Hugh Jackman is politician Gary Hart in The Front Runner, a film about Hart’s failed attempt to become United States president in 1988. Unsurprisingly, Jackman’s performance is receiving a lot of praise. The Front Runner is set to premiere November 6, 2018.
About The Front Runner
Official Description: American Senator Gary Hart’s presidential campaign in 1988 is derailed when he’s caught in a scandalous love affair.
The story of Hart’s political rise and fall is a fantastic one for political junkies. As a film, it could be even more spectacular. Director Jason Reitman, who also helped write the screenplay, has a lot of juicy drama to play with; the media’s influence; crumbling political momentum; powerful men falling from grace; extramarital affairs. The trailer forThe Front Runner packs a lot of that potential drama into a high-energy two and a half minutes. The cast is also phenomenal, including JK Simmons, Alfred Molina, Vera Farmiga, and a rare appearance in a film by comedian Bill Burr.
Hugh Jackman as Gary Hart
Vera Farmiga as Oletha “Lee” Hart
J. K. Simmons as Bill Dixon
Alfred Molina as Ben Bradlee
Sara Paxton as Donna Rice
Mamoudou Athie as A.J. Parker
John Bedford Lloyd as David S. Broder
Bill Burr as a Miami Herald reporter
Kaitlyn Dever as Andrea Hart
Molly Ephraim as Irene Kelly
The early buzz is all about Hugh Jackman’s performance. It appears the Aussie actor has another nomination coming his way. Playing Gary Hart will no doubt give him a lot to do. Hart was a force of nature in the political scene up until the scandal shredded all hope in a matter of days. Jackman gets to go from a hero and beloved leader to being shamed, effectively, off the face of the Earth.
Did this trailer get you excited for The Front Runner? Leave your comments below!
Writer Charles Soule continues his epic story bringing our classic Logan back into the scheme of things with Return Of Wolverine #2. This issue really heats up in the claw department, but not there’s not much else going on.
***SPOILERS LIE AHEAD***
The first issue of this series was a brutal, bloody masterpiece that turned the hype up on Logan’s return in a major way. Artist Steve McNiven checked all the boxes needed to get readers even more excited than we already were. Return Of Wolverine #2 is a different story.
Wolverine and Ana are in hot pursuit, via boat, of the bad guy squad who took her son. The entire issue takes place on a speedboat and Wolverine is accidentally wearing a Bond-girl’s outfit. The gang of villains unleashes two thugs on their pursuers, one being Omega Red and the other ends up being Wolverine’s son Daken.
Ana quickly disposes of Omega Red with a harpoon gun and Wolverine throws down some adamantium with his son that he doesn’t remember. We get our first look at Logan’s new “hot claws” ability as he sprays his son with gasoline and ignites the fuel with his claws.
The reveal of these new spicy claws was met with understandable divide. Does Wolverine really need a need power after all these years of him being perfect? Is the story in which we finally get him back in our lives the best time to introduce said power? It doesn’t matter, they’re here and this first scene with them is actually effective and exciting.
Logan explains that this new ability not only drains him of a lot of his energy, but also that it only effects his popped hand-claws. We’re even treated to a nice shot of them burning hot underneath his skin before he pops them to burn his son to death. I respect that Soule wasted no time establishing some rules up front about this probably unnecessary new addition.
Ana and Logan keep getting closer and she shows her gratitude for his heroics by laying an awkward smooch on him. Charles Soule is an extremely talented writer who usually delivers believable relationships and dialogue, but this issue has none of that. No offense to Ana, but Logan doesn’t have time to be smooching a new lady when he doesn’t even remember his son that he just burnt to a crisp.
My biggest issue with Return Of Wolverine‘s second chapter is that it abandons the crucial tone established in chapter one. There was a weight and urgency to issue #1 that is nowhere to be found in this one-note boat chase. It’s probably going to be really problematic for those who read this in trade form as these two issues have completely different tones.
A lot of the tonal shift falls on the shoulders of artist Declan Shalvey. Sometimes a brilliant artist gets put on the wrong title, that’s the case with Shalvey. He’s a spectacular comic book artist but the unpolished cartoon style we’re exposed to here just doesn’t stack up to what McNiven established in Return Of Wolverine #1.
There’s enough doofy facial expressions on both Wolverine and Ana early on that it almost immediately takes the reader out of the story. Shalvey and colorist Laura Martin both deserve credit for delivering our first taste of “hot claws” that effectively keeps them from being lame right out of the gate.
Return Of Wolverine #2 is a clear step down from the first installment in pretty much every single way. Soule and Shalvey disappoint with this skippable issue following what was an absolutely perfect kick-off in chapter one. Outside of a surprisingly interesting debut for Logan’s “hot claws,” there’s nothing of note or much craft to even digest.
Hunter Killer is the new film for which Gerard Butler was invited to speak at the Pentagon in honor of the Navy’s birthday. Does being in a movie really give him the experience to do that? In most cases, probably not — but certainly not with this film.
In the movie, Butler plays an untested submarine captain who must partner with a group of U.S. Navy SEALs for a rescue mission when a rogue Russian general stages a coup and kidnaps the Russian President, threatening to start a global war.
This film’s biggest issue is that it is simply boring. The genre is very worn, and the script doesn’t do anything to break outside of the formula. The plot is generic, and the characters archetypal. The story can be broken down into three parts: break in, rescue the hostage, and escape. Because these things have been done in movies so many times before, they just aren’t exciting anymore.
Furthermore, the film has issues with pacing. It really could have spared to be twenty to thirty minutes shorter overall, as there is a lot of dead weight, especially towards the beginning. The whole first act, in which Butler’s team investigates the missing submarine, could have been shortened into a ten minute sequence or even been introduced as a briefing. This would have made the story tighter and perhaps more interesting.
The movie also has a hard time developing its characters. The film is literally named after a type of submarine, so it’s a shame that the story of the submarine crew is outshone by the story of the Navy SEALs. The only truly compelling character is Martinelli (Zane Holtz), one of the SEALs and the only character that is given a backstory that is interesting. The protagonist has a few decent moments of characterization, but these are few and far between.
Additionally, the movie’s execution is very lackluster. The production values make it seem almost as if it was going to be released straight-to-video, but the studio decided to release it in theaters to make a quick buck off of the cast. The CGI and cinematography are both quite bad. Much of the film looks like it was shot on a green screen.
Worst of all, though, the film feels like a waste of talented actors. It’s less surprising for Gerard Butler — he’s been in his fair share of B-grade action flicks. It is more surprising for actors like Gary Oldman and Michael Nyqvist, who are quite talented. Even though this was filmed before Oldman’s award-winning turn in Darkest Hour, it is nonetheless shocking to see the vast differences between the two performances.
Overall, Hunter Killer is a generic, boring action-thriller. That being said, some people in the audience seemed to enjoy it, so if this type of movie is in your wheelhouse, it is worth a shot.
Welcome to the 159 episode of the Monkeys Fighting Robots podcast, this week we review THE ROOKIE starring Nathan Fillion, Spider-Geddon #2, and THE CHILLING ADVENTURES OF SABRINA. On the second half of the show, U-God of the Wu-Tang Clan calls in to talk about life and his new book. Thanks for listening, and enjoy the show.
Do you have a question for the show? Email robotsfightingmonkeys@gmail.com
Never heard of Matt Sardo? For starters, he made the Kessel Run in less than 11 parsecs. Prior to that, he gave Doc Brown the idea for the flux capacitor and led the Resistance to victory over SkyNet – all while sipping a finely crafted IPA. As a radio host, he’s interviewed celebrities, athletes and everyone in between. He’s covered everything from the Super Bowl to Comic-Con.
One of the bands of all time, Queen, has finally gotten a movie dedicated to their story. Was it worth the wait? Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of the band and their lead singer, Freddie Mercury leading up to their legendary performance at Live Aid.
To address the elephant in the room — no, this film didn’t live up to its namesake. In fact, it is a very standard and by-the-book music biopic, which is admittedly disappointing given the legendary status of Queen and their music. That being said, as a fan of Queen, the movie is entirely enjoyable.
At its core, this is a pure crowd-pleaser. For the most part, it skims the surface in terms of character development and deep storytelling in favor of giving the audience moments that they will appreciate. Nothing particularly insightful about the musicians or their artistic process is gained from the film. Instead, it is a fun time watching the story of one of the greatest bands of all time and listening to their music.
L-R: Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor), Gwilym Lee (Brian May), Joe Mazzello (John Deacon), and Rami Malek (Freddie Mercury) star in Twentieth Century Fox’s BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY. Photo Credit: Alex Bailey.
The movie is also somewhat contrived and convenient at times. It is obvious that there were quite a few dramatic liberties taken with the true story for the purpose of making the story seem more cinematic. For example, in the lead-up to the finale, the subplots wrap themselves up too nicely. Furthermore, the film’s timeline is questionable. There are multiple jumps in time that prevent the audience from getting to know the members of the band and their work more.
That being said, what would otherwise be an average movie is turned into a solid one by some great performances. It still isn’t to the level at which it should have been, but it is watchable. Rami Malek’s performance as Freddie Mercury is utterly engrossing. He truly becomes the character. This has to be one of the best transformations all year, because Malek absolutely nails the mannerisms and persona of the singer. In a few scenes, his lip-syncing does get slightly off, but he is otherwise great. Also worthy of note is Gwilym Lee, who plays Bryan May. Although Malek steals the show, it is almost shocking how closely Lee mirrors the real-life subject.
L-R: Gwilym Lee (Brian May), Ben Hardy (Roger Taylor), Rami Malek (Freddie Mercury), and Joe Mazzello (John Deacon) star in Twentieth Century Fox’s BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY. Photo Credit: Courtesy Twentieth Century Fox.
Additionally, the film does a great job with some elements of the story in particular. For example, the way in which the story develops Mercury’s relationship with Mary Austin is quite effective. This storyline gives the movie much of its emotional grounding and provides for what is perhaps the best scene in the film. Other highlights include the negotiations with record producer Ray Foster (Mike Myers), the scene in which the eponymous ballad is written, and, of course, the brilliant recreation of the Live Aid concert.
In addition the standard writing, the movie also has some other issues, particularly with its execution. The film can’t seem to decide on a consistent visual style. There were some scenes that were very fluid in both their cinematography and editing, but there were others that were notably rough. For example, there is a montage showing Queen’s various tour stops that uses animated graphics. These were noticeably distracting.
Overall, even though Bohemian Rhapsody isn’t quite the biopic that a musician as great as Freddie Mercury deserves, it is still a lot of fun. You surely won’t be bored, and you’ll probably have a hard time getting the music out of your head after seeing the film.
Mobile Homes is a new film by director Vladimir de Fontenay, an adaptation of his short of the same name. The movie is about a young mother who drifts between motels with her untrustworthy boyfriend and 8-year-old son, trying to make it by in any way possible.
The film certainly wasn’t bad, but it has a lot of issues and inconsistencies that kept it from being as impactful as it wanted to be. Although the story contains some ambitious commentary on the prevalence of poverty in the modern-day United States, it isn’t able to fully take advantage of this potential to create a compelling narrative.
One of the biggest problems in the movie is evident from the very first scene — the protagonist just isn’t particularly likable. The film makes her pitiable rather than sympathetic, and as such, the audience spends most of the movie thinking that her son would be better off without her. As such, it is difficult to approach her story. If the film had instead focused on her son as the protagonist, it would have been much more enjoyable and impactful.
It’s a shame that the supporting characters are far more well-developed and sympathetic than the protagonist. The movie easily could have turned Ali into a strong and empowered woman, but instead made her feel weak-willed and distant. It is possible that Fontenay was trying to go for gritty realism, but the character instead feels like a silhouette of what she is supposed to be.
The story’s pacing is also inconsistent. For the most part, it isn’t super slow, but it also isn’t quickly-paced. However, there are a few short bursts of intensity and a few long gaps of nothingness. These distract from the movie’s overall purpose and narrative. The film could have spared to be about twenty minutes shorter.
That being said, the movie did have some compelling emotional moments at times. There are a few scenes that really stick in your mind and have an actual impact. These flashes of promise make the film watchable despite its flawed script.
Additionally, the movie is well-executed. The cinematography is quite good, especially for a low-budget feature. It is simple, but effective. The performances are also all very strong. Although her character isn’t the most well-written, Imogen Poots does a good job in her role. She slips into the role well and is completely believable. Callum Turner gives a solid supporting performance, too, having some of the best scenes in the film. The child actor, Frank Oulton, is great as well, adding more nuance than you would expect from someone so young.
Overall, Mobile Homes is a well-made, but questionably-written movie. Honestly, had there been a few revisions to the script to make the characters more compelling, it could have been amazing, but as is, it’s just okay.
Don’t Go is a new drama/psychological thriller starring Stephen Dorff. The film follows Ben, a writer who is grief-stricken over the death of his young daughter, as he begins to believe that he can bring his daughter back through a recurring dream he has,
Towards the beginning, this movie was extremely successful at characterizing its protagonist. In the first few scenes of the film, the audience is able to form an emotional connection with Ben because of the situation in which he finds himself. Because of this, the audience cares about the character’s actions for most of the first half.
Unfortunately, the film wrecks this strong development around the halfway mark with a frustrating “twist”. At this point, the movie makes the protagonist no longer feel like a victim of fate and instead a person being punished for his wrongdoing. The sympathy fades and with it goes the audience’s investment in the story.
Additionally, the story requires an absolutely ridiculous amount of suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer. The creativity that the writers show is certainly worthy of praise, as the plot has some legitimately new ideas, although these ideas do not seem to be based in any fact or religion. In fact, the plot device that pretty much drives the whole movie is rather far-fetched.
Due to the increased need for suspension of disbelief, much of the sincere emotion established by the film is replaced by a somewhat goofy-feeling supernatural storyline. It almost feels as if the movie had a hard time committing to either style and instead tries to handle both (and it isn’t particularly successful in so doing).
The film also struggles with its pacing. Even though its runtime clocks in at just around an hour and a half, it feels much longer. The story is quite slow, and while there are moments of intrigue, these are few and far between. Between the slow pacing, far-fetched storyline, and eventual abandonment of characterization, it becomes pretty easy to zone out.
That being said, the movie is surprisingly well-executed. The cinematography is (for the most part) quite minimalistic, but that works for the scale of the film. The score is also very well-used, crafting the tone. The main focus of the movie, though, is the highly nuanced lead performance by Dorff. His ability to portray emotion lends the film what realism it actually has.
Overall, Don’t Go has some strong moments, but is weighed down overall by its supernatural elements. Apart from a great lead turn by Stephen Dorff, there isn’t much about this movie that is particularly memorable.
Don’t Go is in select theaters and on VOD beginning October 26.
Airbnb has become a more and more popular service over the years as homeowners look for a way to make a quick buck off of unused property and renters look for a cheap place to stay on vacation. The new film Killer Kate! brings to question the security of services like this.
Directed and co-written by Elliot Feld, the film follows a woman who attends her estranged sister’s bachelorette party at a remote cabin in the woods upon the request of her dying father. However, as the night progresses, the party turns into a bloody and violent battle for survival.
The premise of this film has a lot of potential. The bachelor(ette)-party-goes-wrong formula is certainly nothing new, but the murderous spin on it is interesting. If only the filmmakers could have taken that premise and made something that was actually scary and/or funny. Instead, the film stumbles through its first forty-five minutes and rushes through the last thirty.
(L-R) Danielle Burgess as Angie, Abby Eiland as Mel, Amaris Davidson as Sara, and Alexandra Feld as Kate in the horror film “KILLER KATE!,” a Freestyle Digital Media release. Photo courtesy of Freestyle Digital Media.
One of the film’s biggest issues is its lack of character development. In the first act, the film jumps between the stories of the killers and their victims. As a result, neither storyline is fully explored and none of the characters are fully developed. The film is trying to be “edgy” by attempting to make the killers seem sympathetic, but that is in no way effective.
Instead, the characters all feel shallow and archetypal. The supporting characters are especially frustrating and stereotypical. Because of this, it was extremely hard to get invested in the story. The only likable character is Kate, the protagonist, and that comes over time. That being said, the film never establishes where her “killer instincts” originated, which is disappointing, as the film easily could have made her an extremely strong female character.
(L-R) Danielle Burgess as Angie and Alexandra Feld as Kate in the horror film “KILLER KATE!,” a Freestyle Digital Media release. Photo courtesy of Freestyle Digital Media.
The film’s humor also just didn’t land. The film attempts to be self-aware and meta, but is unsuccessful, as the jokes it makes just aren’t that funny. Additionally, the film adheres too closely to the tropes of the genre to be funny in a subversive way. Towards the end of the film, it attempts to be different, but instead just feels stupid. The writers attempted to give the film a meaning, but it didn’t make any sense.
That being said, the film does have some very good technical qualities. The film does a solid job of taking a (mostly) confined setting and making the most out of it. Although it could have spared to be more suspenseful, the close quarters do create a decent amount of tension. Additionally, the cinematography was frequently great. There are some really interesting shots, especially during the kills.
Overall, Killer Kate! was a rather disappointing film. Despite having a large amount of potential, the film fails to deliver, being mostly unfunny and otherwise underwhelming.
Killer Kate! is in theaters and on VOD beginning October 26.
The new arc of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers from Boom Studios is having some difficulty with the new cast. The fans were hyped for this ragtag group of different Rangers from different teams across the mythology. Will this be the issue where they pull themselves together?
After the mysterious ranger stole their power source, the team has no choice but to pursue despite their limited powers.
Writing
The best word to describe this issue is awkward. Everything from the plot, to the characters, and even the artwork seems like it is struggling to connect properly. There are patches where it seems like a team dynamic is starting to form between characters but at the same time they feel more like hints of attempting individuals to be shipped together. Both Kim and Heckyl and Mike and Tanya have moments where it appears like they are looking into each other’s eyes longingly as if to showcase they are falling for one another. Kinda feels like there should be more team building first before you start putting people in relationships.
Writer Marguerite Bennett seems to have fallen into the trap of overusing technobabble and just as much “tell not show” in this issue. One of the best examples comes later in the issues when as as mysterious ranger bonds with her companion. The dialogue seems more exposition than it feels more like two individuals who have known each other for a while bonding. Hopefully this will get resolved more in subsequent issues.
Artwork
Sadly the artwork doesn’t escape this sense of awkwardness either. The pencils by Simone Di Meo and inks by Alessandro Cappuccio seem to struggle with the free range they have to introduce new characters into this fresh setting. The villains designs used are scary but the same time they’re making the comic feel like an entirely different series. With all the different cannon fodder villains Power Rangers has had over the years you think they’d be able to use at least use one as a more recognizable threat to help ground the series.
The colors by Walter Baiamonte and Francesco Segala help with setting the scene the book takes place in another dimension. Sadly it does nothing to help the flow of the action scenes which seem to be all over the place with character positioning and direction. These elements are essential for helping the reader to follow how the fight is playing out.
The lettering by Ed Dukeshire does help with the flow of the conversation but does nothing to aid with the previous complaint of the chopping action scenes. You’d think if anything would be able to save the issue it would be the work Dukeshire who has been on the series the longest of everyone.
Conclusion
This issue of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers still doesn’t help to make the team click together and sell the interest of the new arc. Maybe it’s because the story has made the characters more reactionary than showing them in more natural situations. Still, this issue isn’t without hope and there is still a chance this storyline can redeem itself moving forward. Let’s just hope it comes sooner than later.
Plagued by a troubled past, London Fields is a new neo-noir thriller finally making its way to theaters. It is based on the novel of the same name by Martin Amis, following a terminally ill writer who finds his swan song in the story of a femme fatale who begins a love affair with three men despite knowing that one of them is going to murder her.
The film was supposed to debut at the 2015 Toronto International Film Festival, but was pulled from the lineup due to legal troubles. First the director sued the producers over creative control. Then the producers sued Amber Heard, accusing her of not fulfilling her contract. Now that this legal trouble has been settled, the movie is being released, although maybe it would have been better off staying in limbo.
The best word to describe this film is bizarre. At once, it is an absolute mess, a fun neo-noir romp, and an ambitious story about art, fame, and death. Somehow, despite its glaring flaws, the movie manages to be oddly alluring. It doesn’t really fall into the “so bad it’s funny” category, but it also isn’t frustratingly or unbearably bad. It is truly difficult to express in words the overall quality of the film because it is so all over the place.
The main mystery of the story is compelling, but predictable. From the beginning of the movie, it is obvious where it is going to go and what the ending is going to be. However, the film manages to make it even worse by making the ending feel unresolved. There isn’t enough explanation as to what led to the ending. It is all extremely convenient and requires a great deal of suspension of disbelief.
The romantic subplot is also quite frustrating. The basic structure of having three guys fall for one girl is obviously nothing new, so a movie has to make it compelling for it to work and stand out. It doesn’t do that. Largely due to lackluster character development, the romantic storyline feels completely inconsequential.
The protagonist just isn’t developed well enough. There are some hints of an interesting character every now and then, but he felt really shallow. His purpose was to serve as the audience’s perspective rather than a rounded character on his own, and that wasn’t a good decision. The other three lead characters are all very flat. They move the story along, but that’s it.
There are also some elements of the story that felt very random, their inclusion in the story not making any sense. For example, the film is set in a dystopian future. There are plenty of visual cues that make it easy to see the temporal setting. Yet this doesn’t ever play a big role in the story. So much of the movie is meant to be a throwback to noir that this counters the futuristic setting.
Additionally, there is a subplot about darts. Yes, competitive darts. One of the main characters is a professional darts player, and a significant scene in the film is set during a darts tournament. While it does provide for an intense and interesting scene, why darts? There doesn’t seem to be any symbolic purpose. It doesn’t really add anything to the story or the character. Furthermore, this storyline introduces some of the more inexplicable elements of the plot. Why is Keith’s rival in darts also a mob-boss like character from whom he borrows money? It just feels awfully convenient.
That being said, the movie’s visual style and execution is actually pretty solid. It’s a shame that these things weren’t utilized more effectively to complement the story. The cinematography and production design are both good, a combination of the old and the new. The editing is innovative at times, with some unique strategies being used to make the film more thrilling. The soundtrack is great. Also, despite the problematic material they were given, the actors give surprisingly decent turns. Billy Bob Thornton, Amber Heard, Jason Isaacs, and Johnny Depp all give enjoyable performances.
Overall, London Fields is a hot mess, but a very watchable one at that. This is one of those movies you have to see to believe, because it is unfathomable how it got to this point.
