Movie Review: The Overnight

         The Overnight has been called the most subversive comedy of the year, and while I agree with the first part of that statement, I'm not sure I'd call it a comedy. Don't get me wrong; I liked it. The writing is smart, the acting is great, and the plot unfolds steadily and delicately into some uncharted territory. And while there are a handful of laugh-out-loud funny moments, I counted just as many of those in Terminator Genisys.

         As much as I enjoyed it, the film still has yet to gross half a million dollars. Fans aren't rushing to the theaters to watch it and theaters aren't rushing to pick it up, reason being that it defies any sense of genre. I would just call it a well-made film, but there's no category for that. It's not art-house and it's not a sex-party thriller, the way it was marketed. If I were pressed to typify it somehow, I guess I could call it a relationship dramedy. I'm pretty sure the soft-release didn't help with regard to box office sales. Most people didn't know when the movie was coming out or where they could watch it.

         The film offers an exploration of desire within the confines of a societal construct that heavily favors monogamy. The fact is, sex wouldn't sell so well if men and women didn't think about it everyday, all the time. But we do. We fantasize about it and, in the process of dating, we hope to make some of those fantasies come true. Eventually, we hope to find the right person to settle down with and that's it. Right? End of story. 

         That's where the movie starts: with a young couple (Adam Scott and Taylor Schilling) whose sex life is so routine that it's become mechanical. They're both still sexy and in their prime and they have everything they could've ever wanted to achieve. If they have any curiosity outside the relationship or the lifestyle they've worked so hard to maintain, they've kept it undisclosed and well hidden. Pretty soon, they meet Kurt (Jason Schwartzman) who invites them for a meet and greet with his wife, Charlotte (Judith Godreche), all with the ulterior motive of spicing up their love life.

                                                 

                   We all know the subject of the movie from the trailers. After all, the tagline says, "Get into the swing of things." But we don't know how far it goes or how long it'll take to get there. From the way it was advertised, I thought there would be some hardcore action within the first half of the movie at least. Instead, we get plenty of time to think about what it would take for a swingerish couple to get a couple of the non-swinging variety to even consider allowing someone else who is potentially more attractive and definitely more endowed to fuck their spouse. 

         Couples who watch The Overnight together might have something to talk about on the way home, and audiences in general will have mixed feelings over the film. But it is a good film and the actors do a great job of getting you lost in the many awkward and "expansive" moments along the way. I won't spoil the ending for the few people who are going to go out and watch this well-made, subversive dramedy (I shared the theater with all of one other person when I watched it), but I will say that: with everything you already know about the subject matter, you will be surprised.

         

         

Jupiter Ascending: A Sci-fi Turret

          If cool concepts and visually stunning effects alone were the stuff that great movies are made of, Jupiter Ascending would have been a smash hit. Unfortunately, a film needs more than that. It needs plot, good acting and character development. More than anything, it needs good writing. Jupiter Ascending has none of those things. The sad truth is, the Wachowski siblings may never make another movie that was as conceptually moving and as well thought out as the Matrix trilogy. And when I come to think of it, I’m the only person I know who thoroughly enjoyed all three Matrix movies.

                                                   

            

         As soon as I found out the main character’s name was Jupiter, I knew I was in for a flop. It had all the telltale signs: the characters were two-dimensional, the lines were spoken as if they were being read off of a teleprompter, and there was nothing particularly redeeming about the main character’s willingness to take abuse and be manipulated at every turn.

It seemed like the Wachowskis were attempting to set us up for some sort of intergalactic Cinderella motif where the prince is the villain. And boy what a villain. His voice was constantly at a whining whisper so that it seemed like he was always about to cry and or make out with the other characters on screen. Not that the other villains were any better, though their underacting didn’t exactly excuse or compensate for the main villain’s overacting. Still, I don’t blame the actors. It’s the director’s responsibility to keep this type of stuff from making it to the final cut, and I’m one-hundred percent sure it was the Wachowskis who saw to it that Eddie Redmayne came across as a hackneyed S&M dungeon master.

I almost want to say that there were gaping plot holes, but there was no plot to speak of, other than that Jupiter was apparently ascending. What I can say is there were glaring inconsistencies in the conceptualization of the alternative reality of the movie. One scene in particular that comes to mind is where a space ship glides through the rings of a planet as though it were a submarine coming to surface. We know that this was in the name of keeping the movie visually stunning, but it was pretty arbitrary considering that the ship had the entire rest of space to choose to move through and that the meteorites that comprise the rings of a planet will destroy pretty much anything in their path. Other issues that were ignored were little things like when and where atmosphere occurs and who is immune to the vacuum of space.

If anything could have saved the film, it might have been the awesome concepts that were thrown around, all of which were dismissed almost as soon as they were introduced. These cool concepts included: youth as a drug, time as a tradable commodity, the farming and harvesting of various humanoid species, an intergalactic monarchy, and a scientific paradigm explaining the concept of reincarnation.  

With the most interesting parts of the movie remaining largely undeveloped, there was never a payoff. If there was any takeaway at all, it was that nobody screws you over quite like family. The film as a whole was like a sci-fi turret and probably would have been better delivered as a trilogy or an HBO series. Unfortunately the Wachowskis prematurely ejaculated their ideas all over the screen and won’t be getting a second chance to bed us down with them in the near future. 

Movie Review: Terminator Genisys

         Arnold Schwarzenegger is old but not obsolete. That's the subliminal tagline we get from the latest addition to the Terminator franchise. Unfortunately, we might not be able to say the same for the franchise itself. Terminator Genisys is fun, action-packed, and everything you'd want from a summer action movie. But it doesn't live up to the standard set by James Cameron's original creation, let alone T2. Nor does it add to the storyline. Still, I can't help being a little anxious for the next sequel to come out. That's probably because this movie failed to explain pretty much everything.

                                                   
                                                        

         The best part about a time travel movie franchise is that every sequel can also be a reboot. Terminator Genisys definitely gives that vibe. T5, if you want to call it that, presupposes the film that started it all and brings us to an alternate past retooled by an alternate future. It's pretty exciting at first, and the premise is revealed gradually enough to keep the mood suspenseful. Soon enough it becomes evident that the film makers made no effort to explain how we arrived at this presupposed, alternate future-past. We're just supposed to shut up and enjoy the ride, I guess.

         Complaints aside, Genisys has all the hallmarks of a great summer blockbuster and a terrific all-around movie. The action sequences are intense, the pacing is good, and the plot twists kept me guessing even despite the tremendous John Connor spoiler given by the movie trailer. But the film just doesn't have the same feeling without juggernaut director James Cameron at the helm.

         For one thing, the acting is bad. John Connor (Jason Clarke) doesn't make for a believable military man, let alone a war hero. The war wounds on his face are a realistic touch and it's nice having a principal character who doesn't look like an underwear model, but he just doesn't come across as a battle-hardened, military tactician. For that matter, neither do any of the non-Schwarzenegger characters. Emilia Clarke's portrayal of Sarah Connor as a woman who's spent her life tortured with a detailed, first-hand awareness of her bleak future pales in comparison to T2's Linda Hamilton. And Jai Courtney's Kyle Reese is just so-so.

         Mainly, there's a sense of desperation that comes across in the other movies, which is essential to the feel of the franchise. The character interplay in Genisys is snarky and often light-hearted. You don't get the feeling that these people are fighting for their lives, much less championing the survival of humanity.

         If it seems like I'm a little ambivalent toward the movie, it's because I am. The action was great, but the acting was bad. The story was unpredictable but also, as far as I know, there may not have been a plot. That is to say, I enjoyed the movie, but I wasn't impressed. Probably the worst thing about hoping for it to tie together in the next sequel is that they haven't even announced one as of now, even though Genisys is supposed to be the first in a trilogy. So us diehard Terminator fans are just going to have to hope that some genius writers with a grasp of concepts like quantum physics and the fourth dimensional continuum can tie this all up in a neat little package for us. I'm not holding my breath. 

Movie Review: The Last Supper.

         The Last Supper (1995) is a parody on morals wrapped in an ideological argument between right and left. Coming out on the independent market before the term "indie" had been officially coined, the film never stood a chance. Without a romance plot, action sequences, or laugh-out-loud comedy writing to bring the audience to sensory overload-gasm there wasn't much to help this character-driven dark comedy come to light at the time it was released. Still, it deserves its due. With a thoughtful soundtrack containing original songs by Mark Mothersbaugh, a cast that includes pre-Something About Mary Cameron Diaz, and the versatile Ron Perlman as the would-be villain, this movie has all the acting power and subject matter of what probably would have been an indie heavyweight in the post-millennium film market. It was just missing a couple of things.  

         The first thing it was missing was money. But that's the easy answer. There have been plenty of movies that became cult classics after they were box-office duds, like Donnie Darko which grossed just over $100,000 in its debut, and Terry Gilliam's dystopian classic,  Brazil. What those landmark films had that The Last Supper blew over was a thorough fleshing out of its central themes. 

         At the heart of Last Supper is a stereotype versus stereotype hyperbole. Five far left grad students are involved in the near accidental murder of a right wing lunatic. Then the question is asked: what if you murdered a person and the world was a better place for it. The answer is, you'd be a murderer. Pretty soon, their righteousness turns into blood lust and the adverse effects manifest themselves in a variety of ways.

         The issues introduced by the movie are as pertinent today as they've ever been. The characters talk amongst themselves about the inability of the left to galvanize and the right's understanding of politics as a team sport. They conclude that the right wing is the party of action while the left is the party of endless and inconsequential conversation. The string of murders they commit with each person they kill embodying one issue that separates the right from the left along clear political lines, makes them feel like people of action. unfortunately, that action is murder.

         All of these themes might have made for great cinema if the feeling if the characters hadn't been so starkly drawn. Three out of the five leading characters border cartoonish two-dimensionality, with only two of them undergoing character arcs that drive the plot forward.

         While the tone of the movie is ambivalent between dramatic and comedic without ever completely arriving at something that could be called dramedy, there are some laugh-out-loud funny moments and there are some symbolic elements that give depth for the movie watcher who like to have stuff to pay attention to. For instance, each character is named for an apostle which, along with the title, foreshadow a tale fraught with morality and death. Along that vein, the would-be villain, a well-kept, well-spoken version of Rush Limbaugh, has the name Arbuthnot. For all the biblical scholars out there, if you know that God's name in the book of "Exodus" is "I am what I am," meaning that the villain could be named for the antithesis of that which would mean he is what he is not.

         In the end, they meet their nemesis and come to a point of catharsis. I enjoyed the movie immensely despite the pitfalls i mentioned earlier. I can understand why it raked in less than half a million dollars in revenue and why it probably skipped the major box offices all together. All the same, I love the satire in it and the arguments that it brings to mind. It makes my list of underrated films of all time.