article by Connor Behrens

Director Jon Watts’ latest film, “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” is a 2017 American superhero film based on the Marvel character of the same name.

Energized by his time with the Avengers in “Captain America: Civil War,” teenage Peter Parker returns back to his “normal” life with Aunt May. Being watched by his mentor Tony Stark, Peter quickly takes on his secret identity as New York’s Spider-Man. But trying to return to his normal routine of high school becomes difficult as he grows weary to prove himself as more than just a friendly neighborhood superhero. Peter is soon faced with putting his strength and resolve as a superhero to battle when a criminal known as Vulture arises to jeopardize everything Peter stands for.

For being the seventh film to feature the titular character, “Spider-Man: Homecoming” oddly feels fresh. While it might be due to the setting of Spidey firmly planted in the overall Marvel Cinematic Universe, the film does a better job at giving audiences an original and fun (although fluff at times) reimaging of the popular superhero than recent past attempts.

The previously mentioned addition of Spider-Man in the MCU is the most startling difference when thinking of past films. Seeing Peter interact with Iron Man and numerous references to Avengers characters creates a unique experience for audiences. If “The Amazing Spider-Man” films tried to focus on Peter’s backstory and his battle to balance his love life with his work as a hero, “Homecoming” tries to focus less on what audiences have seen and more on what hasn’t been touched on. In this case, that is a coming-of-age story.

To be fair, a coming-of-age story isn’t quite rare. However, when you pair that concept with a superhero film, the result is not only interesting but also compelling. Tom Holland exceeds in the role through this lens. Holland plays to the emotions of the audience. He is wide-eyed, starstruck and happy to just be here. While he has quite a bit to do before he becomes the definitive Spider-Man on film, the young actor is on the right track with his portrayal. It is classic Peter Parker. He’s smart with just the right amount of playful cockiness. He’s witty, but he would never dare be rude or inconsiderate.

Facing off against Holland is the impeccable Michael Keaton. Many fans feel as if the MCU has been lacking in the villain department. Aside from Loki, Marvel has had a shaky track record for antagonists. Keaton puts this to a stop with his relatable and chilling performance of Vulture. The film does a great job at giving Keaton’s character reasoning behind his madness. He is a workingman who has consistently been overshadowed by those who are richer and more powerful in society. There’s a specific scene where Keaton’s delivery is everything you would want from the former Batman.

However, there are times where the movie feels similar to the “Iron Man” films. These moments are most prominent when Peter plays with his suit upgrades. Strangely, the film is its strongest when Peter is left to himself and not sharing a scene with an Avenger.

Overall, while “Spider-Man: Homecoming” does not match the brilliance of Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2” the film is still a rousing success, full of heart and angst.

Rating: 8.3/10

articles by Connor Behrens

This past week saw the Netflix release of director Bong Joon-ho’s latest film, “Okja,” and director Edgar Wright’s triumphant return to theaters with the electric “Baby Driver.”

With the release of these two films, it’s apparent that Hollywood isn’t too lazy and incapable of creating original content. Amid the “Spider-Man” and “Transformers” franchises and the high-budget ridiculousness of “Pirates of the Caribbean,” this week has offered up a tasty alternative and a brief answer to those worried that cinema’s future will consist of nothing but mindless reboots.

“Baby Driver” tells the story of Baby, a young getaway driver who is grudgingly forced to aid criminal heists for an old-timer criminal mastermind in the promise that he will have an improved life.

Using terms such as “slick” or “stylish” could explain the crazed contents of Wright’s gem that runs at a taut one hour and 53 minutes, but that wouldn’t even begin to describe the eclectic, ultra-violent film that fires on all cylinders.

With an all-star cast consisting of Kevin Spacey and Jamie Foxx, “Baby Driver” features a smart screenplay that mixes noir with heart – a combination not seen very often in cinema. But thanks to the tenacity of the scenes and the energy that Wright jolts via the editing and soundtrack, the film is an ultimate winner.

As the credits play and the darkness slowly dissipates as the lights turn on in the theater, you will sit in your chair and think to yourself, “This film is going to be known as a cult classic in 10 years.”

That is “Baby Driver.”

Rating: 9.3/10

On the opposite side on Netflix, “Okja” provides the next film from the director who created the spellbinding and bizarre “Snowpiercer.”

For a decade, young Mija has been the warden and friend to Okja – a massive pig – in the faraway mountains of South Korea. All of that changes when the Mirando Corporation takes back Okja for themselves and ships her to New York, where a vain and outlandish CEO has ideas for Mija’s pet. With all other options quickly fading, Mija decides to go after and resue Okja, taking her on a wild and dangerous journey.

While not as entrancing as “Snowpiercer” but just as wacky, “Okja” provides a fierce commentary on capitalism and consumerism. While its muddling pace admittedly brings the film down from reaching true greatness, the heartwarming main star (a giant pig you are bound to fall in love with) and supporting cast make this another winner for director Joon-ho. “Okja” also gives hope to Netflix’s promise that they will create more original content and offers a viable way for original films to rein supreme outside the blockbusters and big-budget films.

Rating: 7.8/10

While this summer has proven blockbusters can be original and still provide a mainstream delight (“Wonder Woman”), it’s refreshing to see a barrage of original films come out in a season where the sphere is almost always dominated by superheroes and giant robots. It’s a healthy mix for general audiences to choose from. And when is that ever a bad thing?

article by Connor Behrens for ArtsEarth

“It Comes at Night” is a 2017 American psychological horror film written and directed by Trey Edward Shults and features Joel Edgerton.

Seemingly safe within a secluded home as a bizarre threat threatens the planet, the questionable household direction founded by a man with his family is put to the crucial test when a young group seeking shelter arrives. Even amid the best purposes of both parties, fear and suspicion swell over as the unspeakable terrors outside sneak closer, emerging something unknown and horrific within him as he discovers that protecting his family comes at an unavoidable cost; his soul.

In a current climate where films are part of a shared universe or overwrought with theatrics, “It Comes at Night” is a refreshingly simple thriller. Shults and his entire cast realize that sometimes less is more. In this case, focusing on the paranoia and fear of the unknown is what propels and drives this film to its brutal ending.

What’s on the other side of that red door becomes a central question for the audience and it’s a prime example why this film succeeds. Instead of a creepy monster or a ridiculous amount of blood and guts, “It Comes at Night” chooses to focus on thrills and the idea of human nature and how desperate that nature can become.

The film’s plot is so bare and toned down that you are absolutely required to focus on the main characters and their struggles as they try to survive and figure out what’s happening across the world. The audience never finds out what exactly this virus is or where it originates. But there’s never any real need for the film to explain the backstory. It would be pointless exposition. The film’s intent is not to scare you with a virus; it wants to make you see just how scary humans can be.

Joel Edgerton succeeds in that department. Promising to take care of his family to a fault, Edgerton plays a man deep in desperation and trying his hardest to regain any sense of control in his life. His relationship with his wife and son are mostly cold, and he is a survivalist before he is a husband or father. This creates some particularly chilling scenes when Edgerton’s character has to decide just how far he will go to protect his loved ones.

When the film ends, a mixture of melancholy and brutality has been sprawled across the screen. Edgerton sells this, but it’s also due to the tight editing and display of scenery. It could have been quite easy for Shults’ film to be mundane and boring, but the director makes sure his cast strikes a charge through each scene.

Overall, while it may be too much of a slow burn for some audiences, “It Comes at Night” is a welcome chance of pace this month. Where films like “The Mummy” are more focused on setting up a shared universe than delivering good story and chills, “It Comes at Night” reminds us of thrillers and horror premises done right.

Rating: 7.8/10

article by Connor Behrens for ArtsEarth

Director James Gunn’s latest film, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” is a 2017 American superhero film that serves as a sequel to 2014’s “Guardians of the Galaxy.”

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” continues the story of Peter Quill and his team as they fight to keep their new family together as the group attempts to discover the secret of Peter Quill’s true background via his father in the outer stretches of the cosmic galaxy. As the team fights extraterrestrial forces and discovers Quill’s father, the team discovers they might have to save the galaxy… again.

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2” is an odd film… and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Visually dazzlingly, the cosmic blockbuster looks like a technicolor acid trip. But while the visuals are extraordinary (I would recommend seeing this in IMAX 3D), the film is uneven.

Yes, the first half of “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” just plays like a regurgitated rehash of its 2014 predecessor with its jokes/humor. (C’mon, poop jokes? Really?) Truthfully, the film does not step out of the first film’s shadow until the second half of the film. Only when the film branches out and Gunn digs into what it means to be family does he strive for true greatness.

The second half of the film is indeed greatness. This is due to a few elements. One of them is the iconic Kurt Russell, who does an excellent job at bringing noticeable intensity to scenes with Chris Pratt and Zoe Saldana. However, the second half is mostly great because of the emotional complexity that comes into play. This complexity works and elevates the blockbuster due to Gunn’s emotionally charged screenplay.

“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” starts off as just any other Marvel sequel, but it eventually transforms into a poignant story about family and father/son relationships.

This relationship examined is interesting to watch play out between Pratt and Russell. Not only do the two look like they could be related, but the two also have similar ways they carry themselves. Putting the two together in scenes creates an interesting dynamic that opens up the last half of the movie.

Props should also be given to the comic relief of the movie. Like the past film, Dave Bautista offers wonderful moments of humor. However, this time he gains a partner.

Mantis, played by Pom Klementieff, is a new member to the team. Her oblivious personality is a great match for Bautista’s character, and the two create a legitimately funny running gag about inner and outer beauty.

Overall, while “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” is not as magical as its predecessor, the film succeeds due to a heartbreaking commentary on what it means to be family. As uneven as the two halves of the film are, the film is satisfying. Perhaps the Marvel Cinematic Universe should stay in space? As formulaic as the Marvel juggernaut has become, the cosmic conflicts are much more captivating than the battles on Earth.

Rating: 7/10

article by Connor Behrens for ArtsEarth

Director F. Gary Gray’s latest film, “The Fate of the Furious”, is an American action film that serves as the eighth installment in “The Fast and the Furious” franchise.

“The Fate of the Furious” tells the story of Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) who becomes seduced by a mysterious cyberterrorist (Charlize Theron). Forced to betray his team of close friends, the group embarks on an international journey that will test them to their limits like never before.

“The Fast and the Furious” series has traveled on a bumpy road. The franchise truly did not reach peak potential until 2011’s “Fast Five,” where the franchise decided to embrace its campy premise and deliver audiences unbelievable car sequences and international locations. This continued with both “Furious 6” and “Furious 7.” And while the latest film in the series is enjoyable… there might not be much gas left in the tank.

“The Fate of the Furious” ups the ante in car stunts, set locations and explosive blasts. And while seeing Dwayne Johnson maneuver a torpedo is stupidly captivating, the film feels standard at times. The franchise has lost sight of what it once was. Gone are the days where the films were solely focused on family and racing cars in the streets of Los Angeles.

Make no mistake: the eighth film delivers campy goodness, and the film doesn’t try to be something it’s not (the series jumped the shark and is now riding that shark). But what’s the purpose at this point? There are explosions, car chases, machine guns, torpedoes, etc. The franchise has just become James Bond with cars.

And yet, the film is still a blast of fun and it succeeds due to the star-studded cast. This is mostly due to the rapport that the cast shares with one another. Tyrese Gibson, Michelle Rodriguez, Ludacris – the entire cast bounces off each other and it creates a special dynamic that no other franchise currently has. By the way, Theron’s character is such a ruthless hacker. Her cold and calculating scenes with Diesel are magnetic. The cast saves the film from being just another blockbuster juggernaut.

Yes, the series has become all about set pieces and ridiculously impossible stunts. However, the film does try to somewhat hang onto its emotional core of family and togetherness. The connection that Diesel shares with Rodriguez is still convincing; the lovable banter that Jason Statham and Johnson partake in is hilarious.

That’s why audiences return to this series with each installment. The spectacle is understandably engaging, but the true selling power is within the film’s commentary on family. Audiences can’t relate to the impractical action pieces, but they can relate to the characters themselves.

Overall, “The Fate of the Furious” gives fans of the series what they want: explosions, fast cars, and most importantly, The Rock pushing torpedoes into nearby vehicles. But while the film is a high-octane ride, this franchise is almost out of gas.

Rating: 6.8/10

article by Connor Behrens for ArtsEarth

Director Dean Israelite’s latest film, “Power Rangers,” is a 2017 American superhero film based on the television series that started in 1993.

“Power Rangers” tells the story of a group of teenage outsiders who find an ancient alien vessel, where the team obtain superhuman abilities and are labeled the Power Rangers. Discovering that a longstanding opponent of the preceding group of Power Rangers has come back to exact revenge on the world, the teenaged group must receive guidance from Zordon and connect their powers to fight to save the planet from destruction.

The biggest weakness of “Power Rangers” is its failure to embrace a solid and singular tone until the final act. There are moments in the film that are executed in a serious tone (the campfire scene is legitimately compelling). Yet… there are also moments of pure cheese. This constant switch between serious and campy never fully works because the film feels unbalanced in what it wants to accomplish.

The serious side of the film is surprisingly touching. Director Israelite shoots some truly emotional scenes with the new team of Rangers. The movie’s first three quarters play like a homage to “The Breakfast Club,” but with superpowers added. The film focuses on the angst and struggles that these teenagers have gone through – and it works for the most part. The standout from this team is RJ Cyler as the Blue Ranger. His character brings some much needed heart and pathos to the film.

However, the real star of the film is Elizabeth Banks as Rita Repulsa. Banks completely goes for it in her deliciously campy portrayal. The actress chews up the scenery in every sequence she’s in. Banks ends up making the film feel more like a classic episode of “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” by the final act. Her delivery, her posture, her dramatics – it all comes together in a cheesefest that’s strangely mesmerizing.

But aside from Banks’ Repulsa, the campy side of the film is a mixed bag. “Power Rangers” is a film with an identity crisis. Make no mistake, the film is secure in what it wants to be by the bombastic final act. But the journey to get there will be a bit rough for certain fans.

The movie makes you wait for classic moments that call back to the original TV series. For some, that will be frustrating. However, I relatively enjoyed what the filmmakers gave us in its place. The film’s initial focus is more on the team and less on the costumes and giant robots. The film takes bold choices in character design and plot implementation. And for that, it’s commendable. It’s just a shame that the film switches back and forth from a serious focus on the Rangers team to campy alien effects.

Overall, some classic fans of the original series might feel underwhelmed. But “Power Rangers” should work for general audiences. Tone issues aside, the film is successful at modernizing its source material for a new generation. Hollywood may have found a new franchise.

Rating: 6.3/10

article by Connor Behrens for ArtsEarth

Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts’ latest film, “Kong: Skull Island,” is an American monster thriller film that features Tom Hiddleston and Samuel Jackson.

“Kong: Skull Island” tells the story of a varied group of experts, fighters and explorers who unite together to discover and investigate a legendary, unexplored island in the Pacific, as treacherous as it is gorgeous. Becoming stranded and cut off from civilization, the team embarks into the territory of the colossal Kong, awakening a critical war between nature and man. As the team’s task of unearthing becomes one of endurance and survival, they must battle to flee a primordial paradise where humankind does not belong.

“Kong: Skull Island” flourishes due to the fact that it never tries to outdo its predecessors. The film strives to be more of a matinee creature feature. Vogt-Roberts never attempts to construct a film as sophisticated or ambitious as Peter Jackson’s 2005 film. He simply aims to create a creature feature that takes audiences on a roller coaster – and he mostly achieves this result.

If 2014’s “Godzilla” was restraint, then “Kong: Skull Island” is overindulgence. Vogt-Roberts dedicates the film to high-octane thrills and monster action that’s outrageously campy. The goal of the film is to transport the audience to 1973, where a world of prehistoric monsters exist outside the Vietnam War. Deciding to set the film in 1973 is ironic; these soldiers have seen the absolute worst sights… until they land on an island full of gigantic beasts.

And while the film’s setting is refreshing for modern audiences and the thrills are not lacking, the human characters become less than satisfactory. There is nothing particularly wrong with the cast. John Goodman brings a certain flair; Hiddleston and Jackson both sell dramatic scenes well with their magnetic presence and gravitas. Even Brie Larson gives wonderful reaction shots as she marvels at all the grotesque sights around her.

But while the actors all give respective flavors, the characters they play are one-note. None of the characters are layered enough for the audience to care when the body count starts climbing. The only character that is given a story that humanizes them is John C. Reilly.

Reilly’s character is a winning parody of Marlon Brando’s Colonel Kurtz from “Apocalypse Now.” Reilly plays a man who has been stranded on the island for decades and is mentally unstable. This instability creates genuinely hilarious moments that alleviate the film’s tension and gives the audience a chance to relax. In many ways, Reilly is just as important to this film as Kong is.

And Kong is beautiful – brown fur, towering in front of the setting sun. Visual effects in Hollywood have clearly improved since Jackson’s 2005 epic. Here, Kong carries a visible weight to him that’s palpable. And Kong is not the only creature given a chance to shine. Kong battles gigantic lizards and squids, while mantises and spiders lurk in the depths of the jungles.

Overall, “Kong: Skull Island” embraces its B-movie influences and wears it proudly. The characters may be paper-thin and the tone inconsistent at times, but the film is too much fun to resist. Legendary is on the right track with its MonsterVerse.

Rating: 7.5/10