GREENLAND 2: MIGRATION

An apocalyptic sequel with more formulas than hope. 

“Greenland 2: Migration” is the sequel to the 2020 action hit regarding a family man being randomly selected to join a bunker in Greenland when an asteroid makes impact on Earth. Most of our planet has been obliterated, but there are some places that might have a fighting chance at providing sanctuary.  It is always nice to know that humanity can thrive after an apocalyptic event, and there are some impressive special effects and action sequences to keep movie goers at bay.  However, it all feels so routine, and relies on too many formulas and not enough time to get to know some of the new characters. If it’s a sequel that takes place after the end of the world, then there should be some survivors who can share their views of what has happened and how they want to move forward with what’s left of Earth. There are some who do, but either they are killed off too early or they can’t join the main family. At least one person is able to near the end. 
 
Gerard Butler reprises his role as the engineer and family man John Garrity, as well as Morena Baccarin as his wife Allison, and now, Roman Griffin Davis replaces Roger Dale Floyd as his diabetic son Nathan. Ever since their time in the bunker, people are beginning to stress out about being cooped up in there, resources may be running out, and nobody knows how long this bunker can hold. In the meantime, John goes outside with a suit and mask in a radiated environment for some supplies and whatever he can find.  His son might be entering the rebellion stage when he pops outside for a few minutes. As Allison says: “He’s just like his father.” What son wouldn’t be? 
 
Clarke was the name of the comet that destroyed Earth, but it’s conceivable that since life began anew after the dinosaurs were destroyed, then maybe it can happen again - but in a different place. The best bet would be in Europe, especially when it has been avoiding the radiation storms. So, that’s where John must relocate his family to  at this point. 
 
Directed once again by Ric Roman Waugh, “Greenland 2: Migration” should be as entertaining as it suggests. We have people getting out of the damaged bunker and struggling to get on the lifeboats that are left on the beach.  There is also another when the family is lucky enough to make it across two sets of makeshift bridges-one made of rope and the other made from ladders.  Of course, everyone else has to fall off.  Those scenes are fun, but the sequel suffers from too many formulas. There has to be side effects to being outside in the radioactive air , even with the suits on. We don’t get much out of the son, who mostly observes his surroundings, but he does share his passion for the constellation. Before and after Clarke and the other space rocks set things in motion. 
 
Butler does some good work and he’s an actor who mostly specializes in the action genre, but he needs a little more character development. We have so many action sequences involving gunmen and marauders  that there’s barely enough time to take a breather.  When we do, they last about 5-10 min utes. 
 
I guess that if Spider can now breathe Pandora’s air in “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” then maybe John and his family can dodge the hostile environment of what used to be Europe - or what’s left of Europe to be exact. “Greenland 2: Migration” is serviceable, but not really worth rushing to the theaters to see.

28 YEARS LATER - THE BONE TEMPLE

Guillermo Del Toro stitches up one hell of a monster movie. 

Seeing Guillermo Del Toro’s vision of “Frankenstein” on 35mm film is almost like watching a classic film on screen. You can tell by the tiny black dots and the white circle that appears on the top right corner of the screen. I would say every twenty minutes or so, that white circle would appear twice in a row. Well, at least that is how I saw the movie, and I love being reminded of film prints. 

Yet, even if I did not see this in that format, I was mesmerized by how Del Toro tells a Frankenstein story through the perspectives of both the creator Victor Frankenstein and the monster, and how it differentiates between the meaning of being a human or monster. It is in the same realm about how someone tries to play God and how that creation can be more than that. 

He refuses to disrespect Mary Shelley’s story and presents it as a gothic movie that reminds us of other movies like “Interview with the Vampire” or “Crimson Peak” (which Del Toro also made). There are also some moments that almost feel like they were borrowed from “Beauty and the Beast” or “Edward Scissorhands.” It all depends on if you can read between the lines. 

Even if I did not see it in that format, I was dazzled by the visual world that he presents. Thinking back to some of his movies like the “Hellboy” movies, “Pans Labyrinth,” “The Shape of Water,” and “Pinocchio,”, I acknowledge that the filmmaker refuses to take the easy way out and impresses us with his vision. How he sees these movies is how he makes them, and we are watching them with a sense of awe and sense of discovery. 

Oscar Isaac plays Victor Frankenstein, who finds himself being pursued by his own creation (Jacob Elordi) on an expedition ship toward the North Pole, and telling the captain (Lars Mikkelsen) his story. How his strict baron father (Charles Dance) expected him to be a better doctor (Christian Convery plays the young Victor) and how his mother (Mia Goth) died giving birth to his younger brother William (Felix Kammerer). He talks of his decision to change the course of science with reanimation through the financial assistance of the arms manufacturer Henrich Harlander (Christoph Waltz), how he met William’s fiancée Elizabeth (also played by Goth), and how his creature turned out. 

The creature starts off learning to speak almost on a “Planet of the Apes” level. He keeps saying: “Victor, Victor, Victor.” Just “Victor”, until he can say “Elizabeth”, and then learns how to read books. No help from Victor, of course. Isaac is great as Victor in the ways that he draws us into the character’s complexity, which questions his humanity. Elordi, who stands at 6’5, is disguised by make-up and plays the creature who may have to kill some people but still should not be labeled a monster. There have been many Frankenstein movies, good or bad, and they want to show different aspects of the story, doctor, and monster.

In Del Toro’s vision, he takes the time to show us how man can still be a man or transition into a monster, and how a creation can either learn to be human or still be a monster or maybe both. Add a remarkable art direction, incredible set and creature designs, Dan Lausten’s darkly radiant photography, and Alexandre Desplat’s haunting score, and you have yourself a gem of a monster movie. 

Disclaimer: I’m not praising “Frankenstein” because Del Toro said “F*** A.I.” at. a screening of this movie, although I am on his side 100%. I’m praising it as a visual wonder sewn together with his personal touch. 

IS THIS THING ON?

Bradley Cooper’s third directing job puts Will Arnett on the mic tonight. 
 
Will Arnett and Bradley Cooper have collaborated before in lesser known comedies like “The Comebacks” and “The Rocker,” which both helped make my youth so fun. “Is This Thing On,” is their first collaboration in years,  and has them co-writing the screenplay with Arnett as the lead and Cooper as the director and co-star.  They both make a dream team on a different level.They also collaborated with a British comedian named John Bishop, whom Arnett met in his travels. “Is This Thing On” is based on that man’s true story, and this provides Arnett with a game changing performance.  It also mak es this Cooper’s best directing job since “A Star is Born.”  In fact, I was just thinking: Cooper started off with a comedies like “Wedding Crashers” and “The Hangover” films, but the more serious roles he has taken on like “Limitless,” “Silver Linings Playbook” or “American Hustle ,”  got us to see him as an actor displaying the right range of genres. He proved himself to be a better actor than people have realized. Arnett provides some laughs, but he also provides humanity in himself in “Is This Thing On.”  Having done a string of voice-acting (“The Lego Movie,” “Bojack Horseman,” etc.) and comedies (“Blades of Glory, “Semi Pro,” etc.), he could be a better actor than we realized.  Maybe he already was, and we have faith in him. 
 
As the film begins, Alex (Arnett) and his wife Tess (Laura Dern) are currently separated with them raising their sons on an alternating schedule and having get-togethers with their friends . Cooper plays his struggling actor friend and Andra Day  is his long suffering wife,  along with real life couple Sean Hayes and Scott Icenogle as newlyweds. One night, Alex wanders around New York City and wants a drink, but because it’s “Comedy Night,” there is a $15 .00 cover charge.  That is, unless he signs up to perform with the mic. At first, he seems to struggle, but he manages to push through and deliver the punchline.  Th rough his combination of comedy and pathos, he talks and jokes about the sad state of his marriage.  It would be very common that a man who doesn’t expect for this to become a thing would end up taking the comedy seriously.  It is also common that he doesn’t want to tell his separated wife yet. As I am watching “Is This Thing On,” I wonder ed  about if she were to catch him on stage - would she  not approve of his act or actually relate to the humor he presents. Maybe it doesn’t have to be the case. Maybe it could be a chance for the two of them to reconnect, if only cynicism didn’t take over. 
 
The world of stand-up comedy has helped shape a number of comedians who have either risen to the top or are still trying to find their purpose in life. “Is This Thing On” works as both purpose and couples therapy in a sense. Arnett and Dern both display that without jumping to conclusions or catering to certain movie-goers who are more into happy endings than originality. They might have a happy ending, but I can’t make any guarantees. In fact, I’m pretty sure they still have things to get through. 
 
Cooper presents this film with courage and comedy, and he’s an actor who is no stranger to the genre. I like the way the film allows Alex’s sons (Blake Kane and Calvin Knegten) to be a part of a school cover version of Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure.” I admire how it allows the characters to use comedy to work their way through the pathos without seeming so desperate and trying to earn our approval. It doesn’t try so hard; it just uses honesty to speak into the mic and bring on the jokes. 

TV REVIEW - MONSTER: THE ED GEIN STORY

This review was done by the Founder, Cindy Mich.

As to Hunnam’s portrayal in this, I will admit that watching him made me appreciate his range and rawness as an actor. He can make the audience go from smiling to a sincere cringe, and he truly does keep your attention in almost every single scene of this production. Is this award-winning acting? If you were to completely ignore the script and setup of this series, and focused solely on how he performed, then yes. Should he be given an award on the production side - two thousand percent NO for the reasons I am about to render.

I have heard many say that this is an interpretation of Gein's mindset and motives. If that is the case, then you have no reason to title this The Ed Gein Story. This is an automatic implication that you are telling HIS story - not the one you want everyone to believe. Murphy takes a number of myths and tries to make them facts, and some of these are of course, based on his personal beliefs as a person.

The storyline is constantly going in a plethora of directions without any real set course. It navigates from Gein's life, and then we are at a party run by Nazis. We are learning about Ed's crimes in one shot, and then we are taking an overblown twist onto the Psycho and Leatherface movie sets to learn about the actors and directors, which has what to do with this? That entire segment on Anthony Perkins added nothing to this story. Was there a need for the "Bitch of Buchenwald" to be an ongoing presence throughout this project - NO. There is no consistency to the tale. It starts going somewhere, then hits a dull stop, and repeats for the whole series.

The number of exaggerations and fabrications in this is astounding to me. Gein's voice, crossdressing, cooking his victims and serving them to others, transsexuality, having sex with corpses, and the obsession with women's clothing are all predominantly featured within these eight episodes. According to research, absolutely none of this was real. So, why would you deliberately paint Gein as worse than he was? How does this make the Ed Gein story stronger or more believable? Assumptions do not equate to accuracy.

Metcalf as the mother was likely one of the best casting choices I saw here besides Charlie. Honestly, 3/4 of the cast was average, but not acclaimed.

The one thing I do give Murphy credit for is reminding the audience that it is them that craves seeing monsters and learning more about their methodical motives. If people did not thrive on this genre, it would not generate so much money and projects such as his would not be produced.

The conclusion was absolutely absurd. The creator wants us to believe that a mother would finally find pride in her son after becoming a recognized murderer. That entire montage of murderers in awe of him was nothing short of absurdity. I am not the only person who had stated that the ending could not come fast enough.

As Charlie is an Executive Producer on this project, he played a crucial role in guiding the project through the development and production phase. This also includes having a portion of creative control. I would have hoped that he would have used this role to create a story arc that was sound and solid, along with less fabrication and more fact. Interpretation into a murderer without prudent insight made this project into a long, lethargic and excessively expensive expression of free speech.