Most of the times we go to the movies, it is because we want to be entertained. This can of course take many forms. Sometimes we want to be wowed by epic fight scenes and awesome special effects. Sometimes we want to see a meaningful dramatic story; others we want simply want to have a laugh. Occasionally we even go because we want to be scared. But every so often there comes along a movie whose purpose is not to entertain, but to unsettle. We go to these movies not because we want to be entertained, but because we want to be unnerved. Ingrid Goes West is one such movie. 

The “hero” of our story is a young woman named Ingrid Thorburn (Aubrey Plaza). See was just recently released from a mental hospital after she attacked a “friend” (actually just someone she followed on social media) of hers with mace after not being invited to her wedding. Desperately looking for purpose in her life following this incident as well as the death of her mother, Ingrid stumbles upon the Instagram account of an influencer named Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen). Enchanted with her seemingly fairy-tale life, Ingrid decides to drop everything and use her inheritance to move to Los Angeles. Once there, she hatches a plot to “bump into” Taylor so that she can become friends with her. And things only get stranger from here.

Ingrid Goes West is a difficult film to classify, possessing elements of psychological thriller, comedy, horror, and social satire. It very much reminds me of the films Nightcrawler and The Wolf of Wall Street, in that it is a movie which is very clearly meant to make its audience feel uncomfortable. Like the protagonists of those movies, Ingrid is a very unsympathetic character- she’s manipulative, insecure, delusional, and honestly kind of pathetic to watch. She constantly seeks validation from others and sees no problem in consistently lying to them and using them for her own purposes. And as the film goes on, we see more and more that the violent behavior which once landed her in a mental hospital may not have been an isolated incident. It is a testament to Aubrey Plaza’s phenomenal acting ability that she can make such an unsympathetic character so fascinating to watch, expertly portraying Ingrid’s entire range from simply pitiful to completely horrifying. Between this and her performance in FX’s Legion, she is rapidly becoming one of my favorite actors.

In addition to its focus on Ingrid’s less fortunate characteristics, the film also puts modern social media in its crosshairs. Although Ingrid’s behavior is horrifying, much of it is amplified and fueled by her addiction to social media in general and Instagram in particular. Using both the desperately insecure Ingrid and the completely fabricated and shallow Taylor, the film savagely satires modern social media culture. Much like what Get Out did with modern American race relations, Ingrid Goes West shows how horror can be mined from a very real and contemporary topic. 

And on top of all of this, the film is also pretty funny. The comedy mostly stems from the absurdities that Ingrid will go to feel validated and wanted, but the film also pokes fun at the fake “authenticity” and vapidity of social media culture. The movie also enjoys initially setting up its characters as seemingly simple archetypes and then slowly deconstructing as we see that they have more depth than we initially assumed, for both comedic and dramatic effect. Overall though I wouldn’t say the film is primarily as a comedy, as most of the humor is used to enhance the horror in the film instead of distracting from it.

A very complex film, Ingrid Goes West is above all a film that arrived at the right cultural moment. A film about the quiet and subtle horror of social insecurity and the social media which helps to fuel it, it feels right in this post-Get Out and post-truth world. It’s not a film that I think most will enjoy in the traditional sense, but sometimes it’s good to see something that makes your skin crawl.

Grade: A

Although there are innumerable elements which build upon each other to craft a good movie, one of the most crucial elements of the filmmaking process is casting. A well-casted lead can propel a movie to the height of success and establish characters in the popular consciousness for decades, from Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones to Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man and Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen. Poorly cast roles can also be the death knell for a film, as the recent Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets so aptly demonstrates. And sometimes a film’s casting is simply mystifying, leaving us scratching our heads as we wonder what events occurred behind the scenes to lead to such strangeness. Such is the case with Samuel L. Jackson and Ryan Reynolds, two A-grade stars who somehow found themselves in the B-grade action comedy flick The Hitman’s Bodyguard.
​
Michael Bryce (Reynolds) is not only a bodyguard: he’s the best in the business. Or, at least he was until one of his clients got shot in the head while waiting for his private jet to take off. Now Bryce is stuck escorting paranoid bankers and middle-management types around, which nets him significantly less pay than working for corporate tycoons and international arms dealers. But his luck might change if he accepts a job from his former girlfriend Amelia (Élodie Yung) to escort world-renowned assassin Darius Kincaid (Jackson) from his English prison to the International Criminal Court in The Hague to testify against former Belarussian dictator Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman). That is, if the two of them don’t kill each other first.

Simply put, The Hitman’s Bodyguard is, overall, a B-grade action/comedy, with the major exception of Reynolds and Jackson. Frankly, both of them seem to be much better actors than this movie deserves to have, and the film’s $30 million budget (paltry by Hollywood standards) shows that both of them were working on the cheap for this film. The reason will probably never be known (my guess is they thought it would be fun), but it does pay off for the movie. If you’ve ever wanted to watch the two of them to play exaggerated versions of their most famous character archetypes for two hours and crack stupid jokes and shoot people in the head the whole time, this is your movie. Jackson channels every action character he’s ever portrayed, from Jules Winnfield to Nick Fury to that character from Snakes on a Plane, and Reynolds is essentially Deadpool but without the fourth wall breaking. Their banter and chemistry with each other is by far the best element of the film.

The other element which is better than its summer action competition is the chase scenes. Although the movie’s gunfights are pretty par for the course for action films, the chase scenes are much more creative and interesting to watch. Particular kudos goes to a dramatic car-motorcycle-speed boat chase through the streets and canals of Amsterdam and an awesome sequence where a car gets slammed by a semi-truck in mid-air. It’s not quite as good a car movie as Baby Driver, but other action movies could stand to learn a thing or two from the chase choreography here. 

But apart from this, the film is just a generic action-comedy. The plot is derivative and predictable, the dialogue is standard action film fare, and the fight sequences are pretty average. Gary Oldman chews the scenery as the antagonist of a rejected Die Hard script, but apparently he couldn’t keep a Belarussian accent and had to be dubbed over in certain scenes. Salma Hayek appears in the film as Kincaid’s wife, but she is vastly underutilized and is in far too few scenes. And most perplexing of all is the film’s insistence in shoving a trite romantic subplot down our throats. Because when someone goes to see a mediocre action movie like this, what they really want to hear is relationship advice from Samuel L. Jackson.

So if you want to see a discount Expendables where Deadpool teams up with every Jackson character whose every third sentence includes the phrase “mother fucker”, than boy do I have the film for you. Otherwise, this is the sort of movie that can probably wait until it’s on Netflix. 

Grade: C

As someone who enjoys a wide range of cinema, it makes me very happy to see the resurgence of a long-neglected genre: the western. Although the classical style of the genre- with cowboys, outlaws, train robberies and ‘dead or alive’ posters- has admittedly been largely played out, the archetypal characters and stories of the western have endured and evolved over the years. In the last 15-20 years, filmmakers have returned to the Western in forms as diverse as the revisionist western (Unforgiven), the survival western (The Revenant), even the superhero western (Logan). Possibly most interesting of all is the neo-western, or New Old West, which takes the tropes of the classic western and moves them forward in time into the modern day, creating such modern reimaginings as Taylor Sheridan’s Wind River.

Corey Lambert (Jeremy Renner) is a hunter with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While out hunting mountain lions one winter day on the Wind River Indian Reservation, he finds more than he bargained for: the body of a young Native woman named Natalie (Kelsey Chow). Determining the case to be a homicide, the local tribal authorities call the FBI, who send in Agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen). Jane has no experience working in the brutal Wyoming winter, and recruits Corey, who has a personal stake in solving the case, to help her hunt down the culprit.

Wind River demonstrates that Sheridan, who previously penned the screenplays for both Sicario and Hell or High Water, has as much talent at working behind the camera as he does with a writer’s pen. Wind River very much feels like the continuation of those two films. Just like his previous works, Wind River is a harsh, brutal film. This is demonstrated first and foremost by the use of the raw western environment; just like with the borderland in Sicario and the West Texas plains in High Water, Sheridan expertly uses the snowy forests and towering mountains of the reservation as almost another character. You can almost feel the overbearing isolation and the weight of the winter air pressing upon you. This is a kind of land that affects people, hardening their bodies and sometimes warping their minds.

Of course, a land this hard breeds hard people. The Wind River reservation is a land of broken families, plentiful drugs, and lost people. The film vividly showcases the poverty and hopelessness that pervades many Native American communities, where young men view jail time as a rite of passage and young women disappear with an all-too familiar frequency. And violence, of course. Although not containing an over-abundance of them, what action scenes the film has are brutal, and stunningly well-choreographed and shot. 

And finally, Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen both shine. The former gets another chance to demonstrate that, when he’s not hanging out with Tony Stark and Tom Cruise, he can wonderfully portray a much harder, more grizzled kind of badass. And Olsen, who is also in the awesome Ingrid Goes West being released a few weeks from now, has suddenly become one of my new favorite actors, demonstrating a range not often seen in Hollywood these days. The two have clearly benefitted from their time working on Avengers together, as the chemistry between them is comfortable and natural. 

So, if you liked Sheridan’s previous work, I’d recommend Wind River. If you like modern westerns, I’d recommend Wind River. If you like somber, violent thriller films, or have an appreciation for gorgeous Wwstern scenery, I’d recommend Wind River. In fact, I’d recommend Wind River to pretty much everyone. It’s a bleak, harsh tale, filled with violence and heartbreak. And yet, as anyone who’s been out west knows, there is a beauty in bleakness, in the loneliness of the wild and the sound of the wind.

Grade: A

Detroit takes place during the civil turmoil of the summer of 1967 which turned Detroit into a war zone. The film is set almost entirely on the night of July 25 and July 26, when law enforcement officers raided the Algiers Motel in search of a purported sniper. Before delving into the horrifying events of the night, the audience is exposed to the unbelievable unrest unfolding in the city. We are also introduced to several characters, including a music group called “The Dramatics” (two of whom become victims in the July 25-26 raid) and a pair of racist police officers who become the main aggressors.
​
Unlike many films portraying civil unrest, Detroit offers insight into a myriad of perspectives: African American rioters, law enforcement officers, victims of police brutality, grieving family members, and political leaders. The movie also shows the perspectives of white cops -racist and otherwise- and white victims of police brutality. Detroit subtly, intelligently illustrates that rioting and civil disorder are not simple issues. Director Kathryn Bigelow (of Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty fame) finds a variety of ways to illustrate the strong emotions, differences of opinion, and historical intricacies that characterize not only the politics of the time but also the communities involved. 

Indeed, Bigelow does this through dialogue, but she more importantly does this through imagery. She transitions between close-up, medium, and long shots to show the agony, horror, and enormous extent of the issues at hand. Her close-ups, which are often of individuals or of intimate shots between characters, are sometimes even more jarring than certain shots of violence because they poignantly convey characters’ deep-seated emotions.

The latter is also a credit to the actors. I found Jacob Latimore’s (who plays Fred) performance of particular note. He conveyed an impressive range of emotion on his face not only during the heart-wrenching raid but in reaction to events throughout the film. He stole the show- transitioning beautifully between fear, joy, hope, humor, and bravery.

During the film, I couldn’t help but think of the classic anti-colonialist film The Battle of Algiers (1966). This film depicts the Algerian struggle for independence, and there is a particular scene in which two white men drive through an Algerian neighborhood at night in order to plant and set off a bomb in a residential area. In Detroit, we are introduced to the primary antagonists, two racist white police officers, while they are similarly driving through a black neighborhood. The scene bore an eerie resemblance to the scene in The Battle of Algiers, and sure enough, the police officers soon shoot an unarmed black male in the back as he ran away. Detroit’s riot scenes also reminded me of similar mob scenes characterizing The Battle of Algiers, including sequences during which community leaders try to assuage citizens’ anger. The hotel in which most of the film takes place also happens to be named “Algiers Motel.” The last detail is based on truth (the entire movie is based on truth), but nevertheless I appreciated the striking similarity Detroit bore to that film. If it was indeed an homage to the classic film, I applaud Bigelow’s choice and think it both poetic and befitting.

However, Detroit was a disorganized film. Before the raid on the Algiers Motel, it is comprised of a motley of scenes of protests, of characters being introduced, and of everyday life. By the end of the film, I understood that these scenes were included in order to provide essential contextual and character background, but while watching I found it difficult to discern what the movie was really about. At times, I got the sense that it was simply a sequence of tear-jerking events meant to inspire empathy in the audience. I strongly believe that these scenes were necessary, but so many characters and so much information was introduced in a choppy manner over a short period of time. I would have liked to see a clearer arc in the rising action, or at least to have been alerted to what information and which characters were most essential to the plot. 

The filmmakers did a commendable job in grounding the film, interspersing their own footage with historical photos and videos of the actual Detroit riots in 1967. These details drew attention to the painful reality of the events depicted and to the high quality of work done by Detroit’s cinematographers in recreating the time period. The film also utilized music from the 1960s -much of which was diegetic- but not to excess. Much of the sound in the film focused on the riots unfolding throughout the city, immersing the audience ever further into the setting.

That being said, the events in the film were tragically familiar. We are no strangers to hearing about police officers shooting unarmed people of color, sexually harassing women, or planting evidence at crime scenes. I believe Bigelow was intentional in releasing this film at this particular time in history, and that there is a bold, biting intelligence in her doing so.

One of the first lines we hear a police officer say in Detroit is, “If they’re not resisting, don’t push them.” It’s sad that anyone -especially a law enforcement officer- would need to be reminded of that in 1967, and even sadder that many need to be reminded today. 

Grade: A-

As a film critic, I see a lot of bad movies. Although it’s always painful to sit through one, you get used to it after a while. By now only the really awful ones affect me (*cough cough* Fantastic Four), and some of them can even be enjoyable if you’re in the right mindset. Nowadays, sometimes the most disappointing movies aren’t even the really bad ones, but the average ones that wasted their potential to be good or great. The Dark Tower, based on Steven King’s novel series of the same name, is unfortunately one such film. 
​
Every morning, Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor) wakes up sweating after having horrible nightmares. The dreams are always about the same things: ruined worlds, a Man in Black (Matthew McConaughey), a mysterious Gunslinger (Idris Elba), and an impossibly tall tower. His mother and therapist thinks they are merely echoes resulting from his father’s death, but Jake isn’t so sure. His suspicions are confirmed one day when creatures with fake faces attempt to kidnap him, and in his escape he finds a portal to another world. Soon, he realizes that the Gunslinger –Roland- and everything else he dreamed is real, and that he has an important part to play in protecting the Tower.

For those who don’t know, The Dark Tower is Steven King’s magnum opus- a sprawling series combining elements of high fantasy, Westerns, horror, and a heaping dose of post-modern weirdness on top. It’s quite different from all of his other works, and fans have long considered the series to be unfilmable. I’m not convinced that’s the case, but what’s clear is that director Nikolaj Arcel and the group of screenwriters all bit off more than they could chew. The Dark Tower is not a horrible film- there is nothing about I particularly hated about it. But basically everything about it screams wasted potential.
​
For starters, we have the basic structure of the film. Although Jake was always a character in the novels, he was never the focus of the story, and I believe the film makers made a major error when deciding that he should be the lead in the film. It basically turned a sprawling literary epic into an average young-adult film. And while Tom Taylor’s acting is not bad, he simply isn’t strong enough to carry the film. Idris Elba, on the other hand, is excellent; his sheer presence should be enough to convince any fan that he was the right pick for the role. Matthew McConaughey, while also not bad, is again wasted potential. I was hoping he would be like an evil version of Rust Cohle from True Detective, but he ends up acting more like the generic wizard bad guy from numerous forgettable fantasy films and novels. 

For a movie about a gunslinger, the action scenes in this movie were quite underwhelming. Although there is the occasional bright spot, like one scene where Roland shoots an attacker using solely is hearing to locate the target, but for most part the fact that he is the best shot in the universe is something which is stated rather than shown. Perhaps I have simply been spoiled in this post-John Wick world, but so much more could have been done with this, even keeping with the PG-13 rating. And most frustrating of all is the world of the film itself. There are so many intriguing bits of world-building which are briefly shown and then never mentioned again. There was so much potential to show a living, breathing, bizarre world (worlds actually) which was just not developed enough. Some of this can probably be explained by the film’s measly 95 minute run time, but certainly not all of it.

This is a film which is disappointing not because of what it is. This is a film which is disappointing because of what it’s not, and because of what it could be. In the hands of a more skilled creative team, who didn’t decide that it would be best to make a shallow young adult film out of probably the most bizarre Steven King work, this could have been a great movie. But it’s not. Instead, it’s the sort of movie that you might watch if you saw it while channel surfing or that might sit in your Netflix queue for a couple of months before you may or may not get around to watching it. I’m not sure if this film has forgotten the face of its father, but it sure as hell should call him once in a while.

Grade: C