THE LOBSTER'S NIGHTMARE: a review of "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer"

"THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER"
Screenplay Written by Yorgos Lanthimos & Efthymis Filippou
Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED R

Last year, I announced to all of you that "The Lobster," Writer/Director Yorgos Lanthimos' debut English feature was my number one favorite film of the year. In fact, I even went much further in my extreme admiration for the bleakly grim, satirical story of a dystopian future society where single people were given a time limit of 30 days or else be transformed into the animal of their choice as I stated that it was undoubtedly one of the most audacious, creative, inventive, visionary and downright best films that I had seen over the last ten years.

I stand firmly by those sentiments even now, while also understanding that essentially anything that Lanthimos devised for his follow up feature would have some big shoes to fill. And while his new film, "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer" doesn't quite pack the same cumulative punch as "The Lobster" achieved for me, I have to tell you that it does indeed come pretty damn close.

As with "The Lobster," Yorgos Lanthimos has continued to immerse himself within a cinematic aesthetic that recalls the stylistic flourishes of Stanley Kubrick circa his work in both "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) and "The Shining" (1980), from shot compositions, disorienting and increasingly disturbing usages of classical music, as well as the cold, detached chilliness of the proceedings that ultimately belie the heated emotional turbulence of the story, characters and devastating consequences.

But rest assured, Yorgos Lantimos is no Kubrick copycat, as the cinematic universe he has created, while reminiscent of some elements we could find in the works of Wes Anderson, Terry Gilliam as well as the aforementioned Stanley Kubrick, is as unique as one's specifically individualized bad dreams. In those terms, "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer" is an especially bad dream indeed but one that makes for explicitly exciting and sometimes enthralling cinema.

Yorgos Lanthimos' "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer" reunites him with his leading actor from "The Lobster," again a fully committed Colin Farrell who stars as Steven Murphy, a highly skilled and successful heart surgeon, living a more than comfortable existence in suburbia with his equally successful ophthalmologist wife Anna (Nicole Kidman) and their two children, teenaged Kim (Raffey Cassidy) and her younger brother Bob (Sunny Suljic).

For a period of time Steven has been taking in the company of the teenaged Martin (Barry Keoghan), an awkward, somewhat fawning and Fatherless high school student, with whom the twosome share a connection. The boy soon ingratiates himself into Steven's family and slowly begins dating Kim.

When a secret from Steven's past resurfaces, the conflict between himself, his family and Martin intensifies into an excruciating experience that will unravel Steven's perfect world entirely and undoubtedly. And to say any more would only spoil...

In a cinematic year where horror films have transcended its own genre to encompass larger subject matter and therefore, holding a mirror to reflect the horror that exists in the real world every day, from Andy Muschietti's "It," Sofia Coppola's "The Beguiled," Darren Aronofsky's "mother!," and most brilliantly, Jordan Peele's "Get Out," Yorgos Lanthimos's "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer" is especially uncompromising and terrifying.

Lanthimos has devised a tale of such strenuous and tightly wound psychological horror that the experience holds you within its vice grip as its languid, insistent pacing gradually pulls you under like quicksand. While there are aspects of the film that are inexplicable, this tactic only serves to increase the terror and anguish of the characters as Steven is indeed faced with an impossible choice that Lanthimos has no intention of ever truly letting him off of the hook--try as Steven desperately attempts to no avail.

Yes, the events are all present in the title. There is a killing but the "sacred deer" is for you to see for yourselves if you are indeed willing to undertake a film that, while never gratuitous, is just not interested in making the experience easy to undertake by any means as Lanthimos has created a film of karmic retribution at its most viscious, and I would not be surprised if some viewers feel is morally repugnant.

In a way, "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer" reminded me a little bit of Richard Kelly's "The Box" (2009), the mesmerizing yet deeply flawed thriller of a young couple given the choice of pressing a button located on top of a box after which they would receive one million dollars, yet once the button is pushed, someone they do not know will die. Unlike that film, which was undone by its own meandering and downright messy qualities, Lanthimos is in complete control of his material, slowly twisting the knife at the right pace and at the right time until the precise point where the tension will be stretched to its breaking point.

But to what end, you ask? I think that Lanthimos is utilizing the brutality of the story to frame another exploration into an existential crisis of self perception, especially as it relates to our own individualized relationships with personal morality and how one's personal value system can clash with another's. In "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer," the value systems of Steven and Martin and eventually Steven and his family and even then, the family members against each other clash violently and irrevocably. Yet, given the sinister nightmare logic of the film and its upending strangeness-- so crisply visualized by Cinematographer Thimios Bakatakis--we are not being presented with a "real" world, so to speak.

And even then, there really felt to be an additional layer to the film that only intensified its own level of inscrutable madness and the clue seemed to arrive from Colin Farrell himself in an interview he gave to writer Jada Yuan for the October 11, 2017 publication of Vulture during which he stated the following:

"The Killing Of A Sacred Deer is actually the nightmare a character in The Lobster may have. You'd wake up relieved to be in the world of The Lobster if that was your dream."

As bizarre as that statement may appear, it really feels to make perfect sense once having seen the film for myself. As with filmmakers like the aforementioned Wes Anderson, Terry Gilliam, Stanley Kubrick to even Quentin Tarantino, I am curious if Yorgos Lanthimos is devising a larger cinematic universe for his own horrifically idiosyncratic stories.

Whether the imagined worlds of both "The Lobster" and "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer" are necessarily worse than the other would be up to each and every viewer (for my money, the world of "The Lobster" is more terrifying), it does indeed feel as if the character of Steven Murphy as played by Colin Farrell could have been a dream world projection of his character from "The Lobster," as he forces himself to confront his own perilous predicament in trying to avoid a seemingly inevitable fate of being transformed into a lobster and ultimately eaten by the very human beings he used to be himself by working through his quandary in a dream word where he is faced with another devastating and inevitable fate. Not every little element necessarily makes sense within "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer" and that is perfectly fine as the film is filtered through this apocalyptic creeping doom that is inescapable, like the feelings we experience during bad dreams.

Colin Farrell's excellent performance, with his clipped, deadpan delivery, is virtually an echo of his exact performance from "The Lobster," making me feel as if he is indeed portraying a variation of the same man. Additionally, Lanthimos includes elements of damaged eyes into the mix plus having crucial decisions play out in diners and to that end, even the animal theme arises again but in ways that are more visually explicit than conceptual.

Quite often, it felt to me as if the world of "The Lobster" had been toyed with and therefore, re-contextualized into this new environment of "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer." Yet, what if this world is not a dream, so to speak, but more of an extension of the world of "The Lobster"?  Frightening, indeed. But, it  unquestionably showcases the superb artistic skill of Yorgos Lanthimos, ensuring that he is a filmmaker to really keep your eyes upon.

Yorgos Lanthimos' "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer" is difficult, demanding, and undeniably strange but it is also yet another example of why we need to have filmmakers like Lanthimos in the word devising stories designed to rattle our cages and shake us out of any sense of cinematic complacency. No, it is not for everyone and nor should it be. But it is a film that refuses to be ignored as it forces us to have a connection and response to it. Yes, it will disturb you. Perhaps to the point of wondering just what is the purpose of everything presented, especially when it is a vision so unrepentant, so seemingly nihilistic.

To that, I simply state to you that "The Killing Of A Sacred Deer" is not explicitly real. It is an especially brutal parable. A punishing morality play. It is Greek tragedy.

PSYCHEDELIC THUNDER AND COMIC LIGHTNING: a review of "Thor: Ragnarok"

"THOR: RAGNAROK"
Based upon the Marvel Comics series created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby
Screenplay Written by Eric Pearson and Craig Kyle & Christopher Yost
Directed by Taika Waititi
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

To the God Of Thunder, the lighter touch suits you very, very well!

We should really admit what a difficult character and landscape the character and world of Thor actually is to visualize. Of course, with costumes and special effects, we can envision essentially anything at all these days but in regards to the tone...that is dicey indeed as we have this figure who represents the grand epic reach of Norse mythology and the earthly eye candy of comic book derring do. Should he be presented with a certain reverence or as full on camp because in essence, Thor is a bit of a silly character who is shouldered with heavenly realms, rainbow bridges, faux Shakesperian heft and of course, that mighty hammer.

Thankfully, with his cinematic entries and inclusion within the ever expanding Marvel Comics Cinematic Universe, the filmmakers have provided Thor with a bit of a conceptual hybrid firmly anchored by the genius casting of Chris Hemsworth in the titular role, an actor who has rolled so confidently with everything a variety of filmmakers have tossed his way over the course of the four previously released films.

Kenneth Branagh's "Thor" (2011), our hero's debut feature, was a real kick to me, as it was a blast of fun that struck the right balance between the bombast and the ridiculous, giving Thor a strong solo introduction. Joss Whedon served the character exceedingly well in "The Avengers" (2012) and "Avengers: Age Of Ultron" (2015) by merging his otherwordliness seamlessly with his earthy superhero companions. Only Alan Taylor's "Thor: The Dark World" (2013), failed the character (and as far as I am concerned, the Marvel films as a whole) as it was ponderous, bloated, and just plain dull.

So, now that we know Thor very well, there remains the problem of how to proceed because in essence, he is not terribly interesting conceptually and the primary conflict of his character regarding his sense of heroism and a growing humility and empathy for his fellow inhabitants of the universes of Asgard and Earth has been more than completed. After all of this time, what could possibly make him more compelling?

Who would've thought that what Thor truly needed was a healthy dose of humor. Not the dabbles we have received in the previous films but a truly hefty supply, so much so that it nearly re-invents the character, fully revitalizes Thor's solo film adventures and further injects the Marvel films with higher creative risks without dismantling all that has arrived before.

Taika Waititi's "Thor: Ragnarok," our hero's third solo entry, is precisely what the God Of Thunder needed as Thor is catapulted into what has got to be his wildest ride to date, augmented with a dazzling array of sights, sounds and most surprisingly, a level of pure comedy that only elevates the action, the characters, the drama, and the odyssey. Finally, Thor has been given a film completely worthy of a Norse God while also illustrating that the superhero film genre, one that I have grown increasingly weary, indeed possesses quite a bit of remaining vibrant life.

As "Thor: Ragnarok" opens, we find or hero in a bit of a mess. Now two years after the events of "Avengers: Age Of Ultron," Thor has traveled the universe in an unsuccessful bid to locate the Infinity stones and in the process, has found himself caught within the clutches of the demon Surtur, who reveals to Thor that his Father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is no longer living in their kingdom of Asgard and that once he joins his crown with the Eternal Flame that burns beneath Asgard, the prophecy of Ragnarok (i.e. the apocalypse) will come to pass.

It is not a spoiler to tell any of you that Thor does indeed defeat Surtur, robbing his crown in the process. But the prophecy of Ragnarok, however, has not been fully extinguished as Thor is confronted with the unprecedented fury of Hela, Goddess Of Death (a scorching Cate Blanchett), who is also Odin's firstborn daughter, of course making her sister of Thor and the duplicitous Loki (Tom Hiddleston)!

Hela's unrepentant rage and desire to destroy Asgard, once unleashed, propels Thor into uncharted territory externally as well as internally, as he finds himself in the far reaches of the universe and trapped upon the wormhole ridden garbage planet of Sakaar, overseen by The Grandmaster (a delightfully unctuous Jeff Goldblum), and completely without his trusty hammer, which Hela disintegrated.

Forced to serve as The Grandmaster's gladiator in battles reminiscent of sights seen in George Miller's "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" (1985), Thor is fully reunited with The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), also missing in action since "Avengers: Age Of Ultron." Yet, in order to survive and hopefully save Asgard, Thor eventually joins forces with not only Loki but the hard drinking bounty hunter, former winged horse warrior Valkyrie (a wonderful Tessa Thompson).

Taika Waititi's "Thor: Ragnarok" is easily the very best of Thor's solo features and alongside Joss Whedon's "The Avengers" plus Peyton Reed's "Ant-Man" (2015) and Jon Watts' "Spider-Man: Homecoming" from this summer, Waititi fulfills and often exceeds the cinematic promises made with the inaugural Marvel feature Jon Favreau's "Iron Man" (2008) as he has delivered a film that is irreverent as it is epic, all the while suggesting where this film universe could possibly extend itself if they are willing to follow Waititi's lead and jump into the deep end of creative risks.

Just with the character of Thor himself, Waititi almost immediately takes everything we know about this figure and either playfully alters what we know or discards it altogether, especially through the shearing of his long blonde locks, and the destruction of his hammer, which he does indeed go without for nearly the entirety of the film. But the most notable change to the once stoic figure is his newfound sense of humor, which runs in quick witted fashion from the sardonic to the satiric to the downright silly while not sacrificing all of his other heroic qualities. He hasn't become glib, so to speak. He is just looser, doesn't take himself quite so seriously as he used to, fully suggesting that his time spent with the likes of Tony Stark has been positive, to say the least.

That frisky spirit is indeed the tone of "Thor: Ragnarok" and it is as welcome as it is daring and even dangerous as the silliness and self-acknowledgement of its own silliness often threatens to runs the film clear off of the rails and miraculously, Waititi keeps himself and his film on that knife's edge balance where one really false move would cause the film to unravel altogether and somehow, someway, it just never happens.

Waititi is a smart enough filmmaker to realize that he still needs to tell a story and thankfully, he isn't quite willing to make the entire proceedings a flat out joke (something I was indeed a tad worried about before I saw the film). Waititi is affectionate towards the character and world of Thor, even while being all too knowing of how preposterous it all actually is. But, instead of being self-congratulatory with the film's comedy--a failing of both of James Gunn's dishearteningly smug "Guardians Of The Galaxy" entries (2014/2017) and especially, the self-congratulatory arrogance of Tim Miller's "Deadpool" (2016)--"Thor: Ragnarok" flies by the seat of its "kid-in-a-candy-store" aesthetic and we are all whisked away in tow.

Chris Hemsworth truly appears to be enjoying himself is grandly new levels in the titular role as his riffs with Loki, Hulk and this odd rock like creature performed by Waititi himself showcase the light footed swiftness of his comedy ad the film is all the better for it. And just as with the film's director, Hemsworth has also not lost sight of who Thor is and whatever dilemmas he may find himself  confronted with and in "Thor: Ragnarok," he does indeed find himself faced with life altering choices, conflicts and consequences which will reverberate throughout subsequent Marvel films unquestionably.

Cate Blanchett is indeed one of the actresses I felt would be least likely to appear in a superhero film and believe me, with "Thor: Ragnarok," she has proven herself to being one of the finest (in more ways than one--I can't help it, her new look is hotter than molten lava). As Hela, Blanchett evokes such palpable fury, rage, and destruction that you can firmly believe her but as with the surrounding film, Blanchett performs it all with a slight "isn't this hysterical?" wink that only further draws you in closer and you hang onto her every outrageous, venomous threat and command.

Even as terrific as Hemsworth, Blanchett and the bulk of the cast happens to be, the arrival of Tessa Thompson is undoubtedly one of the Marvel film's greatest catches. As Valkyrie, Thompson is gloriously perfect in the role, supremely convincing from her first appearance and captivating from one end of the film to the other, so much so that I strongly feel that she demands to have her own movie. After her striking turns in Justin Simien's incendiary "Dear White People" (2014) and Ryan Coogler's stirring "Creed" (2015), Tessa Thompson has grabbed this opportunity to be seen by a larger, wider audience so powerfully with both hands and the pure unadulterated energy of "Thor: Ragnarok" is elevated every time she appears on screen.

And what a sight every single frame of "Thor: Ragnarok" happens to be!!! Again, Taika Waititi's approach to the film is unrestrained gleefulness, as if he was a child who was able to grab every crayon and marker in their respective boxes and was allowed to use them all in any way he wished. The visual display of the film is stunning with its resplendent rainbow psychedelic glory, a crucial element that adds to the overall playful, and most importantly...comic book tonality of the film.

Even with all of the fun, Waititi has crafted a host of images and sequences (the Thor VS. Hulk battle is one of many showstoppers) that would make Zack Snyder fall to his knees in amazement. Unlike Snyder,  Waititi understands to make his film downright fun to behold and not some torturous, bludgeoning slog, the comedy does indeed accentuate the drama and vice versa. As frivolous as "Thor: Ragnarok" often is, I greatly appreciated how Waititi ensured that we do indeed care about Thor's latest adventure, we are excited when we need to be, thrilled when necessary and struck with a certain shock and awe at the precise points when they need to arrive.

In many ways, if there is a film that I could sort of compare "Thor: Ragnarok" with it would be none other than the cult classic, Mike Hodges' "Flash Gordon" (1980) starring a voice dubbed Sam J  Jones in the title role and the brilliant Max Von Sydow as the arch nemesis Ming The Merciless--a film I loved and saw countless times growing up. It was an absolutely ridiculous film that lovingly honored its 1930's-1940's comic book and film serial roots and was filled wall to wall with purposefully cheesy visual effects and day-glo colors which adorned a downright crazy plot that included boisterous flying Hawkmen, alien guards pummeled by footballs, mad scientists, an enormous and hungry swamp spider, a tilting platform filled with dangerous spikes, lusty alien women, an interstellar wedding, and all manner of space battles decorating a story of Flash attempting to save Earth from destruction...and set to a theater shaking film score composed and performed by none other than QUEEN!

As I think about "Thor: Ragnarok," I cannot hep but to wonder if "Flash Gordon" was anywhere in Taika Waititi's mind when conceiving of this new installment--especially as Led Zeppelin's classic "The Immigrant Song" is perfectly used as Thor's battle cry.

You know, even further than "Flash Gordon," I really think that "Thor: Ragnarok" is Taika Waititi's cinematic version of Queen's mammoth "Bohemian Rhapsody," a song that is by turns majestic, hilarious, inscrutable, preposterous, stunning, glorious, beautiful and filled with an ocean of sounds that feel like the colors of the largest paintbox come to life and dancing through our speakers.

That's what "Thor: Ragnarok" is like--a paintbox come to life with rock and roll energy combined with a terrific stand-up comedian's expert sense of comic timing. This is exactly what a character like Thor deserves and so thankfully, this is heroically what we have all received.  

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR NOVEMBER 2017

We're heading into the final stretches, dear readers. The beginning of the final three months of 2017 film releases (this includes those films that do not receive a wide release until January 2018) are now upon us and I am hoping to find myself happily enraptured by the following titles...

1. "THOR: RAGNAROK," the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the third film starring the Norse God Of Thunder himself will be released this coming weekend and even with the already rapturous reviews, I do remain cautiously optimistic.

 2. "WONDER," the second film from Author/Writer/Director Stephen Chbosky, who previously helmed the beautifully bittersweet "The Perks Of Being A Wallflower" (2012), is itself another adaptation of a powerfully celebrated young adult novel but this time the source material did not arrive from Chbosky's own pen but from Author R.J. Palacio, whose original novel is indeed one of the very best I have ever read. I sincerely hope that Chbosky honors this source material in all of the right ways.

3. "THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER," from Writer/Director Yorgos Lanthimos is his follow-up to my personal #1 favorite film of 2016, the crystalline nightmare satire "The Lobster." With that one film, Lanthimos has me in the palm of his cinematic hand and so...I am there!

4. "LAST FLAG FLYING"Two words: RICHARD. LINKLATER. 'Nuff said!

Certainly, this wish list of mine completely depends upon time, responsibilities, energy and of course, if these films arrive in my city. But, this is my plan and I hope to make it come to vibrant life for myself as well as for you. So, as always, I ask of you to wish me the best of luck and I will indeed see you again when the house lights go down!!!!!!

RETURN OF THE BOOGEYMAN: a review of "John Wick: Chapter 2"

"JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 2"
Based upon characters created by Derek Kolstad
Screenplay Written by Derek Kolstad
Directed by Chad Stahelski
*** (three stars)
RATED R

In some ways, I really do not know why I even wanted to sit through this film.

Dear readers, as you know all too well, my fatigue with sequels, prequels, re-boots, remakes, re-imaginings and so on has been more than documented. But even so, I, like so many of you, do find myself drawn to the continuing adventures and storylines of whomever over and again regardless of my protests. Director Chad Stahelski's brutal, bullet ballet of "John Wick: Chapter 2" is indeed such a sequel that I was more than happy to give a whirl as I was indeed surprised at my enjoyment of the series' initial scuzzy yet super-slick and stylish installment.

With this sequel, Stahelski does indeed achieve the finer elements of what good sequels are supposed to accomplish: create something that is familiar yet extends and expands upon what we already know while delivering more of what we loved in the debut episode. As far as action is concerned, "John Wick: Chapter 2" delivers the goods in spades in a barely there plot surrounded with contrivances that are as ridiculously preposterous as they are deliriously entertaining in their bloodthirsty execution. No, and as with the first film, there really is no greatness to be had here. And, somehow that is perfectly OK as Stahelski seems to revel in the film's scrappy junkyard dog temperament..albeit a junkyard dog that is dressed to the nines!

Picking up just a few days after the events of "John Wick" (2014), Keanu Reeves reprises his role as the titular anti-hero/formerly retired hit man brought back into the underworld as a one man wrecking crew, viciously eviscerating a faction of a Russian crime syndicate who stole his precious 1969 Ford  Mustang Mach 1 as well as the murder of his puppy, a final gift from his now deceased wife.

"John Wick: Chapter 2" opens with Wick tracking down the whereabouts of his precious car to a chop shop, where he, of course, chops and socks his way back to his car, mowing down his whack-a-mole adversaries one after another, all the while  praying that each kill will be the last, allowing him to fade from this murderous existence in peace.

But before you can echo those now famous words wailed by Al Pacino from Francis Ford Coppola's "The Godfather III" (1990), Wick, who thinks he is out of the killing game, is unceremoniously forced back into his underground dealings (via the complete destruction of his home) by Italian crime lord Santino D'Antonio (Riccardo Scamarcio). Wick is assigned with the seemingly impossible task of venturing to Rome to assassinate Santino's sister, Gianni D'Antonio (Claudia Gerini), so that he will be able to ascend to the council of premiere crime lords known as the "High Table," taking her place in the process.

Well, wouldn't you know that impossible tasks become even more impossible as double crosses are made, boundaries are broken and John Wick becomes a target of the secret and seemingly unending legion of sharply dressed assassins, including the formidable Cassian (Common), who is every bit Wick's unstoppable equal.

Much like its predecessor, Chad Stahelski's "John Wick: Chapter 2," is an elegantly nasty slice of pulp and pummeling that finds Keanu Reeves again perfectly cast as the reticent, relentless "Boogeyman" himself, Mr. John Wick, the anti-hero with the bottomless vengeance streak augmented by an impeccable wardrobe and whom Reeves injects with a poignant existential sadness of grief and mourning for his deceased wife and the life of quiet he is unable to attain, either by circumstance or brutal karma for past evil deeds.

With this character, Keanu Reeves has returned handsomely to the action film genre with a character  that is not only worthy of his skills, but one that does indeed fulfill an action film archetype: the lone soldier like The Man With No Name from Sergio Leone's "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" (1966), George Miller's Mad Max character (1979/1981/1985/2015) or even The Bride from Quentin Tarantino's downright orgiastic "Kill Bill" series (2003/2004).

For whatever reasons, this type of figure certainly continues to resonate within the action genre and Reeves has indeed instilled it with a terrific physicality that showcases the character's iron will, ravenous rage as well as its palpable inner sorrow that makes the character more than a killing machine, even though we are clearly watching this film mostly to see him as that killing machine.
 
Now, this is not to say that this second installment is anything deeper than advertised; a glossy, bloody, ultraviolent shoot-em-up filled with expertly devised, choreographed and delivered fight sequences and shoot outs, filmed crisply and cleanly, so that we in the audience are able to follow the storylines of each fight set piece without feeling disoriented via the sadly standard editing by Cuisinart techniques that have made action films such a bludgeoning mess to view.

In fact, it is precisely because the film doesn't take itself too seriously that makes the proceedings so entertaining (and often quite laugh out loud hilarious) regardless of how violent the fights actually become. From the wildly propulsive "Spy Vs. Spy" battles between John Wick and Cassian (please find a way to bring Common back for "Chapter 3") and the splendidly filmed hall of mirrors climax, obviously inspired by Orson Welles' "The Lady From Shanghai" (1947),  Stahelski is undoubtedly having a blast building his universe one bodyslam and bullet ridden blast at a time.

That being said, and while I do appreciate Stahelski expanding his cinematic universe of assassins by including and increasing all manner of hitman secret codes and rules, blood oaths and honor encased medallions, and of course, the assassin's luxury four star hotel itself, The Continental, "John Wick: Chapter 2" did run into a bit of expositional bloat with its own growing mythology, a quality that does work a tad against the sheer efficiency of the series by slowing down what needs to keep moving like a rocket. The "John Wick" series is working due to the brevity of the story and character motivations and really doesn't seem to need a larger, grander narrative suggesting something that is more epic than it may need to be.

And yet, even with its minor flaws, Chad Stahelski's "John Wick: Chapter 2" concludes with a doozy of a climax that makes me more than ready for "Chapter 3," which I have seen is due to arrive in 2019. Yes, and generally, I have had it up to my eyeballs in sequels, prequels, and the like but sometimes, knowing precisely what you are going to get, while not enormously satisfying, can be buckets of fun.

MORE HUMAN THAN HUMAN: a review of "Blade Runner 2049"

"BLADE RUNNER 2049"
Based upon characters and situations from Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick
Story by Hampton Fancer 
Screenplay Written by Hampton Fancer & Michael Green
Executive Producer Ridley Scott
Directed by Denis Villeneuve
**** (four stars)
RATED R

One of the most disturbingly risky and audacious sequences that I think that I have ever seen within a movie arrived in Steven Spielberg's "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" (2001), his grippingly dark, adult fable about a synthetic boy (an outstanding Haley Joel Osment) programmed with the ability to love and who essentially spends eternity discovering what it means to be human as well as attempting to finally have the love for his Mother reciprocated back to himself.

Yet, what was so gravely striking about the film's final sections, all of which occurs in an irrevocably altered post-climate change affected Earth, is the sequence that takes place 2000 years after the extinction of all human life. In a film that had already demanded so much of the audience's willingness to follow this particularly grim tale, to ask viewers to continue to be invested in an experience that had extinguished human beings and therefore, evolved beyond humanity while also discerning ways to uphold humanity was undeniably polarizing to say the least. Now, that we have arrived with "Blade Runner 2049," I would not be the least bit surprised if those feelings of audience polarization will rise once again.

Dear readers, I am of the age where I would have been old enough to have experienced Ridley Scott's iconic science-fiction thriller "Blade Runner" (1982) upon its initial release. As a matter of fact, I was all of 13 years old, already a science-fiction fan and more than eager to see any new vision that was ready to hit the silver screen. While my overall impression of the film at that time was not fully formulated due to its adult driven themes and ambiguities, it went without question whatsoever that I had witnessed a film unlike any other that had preceded it--and that even included both George Lucas' "Star Wars" (1977) plus Lucas and Irvin Kershner's "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980), as those films were truly fantastical fairy tales that happened to be set in a galaxy far, far away.

Ridley Scott's"Blade Runner," while set in the year of 2019--which at the time sounded like a million light years away from 1982--was a film that had its feet firmly planted on Earth, with its evocative future vision that found the Los Angeles of the future drenched in constant neon accented rainfall, an over-populated landscape that had veered demonstrably Asian, as well as a disheartening increase in commercial advertisements. As for the more fantastical elements, albeit ones designed to force us to take a hard gaze at our own relationships with our own humanity and inhumanity, Scott gave us the "replicants," synthetic beings from the Tyrell Corporation that were devised as being slave labor that was "more human than human," an element that dangerously came to pass as the four year life spans of each replicant began to announce themselves in violent revolts, forcing them to be "retired" by police detectives known as the titular "blade runners."

While not a box office success at the time, "Blade Runner" has  more than deservedly earned its massive reputation as being one of the most influential science-fiction films ever made. With regards to the cinematography, special effects, an aesthetic that splendidly merged 1940's film noir with the futuristic, there simply was not a film that looked or felt anything like "Blade Runner," and with the juggernaut of a film score by Vangelis, there also just was not any film anywhere that sounded remotely like "Blade Runner" either.

Throughout the years, I have seen "Blade Runner" countless times and truth be told, I have not been awaiting a sequel to the film at all primarily because in its own melancholic dreamlike way, the film felt complete as is. But that being said, the original film--especially with the superior Director's Cut--was certainly open ended enough thematically and conceptually, that any further installments felt to be more than possible and perhaps, even justified. Thankfully, with "Blade Runner 2049," Executive Produced by Ridley Scott and directed astoundingly by Denis Villeneuve, already riding high after the brilliance of his previous film "Arrival" (2016), we have the rare sequel that more than honors the previous installment as well as Philip K. Dick's source material.

Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner 2049" grandly builds, expands, and enhances all that we know about the futuristic existential journeys of human beings and replicants and creates an experience that is undeniably mountainous in its scope and impact. Without hyperbole, Denis Villeneuve is a creative force to be reckoned with and then some as his vision has elicited something that could only be described as "awesome." Trust me, dear readers, "Blade Runner 2049" is a voluminous experience simultaneously designed to enthrall, disturb, provoke, challenge and saturate all of your senses.

Picking up 30 years after the events of the first film, with newer, obedient model replicants now integrated into society, "Blade Runner 2049" stars Ryan Gosling as K, a replicant blade runner for the LAPD, who is assigned to hunt down and "retire" rogue older modeled replicants as he investigates the growing replicant freedom movement. Discriminated against by his human co-workers (often being referred to with the pejorative "skin job"), K returns home each night to the comforts of his holographic girlfriend Joi (Ana de Armas), a product of the Wallace Corporation, the company that has usurped the now bankrupt Tyrell Corporation and is led by the blind inventor cum messianic meanufactuer Niander Wallace (Jared Leto).

Upon "retiring" a rogue replicant connected to the freedom movement, K discovers a box which contains what appears to be  human remains inside. The contents of that very box propels K into an odyssey which not only threatens the balance of power between humans and replicants, but also into an existential crisis based in lost dreams, memories that may be real or implanted, identities and self-perceptions that may not be what was once considered to be true and yes indeed, the whereabouts of Detective Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), long gone for 30 years.

Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner 2049" is a triumph of ambition, artistry and most purposeful ambiguity. On a purely technical level, you would be hard pressed to find another film released this year (or possibly within the last several years) that is this visually dynamic as Villeneuve and the extraordinary Cinematographer Roger Deakins have fashioned a sublime collection of dreamworld imagery and dazzling sequences that more than honors all that Ridley Scott devised in the original film--in fact, I think Villeneuve and Deakins utilized Scott's work as a brilliant leaping off point, devising the imaginary future of an imaginary future world. The effect is often mind boggling in its execution.

Additionally, Composer Hans Zimmer is on a creative role!!! Following his incredible, downright anxiety inducing score for Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk," Zimmer, working in collaboration with Composer Benjamin Wallfisch, has devised a film score that fully honors the innovation and haunting beauty of Vangelis' score to the original film by building and expanding upon it, now creating something that sounds like what one friend described as "metallic whale songs." While that may sound completely unpleasant to some of you, for me, the tactic worked sensationally and the sound worked in full tandem with the visuals, both enhancing each other to their elegant breaking point. As far as I am concerned, come Awards season, if Roger Deakins and the team of Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch are not recognized, cinematic crimes would be more than apparent.

With all of the technical and aesthetic qualities in place, Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner 2049" certainly treasures Scott's (and Vangelis') film noir/Fritz Lang qualities as the gracefully flying automobiles and the constant rainfall continue as conceptual touchstones for the story. But Villeneuve extends himself from Scott's vision by taking what was once intimate in its impressionism and stretching the canvas to create something that is essentially operatic in style and most importantly, the story, themes and concepts.

Returning to the opening of this posting regarding Steven Spielberg's "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," I would not be surprised to find movie going audiences as equally polarized in their opinions towards "Blade Runner 2049" as they were for Spielberg's opus. Denis Villeneuve has certainly not made his motion picture an easy ride for the audience, so to speak, as the film is not a "turn your brain off and watch the pretty pictures" experience. "Blade Runner 2049" demands that its audience pay attention and have a visceral and cerebral relationship with the experience as it is clearly designed to be something to fully immerse oneself inside of. Yet, the film is populated with a collective of characters, several of which may or may not even be human but are all upon their individual quests to devise what humanity (and therefore, inhumanity) may represent.

In addition to the replicant blade runner K, his love interest is a hologram, who in one striking sequence merges herself with a flesh and blood person in order to experience a sense of sexual intercourse with K. Another stunning section set within the post-apocalyptic Las Vegas, all bathed in clouds of golden dust and augmented by bizarre Kubrick-ian erotic sky scraping statues, finds K surrounded by human artifacts like jukeboxes and jittery holograms of Elvis Presley and dancing girls on stage. Yet, what of the toy horse that K discovers? Could that have emerged from a real or implanted memory or else from some far away dream that may or may not have been his own?

With the original film, at least within the Director's Cut version, Ridley Scott created the possibility that the human detective of Rick Deckard just may have indeed been a replicant, which in turn asks of all of us in the audience if indeed we are all replicants. This existential quandary also sits at the heart of "Blade Runner 2049" with the film's primary characters but additionally, I think that Villeneuve has also created a certain cultural commentary that questions the status of reality itself or at least our perception of reality as we are living our lives increasingly inside of a virtual world or worlds with our smartphones, mobile devices and social media.

Villeneuve's dreamworld aesthetic and measured pacing also contributes to the blurring of reality, dreams and unreliable memories, which at times over the course of this nearly three hour film provides fits and starts that are lulling and jarring--as if rapidly falling out of one dream and crashing into the next. From a character standpoint, I also feel that by blurring the identities of his cast in regards to whether they are human, replicant or otherwise, we are then further forced to ask of ourselves what is human in the first place and furthermore, if we can find it within ourselves to care for a figure who is a hologram more than an actual human, then what indeed is humanity itself?

That is the heart is the finest science-fiction as far as I am concerned: the posing of the eternal questions to explore and debate over and again and decidedly not how many alien ships can be destroyed. Yes, there is quite a bit of bang for the buck in "Blade Runner 2049," but this is a film of atmosphere presented with the utmost artistry.

At this time, I have to give credit to Ryan Gosling for the superior quality of his performance as he is a fine actor, who like Emma Stone, seems to have become more than a little self-aware, therefore diminishing the fullness of his acting. As K, Gosling is perfectly cast as his appearance looks to be a hair synthetic, much like his surroundings, which makes his crisis of self all the more compelling. As for Harrison Ford, what a pleasure it was to witness him eliciting a tough, gritty, deeply haunted performance that truly fills in considerable gaps in the 30 years between the events of the first and current films. As with his reprise of Han Solo in J.J. Abrams' "Star Wars: Episode VII-The Force Awakens" (2015), it was wonderful to see Ford not only revisit a character he invented with a sense of newfound gravitas but to elicit a rich performance again, the kind of which has been rare in recent years.

Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner 2049" for all of its razzle dazzle is not a film that is designed to shatter box office records, much as it was with the original film. But, I do think that if given an honest chance and opportunity, movie goers will find themselves enveloped in a cinematic universe unlike any other, one that will insinuate itself into your subconscious and alter your perceptions. Again, this film represents the finest of what we have witnessed at the movies in 2017, films that adhere to a artistic vision rather than box office. What Villeneuve has created is no mere cash grab but a work of art that is indeed built to last.

SAVAGE POSTSCRIPT
While my rating of the film is clearly highly recommended, I do have to warn you that the sound mix of "Blade Runner 2049" is EXTREMELY LOUD!!!! I spent much of the film with my fingers over my ears as the sonics were ear shattering.

This film is designed to be seen and experienced on the large screen but you may wish to take some ear plugs.     

BLAND BILLE JEAN: a review of "Battle Of The Sexes"

"BATTLE OF THE SEXES"
Screenplay Written by Simon Beaufoy
Directed by Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton
** (two stars)
RATED PG 13

While I have never existed as anything resembling a sports fan what soever throughout my life, I certainly will always pay my respects to those figures who elevated and transcended the games in which they were associated, for their skill, determination, physicality and athleticism all congealed into the artistic.

Even as a small child in the 1970's, I was more than aware of individuals who accomplished athletic feats that were seemingly impossible, therefore changing the games as they had once been known. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Julius "Dr. J" Erving, Walter Payton, Olympian Nadia Comaneci and of course, the Greatest Of All Time, Muhammad Ali dominated not only their respective sports but all corners of American culture as well. Even in my very young life, with a then extremely limited world view, combined with that aforementioned non-interest in sports, not acknowledging those sports figures and others was an impossibility to be certain.

And without question, tennis legend Billie Jean King was one of those crucial figures who transcended the sport and pushed the world forwards.

Because of who she is and what she did indeed achieve during the 1970's and throughout the remainder of her life thus far, Billie Jean King demands a film that is the equal of who she is and what she endured and overcame. Unfortunately, "Battle Of The Sexes," from the directing team of Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton is not that film.

Now, let me preface by explaining to you that what Faris and Dayton delivered is not a bad film in the least. It is just not an inspiring one or even one that is terribly interesting or involving, quite the surprise given the subject matter and provocative elements inherent within the material itself.  In fact, it often elicited yawns. Decidedly not for the story of the life being told but for the dryly and dangerously pedestrian way in which the story was presented.

Framed directly with the backdrop of the 1970's sexual revolution and the rise of the Women's Liberation movement, "Battle Of The Sexes" stars Emma Stone as the inimitable Billie Jean King, who at the start of the film has become the Women's Tennis World Champion but soon becomes embroiled in a grander fight for equal pay when she angrily discovers that male tennis players will be competing for a cash prize that is eight times larger than the prize the women will be competing for.

When United States Lawn Tennis Association (USLTA) big-wig Jack Kramer (Bill Pullman) refuses to make the cash prizes equal for both the male and female players, King, alongside her business partner Gladys Heldman (a strong Sarah Silverman), set out to formulate a rival Women's Tennis Association league, augmented with the self-created Virginia Slims tour, a package wooing the finest female athletes to their new corporation, although King would have to endure a drastic pay cut in the process.

Meanwhile, 55 year old male tennis pro Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell) is finding himself at his own personal crossroads. His tennis career essentially finished, he is biding his time in an emasculated existence, toiling away in a meaningless office job and essentially living off of, and gambling away, the fortunes of his wealthy and domineering wife Priscilla Wheelan (Elizabeth Shue...sigh).

Riggs, clearly filled with equal parts bluster and boredom, challenges the ever rising star of 29 year old King to a  gender themed tennis match, playing up the titular battle of the sexes. Although at first she refuses, Riggs' defeat of Australian tennis champion Margaret Court (Jessica McNamee), raises King's ire and soon, the match is a go, becoming a cultural, socio-political and media sensation, a tennis match eventually viewed by an estimated 90 million people around the world.

Yet, for both Riggs, and especially for Billie Jean King, the real battles are occurring off of the tennis courts, as King, married to World Team Tennis co-founder and attorney Larry King (Austin Stowell), is privately yet turbulently wrestling with questions concerning her sexual identity as she finds herself attracted to and beginning an affair with hairdresser Marilyn Barnett (Andrea Riseborough).

Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton's "Battle Of The Sexes" is a more than well intentioned, workmanlike sports docudrama that simultaneously evokes the tenor, tonality and look of the early
1970's with skillful craftsmanship, as well as devises a narrative that also showcases just how far we have and have not progressed in almost 45 years regarding women 's rights, equal pay between men and women and most certainly, the nature of closeted and open homosexuality and lesbianism for public figures, regardless of any increased prevalence within the media in the 21st century.

In fact, it would not be remotely far-fetched to make the connections between the film's pubic competition between a blowhard, self-described chauvinistic media hog against a woman determined to break the glass ceiling within the sports industry against a viciously fought Presidential election in 2016. Perhaps, that was indeed the intent of this film in the first place, even though it was filmed before the election came to pass entirely.

Even so, having a dramatized document showcasing how the trials and tribulations of the Women's Liberation movement did indeed produce a victory to serve as a source of solace and inspiration during a time when that very same movement faced a crushing failure, is a terrific conceit to augment the story of Billie Jean King. But unfortunately I felt that "The Battle Of The Sexes" fell dramatically flat and more surprising to me was how uninspiring the film actually was...and those feelings had nothing to do with knowing the outcome even before entering the theater.

For those of you who have seen Director Michael Showalter's "The Big Sick" this year, just think of how aching, riveting, unpredictable, romantic, comedic, dramatic and supremely heartfelt that film was even already knowing that the real life participants in that film's love story are indeed married and even co-wrote the screenplay. The magic of that film was all in the storytelling.

By comparison, what Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton created with "Battle Of The Sexes" was essentially a meticulously designed period piece, filled end-to end with the finest production design, excellent sun baked cinematography by Linus Sandgren to the AM Gold styled soundtrack sprinkled throughout (Elton John's "Rocket Man" was a nice touch..but honestly, where was John's "Philadelphia Freedom," written specifically for Billie Jean King?), but with all of the tension, drama, urgency and thus, the palpable inspiration drained from the proceedings.

One major misstep, as far as I was concerned was the actual climactic tennis match sequence between King and Riggs. Certainly I do not think that Emma Stone and Steve Carell would have had to become tennis champions in order to portray their roles but I definitely would have found the film more convincing if the film stars were more overtly prevalent in the athletic sequences. The way Faris and Dayton have chosen to film the major tennis match is to have most of the action viewed from a distance, one would think because that way, editing would be drastically reduced and we could more easily follow the ball, so to speak. That being said, at such a distance, it is easy to deduce that we are not even watching Stone or Carell at all but more than likely their stunt doubles, with only cut away close ups of the film's stars scattered throughout. This approach did not to involve me in the match itself but to distance me from it because I was unable to "buy the fantasy" of what I was being presented on the silver screen.

Another significant problem with the film, unfortunately, is Ms. Emma Stone. Don't get me wrong. I have been enamored with the talents of Ms. Stone ever since her debut in Director Greg Mottola and Producer Judd Apatow's raunchy teen comedy "Superbad" (2007). Yet, as of late, she seems to have found herself in somewhat of a creative rut, much like Anne Hathaway, another young, exceedingly talented actress who has become a little more than self-aware in her choices and performances overall.

Yes, Emma Stone delivers a good performance and I do believe that her scenes with Andrea Riseborough are among the film's best, most sparkling work. Yet, for all of her obvious skill, which is on display throughout the film, I guess I felt that I was watching Emma Stone playing Billie Jean King, instead of watching her become Billie Jean King.  There was nothing lived in about Stone's performance and it just left me wanting because a shag haircut and round glasses are just not enough to emulate a full, three dimensional picture of a life. By this stage of her career, Emma Stone really needs to dig a bit deeper and not simply coast upon her powerful magnetism. I know she has another great performance within her but her portrayal of Billie Jean King was just not one of them.   

Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton's "Battle Of The Sexes" was as dry as the desert, utilizing none of the innovation found in their previous film, the beautifully dark literary fantasy love story "Ruby Sparks" (2012) and taking what could have been truly exciting and invigorating filmmaking and storytelling some and turning Billie Jean King's historic tale and victory into a sadly pedestrian, completely inoffensive, straight up the middle of the mass audience PG 13 road.

"Battle Of The Sexes" was banal, often a tad boring and frankly, it felt like a TV Movie Of The Week from the 1970's rather than a film about the 1970's in 2017. But then again, there was much of television during the 1970's that was more daring and groundbreaking than any one moment in this movie and therefore, the life of Billie Jean King. Truly unthinkable to me considering we have a story and film that contains themes of sexism, feminism, athleticism, competition, a sexual identity crisis and awakening, scenes from two marriages, a budding love story and gambling addiction and even so, the effect was as regarding sun saturated wallpaper for two hours.

Billie Jean King deserves so much better.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR OCTOBER 2017

Let's keep this cinematic train rolling, shall we?

While we are definitely at a crossroads with the state of the cinema these days with originality fighting for space and relevance against the painfully tried and true, I really wish to believe that originality will win the day in the long run because let's face it, which movie do you think will still be talked about after 2017: "mother!" or "The Emoji Movie"?

I rest my case.

That being said, there is no reason to believe that ALL sequels are cinematic wastelands, as already one upcoming sequel feature is earning reviews that are ecstatic.

1. "BLADE RUNNER 2049"
Dear readers, I cannot say that I have necessarily been salivating over a sequel to the 1982 Ridley Scott directed cinematic wonderment that remains a seismically influential work of art to this day. That being said, now that the film is just about to arrive, I am enormously interested and more than ready to return to this wholly unique cinematic universe, this time directed by Denis Villeneuve, who already made a powerful mark within the science fiction genre with last year's outstanding "Arrival." 

2. "THE FOREIGNER"
I have to admit, the trailer had me more than intrigued. Under the direction of Martin Campbell, who previously helmed "Casino Royale" (2006), one of the finest James Bond thrillers in recent years, we now have this new political thriller which seems to showcase star Jackie Chan in a more subdued, dramatic fashion than I have ever been used to seeing and I am hoping that the film as a whole succeeds in the same fashion while also providing some urgent action.

3. "THE MOUNTAIN BETWEEN US"

OK...could you have two more attractive leads in your film?!   Even so, this survivalist tale starring Kate Winslet and Idris Elba, also caught my attention and I hope the script and performances will outweigh any cliches I fear may make their ways into the proceedings.

With that, October is more than full for me, so again wish me good health and luck and and as always, I'll see you when the house lights go down!!!