Long Live The King

 

Chadwick Boseman 

1976-2020

My wonderful readers! It is with deep regret that I inform you of a great tragedy. You may have already heard of this unfortunate news, but even so, I felt compelled to bring this to your attention myself. On August 28th, 2020, renowned actor Chadwick Boseman, best known for portraying the King of Wakanda, Black Panther, has passed away at the tender age of 43 from stage 4 colon cancer. 

Mr. Boseman received a diagnosis of stage 3 cancer back in 2016. Despite this, he would continue to perform in many films in between surgeries and chemotherapy treatments. In recent years, Chadwick Boseman has not only portrayed one of Marvel's best superhero Kings. He has also portrayed legendary Baseball player Jackie Robinson in the film 42, the godfather of soul James Brown in the movie Get On Up, and a compassionate and strong-willed leader of a group of Vietnam War soldiers in Spike Lee's Da 5 Bloods. Not to mention the first black Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall. Mr. Boseman passed away at home, surrounded by his family. 

Sadly, I never had the opportunity to meet Chadwick Boseman in person. If I had, I would've expressed my love for his talent as an actor and admiration for his achievements. I once stated that Black Panther is the best film by Marvel Studios, and not only do I continue to stand by that statement, but a considerable part of that is due to Chadwick Boseman's performance. He succeeded in convincing me that he was a King in more ways than one. Mr. Boseman had the honor of starring in the first Marvel film to be nominated for an Acadamy Award for Best Picture. He embraced his fame as the Black Panther and used it to inspire many people to do better by themselves and their communities. In his way, he was a true hero and inspiration to us all. 

He will be missed. 

R.I.P Chadwick Boseman. 

Wakanda Forever! 

Stage Mother - One Bad-Ass Mama

 

Rent it on Amazon, Google Play, YouTube, Redbox, Microsoft, Fandango, and Vudu. 

One of the many reasons I find myself drawn to stories about human sexuality is how relevant they are, especially in the modern age. For many reasons, all arrogant and ignorant, people choose to ignore the natural chaos of humanity and struggle to retain a "traditional" definition of sexuality. This unreasonable and unhealthy behavior continues to cause trauma, misery, and in some cases, death. I admit, this is not a pleasant thing to acknowledge, but it is essential nonetheless. Because without understanding the unstable state of perception some people have regarding sexuality, it would be challenging to appreciate movies like Stage Mother, a film that must be seen by as many people as humanly possible. Because despite a few technical hiccups, which I will get to momentarily, this film is an inspiration for the hopeful. 

The story follows an elder woman named Maybelline (Jacki Weaver), a church choir director from Texas whose son, Ricky, is a drag queen in San Francisco. Maybelline, on insistence from her husband, hasn't spoken to her son for years. One day, Maybelline receives the unfortunate news that her son died of an overdose. Grief-stricken, Maybelline flies to San Francisco to attend his funeral, where she meets her late son's fellow drag queens and surrogate family, including his partner, Nathan (Adrian Grenier). It turns out that the two of them have been running a night club/drag show stage but is now loosing patrons. Because Ricky and Nathan were not married, Maybelline inherits Ricky's possessions, including the club. Maybelline decides that she needs to make up for her mistakes and offers to help revitalize the club in her son's honor. Along the way, she learns a few valuable lessons and passes them on to those who need them the most. 

Stage Mother is a beautiful story with relevant themes to boot. Although it might take some time for a few characters to grow on you, they are ultimately likable when they do. A fascinating aspect of this story is that no one opposing the drag queens is necessarily evil, just misguided. It presents some of the more unfortunate aspects of modern society and how we can potentially fix them. Also, occasional moments of Maybelline being the awesome bad-ass mother-figure a lot of people need. 

My only real problem with the film is its terrible sound design. For some reason, vast chunks of the regular dialogue, especially with Maybelline, are either improperly recorded or delivered too softly. The scenes with the drag queens performing on stage sound just fine, but when it transitions to the quieter moments, which there are a decent amount of in this movie, I had to turn the volume up on my TV much more than usual. Only for it to blast out when it got to another stage segment. I can't tell if this is the result of soft line delivery or audio recording that was not correctly calibrated. Whoever was in charge of sound for this film should not quit his/her day job. 

Despite the sound snafus, Stage Mother is a beautiful film that provides a valuable lesson. It is sweet, witty, entertaining, and as relevant as it can get. Do not miss this one. 

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

Made in Italy - Been There, Done That, Got the T-shirt

 

Rent it on Amazon, Google Play, YouTube, and Vudu. 

Father & Son dramas are an overdone sub-genre that won't go away. We can only see a young man angry at his dad over a tragedy related to his mother so often and in so many ways. Just about every single one of these films has the same story beats with very little in the form of variation. A man has a conflict to resolve and must resort to asking his estranged father, whom he hates, to fix it. Throughout the endeavor, the two men argue, uncover secrets, eventually come to terms regarding their past grievances, and admit their feelings to each other, resulting in a better relationship. This kind of story is alright when done well, but there's only so many times we can watch the same thing unfold over and over again. At the very least, Made in Italy is a competently made version of this same story, but it's still the same story. If you've seen one of them, you've seen them all.

This particular iteration of this repetitive story follows a young man named Jack (Micheál Richardson), who manages an art gallery in England. That is until he discovers his soon-to-be-ex-wife officially owns it and wants to sell. Jack, who has put his heart and soul into the gallery, can't stand the idea of losing it and offers to buy it from her. Except, he doesn't have the money. His only option is to convince his father, Robert (Liam Neeson), who also happens to be a painter, to renovate and sell their old house in Italy. The only challenge is twofold: one, Robert owns half the house and must be persuaded, and two, they haven't spoken to each other in nearly twenty years. Mostly due to a tragedy involving his mother. Now, Jack must put aside his resentment and get his dad to fix up the house to save his gallery. 

Watching this movie is like watching a PowerPoint presentation on "How to Build a Cliche-Riddled Family Drama." Every scene plays out exactly how you predict it will, provided you've seen enough of these kinds of films before, which I have, and even those who haven't are more likely to have a better experience anywhere else. Here, it isn't fascinating. 

On the positive side, it is well-acted, the cinematography of the Italian countryside is gorgeous, and the painting depicted, along with occasional sides of art theory and image structure, succeed in slightly elevating the "troubled artist" cliche one notch above the "I'M COMPLEX!" expectation. 

Made in Italy is not a film I can easily recommend. It offers nothing new to the table, and what little it has in the way of nuance is quickly forgotten less than ten seconds later. Still, if you need a new vehicle to watch Liam Neeson be his usual "cool" self, and you've already rewatched Taken one too many times, this movie should pass the time until something better comes along. Come for the view, don't stay for the ambiance, or lack thereof. 

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

Trailer Reaction - The Batman

 

Not too long ago, Warner Brothers and DC Comics launched a massive event known as DC Fandome. Mostly a virtual convention where the respective companies make announcements of upcoming projects. Primarily in the form of movie trailers. One such preview is for yet another movie starring Batman, the one superhero character upon which Warner Brothers and DC Comics seem overly reliant. That is not to say that I'm not too fond of Batman; he is indeed one of my favorites of the DC library. However, in recent years, Batman has proven that you can sometimes have too much of a good thing. 

My grievances with Batman as of late come down to oversaturation and overreliance. Warner Brothers and DC Comics have been operating under the delusion that Batman is the only superhero they own. As such, the vast majority of their media, be it film or television show or comic books, has been either a brand new Batman series or a brand new spin-off about a supporting character from the Batman universe. When it's not a Batman project, it's advertised and promoted as having a famous Batman writer, such as Frank Miller, involved in its production. If it's a movie with a superhero who isn't Batman, it's director or producer was somehow involved in a previous Batman outing. In short, Batman has not just become a cash cow; his picture is in the dictionary under cash cow. 

As you could imagine, I have not been all that excited over new Batman material as of late. Again, I do like Batman. Some of my fondest movie memories involve Batman in some capacity. I'm just getting tired of how much dominance he seems to have over the DC Comics landscape, especially when you consider how much success Warner Brothers and DC Comics have had with their other films such as Wonder Woman and SHAZAM. You would think that after finally realizing that Batman isn't their only source of accessible income, they would start expanding on their library. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case. At least not yet. 

Anyway, let's get to talking about this trailer. If you have not yet seen it, I recommend you give it a watch first before proceeding. You can see the trailer right here. 

From the tone and style of the trailer itself, we can easily surmise that the filmmakers have decided to adopt a similar presentation to Sweedish crime dramas, such as The Killing and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Given how writer/director Matt Reeves, along with co-writer Mattson Tomlin, openly said they wanted to make something akin to a detective film-noir, it makes sense to model it after other successful modern takes of the sub-genre. Which would be exciting if that wasn't what Batman has always been. Announcing that the next Batman film is like a film noir detective story is like proclaiming that the upcoming Star Wars movie takes place in Space. We already know that, and there's nothing spectacular about it. 

The Sweedish crime drama angle also brings me to another aspect of DC Comics that has always bothered me as of late; the excessively dark tone. Please understand, I do not have an issue with narratives that feature a somber tone. When done well, it can be just as impactful and beautiful (in its unique way) as any other narrative. My problem is with DC Comics' overuse of dark tones, as found in most of their recent media. Ever since Tim Burton's first Batman film back in 1989, DC Comics has been operating under the delusion that darkness and bleakness equal greatness. That being depressing, ugly, or even shocking, is somehow on par with being nuanced or deep. This over-reliance on the darker tone has been nothing more than a lousy leftover from the early 2000s when superhero movies weren't treated as "real" movies unless they had dark and gritty narratives where everything was bleak, and no one was allowed to smile. It desperately needs to stop! 

Another thing that gives me little faith in my potential enjoyment of this upcoming film is the possibility of a last-minute connection to the atrocious trainwreck that was Joker from last year. For those of you who didn't see the movie (which I highly recommend you don't), one of the final scenes was a recreation of the death of Bruce Wayne's family. Since Joker is supposed to be a one-time spin-off story, the only reason for this scene to be there is so Warner Brothers has a lame excuse to connect Joker to this brand new Batman film, for no adequate reason other than the fanboys are demanding it. I hope I am wrong, but if they do indeed connect Joker to this new movie, I will refuse to give it my money out of spite. 

Alright. Now that I vented my frustration with DC Comics, let's move on to the more positive observations I have about this trailer. 

Batman's new costume does look pretty awesome, even though the all-black style has been done to death. Robert Pattinson shows that he is indeed capable of dawning the cape & cowl. The Riddler is the perfect choice of villain for the mystery style of storyline they want to utilize. Last but not least, casting Jeffery Wright as Commissioner Gordon is excellent. Also, I have to be honest; I am enjoying the Red & Black color theme. I'm not entirely sure why, as of yet, but it looks so cool. 

Despite my predominantly adverse reaction to this trailer, I admit that I am still genuinely curious about this upcoming new take on Batman. If for no other reason than I am, at the very least, a fan of Matt Reeves as a director, and do enjoy watching his work. I still would be more interested in this movie if Ben Affleck were still in charge, but that's all in the past now. Let bygones be bygones. Maybe there is a chance of this film turning out better than I fear, or it could just be another dud on arrival. In any case, we won't find out until next year. Until then, I'm going to try my best to reserve judgment. Here's hoping I will be able to see it in theaters by the time it comes out. 

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

Reader's Request - Master and Commander

 

Stream it on Hulu. 

Rent it on Amazon, Apple TV, YouTube, and Google Play. 

I can recall seeing Master and Commander back when it was released in Theaters with my good friend, Rich. At the time, I enjoyed the film but was not quite mature enough to notice and appreciate some of the subtle nuances the movie has. At the time, I was recovering from an addiction to action schlock, preferring movies with gunfights and explosions over craftsmanship and historical context. I was pleased to receive this film as a reader's request to test my critical metal and rewatch a good classic. After watching it once again, I am happy to report that the film still holds up in quality and entertainment value. 

Based on a series of novels by Patrick O'Brian, taking place in 1805, the story follows a Royal British Naval Ship helmed by one Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) and his ragtag crew. When he's not managing the ship with a stern but respectful demeanor, he spends his free time playing music with his best friend, naturalist, and ship's doctor Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany). During this time, Napoleon has taken over most of Europe, and England is securing its borders. The open seas are battlegrounds. While on patrol, they run into a fast and powerful French warship, which nearly crushes their vessel. Eager for payback, and to fulfill his patriotic duties, Aubrey pushes his crew and himself to the breaking point to find and take over the enemy ship. The only question is, does the team trust him enough with their lives? 

The most impressive aspect of the film, arguably, is its level of accuracy and attention to detail. As I mentioned earlier, I saw this film in theaters with my friend, Rich. Who is not only a nautical and sailing expert but has also read some of the books, unlike me. Everything about sailing is accurate, right down to the ropes used on the ship, specially made for filming to match the coiling style used back then. Also, he enjoyed how the officers were also gentlemen: being musicians and scientists and the like. I liked this aspect as well, as it made the characters more textured. One of the few parts of the story that was changed is the British battled against an American ship, not the French. Since this was an American production, it's understandable why they took that creative liberty. 

The entire cast is top-notch. This movie was just before Russell Crowe fell into his monotone stoic style of acting that has dominated his screen presence as of late. Russell Crowe's performance here is energetic and loaded with conviction, further enhanced by his excellent chemistry with Paul Bettany. 

Probably my only gripe with this film is that it goes on for just a bit too long. While it never felt repetitive or padded, I can't help but suspect the runtime could have shaved off at least twenty minutes or so. This notion may be primarily due to the action scenes that, while competently put together, don't have much sense of variety to them. I grant you; there are only so many ways to stage action scenes in such a confined space, but still. 

Even so, the film's real strength lies within its performances and visceral presentation of old-fashioned sailing. It's a movie that feels like an active and enthusiastic history teacher who's doing everything possible to make the class fun and engaging. If you're in the mood for a classic tale of adventure and history, check it out. 

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

Project Power - Better than Code 8

 

Stream it on Netflix. 

Back in April of this year, I reviewed a Netflix original film titled Code 8, which I described as a generic amalgamation of X-Men and District 9, but without anything that made those movies enjoyable. When watching the trailer for today's film, Project Power, It's understandable to assume that it was yet another retread of the same idea. However, while the plot does involve people with superpowers, that is the extent of its similarities to Code 8. Unlike that dull and unimaginative slog, Project Power has something which makes it genuinely superior to Code 8; personality.  

Set in New Orleans, the main plot centers around a revolutionary drug called Power. One pill can give whoever takes it a specific and incredible supernatural ability for five minutes, such as invincibility, electric powers, and fire. A mysterious and shady entrepreneur has enlisted local drug dealers' help to sell it and report back to him. Meanwhile, the story follows ex-soldier called The Major (Jamie Foxx), who is on the search for his daughter, who was kidnapped by the evil entrepreneur. He captures a teenaged girl named Robin (Dominique Fishback, a part-time street dealer of the Power drug. The Major wants Robin to help him find the source, hoping that it will lead to his daughter. Things get a little complicated when he discovers Robin has a close friend in the Police Department named Frank (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who has been supplying him with the drug to "level the playing field" as it were. Will they bud heads and take each other down, or will they join forces for the greater good? 

In general, the movie is pretty solid. It has a decent script with likable and textured characters, and the action scenes are justifiably visceral. The acting is as excellent as you would expect from the top-level talent on screen. Also, the visual effects are genuinely impressive. It is worth mentioning that a good portion of the special effects is practical with CGI assistance as opposed to CGI exclusively. A practice that is always appreciated. Also, there are some clever parallels to the mistreatment of soldiers and civilians by the uber-wealthy and powerful not often done well in action films like this. 

While I did enjoy this movie and I do recommend it, it is not without its flaws. For one, the cinematography is not my favorite. While parts of the neon lighting design did intrigue me for about five minutes, it did bother me how overly saturated the colors were, not to mention the occasional headache-inducing use of shaky-cam. The violence, while understandable for the film's tone, did get too excessive for my taste from time to time. Plus, for some reason, this movie is yet another victim of horribly balanced sound design. I can't tell if this was an issue with my TV or the film itself, but it could not find a proper balance between the loudest and the softer parts, so whoever has been overseeing movies sound design as of late needs to be sacked and hard. 

Project Power may not bring a whole lot of new stuff to the table, but it manages to deliver some expected goods with enough personality to make it worthwhile. If you need a cool and fast bit of fresh action schlock, give this one a shot. 

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

Readers Request - if....

 

Stream it on Amazon Prime. 

Rent it on Amazon, Apple TV, and Vudu. 

Probably one of the strangest genres of film to review thoroughly is the slice-of-life genre. It's a genre commonly used in anime that doesn't have a plot or a traditionally structured central conflict per se. Instead, it is a feature-length montage of events and traditions found in a particular person's everyday life. Anime tends to favor this genre as it often provides quick and relatively easy storytelling. Not to mention, most anime can get away with utilizing the style most often, due in large part to the incredible spectacle of the hand-drawn visuals. Live-action, on the other hand, has less of an advantage. When tackling a slice-of-life concept in live-action, the subject matter at hand must not only be compelling, but relevant. Something that must present itself, thus further enhancing our understanding of culture and the human condition. While today's movie, if.... (yes, that is the film's title), can be best described as a slice-of-life film, I would not go so far as to call it a "perfect" example of the genre. Even though I did appreciate it and cautiously recommend it to those curious about it, I have no desire to see this film again. Not out of a lack of quality, but because of how disturbing it is. 

Released in 1968, directed by Lindsay Anderson, the film takes place in a British Boarding School for boys roughly between the ages of 12 to 18. Most of the film follows the exploits of a teenager named Mick (Malcolm McDowell), the rebellious ringleader of a small group of equally defiant friends. They pull pranks, sneak alcohol into the school, and generally do all they can to reinforce their individuality and protest conformity. Not an easy task, considering the strict and militant nature of their school. Not at all helped by the unhealthy and evil hypocrisy practiced by both faculty and indoctrinated students alike. Especially when sexuality is concerned. All of which drives the insurgent group, calling themselves The Crusaders, to an unsurprising and unfortunate action that might shock some and reaffirm convictions to others. In any case, it won't be pleasant. 

Movies like these tend to live or die by their level of execution. Films that lack a compelling central conflict or heavily rely on excessive, if witty, dialogue must present themselves in such a way that justifies their existence. They must have something relevant to say about the human condition, or they are nothing more than pretentious drivel that wastes our time. The movie, if...., escapes obscurity by presenting the inhumanity of a "classical" perception of society and expectations therein. Even though I can comfortably live the rest of my life never watching this film again, I am glad to have seen it at least once. If only for the artistic insight, as it gave me into an aspect of education and civilization, I had never considered before. 

That's just about all I can say about the film without spoiling anything important. If you are the least curious, I must give you fair warning that the movie will demand your patience. If you can provide it, the film might reward your time in a dark yet relevant manner. 

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

30p Cinema

 

Back in January of this year, I published an article discussing my updated feelings about the film Gemini Man and my opinion on the use of high frame rates in cinema. The short version is that I still think Gemini Man is a better film than people give it credit for, and that high frame rates are indeed a viable option for cinematic capture. Provided the material calls for it as some stories are better suited for high frame rates than others. However, a more pressing matter to me, which I did not go into more detail in my previous article, is the argument that capture format seems to dictate so much of cinema's identity when it really should not. 

Suppose you have not yet read the article mentioned above. In that case, I will provide a link to it right here, and encourage you to please read that one first. I will be discussing technical aspects in this new article under the impression that you are already familiar with, having read the essay, as mentioned earlier. 

After the silent era and before the dawn of digital video, cinema had one constant, made with celluloid film at 24 frames per second. The decision to shoot 24 frames per second came in to play around the time of synchronized sound, as that was the maximum number of frames that would create the illusion of motion without using too much film. To this day, many people argue that 24 frames per second are and will remain the gold standard, and anything else will NEVER be accepted. 

Instead of arguing that this is just another case of old-fashioned ideas refusing to go away (which I do not believe is the case), please allow me to speculate and present alternative views as to why this is still an on-going debate. 

Digital Cameras are Still Frowned Upon by some. 

Even with all of the technological and image aesthetic advancements made in digital video, many people still prefer celluloid film. And that's fine. There is no scientifically sound argument proclaiming that is wrong. Yet despite that, too many people are still arguing that digital video is "inferior." That even with all the image control you have, it will never look as beautiful as celluloid film. To which I ask, so what? Why should digital video continue to cater to the image aesthetics of celluloid? Do you think the digital video looks ugly? If so, then say it. Don't trample on those who happen to prefer the video look. Depending on the story, it might call for it, like the film Pieces of April from 2003. A family drama shot on a Sony camcorder and nominated for an Oscar. Also, Spike lee's Bamboozled shot on a Sony camcorder and nominated for a Golden Berlin Bear. The fact is that digital video has an aesthetic of its own that is worth utilizing and expanding. A movie is a movie, regardless of its capture format, plain and simple. 

Kodak. 

I subscribe to the magazine American Cinematographer. A fascinating and insightful publication that I always enjoy reading. However, one of the few aspects of this magazine I never enjoy is the ad for Kodak film on the back. Which, as far as I can tell, have always claimed a sense of "superiority" over cinema. Granted, they do have a long and proud history of being one of the biggest suppliers in celluloid film used in cinema. However, this is the same company that filed for bankruptcy because it refused to figure out how to coexist with the digital revolution. I love occasionally taking pictures using traditional film and would like to make a short movie on Super 8 someday. In the meantime, Kodak desperately needs to get off their high horse. 

Okay, now that I've covered a few bases on possible reasons for opposition, here's what I think is the best solution. 

30p for Cinema is Doable. 

All video cameras offer a framerate of 30p or 30 frames per second. It is the standard framerate for American television (which is where all movies will eventually end up). It contains all of the visual aesthetics of classic 24p while presenting a slightly smoother image. It is the perfect middle ground for old-fashioned and modern. Best of all, movie theater projectors can play it. Most of the time, theater projector systems play at 24p because that's what they typically receive. However, because most theaters have digital projectors, they can accommodate a wide variety of framerates. 

The "Video Look" can be Cinematic. 

As I stated in my Gemini Man REDUX article, the term "cinematic" is more subjective than many people would like to believe. While some would prefer to think of it as a hard and fast rule, I instead view it more as a guideline. When digital cameras were still trying to get their foot in the door, they needed to show how well they could emulate classic celluloid film. Now that they have accomplished this goal, it should have the freedom to express its unique aesthetics. Judging a film's quality should always pertain to the storytelling's virtue and not the mechanism that made it. To dismiss a movie for its choice of capture format is to ignore the very essence of cinema. It would be like rejecting a Chocolate Cake made with Hershey's cocoa rather than Ghiradelli. Unless you're deathly allergic to Chocolate, nobody ever does that. 

Digital no longer needs to emulate the look or feel of celluloid film. It has its own identity that deserves a better chance to prove itself worthy of cinema than it has ever received before. Just because something has been done a specific way for a long time does not mean it must remain that way for all eternity. Cinema is what you make of it, so make it something worthwhile, always. 

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

Readers Request - Mr. Right

Stream it on Netflix. 

Rent it on Amazon, Apple TV, RedBox, Google Play, and YouTube. 

Of all the writers working in Hollywood today, very few are probably as excentric or as madly creative as Max Landis. He is the son of legendary director John Landis, late of The Blues Brothers, An American Werewolf in London, and Michael Jackson's Thriller music video. Meanwhile, Max Landis has written a few memorable and entertaining films such as American Ultra and Chronicle. While I would not go so far as to proclaim Max Landis a "perfect" writer, I do find myself enjoying most of his work. He seems to have a comfortable, if insane, attitude towards screenwriting that, while highly unconventional, still yields satisfying results. Today's reader's request, Mr. Right, is no exception as it has become one of the very few movies about a hitman that I enjoy. Which, I assure you, is no easy task. 

Usually, I wouldn't say I like hitman movies. Aside from them being the most cliche and overdone thing in cheap action schlock flicks or student films, they are rarely worthy of my sympathy. I mean, they murder anyone for the right price, how can anyone sympathize with them? Suppose you want me to enjoy a movie about a hitman. In that case, there are two ways to go about it: the hitman must be too evil, causing the story to focus on a more relatable protagonist, ala Leon, a.k.a The Professional, or must possess a robust moral code wherein he/she only kills those who genuinely deserve it, ala The Hitman's Bodyguard. Mr. Right falls right into the latter with a bit of quirkiness for good measure. 

The story follows a young woman named Martha (Anna Kendrick), a combination of a manic pixie dream girl and Pinkie Pie. She meets a wonderful man named Francis (Sam Rockwell). The two of them hit it off as they both seem to share a similar brand of "legal insanity." However, things take a terrible turn when Martha discovers that the man of her dreams is a hitman. While Francis does not deny it, he genuinely wanted to protect her from it. Also, his M.O. is that he only kills those who try to hire him, as he believes that hiring someone to kill another person is plain wrong (define irony). Will their relationship survive the bullets as they fly, or will they take a nasty hit? 

The thing that always sells me on any script by Max Landis is his characters. He knows how to write people in an over-the-top yet grounded way. Although, he does tend to lean into the awkward geek type of hero, which I can understand and even relate to in some ways. Max Landis knows how to create strange yet relatable characters that make for an engaging movie experience. Well, most of the time. 

The chemistry between Martha and Francis is what sells the movie. The two of them are utterly adorable together. Anna Kendrick and Sam Rockwell have always been best at awkward unusual geekish kinds of characters, so they succeed in selling the hell out of the script. Even when it occasionally gets a little annoying (and it can from time to time), it never drove me to the edge. 

While this was still a fun flick, it is in no way perfect. Though the action scenes are well constructed, they can get a little repetitive after a while. The script doesn't go into as much character depth as I might have preferred (though what is there is indeed still adequate). Plus, while the violence is understandable, I can't help but feel like it could have done a little more with less. Although, that could just be me. 

Mr. Right has just the right amount of charm for a decent quirky distraction. While I would not call it my favorite of the movies written by Max Landis, it is rated high on my mental list. If you need a bit of goofy fun with some decent action thrown in for good measure, give this one a look. 

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

Readers Request - Money Plane

Rent it from Amazon, Apple TV, Google Play, RedBox, and YouTube. 

There comes a time in every Cinephiles life when, after watching a terrible movie, they face a dilemma. Do I give the film a little break because they were at least "trying" to make something decent, or do I tell them the harsh truth that they failed miserably? The fact is that no one sets out to make an awful film on purpose unless it is a parody of some kind poking fun at infamously bad films. Other times, some movies achieve the phenomenon of being so bad it's okay, because of how unintentionally funny they are. Today's film, Money Plane, not to be confused with the far superior Money Train from 1995 starring Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson, is not one of those movies. While I can applaud and appreciate the filmmaker's desire to make something fresh and action-packed with a minuscule budget, that does not excuse them from proper criticism. It may not be the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is among my bottom five. 

The story follows a professional thief named Jack (Adam Copeland a.k.a. Edge), and his small team of bandits. They work for a notorious gangster known as The Rumble (Kelsey Grammer). Jack owes a debt to The Rumble and is paying it off by doing risky jobs for him. His latest assignment is to rob a famous air bound Casino known amongst the criminal elite as The Money Plane. Crime lords and heavy-hitting gangsters pay top dollar to enjoy all kinds of gambling. From standard games like Texas Holdem to inhumane wages like how long until a man dies from a venomous snake bite. On average, The Money Plane will house over a few billion dollars in crypto-currency and forty million in cash. Trapped in an air-tight tube with a handful of the most dangerous people in the world, armed only with their wits and determination, what could go wrong? 

The story is, in all honesty, quite impressive. It's a smart idea that can make for an engaging thriller while providing commentary on criminal culture and the dangers of apathy. Sadly, that all went right over the heads of the writers for Money Plane. They failed to expand and explore this smart idea, and they also failed to build an engaging narrative around it. 

None of the characters have any texture to themselves outside of standard action movie archetypes. The dialogue consists of unnaturally sounding exposition and cartoon evil bad guy lines, with some lazy "cool sounding" action one-liners thrown in for good measure. Jack, the protagonist, has no growth or development that might have made the story more engaging. It is probably some of the laziest writing I have ever experienced in a movie. 

Of course, the lousy script gets further exacerbated by the incredibly awful performances. Save for Kelsey Grammer; the entire cast is terrible. Every performance is one-note with either no sense of conviction or too much of it in the wrong areas. The leading man, Adam Copeland, is uniquely awful to watch. Throughout the entire film, he maintains the same vocal tone, facial expression, and uninspired line delivery. Not to mention, with no disrespect intended, Adam Copeland does not "look" like a hero. With his specific facial structure and build, he is better suited for tough-thug roles. I am not saying that action heroes have to look like fashion models, not at all, but in film, looks mean more than you might think. It's not about looking conventionally attractive; it's about fitting the character. 

The production design is atrociously amateur. The set built for the interior of the plane looks made of recycled materials from a condemned Casino in Vegas. At one point, some characters go downstairs into the belly of the aircraft, and the stairway is so obviously not connected to anything. It's super obvious that the stairs are on wheels. The kind of mobile stairs used for stage productions. It's almost as terrible as the sound design, which is either inaudible at times or lacks essential sound effects. Like the constant hum of a Plane's engine commonly heard in flight. I'm not saying that you cannot build convincing sets with little money and recycled material, but there are better ways to go about it than this. 

The cinematography is inexcusable. The lighting is too uniform and overly bright for the movie's tone. The use of color has no sense of narrative cohesion and exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness, not helped by the film's awful day-for-night shots, which uses the amateur blue filter over daylight trick seen only in student films. Plus, I'll admit this is a minor nitpick, lacking a proper cinematic aspect ratio makes the whole movie feel too homemade and less professional. 

I know how challenging it is to make a movie. Even in the modern age of readily available high-quality cameras, accessible locations, and countless online resources for sound and visual effects, it still takes a lot of talent and a little skill to make a proper film. With the right tricks and the best knowledge of how to use your available resources, you can create an engaging Hollywood-level blockbuster on a shoe-string budget. Money Plane, on the other hand, is a movie that tries too hard to be "cool" rather than charming. As such, it will fade away into obscurity and spend its last remaining days trapped in the limbo of the five-dollar bargain-bin at your local Best Buy. 2020 is already such an awful year, so let's not waste our precious time with this crap. 

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