Sicario: Day of the Soldado (**)

Look no further than my initial review of 2015's Sicario to see what a great film that was. The standards by which a sequel would be compared were so high, but it's not just lack of skill that makes this movie so forgettable - it also misses the mark altogether. It's rare for a follow-up film to surpass the original, but here is a movie that feels like a ploy for more money. Nothing more.

The film logically abandons Emily Blunt's wide-eyed character from the first film, the FBI agent who discovers the world of illegal drug trade at the Mexican border firsthand. In many ways her character served as the audience: asking questions, learning the film's mysteries alongside us, and ultimately discovering that there are no morals defined in black and white. Part of what made Sicario so amazing was Blunt's character and her descent into confusion, all the while a hitman named Alejandro (Benicio del Toro) goes from mystery to the center of our attention. That film didn't end with a pretty bow on top. It left the characters with no further standards as to what is right and wrong.

Enter the sequel, a movie that takes off from the first few minutes with several loud bangs and a new topic: terrorism. Where the first film focused on drugs, here we learn of a cartel's plot to smuggle Middle Eastern terrorists across the Mexican border (?) in order to enact war on the American people (??), or something like that. It's like we are watching a wet dream of Stephen Miller or Donald Trump. Not once do we see illegals crossing the border seeking refuge, but on numerous occasions do these people crossing the Rio Grande smuggle in explosives and weapons. Yikes.

The Secretary of State recruits Graver (Josh Brolin, who has been in a lot of films this year, all of his performances spectacular) to begin a war against a Mexican cartel in order to destroy them from the inside out? I don't know. Graver retrieves Alejandro for one more mission that involves kidnapping a crime lord's daughter and smuggling her back across to the United States... And then bring her back to Mexico... And then bring her back once more to the US for good measure. The film (written by Taylor Sheridan - he also wrote the original) attempts to capitalize on the multiple plots of the 2015 picture but comes out on the other side with an overall boring movie. Without Blunt, there are no characters we can identify with, and to be honest, all the characters here are incredibly drab.

Many praised the first film for it's realism, all of which goes out the window in a magical climax involving a bullet to the head and an apparent Lazarus moment that I did not buy for a second. The film concludes on a bleak note that leaves the audiences with no answers and apparently no questions, either. Remember the film's opening in which illegals cross our border and blow up buildings. There is no resolution to that plot, no insight into why Mexicans might flock to the US. It's a one-sided approach that is quickly ignored and covered up with layers of additional plot in an attempt to make the audience forget what was so repulsive about the film's opening. What can I say? No Denis Villeneuve. No Roger Deakins. No Jóhann Jóhannsson. Sure, this film has a modicum of craft, but it's art that could have been better spent on a better, more tense movie. If you see "Sicario," just pretend that it's a standalone film. "Soldado" doesn't deserve to shine it's predacessor's shoes.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (1/2 star)

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM
Try this new and improved Hollywood blockbuster recipe on your own to experience that zing of nostalgia your life has been missing! A great recipe for a beautiful summer day that will surely dampen your spirits - or - to gently remind you how painfully inept Hollywood films have become. Enjoy!!!


Ingredients:

1. 1 Hollywood hack script that lifts most of its material from an original, better film (in this case, "The Lost World." If you are running low, even "Jurassic Park 3" will suffice)
2. 1 director with limited experience in making a big-budget blockbuster. Preferably one known more for quirky indie flicks. (If your film begins to feel like it's using CGI to mask a lack of story, then you are on the right track)
3. A heaping cupful of references to the original, more successful trilogy (mainly "Jurassic Park") to remind audiences that nostalgia is an adequate substitute to originality 
4. Characters who constantly fight for dinosaur rights (but make sure that 99% of the dinosaurs are soulless blood-thirsty monsters that murder humans like flies! It's a monster movie, after all!)
5. One painfully thin love story because, well, you gotta have that in there..
6. One annoying character who screams too much and whose purpose is entirely unneeded (consider also adding a child in your film to raise the stakes when your dino's attack)
7. One cameo from an original cast member (Jeff Goldblum, if possible). Even if it's just for 15 seconds, it's exactly what your fanboys will want!
8. A newer, biggerer, more lethal dinosaur (who wants an Indomidus rex anymore?? BORING). Give it laser tracking and vampire claws to make it more scary. Oh, and it should be black, because black is scarier. 
9. A hack villain who is only concerned with money, regardless of 4 previous films proving that dinosaurs can't be contained. 

Recipe:

1. Preheat your youtube trailer to at least 25 million views. 
2. Take the basic plot line from "The Lost World" and filter it through 2-3 untalented screenwriters. Make sure your heroes spell out the movie's themes in broad, emotional monologues. This is important. 
3. Shoehorn your characters back together no matter how unlikely the reasoning. 
4. Remove all craft behind the camera. Also remove all talent in front of it.
5. Disregard all sense of logic and reason. (Remember, this is science fiction! Don't be afraid to put your heroes within 5 feet of an exploding volcano, or performing dino-blood transfusions in the back of a moving ship, or narrowly escaping the jaws of a lethal dinosaur several times per scene. Audiences don't expect logic! They want hungry-hungry dinosaurs!)
6. Remember, audiences don't want a simple action movie with well-written characters and clear action. Make sure to incorporate lofty plots about the weaponization of raptors, selling dinosaurs to wealthy foreign buyers for sport, etc. Make sure the scientists are still trying to genetically engineer more deadly animals!!! That's what audiences want! More plot points = good. 
7. Use editing to cut back and forth between drastically different scenes (ie, a girl playing games in her house and a woman performing surgery on a velociraptor. Repeat as often as possible). More editing = good. 
8. Continue tacking on ingredients in no discernible order until the film is over 2 hours long. Longer runtime = good. 
9. Make the ending scary so that the audience won't remember how boring and awful the rest of the movie was. Preferably in a big mansion with no lights and long, narrow hallways and screaming little girls. Yeah, that. 
10. Conclude with the little girl spelling out the overall theme of the movie in one or two sentences. Reshoot until her acting makes your eyes roll back in your head. Top it off with a voiceover by Jeff Goldblum that is nearly verbatim to the final lines of "The Lost World." Voila!

Remove from oven once box office reaches $300 million domestically! Excited for the sequel? We didn't think so, either. Happy cooking!

Incredibles 2 (****1/2)

It's been a while since I saw the original "The Incredibles," that 2004 super hero flick that thrust Pixar into the action genre and delivered their first entirely "human-based" cast, as well as one of the company's most accomplished stories. While I had always thought a sequel would have been more welcomed than, say, "Cars 3," the film comes 14 years later and reminds audiences why the original was so much fun to begin with.

It opens just as the original film closed - 'the Underminer' strikes at a grade school track meet, and the Incredibles don their freshly-pressed supersuits and get to work. The story reminds us that 'supers' are still illegal, and the Incredibles fighting crime ultimately cost the city more money than if they had done nothing at all (think of all the criticisms of movies like "Avengers" or "Man of Steel" in which entire cities are destroyed amidst the chaos). The family is again put into hiding but are soon met by a philanthropist named Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk) and his sister Evelyn (Catherine Keener) who have started a political movement as a means to raise public support of supers and pass laws to allow them to fight crime once more. Sounds pretty dense, right?

Deavor recruits Elastigirl (the always-marvelous Holly Hunter) as the face of his campaign. He supplies her with a micro-camera that she wears on her chest while saving lives, the video planning on demonstrating the benevolence of super heroes and elicit public support of their efforts. While Helen is off fighting crime, Bob - aka Mr Incredible - is selected as babysitter for their three kids. This is where the film finds a nice stroke of humor, as Bob needs to help Dash with his math and Violet with her boy problems - all the while as their baby Jack-Jack is developing an array of super powers on his own.

The film works so well in this back and forth. The comedy comes largely from Jack-Jack, a scene stealer in every way (maybe the cutest child Pixar has ever created?) as he transitions in and out of dimensions, turns to jelly, and erupts in flames as he suspects a neighborhood raccoon is actually a criminal worthy of a fight. The first film lightly touched on the baby's powers, but I was reminded that none of the Incredibles actually find out what skills he has actually developed. When Bob realizes the potential danger, he works again with Edna Mode to design a suit that has the ability to contain such unlimited powers (the scenes with Edna are once again a highlight).

I have seen so many computer-generated films, but INCREDIBLES 2 has got to be one of the more beautiful ones I have ever seen. Can an animated movie be nominated for Best Cinematography?  The action scenes are hands down some of the most visually-engaging sequences I can remember in a while. The colors are so bright (as when Elastigirl and her motorcycle chase down a runaway train against a setting pink sun) and the framing is so clever that I found myself leaning forward even closer to the screen, eager to drink it all up. Every detail is there. I noticed individual threads on Bob's nightgown and the way Violet's cheeks blush when she sees the boy she likes. This is incredibly detailed work that shows Pixar's passion and sets the animation apart from anything else out there - period. We are reminded why Brad Bird (who wrote/directed this film and its sequel, as well as the criminally-underrated Ratatouille) is such a skilled director, and why his talents have worked in terms of visual storytelling. This is an exciting movie that is kinetic, fast, and gripping - everything a superhero movie needs to be.

The film has a few small faults, largely with its villain (who I saw coming a mile away) and an overly-elaborate plot regarding that character's motivations. When it comes to Pixar's villains, they rarely reach the greatness of their heroes. Likewise for the film's aesthetic. The original was so seeped in 1960's nostalgia with a strong visual style, and while this film has its moments, there were many sequences where I might have believed it to be modern day. These are tiny flaws in an otherwise wonderful movie, a sequel that nearly reaches the towering greatness of the original. It's not a high-concept movie like "Inside Out" or a heart-tugging fantasy like last year's "Coco." This is an action-packed roller coaster from start to finish. I can't wait to go back a second time!

Hereditary (*****)

There's a lot of hype surrounding HEREDITARY, hype which I largely dismissed prior to its release. Horror, after all, is such a subjective genre. Where I find "Blair Witch Project" to be utterly chilling, many more say it's 'boring' and 'predictable.' What can I say to convince you of "Hereditary's" greatness, then? This needs to be said upfront: it may be the scariest movie I've ever seen.

The film is somewhat cryptic in the way it tackles the main story. If you saw the trailer which was full of stark images and horrific clips, you might be hard-pressed to explain what the movie is about. Simply put, we have an artist named Annie (Toni Collette), married with two children (a high school pothead and a creepy tween). Her art deals with miniature sets and doll houses which aim for realism in detail and setting. The film opens with Annie speaking at her mother's funeral. To say their relationship was rocky is an understatement. We learn so much about the family dynamic in the first few scenes.

At a support group for those who have lost loved ones, Annie struggles to explain her feelings about her mother, and yet soon after is diving deep into a psychological history of mental disorders and violence. Whether or not her husband is aware of this past remains to be seen. Immediately, we have a portrait of a mother who is anything but stable. Around her, in an idyllic country home, her family functions with a relieving sense of normalcy: her son is into pot and girls, and her husband works a quiet office job and praises her progress.

While the scares in this film take their time to build, they do so with such a deliberate hand, that there isn't a wasted moment nor a quiet scene in which a "bathroom break" is acceptable. First time writer/director Ari Aster (is this even possible?) steps into feature films with a masterful hand as to film language and visual storytelling. So often is there a slow-panning shot where we, the audience, cower as to what's around the corner, and other times some maleficent force is just off screen. Blink, and it's gone. To be innovative, films sometimes need to borrow from the greats. I defy you not to see the resemblance in story to "Rosemary's Baby," or the dread of "The Shining." It's not a cheap rip-off either. This is a movie that dives deep into the world of horror and leaves no stone unturned.

So often to 'genre' actors get overlooked, but there is not a chance that Toni Collette in a career-best role gives anything less than the year's best performance (yes, and it's only June). From playing a sympathetic mother in another supernatural flick ("The Sixth Sense") to the absolute mania she presents here, this is a role that is so dangerously close to farce at every moment, that it's almost impossible not to applaud. From deep sympathy to fear and then an almost possessive demonic persona (and oftentimes all in one continuous shot), this has got to be a defining performance in the horror genre. To mention her for Oscar consideration is an understatement - the award itself doesn't even begin to do justice to such an unforgettable part.

The 'horror' itself doesn't come from the cliched smash cuts or bursts of loud music. This is something more subtle, played out in slow shots and shadows... A face in a dark doorway that you aren't sure is there, but as the camera dwells you begin to understand that it's all the more real. I can't even explain the fear I felt when, say, a glass slides across the table, or a voice comes from Toni Collette that is not her own, or her son's face becomes disfigured in a moment of violence... This is a film that could easily be spoiled, but part of the scare comes from that sense of the unknown and what is around every single corner.

And the same for Aster, the writer/director who debuts with a scream and builds tension nearly to a breaking point. Wherever you think this film is going, you are wrong. The climactic scenes in this film are so unbelievably horrifying that I was jittering by the time the credits began to roll. So rare is is that a film can leave such an indelible mark, and I think I can count on one hand the number of theatrical films I have seen that made me full of such emotion by the end of it. Even now, hours later, I am venting my feelings with all lights on and the blanket pulled over my head. I can think of many reasons why this movie might strike fear into a viewer, and probably just as many might dismiss it as "weird." See it for yourself. So much of the film benefits from knowing little. What starts off as a slow family drama will ignite in front of your eyes into a movie you might never be able to shake. This is easily the best film of the year so far. Heck, this is the best horror movie we've seen this century.

Tully (***1/2)

"Is this a sequel to Juno?" one theatergoer whispered next to me as the lights went dark. I don't blame her, since the marketing surrounding Jason Reitman's latest has it billed as one of the trifecta including "Juno" and "Young Adult," the latter also starring Charlize Theron in a more brash performance. All are penned by Diablo Cody. All focus around the life of small-town women caught in various conflicts regarding families and motherhood. I think the comparisons stop there. TULLY began with a concept so good and with such heart that I was convinced it was my favorite of the year so far. It hurt so much to see it stumble and fail in the final stretch.

The movie centers around a woman named Marlo (Theron), a mother of two with a third on the way. Her youngest girl, perhaps 7 or 8, is a quiet girl who wears glasses and makes some brash observations ("Mom, what happened to your body?"). Her son, a new kindergartener, is one teachers describe as 'quirky' and displays symptoms of Asperger's or some form of autism. They live in a quiet suburban house somewhere in New York state, and they life life as a series of patterns over and over. Marlo's husband, Drew (Ron Livingston) is a good dad but, like most working fathers, is rarely seen outside family dinner and breakfast.

We see the divide as Marlo's brother introduces her to the idea of a night nanny, one of those 'high class' luxuries that affluent moms employ in order to get a good night sleep and reduce wrinkle lines. At first she rejects the idea, but with the birth of her daughter and the insurmountable struggles of diapering, changing, driving, parent-teacher conferences, sleepless nights, sore nipples, and the like - the night nanny becomes something she is willing to at least give a shot to.

Enter Tully (Mackenzie Davis), a young, pretty girl who dresses provocatively and yet seems to understand her duties far more than Marlo anticipated. Their first meeting sees Tully quietly knock on the front door at 10:30pm, enter, become accustomed to the house and layout, and quietly urge Marlo to bed. "I'll wake you when she's ready to feed." Marlo, like the audience, is concerned about letting a stranger into her house and so quickly allow her to take over. "You're just going to leave her down there with our baby?" Drew casually asks from bed. "I guess so." When you're so tired, I'm sure there can be appeal found in anything.

The movie is good at showing us that repetition from motherhood. It's a nonstop cycle that begins in the hospital and likely will continue on down until her kids move out for college. As the nights go on, Marlo stays up later to talk to Tully, to learn about her life, and in return Tully tries to make her understand how great motherhood really is. There is a physical change in Theron's performance that helps us understand the benefits of a good night sleep, and like most of her performances, she rarely misses a beat. So is Mackenzie Davis as Tully, this level-headed nanny who at first seems Mary Poppins-esque but then slowly reveals her own faults. In a later scene, the two escape motherhood for a night to drink and party in Brooklyn (their journey there is maybe the best driving montage I have ever seen). I found myself rolling my eyes at the lack of responsibility the father gets here, his absence throughout the film, and even as Marlo leaves him in charge this night, I wondered how good of an idea that even was?

The film concludes in some sort of gobsmacked way that some might see coming but I did not. It's a ploying wrap up to a story so full of beautiful moments (particularly a scene in which a teacher at a school shares a quiet, calming moment with Marlo's son) and heartbreak that I found myself despising the movie even more in the end knowing how well it likely could have been. This isn't some cryptic ending that some viewers might overlook - this is a conclusion that will polarize audiences and leave half rolling their eyes and the rest wiping their eyes from tears. I can't see a middle ground here. See it for yourself. Jason Reitman has made good films, and save for this unbelievable lapse in narrative judgement, this might have been his most poignant film to date. Even the last shot leaves us something to ponder. It shows a mother and father doing dishes, a beautiful tandem dance between them. But then look at the visuals - a stark white window divides them, and we wonder how much of a happy ending someone like Marlo will really have in the end. It's not all sunshine and rainbows.