Isle of Dogs

 

Set in the fictional Japanese city of Megasaki, Mayor Kenji Kobayashi has decreed that all dogs that fall under a mysterious canine flu-like sickness must be exiled to an offshore site called Trash Island. One such canine that contracts the sickness is named Spots, whose master happens to be a young boy named Atari, the adopted nephew of Mayor Kenji Kobayashi. Atari attempts to find Spots by escaping the confines of his uncle's residence, and making his way to Trash Island in order to look for his lost pet. Along the way Atari meets up with five other dogs stranded on the island - Chief, Rex, King, Boss, and Duke. The group of dogs work together with Atari in order to find out the fate of Spots on Trash Island, all while avoiding Atari's uncle, as well as murderous mangy dogs also trapped on the island.

Isle of Dogs is my third attempt at watching something directed by Wes Anderson. The first one was Moonrise Kingdom, and the second was Fantastic Mr. Fox. The quirky, sarcastic, quick-witted and dry style of humor is very hit-or-miss with me. Most of the time, I'd say I do enjoy it. I do kind of wish I knew what it was exactly that makes it a success for me, and what misses the mark. For instance, I saw Moonrise Kingdom, and thought it was kind of funny in places, but I didn't think it was as good as some of my friends and other people who had recommended it to me made it out to be. Fantastic Mr. Fox on the other hand, I thought was a hilarious movie. Good thing too, as I went ahead and bought it first before ever watching it by going off the recommendation of some family and friends who loved it. Isle of Dogs falls somewhat in the middle of the road for me. I loved the story, I thought it was a well crafted story filled with many great characters throughout. I loved seeing the evolution of the friendship between Atari and each of the dogs helping him find Spots. The humor was the part that was hit-or-miss. There were times where I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard, and others where I was just like "I don't get it..." Overall though, I would definitely see it again, and will probably be getting it on DVD/Blu-Ray soon.

Equalizer 3

 

Robert McCall is enjoying a quiet, secluded retirement as a U.S. government assassin-turned-vigilante in a little town in Italy. Unfortunately that retirement is soon disrupted as he gets wind of a plot involving the local Italian mafia and drug money that is putting his newfound friends and community in danger. McCall attempts to control the situation on his own, but must soon call upon his former compatriots at the FBI to assist him in his efforts.

The Equalizer franchise has been a very good action series despite being somewhat on the predictable side of things involving the plot(s) and characters throughout. I'd say the first Equalizer is still the best, yet Equalizer 3 is ever so slightly better than Equalizer 2. In his second outing as Robert McCall, I mentioned that while Denzel Washington was still excellent as McCall, I couldn't help thinking that he seemed a bit bored throughout the movie. I also mentioned that the story veered into some pretty predictable elements which I thought could have been crafted better to enhance the overall experience. With this latest installment, I don't know what the difference was, whether it was the story itself, or the overall experience of making the film, or something else, but Washington's performance was much better and the overall film is much better than the previous one. I've still to this day have never seen a performance or film of his that I just didn't enjoy overall, and that continues with this latest installment. 

That said, the Equalizer trilogy still seems to struggle with developing its supporting characters. It's a little disheartening when you realize that one of the characters with the development issue is an FBI agent played by Dakota Fanning, Denzel Washington's former co-star in Man on Fire. This is their first on-screen interaction since Man on Fire. It was great seeing them together again, but as I mentioned, I wish Dakota's character was given more to do within the confines of the story. As it stands, her character didn't seem to have much of an impact on the story's conclusion. There was a distinct lack of a good subplot point as well such as the old man in Equalizer 2 who is searching for an old, lost family heirloom. The audience kind of gets it in the form of an Italian shopkeeper who is being accosted by the local crime lord for protection money, but there was still something missing there where it wasn't as impactful for me personally like the subplot of the old man trying to find his heirloom in part 2. 

If you're a fan of the first two Equalizer films, or just in general a fan of Denzel Washington like I am, Equalizer 3 is still a very good thrill ride with some excellent action scenes, and a great performance by Denzel. Not to mention it was still fantastic to see Denzel and Dakota Fanning back together again on screen after so many years. I personally just wish the surrounding story and supporting characters were just a bit more polished. Especially if this is the final outing for the character of Robert McCall.

Triangle of Sadness

Celebrity model couple, Carl (Harris Dickinson) and Yaya (Charlbi Dean), are invited on a luxury cruise for the uber-rich, helmed by an unhinged boat captain (Woody Harrelson). What first appeared instagrammable ends catastrophically, leaving the survivors stranded on a desert island and fighting for survival.

Triangle of Sadness was one of the disturbingly worst experiences I’ve had in a theater in a long time. I don’t like using the word ‘pretentious’, (I feel like describing something as pretentious is such a subjective opinion) but Triangle of Sadness comes as close as I’ve ever seen to get me to use it. Interestingly enough, it actually starts out decently well. We meet our two main protagonists as they're on a date and the discussion throughout the dinner touches on subjects of gender roles, influencer status, and others. If the film had stayed like that I actually might have considered Triangle of Sadness a decent-to-possibly-good movie instead of a disaster. However, there’s a scene about halfway through where a storm is brewing, and the social elite are eating dinner with the captain of the yacht they’re on. The crash of the waves mixed with the dinner results in a far too drawn out scene reminiscent of the pie eating scene in Stand by Me that results in everyone…uh…relieving themselves from both the attic and basement, if you catch my drift. It’s paired with a weird drunken discussion between the captain and a Russian man arguing about the merits of socialism vs capitalism, Marxism, and a couple other things. I did some research after the fact as I was confused on just what the heck exactly the scene was going for. From what I could gather in my research, it looks like the point was to paint the pompous, obscenely rich idiots as simply ignorant of their actions, as earlier in the film they had forced the entire crew to go swimming with them, resulting in the food going bad before being prepared for the meal. The scene was gross all by itself, but it was odd being paired with the conversation/argument between the captain and the Russian man. That kind of lesson about the ultra-rich could have easily been done a multitude of more effective ways that were not so disturbing and gross. Once the storm scene is over, the film then veers into Lord of the Flies territory where the survivors of the capsized ship argue about how to get back home, and who is in charge. It felt like Triangle of Sadness couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a dark comedy, a tragedy, or some kind of weird action/adventure romp with a touch of satirical lessons peppered throughout. Due to this, I cannot for the life of me figure out why it's received such good reviews, and I cannot recommend sitting down to watch it unless you can stand to watch an overly long scene of dozens of people throwing up and soiling themselves during a storm being weirdly paired with a politically charged conversation intertwined throughout.

Dungeons and Dragons: Honor among Thieves

A charming thief, Edgin, and a band of unlikely adventurers (Holga, Xenk, Simon, Doric, and Forge) embark on an epic quest to retrieve a lost relic. Things go dangerously awry when they run afoul of the wrong people. They must then work together to save the world from destruction.

Dungeons and Dragons: Honor among Thieves is such a cheesy as heck movie, but thankfully it’s the best kind of cheesy. I loved every second of it. I don’t really know or have experienced much about D&D outside of currently watching the third campaign of Critical Role on YouTube or Twitch, an episode here and there of Dimension 20, and Amazon Prime’s animated series of the first Critical Role campaign The Legend of Vox Machina - though I recently have been wanting to get into a one shot campaign or something to experience it for myself - so I couldn’t tell you all of the Easter eggs. The good thing is that the movie has enough there to be good fun for even people like myself who don’t know what any of the terms used mean or types of characters, etc. I mean, I knew enough to know what some of the spells used were (Eldritch Blast, Speak to the Dead, among others). I also understood a couple references here and there to some special magical items used within the game, but that's about the extent of my knowledge of D&D. Honor among Thieves has the humor, action and adventure I've come to expect from a typical session of D&D, which made it all the more entertaining. I wish it had been a little longer, despite being just over 2 hrs long. It felt like it went by too quickly. But that’s my only real complaint. Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriquez, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis, Regé-Jean Page, and Hugh Grant were all wonderful in each of their roles, and made me look forward to a sequel. No, seriously, PLEASE let there be a sequel to this one!