Kingsman: The Golden Circle (***)

KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE is one of those movies I began to forget about the moment I left the theater. Writing this review two days later, I wonder if I even remember all the key set pieces and witty one liners. In the end I doubt it matters, because my initial reaction is still just as valid: this is a silly movie.

Kingsman follows up on the 2014 film that saw a reinvention of the James Bond character, this time with more language, violence, and sex. The sequel of course follows the normal route that all sequels have in Hollywood: more language, more violence, more sex. It makes sense. This film is less about the origins of a character than it is seeing how a secret organization works in full swing. The only problem is that the Kingsman are utterly annihilated within the first 30 minutes of the movie. Wiped off the face of the earth by an unknown villain, the British team (led by Taron Egerton) travel to the United States to meet up with Statesman (a country-style organization run by the most American man there is: Jeff Bridges. He's in all of 5 minutes of the movie, by the way).

Along the way, Eggsy (Egerton) run unto his old mentor, Hart (Colin Firth) who has had amnesia ever since being shot by Samuel L. Jackson in film #1. There are scenes that flashback to the original film, reminding us of what happened and why. There are also a smorgasbord of action scenes in quick succession that felt more like a seizure than a coherent plot. They travel the globe to discover our villain, Poppy (Julianne Moore), a quirky 1950's-diner-loving lady who camps out in South America and pushes her enemies into the meat grinder. She runs the largest drug cartel in the world and plans to kill everyone who takes these drugs unless her demands are met. Why all of her scenes are filmed in a Johnny Rocket's diner are bizarre. It's nothing compared to a musical prisoner she has kidnapped to perform for her (hint, it's Elton John). Scene after scene we see John prancing around the jungle wearing his 5" platform boots. It's silly, bizarre, and yet at times quite funny.

The movie is fine for what it is. It doesn't take itself too seriously, nor should it. The villainous plot is so baffling that you just have to sit back after a while and accept this movie for what it is. This is no James Bond, but neither is it Austin Powers. It's a hyper-charged array of zooms, tight close-ups, and bloody action. I didn't even mention Channing Tatum, Halle Berry, Mark Strong, Emily Watson, or Pedro Pascal, all sidekicks along the way with characters each zanier than the last. I am not a fan of action movies in general with few exceptions. "Kingsman" did little to sway my vote. At the same time, I had fun, despite a mind-numbing 2.5 hour run time. There are worse movies you could find yourself watching right now.

Mother! (Mo****1/2 Jo**)

Mo (****1/2)
A true litmus test for the divisiveness of a story: Jo & I are very rarely in disagreement, and almost never (ever?) more than three stars removed on a rating. However, Darren Aronofky's latest head-scratcher, "Mother!" has served to fully and truly divide us. In reading the following, you will get the full spectrum of thought on this film, which is decidedly "love it" or "HATE IT". Surely, this will be the most polarizing film of the year, and perhaps one of the more divisive films of all time. Say what you will about it, I suppose, but everyone who has seen Mother! feels pretty strongly about it. Without having seen more than a teaser, I was intrigued, as we all were; but, I was even more intrigued after the film generated such strong reactions. And, after seeing it, I've even come out of hibernation to write about it.

Before I begin, I want to say: SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS. You owe it to yourself to go into this one blind. I went in knowing a *little*, and maybe it helped, but it probably didn't. Nothing might have been better, but I'll never know. So I'm giving you a chance to leave now. Go. Shoo.

Ok, if you're still here, I hope you've seen the film. And if not, well, fine, be that way. Don't say I didn't warn you. Last chance - here goes...

Mother! opens in a quietly mysterious setting: a large run-down home in the countryside, not another person or structure in sight. A nameless couple (Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem) live in the house - he a writer, she a fixer; she's working on renovating the entire house single-handedly. He's undergoing writer's block and is excited and inspired by some unexpected visitors - a man who is an apparent fan of his writing (Ed Harris), and later, the man's wife (Michelle Pfeiffer). Yes, they're invited to stay. Lawrence is not down - "they're strangers." Bardem says "they have nowhere to go." She concedes. The guests are intrusive, invasive, inconsiderate. They break Bardem's most prized possession, and have little sorrow about it.

So far, the film has Aronofsky's distinct look, complete with lots of hand-held, claustrophobic close-ups of Lawrence (who is spectacular, by the way), but we still don't really know where things are going, or what it all means. Later, our patience is rewarded when the stranger couple's two sons show up. They argue. The fight escalates. One son (played by Domnhall Gleeson, who is in the midst of yet another amazing year in his career) KILLS the other son. Wait, what!? What kind of story is this?? OHHHHH.... (*a light bulb*). This is Cain and Abel. Biblical allegory. Ok, I get it, kind of. Let's watch the film with that in mind, then...

Although, actually, I'll skip the rest of the plot, because it doesn't really matter from now on anyway (I'll get there). The allegories and layers of course cascade from here, the seed having been planted, and the metaphors become more and more obvious. The flood. Extinction. Immaculate Conception. The birth of the Son of God. The wise men. Forgiveness. Worship. You think back to the beginning: "Oh yeah, that was Adam and Eve! And the forbidden fruit! And the garden of Eden! ADAM'S RIB WAS TAKEN OUT AND THEN EVE SHOWS UP!"

Indeed, the parallels become so obvious that we're almost literally hammered in the face with them. At some point, well before the end, you're sure to say, "Ok, ok! I get it! It's the bible, ok! Do we really need to watch people ACTUALLY eat the body of Christ?" The final 10 minutes is a mess of violence, symbolism, and shocking imagery, all with direct parallels to Biblical stories. But you eventually realize: It's not just stories from the Bible. Bardem is God. Lawrence could be many things, but is most analogous to Mother Earth. She is the meek caretaker of the house, which is itself the living, breathing Earth. These people are destroying the Earth, and there's not much she can do about it. She can't even really fight back. These facts become so obvious that you'd have to be asleep to not notice - and I think, indeed, this is a primary reason that a lot of people checked out at this point, and why, therefore, a lot of people didn't like the film. "Why doesn't she just DO something?" "Wtf is up with her deadbeat husband!?" "None of these stories make sense strung together. What's the point?"

Does Aronofsky go too far? Maybe. Does all of it make sense? No. Do biblical allegories a good movie make? Absolutely not. But, I don't think this movie is about the bible. Like, at all. I think it's about many things, but three things most of all, from most to least obvious: the merciless and thoughtless destruction of the earth, the problem of religion, and ultimately, the relationship between the two.

Let's start with the earth, climate change being the most obvious parallel here, with its being obvious actually a critical part of the theme. This is the idea that smacks you in the face, harder and harder as the movie progresses, until we really don't want to watch it anymore, either because it's hard to watch or because seriously, we get it already, stop. I think the (lack of) subtlety is one hundred thousand percent intentional, and not only that, I think it's important that it's presented this way. It's almost like we, as a population, are complete idiots for not noticing this happening, right in front of our faces, in real life. After all, when we shrink climate change down to the size of a house, it looks pretty darn terrible. Putting this relatively abstract notion ("it's below zero out - how is the earth warming?!") into a setting that we can all understand ("I just fixed that! Don't touch it!"), and then on top of it, making it over the top and horrifying... It emphasizes the obviousness of what is happening all around us, what our role is in it, and how utterly fixable some of this stuff is ("Just don't sit on the counter. Please."). Smaller themes become clear, particularly in the final moments: Mother tries fighting back. Is this a natural disaster? There are too many people in the house. Overpopulation? Stealing from the home. Using up all of the natural resources? But again, these little parallels aren't the important thing - the important thing is that the parallels are OBVIOUS.

The next theme is the problem of religion. If I had to pick, this might be the reason that I like the movie so much. Very obviously, the film is filled with religious symbolism and allegories. An endless amount of them. I keep thinking of more, two days later. But once again, that's not the point! He tricked us again! As an aggregate, these metaphors paint a picture of God and of organized religion. And, you may have noticed, the film really does not paint a very favorable portrait of God, or of religion. There's even a fair amount of satanic imagery around Bardem. Bardem's character is not a hero. He is, in fact, pretty one-dimensional - all he cares about is receiving praise for his work; indeed, he seeks this to the utter destruction of anything and everything else ("Oh, you killed my son? That's fine. I understand. I know you did it because you love me."). That is the very DEFINITION of one-dimensional. But again, I think THAT is actually the important thing here. Once again, when God (and indeed, some of these biblical stories) are thrust into a real-world setting, we can finally see Him for what He really is - selfish. Forgiving, yes, but ultimately self-serving. Now, I'm not here to comment on whether there is a God, or what His/Her/Their/Its personality may be like, or whatever, but in any case, I think this is a fascinating commentary on the idea of God, how people see Him, and ultimately, the utter ridiculousness of the mental hoops you have to jump through to justify classical Christian beliefs (as emphasized by the numerous outrageous allegories in the film, e.g. Cain and Abel). I think that yet another reason people may not have liked this movie is because the portrayal of God and religion is so unfavorable. Religion is very personal to many; it's a sensitive topic and easy to offend when discussed. But though I might not personally agree with the details of the portrayal shown here, I find the implications here endlessly fascinating.

Ok, so finally, the last theme: how religion/God and climate change are related. Why have all this religious symbolism if all you're going to do is talk about climate change? And how religion can be harmful to climate change? Well, once again... isn't it a bit obvious? The people make God who He is. Without the people, God and Mother would probably be pretty happy... we get glimpses of this at the beginning and through a central stretch of the film. It's the people that make Him into a monster. It's the people that destroy the Earth. It's the Christians that are destorying the Earth, and God is letting them because He is being worshipped in the process. The people could care less about the house, or about Lawrence. They're there for Bardem, to worship and praise him, at whatever expense. Once again, we're shown this in an over-the-top fashion, almost as if to say: Look what you're doing! Seriously, look around for one second! Isn't it obvious how awful this is? Almost, as if we should be looking around and questioning our actions in our own real lives. Almost.

So, sorry not sorry for the novel. If you've seen the movie, maybe this will change your perspective, but I doubt it. I suspect it's kind of like trying to convince someone that they're wrong about their religion. And I really don't think it's ok to convince someone they're wrong about their religion, so of course, you can continue to think whatever you'd like about Mother!. Though perhaps by reading this, you'll go around and just be a smidge more observant and considerate of your surroundings, which is, after all, what Aronofsky was going for in making this film... I think. Right?

Jo (**)
Darren Aronofsky is surely a skilled filmmaker. He made what I thought to be the best movie of 2008 (The Wrestler) and then came back to shock and delight with Black Swan a few years later. His films have style and a raw viscosity to them. They play out in claustrophobic closeups and a shaky cam that convinces us of the setting. That is all present in his latest headscratcher, MOTHER!, a movie with seemingly vast ambitions and little interest in telling a cohesive, tangible story. This is style over substance.

We meet the characters of Him (Javier Bardem) and Mother (Jennifer Lawrence), an odd married couple that lives in a remote field and works slowly at renovating this grand home. Lawrence works on painting, spackling, designing, and building, while Bardem is tediously trying to work on his writing. A man visits the home (Ed Harris), a self-professed fan of Bardem's writing. He is invited to spend the night. Odd. The next morning, his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) pays a visit. Then their sons. Bardem is welcoming of any people who want to offer him praise. Lawrence is thinking the logical thoughts, mainly "what?" "who?" "why?" "excuse me?" and "stay off the furniture."

That's the story we were shown in the trailer. Okay, sounds good. We heard this might be a soft reworking of the classic "Rosemary's Baby," and there are certainly elements that play off the paranoia and occult. The suspicions begin early on for Mother, who is curious about her husband's intense fascination with these visitors, and then equally puzzled by a newfound tunnel in her basement and a beating heart behind the walls. Where "Rosemary's Baby" worked on a slow build that ended in a shocking climax, Aronofsky doesn't have the patience or belief in suspense.

Something happens in the last third of this picture that throws the entire story off its axis. Mother is pregnant, and as she and hubbie sit down to a freshly-cooked dinner to celebrate, there's a knock at the door. Then another. Then another. Pretty soon their home seems like a frat party during Homecoming and their house is thrust into a state of panic, shock, and the like. We meet new characters. Things happen. A lot of things. What exactly I don't know. What began as an intimate thriller divulges into something that more closely resembles a nightmare of Charlie Kauffman. It's a complete wash of disorder and incoherence. Of course many are drawing religious parallels and feel smart for doing so. "Obviously this is a reference to Cain and Abel." "It's about Mother Earth." Perhaps this makes some people feel smart. For me, this was an assault on the senses.

The film carries the director's distinct look. There is a strong flow and style to the work. Does the story hold water on its own? I don't think so. Lawrence and Bardem do what they can with the work, but there have been interviews by all 4 of the main cast members where they admit to not understanding the idea behind the very movie they star in. I can't blame them. This is a movie that is surely ambitious but ultimately falls flat. Not only can I understand the motivations of any of our 'heroes,' but the cyclical conclusion feels like another effort to present profoundness when there is none. Some feel like this is a movie that is made for repeated viewings, guessing at the symbolism and spokem words for years to come. Don't waste your time. You'll be scratching your head for so long that your hair might fall out.

Columbus (****1/2)

A movie about architecture shouldn't be inherently entertaining. The thing about the design of a structure is that it's appeal is completely up to the beholder, if anything. Despite this, here I find myself floored at a directorial debut that is in every way a precise stroke of control. In every way this movie seems as though it should have been corny, and yet the assuredness of the director leads me to believe that there is no wasted moment, no shot too long, no word misspoke.

The movie begins with a sequence in which an elderly architect collapses. His assistant (Parker Posey) accompanies him around a famed Columbus-based home, and she spends the majority of the scene trying to track him down in the immense estate. Shot by shot, it's quite literally a perfect sequence. We cut to a couple parallel stories, one following an aspiring librarian named Casey (Haley Lu Richardson) and the architect's son, Jin (John Cho) who has just flown in from Seoul to be with his sick parent. The opening of the film cuts back and forth between these two, ever so slowly, with no clear connection. Jin spends much of his time wandering a fancy yet isolate hotel, while Casey cooks dinner with her mom and dodges the advances of her esteemed and charming coworker (Rory Culkin).

The film is not as much about the circumstances of their meeting (a beautiful scene in which they walk down a long iron fence and then finally meet at the gate's opening) but about the conversations they share, largely based around Casey's love of the city's architecture. She recognizes Jin's father and had planned on seeing him in a now-cancelled lecture. To her surprise, Jin finds no interest in the appeal of buildings, so he has her describe some of her favorites. Along the way, they discuss their dreams, their setbacks, and perhaps identify the damaged parts of themselves that they wouldn't otherwise be able to see. The film's most beautiful scene comes when Casey is forced to tell Jin why she loves a particular building, and not for the reasons she might have learned on a guided tour. We watch her smile and tell Jin with such a warmth about this converted bank, and yet we hear nothing she says through the glass windows. We don't hear her insights, but that doesn't mean we don't understand every single word she is saying. Watch her light up.

2017 has been an odd year for movies so far. Nothing special overall, nothing overreaching or important. Out of all of them, perhaps COLUMBUS is the quietest movie I have seen. It moves at a glacial pace while we slowly learn about these two people, each in their own way lost in a city that has completely different meanings to the other. It's largely due to the impressive debut of a director named Kogonada, a man who understands how to frame a shot, how to direct young people, how to interpret a script, and how to make visual poetry. For a movie set in a random midwest city, believe me when I say that watching this film I felt as though I were in Wonderland. Each new structure and glass and straight line created a scene so absolutely lovely that it's absolutely amazing to think that such a place exists in the heartland of the United States.

You would be hard pressed to find a movie that more accurately depicts kindred spirits. We grow to like Casey and Jin ever so slowly that by the end it's amazing that such an emotional climax had been built up at all. The same goes for a script so charming in its simplicity that it's refreshing to just sit back and watch it unfold. Listen to how Jin talks about his Korean background, and then listen to Casey slink around discussing her mother's history of addiction. These aren't high points in drama. They're simply another topic that is brought up. Nothing is spelled out for us. That's life, I suppose.

Logan Lucky (****1/2)

Steven Soderbergh's return from "retirement" has proven that the auteur filmmaker still has it in him. In fact this may be his most entertaining, funny, and skillfully-crafted movies in his arsenal. It's a heist-story about two brothers who plan to break into a bank vault below the Charlotte Motor Speedway. To complete the task, they require a getaway car, an inmate at the local prison, and a whole lot of guts. Boy was this a cooky ride. Think Coen Brothers crossed with, well, Ocean's 11.

The story focuses around one of the brothers, Jimmy (Channing Tatum) as he is laid off from a construction gig below the speedway. Their job was to fill an ever-flowing supply of sinkholes on the field, and Jimmy knows the tunnels inside and out. He is fired due to a limp he has trouble hiding, a trait his boss describes as a "pre-existing condition." On the other side of town is his bartending brother, Clyde (Adam Driver), an Iraq vet who lost and arm and moves about the town quietly but with purpose. When Jimmy proposes his bafflingly complex plot to steal a couple million dollars, Clyde examines the details closely.

The movie is one big con, a build up to the actual robbery as we see this crack team develop their foolproof plans to get the money. It is a heist that will be done in broad daylight during the Speedway's busiest race of the year. Cashiers all over the field deposit their cash tills in plastic tubing that is sucked underground and into a centralized vault. It's this vault that the men will gain access to. They recruit an absolutely bonkers Joe Bang (Daniel Craig, it's an inspired, unexpected role), a demolitions expert who is due to be released from prison within the year. Wouldn't you know it, Jimmy proposes to sneak him out of prison (during lunch time), assist with the heist, and have him back without the warden suspecting a thing. The plan they devise is hilarious and at times genius.

I really enjoyed the writing above all in this movie. Soderbergh has a reputation for making films that are perhaps overweighted and "serious." This is a laugh-out loud riot with jokes flying left and right. All of his distinctive directorial marks are there, but this is a film first and foremost that is here to entertain. What a brilliant idea! We even get introduced to an FBI agent near the film's last third (Hilary Swank) who has all the workings of a whip smart woman who will crack the case, but she is limited by time, water-tight alibis, and a growing frustration in lack of leads. Swank's character is not unwelcome in the movie, though her story does drag the film into a longer time bracket than we might expect. I think the only issue is her lack of development, lack of motivation, and lack of closure...

This might not be the sort of movie critics will rave for (although they actually seem to like this movie quite a bit). In such a drab year for movies with little to look forward to, this is a gem of a movie that has almost everything going for it. Tatum continues to prove his comic chops, and even paired against someone as strange as Adam Driver, they create a believable and genuine connection that carries the story and makes it that much more special, and LOGAN LUCKY is surely something special.

It (***)

I wondered if a person not scared of clowns would find this movie as inherently scary. It seems like our culture has been trained to assume clowns are "intrinsically evil" nowadays and as such, a movie about a killer monster donning white face paint already seems an assured hit. Indeed, IT has broken pre-sale records and seems to be the first hit of the Fall season. The movie rests on many strengths: a good cast, a fun script, and that nostalgia feel that we have come to love recently with shows like 'Stranger Things.'

The movie is part remake/part reimagining of the classic Steven King novel, a dense 1,000-page entry that treks a bunch of kids in a town called Derry as they investigate a killer clown, then come back 27 years later to continue the hunt. This film focuses on the first half, a bunch of kids dubbed "the Losers Club" in 1989 (moved from the original setting of the 1950's for a variety of reasons). The town is a midwest slice of nowhere in which kids ride their bikes in the summer and adults are rarely seen. In fact there are perhaps 2 or 3 adults throughout the entire film, most of whom are degenerates or criminals of some sort. I suppose this adds to the isolation felt by these children as they are picked off one by one.

The film opens with that iconic scene of a small boy named Georgie running down a rainy street in a yellow raincoat. At a gutter, he meets Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard), the most evil-looking thing you ever did see, and he slowly lures the boy into the storm drain where he feasts on young children and relishes in their fear. This introduction is perhaps the most eerie scene in the movie, establishing the horror and then setting up motivation for Georgie's older brother, a stuttering boy named Bill (Jaeden Lieberher). He and his gang of friends spend their summer plotting to find Georgie's body and perhaps discover why so many kids disappear in this town.

They are joined by a pretty girl, Beverly (Sophia Lillis) who has a reputation with boys in the town but tags along for the simple thrill of doing something worthwhile. The kids are faced with horrific images at every turn, whether it's a bloody sink or a painting come to life in all its abstract horror. The adults see nothing, but these children are in a constant state of attack.

The film works on the strength of Skarsgard's clown, a creepy performance that is as much about the silence as it is a physical menace. Likewise for the gang of boys (and girl). We laugh at their cursing and raunchy conversations much the way young boys might have discussed in high school. For every jump scare, there is a laugh to be found in the dialogue. The movie overall trends towards overkill, as scene after scene shows this clown jumping out of every nook and cranny. By the end of the film I wasn't scared so much as I was amazed these kids weren't used to it. There's a lot to be said for suspense and the buildup in horror movies. Sometimes silence is more scary than an actual monster. IT will have none of that. This is a constant barrage of blood, gore, and the like, and by the end of the film I was relieved to finally see it come to an end. The film works as a bit of nostalgia and works well as an adaptation of a classic King style. Other than that, it's far more effective as a character study than outright horror.

Beach Rats (*1/2)

BEACH RATS is a movie that seeks artistry but has nothing to offer. It's like a painter trying to get a work hung in a museum by framing the tour book. There's nothing to it. Many have praised this as a film full of brutality, honesty, chemistry, and the like. I found it to be a vapid exercise in style over substance. And boy, did this story need substance.

The movie plots along following a young adult named Frankie (actually a remarkable performance by Brit Harris Dickinson) who maneuvers life in Brooklyn while coming to terms with his sexuality. Right away we are told he is gay, stuck in a predicament between hanging out with his "bros" and fulfilling a sexual desire that all the prettiest girls cannot give him. He meets one such girl in the film's opening, a stale exchange of words beneath summertime fireworks. The two go back to his place, nothing happens, and then she leaves upset that such a handsome boy could turn out to be such a "jerk." In his attempts to hide his sexuality, he also comes across as a bit of a prude.

And so the film goes, scene by scene, teasing the audience with ideas of a great movie out there somewhere, and I kept asking out loud "is anything going to happen?" Right up until the credits began to roll, I found myself lost as to this film's ultimate meaning. I suppose it's about coming to terms with one's sexuality, although last year's Moonlight was so much more beautiful and inspired. It could also be about a boy's challenge to overcome a drug addiction (a heavy topic in the latter half of this picture). Where there might have been a message, instead we are stuck with confusing editing, lack of motivation, and lack of characters.

Even the presentation of this film is confusing to the audience. We sort of learn that Frankie lives in Brooklyn, and yet not once are we shown an establishing shot of where he lives, his neighborhood, his community... I recently saw the original "Taking of Pelham One Two Three" in which the city of New York plays as much a character as any of the lead stars. The buildings, the urban chaos, the sounds... Here, I rarely understood the setting at all, since the majority of the movie seems to function under a weak assumption that the audience knows New York and Jersey inside and out. Does Frankie live in a "good" or "bad" part of town? Your guess is as good as any. He certainly has a good mother, progressive and accepting of her children's dreams and hopes. What is her ultimate character goal? I don't think she has one.

I was reminded a lot of Blue Is the Warmest Color, another LGBT movie that was critically praised and yet I found almost offensive by the way it presented sex scenes with a brutal honesty and focus on graphic details. Does this movie benefit by dwelling so much on our lead actor's torso and waist? As much as he is meant to be an "attractive" character, the film turns into a nearly pornographic display of flesh at periodic intervals, filmed in long takes with bright lights. The movie stops being a story about a young boy growing up and instead becomes a filmmaker's fascination with voyeurism as a past time. Some might appreciate this film for it's slow, drawn out, pointless scenes that contribute nothing towards an advancing plot.

I'm of the mindset that if nothing happens in the first 10 minutes of a movie, then chances are that nothing will happen at all in the film. Case in point: Beach Rats. This movie is completely without purpose. A movie about actual rats living on an Atlantic beach would have proven to be a much more entertaining subject.