Synopsis: Like all of us, Riley is guided by her emotions – Joy, Fear, Anger, Disgust and Sadness. As Riley and her emotions struggle to adjust to a new life in San Francisco, turmoil ensues in Headquarters.
Release Date: June 19, 2015
Thoughts: Disney and Pixar have been razzed a bit at their fondness for sequels as of late, straying from the type of new material-driven ideas that Pixar first came to fame with. That’s all stuff and bother in my book because even though each Pixar film hasn’t been a winner (I’m looking at you Cars…and Cars 2) each has been on the cutting edge of the advances in computer technology. Though I’ll always be a fan of hand-drawn animation, there’s little argument that Pixar has created some bona fide animated classics. With the Oscar winning director and composer of Up (Pete Docter & Michael Giacchino) back and a strong stable of voices on hand I’m eager to see what new emotions are stirred up when the film is released next summer.
Here’s a first look at the new short, Lava, that will appear before Inside Out.
Synopsis: 40 years after the first haunting at Eel Marsh House, a group of children evacuated from WWII London arrive, awakening the house’s darkest inhabitant.
Release Date: TBA 2015
Thoughts: In another example of striking when the iron is lukewarm, the sequel to the 2012 modest hit The Woman in Black will arrive in theaters in January. Having been a fan of the book and the play on which the first film was based, for the most part I was satisfied with the not quite as scary but handsomely produced effort that saw Daniel Radcliffe (What If) face scary ghosts that haunt an English manor. Only the creepy house and the ghosts are back for The Woman in Black: Angel of Death and if it retains the high production values and well-timed spooky moments of its predecessor then it will redeem itself for taking so long to start haunting again.
Review: I’ve been trying hard lately to catch up on my reading…especially with so many page to screen adaptations coming out in the next few months. Even more challenging is that I try to time my finishing of a book as close to the release date as possible so the elements of the story are still fresh in my mind. Recently, I finished the disappointing This Is Where I Leave You a few weeks before the slightly less disappointing film was released but with Gone Girl I was down to the wire, catching the film when the book’s pages were still warm from me blazing through them.
This actually helped me more than I could have ever dreamed because it afforded me the opportunity to pinpoint exactly where screenwriter Gillian Flynn improved upon her own novel. By combining characters or excising them all together, Flynn has tightened what was already a taut narrative…and the end result is a film as razor sharp as they come. Of course it helps that she had David Fincher as her director because he’s all about economical delivery, ready and willing to trim the fat to ensure his work is as lean and direct as can be.
That works well for Flynn’s tricky tale of marriage and murder where everyone seems to have a secret ready to be exploited. Her novel was a blockbuster hit when released in 2012 and it’s truly a wonder it made such a seamless transition to the screen, largely keeping its twists under wraps until the moment of impact. Even knowing where the film was heading, I was engaged enough that I was on the edge of my seat right along with those in the audience that weren’t prepared for the journey Flynn and Fincher were about to take us.
It’s 2012 and the morning of the fifth anniversary of Nick and Amy Dunne. Transplants from New York, they’ve been living in Nick’s Missouri hometown thanks to the economic downturn that saw both lose their jobs and reexamine their financial future. Instead of celebrating, however, Nick is plunged into a nightmare when he returns home to find Amy has seemingly vanished into thin air. As the police, media, friends, and family descend upon the town and start to examine the crime and, by proxy, the Dunne’s marriage we learn that some secrets won’t stay hidden for long.
Like the novel, the movie jumps between Nick’s present day narrative and Amy’s diary entries written from the time they met up until she goes missing that paint a different picture of the happy couple. So far the marketing of the film has kept Flynn’s surprising twists in check and you won’t get a spoiler out of me…but let’s just say that through some clever bits of storytelling the film is far from over just when you think you’ve reached the end.
As is typical with Fincher’s work, the casting is pretty spot-on even if several choices are quite different from the original novel. Ben Affleck (Argo) may not be the blond-haired tanned creation on the page but he’s wholly convincing as a husband on the edge, trapped by evidence that suggests he should be more concerned with his wife’s whereabouts than he appears to be. Same goes for Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day) as the vanished Amy who has an even more delicate balance to play. Pike’s always been an interesting actress but I was wondering if she was perhaps too chilly to play Amy, and boy was I wrong. Her steel gaze turns out to be a major advantage here and Pike handily swipes the movie away from her more famous co-star every chance she gets.
In supporting roles, Fincher scored with Carrie Coon as Nick’s twin sister caught between what she knows is true about her sibling and the evidence that suggests more and more he knows where his wife is. Another fine performance comes from Kim Dickens as a local cop assigned to the case with good instincts that she doesn’t quite know what to do with. Both Coon and Dickens represent Fincher thinking out of the casting box — here’s hoping their work elevates them as it should. Also, I should add as a longtime fan it’s also nice to see Sela Ward cameo as a scoop hungry television personality.
Surprisingly, Fincher makes two unfortunate mistakes with the casting of Neil Patrick Harris (A Million Ways to Die in the West) as a man from Amy’s past and Tyler Perry (Alex Cross) as Nick’s high-powered attorney. Harris seems too slight and off the mark for where the character needed to be, though admittedly he’s saddled with the least successful dialogue Flynn transported over from her book. Perry, meanwhile, looks positively giddy to be out of his Madea garb and into some power suits…though his unconvincing acting still borders on atrocious. These two distractions could be written off had they not been so pivotal to the story. Too bad.
At 149 minutes, I was worried the movie wouldn’t be able to keep its momentum going strong but Fincher has never met a film he couldn’t move along at a breathless pace. Like the book, the movie is pleasing enough for the first 45 minutes or so but really hits its stride around the hour mark before making a full out sprint to the finish line. There’s some devious work afoot here and it’s incredibly satisfying.
I realized about halfway through Gone Girl how starved I’d been for a sophisticated, adult thriller. Though it seemed to go out of style in the late 90s and been replaced by the political/espionage mystery fare Fincher has made his second bid (after 2011’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) for its resurgence. When the story is so good, the lead performances so on the money, and the direction this precise, the bar has been raised again for any takers that wish to challenge themselves to rise to Fincher and Co.’s level.
Review: There’s just something so unsettling about dolls, isn’t there? I’m not talking about Malibu Barbie or He-Man but those frilly dolls with big eyes and faces stuck in permanent, and often pained, smiles. Creepy dolls have been the subject for many a nightmare in movies, most memorably in films like Magic (a ventriloquist dummy plays a devious role in murder) and Child’s Play (the spirit of a serial killer takes the form of a benign doll) but everyone seems to have some film they can point to where something meant for snuggling winds up being deadly.
In 2013 The Conjuring made a big impact with critics and audiences (not to mention at the box office) thanks to director James Wan’s clever turning of the screws as he told the tale of a family haunted by an ominous spirit in the early 70s. The family was aided by two paranormal investigators, The Warrens, introduced at the beginning of the film handling the Annabelle case. Supposedly causing mayhem for two pretty nurses, The Warrens wind up keeping the doll (Annabelle) in their Occult Museum where they can keep an eye on her. Though she figures into some events later in the movie, Annabelle isn’t really the focus of the film.
With the box office so big, the sequel ideas started flowing and the filmmakers wisely let their minds drift not just to continuing to follow The Warrens (a sequel is expected in 2015) but creating a spin-off centered on the origins of Annabelle. So that’s why we find ourselves a little over a year later with this sequel which maintains the same fine production values of The Conjuring while delivering some fine frights but which unravels just when it should all be coming together.
It’s the time of the Manson Family in California when we meet young couple Mia (Annabelle Wallis, Snow White and the Huntsman), and John (Ward Horton, The Wolf of Wall Street) who are the picture of blissful perfection in their sleepy suburban bungalow. She’s quite pregnant and content to spend her days watching soaps and sewing while he finishes up his residency as a doctor. Mia (the first of many nods to Rosemary’s Baby) also collects dolls and after a minor squabble John’s mea culpa present to her is a familiar looking doll.
Unfortunately, the first big scare sequence in the film was largely given over in its entirety in the preview yet I still found myself squirming with a sense of dread. Long story short, after a terrifying nighttime encounter in which the doll plays a factor things start to get pretty scary for John and Mia, prompting their move to a high rise apartment building where they have more square footage to get freaked out in. It isn’t long before more strange occurrences happen leading to the true terror manifesting itself at the most inopportune of times.
All this is well and good and it gave me the appropriate dose of the willies but the movie starts to collapse in on itself at a rapid pace becoming highly disappointing in the process. John Leonetti, the cinematographer of The Conjuring steps into the director chair here but doesn’t have Wan’s good instincts in knowing how to bring all of the elements together. We can only have so many shots of the camera slowly pushing in on the doll’s face (which gets dirtier and more menacing with each passing event) or following Wallis as she slowly walks down a hall or sloooooowly reaches out to move a curtain aside to see what’s behind it. The key word here is slow. There’s a lot of repetition going on in the film and in the end Annabelle is merely a series of the same set-up repeated on a loop.
Wallis, for her part, has a nicely ethereal quality to her that helps her build to the frenzy she works herself into as we approach the finale. She and the handsome Horton make for a nice couple and the acting is above par considering this was a prequel rushed into production. I’ve always liked Alfre Woodard (12 Years a Slave) and though she may be slumming it here the actress never gives off the air that she’s an Oscar nominee in a barely realized supporting role.
So it’s not everything The Conjuring was…but it’s a lot better than the majority of the sequel trash we’re subjected to year after year. Yes, it’s bloodier and less fully realized than the film that preceded it but it’s clear that some effort went into it and it’s far more effective than it probably should be considering how formulaic it all is.