'Ant-Man and the Wasp' Review

After the events of Captain America: Civil War, Scott Lang must grapple with the consequences of his choices as a superhero and a father by submitting himself to house arrest for two years as punishment for not abiding by the Sokivia Accords. When approached by Hope van Dyne and Dr. Hank Pym towards the end of his sentence, Lang must once again don the Ant-Man suit and fight alongside the Wasp as the dynamic duo journeys to bring back Janet van Dyne from the Quantum Realm. However, the urgent mission soon leads to startling revelations from the past as the duo find themselves backed up against a corner amidst facing a powerful new adversary with dangerous technology.

Ant-Man and the Wasp rounds out Marvel's ten year journey as the twentieth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and their third release of the year. Considering that information, you'd probably expect the superhero sequel to be bearing the weight of immense pressure. That's not exactly the case though, as Ant-Man and the Wasp feels light and breezy when compared to the recent dramatic additions in Marvel's filmography. As a smaller self-contained story, it's a refreshing palette cleanser following the severity and weight of Avengers: Infinity War's heavy cliff-hanger. I'm sure many Marvel fans are expecting some semblance of a crossover there, or at least a tease towards the still untitled Avengers 4, and to that I'll simply say you won't be disappointed. An expected Stan Lee cameo is included as well as two post-credits scenes, but you know the drill by now so just be sure and stick around when the credits start rolling. Otherwise, you're just going to look like a chump in the glaring, judgmental eyes of Marvel fanboys all around you.

To get back on track, Peyton Reed flies back in to direct the size-changing duo in their first outing together while the screenplay is credited to star Paul Rudd along with the quartet of Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Andrew Barrer, and Gabriel Ferrari. Last time around, Reed didn't have full control of Ant-Man... There was the unfortunate matter and circumstance of creative differences between the studio and Edgar Wright that lead to Reed getting the gig just before filming. However, this time around, you can tell Marvel gave Reed full creative control to do as he pleased. While I wouldn't go as far to saying Ant-Man and the Wasp is an exceptionally well-directed blockbuster, his stamp of a approval on it is clear because the zany wackiness audiences gravitated towards in the first film has now been dialed to an eleven. Whether that will be controversial or not remains to be seen, but I've already seen a substantial split of people's opinion on my Twitter feed. Whatever the case, I'm expecting the audience response to be something akin to the reception towards Iron Man 3 rather than the full-fledged fanboy rage towards Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Anyways, I apologize for getting caught up in all that chatter, but I felt it was worth mentioning at the very least. As is often the case for sequels, Ant-Man and the Wasp had its eyes set on being another small-scaled, self-contained story with bigger action, heart, and humor. At the end of the day, I'd say it met its goal because it's about on par with the original in my book. While the first film is more focused and grounded in reality, I can't help but slightly prefer the hilarious hijinks present in Ant-Man and the Wasp. I'd actually liken it to Saturday morning cartoon (I say this in a positive light). There's little thematic importance to the journey beyond demonstrating the importance of family and teamwork as we've seen a million times before, but it's still a fun, briskly paced adventure the whole family can enjoy. 

As you'd expect, Reed and crew have found new creative ways to inventively exploit the size-changing gimmick, and it totally works in the film's favor. Now that Giant-Man's on the table thanks to the airport battle in Civil War (which comes up quite often here), there are new toys at Reed's disposal and he can quite literally think bigger in regards to planning out the film's beats of action and humor. On that note, the action sequences are a noticeable improvement over the original and I also found the film to be also much funnier than the first. A win-win for a sequel to an action-comedy. 

I'd also say the sequel's visual effects are among the best I've seen all year. While I wouldn't go as far to saying they beat out Infinity War's grandiose graphics overall, the cinematic de-aging technique that Marvel often exploits is at its very best here and there were no sketchy instances of uncanny video game-esque renderings or poor green screen work which can sometimes be a bane to Marvel (ie. Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok). The production design inside Pym's new lab is also visually appealing so it definitely deserves a mention as well. 

Like the first, Ant-Man and the Wasp succeeds first and foremost on the merits of its cast. There are quite a few exciting new additions to the ensemble as well as plenty of familiar faces returning from the first film, but Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lily are front and center as the first to co-lead a Marvel feature. Up to this point, everything's been team-based or driven by a solo character with supporting cast, which makes it all the more refreshing to see Scott Lang and Hope van Dyne share title billing. A significant story element from the original was the implication that Hope might be more qualified to wear the Ant-Man suit than Scott, and the sequel certainly pushes that notion even further...

The three year wait to see Lily step up to lead status was well worth it because Wasp is a badass. It was nice to see her steal the show without coming across as an in-your-face feminist. My only insignificant issue with her being such an awesome component of the film is that it often comes at the expense of Scott Lang looking like a total doofus. Granted, I guess that's kind of why Paul Rudd was cast to begin with, but still... I also appreciated that they didn't spin it as if she necessarily needed Lang's help to get things done. Instead, they went for the age-old message that teamwork makes the dream work. She's adept, skillful, and a cunning combatant, but even she can't do it all alone. 

On the flipside, Paul Rudd's winsome charm shines through once again as he provided some of the biggest laughs once more. His chemistry with Lily is even better this time around as the nature of their relationship has significantly evolved, and it continues to change over the course of the film. Through it all, Cassie remains a sweet centerpiece to the whole shebang. Her dynamic with her dad is absolutely adorable and I totally bought into it on the basis of Rudd and Abby Ryder Forston's performances. In terms of supporting characters, she totally stole every scene she was in.

Veteran actor Michael Douglas is also back as Dr. Hank Pym and gets ample opportunity to showcase his character's broken humanity in some of the more intense emotional moments. Opposite Douglas, Janet van Dyne is played by the excellent Michelle Pfeiffer who is essentially the major McGuffin everyone's after. I'd compare her role to Mark Hamill's in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but the major difference was that Pfeiffer at least had some dialogue. I wouldn't go as far to say Pfeiffer was wasted in this film, but she didn't have a lot to do and that may disappoint some. Another notable actor featured in the film was Laurence Fishburne as Dr. Bill Foster. Fishburne was in it a lot more than I had expected and had an interesting role in the grand scheme of things that I'd rather not spoil. I'll just say what everyone already knows... Fishburne is a highly qualified actor and it didn't feel like he phoned in his performance at all.

Filling out the supporting ensemble, Michael Peña, T.I., David Dastmalchian, Bobby Cannavale, and Judy Greer all do great work with what's provided to them. The trio of Peña, T.I., and Dastmalchian were particularly hilarious in notable sequences. You can tell that Reed and crew took note of people gravitating to Luis in the original though because Peña is in the sequel significantly more than he was last time around. It's not a bad thing because his eccentric character is such a delight, but simply an observation I made about how Reed likely reacted to the response towards the first film. 

Meanwhile, Ant-Man and the Wasp has a very interesting villain situation... There are multiple ANT-agonistic forces, but not really one specific, clear-cut villain so to speak. First up, Ghost turns out to be a compelling character with a sympathetic cause, but is more ANT-agonist than villain. Thanks to Hannah John-Kamen, Ghost has a powerful screen presence and her action scenes are pretty cool, but I ultimately wished she had factored more into the plot. Another character in the stable of ANT-agonists would be Sonny Burch played by Walton Goggins, and I was woefully disappointed by the disposable role he wound up in. Goggins is an immensely talented actor, but his character was honestly wasted here. The other ANT-agonistic force which isn't quite villainous would be the FBI. The head agent checking in on Lang is Jimmy Woo, portrayed by Randall Park, and he was a hilarious addition whenever onscreen.

With a stronger emotional core and bigger action, the tiny dynamic duo's first team-up takes off as a slightly superior sequel, but is unable to fully spread its wings on the basis of being light-hearted popcorn fluff. Marvel fans will surely find it worthwhile for the extra ANT-icipation it brings to Avengers 4, but the adventure may also prove too cartoonish to some. However, I thought it lived up to the buzz and I c-AN'T wait to be stung again. 

Film Assessment: B+

'Murder on the Orient Express' (2017) Review

[This review was originally written in November 2017 and is now being published that my internship is over. For an explanation of this, visit my Fall 2017 Important Update post.] 

Murder on the Orient Express chugs along with world-renowned detective Hercule Poirot as he travels on the extravagant Orient Express enroute to London so he can solve yet another case. However, his recess is interrupted when the lavish locomotive becomes the scene of a murder, and responsibility falls upon Poirot to catch the culprit responsible for committing the crime among a dozen of the train's dubious passengers.

Murder on the Orient Express adapts a novel written by Agatha Christie and this 2017 rendition is directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also happens to star as the brilliant Belgian detective. Branagh's version joins one pre-existing film adaptation, three television series (including one Japanese incarnation), and the novel itself of course. Considering I haven't seen or read any of these, I can't quite speak to how faithfully Branagh adapted the novel or how it compares to the other editions. I can however say though that Branagh imbues Murder on the Orient Express with the stylistic sensibilities of an old-fashioned murder mystery, which really works in the film's favor.

Branagh and his crew create a convincing 1930s environment to coup up the characters (full marks to the production and costume designers, as well as the hair and makeup team) while cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos cunningly captures captivating imagery within the confined compartments of the Orient Express. Patrick Doyle's score also fuels the coal fire with a liveliness that mimics the movement of a train as it rarely stops chugging along. Murder on the Orient Express rides a set of comfortable tracks in regards to aesthetic, but the script accounts for a bumpier ride.

Again, I can't attest to the accuracy of this adaptation and so I'm unsure if any of my complaints are better directed towards Christie or the film's screenwriter, Michael Green. Regardless of where the problem lies, theres still an issue. Murder on the Orient Express is a whodunnit murder mystery, and when solving a mystery it's best to key the audience in on various clues by showing rather than telling. Branagh goes with the latter though, essentially spilling all the details in expositional dialogue. The mystery and the characters involved aren't nearly as fascinating as they should be considering the viewer's knowledge is relatively restricted to what Poirot explains to them, which really is a shame considering the quality of the cast assembled for the project. Murder on the Orient Express also isn't in any hurry to meet its destination, so naturally the pacing can veer towards being slightly sluggish on occasion. 

Murder on the Orient Express amasses an exceptional ensemble, and while certain actors are able to stick out from the crowd a tad, Kenneth Branagh's the only one who truly shines... or was it just his character's marvelous moustache? Anyways, Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Josh Gad, Willem DaFoe, Michelle Pfeiffer, Leslie Odom Jr., and Tom Bateman are actually quite good when afforded the opportunity to do or say something, but the ensemble as a whole is woefully underutilized and are made out to be mostly stock background caricatures rather than fully, fleshed individuals. 

I'd love to confidently shout "All aboard the Orient Express," but the journey's a little trepidatious if I'm being honest. Branagh steals the show from both behind and in-front of the camera, providing the embers necessary to keep the flick moving, but the film almost veers offtrack due to the script's underwhelming roles for his extraordinary ensemble.

Film Assessment: C+

'mother!' Review

In order to analyze this movie, a spoiler discussion is simply necessary. There will be clear spoiler warnings to mark this as a means of forewarning those who've yet to watch mother! or intend on doing so.

[This review was originally written in September 2017 and is now being published to coincide with the digital home media release. For an explanation of this, visit my Fall 2017 Important Update post.] 

mother! sees a couple put to the test when uninvited guests intrude and upset the balance of their humble home. What then follows are two hours of utter insanity that will definitely divide audiences everywhere, something already evident on the internet through Rotten Tomatoes and Cinescore.

Darren Aronofsky wrote and directed the film, leaning towards being an artistic approach with metaphors, symbols, and allegories galore! Which I'm sure was one of reasons general audiences didn't take to it. Aronofsky is known for creating sick, twisted films like Requiem for a Dream or Black Swan, and mother! certainly falls in line with those. I'm trying to tip-toe around specifics because it's easy to unintentionally ruin the film thanks to the cryptic misleading marketing, but Aronofsky certainly succeeded in translating his dark depraved ideas onscreen.

mother! is one of the most unique experiences I've had in a theater this year, because the film lends itself to extensive interpretation. This is a movie that will get you thinking. Once the credits started rolling, I was swiftly approached by another audience member who asked me for my take on what the heck just happened. We quickly started bouncing our ideas back-and-forth and by the time we were done, we both only had an inkling of what Darren Aronofsky was trying to convey. The last time I saw something even remotely close to this would have been last year watching Arrival and Nocturnal Animals, two thought-provoking films released last year that both happened to star Amy Adams. But even with those films, I felt I had a general understanding of what happened when it was over and was merely curious about the deeper meaning or the film structure.

**Spoiler Warning**

However, mother! is an entirely different ordeal altogether. I was able to follow along fairly well till the floor started bleeding. At that point, I realized Aronofsky was expressing his ideas with strange symbolism. I just didn't know what the symbols represented. After reading some interesting internet articles about mother!, I feel that I have a reasonable grasp of a few different interpretations about was going on.

I still have no idea what the yellow medicine was, but I've gathered that Javier Bardem's character represented God, Jennifer Lawrence represented Mother Earth (Nature), and the series of characters causing mayhem in the house represented various stories from the Old Testament including Adam & Eve, Caine & Abel, Noah & the flood, etc. Although, each were conveyed rather haphazardly with a sloppy frenzy. In the moment, these events felt like random chaotic events with absolutely no rhyme or reason. This may be due to the fact the script was written in five days...

For those that don't know, Aronofsky's an atheist. A general theme present throughout mother! seemed to be that God is a neglectful God, and Aronofsky tries to incorporate specific points of reference with biblical allegories. As a Christian, I can't help but disagree with his viewpoint and that goes without saying. I am of the mindset that if Aronofsky's going to explicitly throw this out there, that he should at least find better support than a surface level glimpse through the Bible. Aronofsky constantly alludes to things, but doesn't ever take the time to accentuate his arguments or fully understand what he's referencing. I think if you're going to make the effort to make such a bold claim, you should at least support your viewpoint with more than an ill-interpreted allegory.

An issue I found in the screenplay was that the writing was rather uneven. The environment is an enigma that's able to be perceived differently on a viewer-to-viewer basis. While that is somewhat fascinating, the lack of any clear definition to the events was frustrating since many of the characters come across as half(or even a quarter)-baked and the circumstances seemed scattershot.

On top of that, Aronofsky makes a clear, conscious effort to include grotesque imagery that's disturbing to say the least. The thing that went way too far in my mind was when he showed the crowd kill a baby... That just seemed uncalled for... I totally get that it was meant to symbolize Christ's death at the hands of humanity, but I feel that didn't have to be communicated in such a heavy-handed manner. If it weren't for A Cure for Wellness, that would have been the most disturbing thing I've seen in theaters all year... 

**End of spoilers**

One nice technical touch that I did actually appreciate was how the camera followed Jennifer Lawrence for practically the entire runtime. It rarely lets up, but when it does Lawrence is always nearby, somewhere in frame or it's shot from her perspective. The cinematography from Matthew Libatique conveys a sense of claustrophobia and pits the audience in Lawrence's headspace so they also feel cooped up. The technique is incredibly effective, because the audience feels thrown amidst the chaos with Lawrence when the insanity piles up.

I'm not the biggest Jennifer Lawrence fan, but I appreciate her when she puts forth genuine effort and roll my eyes when she takes a paycheck gig. In this case, I'm ecstatic to report that Lawrence is exceptional as Mother. She has to slowly and steadily transition from a relatively passive, but uncomfortable protagonist to a woman driven mad by the events conspiring around her, and she pulls it off. It's a pity this performance is buried underneath such a troubled film. Opposite Lawrence, Javier Bardem carries a genuine gravitas that makes Him all the more engrossing of a character. The role's quite intriguing as his character exhibits a charming debonair and a foreboding temperament, so it's difficult to determine exactly what makes his character tick. 

Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer, along with legions of actors, pop by so the fever dream can regularly accumulate. However, Harris and Pfeiffer leave the largest impression as Man and Woman considering their characters were more developed than the supporting stock faces. 

mother! isn't exactly something I'd recommend someone go see, because I think opinions will widely vary from person-to-person. Aronofsky's vision is absolutely bonkers and certainly didn't line up with what I expected going in. If you're looking for an outright horror thriller, you're not going to find that in mother!. This is an artistic intellectual experience that will get you thinking for sure. Whether you will like that or not is completely dependent on your personal taste. Aronofsky's message was too cynical in my mind, but I can't entirely discredit the film as it was competently-made and the cast put forth proficient performances.

Film Assessment: C-