Reviews

Manifesto might be the most unique viewing experience I've had in a while. Directed by German artist Julian Rosefeldt, who according to Wikipedia: "Elaborate, visually opulent film and video installations, often shown as panoramic multi-channel projections." I did more digging and found out Manifesto was originally an art installation. From the photos I've seen, visitors to the exhibit would walk to different screens where a clip of the movie would be playing. I think that's the gist of it at least.

Now I'd be lying if I told you I understood any of the monologues or "manifestos" presented in this movie. If I'm not mistaken, I believe one was about the relationship between art and capitalism. If anything, this movie felt like an entire semester of art philosophy crammed into an hour and a half film. I don't usually watch these kinds of experimental movies where plot is basically non-existent, but Cate Blanchett got me through it all.

Okay so here is what I wanted to talk about the most, Cate Blanchett's performance. I've always loved Cate Blanchett as an actress but Manifesto made me realize how amazing and talented she really is. I can't believe I never realized she had THIS much range. In one scene, she's playing a mousey housewife eating dinner with her family and in another, she's a brash punk-rocker chick. I was absolutely floored. The way she is able to slip into all of these roles astonished me. I swear, she slips into these performances like most people slip into shoes.

Even though we know nothing about any of these characters, we can infer who these people are by their facial expressions, behavior, and tone of voice. All the body language felt authentic and true for each character. In fact, I want to know more about these people. I could watch Cate Blanchett play a punk-rocker chick or a dance choreographer for hours. I would pay more attention to the news if Cate Blanchett was the anchor.

I also want to commend the costuming, hairstyling, makeup, etc. They really did elevate Cate's transformations throughout the film. In one scene, she's a loud, dirty, male drunk and in another, she's this really beautiful and well-spoken party host. I just loved seeing the contrasts that highlighted her versatility.

As I said before, I had no idea what was being said in regards to the philosophical art-talk, but Cate's performance kept me engaged the whole time. If anything this film may have convinced me that she's the best actress working right now. I can't believe I'm saying that over somebody's art project, but Cate Blanchett simply killed it.

"Solo: A Star Wars Story" is far from awful but it feels unnecessary. The "Star Wars" universe is ripe with potential but Lucasfilm and Disney keep returning to the well of unoriginal ideas to tell stories of characters we love yet have no desire of knowing the backstory of. The film is visually dull, the action is pedestrian, and Alden Ehrenreich's performance as Han Solo is nothing to write home about. If this movie wasn't "Star Wars," it would be written off as an average sci-fi adventure flick, but seeing as this film is part of Disney's 'Star Wars," the disappointment is real. This is the kind of movie you forget about the minute you finish it. At least the prequels had some imagination, some good ideas; this spin-off has none of that. I fear for the future of "Star Wars." The force is not strong with this one.

"Transformers" is a lot of fun. Despite the negative reception the future installments of the franchise would receive, this Michael Bay effort is at least entertaining. Action scenes are plentiful and satisfying and the CGI has aged quite well for the most part. Unfortunately, the human characters are either very annoying or stock cliché. Shia LaBeouf's Sam Witwicky is always nervous, always sweating, always making excuses for himself. Megan Fox is there as the eye candy love interest and of course we have your typical military types, comedy relief types, and government agent types. Despite the long run time, the film doesn't feel like it buckles under its own weight. Too bad the Transformers don't show up until an hour in. "Transformers" is great popcorn fun but the characters and Michael Bay-style humor will leave some viewers rolling their eyes.

"Geostorm" is the directorial debut for Dean Devlin ("Flyboys"), a film producer and screenwriter most notable for producing various Roland Emmerich ("Independence Day: Resurgence") films such as "Stargate", "Independence Day," and "Godzilla." That connection can easily be felt here as "Geostorm" is the kind of film that would fit well within Emmerich's filmography. In truth however, "Geostorm" is the most moronic movie to be released this year and the worst disaster film to be released in recent memory. The film takes place in the near future where catastrophic natural disasters are halted with the aid of "Dutch Boy," a system of satellites designed to control climate on a global scale. When the system begins to malfunction, a former lead architect is brought in to save the day and hopefully prevent a "Geostorm" from destroying the planet. Concerning disaster movies plots, this story is very basic. In fact, it is downright pedestrian. We have seen it in "Armageddon" and "2012" and "San Andreas." and "Geostorm" brings absolutely nothing new to the table. This can even be seen with our characters. Our disgraced lead architect is Jake Lawson, played by Gerard Butler ("London Has Fallen"). He is joined by Jim Sturgess ("Kidnapping Mr. Heineken") as the protagonist's younger brother, Abbie Cornish ("Robocop") as a U.S. Secret Service agent, Ed Harris ("Mother!") as the U.S. Secretary of State, and Andy García ("Passengers") as the president of the United States. All try their best, but the script is so clichéd and predictable that even Daniel Day-Lewis ("Lincoln") wouldn't be able to salvage it. Not to mention some of the choices several characters make in the film defy all logic and reason. Despite being a disaster movie, "Geostorm" showcases not that many disaster sequences. In the entire film, only one disaster sequence is memorable, and even that ends as soon as it begins. The second act is completely devoid of any spectacle, and we are subjected to following a generic mystery surrounding sabotaged satellites. There is a rule for disaster films that people go to see them for the sole purpose of seeing amazing visual effects. "2012" did this decently. "Geostorm" does not. In fact, we are given effects that look on par with Syfy original movies. Not to mention that none of the main characters are involved in any of the disaster sequences, giving them no emotional weight or even a fleeting sense of urgency. In a nutshell, "Geostorm" is a big bore. In this day and age, the disaster genre is a dying breed due to a lack of fresh material. You need to bring in something fresh to reel audiences in. "Geostorm" once again, fails in this regard. In a disappointing October, "Geostorm" is not worth your time or money. Watch and support "Blade Runner 2049" if you want a better film with more substance, or wait a few weeks for the release for "Thor: Ragnarok." "Geostorm" is as entertaining to watch as a Syfy original movie. Hopefully, Devlin's next film, "Bad Samaritan" is an improvement over this wreck.