#chreviewer

Comic Con is almost here, and even before Warner Brothers takes the stage Saturday to show off their superhero properties, some announcements and early looks have already been released.

First up is the Aquaman lineup showing up in toy form (pictured above). Mera is obviously back with a look previously seen in set photos. Black Manta is also shown, showing off a fairly comic accurate look. Very interested to see how the villain’s attire pops off the actual screen. King Orm is also here in a look also similar to comics. Off all the villain costumes in recent years, I would say his is the most in danger of coming off hokey on screen. And finally we have Aquaman as we have yet to see him; wearing the original comic attire. Now, I really like the classic look, and I love Jason Momoa. However, at least in toy form, the classic costume just looks very odd on Momoa. It’s almost too bright, especially for this film universe’s use of the character. It also looks like if Jesus Christ was a superhero. Hopefully the the look will pop better in live action.

Next up is release news for Joaquin Phoenix’s take on the Joker in his own film. Recently Phoenix official signed on for the role that will showcase how the infamous villain came to be. And today we have our first bit of release info. Obviously fast tracked, Warner Bros/DC has set the film, rumored to be simply titled Joker, to be released on October 4th of next year. Warner Bros and DC must think they have something considering how fast the project is coming together, refreshing for the production of DC films of late. The fast turnaround is also interesting, though the smaller budget and ‘character-driven’ narrative probably has something to do with that. While an origin story for the Joker is not high on my interest list, the amount of talent thus far is making me more interested in this Elseworld’s project.

Solo: A Star Wars Story is the latest Star Wars prequel and is directed by Ron Howard (mostly) and written by Star Wars alum Lawrence Kasdan and son Jonathan Kasdan. The film stars Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover, Paul Bettany, and Alden Ehrenreich as the titular hero. Solo: A Star Wars Story was plagued by production problems due to the release of original directors, Phil Lord and Chris Miller of The Lego Movie fame. The question to ask though - did Lucasfilm pull off another solid entry or were fans right to disregard this entry?

Solo: A Star Wars Story is unnecessary as a Star Wars entry. The film has been in development for years, even when George Lucas still held the rights. And is the film had been made years ago, it may feel both relevant and needed. However, following certain events of recent Star Wars films, Solo feels odd in its placement, while also existing to mostly answer questions most fans weren’t asking. The film fills in gaps mentioned and alluded to in previous entries, though its questionable why on needed the Solo film to answer these questions. The film also suffers from a slight discrepancy that most likely remains due to the director switch. Though the film achieves to mix the difference styles better than another recent production mishap, Justice League, its obvious some of Lord and Miller’s work doesn’t flow completely with Ron Howard’s work. 

With the negatives out of the way, there’s simply no denying that Solo is still a fun summer movie, nothing more or less. When removing the idea of necessity in its existence, the movie becomes a very well shot and acted heist adventure. Alden Ehrenreich, while never completely rising to the swashbuckling prowess of Harrison Ford, is quite suitable in the role of Han Solo, though is often overshadowed by an excellent supporting cast. Harrelson, Clarke, and Bettany provide solid work as usual, though its Donald Glover’s Lando and Phoebe Waller-Bridge as L3-37 that shine. Glover brings the swag and over the top sensibilities of Billy Dee Williams’ portrayal, though achieving to add his own flavor. And while Waller-Bridge’s L3 is going to be met with Jar Jar level controversy, the character is a lot of fun and feels like people I personal know, though her rebellious, feminist attitudes felt somewhat out of place in a Star Wars film.

The true heroes, however, are director Ron Howard and cinematographer Bradford Young (Selma, Arrival), who provide a beautifully shot and well constructed film that does truly feel like a Star Wars film. Bradford’s low light shots are done masterfully, separating Solo from other Star Wars films by appearance along, though its Howard that always makes sure Solo feels like a galaxy far far away. The film, though cliche in a number of instances, does hold some surprises (including a fantastic cameo), while also providing numerous nods to previous installments (the relationship between L3 and the Millennium Falcon was a very nice touch).

There’s no denying a Han Solo prequel was an odd one by Disney/Lucasfilm. And there are numerous times the film struggles to fully justify its existence. However, Howard and crew delivered a successful heist adventure that feels respectable to the Star Wars canon. I was never bored and enjoyed the performances of the entire cast, including leading man Ehrenreich, who deserves more work honestly. Though my expectation were low, and I will say Solo is the weakest of the newest Star Wars films, Solo exceeded expectations and delivered a very solid adventure.

God’s Not Dead?: Why Faith-Based Films Can’t Find Their Footing

This weekend sees the release of God’s Not Dead: A Light In Darkness, the third and final film in the God’s Not Dead franchise that started with the surprise success of the original film in 2014 that grossed $60 million domestically on a $2 million budget. Though faith-based films have been around since the early twentieth century, a new type of religious film-making seemed to emerge after God’s Not Dead, or at least gained in popularity: low-budget films that overly dramatized the religion. Just last year, nine faith-based films were released in wide or semi-wide release (and living in Arkansas, every one of them came to my surrounding theaters), though not all of them followed the same formula as God’s Not Dead. Nor were all of them as successful at the box office. And as we have seen this year, that outlook isn’t getting any better, as three of the four faith-based films continue the streak of under-performing domestically, including the third installment of the God’s Not Dead, tracking only for a $3 million opening weekend. So are these films performing poorly to their demographic? As a religious individual who loves films, I’m here to explain what these films can do to become relevant again:

Don’t Become Too Preachy: 

Saying a faith-based film shouldn’t include dialogue and messages relating to the religion they’re portraying may sound ridiculous, but preaching to a choir already in agreement will do nothing but alienate them. Having characters speak a sermon every time they’re on screen does little in the way of make sense or interest the existing fan base and those the film is arguably not made for. Personally I know some who ONLY go to these sorts of films, yet more recently have been warded off knowing they’re going to see the same bible verses spoken in scenarios that make little sense, with characters that become caricatures of the Christian faith. Some period films, such as Son of God (2014), get leeway because this is how they talked, however, even these films make point of only highlighting the religious side of the argument. 

Unrealistic Characters, Scenarios, and Stories: 

Piggy-backing on sermons in every piece of dialogue, many of these religious films honestly fail in providing both realistic stories presented in a realistic way. The entirety of the second God’s Not Dead film revolves around a story concerning attack against Christianity. In Arkansas. And being from a town in Arkansas that once held the record for most churches per square mile, I can tell you such an event would NEVER happen. The belief that any sort of persecution against Christians occurs in 21st century United States is laughable and conspiratorial. Professors aren’t going to fail you for believing God exists (God’s Not Dead), nor is the church going to turn on you for admitting amazing occurrences related to God (Miracles From Heaven). And again, no characters are as ‘devote’ as these films portray them as in present day. And by the way, teachers know they can’t talk about their personal religion in school, but officials aren’t going after them in the same way as in God’s Not Dead 2. 

Many Films in This Genre is Just Bad: 

The God’s Not Dead films are terrible. Many of the cheap period films are just boring. These low-budget faith-based films are mostly just not great, which no matter how devote you are is going to turn you off after a while. Many of the films set in present day are pretty bad for the reasons previously mentioned, while the period films just do not commit to their source material. Turning the story of Samson into a PG-13 film was never going to be embraced. Many of the stories fail to consider these period films need the ugliness from the actual stories, including the sex, violence, and the actual sinful actions. These films are made for cheap and they feel cheap because usually the people in front and behind the camera have no vision beyond exaggerating the ‘faith’ part of the faith-based films. 

How Can Faith-Based Films Be Saved: 

Though I seem to really be down on this genre, this genre is technically in trouble. Since 2014, there have usually been one or two faith-based films that can get actual good reviews and/or have a good box office run (which usually means getting over about $10 million domestically). And those films are the ones we should be leaning into more. My two favorite examples are The Star from last year and the recent I Can Only Imagine. Last year’s The Star was an animated film that focused on the animals around the birth of Jesus. While the film was only OK, it did remind me of the Veggie Tales films that are so popular for younger children, and honestly its much better than most generic religious films released in the past few years. The other example is I Can Only Imagine, which is blowing up the box office with $48 million domestically so far on a $7 million budget. The film revolves around arguably the most popular Christian rock song and has clearly struck a cord with both devote audiences and those just fans of the song. It also helps that even critics like it well enough. The point is, making movies that only revolve around boring period dramas and unrealistic present pieces are not the ones making the money right now. 

More so, just making a good film should always be on the forefront of people’s minds, and to do that you need good directors and good actors in these films. I like Miracles From Heaven well enough only because Jennifer Garner is great in it.  All Saints, which did not do great numbers last year, was good because John Corbett was the lead. The Everly Brothers who directed I Can Only Imagine also made the religious-sports drama film Woodlawn, which was also pretty good. The idea that making these films for little money doesn’t work when you have actors in them that plainly are good, or uninspired directors behind the camera. 

Godless is a western Netflix miniseries created by Scott Frank and revolves around La Belle, a town made up of mostly women, and the outlaw it harbors, Roy Goode. The cast includes Jack O’Connell, Michele Dockery, Scott McNairy, Merritt Wever, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Jeff Daniels, and numerous other very talented individuals. 

Godless comes within a long line of recent revisionist Western films and television shows recently, though its focus on a town of mostly strong minded women certainly makes it unique among the fold. Thankfully though, Netflix has crafted one of the better attempts at the genre, making this sleek seven episode miniseries a joy to watch. Godless is very well directed and written, with Scott Frank creating a story that works in the present and with the use of flashbacks throughout the show. Though the narrative begins to wain towards the middle and includes a sixth episode that does little besides bridging the gap between the previous and final episodes, the story is smart, brutal, and invokes all the emotions possible. 

Jack O’Connell as anti-hero Roy Goode is phenomenal, straining the line between charming outlaw and a pain filled man. O’Connell does a great job taking a fairly well used caricature and using it to make something new. Michelle Dockery is easily as good, though I wish the series would have focused on her character more. The best performances come from Thomas Brodie-Sangster, known for his role in the Maze Runner films, and Merritt Wever, playing the town deputy and widow of the former mayor respectively. Sangster brings something to this worn out character, and always appears to have more wisdom behind his youthful eyes than anticipated. But Merritt Wever is everything I wanted from this show. She’s brash, to the point, and is not afraid to say her mind. Originally introduced as an emotionless father figure to the town, her character is giving the most life throughout the series in surprising ways. And of course, Jeff Daniels as the menacing outlaw Frank Griffin gives everything one could expect from his villainous role. 

Now, the biggest problem I could see one finding in the series is the fact the story focuses on a town of mostly women doing the work of men. Some are going to argue this is suppose to feed into some agenda Hollywood has in its attempts to be inclusive. Godless goes beyond that simple agenda though, creating a scenario that makes sense and crafts characters that would probably act in the ways they do. Parts of the show can be heavy-handed with its messages, but the show works from a brilliant concept that in others hands may have fallen by the wayside. 

Godless is fantastic. It’s sleek, very well acted, written, and directed, and achieves everything the revisionist Western has set out to do over the last few decades. The story does start to drag towards the end, but this remains one of Netflix’s best shows and well worth the subscription. 

DEVILMAN crybaby is a Netflix original anime series directed by Masaaki Yuasa and stars the voice talents of Koki Uchiyama, Ayumu Murase, Megumi Han, and many others. The series revolves around Akira Fudo, a shy teenager who is processed by a devil, who uses his powers to fight the epidemic spread of devils around the world. The series is reportedly more mature from its original incarceration, making this anime hard R.Now I’m going to admit, anime isn’t my thing, but the entire look of this series, from the poster to the trailer to the story interested me enough to press play. So I’m looking at this from the view of a television lover and not a hardcore anime fan.

DEVILMAN crybaby is maybe the craziest show I’ve ever watched. The show is dark, grotesque, sexual, beautiful, haunting, and honestly wrong in all the mostly right ways. Its hard to explain this show because it really just exists. For someone not immediately prepared, it could be quite shocking and seen as disturbing. From the first episode there’s a level of violence and sexual imagery that I’ve never seen on the big, or small, screen. DEVILMAN is a visceral experience, both in ways that entertained and ones that made me uncomfortable. The action is great and the look of both transformed Akira and Devilman is fantastic. There’s something beyond interesting to be about The Iron Giant, a character that Devilman embodies, though a little more bloody in nature. Friendly giant that exists for the good of the people, but is still destructive in nature. The show also has a decent amount of drama, which is the standout specifically episode nine, which had both a great message and wonderful story telling. 

Where DEVILMAN has problems is in its storytelling. The show, at ten episode, about twenty minutes each, doesn’t work completely. Some plot points are disregarded or never explained, and other elements don’t make sense. DEVILMAN feels rushed, especially in the middle, but mostly picks back up towards the end. Things appear to jump from zero to sixty episode to episode, which doesn’t work personally considering how short the show is. Also, the show’s ambitions sometimes stretch the production budget, as some of the character designs and story elements feel flat on screen. The insanity of the show does off set quite a lot of these production problems though. 

DEVILMAN crybaby is truly unlike anything I’ve ever committed myself to, going from muted confusion to over the top violence, losing the story but maintaining a sense of intrigue. Elements of this show are beautiful and the pretty great action keep this show on the ground, even when things stretch too far. As a non anime fan, I feel anime fans should check this out. I think even a few non fans like me could have a deal of enjoyment in this.

Brigsby Bear is a comedy-drama directed by Dave McCary and stars Kyle Mooney as James Pope, a grown man abducted as a child, raised in a bunker, who now has to deal with real life. Along the way he decides to make a movie centered around Brigsby Bear, a character from James’ childhood. The film also stars Mark Hamill, Greg Kinnear, Matt Walsh, Ryan Simpkins, and more. 

Brigsby Bear is unlike any film I have ever seen. As an original story, the film works both as a bonkers comedy based on an unlikely scenario, but also as a meaningful drama looking into how we treat one another beyond our differences. The film is told from the view of an individual who has been held captive for all his life, kept from society who must learn the meanings of life. Kyle Mooney is beautifully weird but earnest in his portrayal, always optimistic and yearning for a fruitful existence. His obsession with Brigsby Bear, a character known truly to him alone, drives the narrative, allowing us to examine the wonder he experiences. Its difficult to tell what this film did for me, because its truly an experience for the individual. The same goes for any negatives. The film is well shot and acted, and the only way for me personally to gauge the film is too look at how it affected me. I don’t feel a though it went as far as it could have with the narrative, but for what it did it worked very well. Mark Hamill also makes an appearance and is all the better for it. He’s not in it for long, but he shines on screen. 

This review is short but the only way to review this film is in a personal sense. I do not want to sway other’s thoughts on the film, so I will not to indulge too many of my personal thoughts. What I can say is Brigsby Bear is a wonderfully made journey that deserves to be seen. Its a wonderful little indie film that should charm audiences if they allow themselves to given into the absurdity.