Grandma (2015)

I guess calling it "Bad Grandma" would have been a little too obvious, and just a bit hackish. Actually, I wouldn't call her bad as much as I would call her surly. I'm sure we all know the cranky, outspoken grandparent, only it's funny to watch when they aren't yours. I'm already surly and cranky now, so I can only imagine how I'll be 30 years from now. There's a part of me that looks forward to the day when I stop giving a shit and just say whatever the hell I want.

Grandma is a good example of limited story telling. The film plays out over just a single day, but you get everything you need to know from the dialog and interaction. They don't waste time with pointless exposition or explaining all the relationships. It's all there on the screen if you pay attention (and it's not like it's hard to figure out). Depending on your political or religious views, the ultimate goal of this film might upset some of you, but I didn't have an issue with it. I wouldn't get hung up on that though, as the movie is funny and light.

Despite being a limited story, they don't rush things and the relatively short running time is tight and effective. It's refreshing to see a movie that doesn't pad it's runtime. Just put what what needs to be in the film, and if it ends up being just 88 minutes, then so be it. I wish more filmmakers would realize this. Grandma is the kind of movie where at the end, I wouldn't have minded seeing another ten minutes or so. I enjoyed watching the characters and how it all played out.

Lily Tomlin is great, and I'm already hearing Oscar buzz around her performance. I almost forgot we are approaching Oscar-bait season, but this isn't as in your face as maybe other offerings around this time of the year are. Tomlin really is fun to watch, and not just because of her general attitude. There's a wisdom there, but doesn't hammer you over the head with it. I also enjoyed an engaging performance from Julia Garner. She's a relative newcomer, but she has such a distinctive look that she's hard not to notice even in limited screentime. I can see her becoming the next indie queen and seems a likely candidate for playing the manic pixie dream girl type. Marcia Gay Harden is also great. They do an interesting thing with her character where they build her up, and you think she's going to be someone you're going to hate, but when you're finally introduced to her, she comes off as the most sympathetic and relatable. In a weaker movie she would have been a caricature of an overbearing mother. All of the characters in Grandma are more complex than on the surface and aren't perfect people. You know, like in reality.

Grandma is a funny, well-written and heartfelt character story that's driven by an Oscar worthy performance from Lily Tomlin. Since this is smaller release, most won't be able to see this in the theaters, but it's definitely worth checking out.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Ant-Man (2015)

One of the funnier Marvel films to date. I can see why James Gunn gave it such high praise. It's one of the lightest in tone of all their films. I laughed out loud during Ant-Man almost as much as I did during Guardians. It's a shame I saw this on such a small screen with only about 15 people.

Ant-Man is also another good example of great casting (something Marvel seems to keep nailing). If you don't cast someone as funny and charismatic as Paul Rudd in the lead, it's likely the whole film doesn't work. I'm a huge fan of Michael Pena and he worked great as additional comic relief. Evangeline Lilly was great as well. It's ironic that she's an actress that's actually athletic enough to pull off a superhero role, but yet still doesn't get to play one. It looks like she might get her chance soon though.

I'd say Ant-Man's biggest fault is that it's yet another origin story, and it's pretty formulaic as far as that goes. Also, in a lot of places it feels like it exists just to bridge some of the other Marvel films together. Fortunately, the bridging is done in an entertaining way, and some of the flashbacks and cameos made me geek out. Ant-Man doesn't require that you've seen all the other movies or are super familiar with the MCU. It's pretty accessible compared to some of the other MCU films.

I don't know the reasons why Edgar Wright left the project, and one can only imagine how this would have turned out had he stayed on. You can see his fingerprints on the final product in a few places.

I did see this in 3D, which of course, was a total waste of time and did nothing for the film. It was unfortunately my only option, but I advise you to skip it if possible. Visually the effects were good though.

There are two post-credit scenes, so get comfortable during the credits if you don't want to miss them.

Ant-Man isn't the strongest of Phase II, but it's one of the most fun. Those looking for some late summer entertainment won't be disappointed. Totally worth the price of admission.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Carrie (2013)

Carrie White could have been the next great Sith Lord, but squandered her gifts.  YOU BLEW IT!

I've had a lot of conversations this week about Kimberly Peirce's adaptation of Stephen King's Carrie.  It's mainly revolved around how I'm not a fan of remakes, especially classics.  I also found it a little annoying to hear the cast talk about the film and how terrifying it is, as if nobody has heard of Carrie before.  Also, how is a story about a bullied girl going to work considering how hyper-sensitive we are about bullying now?

Anyway, I watched Carrie and was going to write up my review, but then saw that the Brian De Palma's original was streaming on Netflix.  As it wasn't fresh in my mind, I thought why not watch it again and then I can have a more accurate comparison.  I'm glad I did this, as it softened my opinion of the newer version.  While I'm still not a fan of remakes, the modern version of Carrie is an example of one where I don't mind that it was done.  It's pretty much a beat by beat remake, and doesn't do much new with the material.  You might think that makes this remake pointless, but here's the thing, the original doesn't hold up all that well.  It's extremely dated looking, and there are times where it felt outright silly.  Another thing that surprised me is that the new Carrie was actually paced better.

I'm going to get into some minor spoiler territory with regards to the new version, but if you aren't aware of the general plot of Carrie by now, then where in the hell have you been?

There are some minor differences between the two; some I felt were improvements, where others felt unnecessary and even undercut the film a little bit.  The big one was when we get to the famous prom scene. In the original, the entire class is laughing at her once she's drenched in pig's blood.  This makes Carrie's reaction a little easier to sympathize with.  In the new version, and I could be remembering this wrong, but I recall more shock from her classmates, so when Carrie goes off, she's killing a lot of people she shouldn't have any beef with.

I felt like the classmate's and teacher's reaction to Chris' (Portia Doubleday) bullying was a little more realistic and modernized.  Chris' behavior, while totally ridiculous, actually made more sense to me considering the sense of entitlement you see from many these days.

One change, and this may be good or bad depending on your point of view, but there's no nudity in Carrie, where in the original I was surprised at the amount of nudity in the opening scene.  There's no real gore either.  I'm really surprised this is rated R when I think this could have gotten away with a PG-13 rating.

It turns out that the way Sue (Gabrielle Wilde) was portrayed was actually more faithful to the book.  I was initially critical of the fact that they made Sue pregnant.  I thought it was some lame, thrown in reference to all those teen mom shows, but I looked it up and it Sue was concerned about being pregnant in the book.  This wasn't in the original Carrie, but seeing how it had no impact on the plot, I can see why it was left out.  They also showed Sue having nightmares in the aftermath, which wasn't the case in the book or the new version.

Another improvement is that modern effects made Carrie's telekinetic powers look much more realistic.  This is another thing that doesn't hold up when when you go back and watch the original.  They are able to set up Carrie's powers much more effectively, as well.

The biggest improvement is Julianne Moore as Margaret White.  She's extremely creepy and really nails it with her performance.  She absolutely blows away Piper Laurie's version.  On the other hand, while there's nothing wrong with Chloe Grace Moretz performance, I had a harder time buying into her as Carrie.  Part of what made the original Carrie work was that Sissy Spacek wasn't "conventionally attractive", where Moretz is a normal, attractive girl.  It's hard for me to accept her as someone that would be an outcast.  I also liked Judy Greer as the gym teacher, Ms. Desjardin.  The rest of the cast is attractive, but mostly forgettable.

One point to the story in general I still find odd is how Sue asks her boyfriend Tommy (Ansel Elgort) to take Carrie to the prom.  She's doing it out of guilt, which I get, but why not just befriend Carrie and find her a date of her own rather than make her boyfriend take her out?  That's just weird to me.

Kimberly Pierce's Carrie turned out to be a faithful adaptation to the source material.  If this was the first time I had seen it, I would have come away from it thinking it was a decent horror flick.  While it's a modern update for a new generation, I'd actually recommend it over the original if you've never seen it before.  It's paced better, has a great performance from Julianne Moore, and much better effects.  There's no need to rush out and see it, especially if you've seen the original, but give it a rent sometime.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars