adapting the "Flashpoint" storyline, so they always have that option opened, if they can find a director that will stay with them. This would allow their stand-alone Joker film to actually work, because we would be introduced to a whole new world altogether.

Also, most importantly, they should STOP DOING SUPERHERO TEAM MOVIES! Seriously, I'm so sick and tired of these people forcing big superhero team movies to happen; for the most part, they have too many big stars to focus on, barely anyone gets a chance to shine in the spotlight, aside from two or three popular ones, and that's it. "BVS," "Suicide Squad," "Justice League," or that "Gotham Sirens" movie they announced, it has never turned out for the better. A lot of people like to point out "The Avengers" as the best example, and while I do like both movies, especially with how they know to PROPERLY build up a big team such as this, they're not films I would consider to be the best of the MCU, let alone the best superhero movies of all time. One of the reasons I didn't like "Captain America: Civil War" as much as the other two, was because it felt more like an "Avengers" movie, only focusing too much on the superhero battle part, and giving us not only an unnecessary villain, but one of the worst comic book movie villains, if not THE worst. Even with the "X-Men," a franchise BUILT around a team, only one or two of them that focused on the entire team was done right. "Guardians of the Galaxy" is probably the best example I can think of, where a superhero team movie can be done right, and both films are my favorites in the MCU. However, I doubt that's what DC is going to be doing...it's kind of sad, really.

Suburbicon

            As the new millennium began, we began to see the rise of a new kind of George Clooney, from the perspective of the director’s chair. It came to a start with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind in 2002, showing how he handles big historical events on screen, and that he can blend genres into a darky comedic fashion. Not only that, but with films like O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Hail, Caesar!, he’s also established a good relationship with the Coen Brothers, so much so that Clooney was given the task to direct one of their scripts: Suburbicon. Before we do get to talking about this, let me just be upfront and say this; if I was to ever do a completely separate list of the most DISAPPOINTING films I’ve seen this year, I guarantee you this would be in the Top 3.

            From what the trailers had given, you’d figure it’d be about Matt Damon playing a 1950’s father, who has connections with the mob and takes them all down…that’s not what the plot is, sadly. Now, films having false advertising isn’t anything new, but maybe what the film really is could still be good, right? Again, no, sadly. In fact, I’m not quite sure how to describe the plot, because it feels like it was trying to be so many different things, that it’s quite baffling. Apparently, Matt Damon hired the mob to ax his wife, so he and his wife’s twin sister can collect insurance money, send his son to boarding school, and run away to have an affair in Aruba…oh, and a black family is struggling with a racist neighborhood.

Yeah, do you see what I mean about this film being a mess? At times it wants to be a crime comedy, other times it’s a comedic thriller, then it’s a historical politics movie, and…it just gets so confusing, like it was several different scripts put together. And apparently, that’s not far from the truth. A friend told me that the film’s script was apparently a compilation between two completely different films: one was a film about black people who lived in a white 50s suburb, and the other was the Coen Brothers script about a boring dad gone bad with the mob. Sure, sometimes it can work, but here it just feels messy. I mean, I kind of get how one could see it working, having the anger building up from the white mob being a metaphor for Matt Damon losing his patience with those interfering with his plans, but it just doesn’t work. It felt like it needed a third point of view to do a re-write or take over as director, but something needed a different view to make this work. A script is the first thing that needs to come into play before a film can be made, and I don’t understand how ANYONE thought the draft they used was good enough here.

It’s a real damn shame, because almost everything else in this film very well made. Clooney is a damn good director, and even with lesser films like this, it still looks like a great deal of effort went into it. The town of Suburicon does have that familiar but haunting feel to it, with how perfect almost everything looks to these people. And the acting is really good too; Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Gary Basaraba, Noah Jupe, Oscar Isaac, Glenn Fleshler, they’re all fantastic here. They all have great timing, especially with making the serious moments odd but quirky and funny. It’s just that this film’s plot is poorly cobbled together, that it also ruins any of the upcoming jokes you can see coming a mile away.

This was really upsetting, because with the kind of talent they have a part of this, I’m left asking “how?” Suburbicon should have been a success, but I guess it doesn’t matter how big your talent is, not everything can be bullseyes. And considering how this film is bombing as badly as it is, both critically and financially, I finally understand; it’s just a bad movie. Is it one of the worst films I’ve seen this year? No, I’ve seen far, FAR, worse.

Rating: D+