The Unofficial Ongoing Current Movies in Theaters thread

[Mike Pow]

YOU WERE NEVER REALLY HERE
3.5/5

Interesting film in that the story (based on a short novel by Jonathan Ames of Bored To Death fame) is pretty cliche: down-on-his-luck/sad sack/mentally debateable hit man hired for a job only to have said job go sideways forcing him to get hellbet for revenge (for some reason it reminded me a lot of several of Burt Reynolds’ late ‘80s flix).
A lot of critics have been tossing around comparisons to Taxi Driver, which I don't really get other than for the slow pacing and somewhat delirious/hallucinatory/frenetic nature of the film, but other than that I think the critics who keep comparing the two are off-the-mark.
I have to admit that I was alternately frustrated and enthralled by the film; the cliched story was annoying, but then something cool would happen out of the blue or something visually stunning would grace the screen and make you forget that it is more or less an artsy B-movie. Also, it never really struck the right balance between seriousness and satire; it kind of drifted along with this detached sense of deadpan sarcasm buried underneath a sense of overwhelming pretense (to this end, I read a great review that characterizes the film as “artsploitation” and I would agree).
I will say that Joaquin Phoenix is a powerhouse and the violence is artfully filmed. Some great cinematography, lots of uncomfortable close-ups, and some interesting sound-design (lots of background talking, whispers, etc). Great score from Jonny Greenwood (Radiohead), too.
I really dug the ending, though. It was both absurd and poignant
Again, I was kind of on the fence as the film unraveled, but then I ruminated on it for the entire 1.5 hour drive home from the theater, so it definitely resonates post-viewing.
I would say that it owes more to Leon: The Professional and Drive than anything else, honestly. And of course a spate of low-budget ‘80s flicks. Also reminded me a lot of the French neo-noir films of Melville.
In many ways it might be worth a second viewing, too.

Spot on.

Still getting my head around it.

[dookeyXXX]

Saw both Hotel Artemis and Upgrade in the last 5 days: mildly disappointed in HA, but was pleasantly surprised by Upgrade. If you have to choose between the two, definitely go Upgrade.

Completely concur!

HOTEL ARTEMIS
2.5 / 5

The trailers for this film made it look like it would be a slick underworld romp, teeming with an interesting cast--Jodie Foster, Jeff Goldblum, Dave Bautista, Sofia Boutella--it also seemed like it could be an entertaining riff on The Continental Hotel, that slick underworld refuge from the John Wick films. Sadly, the trailer is perhaps more exciting than the whole of the film itself.
The thing that hurts Hotel Artemis the most is that it never really catches fire; it’s like a long, slow fuse that instead of sizzling toward an eventual explosion, merely fizzles along, stitched together from bits and pieces of cliches from other (better) films: there’s the guilty mom, the over-zealous (and pathetic) son of the local kingpin, the foreign femme fatale, and the older brother constantly picking up the slack of his fuck-up younger sibling. Yeah, we’ve seen these characters before.
It doesn’t help that the opening bank heist is rather bland and the eventual action in the hotel itself is nothing special. Even the climactic battle seems cobbled together from fights we seen recently in Daredevil and Brawl In Cell Block 99.
Whoever decided that Jodie Foster should channel Sophia Petrillo, shuffling around the hotel like a disoriented retiree while uttering her dialogue with a subdued Massachusetts-by-way-of-WC Fields & Edward G. Robinson-accent, made the wrong call, that’s for sure. Foster’s clunky performance is perhaps the most distracting element of all.
Charlie Day, however, gives Ms Foster a run for her money, revealing himself to be a single gimmick equine, his one trick being mastery of annoyance. It’s as if somebody in casting told him “We’re looking for your dumb, likeable self from Always Sunny, but be an overbearing cocksure dick instead”; it’s pretty much the same character he played in Pacific Rim: Uprising, sans the scientific mumbo-jumbo. He also seems to be under the impression that gnawing at the scenery, failing to swallow the chunks he tears off, qualifies as camp (hint: it doesn’t).
Dave Bautista is wonderfully deadpan in his role, but ultimately it feels an awful lot like Drax, albeit minus the red skin.
Sadly, for all their collective resumes, the rest of the cast never seems to click with one another or really find a groove, either. The possible exception being Boutella, who makes an impressive (and badass) hit-woman.
The pacing, while consistent, just doesn’t add any Umph! to the proceedings and the sheer lack of chemistry between what would be an otherwise stellar cast doesn’t help either.
There’s a slight element of cyber-punk in the story, but it’s really a pointless addition as it doesn’t bring anything new or exciting in terms of the tension or action; it felt like it was just randomly tossed in for the hell of it.
Honestly, the stand-outs of the film are the cinematography and the score. The former is a burnt-out neon glow, courtesy of Chung Chung-hoon (Oldboy, Lady Vengeance) that adds a flair of doom and gloom to the mix. As for the latter, Cliff Martinez layers the images on screen with sounds that come off like a glitched and stygian Massive Attack. To this is added some Neil Young as sung by Buffy Sainte-Marie, Father John Misty, and The Mamas and the Papas, perhaps to create a sense of how misplaced the old, tired character Foster is playing is in contrast to the chaotic modern world that riots outside the hotel. Who knows.
In the end, Hotel Artemis is a visually captivating film that suffers from lackluster action, rote characters, and an overall absense of chemistry.
I’d call it a “Red Eye Rental” at best, that perhaps might be elevated from mediocre to okay if one were severely blazed. But even that’s no guarantee. Basically, I wouldn’t bother with seeing it on the BIG screen.


So, yeah, go see UPGRADE.

[PB]

Follow-up question: when was the last time you thought Jodie Foster significantly contributed to the quality of a film?? I'd have to go all the way back to Inside Man; she was the primary factor in my dislike of Elysium. Seems way past the point of retirement.

[dookeyXXX]

Follow-up question: when was the last time you thought Jodie Foster significantly contributed to the quality of a film?? I'd have to go all the way back to Inside Man; she was the primary factor in my dislike of Elysium. Seems way past the point of retirement.

Interesting question.
I honestly can't recall the last picture I saw her in (though I did see both of the ones you listed and was kind of non-plussed by each).
Contact, perhaps?
I think she was miscast in Hotel Artemis. Definitely her interpretation of the character was all wrong, imho (would be interested to see how the character was described in the original script). I kept thinking that Judi Dench or Helen Mirren might have been better choices...

[MTT]

Interesting question.
I honestly can't recall the last picture I saw her in (though I did see both of the ones you listed and was kind of non-plussed by each).
Contact, perhaps?
I think she was miscast in Hotel Artemis. Definitely her interpretation of the character was all wrong, imho (would be interested to see how the character was described in the original script). I kept thinking that Judi Dench or Helen Mirren might have been better choices...

The silence of the Lambs
Contact
Nell
Little man tate
The Brave one.

[Meadow Skipper]

Mountain. I may be the only one here to go see this in a theater, when I went the only other people were a couple that snuck in half way through after their other movie in the 'plex. Anyway, beautiful photography, right? Fabulous aerial and drone shots of mountains all over the world. Some very good action stuff - skiing, climbing mtbing, etc. Alex Honnold stuff always gets me going. The music score was occasionally overbearing - string/orchestral stuff - and the narrative was just okay, occasionally banal, though Willem Dafoe has a really great voice.

Get a little high and go check it out on a rainy or down day. RIYL the Banff Mountain Film Fest, this movie is shorter and cheaper but there probably won't be a lot bros and sistahs hooting' and hollering'. 3.5/5

[Mike Pow]

Follow-up question: when was the last time you thought Jodie Foster significantly contributed to the quality of a film?? I'd have to go all the way back to Inside Man; she was the primary factor in my dislike of Elysium. Seems way past the point of retirement.

May as well be the little she's done in the past decade

[dookeyXXX]

So, for some reason they decided to have a 9 am screening of Hereditary today in Reno. I went figuring that 1. who-the-f@#k is gonna be at the movies that early and 2. Those that are will be seeing The Incredibles 2.
I was right on both counts as I had an entire 200 seat theater all to my lonesome.
While I usually complain about people at the movies and hate having somebody sit behind me, I will say that while it was cool to have a theater to myself, there was also something missing in that seeing a horror movie with an audience can be a great experience, what with people screaming, jumping out of their seats, etc. I missed that. But to be fair, given the nature of the sound design of the film, I found myself looking over my shoulder a few times to make sure that something wasn't sneaking up on me...

HEREDITARY
3.5 / 5

In a recent article NYT critic AO Scott said “Mr. Aster didn’t invent the techniques he deploys to create his unsettling effects, but he also swerves away from the cliches of the genre.“ I’m not sure what film he watched, but the one I saw was teeming with genre cliches. In fact, it’s one of the reasons the film is equally frustrating and mesmerizing.
Writer/Director Ari Aster seems to have taken just about every major cliche from various supernatural and occult horror films and tossed them together into a delirious hodge-podge that teeters between feeling fresh and edgy and being just plain plagueristic, albeit in an ADHD kind of way.
The tropes that slip in and out of Hereditary not only serve to create an atmosphere of familiarity, but also succeed in keeping viewers seriously off balance. Bucketfuls of blood-red herrings are tossed about with casual brutality, buffered by a steady trail of breadcrumbs that show us the way back from the ultimately predictable ending; but it’s not the climax of the film that’s worthy of mention, it’s the circuitious journey. The film wavers from themes about supernatural occurences, then it flits with being a ghost story, takes a detour towards a descent into grief-stricken madness, then plays with witches, possession, and satanic cults. It’s all of this and none of it simultaneously.
Where the film succeeds is in its fevered nightmare delivery, never letting us know if what we are seeing is real or merely some somnambulistic afterthought of the protagonists. This unreality is set forth in the first few frames and carries on until the final fade-to-black. There are even times when the whole proceeding feels like what a Wes Anderson horror film might look like, if you can wrap your head around that concept.
The vibe of the film is greatly aided by the creepy turn from young Milly Shapiro, who spends her onscreen time manifesting the character of Charlie by stuffing her face with chocolate, building weird toy dolls, and playing with dead things.
Oh, and the pacing. The film spends long, deceptively tedious moments on nothing, only to have those moments interrupted by scream-out-loud WTF bursts of violent intensity. Ditto for the score: it’s loud when it shouldn’t be, quiet when it shouldn’t be, and completely absent when it needs to be. The whole of the film seems to be focused on bait-and-switch and misdirection, which in less able hands would have come off as a trite gimmick or even a cop-out, but Aster manipulates us like a veteran. So, despite solid acting, a dizzying surrealness, and some genuine horror, the real success of this film is that the viewer never really knows where it is going, at least not until the final moments of the 3rd act.
Like a number of other recent “artsploitation” efforts (You Were Never Really Here, Revenge, Killing of a Sacred Deer), Hereditary takes Old School genre elements and gussies them up in slick cinematography, populates them with accomplished name actors (here Toni Collette and Gabriel Bryne), and employs a hip indie rock musician to compose an immersive and chilling score (Colin Stetson, who has been a member/collaborator of Arcade Fire, Bon Iver, and others).
Granted, the last 30 minutes of the film slip into somewhat generic Blumhouse-styled territory, with the ending being rather trite and of the “seen-it-before” nature, but it’s artfully delivered and ends with a visual link that brings us full circle back to the opening frames of the film that unfolded some 2 hours earlier. In the end this is a slow-burn thriller that confounds, perterbs, but also freaks you out and should linger long after the credits have ceased to roll. So, yes, this film will probably frustrate genre junkies, but at the same time it’s easily worth a second viewing and most likely to create lively post-screening conversation.

RIYL
Rosemary’s Baby, Killing of a Sacred Deer, Lords of Salem, Oculus, Mother!

[Bobby Stainless]

Incredibles 2 was a good time. The baby is funneh.

[ghosthop]

There are even times when the whole proceeding feels like what a Wes Anderson horror film might look like, if you can wrap your head around that concept.

I had that thought more than once in the theater. Everything from the dual Volvos to the family Blundstones was total mountain town chic.

I left frustrated with the ending but have realized that the movie warrants a second viewing.

It's also worth noting that by my count there are only 3 on screen deaths and my date and I laughed at every single one. The soundtrack and surround sound were some of the most important elements of the film for me and make it worth seeing in the theater.

[dookeyXXX]

I had that thought more than once in the theater. Everything from the dual Volvos to the family Blundstones was total mountain town chic.

I left frustrated with the ending but have realized that the movie warrants a second viewing.

It's also worth noting that by my count there are only 3 on screen deaths and my date and I laughed at every single one. The soundtrack and surround sound were some of the most important elements of the film for me and make it worth seeing in the theater.

1. We aren't the only ones to see the Wes Anderson "touches", AO Scott in the NYT mentioned it in his review.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/m...-collette.html

2. I, too, was frustrated by the ending, but dug how it visually referenced the opening shot of the film.

Scott also wrote a piece about the divisive ending (SPOILERS, so don't read this piece if you have yet to see the film):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/m...ry-ending.html

3. I agree that it is worth a second viewing.

4. The music and the sound design were nuts (this seems to be a hallmark of "artsploitation" films: Beyond The Black Rainbow, You Were Never Really Here, Only God Forgives, Swiss Army Man, Killing Of A Sacred Deer, Thoroughbreds, and Revenge all have great scores and sound design)

[Danno]

haven't seen a movie in the theater in ages, but we may have a free evening without the kiddo tonight. What are the really good movies out right now?

Our local theater has Jurassic World, Incredibles 2, Ocean's 8, Won't You be my neighbor, Tag, Deadpool 2 (never saw 1), Solo, Hereditary, Avengers, Superfly, Hearts Beat Loud, RBG.

We could probably find another movie at a slightly further theater, too, if there's a better movie to see.

[PB]

So you're asking for a blind movie reco with no preference background?!? If it were skis instead of movies you'd be jonged right out of here!!

You did however mention "we", presuming this references wife, so: Incredibles 2/Oceans 8/Hearts Beat Loud. Haven't seen any of 'em personally yet, but these fit into the "when Momma's happy, we're all Happy" category. Otherwise, the only one in your list I'm not interested in seeing eventually is Superfly.

[dookeyXXX]

AMERICAN ANIMALS
4.5 / 5

Who knew Lexington, Kentucky could be such a wellspring of intrigue and mayhem?
Call this the millenial version of Going In Style (the original 1979 film starring George Burns, Art Carney and Lee Strasberg, not the remake).
This is an existential heist film, actually a thrillumentary, if you will, that has some pointed social commentary bubbling in an undercurrent of largely objective subtextual nuance. Sure, the narrators may be a bit unreliable at times, but that’s half the attraction to this slickly made, well-paced, and solidly acted little gem.
Evan Peters (best known from American Horror Story and for being Quicksilver in the X-Men films) and Barry Keoghan (best known for his uber creepy turn in The Killing of a Sacred Deer) lead the cast with a brillant mixture of cocksure intensity and introspective stoner artiste personality that is infectious and introspective simultaneously. Their added partners-in-crime, Blake Jenner (best known for his portrayal of Jake in Everybody Wants Some) and Jared Abrahamson (he’s been acting for a number of years, but I am wholly unfamilar with any of his work) round out the core cast, bringing jockular muscle and smoky-voiced seriousness to the proceedings.
Whether or not the film ultimately has a message is entirely up to you and your interpretation (personally, I found it has a lot to offer in terms of post-viewing rumination). Regardless of your stance on that front, there is no denying that it’s an exciting, creative, and wholly entertaining exploit.

RIYL
I, Tonya; Bottle Rocket;

[Bobby Stainless]

Sicario 2. Day of the Soldado.

Pretty fucking brutal.

[PB]

Let's just say ..... appropriately ...... fucking brutal. Not entirely clear on the ending though - I'll refrain from being a spoiler, however.

[Caucasian Asian]

Good or bad?
We enjoyed the first one, and are planning on going to see the second.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[PB]

Worth seeing, definitely, but has a very different feel.

[Danno]

saw Tag the other night. Fluff, but pretty funny.

[PB]

The Endless: moves smartly through mystifying questions, with will and focus - Westworld writers take heed.

Note: apparently no longer showing on the big screen, but is available on Amazon Prime for $.

[dookeyXXX]

The Endless: moves smartly through mystifying questions, with will and focus - Westworld writers take heed.

Note: apparently no longer showing on the big screen, but is available on Amazon Prime for $.

I missed it on its limited theatrical run. Just got it on Netflix DVD. I have high hopes as I really enjoyed the wrtiter/directors' previous outong, SPRING.

[dookeyXXX]

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM
2/5

You can skip this tepid and vapid cliche ridden "summer blockbuster" which essentially cobbles together just about every action scene, plot scenario, and moment of note from each of the previous films in the franchise.

To paraphrase Roger Ebert (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/repo-man-1984) , it is basically "cynically constructed out of formula ideas and "commercial" ingredients", plus it lacks any character development, and originality.

I actually feel lesser for having given up my $$ and am disheartened that the same (lame) creative team will be making another sequel.

[mcski]

I'd give it at least a 3/5 just for the shrieks and jumps it got out of my tween. formulaic or not it delivered those in spades and she liked it better than the first Pratt fest.

She's still a bit young for repo man, and you can find "food" in all the millennial markets these days

[Elkhound Odin]

Antman & wasp was fun, enjoyable escape. Probably best comedy this year. Links directly to Avengers at the end


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[dookeyXXX]

WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?
4/5

I laughed.
I cried.
I came out of the theater feeling like I am not that great of a person; that I can be a better human being. But I also came out feeling happy and that life ain't all that bad if you roll with it and keep a positive outlook.

If you grew up in the 1970s and were weened on PBS like I was, then I highly recommend this documentary. Now I've always looked at documentaries as films that "should" be objective, but let's face it, most documentaries these days are pretty subjective. So, be warned: this film is very pro-Fred Rogers, it’s essentially a love story about the show and the man. In many ways it portrays him as being damn-near saintly. Nary a bad thing is spoken about him. It does show him as having been insecure and perhaps not terribly comfortable in his skin, which is cool, but overall it paints him in a very positive light. So the film may feel a bit one-sided to some folks. Honestly, I was so emotionally wrapped up in what was unfolding onscreen that I didn’t really think about this aspect of the film until later.

What really resonated with me was how topical, socially conscious, and downright political Mister Roger’s Neighborhood really was back in its heyday (and even later in the oughts). This was something that was totally lost on elementary school aged Me, that’s for sure. Rogers and company addressed some heavy spiritual, philosophical, and political issues, but in a mellow, unassuming way.

Now while I was emotionally charged throughout the film, there were a few elements that puzzled/bothered me. Let's call them "minor quibbles about the film". They would be the following:
1. Lady Aberlin (aka Betty Aberlin), although represented in quite a bit of archival footage, is conspicuously absent from the film.

2. It is mentioned that Mr. Rogers came from money and that he was a chubby (fat) kid who was bullied as a youth. Yet there is no commentary on this from Fred Rogers himself. It’s basically mentioned and then forgotten. On a similar note(s), it's not really delved into that much in regards to what led him to pursue the Seminary, nor is anything really said about his family (parents, brothers/sisters, etc).

3. There’s a segment where Rogers meets with a young kid who had a tumor that left him wheelchair bound. They interview the kid’s parents (today), but there is no mention of whether the kid is still alive. There is a quick clip during the credits that shows the kid (now grown up) meeting Rogers at an awards show, but that clip is at least a decade old.

4. One of my favorite characters on the show was Chef Brockett, and while he passed away in 1995, there is no mention of him in the film.

5. They stopped the names of the various people who were interviewed for the film, so I ultimately forgot who many of them were.and what their relationship to Roger's was. They were a mix of actors, producers, journalists, historians, and family. I wish they had kept putting their names up on the screen throughout the film.

Again, these are just minor quibbles that popped into my head after I'd seen the film. I get that it’s hard to make a documentary and hit all the points, but those were the ones that stuck out with me.

What the film does do well is provide a pretty solid cross-section of interviewees ranging from cast members to guests, crew, and journalists. It also features quite a bit of behind-the-scenes archival footage, which is super cool.

In the end, the film resonated with me on a pretty deep emotional level and showcased how much Fred Rogers was a man either ahead of his time or completely out of time (though there is a segment where he testifies before Congress that shows he was right on time!). If anything, it made me realize that it is totally hip to be square.

Oh yeah, and you get to see Mister Rogers moonwalking!!!