Movies have a very contentious relationship with social media. “The Social Network” envisioned the founding of Facebook as a tragic breakdown in friendships. Jason Reitman’s “Men, Women & Children” took a brief glance at a girl’s suicidal thoughts and the death of a marriage and chalked most of it up to the dark corners of the Internet. In 2014’s “Unfriended,” a group of teenagers all met through grisly ends via Skype.

Some of these films are better than others. “The Social Network” won three Oscars and many consider it a modern classic. But at the heart of these stories is a deep-seated distrust of the digital age. If their themes are to be taken at face value, then the Internet is little more than the Devil delivered through Wi-Fi.

“The Circle,” based on Dave Eggers’ acclaimed 2013 novel, is the latest film to portray the “evils” of giant tech corporations. Emma Watson stars as Mae, a recent college graduate who lands a job at the a high tech company called The Circle.

Part Google, part Apple and part Facebook, The Circle quickly becomes Mae’s home as she rises through the ranks and is swallowed up in the company’s groupthink. Co-founder Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks, phoning it in from his first line) reveals new technological advancements each week, including invisible cameras that can be placed anywhere and an algorithm that can find anyone, anywhere. Why? Because, as Eamon wills Mae to believe, “secrets are lies.” Meanwhile, Mae’s childhood friend Mercer (Ellar Coltrane) grows distrustful of her reliance on the digital world, and a mysterious “Circler” (John Boyega) expresses resistance to the company’s goals.

Watch the trailer for “The Circle” here:

In the hands of a capable director who understands the value of understatement, “The Circle” might have made for decent entertainment. But director James Ponsoldt (“The Spectacular Now”), who helped Eggers adapt his novel to the screen, constructs a film with all the nuance of a high school essay. The characters speak in terms so broad their actual points becomes impossible to trace.

The philosophical debate at the film’s center is ridiculously simplistic and grandiose. Once a week, The Circle unveils technology that’s an obvious invasion of privacy. Yet the company’s employees cheer it on like sheep. If their reaction is intended to be a critique of Silicon Valley groupthink, it doesn’t work. The people working at one of the most advanced companies in the world come off like idiots.

Ponsoldt and Eggers’ screenplay demonstrates a disregard for basic plotting as well. Subplots begin and remain unresolved over two hours. Characters act without regard for logic. Others are criminally underused. The film’s jarring tonal shifts run counter to Eggers’ original, dark vision.

Perhaps the film’s performances could have saved it from mediocrity. But Watson appears out of her depth. Half a decade removed from Hogwarts, the actress must make Mae’s journey from unwitting employee to influential tech guru at least appear plausible. She settles for a thin veneer of innocence and naivete, a decision that makes Mae both bland and easily hateable. Meanwhile, Hanks misses an opportunity to throw his “American Stepdad” persona to the wind. Rather than sink his teeth into a villainous role, he replaces menace with boredom. Mae’s friend and fellow Circler Annie is the sole bright spot, thanks to a magnetic turn from Karen Gillian.

There are nuances to the digital world in which we now live. Those nuances do not exist to the creators of “The Circle.” Social media, they suggest, can invade lives, destroy governments and kill. The idea would be frightening if it came from a movie less smugly idiotic. The right to privacy is a worthy debate topic and will remain so as long as companies like Google, Facebook and Uber exist. But films like “The Circle” have little of value to say about it.

Follow Dana on Twitter @alstondalston

The post Review: ‘The Circle’ imagines a world of deadly social media appeared first on Emerald Media.

April 20 is the de facto national holiday for weed connoisseurs, but in the year and a half since recreational marijuana was legalized, it has become just another day of the “green rush.”

The Oregon Liquor Control Commission oversees 426 active marijuana retailers statewide, as of April 19. With the success of Oregon’s new multi-million-dollar revenue stream, regulations are undergoing constant renovation. Changes to testing parameters, according to many, could be working against the “clean cannabis” reputation that Oregon was initially known for. Regardless, business is booming.

According to the Department of Revenue, Oregonians spent $241 million on recreational marijuana in 2016. From that spending, Oregon netted $60.2 million in tax revenue — $46.4 million more than the state projected. If a pre-rolled joint costs $10, Oregon residents bought the equivalent of 24.1 million joints last year.

Marijuana-related industry in Lane County is on the rise, and the number of local businesses has grown steadily. There are 60 different businesses in Lane County, with many more set to open, pending license payments. The OLCC has received 613 recreational retailer license applications statewide since January 2016.

Angelica Kontra, an employee at Cannabliss, identified a “green rush” at the heart of Oregon’s budding marijuana industry. “It’s a brand new industry, and people are making millions of dollars,” she said.

Despite Oregon’s success, the state’s current revenue projections pale in comparison to those of Washington, where sales since legalization currently total over $1 billion and the total tax revenue tops $404 million. Colorado, the other state to legalize recreational use in 2012, has made $1.3 billion in sales, according to the Colorado Department of Revenue.

(Dana Alston/Emerald)

University of Oregon economics professor Keaton Miller has conducted research on recreational marijuana industries in the U.S. He says Washington’s industry, active for almost five years, is the most useful to study due to the length of time it has been functional.

“In Washington, [pot] has been legal for much longer,” Miller said. “It’s where we’d want to study because the data has had more time to mature, relative to Oregon.”

Miller’s analysis shows a marijuana industry that continues to outperform even liberal estimates. In October 2015 alone, Washington generated $17 million from marijuana tax revenue. Economic success has been large and relatively immediate.

It’s a little too early to tell how Oregon’s industry will compare. States such as Washington and Colorado have had a fully functioning marijuana industry for over four years. Measure 91, which decriminalized recreational use in Oregon, passed in 2014 and has been in effect for less than two years. But a look at trends from other states has allowed analysts such as Miller to make predictions about Oregon’s future.

When asked to predict how successful Oregon’s pot industry might be, Miller was optimistic.

“Relative to the state’s [projections], I think Oregon is already overperforming,” he said. “In terms of getting people to use the ‘white market’ instead of the ‘black market’ for pot, I think the state is achieving its goals.”

Initially, the state’s requirements for marijuana testing indicated a high priority placed on public health and safety. All pot-related items intended to be sold for retail were required to be tested for pesticides, moisture content and THC levels, according to the Oregon Health Authority. Both Washington and Colorado require similar testing.

Testing continues to generate debate among industry professionals and authorities. Last year, three Oregon dispensaries, including one in Eugene, sold strains of marijuana that violated OHA pesticide restrictions.

Months later, OHA relaxed requirements, citing product shortages and processor lay-offs resulting from backlogs at testing labs. The new rules reduced the amount of retail marijuana required to be tested by producers from 100 percent of market cannabis to 33 percent. According to some,  OHA is considering reducing  that percentage further.

Rowshan Reordan, a managing partner at Green Leaf Labs, a testing lab based in Portland, says the initial testing rules created by the state, especially those regarding pesticides, helped brand Oregon as a “clean cannabis” state. But she expressed dismay at OHA’s new set of requirements, which she says makes it more difficult to protect the longevity of the marijuana industry.

“I think Oregon had taken the great position of ensuring that there were these pesticide standards,” Reordan said during a phone interview. “And now the state is looking at rolling that back. And it’s disappointing.”

The new rules have been met with derision from some local businesses. For example, mold testing is no longer required, allowing for potentially hazardous sales to unaware customers. Tim Khadafi, a part-time grower and current employee at Casper’s Cannabis Club, called the new requirements “worrisome and potentially dangerous.”

Adam Jacques of Oregon Microgrowers Guild says his marijuana plants are normally four times as large at this stage in the growing season. (Aaron Nelson/Emerald)

“Some growers don’t want to have to pay for anything more than a potency test,” he said. “They feel as though it’s become an unnecessary expense. But as a grower and a consumer and someone who’s passionate about medical [use], I think testing is absolutely necessary.”

According to Reordan, testing for all possible contaminants can cost up to 7 cents per gram. Khadafi claims that some commercial growers use these expenses to value profit over the health of their consumers.

“Big-time growers, by-and-large, are anti-testing,” he said. “I see it as a real health risk for a huge portion of the population that now puchases marijuana from recreational shops. [Pot] is a product that is medically valid and has a ton of value in people’s lives, being poisoned by industrialization. It breaks my heart a little bit.”

Anna Kaplan, co-founder and business and operations manager of Sugartop Buddery, a Eugene-based grower and retail supplier, echoed these concerns. Kaplan cited Oregon’s health-conscientious culture among small marijuana-based businesses as a defining trait of the state’s industry and worried that larger growers may treat the plant as “a cash crop.”

“In Oregon, we want pot to be a homegrown plant and experience,” she said. “Testing for pesticides is an important part of that culture.”

The post The green rush: An industry on the brink appeared first on Emerald Media.

It’s hard to imagine “The Fast and the Furious” once was a low-budget street racing franchise. Over the series’ seven previous installments, the action increased in volume and ridiculousness. In 2001’s original film, Paul Walker and Vin Diesel raced one another and outran a train. In “Fast Five,” the pair used a massive harpoon to carjack vehicles off of a moving train and then promptly drove off of a cliff.

Check out the Emerald’s guide to the “Fast and the Furious.”

The trend continues in the latest adventure, “The Fate of the Furious,” which brings the level of ass-kicking to new heights. This time, franchise protagonist Dominic Toretto (Diesel) has turned against his destructive automotive brain trust. Cyber terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron) holds powerful leverage over him (for initially unknown reasons) and uses him as a sort of ‘roided up hitman for her various schemes. Equally muscular hero Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) steps in to lead the Furious squad. Meanwhile, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) switches from previous villain to ally when he is recruited to help take down Cipher.

The cast grows and the chaos increases with each chapter in the franchise, which helps keep it laughably entertaining. But there’s also a growing sense of self-awareness at the heart of these films, as if each absurd set piece comes with a wink and smile. “Fate” knows exactly what it is: an over-the-top action extravaganza, with barely enough story holding it together to be considered a narrative film. It plays into these limitations magnificently (and hilariously). All logical caution gets thrown to the wind within minutes, thanks to a ridiculous tone-setting opening sequence set in Cuba. Later, the team does vehicular battle against bad guys with guns, rockets and, in the film’s best sequence, a nuclear submarine. Yeah. A submarine.

Check out our video review of “Furious 7.”

But despite all of the fun, “Fate” struggles in small spurts. Sixteen years after the first installment, the series’ macho-ness (there are gratuitous shots of scantily clad women in every movie) is growing stale. And the film’s source of pathos (the strength of family) isn’t enough to excuse the ease with which Paul Walker’s character is replaced by Scott Eastwood, another attractive white guy.

Still, director F. Gary Gray stages the action with flair, and there’s enough humor and heart to make up for the film’s flaws. “Fate” isn’t perfect. But it’s much better if you just laugh along.

Follow Dana on Twitter: @alstondalston

Watch the trailer for “The Fate of the Furious” below:

The post Review: Ridiculous action reigns supreme in the endlessly entertaining ‘Fate of the Furious’ appeared first on Emerald Media.

“Your Name,” the latest film from animator and former graphic designer Makoto Shinkai, is already Japan’s fourth highest-grossing film of all time. A supernatural anime romance with surprising emotional resonance, its appeal to audiences of all ages is immediately apparent. The characters are likable, the animation is awe-inspiring and the storyline will stir many who see it.

The plot follows Mitshua (voiced by Mone Kamishiraishi), a teenager living in a rural Japanese town, and Taki (Ryûnosuke Kamiki), a similar-aged boy who lives in the heart of Tokyo. Once both are asleep, the two switch places a la “Freaky Friday,” with Taki taking control of Mitshua’s body and vice versa. Both spend a few random days a week trying to make sense of the other’s routine, until the two begin helping each other out via messages on Taki’s phone and Mitshua’s notebook.

The structure that Shinkai creates via this scenario lasts for the film’s entire first half, and is nothing new to moviegoers. Taki and Mitshua are little more than youth drama archetypes. Their day-to-day conflicts don’t extend beyond annoyances at work or the occasional crush. Even as the film fleshes out the surrounding cast and dishes out hilarious moments, little of what occurs seems to really matter.

Luckily, Shinkai adds enough visual flair to keep the film afloat. “Your Name” features consistently gorgeous animation, complete with backgrounds that move and morph with each passing frame. The visual style is distinct, but firmly rooted enough in modern anime that it will satisfy fans of the genre. Shinkai cleverly devises a few sequences built around exciting set pieces, allowing the animators to sprinkle breathtaking variety into their images. This film is one of the most beautiful to hit theaters in years.

Check out the trailer for “Your Name” below:

The film’s energy depends on its beauty until the second half, when the story reveals its first of many twists. Characters’ journeys take wildly unexpected turns involving time travel and a deadly celestial object. The unexpected gear shift opens the narrative to heart-rending, climactic moments. But Shinkai regularly overplays his hand, presenting a series of pop song-assisted climaxes near the film’s conclusion that derail any narrative momentum. Plot points that would be otherwise exciting fall flat in context.

Still, “Your Name” displays a sweetness that overpowers its overwrought tendencies. The relationship between Taki and Mitshua develops convincingly, even though neither character meets the other until the film’s last third. Other Japanese masters of animation like Hayao Miyazaki often ditch character development in favor of heady themes. Shinkai is the opposite, using the existential elements of his film merely as a backdrop for genuine human connection. The result is a touching love story and an uplifting teen movie that transcends the cheesy trappings of its genre.

Even when it tries to do too much, Makoto Shinkai’s latest film is a masterwork of animation that will entertain and move audiences. Its heart and gorgeous hand-drawn images make up for its general narrative incoherence, creating a film that feels at once distinct and emotionally satisfying. For fans of all kinds animation, “Your Name” is a must-watch.

For more reviews and stories, follow Dana on Twitter @AlstonDalston.

The post Review: “Your Name” is a clumsy supernatural romance with emotional heft appeared first on Emerald Media.

Coming-of-age films are rarely surprising. While classics like “The Breakfast Club” and more recent successes like “The Edge of Seventeen” demonstrate the genre’s potential, it’s rare to find a film under that umbrella that’s truly unpredictable. Finding ways to mix up the formula is a task only the most unique and exciting directors can accomplish.

Enter “Raw,” a French-Belgian horror flick that doubles as a meditation on adolescence. Director Julia Ducournau has crafted a violent, sexually provocative thriller made with impressive technical grace. The film made waves at the Cannes Film Festival last year for sending squeamish audience members to the door. But make no mistake, “Raw” has plenty on its mind regarding addiction, youth and what it means to grow up.

The film’s story is unique enough to keep an audience guessing. The plot follows Justine (Garance Marillier), a young girl from a family of strict vegetarians who arrives at veterinary school to start college. Her roommate Adrien (Rabah Naït Oufella) and Adrien’s sister Alex (Ella Rumpf) greet her, along with a gossiping, hazing student body. When the upperclassmen force Justine to eat a raw rabbit kidney, she begins to crave flesh at an alarming rate. As her hunger becomes more insatiable, she contends with romantic feelings, drug experimentation and increasingly extreme parties.

“Raw” has more in common with shock-horror films like “Saw” than one might expect from the film’s setting and characters, and Ducournau manages to sell the violence via an eye-popping visual palette. “Raw” may be the work of a novice filmmaker (this is Ducournau’s feature-length debut as both writer and director), but she displays remarkable technical chops and artistry behind the camera. The imagery from Belgian cinematographer Ruben Impensi is grounded and gorgeous, while editor Jean-Christophe Bouzy stitches it all together with a capable eye.

Despite the film’s aesthetic beauty, the strongest moments come from its performances. Justine’s journey from innocent student to meat-craving delinquent would mean nothing without a fine performance, and Marillier delivers. The actress, whose icy stare recalls that of “Neon Demon” star Elle Fanning, sells the transformation beautifully. She embodies Justine’s wide-eyed shock, fear and eventual understanding with creepy abandon. Rumpf and Oufella also shine, completing a triplet of fine performances.

But the commitment and skill from the film’s actors cannot mask the thinness of their characters. “Raw’s” story works best as an allegory for addiction and youth, and its symbolism is both obvious and admirable. But that commitment to Big Ideas makes the characters within the story feel “created” rather than organic. Justine, Adrien and Alex speak and act as though they are academic chess pieces, not real people.

“Raw’s” concept and execution are original, but while the film has plenty of thematic material, almost all of it feels heavy-handed. Ducournau directs scenes for maximum thematic importance, often at the expense of nuance. The result is a film that looks and feels important to a fault. There are plenty of genuinely frightening moments, but the film looks and sounds more concerned with proving its worth as a ‘capital-F’ Film than entertaining its audience.

That said, “Raw” is both unique and scary enough to make up for its minor flaws. Its graphic violence and inconsistent tone may prove unwieldy for some, but the performances and Ducournau’s skill as a relatively new director make it an unpredictable and frightening experience.

For more thoughts on film and culture, follow Dana on Twitter: @AlstonDalston.

The post Review: ‘Raw’ uses blood and guts to create an unnerving portrait of adolescence appeared first on Emerald Media.

Stupidity is a tough thing to manage in Hollywood. The era when pure camp was allowed into the multiplex is over. Instead, “dark” reboots currently rule the silver screen. In 2009, J.J. Abrams revived “Star Trek” with a young cast and serious overtones. Earlier, “The Dark Knight” proved that Batman could still rake in huge box office returns with a more grounded take on the Caped Crusader. Even series meant for children, like “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Power Rangers,” aren’t immune to the reboot factory line. 

For our review of the latest ‘Star Trek’ installment, click here.

In 2014, Legendary Pictures applied this formula to “Godzilla” and managed to produce an entertaining and visually stunning blockbuster that still appealed to the series’ fans. That film grossed more than $500 million worldwide, and led to Legendary greenlighting a series of monster films based on both Godzilla and King Kong. The plan, according to the company, was to build a cinematic universe of monsters, similar to Marvel’s efforts with superheroes over the last decade.

The latest result is “Kong: Skull Island,” a bloated, cartoonish blockbuster that feels like it was rushed off an assembly line at the last minute. The film is supposed to be an origin story for the titular ape, but is so inept that audiences will be lucky to have any attachment to what they are watching. Instead, sophomore director Jordan Vogt-Roberts sacrifices coherence for style at every turn. This is a big-budget disaster as wasteful of its onscreen talent as it is unnecessary. 

The story follows British leading man Tom Hiddleston as a former Special Forces officer living in Southeast Asia. The year is 1973, and the end of the Vietnam War is fast approaching. Hiddleston is hired as a security escort for a surveying expedition headed by conspiracy-obsessed government agent Bill Randa (John Goodman). Randa also recruits a helicopter squadron led by the hard-nosed Colonel Preston Packard (Samuel Jackson). A war photographer (Brie Larson) tags along in an attempt to expose what she believes to be an undercover military mission. Their destination: a mysterious island surrounded on all sides by a swirling storm system, home of the world’s largest ape. What could possibly go wrong?

It’s a decent set-up with an A-list cast and it leaves the director plenty of opportunities for visual extravagance. But Vogt-Roberts, drunk off of the film’s $180 million budget, treats the island like his personal toy box. The results are headache and groan-inducing. The film’s plotting jumps between cartoonish and serious with no consistency. Action sequences are overcut; attempts at humor fall flat. And the film portrays Kong as a vicious monstrosity, a strange choice considering the monster’s empathetic nature in past films. Nothing works.

Check out our thoughts on “Godzilla” and other monster movies here.

“Skull Island” piggybacks off of past “Kong” efforts (Peter Jackson’s 2005 epic was the last film to feature the ape) in order to find some reliable beats for its story. The party encounters natives and a variety of humongous creatures with regularity. But there are so few attempts to simply marvel at the beauty of the world that the most outlandish elements act as mere distractions. Vogt-Roberts stages the action for maximum theatricality. Nuance is thrown to the wind, frequently in the dumbest possible ways. The film is simply all over the place.

“Kong: Skull Island” is far worse than it should be. That’s saying quite a lot, considering it is a film about a giant monkey fighting giant lizards. There have been successful reboots in the past, but this one is too unfocused to make any claims to quality. For the sake of moviegoers, this Kong deserves to left alone.

Follow Dana on Twitter: @AlstonDalston

The post Review: ‘Kong: Skull Island’ uses its massive budget to generate more groans than excitement appeared first on Emerald Media.

When Nintendo announced the latest entry in its renowned “Legend of Zelda” series in 2013, expectations quickly skyrocketed. The anticipation was unavoidable. Collectively, the series has been consistently stellar — even middling entries like “Spirit Tracks” garnered decent acclaim. It is among Nintendo’s flagship franchises, second only to “Super Mario.” In other words, the hype was deafening and completely expected.

Nintendo’s vision for “Breath of the Wild” added to the expectations. The “Zelda” series began as a 1987 NES title that expanded the possibility of video games. Players took the role of Link, a pixelated adventurer dropped into the middle of an unmapped world. Link could walk anywhere the player wanted and accomplish the game’s goals in any order. At the time, the sense of discovery and possibility was completely unheard of and went on to influence countless other video games.

To read about our impressions of an earlier ‘Zelda’ title, click here.

“Zelda” later transitioned to a behind-the-back, three-dimensional perspective with 1998’s “Ocarina of Time,” a move that helped launch the modern era of video games and led many to call that entry one of the best games ever released. But despite that game’s technical achievements, the original game’s sense of discovery was muted. Every entry following ”Ocarina” was linear and story-driven, sacrificing freedom for narrative heft. The tradeoff was understandable. But after nearly two decades without a fully explorable world in the series, some wondered if it was time for a change.

Nintendo delivered on its fans desires by taking a different approach to “Breath of the Wild’s” development. Instead of sticking to its guns, the famed developer went back to its roots, making an open, explorable world the trademark of its new title.

The result is a video game that not only blows the rest of the series out of the water but suggests new frontiers for video games in general. “Breath of the Wild” received universal acclaim at launch, with almost all of the praise directed at the dynamic nature of the game’s world. Weather changes at random. Enemies and animals naturally patrol the map. And most importantly, exploration has no limits. Players can run, climb, or fly wherever they want.

Click here to see hear our podcast about the Nintendo Switch.

Open-world games are not new; other series like “Grand Theft Auto” or “Fallout” were built upon player freedom. But it’s interesting to see “The Legend of Zelda” adapt its story to a genre that too often puts narrative aside in favor of environmental polish. In the past, Link couldn’t travel to certain areas until the story reached an appropriate chapter. “Breath of the Wild” throws that out the window. A majority of the plot and dialogue is completely avoidable.

So what does this mean for video games going forward? Nintendo has a history of influencing the industry with each major hardware and software release. The original “Zelda” was one of the first open-world games; “Skyrim” might not exist without it. With the success of the latest entry, it’s reasonable to assume that stories, while still important, may take a back seat to freedom for the players.

It remains to be seen what kinds of changes “Breath of the Wild” will inspire for game developers. But if the game remains popular, it will be interesting to examine how the industry adapts. Giving people limitless choices to make seems like a natural part of a medium based on interaction. Time will tell if more games evolve in that direction.

Below, listen to an Emerald podcast discussion about “Breath of the Wild.”

Follow Dana on Twitter: @AlstonDalston

The post Will ‘The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild’ change video game storytelling? appeared first on Emerald Media.

In this episode from the Emerald Podcast Network, arts and culture reporters Mathew Brock and Dana Alston discuss the newest installment from the Zelda series: “The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.”

This episode was produced by Emerson Malone.

The post Podcast: Mat and Dana discuss ‘The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild’ appeared first on Emerald Media.

Hugh Jackman has played Wolverine nine times. Over those 17 years, the clawed and tortured anti-hero became a fan favorite, and Jackman became the face of the “X-Men” franchise. Known to himself and others as Logan, Wolverine’s popularity was unmatched outside of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But after nearly two decades of rigorous diets and growled one-liners, Jackman decided to call it quits. One final film, he announced, and he would leave Logan behind.

With Jackman’s intentions in mind, writer-director James Mangold avoided large-scale battles or conflicts in his story treatment. Instead, Mangold went small, focusing on the relationship between Wolverine and Dr. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), the former leader of the X-Men, in a barren and bleak futuristic setting. The result is a grounded, violent story that serves as a fitting farewell to both Logan and Jackman. With heavy thematic and emotional material, “Logan” is a contemplative action-drama that sets new standards for superhero films.

Part of the success comes from the backdrop. Set in 2029, the film envisions a world practically devoid of mutants. Logan (real name James Howlett) is headed toward the ripe age of 150, thanks to healing powers that have begun to fail him. His indestructible metal skeleton is rotting him from the inside, and he spends his days haunted by an unspeakable tragedy. To keep himself busy, Logan houses the very old, now seizure-prone Xavier in an abandoned smelting plant south of the border. He moonlights as an Uber driver. His reasons for living have grown harder to recall.

When he is given the opportunity to lead a small mutant girl named Laura (embodied convincingly by newcomer Dafne Keen) to safety, he hesitates. But Xavier implores him to go. And after a vicious battle with a militarized government agency, the three of them set out on a bloody road trip. A partially cybernetic bounty hunter (Boyd Holbrook) traces their every move. 

Death hangs over this story as both threat and theme. Mangold generates much of the film’s excitement through a series of well-staged action sequences, pushing the R rating to its limit. The violence is bloody, visceral and horrific. “Logan” is not for the squeamish. As Wolverine gets dragged back into the brutal world he left behind, the whirlwind of wounds, claws and bullets proves exhilarating.

Check out our review of ‘Deadpool,’ another R-rated superhero film.

Jackman’s, Stewart’s and Keen’s performances anchor the lulls in the action. All three are excellent. Stewart, in particular, brings tragedy and regret to a character previously defined by his wisdom and guidance. Keen, meanwhile, is a revelation. Laura’s stoicism and prolonged silence through much of the film make playing her a challenge. Keen knocks it out of the park, adding a feral ferocity to her that is jaw-dropping when unleashed. And her chemistry with Jackman is funny, dramatic and magnetic. 

“Logan” has flaws, and most come from its blunt symbolism. In particular, a certain villain comes across as a bizarre creation, unfit for Mangold’s brooding vision. The attempts to provide some thematic depth while adhering to a comic book story are admirable. But that dichotomy produces several elements that just feel out of place. It’s disappointing to see a movie begin with a dark, realistic tone and then throw it out the window. Other characters, including one played by the always clever Stephen Merchant, function mostly as plot devices. 

Minor quibbles aside, “Logan” is a wild, entertaining ride that brings humanity to Wolverine. The story acts as a novella, capturing a hero at his weakest and providing him one last shot at redemption. Jackman ends his run on a bittersweet high note. Wolverine has never looked so bad yet felt so good to watch. 

The post Review: Hugh Jackman concludes his superhero run with the violent, grounded ‘Logan’ appeared first on Emerald Media.

Donald Trump was the subject of many jokes and speeches in Los Angeles’ Dolby Theatre Sunday night at the 89th Academy Awards. ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, hosting the high-profile ceremony for the first time, frequently prodded the president for his politically controversial statements and stances.

“Remember when just the Oscars were racist?” Kimmel joked, referencing the #OscarsSoWhite controversy of previous years.

This year’s awards reflected a strong reaction to that controversy, which emerged out of a perceived lack of diversity in the nominees and winners. “Moonlight,” a critic favorite about a closeted Black gay man coming of age in Miami, won three Oscars, including Best Picture.

Read our review of “Moonlight” here.

The announcement came as a shock for audiences both at the event and watching from home. “La La Land,” which took home six awards and was the odds-on favorite to win, was initially announced as the winner. But as that film’s cast and crew made their way onto the stage, Kimmel rushed out to make the correction.

Kimmel jokingly blamed himself for the mistake, making reference to Steve Harvey several times as the ceremony came to a close. “I knew I would screw this up somehow,” he said sheepishly.

While “La La Land” took home the most awards of the night, “Moonlight” followed with three, including Best Supporting Actor for Mahershala Ali. Ali, the first Muslim actor to win an Oscar, thanked his wife, Amatus Sami-Karim, and their newborn daughter.

Other films proved successful at the ceremony. Mel Gibson’s “Hacksaw Ridge,” about conscientious objector and WWII medic Desmond Doss, took home two awards for Sound Mixing and Film Editing.

Not everyone thought “Hacksaw Ridge” deserved an Oscar. Click here to read our review.

Emma Stone and Casey Affleck won Best Actress and Best Actor for “La La Land” and “Manchester by the Sea,” respectively. Stone, who fell short of winning an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress two years ago for “Birdman,” used her speech to thank her fellow nominees. Affleck, a first-time nominee new to awards season, expressed a sense of surprise with his win.

“I wish I had something bigger and more meaningful to say,” Affleck said. “But I just look out at [the audience], and I’m proud to be a part of this community. I’m just dumbfounded that I’m included.”

To see how we thought the Oscar nominees would shake out, click here.

Celebrities and winners made pointed political jokes and references all evening. Actor Gael Garcia Bernal spoke out against President Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, a significant campaign promise for Trump.

“As a Mexican, as a migrant worker, as a human being, I’m against any form of wall that separates us,” Bernal said.

Ashgar Farhadi, whose film “The Salesman” won Best Foreign Language Film, was not present at the ceremony. Farhadi, an Iranian filmmaker who decided not to attend in protest of President Trump’s Muslim ban, had a prepared statement read to the audience.

“Dividing the world into the U.S. and our enemies creates fear — a deceitful justification for aggression and war,” Farhadi wrote.

Kimmel kept the evening light-hearted, despite the show’s political bent. The host frequently poked fun at Matt Damon, a nod to a humorous beef between the two of them begun on Kimmel’s late-night program, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Kimmel also maintained his reputation for pranks, diverting a bus of Los Angeles tourists to the venue for an impromptu peek at the ceremony.

Outside of the show-stopping mistake at the end of the broadcast, the rest of the program went without a hitch. A full list of the winners can be found here.

Follow Dana on Twitter @AlstonDalston.

The post ‘Moonlight’ wins in surprising upset at a politically charged Oscars appeared first on Emerald Media.