Game Night - Mr. Funny in the Creative Room with the Barrel of laughs

One of the most challenging genres of film to tackle is the comedy. As getting an audience to laugh takes genuine creativity, the keen insight of any given subject matter, and careful timing. Comedy legends such as the late George Carlin and Robin Williams were masters of the craft. Sadly, comedy films as of late have been, bluntly put, not very funny. Instead of real smart comedies like Meet the Parents or Easy A, the comedy genre as of late has been flooded with tedious and dull toilet humor slogs like The Emoji Movie and whatever Eddie Murphy has lined up next to try and save his career. It's almost rare to see a genuinely well-crafted comedy film from Hollywood these days. So when I say that Game Night is a hilarious and remarkably made comedy, I mean precisely that. No joke.

The story follows Max (Jason Bateman) and Annie (Rachel McAdams) as a married couple who host weekly game nights with their circle of friends. One day Max's older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler) shows up out of the blue offers to host a game night. Except instead of classic games like charades or Parchisi, Brooks has signed up the gang for a kind of live-action role-playing murder mystery game. In which one of the players will be "kidnapped" and the others have to solve riddles and clues to find him. It's supposed to be a fun, interactive experience involving actors and staged events made to feel relatively real. However, on the night of the game, Brooks gets kidnapped for real by some mysterious thugs. Now, under the impression that its part of the game, the whole group is on the hunt to find Brooks unaware of the real danger they're in. From then on, it's a hilarious adventure to rescue Brooks and solve the real mystery.

This kind of joke has actually been done before in a Bill Murry film titled The Man Who Knew Too Little. Except I find that Game Night handles this joke significantly better because, unlike the Bill Murry film, this movie doesn't have characters who are total idiots. The characters in Game Night are likable, intelligent, and played with a surprising level of nuance. Bateman and McAdams, who arguably carry the movie, have great chemistry and play off each other very well. The supporting cast is equally well rounded and offer some clever jokes here and there. Though, most of the best jokes are handled by the two leads.

The humor in this film is terrific. What makes it so good is how it handles occasional gross-out moments. Unlike most other modern comedies that appear to be under the delusion that gross equals funny, Game Night approaches the edge without going over it. There's a scene when the two leads are trying to extract a bullet from a gunshot wound, and it is, arguably, the funniest scene in the movie. I can't really explain why without spoiling anything, but please trust me when I say that it is probably the most tasteful version of this kind of joke I have seen in a long time.

Now, even though this movie does a lot of things right, there are still some things about it I personally didn't really appreciate. A few of the jokes did go a little overboard, and there are aspects of the films conclusion I didn't really enjoy. Even so, these are just bits of nitpicking that don't really stain the overall experience.

Game Night is so far the funniest thing I have seen this year. It's smart, enjoyable, a little silly, and I laughed the whole time. If you need something to put you in a better mood, this is undoubtedly the best move.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Yes.

Why?
It's a hell of a fun ride that reminds you how to do comedy right. Mostly.

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

Black Panther - Wakanda Forever

In the 1960s there was a social movement called The Black Panther Party for Self-Defence. It was a movement formed to protect and serve black communities from police brutality and to encourage progress through education and partnership with other progressive people, including non-racist white people. I will provide a link to an interesting article that goes into greater detail of their actions and history below this review. I bring this up because the Black Panther movement and the Black Panther character were formed right around the same time. Meaning one was very likely the inspiration for the other. While I may not have the ability to say anything about the movement from experience, I am confident in saying that, based on what I understand from research, if they had seen this movie, I think they would have been proud. Because not only is this a great movie with a lot of heart and passion, but it is a great movie that elevates a too often overlooked character in the Marvel Universe. This may very well be the most inspirational Marvel movie to hit the big screen since Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

For those of you who may not be as familiar with this character as I am, and in the interest of focusing on reviewing the movie proper, I will also leave a link to the Black Panther Wikipedia page so you may see for yourself what kind of a superhero he is. I can assure you, he is totally cool.

Anyway, the story of the movie takes place shortly after the events of Captain America: Civil War. T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to his home country of Wakanda, a fictional African nation in the Marvel Universe. Upon returning home, he is crowned the new King and takes on the mantle of the new Black Panther. Having been officially granted his title, T'Challa sets out to find and bring in a long time enemy of the state, Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis). However, while on the mission, he discovers that Klaue is answering to an even more significant threat named Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordon) who has a mysterious beef with Wakanda. Now, T'Challa must don the Black Panther suit and determine how best to protect his home and his family, and in doing so, discover what kind of King he is going to be.

While this is not the first superhero movie to star a predominantly black cast with a story that comments on the black condition (that distinction goes to Meteor Man), it is the first Marvel movie to finally bring some much-desired diversity to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In addition to breaking down race barriers, it also breaks down gender barriers, as this movie features more robust and three-dimensional female characters I have seen in a film, let alone a Marvel movie. Make no mistake: this is a more profound and more progressive movie than you might think.

What indeed makes this film so fascinating to me is how it spends less time with the superhero business and more time being a kind of political drama. Don't get me wrong, it still has plenty of superhero stuff to go around, but its real strength comes from being a deep story first and a superhero movie second. Without going into too many details to avoid unintentional spoilers, Black Panther goes into much more severe and full-bodied storytelling the likes of which is not often seen in a Marvel movie. While it still contains moments of levity, which is not commonly used well in Marvel films, in Black Panther it never detracts from the stories intentions, nor does it rob any scene of its importance.

The best aspect of this movie is the amount of time spent exploring the world of Wakanda, and by extension, representations of African culture. The world building and mythological creation in this movie are so textured and made so fascinating that you can't help but get sucked into its richness. So much so that you feel like you actually want to visit this place. It's an accomplishment in world building the likes of which I haven't seen done so well since Star Wars.

The acting is superb from every single person in the cast. Every character is played with an incredible level of nuance. It's especially fascinating when you consider how some of the cast can still play their role with such conviction despite them apparently standing in a green screen room. Remember that famous scene on the bridge in the first Lord of the Rings movie when Gandalf was facing off against the monster shouting "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"? That's pretty much what some of the actors in Black Panther are doing more often than in that one scene. Every character is three dimensional, sympathetic, and grows more so by the end of the film.

Special mention must go to Michael B. Jordon as the main villain. Who is not only one of the stronger performers of the film but also has gained the distinction as the first genuinely fascinating villain in a Marvel film. Up until now, the villains in Marvel movies have been too one dimensional mostly serving as a means to progress the plot. In Black Panther, however, Michael B. Jordon's character is more than that. He is one of those rare villains you can actually sympathize with in some ways. You come to understand his motivations and his reasons for being the way he is. He's not so much evil as he is tragically lost. Both emotionally and literally. All of this is conveyed by Michael's remarkable talent and ability. This guy is becoming the next great actor in Hollywood, and I can't wait to see more of him in other movies.

The film was directed by Ryan Coogler who previously handled Fruitvale Station and Creed. A director with a unique style that still shines through here. One of his signatures is his dynamic long takes. Ryan Coogler likes to occasionally leave the camera running and follow the action without cutting. This forces the camera to remain steady and focused on the most essential part of the scene, and it is used to tremendous effect in this film. There's a moment when the long take is used during a fight scene in a Casino and, despite having multiple things happening, I was never lost as to where anyone was or who was doing what. The action was fluid and cohesive and didn't rely on stupid gimmicks like shaky cam to artificially up the intensity. Add to that some excellent direction of the actors and framing, and you got a director who deserves to have as many projects to work on as he wants.

Another special mention must go to the film's cinematographer Rachel Morrison, who previously worked with Ryan Coogler on Fruitvale Station. Much like Roger Deakins, her background mostly consists of documentaries. Which means she has a great sense of natural lighting, something I personally love to employ in my own work. Also, despite this being her very first big-time high budget special effects heavy film, she still delivers gorgeous images that don't ever look amateur. I for one can't wait to see what she will photograph next.

Black Panther is, without a doubt, the most important, relevant, thoughtful, and groundbreaking film from Marvel Studios in a long time. It lays down the foundation for what is still yet to come from Marvel Studios and, hopefully, will go on to inspire and encourage more progress in movies and in society as a whole. We can all learn a lot from this movie, so please don't miss it.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Absolutely.

Why?
It's a breath of fresh air and brings so many new and beautiful things to the table that it would be rude not to accept them.

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

The Black Panther Movement

Black Panther (the character) 

The 15:17 to Paris - Well intended, badly executed

Movies that are based on quick paced real-world events, (in this case, a group of American tourists from the armed forces who took down a mad gunman on a Thalys Train from Amsterdam to Paris, an event which must have lasted less than an hour) are often faced with a kind of narrative dilemma. They can either showcase the story exactly as it transpired and go no further than that. In which case, they would be making a short film lasting at least thirty minutes or less. Alternatively, they can choose to expand the narrative to make it feature length. This method rarely works as what happens before the great moment in history is always going to be less impressive than the event being showcased in the film. Director Clint Eastwood tries to have it both ways with the bonus of getting the actual heroes to portray themselves and reenact the historical moment. Sadly, it doesn't go as well as he might have thought it would.

For those of you who don't know or need a quick refresher, in 2015, a lone gunman with nearly three hundred rounds of ammo armed with an assault rifle attempted what is believed to be a mass murder spree on a Thalys Train to Paris. Fortunately, the would-be murderer had a faulty weapon that would not fire and a spare pistol that had no ammo at all. This is when Airman First Class Spencer Stone, along with two of his best friends, took the opportunity to seize the gunman. After the ensuing confrontation Stone sustained a few injuries, and only one passenger was shot but not killed. For their valiant heroism, all involved parties received the Legion of Honor.

Before going any further, I would like to make it clear that I have a tremendous amount of respect for these men, as well as the armed forces as a whole. The people who chose to serve our country are braver than I can ever hope to be and I will always appreciate their service. With that said, this movie, The 15:17 to Paris, deserved to be a whole lot better.

As I said before, this movie tries to take a relatively short historical event and stretch it out into a feature-length narrative. It does this by making the film a semi-biography of the three American friends leading up to the main event. The problem is that the way the biographical stuff plays out is, simply put, uninteresting. When it's not coming off as a daytime soap opera with its melodramatic one-note characters, it's annoying you with side characters who all appear to have been made cartoonishly evil to make the main characters look better by comparison. All of which is not helped by the fact that the majority of this film has no conflict. Some minor conflicts are lasting most ten to twenty seconds, but they are very few and far in between.

Another source of the films tedium is the main cast. The big attraction of the film is that it cast the actual people who were involved in the historical event to reenact that day. Now, while I acknowledge that these guys are not actors and they tried their best to give a decent performance, the fact remains that they are not actors. Whatever coaching they received seems to have been very minimal because every moment they are on screen, minus the very end, they all appeared to have chosen one or two kinds of mannerisms to use for their "performance" and have just stuck with them for the whole film. This makes them less interesting to watch as their lack of range is just plain dull. Again, it is not their fault, they are not actors. Even knowing that going into the movie, it still drags the film down.

All of the film's misfortunes might have been salvaged if it had a director who was at all concerned about these sorts of things and made an effort to do something about them all. Unfortunately, this story was handled by Clint Eastwood, a director who, much like Ridley Scott, has seemingly fallen into the "I don't give a crap" camp of filmmakers. The problem with Clint Eastwood as a director, primarily in recent years, is that he is only concerned with presenting things exactly as they happened. A kind of "just the facts" attitude that refuses to allow any leeway for creative embellishments for the sake of creating a more exciting and cohesive narrative. This is not helped by how Clint Eastwood also gets politically aggressive with his films. To the point where it feels less like commentary and more like propaganda. It is the same style Clint Eastwood utilized for his movie American Sniper, a film so poorly put together that it didn't even deserve to get nominated for Best Picture.

The 15:17 to Paris Could have made a remarkable short film, or the primary event segments could have been used to staggering effect in a documentary. As it stands now, it's a dull slog of a film that leaves no lasting impression. These heroes deserved better than this.

Is this movie worth seeing?
No

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
No

Why?
It's dull, poorly put together, and has nothing interesting to say.

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

Best and Worst Movies of 2017

Here it is. The final declaration. The moment where I declare the absolute best and the absolute worst. While many more significant events have happened throughout 2017, the movies saw some milestones as well as the end of some franchises that really, really need to be put to rest.

Without further ado, here are my picks for the best and worst of 2017.

Best film of 2017

Wind River

This film has it all. Relatable drama, sympathetic characters, superb performances, well-intended and relevant commentary, realistic yet artfully crafted action scenes, and an ending that is satisfying and cathartic. It has officially skyrocketed Taylor Sheridan's reputation as an artist of quality, it shines a light on an aspect of American life not looked into as often as it truly deserves, and, above all, it is the most human story told this year. We need more movies like this, and I hope that we will see them in the future. I also hope to someday be just as powerful a storyteller as Mr. Sheridan. This is a real gem of a film, and I cannot recommend that you buy it and watch it enough. Thank you, Mr. Sheridan.

Worst film of 2017

Alien: Covenant

I cannot for the life of me think of one thing that this movie does right. The script is lazy, the acting is subpar, the cinematography is ugly, the special effects are outdated, the characters aren't actually characters but walking plot devices (when they're not acting stupid), the Xenomorphs aren't scary, and to top it all off, the direction is entirely directionless. Ridley Scott has made a whole movie on autopilot. What's worse is that there is a concept for an excellent new Alien movie just waiting for the chance to be made, and yet nobody is giving it the time of day. Well, maybe now that Disney owns 20th Century Fox, they might give it a look. In the meantime, Sir Ridley Scott really needs to do himself and us a favor, and retire from the directors' chair. He can still produce, but I think his directing days are over. If this and other incompetent works like The Counselor are not enough pieces of evidence to support this, I don't know what is. Mr. Scott, you had a great run, but I get the impression that your heart is no longer in the game. Please step down now before you hurt someone, or yourself.

Okay, that was fun. Maybe I'll do this kind of list again next year. In the meantime, to maintain the tradition of doing things differently this year, be on the lookout for more movie related posts as well as movie reviews. I will be spending some time talking about aspects of filmmaking I find to be the most interesting. Not unlike my previous post about compression. I hope you will enjoy them whatever they turn out to be.

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

Winchester - A lazy tourist commercial

When you've been to the movies as often as I have, you learn to predict what times of the year tend to release quality from the ones that issue atrocities. January and at least part of February are when studios tend to release movies they have no faith in because it's just after the Holiday season and people are less likely to spend money at the movie theaters. Even so, every once in a while, there's a movie that appears to have all the hallmarks of an awful film, but has at least one or two aspects of it (a well-known actor or director) and you think that maybe, just maybe, this one won't be as bad. But the moment the movie starts, reality slaps you right in the face.

The story takes place in 1906, which, incidentally, is around the time of the great San Francisco earthquake. Our hero is a doctor named Eric Price (Jason Clarke) who specializes in psychiatry and is in the middle of a laudanum addiction. He is soon hired to conduct a mental evaluation of Mrs. Winchester (Helen Mirren), the inheritor of the Winchester Rifle manufacturing company. The board's concern stems from Mrs. Winchestor's perpetual construction of her house and wants to determine if she is indeed mentally capable of fulfilling her duties as owner of the company. It turns out that Mrs. Winchester continuously adds on to her house because ghosts tell her to do so. She is in regular contact with spirits who have died from Winchester Rifles. Out of guilt, she takes it upon herself to replicate the places where the ghosts died where they remain until they find peace and move on.

Now, on the surface, there is a lot here that could make for a potentially intriguing movie. There's the doctor with his drug problem which could blur the line between a haunting and a hallucination creating tension in the story, you have a historically accurate location with elegant yet disorienting architecture guaranteed to perpetuate paranoia and claustrophobia, and you have a potential commentary on gun violence and responsible vs. irresponsible gun ownership. Sadly, you will not find any of that in this film.

First of all, the film tries to play the "is this house truly haunted or not?" angle with one small problem. The very first scene pretty much establishes that, in this story, ghosts are indeed real and they mean business, thus robbing the movie of any actual tension. Next, despite taking place in a house with over a hundred rooms and built in an unusual and disorienting manner, the film only takes place in two, maybe three, well-established rooms, meaning there is never any question as to where anyone is at any given moment. Finally, arguably the worst part of this movie, it ultimately betrays its anti-gun message. The short version is that the uber-powerful vengeful spirit is defeated by a shot to the chest using a Winchester Rifle with a particular bullet. Which undermines the story entirely, because making the source of the problem also be the solution is not clever, it's lazy. If your house is on fire, the answer to the predicament should not be a flamethrower.

This film is filled to the brim with lazy writing, missed opportunities, and complete and utter waste of Helen Mirren's talent as well as Jason Clarke's. If you have not yet seen the actual Winchester Mystery House, I would recommend you see it, as it is indeed something that you have to see to believe. Just don't waste your time with this movie.

Is this movie worth seeing?
No

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
No

Why?
It's boring, lazy, doesn't understand its own goals and wastes everyone's time and talent.

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