‘Split’ Review: Does M. Night Shyamalan Still Have What It Takes?

By

-

‘Split’ Delivers On Many Levels But The Shining Star Is James McAvoy

I sat in a stunned as the credits began to roll for ‘Split‘. The latest film from writer/director M. Night Shyamalan throws so much at you, hoping you can keep up.

Keeping up was fairly easy, even when James McAvoy was slipping between different personalities; it’s far more focused than many of Shyamalan’s other films. The narrative wasn’t straight-forward and it juggled a few plots but it never seemed overwhelmed by all the happenings.

The Good:

I can’t start off the praise without first bringing up the brilliant performance of James McAvoy as Kevin, the man with 23 different personalities living inside him. His acting in this film shows such craftsmanship and will go down as one of his greatest, most dedicated performances. Everything McAvoy does seems calculated and purposeful, especially when becoming some of Kevin’s most complex personalities.

My favorite personality of Kevin has to be Hedwig, the 9-year-old boy. Something about how James McAvoy brings Hedwig to life is both hilarious and deeply terrifying. He’s honest with this portrayal of this child that you can’t help but fall in love. On the other hand, the Patricia personality is wonderfully scary and off-putting. Seeing these two back-to-back shows the range of James McAvoy’s talents in this movie.

From the start though, the cinematography from Mike Gioulakis (‘It Follows‘) is pitch perfect. So many scenes stand out for their ability to instantly create a feeling. Certain shots are purposefully jarring as a means to disorient, and moments in which the framing alone tells a complete story. Like the performance from McAvoy, Mike Gioulakis doesn’t spend time on any wasted moments.

A lot of talk is being made about how the film handles Dissociative Identity Disorder. Some are saying it demonizes mental illness but, without giving too much away, the film does exactly the opposite. In between the madness lies a wonderful message of “being broken” making you special or even super-human. It’s what connects the main character Kevin with the female hostages, and his doctor. This isn’t touched on enough but some focus is put on the stigma surrounding this issue and how it affects the people involved.

The Bad:

Honestly, there just wasn’t enough tension. The situations in ‘Split‘ were innately tense but it never went that extra mile. Just when things would get to an unnerving level, it would either cut away to another scene or lead to nowhere. The subtly was there but when things needed to be more tense, the subtleness remained.

The focus of the story shifts too frequently. Either the scenes with Betty Buckley as Dr. Karen Fletcher needed more fleshing out, or they needed to be woven into the story more. Buckley played against McAvoy well and her character delivered some much needed exposition, but she felt disconnected. Same goes for Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) and her back story. The scenes were entertaining but never really served a purpose.

Both of these problems could be fixed if M. Night edited his own work. Might as well when he puts so much work into writing and directing these meticulous pieces.

Final Thoughts:

With ‘Split‘, I found my first favorite film of 2017. Expectations before going into this were fairly high so seeing M. Night Shyamalan deliver such a fun piece was refreshing. Following this and ‘The Visit‘ from 2015, it looks like Shyamalan is again getting some much deserved praise for his unique visions. Hope he can keep this up.

Synopsis: After three girls are kidnapped by a man with 24 distinct personalities they must find some of the different personalities that can help them while running away and staying alive from the others.

Genre: Horror
Country: USA
Directed By: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: James McAvoy, Anya-Taylor Joy, Betty Buckley

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

REVIEW: ‘The Founder’ serves up celebration of persistence

By

Felix Albuerne

-

The Founder, believe it or not, won’t have you craving a Big Mac, fries, and a shake once the credits roll. In fact, you may find yourself thinking about swearing the stuff off.

Not because the film focuses on the food — this isn’t Super Size Me. In fact, it isn’t at all a celebration of McDonald’s or anything the franchise currently provides.

Rather, it’s a celebration of the virtue without which the current McDonald’s fast-food empire would not have been possible: persistence.

Michael Keaton’s portrayal of McDonald’s master franchiser Ray Kroc is the very embodiment of persistence. His eventual triumph, the film posits, stands as a testament to the importance of persistence, almost to the exclusion of all other virtues.

Nothing wrong with that, right? Well …

What’s it about?

In 1954, Ray Kroc (Keaton) was a struggling traveling salesman trying to sell milkshake mixers to Illinois-area drive-ins. Pounding pavement day after day for an uninspiring product was taking its toll, both on Kroc and his marriage. He needed a win, badly.

Then something truly unexpected occurs. He gets an unbelievable order from a restaurant all the way in San Bernadino, California, one so outrageous that he drives all the way out there to confirm it.

What he discovers there dazzles him. After experiencing time and again the slow and often-inept service of drive-ins, he finds a restaurant operation built on assembly line speed and efficiency.

The restaurant is McDonald’s, conceived, owned, and operated by the McDonald brothers, Mac (John Carroll Lynch) and Dick (Nick Offerman). As Kroc learns Mac and Dick’s story, he sees enormous potential, so much so that he can’t get it out of his mind.

Mac and Dick initially resist Kroc’s desire to do business and expand the McDonald’s brand. Every idea Kroc pitches they’d already tried, after all, with unsatisfactory results.

But eventually, Kroc’s persistence wins them over. They draw up a contract they feel will protect their control over their name and their product, and for a while, it works.

But there’s a saying about contracts, one that Kroc eventually quotes to an enraged Dick McDonald over the phone at a pivotal moment.

“Contracts are like hearts,” Kroc says. “They’re made to be broken.”

An empire is born.

Persistence of vision

Audiences watching The Founder may be somewhat surprised at just how little the script and director John Lee Hancock (Saving Mr. Banks) “sugarcoat” Kroc’s story.

Was he a genius? Not particularly. Was he a good guy or a great husband? Hardly.

Instead, the script by Robert Siegel (The Wrestler) depicts Kroc as driven and single-minded to the point of obsession. He was out to out-work and out-hustle everyone else, especially when no one else saw the potential he could so easily see.

That kind of dogged determination can, of course, yield tremendous rewards. It’s at the cornerstone of the American “can-do” work ethic.

But it can also render values such as loyalty, humility, and integrity into inconveniences. It can destroy lives and leave relationships in the dust.

The Founder depicts Kroc as committing all of the above. Does that make him a villain? Depends on your point of view.

The fact that the film doesn’t completely vilify Kroc is a testament to the subtlety of Siegel’s script and Hancock’s own vision for the story. There’s no morality bludgeon here, and the film is better for that.

Keaton sneaks up on you

Naturally, The Founder either lives or dies by how much audiences buy into Keaton as Kroc. Fair to say the actor gives his all and the effort should stand among his very best.

What’s remarkable about this performance, however, is that it sneaks up on you. Yes, Keaton adopts certain speech affectations and mannerisms to “become” Kroc, and those affectations aren’t subtle.

But in the early going, Keaton doesn’t completely disappear into the role. His innate likability still shines through, and that serves the film well early on. Even if you know where the story’s going, you may find yourself still rooting for Kroc, at least at the start.

It’s only later in the film, when the nastier side of Kroc’s ambition and persistence manifest, that Keaton’s transformation is complete. The actor disappears. What’s left is Ray Kroc, for better or worse.

Worth seeing?

Count The Founder among 2017’s growing list of must-see films based on real-life stories. Keaton’s performance is stellar, and he makes the story here even more fascinating.

Can it be viewed as inspirational? Sure, but do note that this is also without question a “Nice Guys Finish Last” story. It’s not all just grit, determination, and persistence that yield the super-sized rewards here.

It’s the same trait made infamous by Keyser Söze more than 20 years ago in The Usual Suspects. It’s the ruthless will to do what the other guy won’t.

Chew on that thought for a minute, then ask yourself if you want fries with that.

The Founder

Starring Michael Keaton, Nick Offerman, John Carroll Lynch, Linda Cardellini, Patrick Wilson, B.J. Novak, and Laura Dern. Directed by John Lee Hancock.
Running Time: 115 minutes
Rated PG-13 for brief strong language.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

Growlers: Keeping Beer Fresh One Jug At a Time!

By

Devon Kenney

-

January 18, 2017

Beer to go is turning into a necessity for craft beer lovers. Bottles and cans are great, but when you can take it right off the draft to your fridge, the choice is a simple one. Growlers have grown in popularity just as much as craft beer has. Being able to get a jug of take home beer is a total win.

What is a growler?

A growler is a jug type device made for the easy transportation of draft beer. These days, most all breweries have the jugs in place to buy while you’re there. They come branded so people know where your loyalties lie.

There are a couple different types of Growlers:

Glass: These are by far the most popular, and the cheapest of the growler option. They come in clear and amber. It has been said that the clear ones will make the beer go bad if exposed to sunlight, so if you are going that route, have it just be for novelty. Being able to see the beer inside is helpful, and you can know how much you have left.They are glass, so they do break. Just treat them like children, and you will have them for years. 64 oz

Stainless Steel: Easy to carry around, keeps beer cold longer, very sleek looking, and basically indestructible. They are great for trips as they are insulated. Lasts longer than the glass. The only downside is you can’t see how much beer you have left, , and they are a bit more difficult to fill. 64oz

Ceramic: These are the unicorns of growlers. Ceramics are hard to fi but are so sought after by the beer lover. The bottles are often more expensive than the other types, and they are heavier, making them more difficult to carry around. They also chip and break just as glass ones do, but a keepsake any beer drinker would want. 64oz

Grunts: If you want a smaller amount of beer to go, you can get a grunt. It holds 32oz of beer instead of the 64oz. They come in the glass style with amber coloring. These are popping up are and more in breweries, for another size option.

Go get yourself a growler, and fill it! Great for parties, football games, and drinking by yourself!

Until next time beer snobs!

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

Oscars 2017: Predicting Best Director

By

Larry Taylor - Managing Editor

-

January 18, 2017

In the last few years, predicting Best Director beyond a few obvious choices has become even tougher since the Best Picture pool has moved to a floating number. There could be ten BP nominees, and there will always only be five directors. It doesn’t make much sense, really.

Every year, there are shoe ins, and La La Land director Damien Chazelle is the biggest lock this season. Right behind him is Kenneth Lonergan for Manchester by The Sea. His directing may not be as flashy as Chazelle, but the ability to give his tragic film such humor and texture of reality should be recognized.

Barry Jenkins will get recognized for his tremendous work on Moonlight, and he is my choice to take home the Oscar. Three sure things, leaving two slots for so many hopefuls. My fingers are crossed for Denis Villeneuve. Arrival is my personal favorite of 2016, a beautiful and timely science fiction masterpiece, so I hope it still has enough momentum to grab a handful of nods.

For the fifth slot, Garth Davis and his film Lion have been picking up tremendous steam these last few weeks. He could sneak in as the fifth nominee. On the other side of things, Jeff Nichols’ Loving has been too quiet, so his chances at a nomination are slim. That being said, Fences has been consistently on hearts and minds, and Denzel Washington breathing vibrant cinematic life into a terrific stage play will get the actor his first directing nomination.

BEST DIRECTOR PREDICTIONS

Damien Chazelle – La La Land

Kenneth Lonergan – Manchester by The Sea

Barry Jenkins – Moonlight

Denis Villeneuve – Arrival

Denzel Washington – Fences

Up Next: Best Picture

__

Predicting Best Actor

Predicting Best Actress

Predicting Best Supporting Actor

Predicting Best Supporting Actress

Predicting the Screenplays

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

2016’s Best Musical Is Sing Street, Not La La Land

By

Curtis Waugh

-

January 18, 2017

Have you ever felt like a teenage disaster?

Have you ever been an actor or musician living in Los Angeles?

There is much more nuance to that question but at its heart, that’s the big, bold difference between 2016’s notable musical offerings, Sing Street and La La Land. Both are able to exhibit the magic nature of music and art and sacrifice but only one is able to find the universal human connection that makes it all worth while.

FULL SPOILERS FOR BOTH FILMS AHEAD!

In Damien Chazelle’s follow-up to Whiplash, La La Land strikes a perfect balance between classic hollywood musical and millennial love story. Two dreamers find each other amidst the sea of rejected souls also reaching for the same heights in Los Angeles. Ryan Gosling’s Seb represents the obsessively detail-driven artist who falls in love with the actress who has run the gamut of Hollywood audition hell in Emma Stone’s Mia. The two delve into each other as they navigate the most uncertain and vulnerable periods in their lives. What works at first in compromise winds up tearing the two apart and they willfully go their separate ways, achieving their dreams in the time after.

If what described above sounds like an intriguing story about love and loss and sacrifice, you wouldn’t be wrong, except La La Land fails to provide the necessary stakes in order to create the proper emotional reality.

John Carney’s Sing Street follows Conor, a boy forced to attend a rough religious school because his parents’ impending divorce requires a great deal of financial sacrifice. Set in 1980s Ireland against the backdrop of the incoming wave of MTV rock n roll, Conor goes after the pretty girl in his neighborhood the only logical way he knows how: start a rock band. With the guidance of his wise, yet constant failure of a brother, Brendan, Conor assembles his band and records original music (because cover bands be damned) all in the efforts toward this one girl. In the process of true coming-of-age greatness, his band discovers that steppin’ out (pun intended) and unabashedly being whatever it is that you are is a lesson that will outlive any difficulty.

From a pure surface level, La La Land asks more of its audience in its attempt to relate its story to every filmgoer. Ninety percent of its audience isn’t going to be a musician/actress/etc with a deep connection to Los Angeles or classic Hollywood. Ninety percent of Sing Street‘s audience also aren’t going to be teenagers growing up in poor Ireland but the difference comes with the stakes each character has in each film. La La Land presents a very privileged take on sacrifice where, if you don’t succeed, you get to go home to a loving family home in Nevada. I understand that Mia’s reached her breaking point after giving it her all and I’m not faulting the movie for the story it decided to tell. It did, however, decide to tell a story that has a built-in safety net for its characters.

Being an impressionable teenager where every choice outside the box invites ridicule and, quite often, physical abuse inherently means to not have a safety net. When Conor tells a beautiful and interesting girl that he has a band that doesn’t actually exist and even casts her in their music video shoot for a song that hasn’t been written, it is a complete leap of faith that could backfire and hurt worse than what any casting director might tell you through a mouthful of kale and quinoa salad at an audition.

Sing Street provides a sense of raw emotion and feeling as opposed to La La Land‘s manicured take on sacrifice. But wait– both films are actually quite lovely in their own right! La La Land gets a lot right when it comes to transmitting old Hollywood musical deliciousness to a modern format and the songs themselves are all layered ear worms we could hum for days. Sing Street might appeal more to a person who is completely unaware they’re watching a musical and would be baffled to find out that actually just watched one when the credits rolled. The songs in Sing Street may be even more catchy than La La Land’s which is a ridiculous complement in its own right.

I’m not surprised La La Land is the arguable favorite to win the top honors at the Oscars (Hollywood loves giving awards to such “insider” movies) but I’m most definitely underwhelmed.

For me it comes down to which stirs the most emotion and gives me the most drive to do something great when I leave the theater. Both movies no doubt have those motivations on their minds. As a person living in Los Angeles and wanting to be everything that La La Land presents as an option, I recognized everything I saw on screen but wasn’t moved to think any differently or be any braver in the end. Sing Street reminded me what it is like to go out on a limb, let it break and hit every branch on the way down but hit those branches back equally as I go.

Check out a two minute, mini-review of La La Land brought to you by the UnPOP Podcast hosts on SpareMin.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

We Might Be Getting an ‘Eastern Promises’ Sequel From David Cronenberg

By

Larry Taylor - Managing Editor

-

January 18, 2017

While nothing is confirmed just yet, it certainly looks like David Cronenberg’s razor-sharp Russian gangster pic Eastern Promises is getting a sequel. Whether or not Cronenberg is on board remains to be seen.

The Playlist grabbed the details on Body Cross, a proposed sequel to Eastern Promises that begins shooting this spring. Information on the plot comes from My Entertainment World, and it sounds a lot like the movie described here will work only one way:

Picking up where the 2007 film left off with the incompetent underboss Kirill (Vincent Cassel) thinking that he and his henchman driver Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen) really have inherited the throne from his crime-lord father, without knowing that Nikolai is actually a clandestine agent working undercover in Russia’s federal security service.

If Mortensen and Cassel aren’t back, this specific plot obviously wouldn’t be possible. The cast is still not official and, more importantly, there is no news of Cronenberg’s return. He’d flirted with the idea of an Eastern Promises sequel a few years ago, even citing a screenplay from Steven Knight who wrote the original film.

On one hand, the thought of a continuation of the Eastern Promises world is thrilling to think about; on the other hand, without Cronenberg the whole thing loses a little steam. The director hasn’t given us anything since the one-two punch of Cosmopolis in 2012 (awful), and Maps to The Stars in 2014 (better, but still..). Several sequels to his films have been made, including about fifty Scanners movies, but none of them have had him behind the camera.

We will keep you apprised of any new info on this one.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

Ice Cube Thinks A ‘Friday’ Series On Netflix Would Be Tough

By

Matthew Sardo

-

January 17, 2017

Ice Cube is making the rounds promoting his latest film, ‘Fist Fight.’ During the Tampa, tour stop Monkeys Fighting Robots got a chance to talk with the actor about the evolution of comedy over the past 25 years, and the future of the ‘Friday’ film franchise.

“I think it’s the universal themes that are never said sometimes are the funniest. Those things that we all go through but we don’t talk to each other about, but when you see them up on the screen they make you laugh. So, it’s really finding those moments that we all have in common that we don’t even know yet,” said Cube.

When it comes to ‘Friday’ it doesn’t look like fans will get a sitcom of the film on Netflix anytime soon.

“I know these characters, people love them, they would love to see them. But to be able to pull off that quality of comedy weekend and week out would be tough,” said Cube.

The first ‘Friday’ was made on a budget of $3.5 million and grossed $27 million back in 1995. Ice Cube has been a solid box office draw averaging $50 million per film since 1991. ‘Fist Fight’ hits theaters on February 17.

Do you want to see a ‘Friday’ series on Netflix? Comment below.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

HBO Documentary Films: Eagles Of Death Metal: Nos Amis (Our Friends) Trailer

By

Matthew Sardo

-

January 17, 2017

HBO announced Tuesday, ‘Eagles Of Death Metal: Nos Amis (Our Friends) premieres Monday, February 13. The cable company also released the first trailer.

The HBO Documentary Films presentation EAGLES OF DEATH METAL: NOS AMIS (OUR FRIENDS) follows the American rock band as they recount their experiences before and after the tragic terrorist attack at their concert in Paris that claimed 89 lives on Nov. 13, 2015. Directed by Colin Hanks and produced by Live Nation Productions and Company Name, the film spotlights the group’s deep bonds with each other and with their fans, which inspired them to return to Paris to perform once again in Feb. 2016.’

According to HBO, Hanks’ relationship with the band pre-dates the film by seven years, when he became close to them while working on his first documentary, “All Things Must Pass: The Rise and Fall of Tower Records.”

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

Review: Why was ‘Colony’s Eleven Thirteen’ so important?

By

Conlan Murphy

-

January 17, 2017

‘Colony’s’ season premiere the 50-odd minute flashback Eleven Thirteen was strangely one of the most efficient ways of moving the story further. We saw a glimpse the day of the invasion and the lives of the main characters leading up to it without seeing a lot of extraneous details. What would be extraneous? The formation of the resistance. We already knew from season one’s arc of catching Quayle who they are, so seeing Quayle for the resistance wasn’t needed. While it would have been interesting to see how the Red Hats were put together, we didn’t need to see that either. Truthfully we didn’t need to see any of it, but what we did see was what was important to the story moving forward. we saw two things: who the characters were in the pre-apocalypse world and clues to the conspiracy.

First, what insights did we get about the characters? What we saw of Will and Snyder was just a reinforcement about who we already knew they were. Will’s answer to his dilemma with Devon and his assumptions about her just reiterate that he has more loyalty to people than he does to institutions or to ideals. Will has guilt, but he’s not an ideologue. Snyder was and still is a tricky confidence man. In season one we saw his governing style as a combination of motivational speaker and academic. Pre-invasion he’s an embezzler and has been for sometime without getting caught. It just reinforces that he is a man with limited morals but the ability to easily think outside the box in getting what he wants done. Their characterization has not changed dramatically and I doubt the audiences opinion of them has much either.

What was new was the flashbacks about Broussard. He’s been a supporting character who’s screen time and background have mostly been as the occupation’s boogeyman and not as a person. We knew he’s an ex-CIA hitman and the most dangerous single person on the show but that’s it. Eleven Thirteen managed to make him even more dangerous than he already was while humanizing him. Right before the invasion he’s lost any purpose in life. He tells Katie that he never found answers to his life in killing people for the government or private sector. Fighting a totalitarian regime is probably the most involved he’s ever been in his life. The invasion gave him purpose, something that it didn’t for Will, Katie or anyone else. Broussard has nothing to lose and everything to gain. There is no way to buy out or reason with someone who does something because it gives their life meaning. The resistance is not going to stop with him in charge.

Characterization, however, doesn’t move the plot forward in a show like ‘Colony.’ What moved the plot along was what we saw about the conspiracy. We already knew some of what we saw. We knew the conspiracy was killing people they deemed as threats before the actual invasion. We knew that Snyder had actually met the aliens and we knew the high levels of the new government were picked in advance. We didn’t know the time frame. Eleven Thirteen took place over one day with the arrival happening at the end. Alan Snyder, the 2nd most high ranking government official we’ve met was only hired that very day and that’s when he met the aliens. It seems very rushed and that he wasn’t important nor was his position. Clearly, the higher ups knew for much longer and there must be a lot more higher ups. The people who were collaborators before Eleven Thirteen are our Big Bads and now we have a little more information on them.

I didn’t know what to expect for the start of season 2. I was nervous, several shows I enjoyed the first season lost my interest at the start of season 2. ‘Colony,’ however, created an interesting out of the box premiere that left me excited for what was to come next. Eleven Thirteen was well written and has me hyped for the next few episodes.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube

Ego The Living Planet Toys Give Clues to “Guardians Of The Galaxy 2”

By

Jen Schiller

-

January 17, 2017

Images of Kurt Russell’s character in Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2 are difficult to come by, as he portrays Ego, a sentient planet. Today The Hollywood Reporter posted images of two separate toys of Russell’s character from Funko. The toys are suspiciously non-planetary, hinting at a new view of Ego The Living Planet.

James Gunn, director of Guardians, released images of both the Funko Pop! figure and the Funko Dorbz. Russell’s character is in his human form in both figures. The only footage released of Russell in Guardians was shown at San Diego Comic Con last summer. Ego was also in human form during the clip.

Ego The Living Dad Joke

We do know that Kurt Russell plays Starlord’s dad–a relationship upon which the themes of the film will rely. According to Russell in an interview from last year, “Peter’s character in this one, he’s got dilemmas and he’s got decisions to make that are not just about whether to save that thing or that person. This is about finding out who you are, where you come from, and where you’re going,”

And Kurt Russell as Ego the Living Planet in human form Dorbz. pic.twitter.com/mfGdzqwerp

— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) January 17, 2017

Looks like Baby Groot has a competitor for cutest merch on this one.

James Gunn wrote and directed Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2, based on Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy comics. The film stars Chris Pratt (Starlord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Bradley Cooper (Rocket Raccoon), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer) and Vin Diesel (Baby Groot). The film is set to release May 8th, 2017.

Monkeys Fighting Robots Youtube