Perfect Organism Reviews

Murder on the Orient Express (5.5 out of 10)

"My name is Hercule Poirot and I am probably the greatest detective in the world."

    I've never been a huge fan of large parties.  It's not that they can't be a lot of fun sometimes, with various fun games being played, swimming in a pool, lounging in a hot tub, good food and drinks, etc.  The main reason is that there are just too many people, and if I don't know any of them ahead of time, it makes things pretty overwhelming for me.  Sure, I may end up having a couple decent and slightly more in-depth conversations, but for the most part I never really get to know a lot of the people there, and it's easy to end up feeling pretty isolated and alone, despite being surrounded by dozens of people.  When it comes to films, it can be a similar challenge when you have a script featuring many characters (played by a who's-who list of A-list actors) who each need to be presented with a backstory and given some screen-time, and all done within about a two hour movie.  It can be a bit overwhelming to try and bring so many characters into a film, flesh them out and make them compelling enough so the audience can be more fully drawn into the story.

    So when I went to see Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel "Murder on the Orient Express," I had in the back of my mind that this would ultimately feel like one of the many large parties I've been to, where a smorgasbord of characters are presented, but there's not enough time to make them interesting or compelling enough to really care about them or the narrative.  Unfortunately, that's more or less how it played out.  While the film is well acted, and the production values and cinematography are top notch and make for a film very easy on the eyes, Orient Express gave itself too much to handle in terms of number of characters and character development.  The one with the most screen-time is Branagh's own Hercule Poirot.  Featuring a large dose of eccentricity, a ridiculously large mustache, and a thick French accent that makes him hard to understand at times, particularly early on, Branagh tries his darnedest to make Poirot a compelling protagonist as the self-proclaimed "greatest detective in the world," hired to find out who killed a patron on the train (played by Johnny Depp).  For the majority of the film, Poirot is thus left to interview each of the guests on the train to try to figure out who the murderer is.  While they are all given a fairly equal amount of screentime, there are just too many to try to flesh out, and that's despite a cast featuring Depp, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Daisy Ridley, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Penelope Cruz.  With all that talent, they can only do so much with the script to make each character compelling, but it's clear the film was overloaded with too many players.  By the end, I didn't really care who the actual murderer was (which is revealed in a plot twist that comes off as more unintentionally funny than satisfying in any way).

    Sometimes films can bring a large cast of A-list actors together and create an effective story with well-fleshed out characters.  But for many films, such as this one, they are better off sticking to the old adage "less is more."  While I'm sure the novel (which I haven't read) spent much more time exploring the different characters and making them more interesting, Express just doesn't have the time nor the ability to effectively tell this ensemble murder mystery.  Feeling like a large party where you leave not really knowing or caring much about the people there, and thus feeling empty in the end, Murder on the Orient Express rates as a 5.5 out of 10.

- Ryan Zeid

Perfect Organism Reviews

Justice League (5 out of 10)

“I don’t have to recognize this world.  I just have to save it.”

    One thing I’ve always admired about professional film actors is that, no matter what project they are acting in, and no matter how negatively they might feel about the characters, plot, script, etc., they usually can bring their A-game to their performance and make you feel like they really care about what you’re seeing on screen.  Alec Guinness, for example, made Obi Wan Kenobi iconic with his portrayal of the character in the original Star Wars trilogy, despite various stories stating he loathed the script and thought the things he had to say were ridiculous.  Every so often, though, there are actors whose performances are so bland and uninspired on screen that the viewer can be all but certain that the actor playing that role had little to no interest in the project and looked like he (or she) would rather be somewhere else

    That’s clearly the case in DC’s newest mess of a film, “Justice League.”  Despite being my favorite part of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” it’s pretty clear that Ben Affleck (giving a much more disinterested and dispassionate performance) would rather not don the cape and cowl again as Batman aka Bruce Wayne (which has also more or less been confirmed by major news outlets).  While his reasons could be numerous, it probably didn’t help that this latest outing for the Caped Crusader and his new mega-team of superheroes is a disjointed, messy, uneven clash of styles, with both Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon (uncredited) getting director duties on the project.  I think most comic book film fans will be able to pick out which scenes were directed by Snyder (who had to leave the film production because of a family tragedy) and which scenes were directed by Marvel alum Whedon.  The dark, foreboding, gloomy bits of the film have Snyder’s stamp on it, while the lighter, funnier parts feel much like a Whedon-directed superhero film.  I definitely enjoyed the more Whedon-like scenes more, and wish that he had been given the reigns from the outset to see how the rest of the film would’ve turned out.  It may have ended up too much like a Marvel film, but considering how well those films have done, both commercially and critically, I think it would’ve been a welcome change for DC.

    The acting (outside of Affleck) is solid enough, particularly Ezra Miller as The Flash.  Bringing some much needed, Marvel-like humor to the proceedings, Miller is a good fit as the lightning fast but socially awkward comic-relief.  Gal Gadot returns as Wonder Woman, and again does a great job in the role.  Jason Momoa gives Aquaman a sort­ of surfer dude personality, but is decent enough, although not given much to do other than walk around shirtless and make many female (and some male) audience members drool.  Ray Fisher is interesting as Cyborg/Victor Stone, but his character isn’t explored as much as I would’ve liked.  Henry Cavill returns as Superman/Clark Kent, in a role he seemed destined to play.  The rest of the performances are decent enough.  Unfortunately, the film suffers, once again, from a weak villain, played by Ciaran Hinds.  Not only does his character, Steppenwolf, bring almost zero tension to the film, it doesn’t help that he is one of the most poorly rendered CGI characters I’ve seen in a major, big-budgeted film over the last several years.  In fact, the film as a whole has atrocious CGI throughout, with many scenes coming across as no better than an average video game in quality.  For a film that’s almost entirely filmed with a green screen in the background, as well as CGI characters in the foreground, you’d expect they would put more time and effort into making things feel more realistic.  Unfortunately, what we ended up with feels rushed and sloppy, and hurts the film greatly.

    While I did find Justice League slightly more enjoyable than its predecessor, “Batman v Superman,” thanks primarily to the much-needed comic-relief, it unfortunately becomes another muddled film in the garbage heap of DC Extended Universe films.  Despite some decent performances and a few solid character moments, Justice League falls far short of the majority of Marvel’s offerings in the comic book film genre.  By the end of it, you may feel much like Ben Affleck and want to move on from these shoddy DC films for good.  I give Justice League a 5 out of 10.

- Ryan Zeid

Perfect Organism Reviews

Thor: Ragnarok (6.5 out of 10)

“Thor, I sense a great change in your future. Destiny has dire plans for you, my friend.”

“I have dire plans for destiny.”

    It’s safe to say that Marvel Studios has gotten off to an enormous head-start on DC Entertainment, it’s chief rival.  While DC has been trying desperately to catch up to Marvel over the last few years, with very mixed results, Marvel keeps chugging along and putting out hit after hit.  Back when Marvel’s “Iron Man” debuted in 2008 and became a smash success, it ended up launching the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).  Since then, Marvel has released numerous films introducing and developing some of the most loved characters in Marvel’s comic book history, such as Captain America, Ant-Man, Dr. Strange, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and the ensemble Avengers films.  During that time period, Marvel Studios has developed a specific formula that permeates most if not all of its films: lots of action, strong character development and narratives, and last but certainly not least, tons of humor.  While DC films have mostly stayed dark, bleak, and serious, Marvel has marketed and delivered movies that have stayed on the lighter side with many laughs and jabs not only at its characters, but at popular culture as well.  The formula has worked effectively, as Marvel Studios has earned billions upon billions of dollars from this ever-expanding universe it has created.  That formula has been pushed to the zenith with its latest release, “Thor: Ragnarok.”

    Ragnarok is the third outing for Thor, following 2011’s Thor and 2013’s Thor: The Dark World.  While those two films had plenty of laughs, for sure, Ragnarok ups the humor aspect considerably, so much so that it’s safe to call Ragnarok a full-blown comedy with some action.  Humor and laughs permeate the film, from beginning to end.  I found myself laughing quite a bit at what was delivered (although at times the humor was a bit cringe-inducing), and while most of the comedy worked and I was certainly entertained by this latest Marvel film, I also left the theater a bit letdown.  While the wall-to-wall humor was great for the most part, I also felt it masked some of the overt deficiencies in the film.  First of all, the film was not edited and paced well at times, as some scenes seemed to plod along clumsily and were unnecessarily extended.  Secondly, Ragnarok has some of the worst CGI I’ve seen in an MCU film.  While it’s possibly intentional to correspond with the zany and comical quality of the film, I found the poor CGI to be quite distracting, especially when nearly every scene is basically live actors in front of a green screen.  Also, the story itself is fairly thin, and it felt like scenes were intentionally dragged out to mask the weakness of the narrative.  There was almost no tension throughout the film, as there was never a time I felt concerned about the protagonists.

    That’s not to say that the actors in the film did poorly.  Despite the deficiencies in the narrative aspect of the script, the acting is solid throughout.  Chris Hemsworth returns as Thor in a role he was pretty much destined to play.  This time, Hemsworth gives his most comedic take on the character, with plenty of tongue-in-cheek moments throughout.  Tom Hiddleston is great as Loki, as are Anthony Hopkins, Tessa Thompson, and Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/Hulk.  Cate Blanchett, an actress I’ve always admired, does a fine job as the antagonist Hela, the evil sister of Thor and Loki, hell-bent on taking over Asgard, and also getting to flex her comedic muscles as well.  The real scene-stealer, however, is Jeff Goldblum as the flamboyant Grandmaster.  Essentially playing himself, Goldblum hams it up and is perfect for the part. 

    So, there is plenty to enjoy in the latest Thor outing.  The humor keeps things light and entertaining, and the actors seem to be having fun with the material, which makes things more enjoyable for the audience.  It’s hard to not enjoy a film when you see how much fun the actors are having on screen.  But the uneven pacing, weak story, and poor CGI keep Thor: Ragnarok from being one of the elite films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Despite that, however, the film should continue the string of massive box office successes for Marvel and leave DC further behind in Marvel’s rear-view mirror.  I give Thor: Ragnarok a 6.5 out of 10.

- Ryan Zeid

Perfect Organism Reviews

Jigsaw (4.5 out of 10)

"You're about to play a game......" 

    I can't remember exactly where I was when I watched the first "Saw" film back in 2004.  I do know I wasn't expecting much, as I never have high expectations going into horror films.  I find most horror films usually boil down to the same tropes, over and over again, and thus become quite repetitive.  Sure, they can be dressed up in different settings and sometimes they'll surprise you with originality, such as "Scream" or "Cabin in the Woods," but those horror films are few and far between, as the majority of them tend to be quite forgettable at best.  So, imagine my surprise when I finished watching "Saw" and found that I really enjoyed it!  It was an intense, disturbing film about a serial killer, Jigsaw, who tortures his victims with vicious games, the caveat being that his victims are people who have done some pretty evil acts themselves, and thus are being punished until they "repent of their sins," so to speak.  If they beat the game, and thus repent, they'll survive, but if they lose the game, they die, usually in a violent, gory manner.  I had never seen a film quite like it, at least at the time, and it has a whopper of a twist ending that took me completely by surprise.  To this day, it is one of my favorite horror/thriller films, and it was a massive, surprise hit when it came out.  It was such a huge hit, in fact, that it produced not only numerous copycat films (known facetiously today as "torture porn"), but no less than seven sequels.  Unfortunately, the subsequent Saw films devolved into basically finding creative ways for Jigsaw to eviscerate and mutilate his victims, while offering really nothing new in terms of a smart narrative or compelling characters.

    So that brings me to the latest sequel in the series, "Jigsaw," which despite being directed by the Spierig Brothers, who were behind 2009's solid vampire film "Daybreakers" and the excellent 2014 time-travel film "Predestination," ends up being more of the same ol' song and dance.  To be fair, I did find myself somewhat engaged with the offering at times.  I enjoyed the bevy of twists, turns, and red herrings presented throughout the film to throw off the viewer in terms of who was responsible for the latest deadly games (since the Jigsaw killer, John Kramer, had died 10 years before the events of the film.....or did he?).  The scenes involving the police investigation and the two autopsy doctors (who may or may not have more going on than initially believed) were fairly intriguing.  Unfortunately, the film falls flat with the torture porn aspect.  The paper-thin, one-dimensional victims, with all the annoying yelling and screaming, were completely uninteresting to me.  That made the moments when they are tortured and killed off, while filled with plenty of blood and gore, devoid of any tension.  Also, despite the numerous twists and turns, I found the final twist to be quite anti-climactic and fairly lame. and overall a letdown.  So, I suppose if you like your torture porn with plenty of blood and gore and little in the way of originality, creativity, engaging stories, or interesting characters, you may find plenty to enjoy in Jigsaw.  Otherwise, sitting through the film may ultimately feel like being in one of Jigsaw's torturous games.  I give "Jigsaw" a 4.5 out of 10.

- Ryan Zeid

Perfect Organism Reviews

Happy Death Day (6 out of 10)

"You relive the same day over and over again, you kind of start to see who you really are."

    I've always enjoyed films about time travel or time loops, because it gives the protagonist a chance, in some way, to relive a certain day or moment, something that I've often thought and fantasized about.  It's interesting to me, though, that of all the days I would want to relive or redo, it's usually the bad ones.  Sure, there are plenty of great days I would love to relive and experience again, but really, it's those days or moments where, if given the chance, I would want to do things differently, in the hopes that the different decision would result in a better outcome.  But, of course, with my very limited perspective, making a different decision that I think would have made things better may have, in fact, resulted in an even worse outcome.  Ultimately, I have to learn to accept those decisions and learn from them, in the hopes that they'll make me a better person.  

    But in the thriller, Happy Death Day, Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe) does get to experience the same day, over and over again, and it just so happens to be a very bad day for Tree, because at the end of it, she's murdered by a masked killer.  Neither Tree nor the audience know why the time loop is happening, but it's clear that she needs to make some different decisions, because once she gets killed, she wakes up again in the same dorm room, on the same day (which also happens to be her birthday), only to get murdered again.  It's an interesting premise, but unfortunately not very original.  If you've seen the classic 1993 Bill Murray film "Groundhog Day," you've already seen a time loop movie done much better, albeit in the form of a comedy.  However, that's not to say there aren't things to enjoy about Happy Death Day.  There's plenty of needed humor in the film to lighten tone.  There are several twists and turns that, despite not being very surprising, at least keep things from getting too stale.  Also, while she starts off as extremely unlikable, Gelbman eventually learns to change her ways, as this film is more about her character's redemption than it is about solving a murder mystery. 

    The film does falter from too much of a "been there, done that" feel (apparently the filmmakers realized that, as there's a very direct reference to Groundhog Day made within the film).  The acting, for the most part, is mediocre at best (although I found Rothe to be quite effective in a few scenes).  There's also a mid-film montage sequence that I found to be a bit distracting and poorly done.  Despite that, though, there's enough thrills, humor, and overall enjoyable moments in the film to give it a mild recommendation.  While it may not be the most original time loop thriller, at least it didn't make me wish to relive the day so I could tell myself to stay home instead.  I give Happy Death Day a 6 out of 10.

- Ryan Zeid

Perfect Organism Reviews

Blade Runner 2049 (9 out of 10)

“I always told you, ‘You’re special.’  Your history isn't over yet.  There's still a page left.”

    There really is no such thing as a “perfect” film, in my humble opinion.  Every film, even the best of the best, have some flaws in them, either technically, narratively, with the acting, editing, etc.  There’s always some way that a film could’ve been corrected.  Then again, when we talk about great art, we don’t necessarily call it perfect; we call great art “masterpieces.”  A masterpiece is something that transcends flaws, goes above and beyond any kinks in its armor.  It grasps the viewer on a level beyond mere technical prowess and narrative fortitude.  Masterpieces belong in a class beyond perfection, because they reach inside the audience in a special, transformative way.  When Ridley Scott's “Blade Runner” debuted in 1982 (itself an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), it was considered far from a masterpiece, or even just a good film.  It was met with lukewarm reviews and poor box office receipts, but over the years following its release, the film became a bonafide cult classic, spawning multiple cuts that improved on the narrative and high-end transfer that brought the already amazing visuals to even greater heights.  Today, Blade Runner is considered the zenith of masterful science fiction filmmaking.  It became something greater than greatness itself.  Despite any flaws it had, those were lost, like tears in the rain, beneath its story, its thematic layers and universal, philosophical questions, and its characters that struggle with issues as relevant today as ever before.

    When “Blade Runner 2049” was announced, many scratched their heads at the idea of making a sequel to a film that didn’t need one.  How do you follow up a masterpiece that never needed a follow up in the first place?  Disappointment seemed to be inevitable, if not outright hatred.  It seemed like a shameless cash-grab to ride the coattails of its predecessor.   But when I found out it was to be directed by Denis Villeneuve (director of stellar films such as Prisoners, Sicario, and Arrival), I knew we would be in for a treat.  Villeneuve has quickly become one of my favorite directors working today, and I was sure he wouldn’t have taken on this immense project if there wasn’t a great story there he wanted to tell.

    Thankfully, Villeneuve and company deliver a film that exceeded all my expectations and then some.  With a simple but compelling and moving story, strong, memorable characters, astounding visuals, and rich themes with many layers for the filmophile to sink their teeth into, Blade Runner 2049 delivers nothing less than a grand moviegoing experience.  It’s a film that stands firmly on its own, without relying too heavily on its predecessor, except for a few very effective callbacks.  The visuals and sound effects alone are stunning to behold, especially in the IMAX screening I went to.  There’s not a single wasted shot in the whole film.  Every scene, every frame is done with impressive and meticulous attention to detail.  You become immediately transported into this world and don’t leave it until the credits start to role.  The soundtrack, by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch, is a masterwork on its own, following boldly in Vangelis’ footsteps from the original but never sounding like it copies his work.  The acting is stellar all-around, particularly Ana de Armas as Joi, Officer K’s (Ryan Gosling) holographic girlfriend.  Every scene between them moved me on multiple levels, as de Armas makes her non-living, digital character feel as alive and human as any flesh and blood person.  Another standout is Sylvia Hoeks as Luv, a second-in-command of sorts to Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), the creator of the next-generation of replicants.  Both chilling and compelling, she brings a much needed edge and brutality to her antagonist character.  Harrison Ford returns as Rick Deckard, in a somewhat brief but narratively important appearance.  Gosling is fine as the primary protagonist trying to uncover a mystery that could shake mankind.

    The only very minor issue I had with the film is that it felt just a little too long, and maybe could have used just a bit more time in the editing room.  Honestly, though, I was so immersed in the world that I didn’t even care.  The length of the film is easily forgiven and forgotten beneath all of its sublime and fantastic qualities.  Blade Runner 2049 started off its development being a film that nobody wanted, but ends up being a film everyone needs to see.  Immediately supplanting itself as one of the best films of the year, one of the greatest science fiction films of all time, and a modern-day masterpiece, I give Blade Runner 2049 a 9 out of 10.

- Ryan Zeid

PERFECT ORGANISM Reviews

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (6 out of 10)

“Manners….maketh…..man. Let me translate that for you.”

    I think one of the most underrated and important jobs on a film or television production crew has got to be the role of the editor. While much of the focus for the general moviegoer are those in front of the camera, namely the actors, and while they and the director tend to get the brunt of the focus from film critics, it’s really the editors who I believe have one of the greatest and most important responsibilities. The success of many films can be affected greatly by how well they are paced, how easily it flows from one scene to the next, and how fluidly actors seem to move from one scene to the next, even when said scenes are filmed days and oftentimes weeks apart. All of that is part of the editing process and the duties of the editor. Yes, the director and some of the producers have a huge say in it as well, but it’s the editors who make the cuts, splice the film together, and give us what we finally see on the big screen (or small screen). When too many cuts, or not enough cuts, are made, the flow of the entire movie can be negatively affected. So, when I heard that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” (the sequel to 2014’s immensely fun and effective “Kingsman: The Secret Service”) had a run-time that clocked in at over two hours and twenty minutes, I had a sinking suspicion that the film was going to be a bit bloated, with too much in the film that should’ve been edited out and left on the cutting room floor.

    Alas, my suspicions were unfortunately proven true. Now, that’s not to say that there are not some fun and effective scenes, with plenty of wildly violent but fun gun battles and fight scenes, hyper-stylized car chases, and a healthy dose of humor throughout.  Also, the lead actors do a fine job, as Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, and especially Julianne Moore (as the main antagonist) seem to have loads of fun with the material they're given, as do Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, and Pedro Pascal as the Statesman. But while The Golden Circle retains much of the fun and excitement of the first film, I couldn’t help throughout the offering, thinking of all the excess scenes and bits that could’ve been edited out and trimmed down to make the film into a much tighter and more effective thrill ride. Returning director Matthew Vaughn apparently decided to up the ante in nearly every aspect from the first film, and thus The Golden Circle falls prey to the all too common and flawed sequel-ism that “more is better." If the first Kingsman was essentially a James Bond film on steroids, the sequel is a James Bond film on steroids, HGH, cocaine, and a healthy dose of Hulk-like gamma ray exposure. Unfortunately, that choice ultimately hurt the film rather than helped it.

    There is quite a bit to enjoy in the Kingsman sequel, but it’s just too overlong, over produced, and over indulgent for its own good. If you’re a fan of the first film, you’ll most likely find a lot to like with the sequel, but I think many will find, like me, that sometimes more is simply not better, and that the film could’ve used quite a bit more time and care in the editing room. I give "Kingsman: The Golden Circle" a 6 out of 10.

- Ryan Zeid