One of Stephen King’s most ambitious novels has finally been given its due with “IT: Chapter Two,” the monstrously thrilling second half to the first chapter of “IT” in 2017. Yes, it will feel long to some audience members with a 2-hour, 49-minute runtime (it’s more than a half-hour longer than the 2017 original), but for those enamored with the details of King’s source material, there’s plenty more story to revel in.
The great thing is, not only is this chapter told from the standpoint of the adult versions of The Losers’ Club, it melds in many more pages from the stories of the young Losers in flashback, which naturally involves more nightmare scenarios with the ghoulish Pennywise the Dancing Clown.
“IT: Chapter Two” picks up where the 2017 film left off in 1989, where a group of adolescent outcasts – after they seemingly defeated Pennywise – make a blood oath to return to their hometown of Derry, Maine, and reunite to fight the embodiment of evil once again should he resurface. Just as the Pennywise legend foretold, the demented clown returns to Derry and begins to claim more victims 27 years later in 2016, and its up to traumatized adults to not only muster up the courage to stand united in the hometown they left behind, but carry out a tribal ritual that will rid their town of the creature they call IT once and for all.
Starring an impressive cast almost entirely made of young teens in the 2017 film, “IT: Chapter Two” is twice as good from an acting standpoint, as we not only get the adult versions of the Losers’ Club (including Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy and Bill Hader), the young cast returns as well in flashback scenes that expand their storylines. As for Pennywise, Bill Skarsgard is back and even more frightening than the original, appearing in not only creepy clown form (which is scary enough), but as an assortment of nightmare-inducing creatures that will make you jump, squirm, turn away in disgust and laugh at the same time. It’s a howling great time and bloody brilliant follow-up to the 2017 blockbuster.
Lammometer: 8 (out of 10)
Tim Lammers reviews movies weekly for “The KQ92 Morning Show,” WCCO Radio, WJON-AM, KLZZ-FM, “The Tom Barnard Podcast” and “The BS Show” with Bob Sansevere. On TV, Tim has made hundreds of guest appearances on “KARE 11 News at 11” (NBC).
The “X-Men” saga – at least in this iteration – is finally coming to an end with “X-Men: Dark Phoenix,” an exciting and satisfying conclusion to the Marvel movie mutant series that began in 2000 with Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen and Halle Berry, and introduced the world to the talents of an Australian actor named Hugh Jackman.
Since that time, the “X-Men” have assembled for six movies (not including three featuring Wolverine/Logan and two for Deadpool), the last being pitiful “X-Men: Apocalypse” in 2016. Thankfully the deck has been reshuffled for the finale to feature the comic book’s acclaimed “Dark Phoenix” saga, which benefits by the rising popularity by “Game of Thrones” star Sophie Turner in the title role.
“Dark Phoenix” begins in 1975, where after a tragedy involving her family, a young Jean Grey (Summer Fontana) is taken into Dr. Charles Xavier’s (James McAvoy) School for the Gifted, where he teaches the telepathic mutant to harness her powers. Fast-forwarding to 1992, the adult Jean (Turner), along with fellow mutants Beast (Nicolas Hoult), Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), Storm (Alexandra Shipp), Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and Quicksilver (Evan Peters), are recruited by the U.S. government to save the astronauts of a NASA space shuttle, which is in distress, spinning in space and ready to explode any minute.
AUDIO: Tim reviews “X-Men: Dark Phoenix” with Tom Barnard on “The KQ Morning Show” on KQRS-FM.
The dangerous mission works, but in an attempt of rescuing the shuttle captain, Grey absorbs what seems to be a solar flare, which gives her powers far beyond what she can control. Tragically, the instability in her mutation leads to a tragic death that fractures the X-Men: some of which including Magneto want to kill her, while Professor X and Jean’s boyfriend, Cyclops, want to save and possibly cure her. Standing in everybody’s way, though, is an alien race lead by the malevolent Vuk (Jessica Chastain), who seek the Dark Phoenix’s powers to impose rule over the planet.
“Dark Phoenix” is a reboot within a reboot story of sorts for the “X-Men” movie universe, following the critical and fan lambasting of the plot in “X-Men: The Last Stand,” where Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) was resurrected after sacrificing herself to save her fellow X-Men in “X2: X-Men United.” The plot misfire was rectified somewhat, though, with the time-traveling plot of 2014’s “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” which allowed for director and writer Simon Kinberg (replacing excommunicated “X-Men” helmer Bryan Singer) an opportunity to bring justice to the comic book fan-favorite storyline.
To that end, fans should be satisfied with “Dark Phoenix,” even though a few parts – especially at the beginning and the end of the film — echo too closely the beginning and the ending of “The Last Stand.” Of course, the big benefit now is the right use of the always evolving world of visual effects, which is done in ways familiar in some instances, and refreshing and new in others.
What makes the film worthwhile is the cast, including Turner, McAvoy, Fassbender, Holt and Chastain in the key roles. While she receives top-billing, Lawrence’s appearance is reduced to a supporting turn here, while Sheridan, Shipp and McPhee appear in more functional roles. Underused again – like he has been from the very beginning – is Peters’ always entertaining Quicksilver, who essentially disappears after two large action showcases. But while the leads have a lot of presence, the film still needed someone with the charisma of Jackman to anchor it, an attribute the actor instantly brought to franchise as a relative newcomer in 2000.
“X-Men: Dark Phoenix” is a vast improvement over 2016’s “X-Men: Apocalypse,” a dreadful disappointment coming off of the blistering success of “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” which is arguably one of the best in the “X-Men” film series involving nearly all of the major X-Men characters past and present. “Days of Future Past” served as a solid, passing-of-the-torch film from the legacy cast to the prequel cast established in 2011’s “X-Men: First Class” (McAvoy, Fassbender, Lawrence and Hoult), and was the last to feature Jackman, Stewart and McKellen in meaningful roles (apart from Jackman’s powerful “Logan.”). The bloated and tedious “Apocalypse,” quite simply, couldn’t live up to hype and left a promising revival hanging in the balance.
“Dark Phoenix” thankfully restores the “X-Men” saga to its former glory, recapturing the tone of the previous, great “X-Men” films, which traditionally have been far more serious than their Marvel Cinematic Universe counterparts. While the MCU films have largely been about publicly-accepted superheroes saving the world, the “X-Men” films have keyed in on how the mutants with superpowers have been societal outcasts, a theme that is examined once again after the “X-Men” fall out of the public’s good graces after the space shuttle crew rescue.
While the film is being billed as “the shocking end to the X-Men saga,” fans shouldn’t fret too much over not seeing their favorite film mutants again. Essentially what this means is that “Dark Phoenix” is the last film that was produced wholly under the 20th Century Fox banner, which finally was absorbed by Disney in the spring. What it surely does mean is that either there will be new “X-Men” films cast by Disney and the MCU (good luck recasting Jackman’s Wolverine!), or at the very least, the introduction of select X-Men characters (who will likely be recast) to the new “Avengers” tales post-“Endgame.”
AUDIO: Tim reviews “X-Men: Dark Phoenix” and more with Jordana Green and guest host Joe Anderson on “Paul and Jordana” on WCCO-AM.
No matter what the case may be, at least “Dark Phoenix” did right by the franchise by completing its sprawling, 19-year-long tale in a meaningful sort of way. Sure, the franchise, never earned the gazillions of dollars the MCU did, but it rarely lost sight of good storytelling and created plenty of characters fans cared about. If anything, the first “X-Men” in 2000 kicked off a new wave of superhero films that burgeoned into the genre juggernaut that it is today. And talk about mutating … without “X-Men” and the clear appetite fans had for superhero fare, who knows were the genre would have gone had Fox didn’t take the initiative and risk to produce the film nearly 20 years ago. Dark as the themes in the series may be, they brought a whole new cinematic light to comic book movies.
Lammometer: 7.5 (out of 10)
Tim Lammers reviews movies weekly for The KQ92 Morning Show,” “KARE 11 News at 11” (NBC), WCCO Radio, WJON-AM, KLZZ-FM, “The Tom Barnard Podcast” and “The BS Show” with Bob Sansevere.
Writer-director M. Night Shyamalan scores an impressive hat-trick with “Glass,” the long-awaited sequel to his 2000 mystery drama “Unbreakable” that was bridged by his hit 2016 horror thriller “Split.”
VIDEO: See Tim’s review of “Glass” and “Stan & Ollie” with Adrienne Broaddus on KARE-TV.
Released in 2000, “Unbreakable” essentially examines an obsessive comic book art dealer’s (Samuel L. Jackson) idea that superheroes — like Bruce Willis’ David Dunn — walk among us and will go to any means necessary to confirm his beliefs; while 2016’s “Split,” as it turns out, reveals there are supervillains — like James McAvoy’s Kevin Crumb, who suffers from dissociative identity disorder — too, like the Beast – one of Kevin’s 24 personalities.
“Glass,” a name assumed by Jackson’s character in “Unbroken” because of his brittle bone disease, takes place, appropriately, 19 years after the events of the first film, where David realizes that he must confront his fellow meta-human who wreaking havoc across Philadelphia. Getting in his way, though, is a Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson), who finds a way to institutionalize David, Kevin and Glass in a bid to convince each of them that their perceived powers are just figments of their imaginations.
AUDIO: Hear Tim’s review of “Glass” with Tom Barnard on “The KQ Morning Show.”
The interesting thing about “Unbreakable” is that is really was ahead of its time with its dark superhero narrative — considering it came out after DC had its run and faded in 1990s, and just as Marvel’s X-Men and Spider-Man showed there was interest in the moviegoing public that the Marvel Cinematic Universe could finally materialize with Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and the Avengers.
Oddly enough, Shyaman’s inventive superhero movie reemerges at a time where there’s been a proliferation of them, yet amazingly, “Glass” still sets itself apart thanks to filmmaker’s penchant for plot twists and real-world narrative, which is enhanced by the terrific performances of McAvoy, Willis and Jackson. (Plus, in a class move, the writer-director brings back nearly every member of “Unbreakable’s” cast, save Robin Wright, whose character’s absence is explained in the story.)
Fans of “Unbreakable” and “Split” are going to love “Glass,” as Shyamalan’s sweeping, twisty and ambitious narrative finally comes together in grand fashion after two decades. The film will no doubt be confusing, though, to those who’ve never seen “Unbreakable” and/or “Split,” and Shyamalan is putting a lot of trust in his audience as such by not including any sort of prologue. Naturally, there are flashbacks to the previous films in “Glass,” which aids the story at key points in the film. If at all possible, everyone, whether they’ve seen “Unbreakable” and “Split” or not will greatly benefit by revisiting the films before seeing “Glass.”
Ultimately, all roads lead to the smashing ending of “Glass,” where you realize that despite third chapter’s tidy conclusion, Shyamalan is not done telling his comic book tale just yet.
Lammometer: 7.5 (out of 10)
Tim Lammers reviews movies weekly for The KQ92 Morning Show,” “KARE 11 News at 11” (NBC), WCCO Radio, WJON-AM, KLZZ-FM, “The Tom Barnard Podcast” and “The BS Show” with Bob Sansevere.
See Tim’s review of “Atomic Blonde” with Adrienne Broaddus on KARE 11.
Atomic Blonde (R)
Charlize Theron mixes a bit of James Bond espionage and a lot of extreme “John Wick”-type action in “Atomic Blonde,” an energizing spy thriller that despite its thrills, still falls short of the wickedness of “Wick” and the intrigue of Daniel Craig’s 007 outings.
“Atomic Blonde” certainly the potential of, at the very least, being another “Wick.” David Leitch, who co-directed the first Keanu Reeves revenge thriller is at the helm of “Atomic Blonde,” and Theron has already well-proven that she has an incredible handle on the action genre with her kick-ass turn as Imperator Furiosa in “Mad Max: Fury Road” and recent turn as the villain in “The Fate of the Furious.”
Set in 1989 in the waning days of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, “Atomic Blonde” stars Theron as MI:6 spy Lorraine Broughton, a no-nonsense field operative whose myriad of skills includes a lethal form of hand-to-hand combat. When one of her fellow MI:6 agents turns up dead in Berlin, Lorraine is dispatched to the city to not only recover his body, but join the city’s top operative (James McAvoy) to ferret out a double agent betraying the agency and most importantly, recover a list that names several undercover agents and vital personal details about them.
The biggest problem with “Atomic Blonde” is in its pacing, since the film is rooted in a debriefing of Lorraine by her MI:6 superior (Toby Jones) and an American CIA authority (John Goodman), and told almost entirely in flashback scenes.
Hear Tim’s review of “Atomic Blonde” with Tom Barnard on “The KQ Morning Show” on KQRS-FM.
Yes, while Theron’s charisma commands your attention every second she’s on film, “Atomic Blonde” suffers as Leitch builds intensity in scenes with pulse-pounding action (usually though encounters of hand-to-hand combat or car chases), only to suck the energy out of the air by continually reverting to the debriefing.
The “Wick” chapters, on the other hand, had linear narratives that escalated in intensity throughout the film, creating burning anticipation for whatever the end game was going to be. The hopping back and forth in “Atomic Blonde” only lends to confusion.
