Happy Death Day (***1/2)

It's Groundhog's Day meets Scream. I can't think of a better way to put it - a horror movie with a sense of humor. The premise is something that is so specifically-overused that a simple mistake could have toppled the whole picture. Despite flaws and despite a run-time that is perhaps 15 minutes too much, HAPPY DEATH DAY was a whole lot of fun.

It's Tree's Birthday (Jessica Rothe) and she wakes up in the dorm room of an unfamiliar geek (Israel Broussard), hung over, and late for class. She lives on a vast college campus, is caddy with several of her sorority sisters, and has a surprise party planned later in the evening. Oh, and by the end of the night, she'll be murdered.

Now comes the Groundhog Day element, in which Tree awakens in the same dorm immediately after being murdered by a masked assailant. Same geek, same girls, same day. It takes Tree a couple days to work out what's going on: she's trapped in the same day over and over... The catch is that no matter what she does or how much she changes her day, she is destined to be killed by this unknown killer. Finally after much frustrations, Tree admits what's happening to the geek, named Carter, and he eventually begins to believe her. His plan? Make a list of every person who might dislike her and work to unmask the killer. If you catch the killer and survive the day, maybe you can make it to tomorrow. Great.

The film doesn't take itself too seriously, and in fact I would argue this is a comedy before it is a "horror/thriller." Tree's journey of self-discovery is a surprisingly effective one, and we have fun with her along the way. Yes, every 5 or 10 minutes she is killed, but I was rarely scared by this person wearing a baby mask. Nor was I overly eager to find out who the killer was. Who cares? Like Groundhog's Day, the movie enjoys visual humor and some funny scenarios that would likely happen if you were able to repeat the same day over again.

And then Tree sees on the television that an escaped killer has been hospitalized, and she is surprised she hadn't seen that on the news until now. "He must be my killer." And guess what, he basically is. This is not a spoiler per-se, because the film is far from over at this point. I'll be the first to admit that the last third of the film kind of falls apart, loses steam, takes the easy way out, however you want to put it. Even when we think she has solved the mystery, what do you know - the day keeps repeating. I heard in an early screening of the film that they intended to allow the day to repeat forever, and that preview audiences groaned as though having been betrayed. I don't blame them. Even this film, with its happy ending, takes so long to get there that I began to feel cheated... Perhaps I was stuck in a film that would never find a satisfying conclusion?

For all it's worth, the film works. It's a fun thrill ride and a light taste of the Halloween spirit for those who aren't necessarily thrilled with gore/torture porn flicks. The final reveal of the killer might leave you asking more questions than you want to think about, but in the end you have to dismiss this movie as one of those "shut your brains off" when you're watching it. I suspect a repeated viewing of this film might render it dumber than my first reaction might have thought. And that's okay. We aren't aiming for the stars here.

The Florida Project (****1/2)

It was no more than 10 minutes into THE FLORIDA PROJECT that I knew how special a movie this was. It's hard to deny the craft of director Sean Baker and his keen eye for beauty in everyday moments. It's also hard to call this cast anything but brilliant. This is a movie that at first warmed my heart and then  eventually broke it. I cared for these characters, and by the end of such a unique story, I felt as though I had genuinely visited a world I have never seen before.

If you are like me, I would hope you go into this film with as little information as possible. I knew something about a purple motel and very little else. That's mostly right. The setting is a unique one, something that is both escapist and tragically real. The story is from the perspective of three children spending their summer in an extended stay motel, one of those joints you see from the highway and think little of. The motel is in Florida, just outside of Disney World, and tourists drive past on their way to finer hotels and beautiful rides and food. Not our characters, and especially not our heroine, Moonnee (Brooklynn Prince). She lives with her single mother (Bria Vinaite) on the third floor of the motel. Her mother works odd jobs to make it by but mostly spends her nights partying and doing drugs. Moonee has a similar disposition - she swears, she yells, and she's out of control.

We essentially follow Moonee and her friends Jancey (Valeria Cotto) and Scooty (Christopher Rivera). They wander the grounds and spit on guests' cars. They walk several miles down the highway road to beg for free ice cream. They play on the swings and go swimming when it gets hot. They torment the motel manager, Bobby (Willem Dafoe), a stern man who nonetheless looks out for these kids and is sympathetic to their situation. These kids live poor lives, just a heartbeat away from homelessness. Do they realize this? Not at all.

The movie is memorable for its candy-colored settings. The purple motel, a large orange shop, an abandoned city of model homes in all shades of pastel pink... There is something so shocking about having such a beautiful movie set in the most dire circumstances. Perhaps this is meant to be the viewpoint of our kids. To them, the world is an insurmountable place and every day is filled with adventure. A motel like this may be a dump for a tourist, but for a kid, it's a playground of limitless options.

I mentioned how the movie starts off with such charm as we follow the kids around their day. Much of the film feels improvised, and the conversations these kids have with themselves feels so genuine. There are hints of the adult world slowly creeping in (in one of the film's most memorable moments, Bobby confronts an old man who happens to wander onto the nearby playground to chat up some kids). There are also several shots of Moonee taking a bath while listening to loud pop music. At first it's charming to see her bathe her dolls. Later we understand that there is a lot more happening just beneath the surface.

Where the kids have an idealistic life, we have two adults who help us understand the truth of it all. Bobby (Dafoe) is a character who feels lived in and assured in his job. Sure, he knows the motel is a dump, but over time we see him come to protect these kids from the dangers just beyond the fence. This is a remarkable change for Dafoe and a character that is a true hero even if his actions are what any decent person might do. Then we have Moonee's mother, Halley (Vinaite). Here is a performance that shines brightest in the film and yet I am sure many people will dismiss it as "annoying" or "shallow." Nonsense, this is a fully realized character who makes all the wrong choices in the hopes of supporting her daughter. We see her steal, solicit, drink, and get in fist fights, and even by the end of the film when her life is all but over, she has changed not a bit. This aspect is perhaps the most troubling in the film: the idea that these people are bound to a live of poverty and little can be done to break the cycle.

There are so many wondrous moments in this film that are too vast to count. It's a truly original work that has all the makings of a classic. All but one. The film concludes with a spectacular show of emotion from little Brooklynn Prince (the 7-year old star) as the reality of her world finally comes crashing down. Throughout the film, she manages to evade punishment by lying, running, swearing, and hiding. Here we see a little girl grow up before our very eyes as she says goodbye to a friend. And then... the film takes a dramatic turn, perhaps the most shocking ending of any movie I can remember. I won't spoil it, even though it's most likely a dream sequence with clear intentions. The 30-second scene is so jarring in the way it changes film format (it was filmed on the director's own iphone) and a loud, rousing soundtrack that is absent throughout the rest of the film. It's a cute way to end the film but executed so horribly that it all but left my mouth hanging open in shock. Is the idea bad? No. Could it have been better? You bet. I have read many critics and their interpretations of this ending, and I can't justify it with any shred of logic in my mind. It's a head-scratcher like nothing I have seen before.

Regardless of the bad taste left in my mouth during the final moments, this is a film that had tears flowing and my mind lighting up with the talent I was witnessing. This is a wonderful movie that speaks to the heart and shows us a world that is just down the street and yet so far away. Last year's Best Picture went to Moonlight, another Florida-based film that explored the lower classes of America. Here we see another shade, told through the eyes of kindergartners and is yet no less potent. And Brooklynn Price, how many times can I say her name? When Oscars tally the 5 best performances of the year, I hope they remember her authenticity and charm. How close this film got to being perfect, and still how great it was to have seen it at all. This is easily one of the year's best movies.

Loving Vincent (*****)

For all the faults audiences may find in a movie as unique as LOVING VINCENT, I don't think it makes it any less of a monumental achievement. It's a marriage of art and technical prowess. Even the film can't deny it's own brilliance - the opening credits remind us that this is an entirely oil painted film, rendered one frame at a time by over 100 artists. To see it in theaters is to fall into the mind of an artist. The colors are so vivid as they light up the screen with stunning compositions and movements. This is simply a stunning movie.

To know the craft behind it is just as incredible as watching the film, itself. The process of bringing such an ambitious project to the screen resulted in crowd-funding, experiments, and lots of dreaming. Watching the film, it's easy to see the process, but it's not easy to comprehend much beyond it. Each frame is a painting, and shot by shot, we see the artists painting over, adjusting color and form to create a fluid movement. If you wonder how they would keep 65,000 paintings in storage then look no further: no more than 10% of images you see on screen still exist, the rest lay buried under layers of paint.

The story is no less intriguing. We follow a character named Armand (the man in the yellow jacket), son of a postman who has van Gogh's last letter that was addressed to his brother. It's a year after the artist's death and the intention is to give Vincent's brother some peace. Armand makes the journey cross country to a small village outside Paris. Here we learn a startling truth: that van Gogh's brother also committed suicide. What has become of the van Gogh name, and more importantly, what might have driven these men to end their promising lives so soon?

The story follows a chapter book structure. Each individual scene seems to tell its own story, and we become familiar with the techniques used. Armand meets the innkeeper who owned the hotel Vincent lived in at the time of his death. He meets a local doctor, a fisherman, a young boy... Each tells their own account of the man they knew. In contrast to the bright Impressionistic colors of the film, flashbacks of Vincent show nearly photorealistic black and white sections of story. We see his arrival in the town, his steadfastness in painting and art, and a relentless flow of bullies, gossip, and mounting dread. Armand, a man who knew van Gogh and was the subject of some of his paintings, recalls many of these faces from other works by the master. When he meets a girl at a piano, he instinctively tells her "I recognize you."

I can imagine some people becoming bored by such a beautiful film that follows such a predictable structure. The ending concludes just about as we might expect. Whether or not Armand learned any more about Vincent prior to his death (was it even a suicide?) is beyond the point. One character sums it up quite nicely: "you want to know so much about his death, but what do you know of his life?" Quite right. Maybe this film can shed some light. What we are left with is a movie that takes your breath away with each new scene. It's a monumental achievement no matter how you look at it, and a process that I doubt many filmmakers will ever attempt again. Go to see LOVING VINCENT for it's singular vision of storytelling. Each frame of this story captures van Gogh's style and brings his art to the forefront. It's a love letter in many ways - an attempt to pay homage to such a revered man. It is quite the tribute.

Blade Runner 2049 (****1/2)

I think the reason I never could appreciate the original BLADE RUNNER (1982) was the simple fact that, despite its slow pace, there were few characters I actually rooted for. A movie can be long and "boring," but without sympathetic characters driving an actual plot, it's all for nothing. I knew BLADE RUNNER 2049 was going to be different right away, and I am beyond thrilled by the result, a movie that might eventually become regarded as better than the original. That rare sequel that improves on its predecessor.

We have many people to thank here, mainly our director, Denis Villeneuve. He has helmed great films (including last year's Arrival and my perennial favorite Sicario) and continues to make great leaps with consistently strong films and one of the sharpest eyes in all of Hollywood. Gathered around him is a solid team of writers, actors, composers, and the like. We feel the passion in this film and we can plainly see that everyone is giving it their best. 2049 may not be his best film, but Villeneuve has a track record that is intimidating to say the least.

Our story picks up several years after the original Blade Runner (which edit or version, I'm still not sure). Replicants are still being hunted, although the future economy has suffered a "blackout" in which large numbers of replicants died and data was lost. There is a brewing revolution that seems to be happening: the want for replicants to be identified as a unique species. They've made great leaps, afterall. Take Agent "K"(Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner who also happens to be a robot, himself. What a twist! Where the new prototypes have failsafe programming that allows them to be more human, they are still essential in hunting down the older generations who managed to slip away.

The movie is many things, but it is at its core a movie about identity. It's a modern-day Pinocchio in which we dabble with ideas of humanity, creation, and the definition of a soul. Times have changed in Los Angeles since the first film, but the mood is just as dreary and grim. K lives a solitary life in a tiny apartment, reporting to the police station with duty and yet is harassed by neighbors and other cops who have yet to accept a replicant as a fellow member of society. K pays little attention. His time is occupied with a hologram named Joi (Ana de Armas), a long-term girlfriend who lacks the ability to take solid form.

Like the original, we have a mystery. While hunting down a replicant at the start of the film, K finds a buried box in which a woman's remains are found. She died in childbirth, but that's not all. Without spoilers, the plot sees K working to find out this woman's identity and the whereabouts of her child. This child could very well change their society (for better or worse). Amidst the blackout, it is hard to find old birth records and the like, but K hears whispers of an ex-blade runner named Deckard, a cop whose whereabouts are now unknown...

The film is a marvel strictly on a technical level. I will be the first to admit that as gripping as this film is (during the entire 3-hour run time I sat in total attention) I found a large section of exposition to be utterly baffling. We meet Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), the founder of the company that creates replicants. He is simultaneously a villain and an enigma. We never understand his motives (and is he a robot, himself?). He speaks in long passages that sound good on paper but ultimately contribute little to the plot. He is balanced perfectly by a sidekick (Sylvia Hoeks), a terrifyingly-lethal replicant who is tasked with carrying out various hits and murders. The movie succeeds despite its cryptic feel, and I suspect multiple viewings might help with story clarity.

So much of the film's success is its nostalgia regarding the original. We have a Hans Zimmer score that echoes the synth-vibe or that classic work by Vangelis. The epic and dirty cityscape is just as we remember, and the flying cars have logically advanced a bit in the 30-years since we last saw them. Even the cinematography by the great Roger Deakins works at capturing that dreary, harsh feel we recall from the original. There are several moments of such inventiveness with the camerawork that you can't help but be amazed. The film is at times filmed in pitch dark, with only the slightest silhouette of a face to offer clarity. The soundtrack is brooding and epic. The costumes are iconic. And even yet there are two scenes that will knock your socks off: one in which K and his girlfriend make love (you will know when you see it. Never have I seen such a hypnotic or technically-brilliant section of filmmaking), and another in which Jared Leto and Harrison Ford have a quiet conversation underneath a shifting yellow light. Wow.

I would recommend 2049 to all lovers of film, and that includes those that had a dislike for the original. After all, I am in that company. What works in this latest installment is all the same fantastic elements from Ridley Scott's version I would argue that they are only improved upon. This is a movie you can watch on mute and marvel at the sheer beauty. You can also turn the volume up to high to hear an extremely sophisticated sound mix that captures the illusion of the future. Or listen to Harrison Ford's lines, delivered with as much heart and passion as the actor has ever given on screen. My point here is this: no matter what aspect you look at, this movie has it all.

Lucky (**)

Only 2 critics had anything negative to say about LUCKY according to calculations at rottentomatoes.com. That's pretty astounding regard for a movie that I found to be perfectly vapid. John Caroll Lynch's directorial debut promised to be a swan song for Harry Dean Stanton, the regarded character actor who died earlier this year at the age of 91. How disappointed I was to leave the theater with such utter disregard.

The film follows a man named Lucky, a nonagenarian who wakes up to perform yoga, drinks a glass of milk, then wanders to the local diner to drink coffee and work on a crossword. After he comes home from an exhausting day, he watches gameshows and then drifts to bed. Fascinating. The next morning, what do you know? He does his yoga and drinks a glass of milk. Oh, I forgot, in the evenings he wanders to the local watering hole to have a bloody mary and enjoy conversations of folks with personalities as dry as the desert in which the story is set.

Not a whole lot happens in the film, which isn't too surprising considering how the film is setup. There is no drama, no action, no violence and barely any language (Lucky inexplicably yells "cunt!" several times at an unseen object that is later revealed in a confusing and odd reveal). I have seen many films that might be classified as "boring," but oftentimes those films are filled with beautiful words, remarkable scenes, and great actors in peak form. This is not one of those films.

Stanton made his mark in a great film called "Paris, Texas," another quiet movie in which a man wanders the desert. That film had style, heartbreak, and an astounding climactic monologue. I feel as though this story worked to echo such a story and yet hit nearly every mark on the way. This story isn't assembled with remarkable craft or an ear for dialogue. The camera work is unsteady and the assembly feels rough. Stanton, once a great actor, gives a fine performance despite the visible toll of old age. The rest of the cast has no such excuse. From David Lynch (who delivers not one but two bizarre monologues about a rogue tortoise (or was it a turtle?) to Tom Skerritt, every line delivered feels forced. The movie feels less like a major production and more like a student film that would have received a "C" grade with the following note from the professor: "there's something here, but I'm not sure what."

I realize how inexplicable it is to lambast such a critically-acclaimed film. It's so obvious after viewing the film that there's nothing to it. It's a vapid exercise that results in something that is more of a chore to sit through. The final film of Harry Dean Stanton definitely serves to be something emotional, but LUCKY as a whole is a remarkably flat thing that is not a movie I would expect to revisit any time soon.