Friendship

A Little Prayer | Review - Interview

Sorry, Baby

Twinless

​Zodiac Killer Project

Synopsis: From Oscar®-winning filmmaker Guillermo del Toro comes the definitive retelling of Mary Shelley’s genre-defining novel of life and death — an epic drama about what it means to be human, to crave love, and seek understanding. Golden Globe-winner Oscar Isaac plays the brilliant but tortured scientist Victor Frankenstein, who embarks on an ego-driven quest to bring new life into this world, resulting in the Creature (BAFTA-nominee Jacob Elordi), whose very existence provokes questions about what it means to be a human and what it really means to be a monster. 

Review: Few pieces of literature from my high school and college days are ones that I grasped, let alone liked and enjoyed. Two stand out as both: A Christmas Carol and Frankenstein. While the former molded me as a human, the latter had a distinct impact on me culturally and spiritually. Never particularly religious, I found the exploration of creation and it's significance of questioning one's God historically in a society when it's rules and customs were deeply rooted in religion, specifically Christianity. Even so, Frankenstein can be viewed as representative of the advancement of science, faith, technology and maternity, but also civilization's progression as a society and exploration of the human condition. We have seen multiple film versions of the actual novel, but it's framework is fingerprinted all over more than just titled adaptations of the written work. With it's basis of a creation turning towards to and against the creator after society's rejection, from playful (Young Frankenstein, Edward Scissorhands, Weird Science) to dramatic social commentary (RoboCop, Blade Runner, Ex Machina). 

Now, director Guillermo del Toro goes for his vision and angle of the story.

Anyone who has seen even one of Del Toro's films can see the original Shelley novel is a major influence on his previous films, almost building from his own Victor Frankenstein-style craftwork to this as a crescendo. But the film feels, pardon the pun, somewhat lifeless despite some admirable points during the runtime.

Director Mike Flanagan with his adaptation of Doctor Sleep had to juggle and rectify himself to the fact that he needed to adapt a sequel book with elements of it's original film adaption that deviated from the source material (FYI Stephen King hated Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, hence the give and take). Del Toro faces the same high-wire act. He wants to be as faithful to the source material as possible while also acknowledging the existence of those classic Universal adaptations that deviate and add in their own way. Let's face it, no matter how masterful those films are, they are not faithful Shelley works, but clearly Del Toro sees the subtext of maternal instinct from Shelley while incorporating Bride of Frankenstein elements into his adaptation. He is a child of horror films more than anything. 

There is no doubt the film is wonderful to look at--sets, costumes, make-up, blood effects, and plenty of convincing practical effects to relish in. But the structure is disjointed. Del Toro allegedly meant to have the story be two films: Victor's story in part one, and the creature's in part two. But he was forced to adapt to a more concise singular work. Ironic, given the creature's desire for a companion: this Del Toro film could've benefitted from one, too with each story allowed to breathe. But that wouldn't have fixed it all. Each one would've needed to be lean, not overlong. While Elordi brings true spirit to his portion of the film, Isaac is a bit scattershot on the performance. Was this intentional to show Victor's madness? Perhaps, but it felt uneven and too wildly manic at times. He's a wonderful actor and fits into Del Toro's cupboard of characters, so let's hope they try for their own. Victor's story felt hollow at times, while the Creature's was one of engaging precedent. The problem is the paint-by-numbers final work. Del Toro does it with style, talent, and great craft.

And it's... fine.

One may say Del Toro committed to what feels like a superhero origin story, but why not? Is the original Shelley work not a work commenting and challenging the theory of creation, the origin story of man? And aren't superhero flicks part of the aforementioned influenced framework? Didn't Jack Nicholson's Joker and Michael Keaton's Batman not accuse one another of creating each other before going versus? Does Ultron not turn on his maker Tony Stark in Avengers: Age of Ultron, seeing humanity as a threat to themselves but the ultimate enemy of the world?  Again, the framework is older than the Shelley book itself, so having an adaptation now angling itself in modern mainstream tentpole films isn't a major qualm to have. Clearly, Del Toro would have a feast making a superhero film.

"Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather a fallen angel," Victor's creature theorizes in Shelley's novel. For Del Toro's Frankenstein, the film's final creation finds the same average results: neither really very alive, but also never truly dead. 

Synopsis: ​A filmmaker explores his abandoned Zodiac Killer documentary, delving into the true crime genre's inner workings at a saturation point.

Review: I am not an obsessive true-crime guy. Sure, I enjoy Law & Order, ripped-from-the-headlines. But the podcasts, TV documentaries, etc. just aren't something I was naturally drawn to. But Zodiac Killer Project was one I was intrigued by. Does the still-unsolved serial killings decades later pique my interest? Is it because the exploration fo obsession for true crime and finding the answer attract me? Or does the fact it sounds like a nonfiction exploration inside the heads of David Fincher (my favorite director) and the characters in making his masterful Zodiac? Likely a little of it all, maybe more the third than anything. But if that's true, then it means Fincher already has covered the Zodiac curiosity manifesting into obsession. The film is more about the overall society intrigue of true-crime, for sure, but the hooks and final product isn't quite up to snuff.

**Note: This was seen and reviewed outside of the festival run.**

Synopsis: From Academy Award® winning director Kathryn Bigelow comes A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE. When a single, unattributed missile is launched at the United States, a race begins to determine who is responsible and how to respond.

Review: Bigelow has made a name over the past couple decades as a go-to for ratcheted tension and suspense. Sure, she had that groundwork laid earlier in her career, but her award-winning The Hurt Locker changed everything.  Zero Dark Thirty arrived with equal--if not more--fanfare. After the perceived failure of Detroit, Bigelow has retuned almost a decade later with an improved vigor and sense of purpose in A House of Dynamite. Told across three main chapters, the film is episodic like a TV show watched on binge. While I could see the film as a brief miniseries, it works best to watch each section consecutively--hence, the feature film, as it keeps the suspense at a constant. And boy does it continue at each rewind to the next perspective... until the end. I suppose it's true purpose is to leave us unnerved, but the ambiguous ending left me indifferent. I felt the story earned a moment of closure, but Bigelow still prides an effective finale that left many pondering. The film does add some relevance to our times, advertising it's civilian workforce as essential tot he success of the country, never undermining. One may find the serial tactic a dilution of the tension, but I found it an effective wire act of stable instability, one primed to go off any minute. I suppose that is the danger Bigelow thrives on, much like Jeremy Renner's Hurt Locker character and those leading us through A House of Dynamite: runs toward the element of fear to get the job done.

Synopsis: Something terrible happened to Agnes. But life goes on for everyone else. When a friend visits on the brink of an important milestone, Agnes realizes how stuck she's been, in this bittersweet story of finding your way after your world comes crashing down.

Review: Sorry, Baby could be the most potent film at this year's Chicago Critics Film Festival. its setup and context is one of deep dynamics in very trying times. The film is reflective of our nation's society at the moment. It's an amazing start for the new writer-director-star--and I do recommend--but it's final product needs tweaking and polishing. Eva Victor has a promising future in cinema. While the film doesn't capture everything it wants to say, Sorry, baby is a solid introduction to some untapped potential. 

**Note: This was seen and reviewed outside of the festival run.**

Synopsis: Roman (Dylan O'Brien), a grieving man navigating the sudden death of his twin brother, Rocky, who forms an intense friendship with Dennis (James Sweeney), a lonely man from a support group for twin loss. As their bond grows, it is revealed that Dennis is hiding a deceitful secret about his past connection to Rocky, threatening to unravel their lives.

Review: Twinless is such a novel idea, a setup fresh and with strong possibilities. While not every point lands with high marks, the originality just seems new even if the execution delves a bit into cliche. Sweeney and O’Brien have great chemistry, with the former as writer and director keeping dialogue emotional and witty. It's not a perfect film, but the singularity of Twinless makes it worth a watch.

*Note: This was seen and reviewed outside of the festival run.**

Synopsis: Suburban dad Craig falls hard for his charismatic new neighbor, but Craig’s attempts to make an adult make friend threaten to ruin both of their lives.

Review: Tim Robinson is not for everyone. He gives me vibes of Jack Black light: kinetic, outlandish outbursts. I can really only take Black on limited doses, and I can understand why some would say the same of Robinson here. In Friendship, he seems much more mellowed and subdued, but the persona he exudes is one of discomfort. Friendship plays like a mismatched buddy cop comedy, with Rudd carrying much of the film's credibility and experience. The film has it's moments, but ultimately suffers from an unfriendly schtick that can be tiring. 

**Note: this was seen and reviewed outside of the official festival run**

Review: I had the pleasure of watching A Little Prayer twice: once via screener in advance of my red carpet interview with director Angus MacLachlan and actress Jane Levy at closing night for the Chicago Critics Film Festival. Initially, I found it difficult to embrace it, but by the time closing night arrived, I decided to watch it again thru the lens of a father, and the scope and effect the film had in change was dramatic and wonderfully improved. This movie is just a sweet, small and simple film with an understated premise and execution. David Strathairn, quite possibly my favorite character actor, gets his flowers in a plum, dynamic lead role, the anchor of experience in both the cast and characters. Levy adds the yin to that yang of platonic love, two people who are already there for one another but don't know yet how much they truly need and lean on one another. It is a symbiotic vision of love and family.

**Note: This was viewed during the festival's run.**

Synopsis: After his daughter's life is threatened, wisecracking Detective Axel Foley teams up with a new partner and some old pals to turn up the heat on a conspiracy.

Review: Hollywood is currently playing a nostalgia card with many big film offerings. This is extremely evident in the latest adventure with certain Detroit law enforcement export "Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F." They got some of the gang back together--Judge Reinhold, Paul Reiser, Bronson Pinchot and John Ashton--to remind you of... well, better outcomes. The cast, which also includes Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Kevin Bacon, doesn't help matters with a very bland screenplay, going through the motions of reading lines and collecting big paydays. Plus, they just look bored doing the recycled stuff. It's always great to see John Ashton get high-profile work, but I guess I'll have to rinse this out with him in "Midnight Run." But I digress.

The story involves crooked cops covering up illegal business they are conducting. It's not groundbreaking. But at one point early in "Axel F," a character quips to Axel that things are different now. With so many social issues going on today involving law enforcement overstepping it's boundaries, there is a nugget of a good story to tell with that. Maybe it's looks different but is just the same. The 1980s were filled with plenty of shoot first, ask later type explosion action. With Eddie Murphy even changing as a comic and maturing, bring that real-life into Axel's story here. Maybe Axel's changed but gets sucked back in to the same old nonsense, or perhaps he does need to change. We get a little bit of that through Axel's estranged daughter Jane (Taylour Paige) who coincidentally becomes an attorney in--you guessed it, Beverly Hills.

As you can see, there are plenty of opportunities to establish a statement. The original "Beverly Hills Cop" had some social undertones it was saying during the middle of the 1980s blow-em-up set pieces. The action in "Axel F" doesn't have the heat on to kick those up a notch. The callbacks to the previous films (I think one of the chase scenes goes past the mansion Axel cons his way into in "Part II") are run-of-the-mill, eye rolls.

Reinhold's Rosewood is prone to say, "You can never have too much firepower." They got all the weapons to fight a decent film out of the ideas, but they all end up as blanks shooting at air.