entertainment

Review: ‘Swiss Army Man’ Will Disturb and Delight You

swiss army man review

What makes a man useful? What makes a corpse worth anything? These are the underlying questions behind the “make what you will of it” indie film, Swiss Army Man, directed and written by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (or “Daniels,” for short). 

The other “Daniels” of this film, Daniel Radcliffe and Paul Dano (close enough), serve as the leads of Swiss Army Man, which centers around a suicidal man trapped in the wilderness (Hank, played by Dano) who discovers a corpse with magical powers (“Mannie”, played by Radcliffe) to help him get home and maybe even understand himself a bit better.

The film kicks off with just a taste of its weirdness in the first five minutes, so you can’t fault the movie for any kind of escalating silliness that will undoubtedly offend most of you at some point. The journey of these two characters is two-fold: to survive, Hank must unlock the corpse’s mysterious “swiss army knife” tools, of which I won’t spoil because that would rob some of the fun. But to get ahold of these powers, he must teach the corpse the world he has forgotten, which involves everything from basic language to talking to a cute girl on a bus (yes, this film gets quite strange).

swiss army man review

Then the journey becomes three-fold, in that the character of Hank is given a referendum by what must surely be a fantasy in his own head…right?

The dueling logic within Swiss Army Man is probably its least interesting feature, but the second and third act does well to let viewers lose themselves in the uncertainty. With every fart and genital joke that will spur a walkout from someone in the audience, the movie veers back on course with some of the most beautiful storytelling and set pieces you’ll see in 2016. It comes off as an experiment in how far the film can go in making itself as disturbing as possible, only for it to rejuvenate itself with a stunning set piece boosted by Manchester Orchestra’s brilliant soundtrack (aided by Dano and Radcliffe’s own voices).

Many different people will glean many different things from Swiss Army Man, including simplistic commentary on loneliness, repressive behavior, and to be even more on the nose, fear. These are all very basic ideas, but they’re executed in an unforgettable, thrilling, and believable fashion, a feat exemplified by a career-high performance for Radcliffe and a business-as-usual Dano who seldom misfires as an actor.

But one of this film’s more unique messages addresses how the world reacts to the ideas of imagination and creativity in a way that conflicts with the creative person who wields it. It’s a great subversion of the genre in how this all plays out toward the end of the film, and it will likely spark some fascinating discussion around whether or not the final shot is the best one possible for this movie.

swiss army man review

Either way, Swiss Army Man is a must-see for film-lovers and a hit-or-miss experience for casual moviegoers. The easily offended will be offended easily, but those who stick around will be greatly rewarded.

Grade: A-

Extra Credits:

  • This was a very physically demanding movie for Radcliffe, who insisted on being in every single shot of the movie (with a dummy used for some sequences, of course). Sadly, I’m not hopeful for any Oscar attention coming Radcliffe’s way for this movie.
  • My favorite soundtrack of 2016, easily (listened to it while writing this entire review). Courtesy of Andy Hull of Manchester Orchestra and Robert McDowell.
  • Part of the movie was filmed in the Redwoods (so in my backyard). For those of you who’ve seen the film, you know why that is definitely a bit unsettling.
  • If you want more Radcliffe and Dano starring in a film together, check out What If from 2013. It’s not half bad.
  • Finally, someone points out that Shane Carruth just shows up in every movie, even the ones he doesn’t direct.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

The Big Friendly Conversation

big friendly giant

This week on the podcast, I’m joined by film critic, Will Ashton (who you can follow on Twitter here, and you should because reasons), to talk about The BFG, Swiss Army Man, The Purge: Election Year, and tons more topics and distractions worth conspiring.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Which Ilvermorny house were you sorted in? (or which do you wish you had been sorted in?)

Go on…The Big Friendly Conversation

Why I Walked Out of ‘The Legend of Tarzan’

the legend of tarzan

Not long after the halfway mark of The Legend of Tarzan, I did something I almost never do. Something I haven’t done in several years.

I walked out.

The strange thing is that I’ve sat through worse films. Last year’s Pan, for example, was a movie I opted to sit through until the bitter end, and this year’s Divergent Series: Allegiant (while tempting to bail on) had me following along until the moment the credits started rolling.

I’ve sat through The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, both Hitman movies, even Drillbit Taylor, and many more movies that deserve to be listed here. But Legend of Tarzan couldn’t get me to stay in my seat. It lost me around the time a grim and depressing Tarzan played by Alexander Skarsgard forced whoever it was Samuel L. Jackson was supposed to be against a wall with broody threats, despite the fact that this man had saved Tarzan’s life half a scene prior and was the only spark of life to exist in this story.

the legend of tarzan

To be fair, the movie lost me a lot earlier than that when it forced me to read through one of the most boring opening paragraphs set over black screen I’ve ever read, citing various political matters regarding a section of the Congo focusing on characters I know nothing or care nothing about — not because Belgian conflicts in the Congo aren’t interesting, but only because they’re not interesting when I’m in the theater to watch a Tarzan movie.

It’s strange because The Legend of Tarzan does very little to hold its viewers’ hands when it comes to the lore behind the story that this movie is essentially following up. It’s like watching the sequel to a movie that doesn’t really exist, perhaps because they decided enough people have either watched the old serials, read the old books, or even grew up on the Disney movie, even though that is a vastly different take on Edgar Rice Burrough’s original tale.

The movie gets started in a world where the classic Tarzan story already happened a long time ago, and he’s now a rich bloke in England married to Jane. One of the film’s first major red flags to me was how misappropriated the characters were to the plot they were acting. It was as if none of what was said or done mattered to them at all. Even Margot Robbie, who normally infuses quite a bit of energy into any movie she’s in, struggles to seem comfortable in this role and beside a brooding man who says little both verbally and nonverbally.

the legend of tarzan

There’s a glimmer of intrigue in the flashback scenes, which they use to eventually reveal more of Tarzan’s origin. But even these promising and gritty realizations of a boy growing up in a savage jungle are undercut by hideous CGI gorillas that look more dated than Rise of the Planet of the Apes, despite that movie being 5 years old.

Christoph Waltz plays the film’s bad guy, because for whatever reason, Hollywood can’t seem to get over that role they’ve pre-ordained for him because of one incredible performance from seven years ago. In the short time I stuck with the film, Waltz seemed incredibly restrained and unfocused on what was happening around him, very similar to last year’s Spectre.

The movie is bleak, colorless, and a victim to dreary pacing that even Batman v Superman would scoff at. It seems Warner Bros. is trying to capture a very specific aesthetic of dashing cinema that makes seeing these films on the big screen quite worth it. When they get it right, like with Mad Max: Fury Road, they accomplish this in spades.

But it seems these specific restrictions placed on decently talented filmmakers like David Yates manage to cripple most of the spectacle WB is trying to entice us with. The result is a movie like The Legend of Tarzan, which is just so boring and flavorless, I don’t hate it. I’m completely indifferent to it, which is a lot worse.

the legend of tarzan

I can have a lot of fun watching a bad movie. There’s a reason I bought Batman v Superman: Ultimate Edition, against all odds. I find failure just as fascinating to dissect and analyze. But is it interesting to delve through the recipe of a Pop Tart? Maybe for some, and you know who you are, but even a meal that tastes bad can be worth the adventure realizing that fact. The Legend of Tarzan is anything but a worthwhile adventure.

Review: ‘The BFG’ Is Big and Friendly, But Maybe Too Giant

Big friendly Giant review

Based on the Roald Dahl book of the same name, The BFG (Big Friendly Giant), probably shares more in common with Zemeckis’s animated rendition of A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey in 2009.

Both films center around revolutionary visuals (for the time) that emphasize a digitized performance by a great actor — Mark Rylance in BFG‘s case. But both films also stumble in the same ways. They’re both trying to force a small story into something bigger and broader for the big screen.

Taking place sometime in the 80s, The BFG starts off with a young orphan girl named Sophie (played by usually-precocious newcomer Ruby Barnhill) who sees a “giant” man sneaking around the foggy streets of London. To prevent her from blabbing his existence, the giant (Mark Rylance) snatches her from her bed and whisks her away to Giant Country, only for her to discover that this fearsome creature is actually the runt of his kind.

The rest of the film focuses on Sophie’s discovery of this side of the world, where dreams can be chased and massive cannibal giants skate across the hills with cars under their feet. At its best points, The BFG fully embraces the charismatic imagination Dahl envisioned with these characters, placing them in amusing set pieces that make us want to dig into their world even further.

Big friendly Giant review

What suffers in this take, though, is the lack of substance with Sophie and the BFG himself. The two form a bond through ambiguous means that seem to be lacking a key scene or two. And so much attention is placed in the spectacle of the film, you walk away having no idea what The BFG is even supposed to be about.

Even a children’s film needs to firmly establish the motivations and desires for every character. But the film is so adherent to Dahl’s ephemeral whimsy, it forgets that a big screen story absolutely needs characters who yearn for something, as well as conflict that is substantial enough to make us care about them by the end. In BFG, everyone is quite reactionary and wooden as soon as the plot comes into play. And that’s not even mentioning the rushed third act, kicked off by a slow and bizarre turn of the plot that feels like another movie, entirely.

Perhaps the saving grace for BFG, which keeps it from being an overall disappointment, is how full of life its world is, made possible by stunning visuals that blend naturally with practical effects. The uncanny valley takes some time to dissipate, but once it fades, you’ll forget that the BFG and Sophie aren’t actually that different in size.

This is also a humorous movie that pulls off some of the best physical comedy of the year, actually earning laughs in a way that would plague most kids’ films that rely on fart jokes and slapstick too often to make an impact. When a joke likes this happens in The BFG, it’s sparing and almost always gets the laugh.

Big friendly Giant review

This isn’t the best of the film adaptations on Dahl’s work (that honor still belongs to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory after all these years), but it’s just as good as James and the Giant Peach and only a notch below something like Matilda. It still has that air of a movie that kids will love because it’s as dark as they are, allowing them to feel as if they’re getting away with something while watching it. For families looking to escape each year into smaller films suitable for their kids, The BFG will probably persevere as a popular choice for years to come.

Grade: B

Extra Credits:

  • There’s a lot of interesting trivia behind this film, which I cover in more detail via next week’s podcast. Suffice to say, Dahl movies are always a fountain of nerdy film facts.
  • This is the first time Spielberg has ever directed a Disney film (his 30th film, ever). And honestly…it kind of shows.
  • This is also the first time since E.T. in 1982 that Spielberg has worked with screenwriter Melissa Mathison, who sadly passed away last year. The film is dedicated to her.
  • It’s a Spielberg film, so of course John Williams did the score.
  •  Disney has made only one other film based on Dahl’s work, and that is James and the Giant Peach from 1996. I have a feeling The BFG will have about the same notoriety.
  • In case you forgot, Mark Rylance was in Bridge of Spies just last year, which was also directed by Spielberg. He won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in that film.
  • Disney hardly ever co-produces a film, especially with Walden Media considering their fallout over the Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian fiasco. This is their first time back together since.
  • The BFG enjoys being part of a weird trilogy of Spielberg movies that have acronym titles. E.T. (Extra Terrestrial), A.I. (Artificial Intelligence), BFG (Big Friendly Giant).
  • If you want to catch up on Dahl’s book of the same name, don’t forget to also read the short story he wrote that inspired BFG, which is called “Danny, Champion of the World.”

    I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Review: ‘Independence Day: Resurgence’ Is Loud and Dumb, Just Like You Expected

review independence day resurgence

Despite what you may be led to believe from its title and the marketing for it, Independence Day: Resurgence is more “requel” than sequel, in the sense that while it does continue the storyline from the 1996 blockbuster, it’s still in the business of kicking off a new series of movies, rather than tying up any loose ends.

During parts of Resurgence, this works well and is paid off with some impressive world building that ties in logically with the events of the first film. Since the alien invaders of that movie were defeated 20 years ago, a more unified mankind has adapted their technology to prepare for their inevitable return.

Many players from the first film make a return for continuity’s sake, though Will Smith’s character was killed offscreen in between movies. If you aren’t caught up or haven’t seen Independence Day in a while, you might get a bit confused when some of these secondary characters show up without much explanation. But for the most part, Resurgence balances its focus with the next generation of heroes, most of them eerily being offsprings of the first film who all happen to know each other.

review independence day resurgence

Sadly, the new kids are probably the worst characters in Resurgence, and that’s amidst some trying competition.

Resurgence is the epitome of a film that tries so hard, yet fails so miserably at what it sets out to do in terms of plot, narrative, and even the basics of humor (rivaling some of the most painfully unfunny movies of 2016 so far). There’s some good spectacle to be had here, which is all most moviegoers are getting in the seats to see in the first place, but Resurgence makes a lot of the same mistakes as its predecessor during an era where they’re not quite as forgivable.

Independence Day was a silly, dumb disaster movie, but it resonated with audiences because its tone was of the moment. It spoke to the children of the Reagan era, who witnessed America bringing an end to the Cold War through their president’s own mouth.

Resurgence, by default, has to carry on this dated approach because it’s in an alternate timeline where “no armed conflict has taken place in 20 years,” as the audience is told early on. This sequel/requel would have been far more interesting if it displayed any sort of progression from the themes before it, especially throughout the entirety of the third act, which undoes almost everything worthwhile presented before it, finished with an ending that might as well have put dollar signs in each of the characters’ eyes to translate Fox’s plans for a franchise.

review independence day resurgence

And again, these problems are coupled with some incredibly weak storytelling, editing, and dialogue. Massive coincidences involving characters running into each other or happening to be connected occur on top of each other so much, it’s jarring when something unpredictable happens or the pacing feels right.

As expected, there’s a lot of death and devastation, but the camera moves so quickly to other characters, that none of the loss resonates, thanks in no small part to the seemingly dozens of key players all trying to contribute something valuable to this film. It worked somewhat in Independence Day because Smith and Goldblum had enough gravitas to lead attention to their stories above most of the rest, but Resurgence lacks that point of view that grounds the viewer and gets them invested. It tries, perhaps, with Liam Hemsworth, who essentially reprises Smith’s role for him, even though his son is right there.

That said, Independence Day: Resurgence isn’t as offensive or catastrophic as it could have been. At least a third of the movie has real potential in how it sets up a world that feels more evolved and interesting than it deserves to be. But by the end, you’re still waiting for someone to say, Welcome to Earf’, or I’m BACK.

Grade: C-

Extra Credits:

  • The writers of Honest Trailers are going to have a field day with this one.
  • I was excited to see Maika Monroe — who was in one of my favorite films of 2015, It Follows — playing one of the better characters. She deserves a better franchise than this.
  • Seriously, what was even going on with some of the “humor” in this film? I was in a packed screening with tons of people who seemed primed for some lighthearted jokes and quips. Yet there were maybe two or three soft chuckles over the course of two hours, even though someone made a joke every two minutes.
  • Some of the good things in this movie: the Warlord. The scientist bromance, I guess. The ship with the arms. Jeff Goldblum not sucking.
  • Some of the worst things in this movie: Characters and world governments behaving like the most insanely moronic minds ever put to film.

    I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

 

Find Yourself, Not Dory

finding dory podcast review

This week on the podcast, I’m joined by a full cast to review Finding Dory, the latest Pixar movie and sequel to 2003’s Finding Nemo. We also discuss the latest news coming out of E3, the new Moana trailer, and a lot more.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: For those of you who’ve already seen the movie, which of the new characters in Finding Dory did you like best?

Go on…Find Yourself, Not Dory

Now You See Me Conjuring Warcraft

now you see me conjuring warcraft

This week on Now Conspiring (that other movie podcast), we talk about our impressions after seeing The Conjuring 2, Now You See Me 2, and Warcraft…one.

We also dig deep into some heavy movie news, trying to make up for missing you guys last week. Consider it our version of an “apology.”

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Who is an actor you like right now that you used to hate?

Go on…Now You See Me Conjuring Warcraft