Ready Player One - Delightfully Boring

I should preface this review with an important disclaimer: I have not read the book this movie is based on. While I have had conversations with many friends who have read the book, almost all of whom share a similar disdain for the book, I will not be factoring anything about the book into this review. As always, this will be a review of the movie alone and its own merits.

Now, let's get on with the review.

Based on the book of the same title by Ernest Cline, the story takes place in the future where society has turned to complete garbage. Every single person on Earth opts to escape the dreary hardships of reality by retreating into The OASIS, a virtual universe that's basically the largest and most advanced video game. In that, you can go on adventures and gain wealth and power through your talent and skill, as well as your own level of nerd knowledge. This advanced digital paradise was created by a technological genius named Halliday (Mark Rylance), who, upon his death, left a series of clues spread throughout The OASIS for players to seek out. Whoever solves the clues wins the grand prize of real world wealth and total control of The OASIS. Our hero is a young man named Wade (Tye Sheridan) who has figured out the first of three clues and, with the help of his friends, just might be the first player in years to solve the mystery. Standing in his way is a massive and stereotypically evil corporate overlord named Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) who wants control of The OASIS for by the numbers evil corporate stuff with advertisements and microtransactions and so on. Now, it's a race to the finish line to win the prize and determine the fate of the virtual world.

If there is one way to describe this film overall, it would be one-dimensional. Every single thing about this movie, from the characters to the general story and plot, are just too streamline to be in anyway engaging. Most of the character development, if any, is told to us either through voice-over narration or with characters blatantly blurting it out. I find it underwhelming and disappointing that a film with the most advanced technology at its beck and call could not find a way to visualize something as essential as character growth.

The protagonist especially suffers the most. He has nothing about him that makes him sympathetic. He's not a jerk or anything like that, he's just bland. We are given reason to empathize with him upon learning of his troubled living situation and family issues, but that's not enough to make a compelling character. All we ever learn about this kid is that he's incredible in The OASIS, he's super knowledgeable of 80s nostalgia and of Halliday's life story, and, worst of all, he doesn't really have anything even resembling a satisfying arc. He is just an audience proxy with no real personality or texture. In other words, he is an Avatar without a player.

The rest of the characters don't really fair much better. The only supporting character who is even remotely interesting is Samantha (Olivia Cooke) as she actually has a potentially exciting backstory and a more compelling motivation for winning the game. I think I would have preferred it if she was the real protagonist.

The visual effects are just too damn crowded. While incredibly well made and beautifully designed, it's all just trying to do too much. When it's not bombarding you with references to 80s nostalgia, it's overly stimulating your senses with excessive movement, unengaging action scenes, and jokes about video games that were funny ten years ago.

The film was directed by Steven Spielberg (I know, I feel that way too). A real living legend of Cinema responsible for timeless classics such as E.T., Saving Private Ryan, and Catch Me If You Can. A director who has made such an impact in the Cinema landscape and set the modern standards for the Hollywood Blockbuster, it's almost impossible to think he could ever produce something as dull and as one-dimensional as this. Sadly, that is precisely the case. It's hard to tell if this is due to apathy or ignorance of nerd culture, or if it's due to his continual loss of faith in the Hollywood system, this may very well be the first major film he's done on autopilot. His trademark spectacle is sort of there, but his ability to elevate the material is not.

And yet, despite all of that, there are still some things about this movie I did kind of like. The animation for the virtual world looked terrific at times, I liked how it explored the deeper meanings of Avatars in gaming and nerd culture, and I really appreciated how it had the positive message to occasionally unplug and do something fun in the real world. Even though that message wasn't as strong as I feel it should have been, I appreciated it being there nonetheless.

Ready Player One is not really a dumpster fire, but more like a mediocre fireworks display that overstays its welcome by going on for too long. It is a missed opportunity for a film and may very well be the first significant disappointment from the legendary Spielberg. It has been said that this book was impossible to put to film. Maybe they should not have even tried. Some things are best left on paper.

Is this movie worth seeing?
No.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
No.

Why?
It's dull, one-dimensional, lacks any kind of texture, and overstays its welcome. Just skip this one and go see Black Panther again.

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

Love, Simon - Just go see it, please

This may very well be the shortest review I will ever write. Because this movie is so well made, so timely, so relevant, so inspirational, so intelligent, and so unbelievably heartfelt that I just want to insist that you stop reading this and go see this in your nearest theater right this moment. You really don't need to hear anything else from me other than I absolutely loved it, and must kindly insist you see this in theaters and not wait for it to arrive on Netflix. This is one of those movies that deserves as much success, both critically and financially, as humanly possible. Please go see this movie right this second.

Now, on the off chance that you are still reading this review, I will happily explain why this movie is so good.

The story follows a teenaged boy named Simon (Nick Robinson), who is your average every day high school kid with a loving family, great friends, and a good head on his shoulders. There's only one small issue that's plaguing his mind, he hasn't told anyone that he's gay. At least, not yet. As the story unfolds, this one small conflict spawns even more disputes that will put his friendships to the test, unravel a great mystery, and ultimately, determine Simon's future.

The most excellent aspect of this film is that it plays and feels like almost every other coming-of-age high school dramatic comedy you can think of, but it's about an issue of growing up that has practically never been touched upon in mainstream movies. Homosexuality in film, in particular, big-budget Hollywood movies, has had a rough history, to put it mildly. Very rarely has it ever been the primary focus of a story, and when it does come up, it's not often portrayed in the best of light. The good news is that has changed a lot in recent years, and nowhere else is it more evident than in this film.

This is a movie that has been long overdue. It has three-dimensional & likable characters, it asks important questions about society and humanity, it showcases a positive attitude about its subject matter, and it does it all in an entertaining and heartwarming package. What few flaws I can point out in this film ultimately do not diminish the enjoyment or relevance of the film. Without any hesitation, I can confidently say that Love, Simon is an instant contender for the best film of the year. Right up there with Black Panther. Please do yourself a favor and go see this movie while you still have the time. I promise you will love it.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Absolutely.

Why?
It's a joyful and entertaining commentary on the human condition that just may change your life in some way.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading. Now please go see this movie right now.

1080p Still looks great even today

Take a look at this image. It's beautiful, right? Lots of detail, eye-catching choices of color, and it's dripping in artistic composition. Now, you might think that this image could be this pretty if it were presented in the highest resolution possible. Like 4K, which is becoming more and more popular amongst videographers and cinematographers. Well, I'm here to tell you that, while 4K is an excellent option for image capture, it doesn't always guarantee the best possible image no matter what your ultimate presentation is. How do I know this? Because this image you've been looking at is only 1080p. Which, like celluloid film, is a capture option that should not be forgotten.

For those of you outside of the video technology world, resolution refers to the amount of digital information captured by a camera. When a camera looks at a subject, like a lighthouse seen above, it creates tons of small representations known as pixels or photosites. Usually, the more pixels there are, the more detailed the information. In the world of Video and Television, HD (High Definition) has 1,080 pixels, which has become the standard for capture and delivery. However, in recent years, a new resolution has risen into the market known as 4K, which has four times more pixels than standard HD. This more advanced pixel count has been around since the early 2000s but has only recently become more widely available to the public. Now, 4K is slowly becoming the next standard in both capture and presentation...but should it? Once more, does this mean 1080p is no longer relevant?

The short answer, at least for me, is no.

For one thing, as an option for image capture, 1080p still holds up in quality, both on the big screen and the home screen. In fact, when 1080p HD video was introduced in both the professional and consumer market, a lot of things had to be changed to accommodate the amount of detail it could capture. One particular change was makeup. Because 1080p video could obtain more information than any other video format, brand new makeup products, like better foundation and darker eyeliners, were developed to make it less visible in HD. Another aspect of 1080p which makes it so versatile is the fact that, at least in the early days of digital capture, 1080p was not only being used by the indie crowd or the documentarians, but even by big time Hollywood. Most of the early high-end digital cinema cameras, like the Panavision Genesis or the Sony F35, all shot high-end footage at 1080p. Here are just a few big budget feature films that were captured mostly or entirely at 1080p.

Yes, even this one. 

Furthermore, the vast majority of big-time feature films, regardless of capture format, are usually mastered in 2K, which is just slightly above 1080p. 

Now, does this mean I hate 4K and will only advocate 1080p? Of course not. I actually happen to like 4K. I love how it can capture more detail and provides better images in low light. 4K offers these benefits and more, making it an excellent option for the best image capture possible. 

One of the primary benefits of shooting in 4K is actually when your final product is delivered in 1080p, which it most likely will be anyway. Shooting in 4K and editing in a 1080p timeline allows you to further manipulate the image. You can digitally crop into the shot turning a wide shot into a mid shot or even a close-up. You can use digital effects to further stabilize an otherwise shakey shot. Once more, your 4K footage will look even better when delivered in 1080p, as the extra detail and information can reduce video noise, enhance sharpness, and create an overall more vibrant image. 

The only real challenge with 4K, be it professional or not, is storage and computing power. Because 4K creates such a large image area and usually comes in large digital files, they tend to take up a lot of space on the hard drive. Furthermore, when editing 4K, you either need a computer that is powerful enough to handle the image (said computers usually run for over $2,000) or you need to create what is called Proxys. Which are smaller copies of the original footage for editing, thus taking up even more storage space. 4K is an excellent option for image capture, provided you have the tools to handle it. 

So, with all of this in mind, why is there still a debate? Why do we seem to be tossing 1080p video aside in favor of 4K? Well, in addition to the standard aspect of human nature to want to go for the new shiny thing, it is also, at least to me, part of a false perception of image making. The most prominent side-effect of available consumer 4K is the assumption that it is entirely required to create and present the most professional and cinematic image possible, and that any other resolution will never be accepted as such. This is wrong for many reasons, but the most important one is that, like all forms of art, it is the eye that makes great images, and not the tool. For a more in-depth discussion on the myth of high resolution, I highly recommend checking out this video lecture by Steve Yedlin, the cinematographer of Star Wars: The Last Jedi. He goes into much greater detail than I will here and has an excellent point about various capture formats. 

Shooting in 4K is not the problem. Indeed, the problem, at least from my perspective, is the assumption that you "need" 4K to have the best image possible. 4K is not a magic button that will automatically turn your video more professional or even cinematic. It is merely another option at our disposal that has its pros and cons and requires a talented and skilled mind to know when to put it to use. Much like the still on-going debate with digital vs. celluloid, this argument of 1080p vs. 4K is  just misguided. So long as your story is compelling, who cares what it was shot with? 

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

Tomb Raider (2018) - Unsurprisingly Horrible

Video games and movies have had a dysfunctional relationship since the days of Mario. With the rise of home entertainment drawing audiences away from the movie theaters, thanks in part to video games and streaming services, studios have been trying desperately to appeal to demographics they don't actually understand, by making adaptations of another visual media they also don't understand. To this day, the only excellent video game adaptation is Prince of Persia, and that's only because the director actually bothered to play the games and gain creative ideas for translating them to the silver screen. Every other video game adaptation has either misunderstood or brutally mutilated the source material entirely. Preferring to believe that by just slapping on the aesthetics of the game onto whatever generic and bland story they can muster, penned by whatever intern happened to be at the studio that day, it'll make enough money to cover the new Lambergini the producers have been saving up for. In other words, the curse of video game adaptations is still alive.

For those of you who may not be well versed in the world of video games, please allow me to give you a quick bit of history. I assure you, it is more interesting than the movie. Please note that I will not be discussing the previous films with Angelina Jolie mostly because, as silly as those movies were, they are still better, if only because they embraced their silliness.

Tomb Raider is one of the most popular game series dating back to the days of the first Sony PlayStation. It began as a 3D platforming adventure game inspired by Indiana Jones in the like, except the player took on the role of Lara Croft. A brave, capable, and intelligent woman who could give many other adventurers a run for their money. However, the real draw to Lara Croft's character, and by extension, the games she was starring in, can best be explained in this image.

You see, Lara Croft, in addition to being a cool and bad-ass character in many different ways, was also the first sex-symbol of gaming. Complete with an unrealistic body, revealing outfit, and a big pair of...pistols. While I don't really look back on this as an entirely negative presentation of the character, I do agree that it wasn't the best beginning for her either. Despite that, Lara Croft would go on to have many adventures, and with each and every game, Lara would evolve as a character. Not just physically, but also in relatability, both intellectual and emotional. Her ultimate turn around as a more interesting and three-dimensional character wouldn't come about until the 2013 reboot simply titled Tomb Raider. 

It was this iteration of the series that, arguably, made Lara Croft into a more textured and well-rounded character. Making her more human and relatable with determination and courage, thereby elevating Lara Croft into a more accesible version of the inspirational symbol of feminism she always had the potential to be. It is still a better iteration of Lara Croft and is still one of my favorite games to play. If you haven't played this game yet, I highly recommend you do so. Don't just take my word for it, check out this review from The Escapist. 

Now let's talk about the new movie. 

The story follows Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander) as a wealthy heiress who has been searching for her lost father for nearly seven years. Her search has prompted her to not accept her fortunre on the grounds that it would officially eclare her father dead. Something she is not ready to accept yet. One day, she discovers a puzzle box containing clues to her father's potential whereabouts and sets out to find him. Turns out her father was a kind of secret agent/archeologist searching for proof of the supernatural. His search leads him to the tomb of a legendary sorceress who had the power to bring death in her wake. When Lara arrives she finds that a mysterious and evil corporation is trying to break into the tomb and take the legendary power for themselves. Now it falls onto Lara Croft to determine the exact nature of the legend and stop it from being unleashed. 

The best aspect of this film is Alicia Vikander, as she not only looks the part but plays the role to the best of her ability. While she is one of the most gorgeous women on the planet, her good looks are not her only wonderful attribute. Vikander has admitted to always having been a fan of the Tomb Raider games and Lara Croft as a character and that passion shines through her performance. Vikander maintains her professionalism and even brings a great deal of fun to the movie. She trained incredibly hard for the role and committed her body and mind to playing the part right. This movie could not have asked for a better actress for this role. So, it's really a shame that no one else could have been bothered to put in an equal amount of effort for every other aspect of the film. 

Alicia Vikander is literally the only positive aspect of this film. Everything else about the movie reeks of laziness, generic storytelling, bland plot, and little to no enthusiasm for the source material. Despite putting so much effort into her performance, Alicia Vikander doesn't really have a character. Much like Benedict Cumberbatch in Star Trek: Into Darkness, she's really just a walking plot device who morphs into whatever the plot needs her to be. One minute she's a sturdy down-on-her-luck street youth who can fight and do all kinds of athletic tricks, the next she's an unprepared tourist in China who can't even handle herself in a knife fight, then she's a bad-ass combatant who can handle a bow and arrow like she became Robin Hood overnight. None of these sudden changes in character have any kind of fluid transition or justification. She just becomes these things because the plot demands it. Not to mention, the whole drama with her father is so cliche and overdone that it's just dull. Lara Croft is many things, so "dull" should not be a word used to describe her. 

The villains in this movie are so cartoonishly evil that I honestly thought they walked in from an episode of Care Bears. Using slave labor, seeking artifacts that could destroy the world for no real reason other than they can, and a leader who acts like a teenager trying to look cool and scary because he found his daddy's gun. Also, the twist at the end of the film as to who the real villains are is so horribly tacked on and only serves as a last minute attempt at sequel bate. 

The action is so standard and by the numbers that most of the time it feels like they just lazilly reenacted scenes from better adventure movies. There's one scene where they have to go through three trials before reaching the ultimate treasure, and it just felt like a darker and less interesting retred of the climax of The Last Crusaide. None of the action scenes are in any way viscerating or exciting because I didn't care about any of the people involved. 

While I applaud Alicia Vikander's efforts to portray Lara Croft with the amount of commitment that she did despite not being given anything even remotely resembling a compelling character, I just wish she had the oppertunity to do so in a better movie. Once again, we are left hanging in the wind for that one other good movie based on a video game. Until then, we will always have Prince of Persia. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

No. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

No.

Why? 

It's a bland, dull, poorly constructed, painfully generic action flick that happens to look like a famous video game. Just go play the games or watch the Angelina Jolie movies. At least they have personality. 

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

Rendel - A valiant first effort that doesn't really save the day

Superhero movies are not easy to make. Even if your hero does not possess superhuman powers, does not hail from a far-off alien world, and does not wear an elaborate costume, there are still many things to take into account for making a proper superhero film. Ranging from things like stunt people, to fight choreography and pyrotechnics. Above all, however, you need a story worth telling and a character, or set of characters, who are worthy of our time. Because Hollywood companies like Marvel Studios possess the funding and resources necessary to make these films, it becomes easy to forget that not all the countries in the world can make superhero movies, let alone movies at all. Most places outside of the United States who have film industries, or at least excellent independent film companies, typically don't have the sufficient funding and resources to make superhero movies. Which is why this movie, Rendel, the first superhero film from the beautiful country of Finland, is a fantastic accomplishment that I wish was a little bit better.

The story follows the exploits of a mysterious masked figure known as Rendel, who is continually sabotaging a big pharmaceutical corporation called VALA. The company is trying to bring an untested and dangerous vaccine into the market by violently strongarming, or outright killing, anyone who opposes them. Rendel is the only one standing in their way, and he will not stop until he destroys all of the companies poison and exposes their crimes to the world. Along the way, we discover the identity of Rendel and the motivations for his actions. Although, just from the film's subtitle, it's not hard to guess what they are.

Rendel is not a perfect movie, but it is an acceptable one. What it lacks in narrative, it mostly makes up for in coolness. I say "mostly" because even the most remarkable parts of the film can get lost in the shadows. The script is repetitive and has little in the way of variety or cohesion (the same is accurate with the fight scenes), some of the more comic relief characters come off as a bit too goofy, and all of the characters are painfully two dimensional. On top of that, the narrative structure is so jumbled that it can be easy to lose track of what's going on and when the story is taking place at any given moment.

On the other hand, this was a very low budget film. Therefore, not only is it easy to forgive the movie for its shortcomings, but it manages to compensate for it by offering some pretty bad-ass stuff mostly. The fight scenes, despite their repetitive nature, are still pretty well choreographed and entertaining in their own right. The cinematography is stark and surprisingly colorful, creating a beautiful recreation of comic book panels. The costume design for the hero is simple yet elegant with its dark and terrifying design. By the filmmaker's admission, and by the look of the costume, it's relatively apparent Batman inspired this character.

While this movie is not for everyone, I do honestly recommend it as a curiosity. As a superhero fan, a movie buff, and as someone who appreciates people who take risks with movies, I am happy to have purchased and watched this film...but I don't think I need to watch it again. Honestly, the story of what it took to make this movie is far more interesting than the film itself. Still, maybe this will lead to more and better-made superhero movies from Finland and other countries. We can only hope.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Maybe.

Why?
It gets a lot of bonus points for being the first of its kind but doesn't have enough texture to warrant more than two or maybe three viewings. I do recommend purchasing this movie, if for no other reason than to offer support for superhero movies outside of the United States. I wouldn't mind seeing more of these.

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

Red Sparrow - a spy movie on a dull mission

The spy genre is the most fun to watch and to make. It allows for creative twists and turns and opportunities to create incredibly tense moments out of seemingly simple situations. It's one of the few genres where ambiguity can be used to significant effects. However, too much uncertainty can make even the best looking spy movies feel empty and not as fully textured as the filmmakers might otherwise think. This is especially true of the main character in any given story. You can have a protagonist who is mysterious, but there still needs to be some kind of understanding of the characters motivations and inner feelings. Otherwise, you wind up with a story that seems to prefer showing painful moments with no subtext, thus robbing said moment of any real human connection, and not providing any actual satisfactory pay off to the characters journey. While this movie is not entirely devoid of said texture, it sadly has so little of it that it might as well not have it at all.

Based on the book of the same title by Jason Matthews, the story follows a young Russian Ballerina named Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence), who loses her dancing career after a debilitating accident. Seeking a new means to support her ailing mother, she turns to her Uncle, Vanya Egorov (Matthias Schoenaerts), who works for the Russian government. Vanya provides Dominika with a simple job that quickly becomes more horrid than predicted, making Dominika witness to a political murder. She is then given two choices: death or become a Sparrow, a particular type of secret agent. Choosing the later, Dominika is trained in the art of seduction and is expected to surrender her body to the state to extract information from any given subject. After a harsh training program, she is given her first assignment: to approach, seduce, and entrap an American CIA agent named Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton), who is suspected of working with a mole in the Russian government. From then on, the story becomes a game of spy vs. spy as all parties do their best to outsmart each other and survive.

The most significant issue I have with this film is the lack of texture for the main character. Dominika's primary motivation is to take care of her mother, which is fine as that does make her sympathetic. Apart from that, I couldn't tell you anything else about her character, because the movie apparently couldn't be bothered to tell me anything about her. We never learn anything about her history, we never get any insight as to what kind of person she really is, and we never get any real sense of growth from her as a character. Everything she does in the film does build up to rich pay off at the very end of the story, but it doesn't really have any impact because there's no real emotional weight to the surprise. Not to mention that the ending twist, while mostly satisfactory, is so cliche and so underwhelming, primarily due to the lack of texture, that I wasn't as pleased with it as I might have otherwise wanted to be.

On the plus side of things, everyone's acting is excellent and spot-on. Jennifer Lawrence, despite not having much of a character to work with, still delivers a professional performance. She and Joel Edgerton seem to have good chemistry and work off each other very well. The cinematography is appropriately dark and gritty, the production design is stark and elegant, and the musical score is some of James Newton Howard's best work. Also, despite the films pacing moving slower than I think it should, the story is ultimately clever and does provide some satisfactory spy action. It could have used some more, but at least it's there.

While this is not an awful spy movie, it doesn't really bring anything interesting to the table, and what it does deliver is flat, overdone, and ultimately forgettable. As mentioned before, there is a satisfactory twist at the end, but you have to slog through a lot of drabness to get there. There are lots of better spy movies out there, so I would honestly recommend you watch one of those instead. If you need an excellent Jennifer Lawrence movie, watch X-Men: First Class. If you need a unique Joel Edgerton movie, try The Gift, It is insanely good.

Is this movie worth seeing?
No.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
No.

Why?
It spends too much time looking at ugly aspects of inhumanity that it forgets to have anything to say about it. Also, it's a poor excuse for a spy movie.

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

Death Wish (2018) - Better but disappointing

In 1972 a writer named Brian Garfield published a novel titled Death Wish. A story about a man who loses his family to unchecked crime and decides to take the law into his own hands by becoming a gun-toting vigilante. This story has been told dozens of times before in various ways, but this is arguably where the most popular version of the story mentioned above began. Having looked up the books Wikipedia page, it does not sound like something I would enjoy reading, as it seems to have some very big political motivations that just rub me the wrong way. Then, in 1974, the book was adapted into a feature film starring Charles Bronson, which I have seen and...did not like at all. It was, in every way, an ugly film. Not only was it poorly crafted with lousy cinematography, a repetitive script, and a go-nowhere sense of direction, but it also perpetuated a repulsive political ideology that just does not hold up. Not only that, but it became overly successful prompting Cannon Films to produce three sequels, with each one getting progressively dumber.

Now, with Hollywood still in the middle of its story crisis, refusing to take any risks with original scripts preferring to bank on recognizable names and titles, we are treated to a new adaptation of the book. To my surprise, it's a significant improvement. Unfortunately, it's aggressively held back by some bad decisions and poor judgment on most parties involved in its production. This honestly had the potential to be so much better than it is.

In this iteration of the story, Bruce Willis plays a surgeon named Paul (more on that in a moment) whose wife and daughter are attacked during a home invasion. They both get shot and, sadly, his wife dies, and his daughter slips into a coma. Unable to cope with the feeling of having failed to protect his family, and disheartened by the police's inability to bring in any suspects (despite their genuine best efforts), Paul decides to take up a gun and search or the perps himself, taking down other muggers and ruthless street thugs along the way. Building himself a reputation as a kind of urban hero taking down crime and helping those who can't help themselves.

The most prominent obstacle anyone will have to deal with when talking about this movie is its central subject matter, i.e., the politics surrounding guns, gun ownership, and the various arguments for self-defense. While I am not going to get into any of the political discussions in this review, I will say that I think this movie does a better job of presenting a middle ground with the debate. It does advocate vigilantism to a small degree, but it makes an effort to showcase it more realistically, i.e., that it's not always the best solution to the problem despite how tantalizing it may be.

The screenplay was penned by Joe Carnahan who previously directed and co-wrote The Grey and The A-Team. Carnahan's script does a remarkable job at removing the more ugly political aspects of the original story and focusing on the more critical elements of the story. It does a better job at building a world where the actions of the protagonist are better justified and presented. Furthermore, it provides a much more satisfying narrative with more believable and sympathetic characters, especially from the supporting cast. It's really just a shame that the whole script is bogged down by a lousy lead performance and the wrong choice of director.

The film was directed by Eli Roth who previously made Hostel and The Green Inferno. Roth was really, really not the best choice of director for this script. See, Roth specializes in a specific type of horror films dubbed "torture-porn." A horror sub-genre that prefers to showcase gruesome and horrific acts of torture to unsuspecting victims for no reason other than it's apparently cool. Movies like the ones mentioned above and all of the Saw sequels fall into this category. Because of this, Eli Roth doesn't really know how to handle character pieces. As such, while there are few and far in between scenes of graphic violence, when they do happen, Eli Roth can't help himself but choose to focus on as much gory detail as possible. As a result, all scenes that are supposed to be dedicated to character moments and narrative impact are not given the attention they deserve and are sort of brushed off. It further cements Eli Roth as a one-note director, and I am personally insulted by his irresponsibility towards this script.

The lack of proper direction is further exacerbated by Bruce Willis's terrible performance. Not only is he the wrong choice for this role (regarding both age and persona), but he is also incapable conveying the emotional transitions and internal struggles of the character. Bruce Willis's negative attitude towards being a movie star as of late is put front and center as he just stumbles through the story with his dull "I don't care" attitude and his tired monotone delivery. Also, it really doesn't help that given his track record of movies, it's almost impossible to see him as a surgeon. Nothing about his appearance and charisma (or lack thereof) conveys a caring doctor type.

His aggravatingly dull performance is made even more frustrating when compared to Vincent D'Onofrio, who plays his brother Frank. Vincent is by far the best performer in the entire film. He shows emotional range, likable charisma, and puts genuine effort into playing the character. Sadly, Vincent has little presence in the story, so when he does show up, you just wish that he was cast in the lead instead of the block of wood that resembles Bruce Willis. Vincent D'Onofrio deserves better projects to work on, and I hope he gets them.

This is a sad case of a high-end script that has been horribly mishandled. Maybe if the studio had let Joe Carnahan direct and given the lead role to Mr. D'Onofrio, this might have been a great film. As it stands, it's a waste of time and talent. I hope that the more talented people involved in this movie get better projects to work on in the future. As for Eli Roth and Bruce Willis, I am done with the both of them, and submit that they should quietly and gracefully step down. They are taking up too much space in Hollywood and must make room for the real talents who actually care about proper storytelling.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Maybe.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
No.

Why?
It's an entirely well-crafted script that has been horribly mishandled by an incompetent director and further mistreated by an apathetic performance from a dull movie star. If you're the least bit curious, please wait for the rental.

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

Annihalation - Pretty but pointless

What frustrates me the most about this film is how much I genuinely want to like it. It has one of my favorite actresses, stars a predominantly female cast, was written and directed by a talented filmmaker Alex Garland (more on him in a minute), has gorgeous imagery, and attempts to explore and comment on deep and profound aspects of the human condition. In particular, the effects of self-destruction. And yet, despite how much this film tries to accomplish that goal, the only lasting impression I took from this film, was that Alex Garland does not know how to write women characters.

Based on the book of the same title by Jeff VanderMeer, the story follows former soldier turned biologist named Lena (Natalie Portman) whose husband, an active soldier named Kane (Oscar Isaac) suddenly returns after missing for a year. Upon his return, he appears to be terminally ill from an unknown condition. It turns out that Kane is the last survivor of an expedition into a phenomenon referred to as Area X, a.k.a. The Shimmer. An expanding ora of a rainbow colored energy per the results of a meteorite crash. To determine the nature of The Shimmer, and hopefully determine the cause of her husband's illness so she may save him, Lena, along with a handful of other women in various intellectual fields, enter The Shimmer intent on finding the source. Once inside, they see that nature is being completely rewritten in strange, beautiful, and unnerving ways. The very foundation of life itself is being altered and turned into something new, right down to the DNA. Causing our band of strangers to question their reality as well as their own existence.

This would be a fascinating and weighty science fiction tale that I might have loved were it not for three main problems. The first problem is the characters. While I am delighted to see another major studio release film with a cast of mostly women, I am disheartened by the fact that their characters are just awful. This also extends to the male characters. Every character in this story is representative of some form of self-destruction. As such their motivations are proven to be dull and uninteresting because, in some way, they all want to die. So they seem to take this "suicide mission" as an opportunity to accomplish said stolid goal.

The second main problem is the framing device. The story is told in two main sections: The first being the event itself, and the latter being Lena under interrogation after the fact. This same framing device has been utilized well in other films like The Usual Suspects, but it is horribly used in this film. Mostly because the film begins with the framing device where Lena flat out says who lives and who dies. Diminishing any sense of tension in the movie. This narrative ploy only works in specific situations, and it just does not work here at all.

The third main problem is Alex Garland. This guy made his writing/directing debut with Ex Machina, which was an intelligent, thoughtful, artfully crafted film, and I very much loved it. It explored the ideas of A.I., and it commented on the objectification of women. However, it seems that Alex Garland is under the impression that all women are robots. Nothing in his script allows the characters to be human or even relatable. Also, when he's not boring you with lame characters, he's bombarding you with overly ambiguous looks at philosophical discussions about nature, identity, change, and life itself. Continually raising questions that he never provides any answers for. It's like he couldn't decide on a single theme, so he tried to accommodate a lot of them hoping that if he puts enough stuff on the wall, at least one of them will stick.

It may also be worth mentioning that this is an adaptation of the first book in a trilogy and, apparently, Alex Garland only read the first book. Therefore, there is a good chance that a lot of the unanswered questions are actually answered in the next sequential story. So, is Alex Garland expecting to make the entire trilogy? I hope not.

On the plus side, Natalie Portman is still a significant presence on screen despite not being given much to work with, the cinematography is truly delightful with its use of color and lighting, the special effects are just about flawless, and the design for the world within The Shimmer is both beautiful and eerie. The visuals and design of the film remind me of some of the better science fiction films from the 1970s, so at least Alex Garland is taking some inspiration from the right places.

This might have been an unusual, unique, and worthy offering to the realm of smart science fiction, but it's sadly bogged down with too many narrative issues and uncompelling characters that don't even make the pretty visuals worth admiring. I am very disappointed in this film and in Alex Garland. I genuinely hope that he learns from this experience and that we see better movies from him in the future. Still, if you're the least bit curious about this one, I suggest waiting for the video.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Maybe.

Is it worth seeing in Theaters?
No.

Why?
While I personally didn't get much out of this experience, there is still a chance that you might get something different out of it. Again, wait for video.

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