January movie reviews

By Danny Villalobos
Staff Writer

Aquaman

“Aquaman” (Jason Momoa) is a down-to-Earth superhero whose activities include: protecting sailors, drinking beer and spending time with his father. One day, an attack on the “surface world” shocks the entire world and King Orm of Atlantis (Patrick Wilson) plans a further invasion of the surface world to further his grip on power. It’s up to Arthur to stop King Orm and save the entire world and Atlantis from all-out war.

“Aquaman” is one of the few movies where it’s difficult to describe what it is. In brief: this movie is pure insanity.

For many critics and viewers, the DC Extended Universe films have built a reputation as a low-rent version of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

It seems to me everyone involved with “Aquaman” knew it’s not going to get any better, so they threw in the towel and just had fun with what they were given, and the final result was awesome.

When the credits roll, there is no doubt that viewers will leave with a smile, although perhaps for the wrong reasons. Nothing in this movie makes sense. And although I understand this universe, itself, makes no sense, but hear me out.

The Atlantean soldiers in this movie wear goofy armor. It’s baffling because it looks like shiny, bulky plastic. However, the Atlantean soldiers are not even at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this movie’s nonsense. There’s also the question of the Atlantean government as an absolute monarchy in a society so advanced that people manage to breathe underwater.

Tonal changes were frequent and added even more absurdity to “Aquaman”. Case-in-point, when the soundtrack shifted to a Pitbull song, it seemed that “Aquaman” turned into a “Fast and Furious” movie for a second.

Despite that, director James Wan, whose notable works are comprised of “The Conjuring” (2013), “Furious 7” (2015) and “Saw” (2004), put a lot of care in certain areas. I give kudos to Wan for his camera work and fight scene choreography.

I also must give credit where it’s due: the producers of “Aquaman” have managed to inch closer to mastering what I’ll call sophisticated stupidity. Despite the December release, I urge movie watchers to experience this movie. As a classic case of “so bad it’s good,” this film is an absolute must-see.

Glass

In 2015, audiences gave good graces once again to M. Night Shyamalan for his low-budget movie, “The Visit,” a found-footage horror movie that signaled Shyamalan is still competent enough to make a “good enough” movie. Still yet, critical reception was mixed. After the 2017 release of Shyamalan’s 12th movie, “Split,” it seemed Shyamalan had proved he’s back in form.

Now, Shyamalan released his new movie “Glass,” a sequel to both “Unbreakable” and “Split.” However, this where his streak ends. You’ll either come out underwhelmed, bored, or just plain insulted.

The only good part of the movie was the cinematography and the acting, yet those two aspects become “Glass’” casualties throughout its run time. Certain camera angles are so overused that they become annoying, while the actors slowly descend into staleness.

Shyamalan’s writing starts to fall apart as the plot unfolds. The story revolves around three individuals with superhuman abilities, or at least that’s what they believe. After attracting unwanted attention, they’re captured and placed in a mental facility where they undergo extensive treatment, which makes them doubt their powers. That’s a pretty neat idea, but the elephant in the room is that their rooms are built from various traps that undermine their abilities.

Here’s a quick question that makes that last aspect fall apart: if they are just regular people who are clinically insane, then why have those devices? And to throw in another question, why are there so few employees working at that psychiatric hospital?

In classic Shyamalan fashion to these problems, he just doesn’t address them at all. To him, it is what it is.

Shyamalan’s biggest sin in “Glass” are the multiple plot twists. Without getting into too many details, one twist was enough and that should have been the end of it.

Fyre Fraud (Hulu) and Fyre Festival: The Greatest Party That Never Happened (Netflix)

In April 2017, a music festival in the Bahamas instantly burned into the public consciousness as one of the biggest blunders in music history. The Fyre Festival became so infamous that it became a case study on what not to do for business and marketing classes, and it also spawned two well put documentaries almost two years later.

To start off, “Fyre Fraud,” the Hulu documentary that focuses not only on the event itself, but also the current era millennials have known: the rise of the internet, social media, and its so-called influencers. These things may sound trivial, but they help explain what made Fyre so enticing in the first place. Each generation wants to participate in an event that defines their era and  this festival was supposed to be the Woodstock for millennials. But it still doesn’t explain why Fyre became a mess that it’s known for now.

An interesting aspect that helps define Hulu’s take of the event is that they were able to interview Billy McFarland about the event. Yet, despite this magnanimous opportunity to interview the newest scam artist on the block, the interviews seemed flaccid whenever he came along. Yet, it’s not to say that McFarland got the upper hand, he still looked like a charlatan.

As for Netflix’s documentary—it focuses on people McFarland exploited. Many people who believed and followed McFarland ultimately became victims.

The producers put a lot of effort into making each interview for every one McFarland’s workers feel raw. They all told their thoughts, feelings, and the accounts of events leading up to the festival in vivid detail.

By the end of both documentaries, Billy McFarland will be burned into every mind as a malevolent trickster; God walking among us. You can’t go wrong choosing which one is better, they’re both enlightening as to where our current society is now and where it’s heading.

Comments

comments