The Lobster (2016) *

It isn't usual for me to hate a movie as critically acclaimed as this one, but the fact is, I was not entertained. “The Lobster” is an absurdist, allegorical dramedy about the state of human romantic coupling. In this imagined world, people are not allowed to live singly. Every single adult is taken to a hotel where they are given 45 days to find a partner. Those who fail get turned into animals.

Finding a partner at this hotel isn't as easy as you would think. Everyone's interactions are stilted and lifeless, and people are only supposed to partner with someone who shares their “defining characteristic,” e.g a limp or a lisp. Once people do couple up, if they have any quarrel or difficulty in their relationship, they are assigned children, “which usually helps.” Sex is allowed between couples, but a hotel maid services the needs of the single men, as masturbation is strictly forbidden. Sexual satisfaction is only supposed to be obtained with a partner, no matter how mechanical and joyless the act is.

“The Lobster” seems rather clever until you reflect that it isn't as original as it seems. From “Sex and the City” to “Bridgette Jones's Diary,” the humiliations visited upon single people in a society obsessed with coupling have been well-explored. The difference between those other stories and “The Lobster” is that the other stories are actually enjoyable, filled with funny, interesting characters to whom you can actually relate. “The Lobster” has something to say, but it says it in such a dreary, washed-out way that the “defining characteristic” of this film seems to be its contempt for the audience. From its flat affect to its bizarrely redundant voice-overs, the film is painful to watch, despite occasional flashes of humor.

I have to confess here that I didn't watch the entire film. We gave up when the dog got kicked to death. (Seriously.) I read some synopses, however, and it seems that the tone of the film remains consistent. You are either up for it or you aren't. It's as if director Yorgos Lanthimos wants to deliberately punish his audience. I'm familiar with the concept that an artist like Lanthimos may suffer for his art, but I see no reason that I should suffer for HIS art.

1 star out of 5  

Creed (2015) ***

The first “Rocky” movie was one of the great films. It was one of those rare movies that wins awards and is also imminently watchable. It's timeless. The sequels that followed, most would agree, got progressively worse. “Creed,” the newest installment in the franchise, re-captures some of that early magic, although it still isn't as good as the original.

“Creed” basically repackages the original plot. Adonis(Michael B. Jordan), Apollo Creed's troubled, illegitimate son, wants to be a professional boxer. He seeks out his late father's old friend, Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone), and begs him to train him. Adonis displays some promise, and then, because of his famous name, is offered a championship fight. Everyone figures the world champion will beat this upstart easily, but we've seen enough Rocky movies to know that it won't go that way.

It's all very much the formula of the first Rocky, including the upstart boxer getting a shot at the title, falling in love with a quirky girl, and lots of great training montages. The lack of originality would be unforgivable if it weren't for the top-notch performances. Michael B.Jordan is simply magnetic. He commits 100% to every scene, and he is clearly going places. It's Sylvester Stallone, however, who really elevates “Creed.” Watching his aged fighter retreat inward as he is given a cancer diagnosis is truly gutting. Watching him hike out to the cemetery to sit by Adrian's grave and read her the newspaper is heartbreaking. This may be Stallone's best work.

The fight scenes are as rousing as those in any “Rocky” movie, way more fun than watching actual boxing. The training scenes mostly recycle stuff from earlier films, including the old, catch-the-chicken game. Still, for a movie that doesn't really have much new to say, “Creed” is way more entertaining than it has a right to be.

3 stars out of 5

Straight Outta Compton (2015) ***

It's often been said that the best way to get the difference between East Coast and West Coast rap is to listen to the groups Public Enemy and NWA. The lyrics of East Coast group Public Enemy are political and a bit cerebral. NWA (Niggaz With Attitude), on the other hand, are raw and vulgar, rapping about the thug/gansta ethos of Compton, CA. Their groundbreaking 1988 album “Straight Outta Compton” is the definitive West Coast, gangsta-rap album. The single “Fuck tha Police” was an important part of the zeitgeist of what became the Rodney King era, either a defiant anthem against police brutality or a symbol of all that was wrong with black, inner-city culture, depending on where you stood politically.

F. Gary Gray's “Straight Outta Compton” tells the story of the group, starting with their early days in Compton, their meteoric rise, and their dissolution over money and contract issues, then continues to follow Eazy E, Dr. Dre, and Ice Cube into their solo careers. It's an expansive musical biopic that runs a bit long, but is definitely worth seeing for those who are into rap music.

The casting is visually accurate, with actors that look a lot like Dr Dre (Corey Hawkins), Suge Knight (R. Marcos Taylor), and Ice Cube (O'Shea Jackson, Jr, who is actually Ice Cube's son). These guys' acting gets the job done, but it's nothing inspiring. The best performance belongs to Jason Mitchell, as Eazy E, and the movie winds up being more his story than anyone's.

O'Shea Jackson, Jr. is fairly good as Ice Cube, particularly in the scenes where he pushes back against the media regarding the First Amendment battles surrounding NWA's music. His claim to be a type of reporter, honestly portraying poor, black culture, rings a bit hollow, though. These guys have every right to make their music, and they were right to fight censorship, but there is no denying that this music glorifies violence, drugs, and misogyny.

As raw as it is, I like this music, and “Straight Outta Compton” gives music fans what they want, with tons of songs from NWA and the solo projects, including some of the hilarious musical dueling that went on between these guys after they split up. I especially enjoyed one scene where Eazy E and the remaining NWA members listen to a track in which Ice Cube disses them and manager Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti). Jerry is incensed, but the other guys can't help laughing at Cube's lyrics.

One really striking thing about the film is the footage of the Rodney King beating, the riots over police brutality, and the many scenes of police harassing young, black men. I am struck by how little progress we have made 25 years later.

If you remember all the “Oscars So White” noise around this year's Academy Awards, this was one of the movies that protestors held up as an example of a black movie that should have gotten nominations. If you love the music, as I do, then “Straight Outta Compton” is well worth watching, but it isn't really Oscar-level. If you have an old album or CD of “Straight Outta Compton” (or better yet a cassette tape) in your collection, however, then you should definitely put this on your watchlist.

3 stars out of 5

The Big Short (2015) ***

I'm sure we all have our own stories from the economic crash of 2008, some of them incredibly sad. My own is relatively benign, but I'll never forget it. It was when my hair stylist told me he was getting out of the hair-cutting business to become a mortgage broker. This was before the crash, when housing prices were rising relentlessly, houses were turning over constantly, and anyone, no matter how little training or experience they had, could make money in real estate. Of course, I didn't recognize that for the warning sign it was, the sign of a bubble that was destined to burst. “The Big Short” is about the financial geniuses who did see the housing crash coming, and who figured out a way to profit from it.

In this film by Adam McKay, it starts with the one-eyed, socially-awkward Michael Burry, MD, a brainiac who left medicine to become a hedge-fund manager. He does something with mortgage-backed securities that no one else is doing: he actually looks at the mortgages behind those securities. He notices that many of them are behind on payments, many are to people with low credit scores, and that many more are adjustable-rate mortgages, with payments likely to rise in 2007. Despite these weaknesses, the banks have packaged these mortgages into bonds that are treated like low-risk investments. Burry sets up some insurance policies called Credit Default Swaps, policies that cost him money in the short term, but will pay off if those mortgage bonds fail. Everyone thinks he is daft, as the accepted wisdom says real estate is a rock-solid investment. Eventually some other financial wizzes notice what he is doing and take out similar policies, betting on the eventual demise of the housing market.

Where things get really messed up is when the banks themselves start buying some of these Credit Default Swaps. They are still selling the mortgage bonds to investors, but they are also betting that those bonds will fail. Eventually, as we know, the whole thing came crashing down, causing a worldwide recession.

“The Big Short” does a nice job dramatizing all of this for people who have at least a passing interest in things like economics and financial markets. It maintains a relatively high geek factor, which will drive away many mainstream moviegoers, but the movie sometimes winks at its own geekiness by having celebrities explain some of the concepts. Christian Bale is excellent as Dr. Burry, as are Steve Carrell as another investment manager and Ryan Gosling as a sleazy bond salesman. Really, the whole cast is excellent, and the film is paced pretty well. Inevitably, given its subject matter, “The Big Short” drags a bit at times, but overall it does an excellent job creating drama out of the ins and outs of bond trading. By the end, you will be mad at the big banks all over again.

3 stars out of 5

Love and Friendship (2016) ****

Based on a little-known, Jane Austen Novella called “Lady Susan,” “Love and Friendship” represents director Whit Stillman's re-imagining of a comic tale of a classic scoundrel. Lady Susan Vernon (Kate Beckinsale) is conniving, manipulative, and a notorious flirt, yet despite her notoriety, people still manage to get taken in by her charms. It's a good thing. She is a penniless widow with nothing but her looks and charm to depend on. She sets out to arrange a good marriage for her daughter, and perhaps for herself as well, although she finds it difficult to give up her sexual dalliances.

Lady Susan is a horrible person, yet she constantly has people in her orbit, defending her indefensible deeds. It seems to be a part of human nature to be attracted to a truly, un-self-consciously amoral person. Susan sometimes lies, but for the most part, her atrocities are right there in the open, and she practically dares people to call her on them. She reminds me of the two atrocious characters, Valmont and Merteuil from “Dangerous Liaisons.”

I never would have selected this movie on my own, but my wife dragged me to it, and good for her! This thing is a hoot! Whit Stillman, known for his talky, funny send-ups of modern, high society types is the perfect person to adapt Jane Austen. Beckinsale was born to play Lady Susan, who is similar in many ways to the harpy she played in "The Last Days of Disco," an earlier Stillman film. You have to give this movie about 10 or 15 minutes to get used to the period language and figure out who all the characters are, but once the story gets going, it is hilarious. The screen really lights up when Tom Bennett shows up as the silly, borderline-retarded Sir James Martin.

I hesitate to use the F-word, but there is something feminist about Lady Susan. As deplorable as she is, her notoriety is based largely on the fact that, in 1790's England, she is a woman. Were she a man, she would use her intelligence to make a fortune, and she would be able to engage in her sexual dalliances as a sideline, with little or no judgment from society. As a woman in that time, however, the only way for her to survive is to find a new husband. As for her sexual peccadilloes, 18th-century England has trouble even conceiving of a woman with such appetites. As the doltish Lord Martin points out, “If a man strays, he's just following his biology. Such behavior from a woman, though, is impossible to imagine.”

4 stars out of 5

Ghostbusters (2016) ***1/2

You cannot discuss the new “Ghostbusters” without making comparisons to the original, 1984 film, so let's just get something out of the way: The original “Ghostbusters” was not perfect. Like every other kid, I liked it when it came out, but when I re-watched it years later, I found it formulaic and lazy. (See my review of the original here.) These guys on the internet complaining that the new movie, with its female ghostbusters, is tarnishing the legacy of a classic movie are giving the original way more credit than it deserves. Bottom line, I think the new version, by Paul Feig (“Bridesmaids”), is better.

Kristen Wiig plays Erin, a physics professor trying to gain tenure and completely leave behind her past as an investigator of the paranormal. That past comes back to haunt her when her old ghost-hunting partner, Abby (Melissa McCarthy) re-releases their book on ghosts. Laughed out of her professorship, Erin has no choice but to join up with Abby and her assistant Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). The timing is perfect, however, as ghost sightings in NYC are on the rise. A sociopathic janitor (Neil Casey) is summoning ghosts and planning to unleash “the 4^th Cataclysm.” With ghost-catching devices invented by Holtzmann, and with their new friend Patty (Leslie Jones), the Ghostbusters set out to prevent the Apocalypse.

It's the same basic story outline as the original, but Paul Feig and his stars really make it their own. There are four ghostbusters, as in the original, but they are not simply analogues of the original characters. It's a new set of human beings, and Feig actually takes the time to develop these characters, which the first movie did not do. Wiig and McCarthy are comic geniuses, and both get to shine here, albeit not like they did in “Bridesmaids.” Kate McKinnon is funny, and gorgeous in a butch sort of way, but she perhaps overplays her badassness a bit. I never got the feeling that she was fully inhabiting her role. For my money, the star of the movie is Leslie Jones, who plays Patty. She could have easily played Patty as a straightforward sassy-black-friend, but she has so much screen presence that she lends the character more heft, if not depth.

The movie's weaknesses are the weaknesses of every action-comedy. The film is so busy packing in jokes, sight gags, and scenes of mayhem that the plot suffers. I would say the ghostbusting team comes together a bit too conveniently. Sometimes the ladies flap their gums when they should be firing their proton guns. Speaking of those proton guns, sometimes they work on the ghosts, and sometimes they don't, depending on what is most convenient for the plot. That's just lazy writing. Chris Hemsworth is sometimes funny as the ghostbusters' dim-witted, pretty-boy receptionist, but I never felt like they got the tone quite right for his character, which is also the feeling I got from McKinnon's Holtzmann. Still, the original “Ghostbusters” had all of these weaknesses and more.

The one thing that the original movie did better than the reboot is the mythology. All that stuff about Sumerian destruction gods and the Keymaster and Gatekeeper from the original film was actually kind of cool. This reboot really isn't all that interested in the supernatural, and barely manages to throw in a little bit about ley lines and vortices.

One thing “Ghostbusters” is NOT, regardless of what trolls on the internet are saying, is sexist or racist. I never felt, as a white man, that I was being attacked. What I did feel was joy at seeing a summer movie that is actually funny and fun. “Ghostbusters” isn't going to change your life, and it isn't another “Bridesmaids,” but it's definitely worth the price of admission.

3.5 stars out of 5

Look Who's Back (Er Ist Wieder Da, 2015, German) ****

A couple of years ago, if you had told me that what the world needed was a satirical movie about Adolph Hitler traveling through time to show up in 2014 Germany, I would have said you were nuts. In the light of the present day, I would say this film couldn't be more timely.

Hitler (Oliver Masucci) wakes up in a 2014 Berlin park completely disoriented after an apparently successful time-travel escape from his WWII bunker. People he encounters assume he is an actor, and they laugh and take pictures with him. He finds refuge in a news stand, where he starts to get his wits about him and embark on “the first step...gathering information.” Reading the news, he realizes that the world is perfectly ripe for him to make a comeback, what with economic troubles, unemployment, and immigration issues. A freelance documentarian discovers him and drives him around Germany, filming while Hitler chats up everyday Germans, commiserating with their troubles. He finds deep currents of disaffection with politicians and especially with immigrants. Once he gets on TV, his audience grows exponentially. People assume he is a comedian doing a Hitler act, but his message strikes a nerve nonetheless.

“Er Ist Wieder Da” is based on the best-selling, comedic novel of the same name, but the movie does something the book could not. Borrowing a page from the movie “Borat,” the director films real Germans talking with Hitler, expressing their resentment of immigrants in shockingly candid vignettes. Of course, not everyone is ready to board the Hitler-train. Several of these unwitting movie stars do themselves and their country credit by confronting his ideas. Nonetheless, it's disturbing to see so many Germans openly express support for a man who looks like Hitler, presents himself as Hitler, and promotes Hitler's racist, nationalist ideology. As Hitler says towards the end of the film, “I never presented myself as anything else.”

This is a refreshing, often hilarious cautionary tale, even if it feels a bit long at almost two hours. Star Oliver Masucci absolutely makes the film. He plays Hitler with a riveting intensity and charisma. He demonstrates how any idea, no matter how bad, can be appealing if it is expressed with absolute certainty and confidence. As Yeats said, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

4 stars out of 5

Ant-Man (2015) ***

The title of this installment in the Marvel universe almost seems like a joke to me, like, “We've got Batman, Spiderman, and every other kind of “Man” there is. What's left? How about 'Ant Man'?” But Ant Man has been around for a while, dating back to 1962. The original Ant-Man was scientist Hank Pym, who invented the suit that allowed him to shrink to the size of an ant and communicate with ants. This 2015 film, part of the Avengers Universe, shows Dr. Pym passing the suit to ex-con cat burglar Scott Lang (Paul Rudd.) Pym has kept the Pym Particle, which is the secret to his shrinking ability, under wraps for decades. Now his old protege, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) has cracked the code, developing a shrinking suit that he calls the Yellow Jacket. Cross is marketing the Yellow Jacket as a weapon, and Pym recruits Scott to steal the new suit and destroy the research data behind it. Pym is reluctantly aided by his daughter, Hope (Evangeline Lily), who feels that she should really be the one wearing the ant suit.

“Ant Man” is, in some ways, one of the better of the Marvel Comics movies, but it also feels the least substantial. Iron-Man Tony Stark is a recovering alcoholic who invents powerful weapons and struggles to make sure they don't wind up being used for evil. Captain America Steve Rogers is a man severed from his own era, trying to dutifully serve his country, but ever on guard against authoritarianism. Ant Man Scott Lang, though, is just an unemployed ex-con who wants to get to see his daughter. The movie doesn't expend much energy convincing us that this sad sack would accept Pym's mission or that Pym would select him in the first place.

If the heroes are a bit under-developed in these movies, you can usually count on the villain to be memorable, but Corey Stoll's Cross is like a cardboard cutout of a villain. Evangeline Lily isn't much better in her black bob and wafer-thin emotional armor.

Fortunately, what a movie lacks in depth, it can make up in humor and charm, and Paul Rudd has both in abundance. It's simply impossible not to like him in a film. He gets an assist from a funny supporting cast, including Bobby Canavale as his ex-wife's new man. Michael Douglas and his iron jaw are also excellent, providing just enough gravitas to hold the film together.

At the end of the day, I'm not really sure what “Ant Man” is supposed to be about, but the movie provides enough laughs and action to make up for its lack of plot. Now that the character is established, I hope Paul Rudd will get to do something more interesting with him in a future movie.

3 stars out of 5

It Follows (2014) ****

After a couple of dates, Jay (Maika Monroe) has a back-seat hookup with a new acquaintance. She figures the date is going pretty well, until Hugh tells her the bad news. Their tryst has passed on to her the curse of a demon that will follow her until either she passes it on by having sex with someone else, or it gets its hands on her. The opening sequence of the film shows us what can happen when this thing catches up to someone, and believe me, it means business. The worst part is that you can never really be rid of this thing, because if it kills someone, then it just goes back after the person who passed it to that person, working its way back down the line. Relentless is the word that comes to mind.

I don't really watch many horror movies anymore. It's a generally accepted rule that horror films are made for teenagers, who are fascinated by exploring the possibility of their own mortality, partly because they don't fully believe in their own mortality yet. A grown person has plenty of genuinely scary things to worry about, with no need to stare into the celluloid abyss. “It Follows,” however, is not just a good horror movie, it is a good movie, period. The acting is excellent, and the characters' actions are believable, even if they don't always do the smartest thing at a given time. The writing is good enough that their actions make sense in terms of who they are and the nightmare in which they are trapped. The camera work in this film is beautifully framed as well, with some absolutely stunning shots. The film also creates a sense of timelessness by having the characters dress in vintage clothing and using cars from various eras. Even the seasons seem unstable, creating a nightmarish sense of disorientation. This movie is going to age well, and I suspect it will show up in some film school lectures.

When done properly, horror movies can teach us a lot about ourselves by making us examine what we fear. Is it fear of the “other”, or fear that the people we love aren't who we think they are. Maybe it's the fear that our sins will catch up to us. The demon in “It Follows” represents an unavoidable doom that is always coming for us, basically a stand-in for death. The characters can delay that doom by having sex with someone, but they know that it is still out there, potentially working its way back to them. Besides being a metaphor for mortality, “It” is, of course, a pretty obvious stand-in for sexually-transmitted disease, particularly the AIDS epidemic, which is interesting, because people who are today the age of these characters don't know much about the AIDS epidemic. Those who lived through that epidemic will recognize the sense of fear surrounding sex, and the necessary paranoia about one's sexual partner and their past partners created in this film.

It's a standard horror film trope to equate sex with death, but “It Follows” makes the connection much more explicit. In doing so, writer/director David Robert Mitchell has created a delightfully original tale that belongs in the cannon of great films like John Carpenter's “The Thing.” From the horrifying opening sequence, the movie creates an overpowering sense of dread with its thrumming score and the sense that “it” may appear at any moment, moving slowly but malevolently. “It Follows” is definitely one to check out, as long as you can handle a few nightmares.

4 stars out of 5

Battle Royale (2000, Japanese) **

A group of teenage school kids are put on an island, given weapons, and instructed to kill each other off. Collars around their neck will explode in three days unless only one of them is left alive, so they cannot simply join together and refuse to fight. At certain points in the day, various parts of the island become danger zones that will make the collars explode, so the kids have to constantly move around. Only young love can help them survive. The ensuing bloodshed is promoted as entertainment to the Japanese populace.

If this movie sounds like a Japanese rip-off of “The Hunger Games,” be aware that the first “Hunger Games” novel came out in 2008, while the “Battle Royale”novel was written in 1996, with the movie released in 2000. If anything, the accusations of plagiarism should be going in the other direction, as the stories are remarkably similar. Whoever came up with the idea, the “Hunger Games” movie is a much better film. “Battle Royale” is full of nonsensical plot points and a distinctly Japanese style of acting that involves over-acting alternating with staring blankly. I suppose the movie has a certain culty charm, if you are into that sort of thing.

The paradox of movies like this is that even as we in the audience judge the sick society that creates entertainment out of kids murdering each other, we are also watching the killings, reveling in the action as our chosen players kill off the other characters. The director tricks us into cheering on the very violence that we condemn. While we're talking about exploitation, you can't help but notice that all the young actresses in this film wear short, little schoolgirl skirts.  So it isn't a complete loss.

2 stars out of 5