I think it’s been well-established by now that 2017 has been one of the weirdest years in memory, and the year’s cinema has certainly contributed to that. If I had told myself a few years that I would get to see an R-rated X-Men movie, a sequel to Blade Runner, and a Lego version of a Batman movie (and that they would all be awesome!) I certainly wouldn’t have believed it. So now that the year’s almost done, what’s one more crazy concept to add to the list? Guillermo del Toro’s fantasy romance The Shape of Water is not only just the right amount of weird, but it is a phenomenally well-acted and all-around lovely film. 
​
In a small apartment above a decrepit movie theatre in early 1960s Baltimore lives a woman named Elisa Eposito (Sally Hawkins). A childhood left her without vocal chords, so she communicates exclusively in sign language. Every night like clockwork she takes the bus to a government research facility outside the city where she works as a member of the cleaning staff. One night she catches a glimpse of the facility’s newest research project being wheeled in: a bizarre fish-like humanoid referred to as “the Asset” (Doug Jones). What follows is quite probably one of the strangest love stories in the history of cinema. 

The Shape of Water is one of those movies where you have to accept the base concept or you can’t go anywhere with the movie; namely, a mute woman falling in love with a fish man. But while this easily could have fallen into the realm of camp, it doesn’t. The first reason for this is the screenplay, expertly written by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor. As bizarre as it sounds, this is one of the most touching romance films I’ve seen in quite some time, being built off the kinship Elisa feels with the Asset due to their shared status as outcasts. Interestingly, although the story is built around del Toro’s trademark whimsy and eccentricity, it is significantly less dark that most of his previous work. Though there are certainly some horrific moments in the film, most of them based around the horror that humans can inflict on those they perceive as different from them. It definitely channels elements of Pan’s Labyrinth in this regard, but in sum total it is second only to his giant robot movie Pacific Rim in terms of a light tone. 

But what really brings the story to life is the phenomenal acting. Sally Hawkins gives an amazing performance in which all her lines are delivered by subtitled sign language, along with expert physical acting such as facial expressions and other things that are generally overlooked in a normal acting role. I fully expect her to get a nomination for Best Actress at the Oscars this year. Doug Jones also showcases his amazing physical acting, delivering a great performance under huge amounts of practical special effects, although the characters general silence (both in terms of vocalization and sign language) prevents him from shining as bright as he could have. Michael Shannon delivers a great performance as the film’s antagonist Richard Strickland, who personifies the more unfortunate aspects this era of American history including sexism, racism, and just general fear of anyone different from ourselves, though the well-written script prevents him from ever falling into strawman or card-carrying villain territory. The supporting cast is rounded out by a great performance by Richard Jenkins as Elisa’s closeted artist neighbor Giles, Michael Stuhlbarg as the chief scientist investigating the Asset with a big secret he keeps from his employers and Octavia Spencer as Elisa’s coworker Zelda, although I think she was a bit underutilized in the film. 

Finally, the film is absolutely gorgeous and extremely evocative of the 1960s in which it is set. The sets are wonderfully constructed and manage to summon up both a warm art-deco feel and a cold sterility in the case of the research facility. The film effortlessly blends his retro aesthetic with del Toro’s trademark magic in a similar manner that Pan’s Labyrinth and Crimson Peak adapted to their eras. And like the former of those films, The Shape of Water does not shy away from the uglier aspects of its history, prominently showing how sexism, racism, and homophobia shaped the lives of countless people, not even to mention the oppressive weight of the Cold War looming over everything. It’s a wonderful, if unconventional, period piece and a fascinating look at a more fantastical version of a well-visited era in cinema. 

The Shape of Water is a beautiful film in every sense of the world. Visual splendor combines with stellar acting, a tight script, and del Toro’s unique magic to craft a romance film wholly unlike what anyone expects to see in their local theatres in the 21st century. Whether you’re a fan of del Toro himself, romance, fantasy, period pieces, or simply unique storytelling, you can’t go wrong with this movie. Give it a shot, you won’t be disappointed.

Grade: A

As a film buff, I find it fascinating to see how filmmaking styles have changed over time. From the classic Westerns of the 60s to the film noir of the 40s to the testosterone overdosed action flicks of the 80s, each time period has its own distinct charms. And every so often, a film is made in conscious emulation of the style of an earlier era, and takes on elements of both time periods. Kenneth Branagh’s adaption of Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express is one such film, combining the grace and elegance of times long since passed with visual flair enabled by 21st century cinematography. 
​
It is the 1930s, and famed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is returning from a case in Jerusalem. Desperate for a vacation, he decides to journey home on the luxurious Orient Express, with the three day trip from Istanbul to Paris giving him ample time to relax and catch up on his reading. Shortly after departure, he is approached by a paranoid man named Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp), who believes his life is in danger and desires a bodyguard. Poirot, cautious about Ratchett’s colorful past, declines. But when the train is trapped in a mountain pass by an avalanche and Ratchett is found with numerous stab wounds, Poirot takes it upon himself to determine which of his fellow passengers is a murderer. 

Murder on the Orient Express is a film which simply oozes style and splendor. From the gorgeous period dress to the rich cinematography and the expertly crafted sets, this is a film which defines the luxury of the time period in which it is set. Unlike many modern remakes of classic stories, Branagh resists the temptation to spice the film up much for modern audiences. Like the classic murder mysteries of decades past, the film maintains a steady and even tone throughout. Physical action is minimal, and most of the focus is on Poirot as he gathers clues and interviews the passengers. While in the hands of a less-skilled director this could have spelled disaster, the wonderful cast and smooth script make sure the film never drags during its 114 minute run time.

Speaking of the cast, all the members are excellent. Along with the aforementioned Branagh and Depp, the passengers include Judi Dench as a deposed Eastern European princess, Willem Dafoe as a vaguely-Nazi Austrian scientist, Michelle Pfeiffer as a husband-hunting socialite, and Josh Gad as the victim’s exasperated assistant, not to mention Penelope Cruz, Daisy Ridley, and more. Each of them give a wonderful performance, even if some their accents are a little all over the place. But Branagh’s Poirot is the really fascinating character in the film. A man obsessed with balance and perfection of all sorts with an unshakeable moral compass, Poirot describes himself as a man cursed with only being able to see the world “as it should be, not as it is.” Of course, as anyone familiar with the source material knows, this is a case that forces Poirot to challenge his rigid view of right and wrong, and accept that maybe there is space between how things are and how things should be. 

A stylist, graceful, and well-acted who dun’ it, Murder on the Orient Express is a must-see for fans of mysteries and period pieces, as well as Christie faithfuls of course. Even if you don’t fall into one of those categories, this film should make excellent counter-programming to the autumn superhero line-up. This is the kind of film that you don’t see much anymore, and I urge you to give it a shot while you can. Its not often we get such a fascinating glimpse into the past.

Grade: A-

At the risk of sounding like a broken record to those who have read my other Marvel reviews, I’m not a huge fan of the MCU for a variety of reasons. The first and foremost of these is that (to me at least) the majority of the Marvel films are simultaneously too campy and silly to be taken seriously while also not being funny enough to make good action-comedies. This is why my favorite MCU films have been those that actually have serious plots (like Winter Soldier and Civil War) and the ones that completely embrace the craziness of the setting (Guardians of the Galaxy and its sequel). Thor: Ragnarok is a film close to the second category- while not a full-blown comedy like Gunn’s films, the third iteration of the Thor sub-series finally stops caring what people think of it. 
​
Thor: Ragnarok does have a plot involving Thor’s battle with his long sister and Goddess of Death Hela, his stranding on the alien planet Sakaar, and being forced by Jeff Goldblum to fight in gladiator battles against the Hulk. However, I’m not going to summarize it because despite the world-shaking events depicted in the film, the story isn’t really that important. Instead, this film is all about the fun. Unlike the Guardians of the Galaxy films which bordered on outright comedy, Ragnarok is essentially the film that fully confirms that Marvel just doesn’t care what any of us think anymore. It has everything from Thor fighting a dragon to rock-aliens with New Zealand accents to Loki being Loki to jokes about Jeff Goldblum having orgies with hot aliens. 

Unlike Guardians though, this film is not really an outright comedy where the characters are constantly cracking jokes, even if Hemsworth mostly drops his ye olde Norse accent in favor of more snark. This is simply a film that throws some of the weirdest shit in the MCU at you and doesn’t bat an eye at it at all. It really says a lot that the franchise has been around long enough that it can throw together this crazy mis-mash of superhero, science-fiction, fantasy, and comedy elements in the same film and it actually all gels shockingly well. The delivery of everything is simply so dry and matter-of-fact that after a while Doctor Strange randomly appearing out of nowhere and Asgardians mowing each other down with AK-47s and Cate Blanchett doing a whole film as evil Galadriel actually seems normal.  

And that’s why this film is both such a fun ride and a huge milestone for the MCU- it’s simply beyond the point of caring. This movie has no pretense of being anything other than what it is, which is just a fun, wacky ride. Director Taika Waititi has already shown that he understands what makes a great comedy with gems like What We Do in the Shadows, and with Ragnarok he has shown that he also gets what makes a great fun, action-packed adventure film too. Not every MCU film needs to be Guardians-esque comedy, but I think that “fuck it” spirit is also the key to truly making it into a great franchise.

So if you’re in a fuck-it mood too, go see Thor: Ragnarok this weekend. It’s weird, it’s wacky, and it doesn’t give a shit what you think about it. But above all, it’s simply a movie that not afraid to have fun and embrace what it is. I wish more Marvel films (and, indeed, action/adventure films in general) had the same desire to experiment and get a little freaky. 

Grade: B+

One of the worst mistakes a film can make is not knowing what it wants to be. Without a clear vision, the script becomes muddled, the actors have nothing to base their characters on, and the tone can wildly shift from scene to scene. Although it is certainly not the only or even the most common reason for a film to fail, it is one of the most sure-fire ways to sink a movie. George Clooney’s Suburbicon is a text-book example of this- it tries to be three kinds of movie at the same time, and consequently fails at all three. 
​
Our story is set sometime in the 1950s, in the model suburban community of Suburbicon. It’s a seemingly idyllic place, full of kind people and friendly neighbors and wholesome families. However, that tranquility is shattered by a pair of shocking events. First, a woman named Rose Lodge (Julianne Moore) is murdered, leaving her husband Gardner (Matt Damon), son Nicky (Noah Jupe) and twin sister Margaret (also Juliane Moore) behind. Secondly, an African-American family moves into town, prompting anger and fear by the majority of the (otherwise all white) citizens. But it soon becomes apparent that not all is as it seems with the Lodge family, and racial tensions within the community reach a boiling point. 

Directed by George Clooney and co-written by the Coen Brothers, Suburbicon seems to have a split personality. At first, it seems like it’s trying to be a Fargo-style dark comedy satirizing the idyllic vision of 1950s suburbia. However, after about 25 or 30 minutes, most of those ideas are dropped from the script and vanish from the screen, never to return. And to be fair, there are some pretty funny moments in this first section. However, their abrupt disappearance is disappointing not only because most of the humor of the film is lost, but because what replaces it is no better. 

The rest of the film delves into the murder-mystery ‘who dun it’ type stories. But there’s a few problems with this. First, it’s not really a murder ‘mystery’ because it very quickly becomes obvious who killed Mrs. Lodge. And second, without spoiling anything, I think its safe to say that most audiences will not appreciate who the killer is. Dark, depressing murder stories can certainly work if they are well-written, keep you guessing, or darkly comedic, but sadly Suburbicon is none of these things, and consequently the film becomes a chore to get through.

And finally, the film also deconstructs the nostalgic idea of 50s suburbia by illuminating the racial segregation and violence which lurked just under its surface. While I think this is a laudable goal and could have made for a very interesting movie, the problem is that the subplot with the African American family has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the plot. It feels extremely tacked-on and meaningless, even if it is one of the more interesting sections of the film. It could have vastly increased the suspense and complexity of the murder plot if they had been woven together, but instead they remain bizarrely segregated in a strange reflection of the times the film is set in. 

There are the seeds of three really good movies in Suburbicon. And if those seeds had been nurtured and intertwined more carefully, than this might have even been a great movie. But they weren’t, so instead we’re left with a film/three films floundering to find their place. So if you’re passing by the town of Suburbicon on your way to the theatre this weekend, stay on the road until you arrive at a something more worth your time. 

Grade: D

2016 was an excellent year for dark and wacky comedies. From Deadpool’s comedic ultra-violence to the outrageous animated Sausage Party to the surreal yet oddly poignant Swiss Army Man, we got our pick of all the weird humor that both major and independent studios could muster. And among these films is a little-known gem called The Lobster. Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, it is a masterfully dark, cynical satirization of the compulsive human need to form relationships wrapped in some truly horrible black comedy. So when I heard that Lanthimos was releasing another film this year, I jumped at the chance to see it. Unfortunately, The Killing of a Sacred Deer does not measure up to his previous effort.
​
Doctor Stephen Murphy (Colin Farrell) is a surgeon specializing in open-heart operations. He has a beautiful wife named Anna (Nicole Kidman), herself a medical professional, and two children named Kim (Raffey Cassidy) and Bob (Sunny Suljic). But Stephen also has a secret: several years ago a man died under his scalpel due to a mistake resulting from Stephen drinking before the operation. Although he consciously denies it, Stephen feels guilty about the death and tries to make up for it by mentoring the man’s son, Martin (Barry Keoghan). But when Bob suddenly develops an unknown disease, Stephen finds that his sins are beginning to catch up to him. 

Unlike his previous film, The Killing of a Sacred Deer is for the most part a drama film rather than a comedy, although it still possesses the occasional dark comedy moment. Otherwise, it shares many of the same characteristics as The Lobster- a premise/setting which is essentially magical realism, a highly affected and dry performance style from the cast, and a deep underlying sense of unease and disjointedness. Also like The Lobster, it is unceasingly and unflinchingly pessimistic about human nature. 

However, this last element is also this film’s great weakness. The Lobster’s dark comedy thrived because it made us laugh at the absurdity of human relationships. The Killing of a Sacred Deer’s drama fails because that same pessimism becomes all consuming. Not only is there really no one to root for in the film, but the any seeming lack of any theme in the plot (other than that humans are awful) means that by the credits roll you feel like you just spent two hours getting to know a cast of terrible people for no purpose. 

There are many ways to make a film with a completely unlikable cast and dour tone enjoyable, or at least interesting to watch. You can use it to say something meaningful about human existence, like American Psycho. You can make the characters complex and compelling, like The Hateful Eight. And of course you can make the whole thing funny, like The Lobster. But The Killing of a Sacred Deer does not succeed in any of these things. The film says nothing about the human condition other than that people are the worst, which is apparent from the first ten minutes. The characters almost all come off as creepy and unlikable and don’t give us any reason to root for them. And although it has a little bit of comedy, it’s nowhere near enough to carry the rest of the film. 

In short, The Killing of a Sacred Deer is a slog to get through, and there simply isn’t enough pay off to make that slog worth it. Its certainly not a horrible film- its not even the worst film I’ve seen recently. Its simply not worth the investment in time, ticket money, or mental fortitude required to watch such terrible characters. Stick to something more fun, or at least something more interesting. 

Grade: C-

Anyone who is at all familiar with Stephen King’s body of work knows that it is absolutely enormous. He has released at least one book nearly every year since his debut novel Carrie in 1974, and sometimes he releases far more (in 1987 he published four). Therefore, the large number of films based on his work should not come as a particular surprise either. Many of these have been forgettable and aren’t worth mentioning here. And the ones that have been memorable have been of varying quality, to put it lightly- sometimes we get The Shining or The Shawshank Redemption, and sometimes we get this summer’s The Dark Tower. It, while not at the level of some of the masterpieces based on his work, thankfully still falls closer to the former group than the latter. 
​
It’s the summer of 1989, and school has just finished in the little town of Derry, Maine. For most kids of the town it is a time for baseball, goofing off, and going on fun adventures. But not for one boy –Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher). Six months before Bill’s younger brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) went missing, and although his parents have accepted their loss, Bill hasn’t given up hope of finding him. In order to find him, Bill recruits a group of seven kids -all of whom are considered freaks, loners, and other social outcasts- who call themselves “the Losers”. But it’s not long before the kids realize that Derry is a town with a dark secret, one that could easily get them killed. 

Simply put, It is what would happen if Stand By Me (one of the greatest of King adaptions) was combined with a gruesome horror film. Alternatively, it’s like an R-rated version of Stranger Things (although it would be more proper to say Stranger Things is like a toned-down version of It). It is simultaneously an homage to classic coming of age films from the time period and a gruesome horror film. The film alternates with almost rhythmic regularity between classic kid movie scenes like swimming in the local quarry and getting picked on by school yard bullies and being stalked by terrible monsters. The drama element of the film works well partly because of the writing, with the classic story by King augmented by an excellent screenplay by a trio of writers including Cary Fukunaga, the mastermind behind the acclaimed first season of HBO’s True Detective. It also works because of the acting by all seven of the kid heroes. There’s a saying in Hollywood that one of the three things you should never work with is kids, but just like the classic this film emulates (Stand By Me) It proves that you can still make great movies starring kids. My only complaint is that the large number of kids in the group cuts down on screen time for any individual, and as such some of them are not as developed as they could have been. 

In regards to the horror aspect, this film is definitely not a jump scare type movie. In fact, most of the time this movie isn’t trying to directly surprise or frighten you, but rather create a sense of ominous dread, which it does phenomenally well with its pacing, music, sets, and creature effects. That doesn’t mean it’s not scary at all, of course- there are a number of scenes on the film which are genuinely frightening. But this is a horror movie which is more about the suspense of inevitable coming horror rather than the fear itself. And as I mentioned earlier, this film is gruesome. Don’t be fooled just because the stars are kids, this movie is not for those with weak constitutions. Although not up to the blood bath levels of a Saw or Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, it is refreshing to see a film which is not shy about placing its young characters in mortal peril.

Add a heaping pile of 80s nostalgia on top of all this, and you have a recipe for box office gold. With the smash success of Netflix’s Stranger Things and the hype for Steven Spielberg’s upcoming adaption of Ready Player One, it seems like audiences are ripe for a film such as this. And as long as the quality of these films stays as high as It, I suppose I can’t complain. 

Grade: A-

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

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