In the latest episode of Kieran’s Movie Space, Kieran delivers his spoiler-free review of Damien Chazelle’s latest cinematic offering, First Man. Is this a worthy follow-up to La La Land and Whiplash? Should we expect Oscar nominations for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? Listen to the episode below and find out!
On the heels of their six-time Academy Award®-winning smash, La La Land, Oscar®-winning director Damien Chazelle and star Ryan Gosling reteam for Universal Pictures’ FIRST MAN, the riveting story of NASA’s mission to land a man on the moon, focusing on Neil Armstrong and the years 1961-1969. A visceral, first-person account, based on the book by James R. Hansen, the movie will explore the sacrifices and the cost—on Armstrong and on the nation—of one of the most dangerous missions in history.
What Is Kieran’s Movie Space?
Kieran’s Movie Space is an insightful, fun and reliable new podcast for fans of all things cinema. Host Kieran McLean delivers in-depth reviews of the latest movie releases, from small indie movies to massive blockbusters. New episodes weekly…or whenever I feel like posting.
Batman #57, by Tom King, Tony S. Daniel, Mark Buckingham, Andrew Pepoy, Tom Morey and Clayton Cowles is brutal, shocking and violent, yet elegantly told.
Batman #57
“Beasts of Burden”: Conclusion Written by: Tom King Art by: Tony S. Daniel Colors by: Tom Morey Folktale Art by: Marck Buckingham & Andrew Pepoy Letters by: Clayton Cowles
Batman confronts the Russian assassin KGBeast, seeking to bring justice to the man who put a bullet in the head of Nightwing. But will the anger prove to be too personal? Is it about justice or is is now about brutal revenge?
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
Writing
It’s hard to top last issue’s ‘holy shit’ moment of Nightwing getting a headshot courtesy of Anatoli Kenyazev, the KGBeast but writer Tom King does something almost as daring with this conclusion. After a brutal, almost wordless (unless you count grunts and moans) fistfight…SPOILERS FOLKS…Batman snaps KGBeast’s neck and leaves him paralyzed, lying in the snow, miles away from anyone or anything that can help him. It’s an act that seems almost out of character for the Caped Crusader. But this is fucking Batman we are talking about, so a certain level of planning and expectation has to always be considered. He knows what he is doing and not necessarily leaving the man to die. King has shown a deep understanding of Bruce’s psychology and what seems out of place is always shown to have been something lurking beneath the surface (like the much talked about ‘Batrimony’ and proposal).
Whatever your feelings on the final act of this fight, you have to admit that King has written one hell of a fight scene that showcases a master’s understanding of panel pacing and suspense building. The fight unfolds almost in real time. It’s fast and brutal.
But it’s not all fisticuffs as the issue is anchored by a couple of tender scenes that show both Bruce and Anatoli being read the same folktale, The Animals and The Pit, by their respective fathers. The moments of tenderness help to humanize these two brutal men and give us a glimpse at what drove each of them to violence. The prose here is also elegant; a nice yin to the yang of the guttural sounds of the fight.
Art
The art in this issue is phenomenal. Tony S. Daniel is a master of drawing Batman, but his linework craft here is on another level. The fight ‘choreography’ is amazing, you can almost see these two pissed off men actually hurling fists and kicks at each other. The attention to detail is great too, as elements like the falling snow, texture on surfaces and facial expression play a huge part in making the issue work.
The folktale parts, by Buckingham and Pepoy, feel like genuine storybook illustrations. They are beautiful, delicate and suddenly brutal (like all great fairytales/folktales).
Accolades must be given to both colorist Tom Morey and letterer Clayton Cowles, whose work add the finishing touches that complete the package.
Conclusion
Batman #57 is the kind of comic that will get people talking, which has been a huge element of King’s long run so far. King, along with his round-robin style of collaborators, is creating a true medium defining classic run that has changed and will change Batman. A mark is being left on a character over 80 years old, and that is no easy feat. This is a book to keep reading until the end.
Considered by many to be one of the seminal films of the horror genre, John Carpenter’s 1978 classic Halloween is receiving yet another sequel. Only this time, the slate has been wiped clean, this movie not acknowledging any of the series but the original.
The film follows Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), the survivor of the original killings in Haddonfield, as she confronts Michael Myers 40 years later after he escapes from the mental institution in which he was being held.
This was better than at least three-quarters of the horror movies that come out today, and better than most (if not all) of the other sequels in the series, but it pales in comparison to the original.
Unfortunately, this film seems to have lost touch with what made the original feel special. Instead, it is a much more modern, mainstream horror flick. It has some really great moments, but there are also some parts that disappoint.
For one, the movie lacks the intelligence of the original. A significant theme in the original was the idea of the “Boogeyman” punishing those who had been sinful. Everyone who died in that film had a reason to die, giving it overall symbolic meaning. That is not the case here. Instead, the killings are highly random, making the movie feel like a generic slasher cash-grab rather than the intelligent horror that should be expected.
Furthermore, the film abandons a focus on atmospheric tension in favor of more gore-based scares. There were a few moments that were creepy, but the film was never outright scary. Thankfully, there wasn’t many cheap jump scares, but the comparative abundance of gore was frustrating. None of the imagery is particularly horrifying, so the movie isn’t as impactful as it could be.
That being said, the film does some things well. There are lots of references in the script, including self-aware jokes and recreations of some of the iconic scenes from the original. These will undoubtedly be the biggest draw for fans and are really what keeps the movie enjoyable.
Additionally, the film does a very good job with the characters. The way in which the cat and mouse archetypes are reversed is quite interesting, although this doesn’t come into the story early enough. Some of the new characters, like Allyson, Aaron, and Dana, are also likable. Perhaps the biggest highlight of the movie, though, is the fact that all of the female characters are strong. Even the ones who perish don’t go out without a fight.
The film is also quite well-shot. The cinematography and the editing are both quite strong, with a high amount of complexity for the genre. The camera movements are very fluid, and the framing is aesthetically appealing. The production design is memorable too. The mask is great, with the additions making it even creepier. Additionally, the score by John Carpenter et al. does an excellent job of taking the iconic themes from the original’s soundtrack and giving them an inventive, modern twist.
The performances are good as well. Jamie Lee Curtis’s performance is wonderful. She obviously has a lot of love for the role (this franchise essentially started her career), and it shows. Will Patton does well in his role, filling an archetype from the original film, but doing enough to make it his own. The only real weak link in the cast is Judy Greer, although she eventually finds her own towards the end.
Overall, Halloween takes the series a step in the right direction, but fails to live up to its iconic predecessor. There’s still a lot to enjoy here, though.
Michael Myers is back to terrorize audiences in David Gordon Green’s Halloween, out this weekend.
About the movie: Set 40 years after the original flick, Myers (Nick Castle, returning to the role for the first time since since 1978) has again escaped custody, intent on killing Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). But Laurie’s had four decades to prepare for this moment, and she’s more than ready for him.
From the opening credits, you know you’re in for a treat. The credits are done in the same style as the original, setting the tone for a movie that’s intent on bringing you back to the slasher movie heyday. And it succeeds in doing just that: Halloween feels like an old school slasher flick in every way, and it’s so damn refreshing.
The score by John Carpenter, Cody Carpenter, and Daniel Davies gets a large amount of credit for that feeling. A horror movie is only as good as its soundtrack, and this soundtrack is GREAT. It harkens back to the original while forging its own path, and the synthetic sound still creates this uneasy tension that’ll make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. It’s elegant, it’s beautiful, and it’s simple.
And that’s where this movie’s success lies: in its simplicity. Again, in honoring the original Halloween, this movie is as straightforward as it gets. Michael Myers escapes and goes on a killing spree. Director David Gordon Green, along with writing partners Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley, cuts out all the crap from the old canon. Gone are Michael’s complicated family tree and motivations. He’s back to just being evil incarnate in a William Shatner mask. Even when you think the movie is going to get more complicated, Michael’s there to set things straight. Again, so damn refreshing.
The true strength of the new Halloween, though, is its handling of Laurie Strode. Curtis crushesit in her return to the role. This is a scary movie – and it is indeed scary – but it’s also a movie about trauma. It’s about a girl who was preyed upon and never taught how to process that experience. Even now, 40 years later, no one wants her to process it. Instead, her own family shuns her. So, intent on never being the victim again, she decides she’ll become a warrior.
Green does such a phenomenal job of putting Laurie in Michael’s shoes. The hunted becomes the hunter. We get a ton of visuals driving this point home that fans of the original movie will love. It’s empowering, especially in the era of #MeToo and #TimesUp, to see a story about someone facing their trauma and taking control of their life. And that’s not to say the movie is at all political or preachy, because it isn’t. This message is just effortlessly woven into the narrative, and it works.
Halloween brings back the spirit of late 70s/early 80s horror in a way that fans will love. David Gordon Green proves that, even in 2018, we can still be scared by just a man in a mask with a knife.
The architect behind Marvel’s Wakanda isn’t going anywhere. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Ryan Coogler is returning to write and direct the sequel to Black Panther.
The talented director will reportedly start work on the script next year, with an eye to begin production in late 2019 or early 2020. That would mean that Black Panther 2 will likely hit theaters in 2021. Marvel Studios has yet to announce their Phase 4 slate, so it’s unclear what order their in-development films will release.
We can now add Black Panther 2 to the growing list of MCU movies in various stages of production. The rest include Spider-Man: Far From Home, The Eternals, Black Widow, and Doctor Strange 2. The one Phase 4 outlier remains Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, which is still in a delay following the firing of James Gunn.
Some may be asking themselves, how will there be a Black Panther 2 if T’Challa is dead? At the conclusion of Avengers: Infinity War, half of Earth’s Mightiest Heroes met their end, that included Chadwick Boseman’s titular hero. We’ll have to wait for the events of Avengers 4 to take place to understand how the King of Wakanda finds his way back to the land of the living.
Are you excited for Ryan Coolger to write and direct a Black Panther sequel? Let us know in the comments below!
After the death of his father, T’Challa returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king — and as Black Panther — gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina hits Netflix on October 26, just in time for your Halloween binge.
Based on the Archie comic, “as her 16th birthday nears, Sabrina must choose between the witch world of her family and the human world of her friends.”
Creator and writer Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa puts together a great cast set in the perfect universe. The opening of the show is ripped directly from the comics but is dark enough to prepare you for something new.
CHILLING ADVENTURES OF SABRINA
Chilling Adventures of Sabrina is the American version of Harry Potter with Hermione Granger as the lead. 18-year-old Kiernan Shipka is perfect as Sabrina, with the right amount of moxie combined with the awkwardness of a teenager. Lucy Davis and Miranda Otto are an excellent Yin and Yang as Sabrina’s aunts Zelda and Hilda, with cousin Ambrose as the wildcard of the series.
As Sabrina is only a half witch, the bullies are coming for her on all sides. Chilling Adventures is set for today’s social environment with a powerful female lead challenging the social norms. With the show set in the 60s, it becomes effortless to have conversations about race, sexual orientation, and a woman’s place in the world. Aguirre-Sacasa deserves credit for creating a universe where these debates can evolve. But all that goodwill and female empowerment gets thrown out the window by one scene in the first episode.
## SCENE ## As Sabrina gets closer to her 16th birthday, she becomes conflicted as to what path to choose. This conflicted state results in nightmares and visions. It also doesn’t help that a group of teenage witches put a curse on her as well. Hilda instructs her to take a bath to wash the curse away. During her bath, Sabrina has a vision and gets out of the bathtub naked. ## END SCENE ##
The way director Lee Toland Krieger shot the scene; you see the side of Shipka’s breast. I was immediately taken aback because in the show Sabrina is 15-years-old, and Krieger, along with Aguirre-Sacasa, should not be sexualizing a 15-year-old. With #MeToo and everything else that has been going on in Hollywood and the rest of the world, how did this scene make it into the final cut? It is not needed. There was enough tension built by the other elements of the scene (the sound, the music, lighting, and situation). The scene in question is so brief that if it were cut it would not change the narrative. But you do know it’s there when you see it, as Krieger frames up the shot.
Everything Aguirre-Sacasa is trying to accomplish gets forgotten with a two-second shot, and all I can ask is why?
There are more positive aspects to the show that we could talk about, but it is more important to focus on this one scene and how it changed the dynamic of the series. Krieger and Aguirre-Sacasa strip Sabrin and Shipka of their power with a two-second clip. Their disrespect to the character and actor is what hurts the most because the Chilling Adventures of Sabrina now becomes fake girl-power.
CHILLING ADVENTURES OF SABRINA
Do you plan on watching the Chilling Adventures of Sabrina? Comment below with your thoughts.
ARROW comes back with an episode full of mysteries. The show heralds in a new season with Oliver behind bars, Team Arrow split up, and the return of dreaded flashbacks. “Inmate 4587” is a good entry point into the season, but if it wants to keep fans invested, it had better provide a couple answers real soon.
Oliver being in prison is a relatively interesting development. However, to the hardcore DC on CW fans, the plot line of a hero behind bars is nothing new. This is a storyline we’ve seen before – with Barry Allen last year, and John Diggle a few years back. The series is at a bit of a disadvantage, trying to pull new stories for its seventh year. What will make this storyline succeed or fail is if it can resolve in a new way. In the meantime, Oliver’s general prison problems aren’t the most interesting, but make a solid entry point for the season.
Emily Bett Rickards and Stephen Amell, CW’s ARROW
The sidekick storylines aren’t quite as interesting. Felicity has a semi-interesting storyline protecting William, but her coffee shop suitor isn’t interesting. ARROW staples like Diggle, Laurel, and even Curtis are barely in the episode. Thankfully, the conflict between Rene and Dinah provides a much-needed storyline. Their debate about whether a new Green Arrow is good works for both the episode, and the season at large. The general vigilante debate isn’t new, but how it might affect Oliver makes it important. If only all Oliver’s side characters could shine in Oliver’s absence.
What’s annoying is the role Diaz plays in this episode. The semi big-bad of last season has returned to torment the Queens for another season. How he magically appears at Felicity’s safe house, and whether Oliver’s dreams are actually premonitions, is nearly impossible to say. Diaz never flourished as an ARROW villain because he was essentially Cayden James’ replacement. If this season doesn’t center around him in some way, his return will be little more than a poorly-planned move.
Things are further complicated with the latest Green Arrow… and the fact he may be William? The flashbacks (or flash-forwards?) make it seem like the latest Arrow is an older William. In “Inmate 4587,” the older William ventures to Lian Yu, where he finds Old Man Roy Harper. This twist is confusing, to be sure, but also makes it unclear what to expect. ARROW has usually differentiated itself from other CW shows by being the most grounded, staying away from all the time-travel hootenanny (unlike FLASH). This new Lost Season Four approach makes it unclear what we can expect from the new season.
The question of how much ARROW does or doesn’t revolve around time-travel will be important. That, along with Oliver’s prison time and Diaz’s role could make or break the season. These unknown elements are what bring the score of “Inmate 4587” down. There are just a few too many unknown elements to make this exciting. Especially considering the weak sixth season, one would hope s7 could flip the script more. But is time travel the answer, or going too far? We’ll have to keep watching to know for sure. ARROW keeps us invested… for now.
Kurt Waldheim served as Secretary General of the United Nations from 1972 to 1981 and was later President of Austria from 1986 to 1992. The Waldheim Waltz is a new documentary by Ruth Beckermann about Waldheim’s campaign for that Presidential election.
Although one may think that a film about a 20th-century Presidential campaign in Austria would not be relevant to society today, that could not be further from the truth. In fact, the film is perhaps more important today than ever. Waldheim’s campaign was characterized by controversy, predominantly surrounding actions in the candidate’s past. Does that sound familiar?
Yes, in the era of Clinton’s email controversy, numerous Trump scandals, and Kavanaugh’s yearbook debacle, this film serves as a cautionary tale about the nature of politicians. For one, it shows that this type of smear campaign has been going on for longer than we imagined, but always with the same result. However, perhaps more importantly, the film shows that these politicians believed to have committed heinous acts can “waltz” around their past into power.
The story of the film is truly fascinating, as Waldheim’s career goes from being a massive success (essentially the face of the entire free world) to a near total disaster, all because of allegations made against him. The specifics of the allegations make the film even more captivating, as they add a level of ambiguity to the film. Throughout the film, the audience is allowed to decide the morality of Waldheim’s actions and whether or not he was fit to be in power.
That being said, the film does begin to lose some steam at times. The film’s introduction is very powerful and impactful, and this carries over throughout most of the runtime. However, towards the end of the film, it becomes repetitive almost to the point of redundancy. This causes a brief faltering of interest, although the film quickly recovers to be far more involving.
The execution of the film is phenomenal. It is one of the best-edited documentaries to be released in a long time, largely due to the film’s use of sound. The score is wonderful, often giving the film a feel akin to an espionage thriller. Additionally, the film’s use of diegetic sounds is worthy of note, as it resulted in some of the film’s most impactful moments. For example, early in the film, you can hear protesters shouting “Waldheim nein! (No Waldheim!)” repeatedly. This was quite harrowing and effective at showing the impact of the controversy.
Overall, The Waldheim Waltz is a very interesting documentary. It is a short, brisk watch with a great story and relevance to today’s political climate. If you get the chance to check this one out, you should.
The Waldheim Waltz opens in select theaters beginning October 19.
Horn from the Heart: The Paul Butterfield Story is a new documentary directed by John Anderson about the life of famous blues musician Paul Butterfield. The film traces his career from his beginnings in Chicago to his untimely death.
There’s no denying that Butterfield was a great musician, and he is definitely worthy of being honored. However, this documentary probably wasn’t the best way of doing that.
Butterfield’s story is (unfortunately) one that has been heard time and time again: a young musician comes from nothing, makes it big, gets caught up with drugs, experiences a decline in his career, and dies young. Sadly, this story is no longer interesting. The film could have been far more successful and entertaining had it focused on his music rather than his story.
That being said, the film does a good job of painting Butterfield sympathetically. Although his life story is a little typical, his career was not, and that allows the film to hold some amount of interest. Additionally, interviews with other people involved in Butterfield’s life, such as his son and his former bandmates, shine light on Butterfield not only as an artist, but as a person in general. This makes his story even more compelling.
The title refers to the harmonica, Butterfield’s instrument of choice. Because the harmonica is so frequently neglected, it is interesting to see a documentary that is so dependent on that style of music. Butterfield’s music is used frequently throughout, and it is very complex, appealing music. However, some of his songs are used more than once, meaning that the soundtrack does begin to feel tiresome at a certain point.
The execution of the film isn’t awful, but it’s too simple for a theatrically-released documentary. Stylistically, it feels more like a documentary that would be released on PBS than in theaters. Everything looks professional, which is good, but there is nothing particularly innovative about it. The Ken Burns effect is overused, the editing is rather plain, and the interviews are blandly-composed. Even the text used for titles is dull.
As a result of the uninteresting execution, the film is pretty boring as a whole. It feels like it was meant to be educative rather than for entertainment or to pay homage to the musician. Because the film has such a direct approach, it was quite hard to get invested in the story. The runtime that was just over an hour and a half instead felt much longer.
Overall, Horn from the Heart: The Paul Butterfield Story was a frustratingly bland and by-the-numbers documentary. The music is interesting, but the film offers very little else for most viewers.
Horn from the Heart: The Paul Butterfield Story opens in select theaters October 17.
Imagine an America in which the rights of the people are oppressively limited by the government… For some, that idea isn’t too far of a stretch. Others couldn’t possibly imagine a world in which that was the case.
The Oath is the directorial debut of actor and comedian Ike Barinholtz (Blockers, Neighbors). It stars Barinholtz and Tiffany Haddish as a couple who struggles to make it through a family Thanksgiving. Meanwhile, America is divided over an oath being encouraged by the government swearing loyalty to the President. The film recently debuted at the 2018 Los Angeles Film Festival.
The marketing campaign isn’t doing this film justice. The trailers make it appear like more of a straight comedy, and while there are plenty of hilarious moments, the film is much closer to a comedy-thriller or horror-comedy.
Tiffany Haddish and Ike Barinholtz in THE OATH. Photo credit: Courtesy of Topic Studios and Roadside Attractions.
Instead, the movie seems to be using its satirical premise in an attempt to elicit fear from the audience. The intensity of the film is certainly very high. Once everything is established, the pacing doesn’t slow down, which is great.
Part of what makes the film so effective is that, while symbolic and perhaps slightly exaggerated, the film isn’t completely unbelievable. This is something that could actually happen in America, and that makes the fear all the more real. Even though the movie is almost certainly made with today’s politics in mind, there were few any direct jabs at any particular person, with the political commentary instead focusing on the state of the government as a whole. Because of this, much of the satire had the effect of causing uncomfortable laughter, as events began to progress and order began to devolve. The situational comedy teased by the trailer is used as comedic relief from the sustained tension, and also elicited a lot of laughs.
The execution of the film is very strong too. The movie surprisingly manages to not show its budget, as its production values are quite high. Much of the film is set in a confined space, and the filmmakers are highly successful at using that to its advantage, creating suspense and tension. The score is also great, with its dark, looming sounds contributing to the film’s intriguing tone. The few practical effects used are also very impressive.
Ike Barinholtz, Tiffany Haddish, Billy Magnussen and John Cho in THE OATH. Photo credit: Courtesy of Topic Studios and Roadside Attractions.
Additionally, the movie’s ensemble does a great job in their roles. Ike Barinholtz is hilarious in his lead role. He is able to show a lot more depth and range in this role than in many of his others, although he still has the same goofy charm about him. Tiffany Haddish was a surprisingly good fit for her role, bouncing off of Barinholtz well and being surprisingly subdued, with the exception of the opening scene. John Cho also has a strong, but brief supporting role. That being said, the film’s true standout is Billy Magnussen. He plays a character that is hilarious, yet equally terrifying, quote out-of-type from what he has done in the past.
The Oath is a truly impressive movie. If you can go in with an open mind, there is a lot to appreciate and enjoy. It is perhaps one of the funniest and most intelligent satires to be released all year.
The Oath is now playing in select theaters and expands October 19.
