Kingsman: The Golden Circle - Not much new but still lots of fun

The first movie titled Kingsman: The Secret Service, based upon the comic written by Mark Milar was basically a cooler and slightly extra silly take on the spy genre. It followed a young man named Eggsy (Taron Egerton) as a British street youth who is recruited by his fathers best friend named Galahad (Colin Firth), into The Kingsman, a secret defense organization that has weaponized the fashion and behavior of a gentleman. Bulletproof suits, glasses with computers inside, kick-ass Umbrellas, and so on. All to protect the world from over-the-top villains and their attempts to take over or even destroy civilization. It was an enjoyable experience with fresh and likable characters, well-timed humor, excellent action scenes, and a clever riff on the spy genre. If you have not seen this film yet, I would highly recommend you do so. Not only is it a great movie on its own, but it will enhance the experience of watching the sequel now in theaters. Which is not really as good as the first film, but is still lots of fun.

The first comparison that comes to mind when thinking about this sequel is Men in Black 2. Mainly because both films suffer from the same problem. Assuming that the audience just wants more of the exact same thing again, so they go out of their way to bring back elements and characters that were already established and had already completed their arcs from the first movie. However, to use a video game analogy, while Men in Black 2 was a lesser film for hitting the reset button, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is more like playing the game over again, but with all of the accomplished skill levels and goodies you've picked up. Add to that some bonus content, and you've actually got a pretty enjoyable movie.

This time around the world is threatened by an over-the-top drug cartel named Poppy (Julianne Moore), who has secretly laced illegal drugs with a poison that will eventually kill all who have used said drugs and plans to provide the cure under the condition that she basically be given the power to rule the world. To ensure her success, Poppy destroys all of The Kingsman except for Eggsy and his friend Merlin (Mark Strong). The two of them head to the United States and make contact with the Statesman, their American cousins who are just like the Kingsman but utilize a Cowboy motif with weaponized lassos, explosive whiskey bottles, and old-fashioned six-shooters.

The film manages to be both familiar and fresh. While it still basically hits the same beats as its predecessor, it manages to have just enough of an original personality to feel like a new experience, if only sometimes. Even though it brings back a character from the first film by very contrived means, even by this movies universes standards. Despite that, the film is a lot of fun with action scenes, character arcs and jokes all executed with the same finesse as the previous adventure. Not at all surprising given the film's director, Matthew Vaughn.

Vaughn is a great filmmaker. He has a keen eye for casting, a great feel for action, and knows how to create interesting and likable characters. This film, in particular, seems especially fascinating because Vaughn doesn't like sequels. I don't' know what the studio did to bring him back for this movie, but I'm glad he did. As I am convinced that, in lesser hands, this film would not have been as enjoyable as it was.

If you liked the first film, then you will have fun with the sequel.

Is this movie worth seeing? - Yes

Is it worth seeing in theaters? - Maybe

Why? - While it is a fun experience, it still loses points for reusing too much of the first film.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.

Who is TheNorm?

I've been talking about movies, and the art of making movies, for quite some time now. So much so that I think I overlooked an important thing. I have given my thoughts and feelings about movies to my readers (and YouTube subscribers) with enthusiasm and care. Except, what I failed to remember was, just like any movie, the audience, or in this case the readers, need a reason to care. In other words, I have asked you to take my words without knowing who I am or why I put my voice out there in the first place. Well, today, I'm going to break the ice. Here is who I am, what I want, and why I ask that you hear what I have to say about movies, making movies, and anything else movie related that is on my mind.

Movies have always been a part of my life. My parents took me to the movie theaters on a regular basis. Some of my best childhood memories took place in the folding seats of the movie theater. Two of them include the day my mother took me to see the first Tim Burton Batman film on opening day, and when my father and I saw Batman: Mask of the Phantasm in theaters. You know? I just realized that two of my fondest movie memories are related to Batman. How about that?

My artistic passion began in theater. When I was 16, my mother signed me up for a voice lesson. When I arrived to class, I discovered that the teacher was holding a parent/participant meeting for the local youth theater. Given that she had to cancel her voice lesson with me, she offered me a role in the play. Despite not having much theater experience under my belt at that time, but wanting to get something out of the canceled lesson, I said yes. Soon I was in rehearsal for a show called Double Date. A set of two one-act plays written by Horton Foote about the dating scene in 1930s South. That was when the acting bug bit me.

At first, I fell in love with the environment. I found myself surrounded by like-minded people who all got along and treated each other with respect and encouraged each other to try new things and not be afraid of your true self. As a child, I found myself cast aside as the designated "loser" or "weirdo." Like many artists have. So, to have found a place where I no longer had to be afraid of who I was, and be around others like me, meant the world to me. I knew that I wanted to spend every possible second in this place.

I continued to participate in that same youth theater program for years. Upon graduating high school, I auditioned for and got accepted into the Foothill College Theater Conservatory. A two-year training program for aspiring actors. Those were, so far, the best two years of my life. Every day felt like magic. The plays we would read and contemplate in dramatic literature class, the beautiful and surreal discoveries from our Mask workshop, and the joy of hands-on creation in make-up class, there was never a dull moment in this program.

Upon graduating the conservatory, I continued to do theater, though I started participating less and less as time went by. I was interested in doing more film acting. As, even then, I still had a strong passion for the movies. There was just one little problem. I couldn't find real film acting gigs. Every project I auditioned for, communicated to producers for, even spoke in person to students for, just never fell through. At first, I thought it was just not meant to be, but I was determined to get some film acting on my resume.

At some point, I suspected that the problem was with me. I thought that maybe because of my theatrical training, I was approaching the film world incorrectly. So, I took it upon myself to learn more about filmmaking. Believing that if I had a better understanding of what goes on behind the camera, I might do a better job in front of the camera. Thus began my journey as a filmmaker.

I took a few classes at De Anza College and participated in an extensive training program at the New York Film Academy, but the vast majority of my knowledge of filmmaking has been self-taught. I observed a lot of tutorial videos on youtube, particularly those of Indie Mogal and Film Riot. I have even been fortunate enough to have participated on set for a couple of big films as a behind-the-scenes documentarian. I have also acted in a few student films that had access to an entire studio.

Like my experience with theater, I fell in love with the environment and the like-minded people. Over time, I learned what it was about cinema that truly made me appreciate it as an art form, and what makes it stand out from live theater. Both film and theater are powerful artistic mediums that allow escapism and offer compelling stories, but movies, at least in my opinion, have a certain edge over live theater. Everyone has their own interpretation of this phenomenon, but for me personally, it's the sheer chaos of creation. Having a plan, running into roadblocks, having to work around it, and especially discovering that someone else's idea of how to tackle something is actually better than what you had originally thought. Made all the more intense when you remember that how you cut the film is exactly how it's going to be for rest of its life, so you need to ensure that it's as pristine as it can be. It's that kind of unexpected collaboration that makes movies a little bit more magical to me.

Over time, I became just as enthralled with making movies as I was with performing in theater. Eventually, after making some short films with my friends, and participating in a few 48 Hour Films, I discovered that my strongest passion was, surprisingly, cinematography, the art of lighting and camera techniques. Cinematography allows me to apply my theater training to the film set. As, in my opinion, the camera is the most important character in a movie's story. The camera is not just a device which observes the events of the story, nor is it merely a vessel for the audience. The camera is a character. It has feelings about the proceedings and is just as curious as you are.

As my passion for movies and filmmaking continued to grow and make me utterly overjoyed, my understanding of the business side of movies made me only depressed. I have come to identify the mainstream Hollywood system as an artistic business that has too much business and not enough art. Yes, as a business it has to make money to survive, and yes, they still occasionally have an excellent movie that reminds us why we fell in love with Hollywood in the first place, hence why I haven't given up on them entirely just yet. Even so, in my honest opinion, they can still do better with their products and can truly afford to return to form by taking risks more often. The reason they keep making more Transformers movies, a series that has spent its whole existence doing the exact same thing over and over again with no variety whatsoever, is because they keep making lots of money. So the studios simply do more of the same thing, utterly terrified to take any risks, and continue to assume that we don't want anything different. At least, that seems to be their impression.

Speaking of the Transformers movies, earlier this year, before the release of the fifth Transformers film directed by Michael Bay, he came out and said that we were going to see it anyway and it was still going to make lots of money, even though we were going to hate it. This assumption that we don't want variety, and that we are so ignorant and apathetic as not to demand it, makes me sick. As an artist, and as a film enthusiast, I want to break this ugly assumption that we as an audience don't know any better. Because we are smarter than they think we are.

Therefore, if we want Hollywood to start putting more money into better movies, then the best way to do so is to see the films we are interested in while they are still in theaters. Waiting for them to arrive on Netflix is not likely going to ensure more quality content from Hollywood. That is why I decided to review movies and why I humbly ask for your attention. Because by sharing my experience and personal taste as an artist and a film enthusiast with all of you, we as an audience can encourage better movies from Hollywood.

Let's take back Tinseltown together.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.

Logan Lucky - A heist film that will steal your heart

Logan Lucky follows Jimmy (Channing Tatum), a divorced father and unemployed construction worker trying his best to make ends meet so he can spend more time with his young daughter. He approaches his one-handed brother, Clyde (Adam Driver), with a unique scheme to raise some money: infiltrate the complex tube system used at the local racing track, to transfer the cash from tickets and concessions, and take that money for themselves. They will need the help of an experienced vault cracker named Joe Bang (Daniel Craig), and a few more brave volunteers, to pull off the heist.

This may sound like your standard heist movie, but it's more unique than that. For one thing, this particular story takes place deep in West Virginia. The characters are the kind you would usually see as supporting players, stereotypical rednecks who are big into NASCAR. Except, all of the characters in this movie are smart. I personally love this, because it breaks that stereotype of the dumb Southerner - something that I have never really liked, even when it was, occasionally, funny.

Also, all of the characters are likable. Even Joe Bang, a convicted felon, has an air of humanity to him that makes it clear that, while he's technically not a good man, he's at least honest about himself and carries himself in a way that would at least make you feel comfortable having a beer with him. In fact, the only character in the movie who can actually be considered a "villain" is the über-wealthy and self-important Max Chilblain (Seth MacFarlane), the energy drink magnate and driver sponsor.

The film was directed by Steven Soderbergh, known for 2001's Ocean's Eleven remake and its sequels. Soderbergh is one of my favorite directors because he loves his characters, ensures that they are developed well, and have personalities we can relate to. Also, his lighting style is gorgeous. Soderbergh is one of the few directors who is also his own cinematographer, handling the camera and the lighting as well as the cast and crew. Soderbergh tends to use what's called an available light style, which is to use as few artificial lights as possible in favor of what's already there (such as windows or service lights). It's the kind of photographic style I tend to favor when I shoot my own movies, and I love to see the same style employed by the big guys on the big screen.

This is a clean, smart, fun movie. If you need something t put you in a better mood, this is the movie to see.

Is it worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Yes

Why?
It has a great story, likable characters, and makes an effort to break some bad stereotypes.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.

Stephen King's IT (2017) Ver 2.0 - This movie floats very well

NOTE TO THE READER:
When I wrote my early draft of this review, I did so in a hurry. As such, not only were there too many spelling and grammar errors, but I had unintentionally given the impression that I had an understanding of the works of Stephen King without actually having read them. My review had intended to be strictly about the movie regardless of it's faithfulness to source material or lack thereof. I have taken it upon myself to revise this review with a better focus on my take on the film. Please enjoy. 

REVIEW:

The best kind of horror films, at least in my opinion, are the ones that are the most metaphorical. Scary stories that also act as a kind of exploration into aspects of reality that can be truly scary, and giving them a physical manifestation to explore, and ultimately confront. One of the best examples of this notion is the IT miniseries from 1990, based upon the book of the same title by Stephen King. While it's not the scariest horror film I've seen, it is a great story that has one of the best, and arguably, scariest metaphors for a story. The horrors of growing up. While I do appreciate the miniseries for Tim Curry's memorable performance, I always felt that this story could benefit from an update. That there was room for improvement. It could be a totally and truly scary experience and still be a story with strong merit. Well, I am happy to say that this brand new film delivers all that in spades. So much so that I am even considering seeing it in theaters again.

The story follows a group of outcast pre-teen kids known as "The Losers' Club" in the small town of Derry, Maine. The kids are all dealing with their own issues such as the towns psychotic bully, a troubled family, and in some cases, straight up abuse. Our main protagonist is a young boy named Bill, played by Jaeden Lieberher, who lost his younger brother, Georgie, when he was playing in the rain with his paper boat made for him by Bill. He was then taken away by someone in the sewers promising that he would "float" down there. Overtime, Bill and the rest of The Losers' Club, discover a dark and terrible secret buried under the town. Turns out that the town has dealt with a number of unfortunate events since the day it was founded. Mostly involving missing persons, especially children. It all links back to a terrifying entity that confronts the children as their worst fears, though it mostly appears as a dancing clown named Pennywise, played to incredibly terrifying perfection by Bill Skarsgård. Now, the children must take matters into their own hands and face down Pennywise before another life is lost to his reign of terror.

This movie is really good. Not only is it a horror movie that is genuinely scary, but it's a horror movie that understands and appreciates what horror is really about. As I stated before, this story is really a metaphor for overcoming fear, the power of friendship, and the horrors of growing up. Pennywise, in addition to being a scary murderous monster, is also an allegory for the fears of growing up and mortality, as evidenced by IT appearing to the children as their worst fears in an effort to feed off their fear and take their lives. In order to best face off against this monster, the children must not only face their fears, but also must come to terms with their own mortality. Which is something that can be very hard to do for some of us, even as adults.

As I mentioned before, the original mini series featured an incredibly memorable performance by Tim Curry as Pennywise. Bill Skarsgård, who plays the new Pennywise, not only manages to be equally terrifying, but also manages to make the role his own. The main thing that concerned Bill Skarsgård when he was approached with the role, was mainly that he didn't want to overshadow Tim Curry's performance. It's worth noting that in this films early production, Tim Curry had actually been approached to reprise the role, but he turned it down - which, I think was the best course of action. Bill Skarsgård brings an air of terrifying insanity to the role that makes it clear he's not trying to copy or emulate Curry in any way. Make no mistake: This is Bill's show.

The young members of the cast are incredible. They all have great chemistry, they all deliver there performances with conviction, and they are all likable. Each and every one of the kids manages to bring something interesting and entertaining to the table. This is driven by the excellent and well crafted script, which allows the kids to have some great dialogue. One minute they're debating whether or not they should go down the scary tunnel, the next minute they're making jokes about said scary tunnel.

The film was directed by Andy Muschietti, who previously made another interesting horror film called Mama - a horror film that really, really could have been great, were it not for the obvious abundance of studio interference dragging it down. Andy Muschietti is not only a talented horror director, he's just a talented director overall. One of the hardest things to do for any director, no matter how experienced they are, is to make a movie starring mostly kids (or even just one kid, as the main character). Andy manages to pull the best performances possible out of his young cast.

This film is exactly the kind of improvement on this story that I have been waiting for. It has a better understanding of the nature of the story, it delivers great characters, it has much more entertainment and scare value, and best of all, IT treats its audience with respect. If this same director comes back for the second part of this story, (oh yeah, minor spoiler, there's going to be a second part), you will most certainly find me in the theater. I hope that it will be just as good, if not even better, than this first part.

If you're a fan of movies based upon Stephen King's stories, or a fan of good horror films, or are even just plain interested to see what the hype is all about, and if you think you can handle it, please go see this movie. It is a masterpiece.

"Oh yes, you'll float too."

A friendly warning: This film depicts graphic violence, strong language, and scary images.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, telling you when Hollywood get's things wrong, and when they get things right. Thank you all for reading.

Tulip Fever - They don't make movies like this anymore

The best experience you can have at the movies, especially when you're as well versed in the movie landscape as I am, is when a movie can legitimately surprise you. The theory of a film critic becoming jaded and bitter because they've seen hundreds of movies and don't get surprised anymore has a hint of truth behind it, but it's not as severe as most other critics would have you believe. At least not in my opinion. See, I grew up around movies. My parents took me to the movies all the time, I went to the movies a lot with my friends, and I still go to the movies at least once a week with my mom. Yet, despite the countless hours I have spent in the theaters, I don't feel like I've seen everything, because I haven't. There will always be something new that comes out to remind you why you love movies, why you love making movies, and especially why you love talking about them. "Tulip Fever" is, without a doubt, exactly that kind of movie.

The film takes place in Amsterdam around the 1600's. During which time, the Tulip trade was skyrocketing, and many people were putting all of their fortunes in buying, selling, and trading Tulip bulbs. The main story follows a young girl named Sophia, played by Alicia Vikander, who is an orphan married to a rich spice dealer named Cornelis, played by Christoph Waltz. Cornelis's expectations of his new wife is for her to secure him a male heir. However, Sophia has not been able to get pregnant. Not only that, but she is also truly in love with an artist named Jan Van Loos, played surprisingly well by Dane DeHaan, (more on him in a moment). Also, by pure happenstance, Sophia's maid named Maria, played by Holliday Grainger, has recently become pregnant and her boyfriend has mysteriously vanished. Sophia, unhappy with her place and seeking a means of escape to be with her true love, devises a cunning plan.

To say anything else about the story would constitute spoilers, which I cannot give, because the less you know about the story, the better of an experience it will be.

Said story is wonderful. Not at all surprising since the screenplay comes to us in part from Tom Stoppard. The quick witted playwright and talented screenwriter of equally charming films such as "Shakespeare in Love" and "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead", not to mention the cult classic "Brazil". This film has a terrific flow, all of the characters are likable, and even when some of them do things that are normally frowned upon, they managed to find a way to be forgiven and, in their own way, redeem themselves. It is a tale about passion, power, romance, riches, family, and above all, love. Not just romantic love, but the many different shapes that love can take.

The acting is superb. The entire cast appears to have remarkable working chemistry which makes the proceedings more believable and interesting, not to mention entertaining. As I said earlier, there is even a great performance from Dane DeHaan. Previously this man was in "Valerian and the city of A Thousand Planets", which was a cool film, but was severely lacking in the acting quality from the two leads. However, he manages to showcase some true talent in this film. Oh, I almost forgot to mention.  Cara Delevingne, the other lead character from "Valerian", she is also in this movie, and she's actually good. Granted, she has a very small role that only has at least five minutes of screen time, but for all of those five minutes, I didn't even know it was her until towards the end. She actually had conviction and was playing a character. I was surprised and impressed with the both of them.

The cinematography also deserves a mention. Without going into too much detail, I found it to be beautiful and appropriate. It incorporated a natural lighting style which I love. My only nitpick with it was the occasionally overly aggressive shaky-cam here and there. Fortunately, those shots are few and far in between.

What especially impressed me about this film was that it didn't really have a villain. All of the characters were basically good people, but they all had flaws and conflicts. With themselves, with others, and with their positions in society. This is a further example of my firm belief in the idea that a good story does not need a villain to be compelling, so long as there is conflict.

This is one of those rare kind of films that don't grace the silver screen as often as they really should. It has a great pace, the characters are three dimensional and likable, the writing is clever, the story is interesting, and all of it's parts just manage to fit perfectly well. Please do yourself a favor and go see this movie right now. It is worth every cent of your box office cash.

Ladies & Gentleman, I am TheNorm, telling you when Hollywood gets things wrong, and when they get things right. Thank you for reading.

Menashe - A family drama that needed to be shorter

There is no such thing as a bad idea for a movie, only bad executions of ideas for a movie. It is entirely possible to make an interesting, entertaining and note worthy film that consists entirely of two people at a table talking about their lives. All that is required of that idea is that it be executed well enough to be so. This includes knowing how to stage the scene, how to shoot it, what style to apply, who to cast as the main characters, and especially, how long the story should really take. Runtime is a bigger factor in movies than people give credit for. "The Hobbit" movies for example, really did NOT need to be extended into three separate movies running at nearly three hours each. By the same token, "The Dark Tower" could have been saved if it was given a full two and a half hours to flesh out the characters, establish the world, and provide a reason to care. When a movie is too long or too short, but otherwise relatively well executed, it leaves you with an experience that you just wish was better. "Menashe" is just that.

This movie is the story of an Orthodox Jewish man in Brooklyn named Meneshe, (played by Meneshe Lustig). In case you're wondering, yes, that is the actors name. Anyway, after his wife passes away from illness, making him a widower, under the strict Jewish law, he is no longer able to care for his young son, Fischel, (played byYoel Falkowitz). Therefore, Meneshe must surrender his son to a married relative and cannot return custody until he gets married again. Which is not helped by the fact that he has a lousy job, financial issues, and seems to be having a crisis of faith. Add to that his inability to be independent. So, the head honcho of the Temple grants Meneshe a special favor and will let his son stay with him for one week. Any longer and the school will kick his son out for not living in a married household. 

The film is made well enough that it is serviceable. The acting is good, the direction is good, and the music is pretty good. The scenes that display specific Orthodox Jewish rituals are fascinating to watch. There's one ritual in particular involving a bonfire in the middle of a closed off street where they are all singing and dancing, which I found to be the most interesting and wanted to learn more about. However, the film also has just enough flaws that make it not very easy to recommend. 

For starters, as I stated before, this film is just too long. It's a simple story about a father and his son, which is always a good story to tell. The problem is that this particular father & son story is TOO simple. Outside of the aforementioned and easily forgotten ticking clock element, there's nothing really going on in the story. What stuff is going on is often repeated to the point of boredom. Almost every other scene in this movie can be described like this: 

Menashe takes on a responsibility, doesn't go through with it, argues with his son about his deceased wife, then silently laments his own his own situation. 

This is a perfectly acceptable storyline for a short film but not for a feature length film. Because of the repudiative nature of the story, it becomes less and less interesting as it progresses. Thankfully the acting is strong enough to maintain the pace, and there is some variety sprinkled around here and there. 

It's worth noting that this film was shot almost entirely in Yeddish. Which does make the film a little bit more interesting as it is a fascinating language with a neat sound to it. So, just so you know, be prepared for subtitles. 

While I would not go so far as to say that this is a bad film, I would say that I recommend it with caution. It's a nice character piece with strong acting all throughout and interesting displays of Jewish ritual. It's just too long for it's own good and doesn't have enough variety to maintain interest. Bottom line, I recommend waiting for video. 

Ladies & Gentleman, I am TheNorm, telling you when Hollywood gets things wrong, and when they get things right. Thank you for reading.