EAGAN AT THE MOVIES
Reviewing Movies Because We Care
Since 2010, and Still Unpaid!
Reviews for Current Films:
In Theaters (Or streaming): Wolf Man, Peter Pan's Neverland Nightmare, Den of Thieves 2: Pantera, Better Man, Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl, Nosferatu, Mufasa: The Lion King, Sonic the Hedgehog 3, The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim, Kraven the Hunter, Moana 2, Wicked, The Brutalist
Coming Soon: Dog Man, Love Hurts, Heart Eyes, Paddington 3, Captain America 4, The Monkey, Mickey 17, Snow White, A Working Man, Minecraft, The Amatuer, Sinners, Thunderbolts
Wolf Man by James Eagan ★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Now when I said "For Better or For Worse", I don't think this remotely qualifies.
What was once meant to be Universal's so-called "Dark Universe" (A shared universe similar to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, except with their collection of movie monsters like Dracula, the Mummy, and the Wolf Man), failed so hard that it meant that such iconic characters would need a different kind of reboot to make it in this modernized era. The first true successful attempt was 2020's "The Invisible Man", which retained some of the themes and chills of its source material, while integrating itself with a fresh spin, making for one of that year's best films (And only on a $7 million budget too!). Thus the idea of just resurrecting the infamous monsters through a series of standalone stories (Almost like an unofficial anthology) seemed like the best idea.
Inspired very loosely by 1941's "The Wolf Man", "Wolf Man" follows "Blake Lovell" (Christopher Abbott), who finds out that his previously missing father has no legally been declared dead, leaving behind his old childhood home outside San Francisco. Trying to keep what family he has left together, made up of his always working wife, "Charlotte" (Julia Garner) and lovable daughter "Ginger" (Matilda Firth), Blake suggests that they take a trip to his father's farmhouse. Along the way though, once they enter the woods, the family is attacked by some kind of monstrous creature. After finding refuge in the farmhouse, Blake realizes he's been horribly scratched by the creature, thus causing an infection that proceeds to have some rather grotesque side effects. With Blake slowly losing every ounce of his humanity to this disease, Charlotte and Ginger now must find a way to survive against two unstoppable almost human, yet very wolf-like monsters (One of which that just so happens to be someone they love).
Directed by Leigh Whannell ("The Invisible Man", "Upgrade"), who co-wrote the screenplay with his wife, Corbett Tuck, "Wolf Man" takes the same minimalistic approach that "The Invisible Man" had in mind, though for some, it might take it a little too far. Possibly hindered by distributor "Blumhouse Productions", who have been known for their refusal to spend money even when needed (Which they've been doing a lot more lately), Whannell works with what he's given to craft a perfectly solid, intense, dramatic thriller that forgoes the supernatural in favor of practical prosthetics and unsettling body horror. Still, the film's slow burn clearly won't sit well with everyone, especially if they're used to the more over the top, almost ape-like, hulking kind of werewolf design, similar to 2010's "The Wolf Man" (If you ask me, this is much better and a lot less, well, stupid, by comparison).
Christopher Abbott, who really had to commit to the part in more ways than one (Considering all the make-up he's slowly forced to endure), is quite excellent. The same can be said for Julia Garner (Who starts the film semi-detached, before her character steps up into the role of the true protagonist) and Matilda Firth (Who is just charm personified). Whannell's direction is on point, where atmospheric camera angles and some pretty killer concepts, which put a completely new spin on the whole werewolf theme. This has nothing to do with full moons or some kind of curse. Instead, this is treated as a dire sickness of sorts, that slowly turns the victim into a feral being, where he's unable to understand and eventually, unable to identify the people he loves. This results in him lashing out violently, while his body continues to morph into something equally repulsive and tragic. The way Whannell captures these ideas, through lighting and visuals (Where we see the varying perspectives between characters) is really clever. I also like the Wolf Man design, despite it being more Man than Wolf. In a way, it could be seen as just the first phase (Think a shaved, disheveled, and underfed bear), and it's undeniably freaky to see how the human body would contort itself into such a form. There are just some story aspects that don't quite work. While the film takes its time to get to the horror side of things (Something I also actually enjoyed), when it arrives at its conclusion, it's rather shockingly safe. It kind of becomes more of a zombie movie than a werewolf one. On a side note, I think I know why the other Wolf Man never bothered to just, you know, smash the windows to the house to get in. I kind of got the idea that these creatures just act on pure, animalistic instinct instead of actual intelligence and also seem to lack comprehensible eyesight. Just a theory I'm tossing out because, you know Cinema Sins and Film Twitter are going to be babbling about that one like they're some kind of intellectual.
"Wolf Man" has a last act twist that's incredibly obvious to deduce from the start, and after that point, the rest of the film is fairly predictable stuff. It sadly doesn't have any of those shocking moments that we saw with "The Invisible Man" (I believe we all remember our horrified reactions to the infamous dinner scene, with the floating knife), and despite some unsavory effects work that make for a suitably unpleasant watch, you are kind of left wanting a bit more. That's not to say though that when the film works, it fires on all cylinders. Strong performances and Whannell's human take on the subject are what give the film its edge, even if it just doesn't quite have enough bite by the end. 3 Stars. Rated R For Scary Images, Grotesque Transformations, And Wolfy Mannerisms.
Peter Pan's Neverland Nightmare by James Eagan ★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: Sony's Spider-Man-Less "Green Goblin" spin-off.
This is not a drill! From the creators of "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey", "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey 2", and the rest of the "Twisted Childhood Universe" (Making slasher/horror films out of childhood characters that have entered the public domain), we have their first movie that, and stick with me here, isn't bad. I'll go as far as to say that it's kind of alright. Technically the best movie I've seen so far this year. Granted, I've only seen two 2025 releases, but hey, that's an accomplishment.
Inspired by the stories of "Peter Pan" by J. M. Barrie (Who is likely screaming in his grave, like the rest of the authors behind the source material for the rest of this shared universe), "Peter Pan's Neverland Nightmare" follows "Wendy Darling" (Megan Placito), who promises to pick up her little brother, "Michael" (Peter DeSouza-Feighoney) from school. Michael is taken by a notorious, hideously scarred and deranged childnapper and serial killer, "Peter Pan" (Martin Portlock), who has evaded capture for years. Wendy is determined to rescue her brother, who Peter has taken to his lair, promising to take him to "Neverland" (Or some place that he calls Neverland). While poor Michael is forced to endure Peter's demented delusions and is kept from escaping by Peter's abused assistant, "Tinker Bell" (Kit Green), who injects herself with "Pixie Dust" (aka likely heroin), Wendy starts to uncover the mystery behind Peter's past victims in a desperate attempt to save Michael from joining Peter's supposed "The Lost Boys" in oblivion.
Written and directed by Scott Jeffrey (Who starred as Christopher Robin in "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey 2"), "Peter Pan's Neverland Nightmare" is just as cruel, exploitative, and twistedly violent as the previous entries in this franchise. However, there's actually something here that works. A few things really. There's an actual story, with genuinely menacing concepts, a few interesting themes, a sense of atmosphere, and a surprisingly effective villain. The film's low budget does work towards its advantage in some aspects, with solid enough staging and moody shadows (With the exception of a few moments where the filmmakers rely a little too heavily on some background lighting, making it seem like it's so bright outside for some reason, despite being the middle of the night). I also gotta commend the heavy use of practical effects and old school gore. Sure, it's all too much and it reveals in the gruesomeness of certain deaths, but still, it's undeniably impressive to see sawed off limbs and ripped open scalps in a way that clearly had a good amount of effort put into making it seem real. Gross, yet creative.
The film's biggest strength is Martin Portlock, who is damn good as the titular menace. Shifting his voice and body language on a whim from playful and fantastical to Joker-esque and mean spirited, then to just plain vile for the Hell of it, he's rather scary and fascinating to watch. Some of the reason is because he does feel like the kind of monster you very much could see wandering around a dark alley. (Honestly, I could totally see Portlock playing a "Batman" villain in the future) The non-binary Kit Green brings some sincere tragedy to what at first feels like a joke, only for it to end up being much more disturbing than you'd expect. (With their character shown to be a former victim of Peter's, swayed into his thrall due to not feeling accepted by society at a young age) Megan Placito and Peter DeSouza-Feighoney are a pair of likable leads, while the film finds a few pretty clever and even unique ways of integrating aspects from the source material into the film's trashily slasher style. Like the crocodile being shown on looped nature footage, Peter's seemingly sentient shadow just being his own manic hallucinations, or the reveal as to what "Going to Neverland" really means. I like what the film does with "Captain Hook" (Played by drag performer Charity Kase), though it deserved much more screentime for an unsettling concept that only appears briefly.
"Peter Pan's Neverland Nightmare" is an occasionally successful, suitably nasty, and at times, smarter than it appears, sort of small scale horror flick. Sadly, it still lacks a sense of humor, much like the rest of these movies have also equally lacked (There's a cute gag where a kid is wearing a shirt of the first "Blood and Honey" movie). I get that there is some
heavy subject matter here, and it makes sense for it to be taken more seriously. However, with such a silly premise, there's a frustrating absence of fun. That's something that even the "Terrifier" films have over these. Regardless though, this is a vast improvement over previously entries in both this shared film universe, as well as this new genre intentionally bastardizing beloved children's' characters as a whole. With more still being promised/threatened over the next couple years, maybe we'll actually start to get something good out of them. 2 1/2 Stars. Not Rated, Though Essentially R Rated For Gruesome Goriness, Disturbing Images, And The Fact That All Young Women In These Movies Are Smoking Hot For Some Reason. Like, All Of Them!
Den of Thieves 2: Pantera by James Eagan ★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: "Do you remember what happened in the first movie?" "Nope. You?" "Nope."
Yeah, I don't have much with this one. I saw the original, but God help me, I don't remember much of anything about it. I remember Gerard Butler was quite good, playing a less heroic, sleazy type, and 50 Cent was there for a bit, and it was too long. Stuff like this. No 50 Cent this time. We do get more of Gerard Butler playing against type, and it's still quite delightful to see.
Following up with the events of the first one, "Den of Thieves: Pantera" begins with the now disgraced former cop, "Nicholas "Big Nick" O'Brien" (Gerard Butler), who still hasn't forgotten how his former friend turned expert thief, "Donnie Wilson" (O'Shea Jackson Jr.), screwed him over and escaped with the booty, leaving Nick to deal with the consequences (Then again though, Nick is kind of a dick, so he deserves it). Nick eventually tracks down Donnie to Europe, where he's planning another heist with a new crew, revealing that he is done with the cop life and that he wants in. Donnie is hesitant at first, though Nick proves himself, and the two do genuinely start to rekindle their old friendship. With it turning out that Donnie stole from the wrong people, the heist within a highly secured vault, full of safety deposit boxes, becomes much more important.
Written and directed by Christian Gudegast (Returning from the previous film), "Den of Thieves 2: Pantera" is a serviceable heist movie, which avoids certain pratfalls of the genre in places, and gladly dives right into others. It's not a particularly memorable film, and considering it's the first release of 2025, I doubt it's supposed to be. It's not exactly unpredictable, with a bloated runtime of almost two and a half hours due to the film taking too much time to get wrapped up in the details that most movies would gloss over. Thankfully, there are enough intense moments and enough humor to keep it just lively enough. In fact, the film borders on a Bro-Rom-Com due to the very entertaining chemistry between its two main stars.
Gerard Butler and O'Shea Jackson Jr. are great together, continuing off the events of the first film (Which again, I don't remember too well), going from enemies to friends in a way that believe it or not, surprisingly works. Butler is an arrogant, crude, and admittedly corrupt A-Hole, who is just funny and smart enough to make himself seem halfway likable, while Jackson Jr. plays the role of the incredibly skilled, though fairly noble thief (In the sense that he doesn't want to kill or even hurt anybody), with both characters finding some kind of weird connection and understanding. There are some unnecessary (And forgettable) villains, while some of the supporting characters, such as the quite lovely Evin Ahmad (as "Jovanna", the brains behind Donnie's crew), who don't get much of a role. It's a bit off how the film is so long and gets so invested in little details about certain characters (Like where the concierge guy is while the heist is going down, or an admittedly funny gag about how the security is too enamoured by the Soccer game to notice the break-in), yet doesn't really develop any of them.
"Den of Thieves 2: Pantera" gets the job done, even if it's not near fast enough or with as much personality as its appealing leads generate. It's entertaining enough in places, while kind of dull in others. Even then, I can't say it's a bad film at all. It genuinely isn't. Maybe it will work better if you're a big fan of the first film (I assume there are a few. Somewhere), and it might be just enough for others to simply kill some time until the bigger releases. It's just one of those, see it if you want, but you won't miss much if you don't sort of movies. And if you do see it, you'll likely leave satisfied for the most part, though will forget all about it in a couple days or so. 2 1/2 Stars. Rated R For Strong Language, Some Silly Accent Offs, And Drugged Out Gerard Butler, Which Is Honestly, Just As Amazing As It Sounds.
Better Man by James Eagan ★★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: Apes Together Strong! Ya Fookin Wankahs!
Always around the end of the year (Into the beginning of next year, since many of these films get delayed nationwide releases), we get some music Biopics that hope to see some Oscar gold. We get plenty of good ones, a few okay ones, some cloying ones, or all of the above. It's gotten old. Most of the time, especially when they have heavy involvement from their subjects or their families, they're fairly safe portrayals that don't want to make said subject look bad. It's kind of refreshing to have a Biopic that basically screams "I was a piece of sh*t. I hated myself, and I wanted to kill myself", while its subject is turned literally into a wild animal. That's certainly a choice, and it makes for a final leftover great film from 2024.
Based on the life of British pop singer, Robbie Williams (Who serves as the film's narrator), "Better Man" opens with a young "Robbie Williams" (Portrayed as a CG animated chimpanzee/human hybrid through motion capture by Jonno Davies), yearning for a chance at stardom, though mostly yearning for the affection of his eventually absent father, "Peter" (Steve Pemberton), who really just tends to make Robbie feel worthless. With some encouragement from his mother, "Janet" (Kate Mulvany) and loving grandmother, "Betty" (Alison Steadman), Robbie is able to get a spot in a boy band, "Take That", before he's later kicked out due to being insufferable to be around. Robbie finds temporary love with singer, "Nicole Appleton" (Raechelle Banno), eventually f*cks that up too, then continuously spirals further and further down a rabbit hole of addiction, depression, and dark thoughts, all while his popularity only sky rockets.
Directed by Michael Gracey ("The Greatest Showman"), who co-wrote the screenplay with Simon Gleeson and Oliver Cole, "Better Man" is part Biopic, part musical, part dark dramedy, and part psychological horror film. It's also something, despite not knowing a whole lot about Robbie Williams (With the exception of a few recognizable songs), that I'm genuinely shocked I loved as much as I did. It's certainly one of the few of these kinds of films that isn't afraid to get down and dirty, showing its main star at his absolute lowest and at his most unappealing. It's a story that we've heard quite a few times, though never told this brutally honest and in such an admittedly baffling way. The very concept alone is both inspired and flabbergasting. Not to mention, kind of funny at times, especially with how absolutely nobody in the film reacts or acknowledges that there's a talking, anthropomorphized chimp running around, getting drunk, having threesomes, doing drugs, getting jerked off behind a curtain, and selling out concerts, where he just goes, heh, bananas. It's insane that somebody thought this was a good idea for a movie, and even more insane how well it works. This is a genuinely fascinating, deep, and exceptionally heavy film, with visual imagery that ranges from wondrous, frightening, saddening, and so odd that you can't help but find yourself moved by the sheer audacity of it. Gracey, who already has some experience crafting some showstopping musical numbers, is let off his leash this time. The film goes through Robbie Williams' Discography (Again, I actually recognized a couple songs when they came up, and didn't know that those were his), and combines them with musical sequences that range from beautiful and poetic to absolutely off its rocker and chaotic. They are fantastic, with the CGI on Robbie's Chimp exterior, provided via the people behind the newer "Planet of the Apes" films, blending in seamlessly. In fact, it blends in so well that it just feels even more abstract to watch. It's one of those rare things where the Uncanny Valley actually works in the film's favor, where instead of taking you out of the experience, the incomprehensibility only draws you in further.
Robbie Williams' suitably quirky, and unapologetically British, narration adds to the unhinged storybook feel, while an excellent Jonno Davies completely carries things, even behind all that computer generated make-up. We also get some damn good supporting work from a charming Raechelle Banno (With the short-lived romance breezed through a well done, heartbreaking montage sequence), Kate Mulvany, a warm Alison Steadman, a smarmy Damon Herriman (as "Nigel Martin-Smith", Robbie's manager during his time with "Take That", who would casually let Robbie know that he doesn't like him), Frazer Hadfield (as "Nate", Robbie's longtime friend, who gave up the chance at stardom for a simpler life), and a complicated Steve Pemberton (Finding a way to humanize such a figure is always a challenge and the film finds a way). The film gets progressively more disturbing in places, such as Robbie seeing visions of himself (All represented by the various Chimp models we've seen throughout the film), who make repeatedly demeaning and threatening remarks to him (Such as telling him how much he sucks, how he's a failure, and that he deserves to die). Once we reach the film's final act, I don't think I've ever seen such a creative, if not harsh, look into what could go on in one's mind, especially when their inner demons are left to fester. To say that the Robbie Williams Chimp movie may be one of 2024's most thought provoking films is both perplexing to me, and yet, wouldn't be a lie.
"Better Man" is a dark, though eventually inspiring critique of one's self, with spellbinding visuals, macabre humor, and moments of unexpected heartbreak. One moment you're laughing at the absurdity of a humanoid chimp enjoying the so called sweet life of a pop star, only to be devastated at the consequences of the action that he admits to only having brought up on himself (There is something quite welcome about a biopic not sugarcoating certain low points and just straight up stating "I f*cked up here!", without trying to find an easy way at false sympathy). A portrait of stunted madness, that's equal parts lovely and terrifying, where we dive into the kind of brilliant, though demented mind of one who can only describe himself as "Unevolved". Like I said, this is insane. Insane enough that it works. 4 1/2 Stars. Rated R For Strong Language (British Language Too. Lots Of C-Words And T-Words), Disturbing Content, And Manic Monkey Business.
Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl by James Eagan ★★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: I have stared into the eyes of evil.
This is probably the easiest 5 Stars I've ever given. It was probably around the scene where we see Gromit reading "A Room of One's Own" by "Virginia Woof", and I just knew. 5 Star material right there!
"Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl" reunites us with the brilliant, if not simple minded, cheese loving inventor, "Wallace" (Ben Whitehead, replacing the late Peter Sallis) and his loyal, heroic dog, "Gromit" (Who never speaks). Wallace, whose inventions have a tendency to get out of hand, creates a robotic gnome (Or a "Smart Gnome" as he calls it), named "Norbot" (Reece Shearsmith), to work around the house and even assist Gromit in his garden (Regardless if Gromit even wants the help). The neighbors all take an interest in Norbot, giving Wallace the idea to hire it out to work in everyone's gardens. One night, while Gromit leaves Norbot to charge via Gromit's computer, an old enemy of the duo, the silent, devious penguin (Who dresses like a chicken), known as "Feathers McGraw" (Who they faced off against previously in the classic short film, "The Wrong Trousers"), uses this as a chance to steal the famous "Blue Diamond" and also get revenge on Wallace and Gromit for previously thwarting his plans and landing him in prison (aka The Zoo). After literally switching Norbot's controls to "Evil" (Because of course that would be a function on it), Feathers creates an army of Norbots to steal various things across town, thus implicating Wallace in their crimes. With the former Police Constable, turned Chief Inspector "Macintosh" (Peter Kay) and his excitable young protégée "Mukherjee" (Lauren Patel), looking for a means of proving Wallace's guilt, it's once again up to Gromit to save the day and stop Feathers McGraw's dastardly scheme of vengeance. Vengeance....Most....Fowl!
Directed by series creator Nick Park (Having directed all of the "Wallace & Gromit" shorts, along with feature films like "Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" and "Chicken Run") and frequent collaborator Merlin Crossingham, with a screenplay by Mark Burton (Another collaborator, who also co-directed "Shaun the Sheep Movie"), "Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl" is a return to form for "Aardman Animations". Not that they've ever made an actually bad film, but some of their last few movies ("Early Man", "Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget") just didn't reach their high standards. Not to mention, they haven't had a financial hit in so long (At least here in the United States), and it's to the point they've been left to distribute via Netflix. This newest, lovingly hand-crafted stop-motion masterpiece of comedy and animation is everything we associate with the studio, and so much more. It's funny to say that this actually might only be the third or fourth best in the "Wallace & Gromit" franchise, and it's still pretty cracking flawless. As usual, the animation is an absolute joy to watch. Even after over thirty years, Aardman's claymation puppet wizardry has more soul in a single frame than most live-action films have in their entire runtime. Sure, things have had to be digitally enhanced to a degree, like everything is nowadays, but you can still see every finely tuned detail, along with the little thumbprints on the clay. It's also much more elaborate and creatively directed, despite having less of a budget this time around. Whether it be cute little jokes sprinkled around the foreground and background, or the smart bits of visual storytelling and joke-telling, this iconic duo hasn't lost their charm.
Ben Whitehead, who has been voicing the character for a while now in a couple ads in the UK, is a perfect replacement for the great Peter Sallis. Wallace is still as clueless as ever, to the point of it being dangerously so (Gromit really has to put up with so much crap from him), and yet, he's never intentionally malicious and always learns from his little lesson by the end. Gromit has always had such a peak character design, especially in terms of its simplicity (His face is literally just a pair of eyes and a nose, without any semblance of a mouth). So much personality just resonates from him, making for some great visual gags and plenty of heart. It's great to see Peter Kay returning from the first movie in a larger role, while Lauren Patel is an adorable new addition. Meanwhile, Feathers McGraw is still a magnificently malicious villain, with the recurring gag of him being a so called "master of disguise" getting a laugh (Despite clearly being a penguin, just with a different hat or a rubber glove on his head), and still coming across as genuinely frightening at times (Amazing how they made something like a beady-eyed penguin scary).
Hilarious, sweet, and even quite thrilling (The movie rivals the last "Mission: Impossible" entry in terms of action packed suspense! Seriously!), "Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl" is a last second treat that 2024 had to offer for us, and is sure to become an instant classic, just like its predecessors. The film has some relevant messages about the dangers of AI, police incompetence, and finding a nuanced balance when seeking technological advancement, with the fact that it's coming from something entirely brought to life by the beauty of the human touch, makes it all the more fitting. A triumph of timeless joy, mixed with big laughs and big heart. Shame we didn't get it theatrically, but I suppose it's a solid enough sacrifice simply to see the return of such a beloved duo. Get your cheese and crackers, then make a family movie night out of it. 5 Stars. Rated PG (Funny, Because The First Film Still Got A G Rating) For Some Humor That Will Go Over The Kids' Heads, Ghastly Gnomes, Petulant Penguins, And Weaponized Pun-Mastery. Aardman At Its Finest.
Nosferatu by James Eagan ★★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: This is the skin of a killer, Bella.
Bringing grotesque, irredeemable, blood sucking vampires back baby! Forget all these smooth, slick, and sexy vampires! Nah! What the people want are gross, rat-like, vulture-dudes, who clearly never bathe, likely smell like sh*t, and gurgle out broken Shakespeare in impossible to decipher accents! Classic vampires. Vampyre, if you will!
A remake of the 1922 silent film, which itself was an unauthorized adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula", "Nosferatu" opens in the 1800s, with real estate agent, "Thomas Hutter" (Nicholas Hoult), getting tasked by his disturbingly eccentric boss, "Herr Knock" (Simon McBurney), to travel to Transylvania, where a mysterious and extremely wealthy nobleman, "Count Orlok" (Bill Skarsgård), seeks a new residence. Despite the pleas of his loving wife, "Ellen" (Lily-Rose Depp), who has always been plagued by disturbing nightmares and believes something terrible is on the horizon, Thomas believes that this will bring the success necessary to provide a better life for her. Ellen is left in the care of her friend, "Anna" (Emma Corrin) and her husband, "Friedrich Harding" (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), while Thomas leaves for Transylvania. After he has a rather odd night in a small Transylvanian village, who all warn of the dangers that await him, Thomas comes face to face with Count Orlok, revealed to be a towering and frightening, inhuman being, that also seems to have a strange infatuation with Ellen.
After getting the papers signed, Thomas attempts to leave, only to end up attacked by the vampiric Orlok, who departs to his new home. Thomas goes missing, while Herr Knock goes mad and ends up locked up in the care of the local doctor, "Wilhelm Sievers" (Ralph Ineson). Sievers is also called in by Harding to take care of Ellen, who is now under Orlok's trance and is on his way to "claim" her. While Thomas tries to find his way home to his beloved, Sievers and Harding turn to the brilliant, but eerily questionable scientist, "Professor Albin Eberhart Von Franz" (Willem Dafoe), to deduce a way of stopping the dark force that's controlling Ellen, with Orlok's very arrival bringing about a plague that could wipe out all the living.
Written and directed by Robert Eggers ("The Witch", "The Lighthouse", "The Northman"), "Nosferatu" has been a long time passion project for him, and if you know anything about his filmography, it's pretty obvious right off the bat why. This is easily the most Robert Eggers movie to ever be Eggered by Robert Eggers. That means that the film fits its old school, Hammer Film-like aesthetic like a glove and is proudly f*cked up beyond all reason. I'm really starting to wonder what goes on inside that man's maniacal mind! I can only imagine how insane the production as a whole must have been. From the authentic sets, costumes, and staging, with more reliance on practical effects and creative camera tricks, Eggers creates an atmospheric sense of dread that creates the kind of nightmarish experience you just can't find in a lot of horror movies today. It's all played so straight to the point of camp, where the screenplay itself is ripe with scenery chewing and sophisticatedly bombastic dialogue. Aside from possibly an off screen wink or a nod, there isn't a hint of cynicism or snark here. Eggers loves toying with what we see, utilizing the very shadows themselves, and seducing you with darkness. It's so hypnotic that you become lost in the pools dark gray and black, only to get snapped out of the trance by an abrupt cut, sound, or a demonic face that you swear would be the one that would escort you to the gates of Hell. (Jump scares are used sparingly, yet so effectively)
Nicholas Hoult, who spends much of the movie sweating and in a state of absolute dread, is fantastic, playing our nice, though unfortunately naive hero. However, this is Lily-Rose Depp's time to shine. Much like Emma Stone in last year's "Poor Things", this is a very bold, risky performance, that certainly isn't afraid to get freaky. It's a fine line to walk, between sweet and innocent, sensual and needing, broken and unhinged, and by the end, truly powerful. Depp plays a woman of stronger will than the times of the film would expect of her, confronting a dark, predatory figure of the past and choosing to make what at first seems like something filled with shame, but instead turn it into a strength. (Plus, I can only assume her bones are aching like Hell after all the contorting she has to do). We get strong work from a kind-hearted Emma Corrin and an overly skeptical, almost buffoonish Aaron Taylor-Johnson, along with the likes of an understated Ralph Ineson, a deranged Simon McBurney, and of course, a perfectly cast Willem Dafoe (Who you can tell is relishing every second he's onscreen). Everyone is so good that you pretty much forget that it's yet another movie where everybody is just British, despite being set in Germany. Bill Skarsgård on the other hand seems to jump at the chance to become absolutely unrecognizable as our monstrous villain. I swear, if you didn't see his name on the poster, you'd have no clue it was him. Dressed in Oscar worthy make-up and prosthetics that make him look like a decaying Peter Stormare, mixed with that creepy uncle you and your family is no longer allowed to talk about, Skarsgård himself is nowhere to be seen. Taking cues from the classic movie monsters of old, it's all about bringing the physical embodiment of fear to the screen. It's one of those things you really need to see with your own eyes.
Stunningly filmed, with ghastly imagery, and complex themes of a feral and sexual nature (Just a heads up. This might trigger some people), "Nosferatu" breathes new, undead life into an old tale, with Eggers' love for the macabre and revolting, along with a top notch cast and a score that you swear is synced perfectly with your own heartbeat. An unforgivingly brutal and bloody scary story, that also might just be the best "Dracula" adaptation without needing to actually be one. Beastly, yet beautiful. Sensual, yet sick. Despicable, yet deep. All around unforgettable. Even if you try to resist, you WILL find yourself succumbing to the darkness' almost lecherous allure. Good luck! 5 Stars. Rated R For Heavy, Heart-Stopping Violence, Disturbing Content Of A Sexual Nature, Rat Riots, Blood Sucking, And Nosferatu Nads.
Mufasa: The Lion King by James Eagan ★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: The look on Disney's face when they realized "Sonic the Hedgehog 3" might beat them at the box office. I repeat. "Sonic the Hedgehog 3"!
The original, 1994 animated Disney masterpiece, "The Lion King", is something that many of us hold near and dear to our hearts and very souls. It's a remarkable, artistically flawless testament to story, character, music, and animation itself (Which is saying something considering it may have actually just been a rip-off of "Kimba the White Lion". Something we've all just kind of accepted because, well, it's "The Lion King"). So 2019's live-action remake (And by live-action, I mean photorealistically animated), despite featuring some groundbreaking visual effects and more effort than yet another Disney cash grab deserves, left a bit of a bad taste in everyone's mouths, simply because the heart just wasn't there. Sure, there were plenty of well made, charming moments, but it seemed even more unnecessary than many of Disney's already too big collection of live-action remakes (Which were becoming increasingly less necessary the more they made). It was almost too realistic looking, was more or less a shot for shot remake, and left audiences wondering what was the point, especially since we already had a perfectly, well, perfect movie at home, waiting for us to watch it whenever we wanted (Didn't stop the remake from making over $1 billion worldwide though). Thankfully, this sequel/prequel decides to tell a more original story, and that alone makes it better than the first.
Opening some time after the events of the first film, following the deaths of "Mufasa" (Previously voiced by the late James Earl Jones, with the film opening with a dedication to him) and "Scar" (Previously voiced by Chiwetel Ejiofor), "Mufasa: The Lion King" opens with "Simba" (Donald Glover), leaving "Pride Rock" to be with his pregnant mate, "Nala" (Beyoncé Knowles-Carter), having entrusted the bumbling and lovably obnoxious duo of the meerkat "Timon" (Billy Eichner) and "Pumbaa" (Seth Rogen), to watch over their young daughter, "Kiara" (Blue Ivy Carter). The eccentric, but wise mandrill, "Rafiki" (John Kani), visits to tell Kiara a story during a frightening storm, about the origins of the young outsider, "Mufasa" (Voiced as a child by Braelyn and Brielle Rankins, then as an adult by Aaron Pierre), who would later become the beloved king of the Pride Lands. After losing his parents, "Afia" (Anika Noni Rose) and "Masego" (Keith David) in a flood, Mufasa is rescued by another young lion, "Taka" (Voiced by Theo Somolu as a child, then by Kelvin Harrison Jr. as an adult).
The excitable Taka brings Mufasa to his Pride, with Taka's kind-hearted mother "Eshe" (Thandiwe Newton), accepting Mufasa as her own, and Taka's less loving father, "Obasi" (Lenny James), seeing Mufasa only as an outsider that will never earn his place among the other lions. Years later, Mufasa and Taka form a close bond, becoming both best friends and brothers, only for their family to be ripped away from them by a group of violent, power hungry white lions, led by the especially vile "Kiros" (Mads Mikkelsen). Mufasa and Taka flee to safety, being told to find their own Pride, with Mufasa (Having developed a rather impressive sense of smell, sight, and sound), hoping to find the fabled, peaceful land of "Milele". Along the way, Mufasa and Taka meet "Sarabi" (Tiffany Boone), her hornbill scout "Zazu" (Preston Nyman), and a younger "Rafiki" (Voiced during these flashbacks by Kagiso Lediga), who helps them along on their journey to escape Kiros and find Milele. However, envy, resentment, and eventual betrayal are on the horizon, as Mufasa nears his destiny to become the one true king, while Taka eventually becomes the villain we all know as "Scar".
Directed by the Oscar winning Barry Jenkins ("If Beale Street Could Talk", along with "Moonlight", which I consider the best film of the last decade, and possibly even the century so far), with a screenplay by Jeff Nathanson (Returning from the 2019 film, along with "Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales"), "Mufasa: The Lion King" has earned the resentment and slight mockery on the internet to a degree, due to being a follow-up to such a divisive remake and opening in theaters on the same day as "Sonic the Hedgehog 3". To get the obvious out of the way, this ain't as good as "Sonic the Hedgehog 3". It also doesn't touch the original 1994 classic either. It still has a couple of frustrating aspects right off the bat, with the photorealistic animation still not being everybody's cup of tea. This time though, along with the filmmakers doing their own story, the animation being much more expressive and the filmmakers taking extra time to show that off (The film practically opens with a cute lion cub smiling from ear to ear). The level of expression is very much welcome, and makes the characters more appealing to watch, though I still don't understand how after all these years, Disney hasn't been able to get such life-like creatures to look near as lovely as they did in the 2016 "The Jungle Book" remake. Something that was already commendable was at least how gorgeous the film's extensively realistic textures, fur, scenery, and visuals were, and they have only gotten better here. Especially in 3D, everything just pops off the screen. Director Barry Jenkins does seem to be giving it everything he has, despite also admitting that he wasn't remotely prepared for such a big budgeted, effects heavy project. It feels like someone trying to bring much more emotion to something that's almost inherently designed to be artificial and lifeless, and in spite of a few glaring hiccups, there is something strong here. It just has to claw its way out from time to time.
The presentation has a grand, epic feel to it, with a few clever nods to future events (A recurring theme involving Taka's rescue of Mufasa cleverly mirrors Mufasa's eventual fate in the previous film, along with an amusing gag showing how Rafiki got his trademark stick, portraying it as a showstopping moment despite just being a comical coincidence). The music is solid, though the songs from Lin-Manuel Miranda shockingly leave a little to be desired. Maybe it's just because the original songs are so iconic (Even seeing some of them in the remake still felt worth it), but they aren't entirely memorable for the most part. The film is actually barely a musical, with only a handful of songs for it's two hour runtime. They're not bad and can be enjoyable in the moment, yet aren't exactly up there with "Hakuna Matata" or "I Just Can't Wait to Be King". The biggest standout is "I Always Wanted a Brother" (Sung by the young Mufasa and Taka), which is a cute little number, which even conveys some of the eventual tragedy that's destined to follow, right down to getting a slightly more villainous reprise later in the movie. (I also weirdly found the villain song, "Bye Bye", sung by Mads Mikkelsen, to be a little catchy, though mostly because of how sort of out of place it is. Oddly hummable)
The voice cast is one of the places where the film truly shines, particularly due to the pitch perfect casting of Aaron Pierre and Kelvin Harrison Jr., who both have the difficult task of expanding on such well known characters. Pierre finds a sense of unsureness to conflict with the nobility of the character, as well as even possibly conveying the message that it's possible to be a little TOO nice. Might be reading into that one, but I just kind of got the feeling that the movie was showing Mufasa's inherit nature to back down or let Taka take credit for his own good deeds end up leading to further consequences until he realizes that he needs to show more intimidation or harshness if he's going to be the future king. Kelvin Harrison Jr. is brilliant in this, giving us a more in-depth look at an iconic Disney villain, while never losing sight of what made the character work in the first place. It's like a "Wicked" or "Maleficent" situation where the villain is shown to just be misunderstood, or even quite like "Transformers One", where we at least come to comprehend how a brotherly character can do down such a dark path. It's more like "The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes", where see how a villain doesn't necessarily start off as one, but through a series of bad, selfish decisions can turn a sweet, if not overly naive lion cub, can turn into a murderous, pure evil monster fueled by jealously over not getting what he feels he's owed despite doing absolutely nothing to deserve it (Plus it's something else to hear how Harrison Jr.'s voice morphs into that slimy, more sinister and sneaky tone as the movie progresses). We get the returning Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner (Though in much, muuuuuch smaller parts), who gets some pretty big laughs, mostly through ad-libing (You can tell they recorded their lines in the same room together due to how well they just bounce off each other). Blue Ivy Carter is endearing, along with a warm John Kani. In fact, Rafiki might be the movie's MVP this time around, with a deceptively heartwarming mini-arc and a few wise words that might even hit some of the adults harder than it would for the kids watching. From Tiffany Boone, Thandiwe Newton, Preston Nyman (Although he doesn't get near enough chuckles as John Oliver did in the previous movie), and Mads Mikkelsen (Bringing a subtlety crazed menace to what could have been a by the numbers villain), they're all quite excellent. However, if you're excited to see Donald Glover and Beyoncé, um, doing anything at all, you're gonna be immensely disappointed (I think they both got a combined total of five or six sentences).
"Mufasa: The Lion King" doesn't exactly tell an original story (I mean, "Transformers One" more or less did something similar earlier this year and that was one of this year's best movies!), it's still more effective than not. The characters are likable, the voice work is outstanding (Seriously, I can't praise Kelvin Harrison Jr. enough here!), there is genuine emotion and even a few heavy, mature moments that remind one of classic Disney, and the visuals, while still flawed, do lend themselves to moments of beauty. Still though, one can't help but wonder how much stronger this would have been had it been a traditional animated prequel/sequel to the original 1994 film, with the more soulful designs and heart, which this visual style even now can't seem to successfully emulate. It's just something that was consistently bugging me, even though I still left the film plenty moved in spite of itself. It's something I still recommend to families this holiday season......though only if you have time to see it after "Sonic the Hedgehog 3". Hey! I may have liked this movie, but I still wouldn't mind seeing Disney get its ass kicked at the box office by freakin Sonic! 3 1/2 Stars. Rated PG For Animal On Animal Violence, Brotherly Betrayal, Monkey Business, White Supremacist Lions, And The Recurring Questions Surrounding What Exactly Is The Relationship Between Timon and Pumbaa.
Sonic the Hedgehog 3 by James Eagan ★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Yeah! I'm thinking I'm back!
My "Sonic the Hedgehog" fans, can you believe we actually got this far? Three movies? Not just that. Three movies, along with an introduction of one of the video game franchise's most beloved characters to the mainstream audience? Think about it. Before we saw a single frame of the original 2020 live-action film, we expected the worst. The Sonic series has had many ups, many downs, and many more downs, becoming a bit of a joke in the eyes of the gaming community (And let's be honest, sometimes a little too harshly, yet also deservedly so to a degree). We had been through a lot, and when we all heard our favorite speedy blue hedgehog was getting his very own movie, it was hard not to be wary. Not to mention when it was revealed that it would revolve around him ending up in our world, with human characters. Then we all saw the first trailer and Sonic's nightmare inducing design. Our worst fears were becoming a reality. This was officially going to bury the franchise, and if what happened next didn't happen, it likely literally would have done exactly that. Thankfully, the film had been delayed, resulting in a complete overhaul of Sonic's design, fitting more in line with what the fans wanted, what the filmmakers had always intended from the start, and by ignoring the corporate studio morons who don't know anything about anything (They were the ones who INSISTED that Sonic look overly realistic for some baffling reason). It was a hit, critics reacted fairly well, the fans left perfectly satisfied, and even some young newcomers took an interest in the blue blur. "Sonic the Hedgehog 2" came out two years later, bringing in more fan favorite characters, was an even bigger success, got even better critical reactions, more fan love, and proved that Sonic the Hedgehog had found himself redeemed in the eyes of the public (Along with a successful comic and even the game series itself finding some new love). Now we're here! At the place we never imagined we would ever be. We finally have freakin Shadow on the big screen!
Based on the video game franchise loved near and far (And by myself so much), with some loose inspiration taken specifically from "Sonic Adventure 2", "Sonic the Hedgehog 3" opens some time after the last film, with mad scientist turned supervillain, "Dr. Ivo "Eggman" Robotnik" (Jim Carrey), being presumed defeated and dead. The titular fastest, blue hedgehog in the universe, "Sonic the Hedgehog" (Voiced by Ben Schwartz), celebrates his time on Earth with his adoptive human parents, "Tom" (James Marsden) and "Maddie" (Tika Sumpter), along with his best friends, the flying fox "Miles "Tails" Prower" (Voiced by Colleeen O'Shaughnessey) and the hot headed, though nonetheless kind hearted "Knuckles the Echidna" (Voiced by Idris Elba). They are called in by "Director Rockwell" (Krysten Ritter), of "G.U.N.", to assist in taking down a powerful threat. When Sonic and his friends arrive, they come face to face with an immensely powerful and thoroughly pissed off black hedgehog, "Shadow" (Voiced by Keanu Reeves), who has it out for G.U.N., as well as humanity as a whole.
After taking a serious beating from Shadow, Sonic and friends get some information from "Commander Walters" (Tom Butler), about how Shadow's past is filled with tragedy and loss (With Shadow having previously been in a state of suspended animation before being released by an unknown third party). They all end up attacked by what appear to be drones sent by Robotnik and with G. U. N. apparently wanting to hide secrets of their own, leaving Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles to try to get to the bottom of this mystery by themselves. The trio end up coming face to face with Robotnik's lackey/boyfriend, "Agent Stone" (Lee Majdoub), who reveals that Robotnik is alive, crazier than ever, and has completely let himself go. After learning from Robotnik that someone else sent the drones after them, Sonic and friends have to form an uneasy alliance with the maniacal madman to stop Shadow's vengeful path of destruction. Their search leads them to discovering Robotnik's long lost grandfather, "Professor Gerald" (Also Jim Carrey, because who else would play him?), along with a diabolical scheme over fifty years in the making that might just mean the end of the world as they know it.
Directed by the returning Jeff Fowler (Who did the first two movies, along with one of his earliest moments in his career involving doing some work on the CGI cinematics for the 2005 spin-off, "Shadow the Hedgehog"), with a screenplay from also returning Pat Casey, Josh Miller, and John Whittington, "Sonic the Hedgehog 3" has a lot to live up to, a lot to get right, and a lot to fix if we're being honest. Even if it's doing it in the loosest way, adapting a storyline like this is a challenge, especially with the film series taking a more family friendly approach. While there are plenty of changes, I just wanna put all the fans are ease by saying that they do it justice. The themes of the game are still intact, along with a few unavoidable plot beats, and of course, the absolute best parts that are bound to have you geeking out just as much as I did. Guys, this movie is awesome! It feels like the natural progression of this film series, going from an admittedly simply, but delightfully fun first film, before speeding into action packed, superhero movie territory, with higher stakes and bigger set pieces. Jeff Fowler has truly come quite a long way, showing off his potential as a director, with epic sequences that feels straight out of "Dragon Ball Z" (Hell, this probably a better live action "Dragon Ball" movie than the actual live-action "Dragon Ball" movie).
From the top notch visual effects (Which have only gotten better and better every movie), the vibrant colors, and a music score that has just as many Easter Eggs for the fans to look out for than whatever is in the forefront and the background of the overall film itself (And yeah, there's plenty of those too!). The movie also isn't afraid to bring in the darker aspects of the games. Sure, they tone some stuff down, but you still feel the impact of what's going on and it's nonetheless pretty heavy for a family film involving a talking blue hedgehog. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a few tears out of some audiences, especially from the more general audience who likely won't see something like this coming. Don't let the serious moments fool you though, it still might also be the funniest of the three films so far. Something about the writing just really clicks here. The goofiness, mixed in with the newfound sense of maturity, finds a nice balance so that all the bases are covered.
The characters from the games are just as lovable as ever. Ben Schwartz has been a pretty perfect Sonic, acting like a furry Spider-Man, where he cracks bad jokes when he shouldn't, repeatedly gets himself punched around, and has such a kind heart in spite of his seemingly reckless attitude. (He also has a maturing arc in the movie) Always great to hear Colleen O'Shaughnessey coming back to voice Tails, while Idris Elba is wonderfully naive and still brings a sense of respectability that the character seemed to be lacking in the games for a while up until recently. James Marsden and Tika Sumpter return in slightly smaller parts, though are still very likable and have earned their place in the canon if you ask me. Everything with Lee Majdoub is great (And the homo-eroticism is off the charts with this one), while Krysten Ritter (And the G. U. N. subplot as a whole) is given a fairly thankless role as a secondary, semi-antagonistic threat (It serves a purpose, but there isn't much focus on it).
The big question on everyone's mind is how Shadow is handled, and yeah, it's better than any of us could have hoped for. From a flawlessly cast Keanu Reeves, bringing a rage-filled sense of menace and sadness, the character's genuinely heartbreaking friendship with Gerald's granddaughter, "Maria" (Played rather wonderfully by Alyla Browne), and even a few quick little references to some of the franchise's more, er, "interesting" concepts, I'd go as far to say that it might be slightly done better here than in the games (Or at least made a little less complicated). Of course though, Jim Carrey is an absolute laugh riot, and playing double duty no less. Delightfully dastardly, absurdly over the top, and even shows some depth in a few moments. It's a sincere credit to how great an actor he can be, with an incredible makeup job, and some even better effects wizardry to make it seem like he's actually playing two characters who are just bouncing off each other. There is a lot of passion in his performance (Or performances), and it might rank up with one of his funniest, which is saying something.
After a somewhat speedy first fifteen minutes (It's a threequel, so you don't really need too much setup), "Sonic the Hedgehog 3" is easily the best video game movie I can think of at the moment, yet also just works as a really movie for the family to flock to this Christmas. Funny, with a lot of heart, some great action, and most shocking of all, a rather soft message about grief, along with how we have to choose the way it affects us (Freakin "Sonic the Hedgehog 3" man!). It's something that I think will stick with the kids in ways they may not have expected. And as for the fans, you're gonna be in heaven. Trust me, when we reach the film's much anticipated last act, your mind might even struggle to comprehend if this is reality that you're seeing before your eyes or if you're just hallucinating the greatest dream possible (And I'm not even going to get into the post credits scenes). Am I being excessively lenient? You know what? I don't think so! It's a wonderfully (And fittingly) chaotic, adrenaline fueled ride, that will make my fellow geeks happy, will make the kids very happy, and might actually get a smile or two out of the parents as well. Not bad for a series that at one point almost would have absolutely destroyed one of the most iconic video game characters' legacy because of that original design's juicy thighs and human teeth. After the questionable year that many of us have had, this was kind of needed. 4 Stars. Rated PG For Speedy Blue Action, Some Surprisingly Heavy Themes Of Death And Mourning, The Den Of Madness Known Only As "The Chao Garden", Fat Jim Carrey In Spandex, And Revenge Guac.
The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim by James Eagan ★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: The whole "Lord of the Rings" saga has been a bit of a sausage fest for far too long.
There have been talks about further expansions, spin-offs, or any other attempts to somehow continue Peter Jackson's now classic adaptations of J. R R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" for a while now. I can't necessarily argue against an idea, though there are plenty of reasons to, even with the "Hobbit" films have garnered an acceptance in the fandom, despite an early mixed reception. Hell, the movie likely seems to only have gotten a theatrical release just so Warner Bros. can retain the right to the source material. However, while I can't say this is exactly the absolute best addition to the source material, I wouldn't mind there being more like it. In a time of remakes and reboots, there is always something of wonder from taking a more, ahem, animated approach.
Inspired by the works of J. R. R. Tolkien (And set centuries before the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy), "The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim" is narrated by "Éowyn" (Miranda Otto), as she tells the story of how "Helm's Deep" (That place where everybody fought in "The Two Towers") got its name. "Héra" (Gaia Wise) is the headstrong daughter of the king of "Rohan", "Helm Hammerhand" (Brian Cox). Conflict arises in the form of the brutish "Dunlending" lord, "Freca" (Shaun Dooley), who wants Hammerhand to have Héra marry his son, "Wulf" (Luke Pasqualino), a once old friend of Héra's. Hammerhand knows that Freca can't be trusted and only wants to use this marriage as a way to get to the crown of Rohan. Hammerhand and Freca decide to settle things via fist to fist combat, where Hammerhand ends up accidentally killing Freca with one, exceptionally strong punch. Before being banished along with the rest of the Dunlendings, Wulf swears vengeance. Some time later, Héra learns that Wulf has returned, with a powerful army of maniacs now at his disposal. The overly prideful Hammerhand refuses to call for aid, while also denying Héra the choice to fight. The battle ends up going horribly wrong, resulting in many deaths and Hammerhand's people being forced to flee to an old, though thankfully heavily fortified stronghold (The future Helm's Deep). Cornered and with no way to escape from Wulf's forces, it's up to Héra to prove to her father her worth and save her people from destruction.
Directed by Kenji Kamiyama (Known for his work on the "Ghost in the Shell" franchise, the more recent "Ultraman" anime, and even contributed to the acclaimed "Star Wars: Visions"), with a screenplay by Jeffrey Addiss and Will Matthews ("The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance"), along with Phoebe Gittins, and Arty Papageorgiou, "The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim" is not an entirely complicated film if you go by its story and characters. In a way, it's a fairly basic anime movie that just so happens to be set in the "Lord of the Rings" universe, and while that stops it from being a particularly amazing film on its own, it's very much still welcome within the film franchise's own little continuity, along with the very source material itself (Being exclusively made up of appendices and background material from the original books). It's all about how the story is told, and it's an undeniably visual feast for the eyes, which feel right at home on the big screen. The film seems to be more about spectacle than the usual depth that we associate with these films, and Kamiyama delivers in suitably epic fashion. Middle Earth has never looked more sweeping, from the flawless art design, fluid character movements, and those little, Miyazaki-esque touches of cold, dark atmosphere. It's hard not to get invested by everything that's going on, simply because you're just so mesmerized by how fantastical it all seems. And like other film franchises have recently been starting to realize, animation adds so much more than live-action ever could when it comes to making the unreal seem possible.
Brian Cox's awesome, surround sound shattering voice is made for something like this, playing a character that's pretty complex in that he's quite brutal and too proud for his own good, yet it comes from a place of worry and an eventual belief that our main heroine can be more than even she realizes. Gaia Wise makes for a strong, compelling lead, while Luke Pasqualino is actually a fairly solid villain (It's kind of cool to see a bad guy in this world who is actually just a guy, corrupted by power and anger at what he feels he's earned, rather than just being an embodiment of pure evil) And it's always nice to hear Miranda Otto's soothing voice, along with a few rather surprise cameos from other "Lord of the Rings" alumni in some shape or form. The supporting characters don't quite stand out, and unlike the Peter Jackson films, the emotions don't quite hit the same way in terms of the script as the original films ever did. Even in the "Hobbit" films, when somebody died, you felt that in your very soul and remembered it. Despite some rather shocking violence that slightly pushes that PG-13 rating, there's no "Death of Boromir" moment or anything like that.
Flawed from conception, with a screenplay that doesn't shoot for the stars and a runtime that only feels a little longer due to how differently animation is paced against live-action, "The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim" is rooted in style over substance. From spellbinding action, sublime presentation, and beautiful images, it's likely not going to be a yearly rewatch like the other films (Unless you're an absolute completionist), yet still serves as an enjoyable return to Middle Earth, which is definitely a place nobody could ever possibly grow tired of revisiting. You can still see the joy and wonder in every frame. It doesn't hurt the franchise in any way, and if we're destined to get more, regardless if we want it or not, I'd take something safe, though still graceful in its own right, over something without a hint of effort put into it. 3 Stars. Rated PG-13 For Strong Fantasy Violence, Elephant Endangering, Hammerhanding, And, Er, Possible Incestuous Subtext? Hey, If The Movie Had Never Stated Those Two Characters Were Cousins, I Would Have Assumed That Relationship Was Romantic!
Kraven the Hunter by James Eagan ★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Kraven the Stripper Cowboy.
There's an old saying. "Don't be sad that it ended, but rather, be pissed off that it even began in the first place." Or something like that. I don't know. This movie sucked. There! Blunt and to the point!
Based a little on the "Marvel Comics" supervillain of the same name, "Kraven the Hunter" follows "Sergei Kravinoff" (Played by Levi Miller as a teen, then by Aaron Taylor-Johnson as an adult), who despises his crime lord father, "Nikolai" (Russell Crowe). While on a hunt with Nikolai and his more meek half-brother, "Dmitri" (Fred Hechinger), Sergei ends up viciously mauled by a lion, only to be rescued by the power of voodoo, the lion's magic blood, and whatever else Sony just pulled right out of their ass (None of this is the backstory in the comics, because even they wouldn't get THIS stupid). After recovering, Sergei decides to leave on his own, deciding to use his newfound, animal-like powers to defend the animals of the world from poachers. Years later, Sergei, having been targeting various criminals across the world, getting the name "The Hunter", or "Kraven" as he prefers to be called (Wait! Your last name is Kravinoff, and you call yourself Kraven? Didn't you want to stay hidden? It's like if I became an assassin and called myself something like "Eagen", with an E instead of an A towards the end!).
Kraven reunites with the one who saved him, "Calypso" (Ariana DeBose), who has now become a lawyer (Or so the movie claims), ready with a list that he's checking twice to see if the people on it are naughty or nice (Spoiler! They are all naughty bad guys, and he's gonna kill them all!). One gangster, "Aleksei Sytsevich" (Alessandro Nivola), who goes by the nickname "The Rhino" (Due to his, er, "skin condition"), knows that at one point he'll be targeted by Kraven, so he decides to take him out first. After learning of Kraven's identity, The Rhino and another empowered assassin, known only as "The Foreigner" (Christopher Abbot), set a plot in motion to kidnap Dmitri and knowing Nikolai isn't gonna do crap to help, Kraven sets out on his own to rescue his bro and hunt down the people responsible. It's actually a harder synopsis to put together than I thought it would be, considering I actually didn't know what the actual story was until an hour in.
Directed by J. C. Chandler ("Margin Call", "All Is Lost"), with a cobbled together screenplay by Richard Wenk ("The Equalizer"), along with Art Marcum and Matt Holloway ("Iron Man", "Uncharted", "Transformers: The Last Knight"), "Kraven the Hunter" is the newest entry in "Sony's Spider-Man Universe" (aka the "Spider-Man Free Spider-Man Universe"), and judging from early projections, the last entry as well. And thank goodness for that! Look! Aside from the "Venom" films, which even then, get by on campy stupidity and the charm that goes with it, these films seemed to only exist so that Sony could keep their hands on the property rights. This means that Disney and Marvel Studios can't use these characters for the "Marvel Cinematic Universe", thus removing the possibilities that fans actually want to see in favor of minuscule profit by comparison. It's definitely for the best that everything ends here, though it's frustrating that it all had to come to a close with the worst of the bunch. While "Morbius" has the meme potential, and "Madame Web" was just so batsh*t that it was at least fun to talk about after the fact, this feels like the chopped up remains of reshoots, rewrites, post production ADR work, and the foul stretch of desperation.
The thing is though, the movie didn't have to end up this way. Giving an origin story to a fan favorite Spider-Man villain should be fun, but just like the other films, nobody wants to commit. The comic character is a maniacal poacher, who decides to start hunting people (Setting his sights on the likes of Spider-Man), with his recent appearance in "Spider-Man 2" for the PS5 being seen as a definitive version of the character (Where he gets the idea to make his cancer diagnosis everybody else's problem, setting the games plot in motion to fulfill his death wish of the ultimate hunt). The version we get in this movie has absolutely no resemblance to the one we know from the source material, with the film even stopping to make sure the audience knows that he actually loves animals. Basically, he's just a generic anti-hero, though barely even that. The changes themselves don't have to be the deal breaker, yet with a plot so muddled, incoherent, and seemingly made up on the fly, this story could have been about anyone. J. C. Chandler is a good director, but he leaves absolutely no impact here whatsoever. From the choppy action, the bloody violence (Which tries to be over the top gruesome, though in such an uninspired way that you barely notice), and the most egregious flaw of all that it just drags on for so long. The film is over two hours for some godforsaken reason, with the film somehow not finding time for character, depth, or a reason to give a damn. With how poorly the film's paced, you might even be shocked when we reach the film's unsatisfying, unremarkable climax. You'd almost swear there's still another hour to go, and can't tell if you'll ever be free from this temple of boredom.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson really is quite miscast. In theory this could have worked, but maybe there were studio notes demanding his intensity be toned down or a lack of direction. It just doesn't work, with Taylor-Johnson coming across as more of an unlikable, blank slate, though clearly not in the way the film intends him to be. Ariana DeBose, who does only get progressively more and more gorgeous in every scene she's in, is unfortunately terrible in this. She's a freakin Oscar winner for God's sake! Granted, the material ain't helping. I do legitimately think the filmmakers had no clue what to do with her character, never fully committing to her being a love interest who gets roped into the plot or a capably intelligent semi-protagonist (And she tragically gets some of the worst dialogue in the movie, which do need to be seen to be believed. There's a quote involving the character's deceased grandmother that's going to be memed to Hell.). Fred Hechinger is trying (And logically, seems like a good fit for who his character is supposed to be, even if the foreshadowing is too on the nose), but it's too predictable a part, with not much meat to it. The same goes for an incredibly underused Christopher Abbott (And his goofy turtleneck sweater), who could have been cut from the film entirely and nobody would have noticed. Even Russell Crowe, who deserves credit for showing up to get his paycheck, being professional, and having fun while he's doing it, is almost a non-character for too much of the film. It's upsetting because at one point, Russell Crowe would have made a perfect Kraven. Hell, even now I could see him as an older, more worn down (And, um, heavier) version of the character, who would still be plenty intense and threatening. Easily the best part of this whole ordeal is Alessandro Nivola, who came to have the time of his life chewing absolute f*ck out of the scenery, while still making for a villain that's enjoyable to watch. Honestly, while you're subjected to Taylor-Johnson and DeBose giving the all time worst performances of their career, you're just waiting for Nivola to pop back onscreen with his hammy villainy. Personality! That's something this movie is lacking, and our main villain has to pick up all the slack.
"Kraven the Hunter" is far too serious, inept in its attempts at humor, and such piss poor visual effects that you really wonder how anyone online can complain about the MCU about anything (I know it's hard to make a character like The Rhino look not ridiculous, but boy, did you somehow find a way to make it even worse than we could have imagined). The potential was there, such as the concept of a crime story, involving various supervillains and gangsters, yet what we get is an overcrowded, underdeveloped, ugly to look at slog of a movie that continues to give good (Or at least decent) comic book films a bad name. I mean, if you can't be good or even at least entertaining with your cash grabs, you could at least be so moronic that it's enjoyable. Instead, this is so incompetently stupid and bland that nobody ends up Kraven more. Dosvedanya, Sony's Spider-Man Universe. I spit on your grave! Ptooey! 1 Star. Rated R For Gory Violence, Rough Nose Biting, Rhino Rimming, And Convenient Russian Accents.
Flow by James Eagan ★★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: Low Budget "Life of Pi".
There are things that you can convey with the art of animation that you just can't with live-action. Films this year like "The Wild Robot", "Transformers One", "Inside Out 2", and now this, all prove that. Even at a quick, less than half an hour runtime, I feel like I got so much character, heart, story, and depth, than most long winded, overblown Oscar contenders, and not a single bit of dialogue needed to be uttered. I just sat back, listened, and witnessed one of this year's most epic, profound adventures, and it's all about some cute little animals on a boat during what I can only assume is the end of the world.
Set in a now human-free world where the oceans appear to be rising and consuming everything in their path, "Flow" follows a tiny, adorable black cat, struggling to survive against the larger, tougher creatures. When the water proceeds to rapidly rise once more, the cat finds salvation in the form of a small, falling apart sailboat, with an old, but brave capybara onboard. While sailing in search of a new home, the cat and capybara come across more colorful animal characters, like a kleptomaniac lemur, an excitable Labrador (Who seems to only want to be the annoyed cat's friend), and a wounded secretary-bird (Whose injury protecting the cat prevents it from taking flight), facing numerous obstacles along the way.
Directed by Latvian filmmaker Gints Zilbalodis ("Away"), who co-wrote the screenplay with Matīss Kaža and took part in the musical score development with Rihards Zalupe, "Flow" is a short, yet genuinely monumentally sweeping tale, told in a unique style of animation that's almost haunting to look at, even though you can't help but be almost hypnotized by it. For whatever the film lacks in aggressive amounts of detail and overt textures, it makes up for in impeccable art design, vibrant colors, and personality to spare. The film even has such fluid direction, with the camera following characters around as if you're right there with them, in a way that is quite jarring to see done in animated form. It's like a series of long shots that rarely cut away from what we're meant to be focused on. You're literally experiencing the world with the characters. And that world, while frightening, is also quite stunning. The film in a way feels like it could take place in the same universe as "The Wild Robot". The world as we know it is gone, with humans nowhere to be found (Though there are hints that they at least used to be around), and impossible to explain elements of possibly something supernatural, Sci-Fi, or just psychological. So much is left open for interpretation, yet not in a way that feels slight. Either way, we figure out just enough and are so entranced by the world building that we're willing to just go with it. Go with the flow if you will.
Even without dialogue and little over anthropomorphism, the animals have so much complexity, while retaining their animalistic quirks. The cat is overly curious and easily agitated, though courageous and in the end, heroic. The capybara is much smarter than it lets on, spending most of the time sleeping and smelling bad, before catching everyone off guard with what it's capable of. The Labrador is not the brightest, but the sweetest (Reminds me of one of my dogs, especially with how much it just wants to show the cat some love, even when the cat literally has no interest), while the lemur is more enamored with its trinkets at first, though it isn't without its own moments of selflessness. The secretary-bird ends up being one of the most complex characters (And has one of the most surreal of arcs), and throughout the film, the characters encounter an almost alien-like whale, that serves its own, rather unknown purpose to the story. The characters are odd, funny, and all exhibit a realistic sense of development, as if they;re literally evolving before our eyes, adapting to the harsh situations like many animals would naturally be forced to. And there's something always hilarious about the cat suddenly stopping everything its doing just to chase a little light or attack the lemur's dangling tail.
"Flow" is an imaginative, animated triumph of storytelling, told in its most purest forms, through visuals and music. It tells a heartfelt, gripping tale of survival, friendship, perseverance, and wonder in a way that's certainly mature, but still in such a delightful, warm way that anyone of any age can be lured into its affecting enchantment. One of this year's best, most touching, and heart affirming films, just so happens to be told through innocent, wordless eyes, making for an unforgettable experience and an instant classic. 4 1/2 Stars. Rated PG, Being Perfectly Acceptable For A Family Audience, Even If It Might Be A Bit Too Much To Handle For Those Who Just Can't Stand To See Cute Animals In Peril.
Werewolves by James Eagan ★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Always knew he had "That Dog" in him, but this is just ridiculous!
Okay, so think "The Purge", except with Werewolves. Let that sink in for a moment. Yeah, regardless of quality, you knew something like this was going to get made. I bet that was just the pitch and the studio was like "Hell Yeah!". I'd do the same. Anyone would! Don't pretend to act like some kind of intellectual about it, because deep down, you're oddly curious. Even just a little bit.
Somehow NOT based on a comic book of some kind, "Werewolves" opens in a world where, due to an unexplainable supermoon event, a latent gene in humanity is trigger, thus turning anyone who happens to be caught in the supermoon's light to undergo a horrifying change into a Werewolf, gaining a craving for destruction and blood. Cut to a year later, under the advisement of scientist, "Dr. Aranda" (Lou Diamond Phillips) to take shelter, the world prepares for yet another supermoon event, as well as more Werewolf carnage. Badass macho scientist, "Wesley Marshall" (Frank Grillo), who has been taking care of his deceased brother's wife, "Lucy" (Ilfenesh Hadera) and daughter, is now part of Dr. Aranda's team of fellow scientists, like "Dr. Amy Chen" (Katrina Law), to develop a cure for the Werewolf disease. However, when the supermoon rises, the attempts at the secret lab to find a cure go horribly wrong, resulting in Werewolves running wild, leaving Wesley and Amy as the only survivors. Now with Wesley's family in danger, he and Amy must fight their way past an army of bloodthirsty Wolfmen (And Wolfwomen too! They don't discriminate), to rescue them.
Directed by Steven C. Miller (Director of quite a few forgettably named straight to DVD action flicks), with a screenplay by Matthew Kennedy, "Werewolves" is about, well, exactly what it says on the label. The real shocker is that there is genuinely a lot working in the film's favor, especially for something that if we're being honest, could have had "0%" on Rotten Tomatoes written all over it. Even though there just seems to be something missing from the final product, what we still get is an enjoyable, undemanding B movie, that brings some old school monsters into the modern era. The film embraces its low budget, going for bringing the nightmarish wolves to life via practical effects, right down to the obviously rubbery snouts they all have. Sure, they're never exactly "real" looking in the traditional sense, but there is something to having such fantastical beasts, dressed in what remains of their human garb (And even retaining some of their human mannerisms to a degree), actually standing there, out in the middle of a fiery, battle worn street with little to no CGI accompanying them. We don't get these kinds of things nowadays, and there is a silly, even thrilling charm to it. The film unfortunately doesn't do much original in terms of its story (Which at times leaves much to be desired) and also doesn't seem to want to make time for actual character development.
Frank Grillo brings much more personality than what's likely been provided on the script, whether it be some good action one-liners or just by having a cool screen presence. The simple pleasures of watching Grillo say "Bite Me!", before unloading a mini-gun on a snarling Werewolf is undeniably one of those things you never knew you wanted to see. There's not much to the other characters, even when it at first seems like there might be, such as Katrina Law (Who gets to contribute, until she just doesn't anymore) and Lou Diamond Phillips (Who, and this isn't a spoiler, let's just say isn't around too long. Obviously). I did thoroughly enjoy James Michael Cummings (as "Cody Walker", Lucy's gun-toting, Murica loving neighbor, who has been waiting his whole life for a night like this, only for it to go as hilariously wrong as you'd expect) in a part that would seem like a caricature-like, if only these kinds of morons weren't actually real.
A wisely short, fast paced, high octane bit of bloody chaos, "Werewolves" leaves a lot of unanswered questions (Sequel hopes? Maybe?), and could have used some touchups in terms of its script. However, when the film works, it's a completely gory delight! The old fashioned visual effects are commendable, with enough decent suspense and some creative camera work for a film like this, leading up to giving the audience the kind of campy, unhinged, and undeniably moronic excitement that they all came for in the first place. It's the kind of movie made to make you go "F*****CK YESSSSSS!!!!" at the most wildly stupid thing imaginable, and while it doesn't have near as many of those moments as it should, I'd be lying if I didn't admit to doing that myself at least a couple times. Rule of Cool, I guess. 3 Stars. Rated R For Brutally Gruesome Violence, Snarling Slobbery Snouts, Head-Ripping Werewolf Action (Awesome!), And Nicely Shredded Grillo Guts.
Moana 2 by James Eagan ★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: "Gonna have to start repopulating somehow!"
Let me tell ya something, youngsters! Gather round! You see, back in my day, when we got a Disney sequel, it was straight to video, had animation that was worse or at least cheaper, with getting only a handful of the original voice cast if you're lucky (And if not, you get some noticeably lesser replacements), and the final product would either end up being a movie pilot for a television series that may never come to be or even worse, would just be three episodes stitched together from that television series that never came to be. So for something that started off originally as a "Disney+" limited series that instead got the theatrical, full blown sequel treatment due to being a pretty obvious safe bet considering how beloved the original was (And because Disney really needs a big hit right now after how hard "Wish" bombed last year), my generation had it much worse than you guys. At least you're getting an actual movie!
Years after the original, "Moana 2" follows the titular wayfinder, "Moana" (Auliʻi Cravalho), returning home to her island of "Motunui", where her fellow villagers have embraced their sailing ancestry, along with her parents, "Chief Tui" (Temuera Morrison) and "Sina" (Nicole Scherzinger), and her little sister, "Simea" (Khaleesi Lambert-Tsuda). Moana has a vision from the ancestors, telling her to find the ancient island of "Motufetu", which once connected all people of the ocean, only to be cursed by the evil, destructive entity, "Nalo". Moana assembles a crew, consisting of her animal sidekicks, the piggy "Pua", and the moronic chicken, "Heihei" (Alan Tudyk, returning to make nothing but chicken noises), along with the nerdy "Moni" (Hualālai Chung), the eccentric "Loto" (Rose Matafeo), and the grumpy, elderly "Kele" (David Fane), to venture off onto the high seas to find the missing island. Along the way, Moana and her friends encounter many troubles, such as a sinister bat lady, "Matangi" (Awhimai Fraser), though thankfully, she's eventually reunited with the shape shifting demigod/hero of men, "Maui" (Dwayne Johnson), to help complete their quest and reunite Moana's people with the rest of the world.
Directed by Storyboard Artist David Derrick Jr., Animator Jason Hand, and Writer Dana Ledoux Miller, who also co-wrote the screenplay with the returning Jared Bush ("Moana", "Encanto", "Zootopia"), "Moana 2" shows some clear signs of late development changes, and really, for what we get, it's kind of remarkable that the movie is any good at all. It's a perfectly solid, likable sequel, even if it sadly just plain isn't near as great as the original (Which I recently just watched again for the first time in years, only to see that it's actually better than I remembered it). Having been animated outside of Disney's usual animation studio (And I can only imagine how much crunch time may have gone into getting it out as quickly as they did), it's still better than top notch animation. If anything, despite having a smaller budget than some of Disney's most recent work (Which all seemed to consist of $200 million budgets), it's a phenomenal looking film, with gorgeous visuals, epic scale, loving attention to the details (Like the water movements), and energetic characters. I mean, I didn't mind the animation style in last year's "Wish" as much as others, but yeah, this blows that movie out of the water by a long shot. Pun intended.
I can't stress enough how much of a spectacle it is in 3D too. While I hope the animators weren't tortured horrifically rushing this movie out, the hard work and money is all there on display in classic, stunning Disney fashion. The story just isn't all that strong. It's not a bad one and a sequel to such a fan favorite movie is such a no brainier that this feels like a natural continuation. It's similar to "Frozen II" in how it deviates from the usual Disney formula, yet in a way that's just kind of messy and difficult to grasp onto. Unlike "Frozen II" though (Which featured a soundtrack on par with its predecessor), this can't quite recapture the magic. The score by the returning Mark Mancina and Opetia Foa'i is still wonderful. It's just that the songs, from Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear, replacing Lin-Manuel Miranda, aren't anything special. None of them are bad. They just don't stand out. It's hard to top memorable songs like "How Far I'll Go", "You're Welcome", "Shiny", etc. We get the aesthetically pleasing Maui's "Can I Get A Chee Hoo?" and the very catchy "Get Lost" from Matangi (Easily the best song), though it's still quite the downgrade.
Our returning heroine is still a standout in the Disney canon. Even with disappointing songs, Auliʻi Cravalho can belt them out like it's nothing, and remains a Disney (NOT) princess, that's become an icon to many young girls for good reason. It's also nice to get a reminder that Dwayne Johnson can actually be a really good actor when he wants to be. While his main involvement in the story takes some time, his return is so very welcome, getting laughs a plenty and is all around just a delight. However, his absence is felt a bit beforehand. I like the new characters just fine. They're nice and funny, but pretty stock. Alan Tudyk hilariously collects one heck of a paycheck, making Heihei one of Disney's strangest, yet effectively amusing sidekicks. Awhimai Fraser makes for an interesting subversion of the villain twist (And again, she gets the best song in the movie), while our main villain doesn't really make a full appearance and I'm not completely sure how well that works for the film (He's basically "Sauron" from "The Lord of the Rings". Not what we're used to with Disney baddies). On a side note though, why did they make Fraser's Matangi ridiculously attractive? Seriously! Hottest Disney villainess ever! The film also does some creative things with the returning threat of the tribe of silent, pirate coconuts,"The Kakmora" (With one of them even joining our heroes in the second half of their journey).
"Moana 2" is a good, but far from great follow-up to a film that was already great on its own, though had the very concept of a sequel written all over it from the start. It's got charm and heart, breathtaking visuals and animation, and is enough to keep the parents invested with their kids, who I bet will love it, while some of the more mature (Or immature?) fans might be left mixed. For what might have been conceptualized as just a cash grab at a popular property, you can see the effort to make something grand. And in a way, it still is in parts. It's tough to dislike and will likely make enough money to hopefully get Disney out of their creative rut, while also just as likely, setting the stage for possibly a "Moana 3" very soon. Although, that's going to be really weird to have both a third film come out, around the time they already got a live-action remake in development. You're Welcome? 3 1/2 Stars. Rated PG For Scary Images, Hot Bat Ladies, Expressive Tattooing, And Hardcore Chee Hooing.
Gladiator II by James Eagan ★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: Don't Get Madiator. Get Gladiator.
I think people have gotten the wrong idea about Ridley Scott. To some, he was a legendary, sophisticated director, known for making legit films of the highest caliber that could be enjoyed by the mass public, who sadly has fallen off in recent years due to a sense of crudeness, silliness, and a bizarre disregard for certain facts in favor of the rule of cool. Guys, it's time to rip off the band-aid now. He's literally always been like this. Freakin "Legend" was one of his earliest movies, following the likes of "Alien" and "Blade Runner". 2000's "Gladiator" may have found itself with accolades and love from audiences, but it was at its core, a ridiculous, purely entertainment focused popcorn muncher, that just so happened to have a little depth to it. This sequel is no different.
Set years after the original film, "Gladiator II" follows "Lucius Verus" (Paul Mescal, replacing Spencer Treat Clark), the illegitimate son of the deceased "Maximus Decimus Meridius" (Previously played by Russell Crowe) and the former emperor's daughter, "Lucilla" (Connie Nielsen). Lucius was sent away from Rome into hiding moments after the first film, and now, going by the name "Hanno", lives in Numidia with his wife, "Arishat" (Yuval Gonen). The Roman army, commanded by the conflicted "Marcus Acacius" (Pedro Pascal), attacks and conquers Numidia, resulting in Lucius' capture and the death of Arishat. Lucius is sold into slavery, becoming a gladiator owned by the charismatic, but manipulative "Macrinus" (Denzel Washington), who promises Lucius a chance to get his revenge on Acacius so long as he becomes the gladiator that Macrinus can gain the power that he feels he deserves. Once in Rome, Lucius must impress the corrupt, psychopathic emperors, "Geta" (Joseph Quinn) and "Caracalla" (Fred Hechinger) in the upcoming Colosseum Games. However, things become complicated when it's revealed that Acacius, who despises the wacko emperors, is married to Lucius' mother, Lucilla. When Lucilla discovers who Lucius is, she attempts to help him, putting her husband's plan to bring down the emperors and free Rome in jeopardy. However, Lucius is too blinded by his lust for vengeance, struggling to come to terms with his family's legacy, while Marcinus' schemes start to come to fruition, thus putting all of Rome in danger.
Directed by the returning Ridley Scott ("Alien", "Blade Runner", "Legend", "Black Hawk Down", "Napoleon", and, er, a lot more), with a screenplay with his frequent collaborator David Scarpa, "Gladiator II" seems to have the right idea. At least in terms of, quite fittingly, giving the audience exactly what they want. Epic battles, shocking violence, Shakespearean melodrama, and a total bastardization of anything historically accurate, which he apparently will do gladly and will tell you to f*ck yourself if you dare question him. If you don't know what you're in for, you're not gonna make it through the nearly two and a half hour runtime. Now if you're down for, I don't know, killer baboons, a video game boss battle against a barbarian on a rhino, and an underwater shark battle in the Colosseum, then you're gonna have a damn good time! I mean, the original wasn't historically accurate either, and the whole premise alone is all based around contrivances. It's a movie! Regardless of your tolerance for such things, you have to appreciate that Ridley Scott never holds back. The man still has an eye for scale, action, and storytelling, no matter how preposterous, and always brings it to the big screen in an appropriately legendary fashion. There are some gorgeously designed set pieces, which are only elevated by the impeccable production, a startling sound design, the score from another Scott collaborator, Harry Gregson-Williams, and yes, an unrelenting amount of brutality. I know it shouldn't be too shocking when Ridley Scott ventures into some bloody violence, but somehow, he finds rather sophisticated ways to make death in the heat of battle look cold, unfair, and horrifying.
One thing that the original film does have over this one is that our main character this time is just not near as interesting as everything else going on, and yeah, there is a lot going on at once. It's no fault of Paul Mescal, who is still genuinely good in the film. The character is just a little too wrapped up in his revenge arc for too much of the film's runtime. He eventually grows out of it towards the last act, though I just feel that there could have been such a better way to balance the part out, much like Russell Crowe wonderfully did in the original. It's remarkable that Pedro Pascal (Who gets much less screentime than you'd expect), can literally just pop up anywhere in any kind of role so often, and yet, still finds a way to make it feel unique and nonetheless engrossing (That man really likes to work). Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger make for some entertainingly cartoonish baddies, while still coming across as legit threatening because, well, what's more frightening than a pair of crazy buffoons holding the lives of thousands in their hands? (Also, can we give a shout-out to "Dundas" the monkey? Literally the MVP. Pun intended!) There's good supporting work from the likes of a returning Connie Nielsen and Alexander Karim (as "Ravi", a former gladiator that went on to become a doctor, who Lucius befriends), along with an unrecognizable Matt Lucas (as the eccentrically pale "Master of Ceremonies") and Derek Jacobi (as "Senator Gracchus", who still opposes the corruption in Rome), who is still cool to see, even if they don't do much with him. Now we get to Denzel Washington, who yes, doesn't remotely bother with an accent, though is undeniably such a powerful, commanding performer that you honestly don't care. He single-handedly steals the show as a sometimes charming, sometimes peculiar, and mysteriously frightening entity that you find yourself wanting to trust due to how strong his presence is, but know you likely shouldn't.
Campy, though however, affectionately so, "Gladiator II" recaptures the thrills and blood spills of the original, with enough slight sophistication to give off the feeling that you're just watching an over the top, empty calorie blockbuster. And you know what? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that (The few sprinkles of humor also probably helped). Are you NOT ENTERTAINED? Damn right I was! Oh!, And LONG LIVE DUNDAS! 3 1/2 Stars. Rated R For Harsh Violence, Roman Lechery, Unprofessional Beheading, Baboon Biting, And The Revelation That A Monkey In A Dress Is Still More Qualified Than Most Politicians.
Wicked by James Eagan ★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: I ship it. I know you do too. Pretty sure everyone does!
So let's see here. The original 1939 classic, "The Wizard of Oz", came out when the world was heading into World War II, with the United States still facing the effects of the Great Depression, and was a cinematic extravaganza that everyone just HAD to see. Now, we're getting a similar big budget, must see blockbuster based around the same source material, while we currently face an uncertain future, possible economic collapse (And we're still feeling the effects of COVID), and a charlatan has conned the public into thinking he's some kind of savior, using lies and propaganda that specifically target minority classes through fear and bigotry, while having vilified anyone who dares try to speak the truth, thus drawing attention away from the real problems at hand. That last part is both in the movie and in real life. Not sure if the timing of all this was intentional or not, but hey, it doesn't make it hurt any less.
Adapting the first half of the stage musical of the same name by Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman, which itself was a loose adaptation of the book of the same name by Gregory Maguire (And you know, is a sort of "What If?" version of the original stories of "Oz"), "Wicked" begins at the very end, with the apparent death of the "Wicked Witch of the West", along with the citizens of "Oz" celebrating. "Glinda the Good Witch", formerly known as "Galinda Upland" (Ariana Grande), reveals that there is more to the story than what everyone was led to believe. The film flashes back to show us who the Wicked Witch really was. A young, magically powerful, and tragically misunderstood woman, "Elphaba Thropp" (Cynthia Erivo), who was born with green skin, resulting in her being shunned because of it, even by her own father (Andy Nyman), the governor of "Munchkinland". Elphaba accompanies her beloved, paraplegic sister, "Nessarose" (Marissa Bode), to "Shiz University" (Think "Hogwarts", but with less Transphobia, though with some slight racism), where Galinda also just so happens to be attending. Elphaba's mysterious abilities accidentally cause a scene, leading to the Dean of Sorcery, "Madame Morrible" (Michelle Yeoh), to take Elphaba on as her apprentice, much to Galinda's dismay (Because she immediately assumed she would get the honor, simply because she always gets her way).
Elphaba and Galinda, who are also forced to share the same room, start out as bitter rivals, being total opposites in every way. However, the two end up developing a close bond, becoming close friends, while the land of Oz is currently going through a morally questionable time (Such as with the animal citizens starting to become treated lesser and lesser). While Elphaba's training continues, this eventually leads to her attracting the attention of Oz's much admired ruler, appropriately referred to as "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" (Jeff Goldblum). Sadly, Elphaba will soon discover that the Wizard isn't as wonderful as he appears and much of what everyone has been led to believe is based on falsehood. This starts Elphaba on the road to becoming the apparent villain of the story, or so we've always been told.
Directed by Jon M. Chu ("Crazy Rich Asians", "In the Heights"), with a screenplay from the returning Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox ("Cruella", "The Lost City"), "Wicked" may just be one of the most important movies of the year, and even has the possibility of being one of the decade's defining ones as well. It's certainly one that has accumulated a very devoted, almost cult-like fanbase thanks to the beloved musical and source material. It was up to Jon M. Chu to refrain from screwing the pooch and letting everyone down. Thankfully, it's just as eye popping, emotional, and just plain delightful at times, as the fans hoped it would be. Whether or not it's also an intentionally fitting look into current society is up to interpretation. The filmmakers have clearly poured a lot of hard work into making this long drawn out production a reality, without losing sight of what made everyone fall in love with the original, while still making for the kind of blockbuster that the whole family can get behind. From grandiose visuals, spectacular production design, vibrant costumes, and obviously, one heck of a soundtrack. The music, songs, and setpieces are all showstoppers, memorable, and catchy. Some of them might even be too catchy (I've had "Popular" stuck in my head all day). Just a warning though to any parents if they have young daughters, you best prepare yourself to be hearing a lot of these songs for the next few months. Think "Frozen" on steroids.
The cast and crew are what hold the stellar production values down, preventing them from overwhelming the audience to the point of distraction. And how else do you adapt one of the most well known musicals in recent memory for the big screen, after already having talent such as Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth bringing those roles to life? Luckily, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, who we've all seen can both can belt out a powerful tune like it's nothing, are as perfect a double act as can be. Already being an Oscar nominee, it's no shock that Erivo nails the part with confidence, tragedy, and perseverance, but to see Ariana Grande swoop in and steal every scene she's in is somewhat of a revelation. Grande plays the part a little stuck up and oblivious, but good hearted and irresistibly charming, making for one of this year's funniest performances. Despite the downer side of the story, there's a lot of well timed humor overall, especially from a really charming Jonathan Bailey (as "Fiyero Tigelaar", a seemingly vain, but more complicated Winkie prince that everyone crushes on, including Galinda and even Elphaba), who I can say, as a completely straight man, is a total dream boat. Michelle Yeoh is her usual commanding, graceful self, while supporting roles come from Marissa Bode (She's supposed to be the witch's sister? Um, I hope nothing bad happens to her in the next movie), Bowen Yang (as "Pfannee, one of Galinda's caddiest friends) playing Bowen Yang, a wonderful Peter Dinklage (as the voice of "Doctor Dillamond", a goat teacher at Shiz, who sadly has to deal with "Anti-Animal" rhetoric), and Ethan Slater (as "Boq Woodsman", a dorky munchkin, who Nessarose is crushing on, despite the fact that he only has eyes for Galinda), who I hate simply because he's that "Spongebob" musical guy that's apparently with Ariana Grande at the moment. (Seriously? What's he got that I don't got? Aside from money and talent, I guess) Meanwhile, Jeff Goldblum (Who makes the most out of limited screentime) being casted as the Wizard is as perfect a casting choice as you can get.
Serving as only a "Part One" to a two-parted epic (With the sequel scheduled to come out literally a year from right now), "Wicked" is wondrous, thoughtful, fun, and exactly what the movie loving public needs right now. The runtime of almost three hours breezes by (Though it is very much still a lot to process), and while the reliance on heavy CGI and green screen can be noticeable in places, it still looks phenomenal, making for the kind of magical spectacle that we only get a couple time a year at best. (Do yourself a favor and see it in 3D, because it makes for the best use of the gimmick since "Avatar: The Way of Water".) Once we reach the captivating finale, with Erivino and Grande bringing the famous number, "Defying Gravity", to the big screen, along with a rather well placed "To Be Continued", you'll be left happily frustrated that we will have to wait a year to get the rest of the story. It's Wicked awesome! There! I said it! 4 Stars. Rated PG For Dark Content, Scary Flying Monkeys, Green Skinned Bigotry, Lesbian Coding, Themes That Will Make You Both Sad And Angry Are Always Going To Be Necessary To Address, And Weaponized Hair Flipping.
Red One by James Eagan ★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: The recently released, top of the line action figures that will sell out this Holiday season. Warning! Your mother might love it more than you will!
So this is definitely a Netflix movie that I happened to see in theaters, right? I mean, it looks like one. Feels like one. Smells like one. Just because it's only slightly better, and I do mean slightly, than most of them might be the only reason I'm seeing it in theaters and not hating myself for doing so.
Set in a world of magic, monsters, and bureaucratic Intel keeping, "Red One" follows "Callum Drift" (Dwayne Johnson), the head of North Pole security, aka "E.L.F" (Enforcement, Logistics, and Fortification), for the jolly old, not so fat man himself, "Santa Claus" (J. K. Simmons), aka "Red One". Callum, who has lost a little faith in the holidays in recent years, and is planning to retire, only for Santa ending up kidnapped by a craft infiltration team of shape-shifters, led by the winter witch, "Gryla" (Kiernan Shipka). "Zoe Harlow" (Lucy Liu), the director of "M.O.R.A." (The Mythological Oversight and Restoration Authority), learns that Gryla's team manipulated an infamous, though much less legendary in person hacker, "Jack O'Malley" (Chris Evans), aka "The Wolf", into helping pinpoint the hidden location of Santa's secret workshop. Jack is brought in and forced to assist Callum on his mission to find Santa before Gryla puts her diabolical plan into motion, which may very well spell the end of Christmas as we know it.
Directed by Jake Kasdan ("Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story", "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle"), with a screenplay by Chris Morgan ("Wanted" and several of the "Fast & Furious" films, such as "Hobbs & Shaw"), "Red One" is an openly silly premise, played straight as if it was really a legit action thriller, like "Mission: Impossible" meets fantasy, with a holiday setting, hoping to balance it all with a comedic edge. I see what they're going for here, and the potential is there. While there is too much bloated CGI and heavy green screen, the film does have some nice production design, and the world building itself is actually pretty fun. There's something quite delightful to see how this world of magic, creatures, and technology that goes back and forth between looking like something you'd see in a Fantasy film or Sci-Fi one. I even love how they normalize everything in a way, with Elves, goblins, trolls, and other weird monsters going around, wearing glasses, working on computers, and talking about shift changes at work. There are also some genuinely menacing looking creations, like musclebound, killer snowmen and literal Hell hounds. Sadly, everything wrong with the movie comes from the direction, screenplay, and story. That's all where the Netflix vibes really come from. It's all aggressively generic stuff, with most of the humor falling flat due to how it doesn't want to draw too much attention to itself and dull characters. Kasdan's direction, which again is only hindered further by the film's bloated $200 million budget (If not more), is so muddled, with action scenes that you struggle to keep up with. It's kind of boring, and that's shocking to say considering that I saw the film in 4DX (Where the seats were literally throwing me around the entire time!).
Dwayne Johnson is here to play Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Evans is here to play Chris Evans (With a hint of Ryan Reynolds). Now I'll admit that they are playing more exaggerated versions of these types of characters, but the script doesn't give them much to stand out, with Evans easily getting the funniest lines, which I'm thoroughly confident were just him ad-libbing. We also get Lucy Liu, who doesn't get much to do except bark orders and look really hot, while Bonnie Hunt (as "Mrs. Claus") is given absolutely nothing to do. A miscast Kiernana Shipka makes for a pretty lame villain, where I get the feeling that the joke is that she's a demonic entity in the body of a cute and tiny girl, but she never gets to be funny and is certainly not remotely threatening. A reliably delightful J. K. Simmons is having a good time as our more jacked up Santa, who is tough, but sweet and good natured. Meanwhile, the biggest scene-stealer is Kristofer Hivju (as "Krampus", the frightening dark Lord of Christmas/Santa's brother), who is legitimately great in the movie, and gets the most inspired sequence involving a collection of creepy creatures (Brought to life both through CGI and done practically).
"Red One" isn't a disaster or a terrible film. It's just so remarkably unremarkable. It's got a good edge to it (Being family friendly, yet with strong language and darker elements), a few cool ideas, and, well, Krampus is awesome. Most of the characters are cookie cutter, it's not near funny enough, the action is uncreative and relies way too much sludgy looking special effects, and worst of all, it didn't need to be two hours long. Far too much padding for something that's essentially meant to be a farce, where everyone involved isn't supposed to realize it. I wouldn't call it a lump of coal in your stocking. It's more like a common, Wal-Mart sweater that your grandmother got you, and despite what you promised her, you're never going to wear it. In fact, there's a good chance you'll never see it again after that day. 2 Stars. Rated PG-13 For Language, Scary-ish Images, Hardcore Slapping, And Carrot Grabbing.
Heretic by James Eagan ★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Plotting his revenge on Paddington right now as we speak.
I've said it before, and I'm saying it again. We are in a new golden age of horror movies. Horror movies that are treated like prestige pictures, where acclaimed actors and actresses do them, not just for the money, but for the art of it. Or it could just be an excuse to act like a total maniac. Either way, good for them!
"Heretic" follows a pair of young, Mormon missionaries, the more professional, less talkative "Sister Barnes" (Sophie Thatcher) and the more innocent, quirky "Sister Paxton" (Chloe East), as they go from house to house to do the work of their Lord, like conversion, talking about the good word of Jesus, and all things Mormon. They stop at a secluded house, owned by an Englishman named "Mr. Reed" (Hugh Grant), who claims that his wife is in the kitchen baking a blueberry pie, meaning that it's okay for them to come inside. However once inside the house, Barnes and Paxton can't quite figure out if something might just be a little off about the situation. From Mr. Reed's charming, though analytical nature, to the fact that his wife is nowhere to be found, and even the house itself, which feels like an elaborately put together mouse trap, Barnes and Paxton soon realizes that they are part of a dangerous game of wits against someone who seems to have something to prove about their faith, along with, as he puts it, "The One True Religion".
Written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods (Creators of "A Quiet Place" and gave us the rather disappointing "65" last year), "Heretic" is a wild step up in quality. Not to mention, since the film is distributed through "A24", it feels right at home with that studio's roots of giving us a more artistic horror flick, with such an unconventional placement of fear. Beck and Woods don't have cheap jump scares or shock value on their mind. They seem to want to strike audiences at their very core, preying on our worries over death, what comes after, where we all come from, and what's truly out there beyond what we know. These concepts are terrifying on psychological levels for sure, but Beck and Woods turn them into nightmarish realities. It's right down to how creatively the film is shot, treating everything like a madman's dollhouse, with all the puppets inside trying to escape (A metaphor the film uses literally at times), retaining the feeling of claustrophobia (Especially since the film only takes place in a couple of similar looking rooms), while warily curious about what else might be waiting around the corner. It's a spectacular set, and the production design is Award worthy. Beck and Woods also just don't seem to be afraid of getting weird or elaborate either. The movie actually does have a sense of humor. It's an intentionally odd one that only plays into the sense of dread, where you find yourself laughing, albeit uneasily.
Due to this being such a close quarters film, it relies heavily on the imaginative camera work, dialogue heavy character establishment, and the star power of our actors. Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East immediately establish so much character in the film's opening couple minutes, keeping you intrigued by what they allow to be spoken so openly to what they could possibly be hiding. There ends up being much more to them than the possible victims, who also refreshingly try their absolute best to avoid some of the usual horror mistakes, while trying to come up with the best possible decisions in a seemingly unwinnable situation. Of course though, Hugh Grant, playing against time wonderfully, is the big draw here. It's an inspired performance that feels like he's weaponizing his most noticeable traits, such as being charmingly odd, funny, and unassuming, turning it into something thoroughly menacing. Not to mention, despite his villainy, he delivers some rather solid points about religion, the hypocrisies and marketable natures of each and every single one of them, and what's truly so frightening about the power of both belief and disbelief. It's a suspenseful joy to watch the characters go back and forth, trying to one up each other, and each delivering their own insight into the subject (Which believe it or not, somehow finds ways to involve things such as Wendy's, Monopoly, Bob Ross, and Jar Jar Binks. Trust me, hearing Hugh Grant do a Jar Jar impression is one of those things I didn't know I needed to hear).
"Heretic" hinges on the power of what you're willing to believe and I can admit that not everything works (It's meant to be a scary story, so you just gotta go with a few things). Nonetheless, it's eerily unpredictable, well paced, twisted thriller, with a brain. Hugh Grant is having an absolute blast bringing to life such a fascinatingly vile piece of work, while our heroines are much more than they first appear, making for a constantly moving puzzle that you can't wait to finish putting together by the end. 4 Stars. Rated R For Creepy Old Dudes, Menaced Mormons, Poisoned Pie, And Magic Underwear. Mormonism Will Never NOT Sound Weird To Me.
Anora by James Eagan ★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Me, moments before I lose all $20 to my name.
God, that was exhausting! I mean that positively by the way, but, yeah, was anyone else just worn the Hell out after watching this?
"Anora" follows "Anora Mikheeva" (Mikey Madison), though she prefers to go by "Ani", a young and brash stripper working in a Manhattan club, dreaming of a better life for herself. Her life takes an interesting turn when she meets "Ivan "Vanya" Zakharov" (Mark Edelstein), the young, immature, partying son of a wealthy Russian family. Ani agrees to accept payment to engage in some sexual sessions with Vanya, which eventually leads to Vanya paying Ani to pose as his girlfriend for a week, resulting in the two, I suppose, starting to fall in love. While on a trip to Vegas (and after Vanya lets it be known that if they were to be married, he'd get to stay in the United States), Ani and Vanya randomly elope, with Ani quitting her job, becoming Vanya's devoted wife, and getting the life she's always thought she's wanted. Then everything proceeds to come crashing down when Vanya's reputation obsessed parents find out, sending Vanya's godfather, "Toros" (Karren Karagulian), along with his bumbling goons, "Garnick" (Vache Tovmasyan) and "Igor" (Yura Borisov), to get the marriage annulled and bring Vanya back to Russia. It turns out to be a task easier said than done though, as Ani is an incredibly difficult person to control and Vanya outright bails, running off somewhere in the city. Now Ani has to team up with Toros and his henchmen to track down her missing husband, with chaos ensuing all around.
Written and directed by Sean Baker ("Tangerine", "The Florida Project", "Red Rocket"), "Anora" is yet another fascinating, at times crude and abrasive, though understanding and thoughtful look into subjects that usually find themselves either as the butt of the joke or just as a symbol of disrespect among the masses. That makes it loud, crass, obnoxious, and like I said before, thoroughly exhausting, yet also funny, touching, and even quite tragic. Baker's direction has never been better. Something about the way he films his movies always makes me feel like I'm there, living in the moment with the characters (For better or for worse). Despite what you might be led to believe, this is a straight up comedy, with some noticeable dramatic elements. And when I say comedy, it's a pretty broad comedy. Nonetheless, it's pretty damn hilarious at times. After a likely intentionally slow start, it evolves into absolute insanity, with screwball elements, drawn out sequences of mayhem and misunderstandings, and so much yelling over each other (Along with absurdly out of nowhere moments of physical violence).
It's around the halfway point where you can really notice what exactly this movie is going for, with a delightfully unhinged sequence involving everything that goes down in the living room of Vanya's family mansion. It feels like it just goes on forever, yet that's what makes it all the better. Everything that can go wrong goes wrong. Everything that can break breaks. It's absolutely, frustrating, comedic madness, and it's genuinely brilliantly crafted. However, I will admit to being somewhat in the minority here. I wouldn't exactly consider this one of the best films of the year. Oh don't get me wrong. It's still an excellent film, that may find a place in my "Top 25 Best Films of 2024" (Maybe. Still got another month or two of films to get through). It's just that when your movie reaches the over two hour mark, and happens to feel it too, it's a lot to take in. It's even more to have to endure. It also starts off a little slow (Developing the doomed romance the best one can with a story like this). Thankfully, it's only briefly that you feel these issues, with the film's zany nature and committed performances winning you over in the end.
Mikey Madison, who has been a star in the making for quite a while now, gets her moment in the spotlight, and it's about damn time she did. This is such a challenging role to make likable or just be one that you actually enjoy watching. So easily could this have been over the top in all the wrong ways. Madison, however, doesn't play it as such. If anything, she makes it feel real, powerful, and heartbreaking. You can see behind the strong willed persona, who speaks her mind even when she knows damn well she shouldn't, is someone looking for the kind of happiness that any of us would be looking for, then gets swept up in all the money, fancy clothes, and the glossy cover of it all. She and Mark Edelstein are a ton of fun together, though I never quite bought them entirely romantically. I noticed some were saying how it feels like a genuine romance that's only destined to end in tears, but I totally saw it a different way. I knew the whole time that he was a childish little sh*t, who was just using her, and would dump her the moment all his debauchery caught up with him. She just sadly didn't see it until it was too late. I felt like that was more of the intention behind it, though I suppose I can't say for sure. Karen Karagulian (Who is always struggling to hold back a mental breakdown) and especially Vache Tovmasyan (Who spends the entire film's runtime in immense pain due to being kicked in the face, keeps complaining about it, and is repeatedly on the verge of passing out), are both laugh out loud hilarious in their respectively worn down performances, while Yura Borisov is wonderfully subtle in a part that may take a predictable route, though he makes the emotions sincere enough to balance it out.
While it's certainly a bit too much for itself, especially for its probably overlong length (Which is funny because I haven't had those kinds of issues with films this year that have been even longer), "Anora" is a confidently, chaotically crafted spectacle of lunacy from Sean Baker, who really knows how to find the humanity in such things better than most directors and storytellers working today. Mikey Madison is a revelation, while the film's wild attitude does eventually lead to a sense of sadness that I wouldn't say is exactly unexpected, but might still catch a few people off guard. 4 Stars. Rated R For, Phew Boy, Strong Language, Sexual Content And Nudity, Drug Use, Excessive Battery, More Strong Language, Unintelligible Mumbling Accents From All Over, And Even More Strong Language. Straight Up Weaponizes Swear And Insults In Brutal Fashion.
Here by James Eagan ★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: They do actually look like High Schoolers......on Netflix! Fifty years ago!
It needs to be studied exactly how and why Robert Zemeckis has fallen off over the past couple decades. For some, he fell off even earlier than that. A director who has crafted a collection of beloved films in his filmography, and yet, now his work has become associated with hollow, awkward schmaltz (And his obsession with filmmaking techniques and technology, no matter how stunning it can be, tends to lead to some inconsistent results. Basically, if anyone is going to make a completely AI generated film, I'd believe it would be him!). I wouldn't say it's been all terrible (Okay, I don't know what the Hell he was thinking with "Welcome to Marwen"), but even when the hearts in the right place, something genuine has always been missing. Even with this film, which is a lot better than you'd be led to believe, still can't seem to overcome the same issues that have plagued his most recent films.
Based on the comics strip/graphic novel by Richard McGuire, "Here" is set in one, single spot, over the course of several generations, with most of the story being staged in one room, in one house. Most of the film is centered on the "Young" family (That may or may not be on the nose. I can't tell), starting off in 1945 with veteran husband "Al" (Paul Bettany) and his wife, "Rose" (Kelly Reilly), move into the house after rose learns she's pregnant. After having children (With Al also starting to become more bitter as time goes on), their oldest son "Richard" (Tom Hanks) marries his high school sweetheart "Margaret" (Robin Wright), after she becomes pregnant with their daughter, "Vanessa" (Zsa Zsa Zemeckis). Eventually, Richard and Margaret inherit the house (Despite Margaret's protests and Richard giving up his artist dreams to settle for typical salesmen jobs), going through many struggles along the way, while the film repeatedly flashes forward and backward in time, showing the other people who lived in the house and their stories. Or at least, pieces of their stories.
Directed by Robert Zemeckis (The "Back to the Future" trilogy, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", "Forrest Gump", and many others), who co-wrote the screenplay with Eric Roth ("A Star Is Born", "Killers of the Flower Moon"), "Here" is a fairly ambitious project, at least for something trying to appeal to a more mainstream audience. Such a task is filled with many challenges for any filmmaker to deal with, regardless of how seasoned they are. You gotta make it feel like it's not a gimmick, or boring, or too artificial looking. Unfortunately, the film doesn't entirely succeed at accomplishing its main goal. However, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that there is something effective about it. In a way, in spite of itself, the film has plenty of moments that really work.
To get the frustrations out of the way though, much of the issues are in terms of direction, the screenplay, the dialogue, and the execution. The whole thing is a cinematic play, which means that the actors have to put more emotional emphasis into their roles, to the point where it can seem a bit more over the top or comical than intended. The story, being told in a non-linear format, doesn't always gel and leaves much to be desired in some areas and focuses too much on other, less interesting aspects. The script is too often so in your face with the points it's trying to make that you can predict what some characters are going to say moments before their mouths open. And most glaring of all, the film is full of de-aging effects and is almost entirely green screen for the most part, so it never feels real. Sure, something the aging up or aging down of certain actors can work (Granted, with the likes of Robin Wright, Kelly Reilly, or even Paul Bettany, you don't have to do much really), there are times it makes certain actors look so offputting and oddly gooey (Ya did Tom Hanks so wrong in this!). The film does shockingly work when it's dialogue-free, focusing more on the visual storytelling, such as sequences showcasing the passage of time (From the dinosaurs, growing wildlife, indigenous people experiencing similar events to what later transpires, or just seeing progress at work). These sequences are pretty to look at and make for a surreal kind of experience. I feel that this is closer to what Zemeckis was going for, showing the audience how so much beauty, despair, or just the mundane, can happen in just one spot, while time flies by almost in the blink of an eye. It's almost downright compelling to witness, and I think there should have been more like it. Not to mention, the film's use of split screens also has its moments.
Even with the film's unevenness, a lot of the actors are trying their best and for the most part, do overcome the limitations of the very premise itself. Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, even with all the artificial effects covering the screen, still have lots of chemistry together, making their uneasy marriage feel more genuine than certainly the film's screenplay does. Kelly Reilly is as lovely, charming, and classy as she always is (Something about her smile and vocal expressions), while Paul Bettany ends up being the film's most complex character, with the best story arc (Starting off as a recovering veteran, who becomes more cynical as time goes on due to what he's sacrificed, eventually becoming a bitter father and husband with a drinking problem, before tragedy ends up pushing him to become better during the last act of his life). The film does criminally waste Michelle Dockery (as the wife of the house's first tenant, who has a miserable time living there), and has a few other plots that don't add much (Like this whole thing with the guy that invented the La-Z-Boy or how the area was once owned by Benjamin Franklin's illegitimate son). There's also a story involving an African American couple (Played by Nicholas Pinnock and Nikki Amuka-Bird), who take over the house much later (And eventually leave during COVID), that got more attention, because there ends up being something quite captivating about that section of the film, despite its simplicity (Or maybe, it works because of its simplicity).
"Here" has moments of heart, humor, or just parts of the human experience, that are powerful to watch. It just doesn't all come together like it should. The tone is inconsistent and there's way too much being shoved in without cohesion for some of it. It's held back by Zemeckis' need to oversaturate and over explain, which does so much more of a disservice than he realizes. There's a great film somewhere inside this noble, but disorganized experiment. It sadly just can't seem to break out of the schmaltz. 2 1/2 Stars. Rated PG-13 For Some Language And For The Word "Here" Being Used Not Enough To Make It Feel Intentional, Yet Just Enough To Make For A Dangerous Drinking Game.
Nightbitch by James Eagan ★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: She prefers the name "Night-Female Dog", personally.
I wan't to thank the Austin Film Festival for this wonderful film going experience this past week. Much like the last couple years, regardless of how I might feel about a movie, I have nothing but appreciation for everyone's hard work that went into making the Golden Age of Hollywood premieres feel alive once again. Again, I'm not sure I actually cared for this particular movie, but I'm glad I saw it and got to see it with a big, almost overly excited audience. When you see so many movies like I do, at various times of the day, in an admittedly lackluster theater from time to time, this was still totally worth it!
Based on the novel by Rachel Yoder, "Nightbitch" follows an unnamed "Mother" (Amy Adams), who is going through a depressing rut in life. Her unnamed "Husband" (Scoot McNairy) is always heading away for work, meaning that the stay at home Mother is left alone to raise their son (Played by both Arleigh and Emmett Snowden). Mother, who was once an aspiring artist that gave up all her hopes and dreams for her family, is not in the best state of mind, as she starts to get the idea that she just might be turning into a dog.
Written and directed by Marielle Heller ("Can You Ever Forgive Me?", "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood"), "Nightbitch" boasts a surreal, twisted premise, with ideas that I can see resonating with the wine mom crowd. The film has a lot going for it, and at times, there's a lot to enjoy about it. However, while the film's seeming commitment to its odd story is to be commended, it eventually becomes frustratingly apparent that it's not willing to go all the way with it. It also doesn't help that once the film reaches the halfway point, you start to realize that the filmmakers are merely going to scratch the surface of craziness, rather than bury their face in it like a dog would do to their food bowl. It more or less nibbles on the idea, rather than sinks its teeth into it. While sporadically funny, the film just feels sloppy when it comes to its execution, like it's holding back in a way. One moment it's a light hearted, fairly crude comedy. Then it drifts into horror territory, with some slight body horror (Although, after "The Substance", this is so neutered by comparison). Yet, it also wants to be an uplifting fable with something to say. Sure, I'm all behind its point about how strong and underappreciated women are, especially mothers (I mean, they literally push little, living breathing bodies out of their bodies. Us dudes could never do that! We lose our sh*t if our pee stings just slightly!), but the film itself ends up being too weird for its own good and somehow, not weird enough.
With all that said, I have nothing but high praise for Amy Adams, who is given her best role in years and is definitely more than Oscar worthy, even if the film itself is far from it. It is not remotely a glamorous part for her (Although, you really can't make me not find Amy Adams cute as Hell, no matter how much you try), but she goes all in. In fact, she shows more commitment than the film seems to be showing. It's a challenge to make a character like this work, without making her too overly whiney or selfish, with her situation being completely understandable and her even acknowledging that from an outside view, her wanting more out of her life could look a bit self-regarding. Even during the film's most peculiar moments, like where she literally gets on all fours, grows a tail and digs up the backyard (Before going, well, full Nightbitch!), Adams is perfect and deserves better. Scoot McNairy does a good job playing the well-meaning dad, who might just be a little too oblivious and safe in the current state of his marriage, though never remotely comes across as a bad, uncaring husband and father. The little actors playing the son are clearly, well, not actors, though there is something quite charming about their clearly spoon fed line delivery. If anything, it feels more genuine this way. Jessica Harper (as "Norma", the local librarian, who seems to drop hints that she might know more about the Mother's current situation).
Despite Amy Adams' beautifully bold performance, "Nightbitch" doesn't do her justice. The film settles down in the last act, and that's where it's at its best. It becomes rather compelling when the film's more dramatic aspect takes over the story, though it only adds to the film's messy structure, particularly how the whole "Woman turns into a dog" premise becomes a non-entity. I can see there being a version of this where all these strange elements come together in wacky harmony. Sadly, this ain't it. Not a particularly bad film. It's just, with a title and story idea like that, nobody would fault you for expecting something stranger and stronger. 2 Stars. Rated R For Adult Content, Butt Puss, Cat-Astrophe (The Moment I Saw That Cat, I Just Knew THAT Was Gonna Happen), Doggystyle.
The Brutalist by James Eagan ★★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Me, trying to convince my future wife to let me buy that new LEGO Death Star.
Things have been hectic and busy for me, mostly due to the Austin Film Festival. In fact, I saw this a couple days ago, and am only now having time to talk about it. I've only seen a handful of films so far, but that doesn't mean it's been any less exhausting. This is especially true since so far, while none of the films had been bad up until this point, the couple films I saw ranged from good to at least just alright. Nothing has quite wowed me yet until now. Nothing yet made me scream at the top of my lungs "This is why we come to the movies!". Granted, even though we've had many great films and even future classics, I couldn't think of anything that could match something like say, last year's "Oppenheimer". That movie did raise the bar for me in so many ways. 2024 was just saving up to unleash something on that level.
Set after World War II, "The Brutalist" follows brilliant Hungarian-Jewish architect, "László Tóth" (Adrien Brody), who is forced to separate from his loving wife, "Erzsébet" (Felicity Jones) and his niece, "Zsófia" (Raffey Cassidy), following the Holocaust, before being able to immigrate to America, not knowing if they're even alive. After learning about Erzsébet and Zsófia's survival, László finds a place to stay and work in Philadelphia, with his immigrant, already pretty Americanized cousin, "Attila" (Alessandro Nivola), and his American wife, "Audrey" (Emma Laird), at their furniture store. Attila and László are hired by "Harry Lee Van Buren" (Joe Alwyn), the son of the incredibly wealthy industrialist, "Harrison Lee Van Buren" (Guy Pearce), to renovate his father's study. László's unconventional, yet truly inspired design later causes a rift between him and Attila (Among other things). Some time later, Harrison meets with László personally to thank him for the study. Harrison then offers László to live at his estate while also commissioning him to construct an overly elaborate community center in honor of his late mother. László agrees to do so, especially when it's arranged for Erzsébet (Who is revealed to have developed Osteoporosis) and Zsófia (Who is now mute), to find passage into America. Reunited with what remains of his family, László begins work on the building, which proves to become more and more difficult due to conflicting ideas, the struggle to keep his family happy, the lack of respect he receives from his so-called friends, and the absolutely bonkers ambitions behind the project as a whole. László soon starts to realize that the advertised American Dream might just be only that. A dream.
Directed by Brady Corbet ("Vox Lux"), who co-wrote the screenplay with longtime partner, Mona Fastvold, "The Brutalist" is a nearly four hour, epic drama, that features no big special effects, isn't based on a popular source material, and also apparently didn't even have that big of a budget (Around $10 million). It's not even based on a true story. It's an original, carefully calculated, and complicated piece of artistic wonder that might just be the best made movie of the year due to its technical achievements alone. However, take those aspects out and what you also get is a gripping, relatable tale that's engrossing to watch, occasionally funny and heartfelt, thoroughly devastating in places, and nonetheless poignant. Corbet truly captures the era and weaves in this mixing of tones, giving off the feeling of something sweeping and magnificent, as if you're reading the most legendary of novels, that just so happens to be about as something as simple as people trying to achieve the unachievable. And in a way, is there no greater story than that?
I had the honor of seeing the film in 35mm, which did wonders for the film's sense of awe-inspiring scope, conveying how huge and almost fantastical America can look and feel to those looking at it with fresh eyes. Of course though, it's not just the beauty we witness. We also see the seductive allure and the promise of success, along with how it can lure people into believing that they belong, when in reality, they're just pawns to those who have likely already inherited the means of that success. It also certainly encompasses how I think immigrants and foreigners, from all over the world, must feel. To be treated as if you're never going to be one of the everyday people and will never truly have a place here unless you're useful to their means (And even then, some will just tolerate you're very existence until they no longer have to). Hell, I'd go as far as to say that this can apply to anyone who finds themselves unable to make it in this country, with how much easier it is to be swayed by drugs, sex, money, the illusion of power, or the promise of acceptance, instead of actual happiness. The film doesn't hold back when it comes to how these uncomfortable themes, portraying them in ways that might make some a bit squeamish or even trigger others.
Adrien Brody gives probably the best performance that I've ever seen from him. It definitely looks like one that really took an emotional toll on him, having to essentially detail ten years worth of a struggling, somewhat eccentric and admittedly flawed, but hardworking, passionate man's life in just less than four hours. Felicity Jones (Who doesn't actually show up in person until an hour and forty minutes in), is just plain wonderful in a seemingly understated performance that also seems to hide something much stronger beneath it. We get some excellent work from the likes of a brief part for Alessandro Nivola, Emma Laird, Raffey Cassidy, a terrific Isaach de Bankolé (as "Gordon", a close, African American friend to László, who also has gotten the full true poor American experience), Stacy Martin (as "Maggie", Harrison's daughter, who is basically less vile by comparison), and a pompously unlikable Joe Alwyn. Guy Pearce, doing one of the best self-indulgent, fake posh, rich American accent, is outstanding, going back and forth between just humorously unlikable to downright despicable in every conceivable way. In a time when people can still be so easily swayed by the illusion of the rich and elite, I think it's something poignant to show how they'll gladly take advantage of you and even abuse you (In a physical way too), when they feel like it.
Think of it as the Anti-"Megalopolis". Both films feature inspiring, though somewhat odd architects, with something to say about how we perceive the United States, and are told like monumental novel or legend, with intricate moving parts all going on at once. Except one of them actually seems to get what a human being is. A sweeping epic, packed with memorable characters and performances (Sometimes small, sometimes major), and a simple, personal tale that's all too human, "The Brutalist" is this year's "Oppenheimer" in the sense that is also just plain might be the best made movie I've seen this year. From direction, editing, the overall visual craft behind it, and the fact that it's nearly four hours, yet I never once noticed it. It's a sincerely moving story that will have you invested from beginning to end, with something to say about how we perceive this fantastical idealistic version of America, allowing it to cloud our judgement when it comes to its flaws (Not realizing that those flaws just might be part of the experience, for better or for worse). 5 Stars. Rated R For Very Strong Adult Content, Involving Sex, Drug Use, And Other Elements That Some Audience Members May Need To Take A Moment To Turn Away From.
Conclave by James Eagan ★★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: "Hm, this is WAY more than 12 Angry Men"
There are very few Oscar worthy films that can appeal to a wide range of varying demographics. It's sophisticated and classy, looking like one of those surefire Best Picture nominees with brains and heart. It's got some heavy, topical, and even controversial themes that still somehow never get the film's rating past a "PG". It's a "Boomer" movie that you can see playing on TNT for Father's Day. It's also very modernized and relevant that I can see the far, religious right calling it "Woke" and "Blasphemous" in equal measures. It's so pulpy that it could border on trashy entertainment. Hell, in terms of entertainment value, it's a pure popcorn muncher with all the twists and turns it takes. It's one of those movies that will get a collection of "What?"s, "No Way!"s, and "OH SH*T!"s, in equal measure. Guys, this movie was awesome!
Based on the novel by Robert Harris, "Conclave" opens after the death of the much loved, quite progressive pope, it falls upon "Cardinal Thomas Lawrence" (Ralph Fiennes), the Dean of the College of Cardinals, to gather everyone for a papal conclave, where a vote is to commence and determine who will become the next pope. Tensions are already a little high, with Lawrence having a bit of a crisis of faith and duty, sending his support towards the fellow Liberal "Aldo Bellini" (Stanley Tucci), who really doesn't want the title, though will gladly accept if that means that the church will continue on its currently more open minded social path. However, it turns out to be quite the challenge, due to some of the other popular candidates, like the popular, though vehemently anti-homosexual "Joshua Adeyemi" (Lucian Msamati), the strictly traditionalist and racist/xenophobic "Goffredo Tedesco" (Sergio Castellitto), the conservative "Joseph Tremblay" (John Lithgow), who Lawrence has learned fell out of favor with the last pope (With there being a rumor that Tremblay was actually dismissed from duty before the Pope died). Lawrence himself gets a few votes after an impassioned speech about embracing diversity and chance (Though Lawrence sincerely doesn't want the title either), and "Vincent Benitez" (Carlos Diehz), an optimistic Mexican archbishop that nobody even knew existed until today. Throughout the various sessions, where none of the candidates repeatedly fail to gain enough votes to win the election, Lawrence slowly makes various discoveries about each of the main candidates, learning of many secrets and scandals, which only further test his own faith. All this is while there appears to be something more hectic appears to be going down outside the secluded Conclave.
Directed by Edward Berger ("All Quiet on the Western Front"), with a screenplay by Peter Straughan ("Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", "The Men Who Stare at Goats", "Our Brand Is Crisis"), "Conclave" genuinely does play out like an airport paperback novel or like an old, rather sensationalized black and white film. There is something rather knowing about the film, despite being a pretty serious film. It feels like a Shakespearean detective story that's found itself wrapped in both religious and political intrigue, with clear allegories to some recent events, like our upcoming, possibly democracy-ending election coming up. It's not exactly meant to be realistic, with so many events and revelations happening over the course of just a couple days. The movie completely seems to get that it's fiction, through and through. However, it's this old school and mature, yet never crude or indulgent, dramatic thriller, that puts heavy emphasis on the dramatic part. That makes it equal parts captivating, shocking, and immensely entertaining in ways that make you feel more sophisticated and smarter than you actually are, but also surprisingly fun as if you're, as the kids say, "Spilling tea", of the juiciest caliber. It's a film that may revolve around a bunch of old dudes bickering in a secluded place, wearing the most fabulous of Catholic costumes, but dear God is it exciting. Berger keeps the pace going and the mystery thoroughly suspenseful, where you're constantly on the edge of your seat to find out what other dark secrets are about to exposed, with hints being dropped about every single twist throughout. Berger's direction is crisp, fast paced, and at times, says much more through visuals than the dialogue. The film has a lot of fun with the modernized setting, with the sights of Catholic Cardinals smoking, messing around on their phones, and vaping, making for some levity, as well as playing into the themes religious progress and adapting to the changing world, despite the contradictions of the past and how so many would rather keep to traditions (Regardless of how bigoted or dangerous it might be). This is also elevated by a pounding, almost overly dramatic score from Volker Bertelmann (Who worked with Berger on "All Quiet on the Western Front"), that occasionally jump scares you into attention with its thematic stings.
The biggest draw though (And the reasons for some early Oscar talk) would be the performances, which are not limited to, but are certainly led into cinematic glory by, Ralph Fiennes. An actor who has often been ignored by the Academy members, who often use the phrases "Always great" or "I'm sure he'll get a win eventually". It's such an emotionally vulnerable role, serving as a worthy counter to how some commanding performers feel the need to rely on bravado or by beating their chest like a gorilla. Instead, Fiennes conveys disillusionment, fear, heartbreak, and eventually, hope, in times that make it harder and harder to keep your faith. The whole movie is loaded with actors who we know are always bringing their A game. Stanley Tucci plays that flawed leftist that is certainly on the right side of things and has only the best of intentions, even if he too can't seem to avoid feeling the need to play the political game. We got a perfectly self-righteous John Lithgow, an entertainingly detestable Sergio Castellitto (Who despite being arguable the worst person out of all of them, is at least so open about it that he might end up being the least corrupt by comparison), a complex Lucian Msamati, Brían F. O'Byrne (as "Monsignor Raymond O'Malley", Lawrence's assistant, who becomes his Watson of sorts), and a jaw dropping breakout for Carlos Diehz (Who ends up getting the heaviest, most difficult material). Isabella Rossellini (as "Sister Agnes", the head nun and housekeeper), has a small, but vital part, remaining quiet for the most part until it becomes her time to absolutely command the screen in an applause worthy moment.
With fascinating characters, a smart script filled with levity and relevance (Relating so much of what happens to many current events and debates, such as the place of religion in today's society, diversity, the role of women, conflicts of cultures, corruption of power, and a few other things I can't get into), "Conclave" is a rousing experience that's best had with a packed audience. I will say though that it's sure to become one of this year's more controversial great films, mostly due to the film's final twist, which I can see people getting all kinds of reactions to. From shock, laughter, bewilderment, disgust (Although F*ck those guys), or even some offense (I can't go into details, but I completely understand why they would). Plenty will also find it moving. It's a complicated reveal that might not work for everyone, and I'm not one to say that it should. It will spark some interesting debates to say the least, and that's something that the film most of all understands. The importance of these different, conflicting views, and how the power of doubt is just what makes us human. And yeah, it's also just really thrilling in such an old fashioned way that's bound to get an explosive rise out of moviegoers all around. 4 1/2 Stars. Rated PG For Adult Content, Heavy Material, Controversial Topics, Turtle Trouble, And Old Farts In The Most Elegant Of Dresses. No Judgement Here. They All Look Fabulous!
Venom: The Last Dance by James Eagan ★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: That's the face that 100% is gonna give you that 18 inches of Venom.
Sony's Spider-Man-Less Spider-Man Universe has gone absolutely nowhere over the course of six years, with the likes of "Morbius" and "Madame Web" opening to critical failure and financial disappointment (No high hopes for the upcoming "Kraven the Hunter" either). Yet, somehow, their rather intentionally moronic, half-assed, and unapologetically weird iteration of the classic former comic book villain, turned beloved anti-hero, has found a way to get a trilogy out of it. An actual complete trilogy! Despite only getting a modest profit and generally receiving mixed at best reviews, this franchise has accumulated its own, pretty queer (Or at least, queer embracing) fanbase, and regardless of how even the biggest haters might feel, they too have just sort of come to accept it for what it is. This! Is! VENOM! And I'm actually pretty sad to see the adventures of this mumbling Tom Hardy (And that big, black, sharp toothed parasite that he's got shoved up his ass) come to a bittersweet end.
Following the events of the last film (Along with that quick post credits scene from "Spider-Man: No Way Home", where the titular anti-hero arrives in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, only to get booted out minutes later after getting drunk off his ass), "Venom: The Last Dance" opens with former investigative journalist, "Eddie Brock" (Tom Hardy), and his Symbiote parasite/buddy/maybe lover, "Venom" (Voiced by Tom Hardy), still on the run from the authorities, though are now pursued for presumably killing police detective, "Patrick Mulligan" (Stephan Graham). Eddie and Venom have plans to clear their name, embarking on a journey to New York City. Meanwhile in a secret alien studying facility under Area 51, traumatized scientist, "Teddy Payne" (Juno Temple), has Mulligan alive (Kind of) and insane due to having bonded with a Symbiote of his own, while the alien hating general, "Rex Strickland" (Chiwetel Ejiofor), has every intention of bringing in Eddie and Venom, dead or alive. Along the way to New York, Eddie and Venom are attacked by a bloodthirsty Symbiote tracking monster, having been sent by Venom's trapped creator, "Knull" (Voiced by Andy Serkis), who knows that the "Codex" (Which can free him from his prison), is actually within both Eddie and Venom. Now being hunted by both military and alien forces, Eddie and Venom must take part in a final dance to save the world, even if it means that there's a possibility that they just might lose each other by its end.
Written and directed by Kelly Marcel (In her directorial debut, after having served as a writer for all three films), "Venom: The Last Dance" brings the wacky, unhinged mis-adventures of two of Marvel's most baffling icons in recent memory. Believe it or not, both "Deadpool" and "Wolverine" make so much more sense by comparison. This is one of those movies that seems to know who its target audience is, what they want, and what they're logically able to do. Sony has never clearly wanted to go for anything grand, though to the point they're yet to make a movie that's even as good as the worst that the MCU has given us. This movie is no different. However, much like the first two, there is something so sincere about it. It's silly stuff, and yet, everyone seems to know this. In fact, it's almost like that's the whole point. I'm not gonna say that it's bad on purpose (Mostly because there is so much worse out there). It's just not entertainment of the highest caliber. Not even by popcorn movie levels. As far as the plot goes, it's fairly generic comic book stuff. When it comes to the visual effects, they look cool, though very copy and paste (Sony ain't gonna deal out that Disney level money after all). Even in terms of its direction, it's nothing too special. Marcel makes up for it by obviously pouring her heart into it, with some creative action setpieces and some even more energy being put into scenes that are just plain goofy for the Hell of it (We get Venom Horse, Venom Fish, Venom Frog, etc.). The film's stakes are basically universe ending, and yet, Eddie and Venom take time to stop and dick around in Vegas, with Venom indulging in his gambling addiction. These movies have damn near been a farce this whole time, and it's no shock that the third one wouldn't be any different.
Regardless of how you feel about the tone or execution these films seem to go for, you can't deny how much love Tom Hardy seems to have for it and his characters. With Eddie's impossible to decipher accent and Venom's deep, yet playfully obnoxious voice, there has always been a sort of chemistry between them which is both amusingly stupid, surprisingly sweet, and well, maybe a little on the Gay side. Believe it or not, that actually adds so much genuine charm to a franchise that only exists because Sony refuses to let go of the rights to the Spider-Man characters. It's a predictable story that doesn't have much weight when it comes to its script, but Hardy brings everything he has to it and makes it feel like we're all actually saying goodbye to an old friend. An occasionally annoying, human head eating old friend, but one that I'm actually gonna miss. We also have actors that could have just been sleep-walking throughout the film, though the likes of Chiwetel Ejiofor (Who does get an actual character arc in the film), Juno Temple, Clark Bacco (as one of the scientists, who has sympathy for the Symbiotes), and Stephen Graham (Despite returning only for some exposition) are all giving something extra to the material. Rhys Ifans and Alanna Ubach (as a couple of alien-obsessed hippie parents, whose family happens to pick up a hitch-hiking Eddie and Venom) pop up to give some rather oddly placed, though still genuine performances in one of the few sequences where the film stops to have some pathos to balance out the silliness. We also get the return of Peggy Lu (as "Mrs. Chen", the smart-talking convenience store owner from the last two films, who has formed an unconventional friendship with Eddie and Venom) in a delightfully out of nowhere musical moment where she dances with Venom to "Dancing Queen".
It also shouldn't be a shock to anyone that Knull is given little screentime and little to do, despite being the main villain (Anyone who knows the character from the comics knows how he's definitely too much of a Thanos-level threat for something so small scale like this). He looks cool, has Andy Serkis' awesome voice, and is plenty menacing when delivering some by the numbers villain dialogue, but this does feel like it's all meant to serve as setup for something else down the line (And compared to the other baffling stingers these Sony movies have had in the past, there is at least something of interest that I wouldn't mind getting more of). Most of the villainous heavy lifting is done by a collection of "Xenophages", who are personality-free, mindless monsters, that still have their effectively scary moments (And even push the PG-13 rating a bit in how they literally shred people into bloody goo). There is an onslaught of fanservice during the climax that feels both like a "Jumping the Shark" moment and something very much at home with the chaos.
Campy, stupid, lacking in substance or urgency, "Venom: The Last Dance" is all of these things, yet also entertainingly so, with a few undemanding laughs, a brisk under two hour pace, and a heart that's always in the right place. It's the kind of guilty pleasure nonsense that you're either going to have the time of your life with or just leave agitated and annoyed with. However, if you're really someone who gets THAT bent out of shape with the third Venom movie, you're kind of missing the point. While it's still lesser than even the weakest of recent material the MCU has given us, I'm thoroughly gonna miss the wacky, homo-erotic adventures of these two knuckleheads. 3 Stars. Rated PG-13 For Some Surprisingly Violent And Scary Images, The Revelation That Mrs. Chen Is Low-Key Hot As Hell, And Symbiote Sexual Tension.
Smile 2 by James Eagan ★★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: Smile, Darn Ya, Smile! You know this old world is a great world after all!
2022's surprise hit "Smile" (Which was almost released only on Paramount+, but was changed due to positive test screenings) really took something that we normally don't associate with fear and brilliantly made it feel like something out of your darkest nightmares. Smiling. Honestly, smiling is scary. Just some random guy staring at you, with a gigantic grin on their face for no reason. Just staring. And staring. And, well, you get the point. That's scary man! And you're damn right they're gonna make a franchise out of it!
After a quick prologue that also serves as an epilogue to the last film involving poor "Joel" (Kyle Gallner) attempting to rid himself of the parasitic demonic, smiling entity, "Smile 2" opens with a world famous pop star, "Skye Riley" (Naomi Scott), who is preparing to make a grand comeback tour after dealing with extreme substance abuse which led to a terrible car crash that killed her boyfriend and left her with permanent injuries. However, Skye is still not in the right state of mind and her overbearing mother/manager, "Elizabeth" (Rosemarie DeWitt) isn't helping matters. Skye seeks out an old friend/drug dealer, "Lewis" (Lukas Gage), who is acting especially unhinged when she arrives. Lewis is drugged up, rambling, and claims to be seeing some horrifying images, and then proceeds to collapse into convulsions. Suddenly, Lewis starts grinning at Skye and then smashes his own face in with a metal weight right in front of her. Now, this sadistic entity has attached itself to Skye and it's not letting her go until it's driven absolutely insane, forcing her to see gruesome images left and right, mostly in the form of people with twisted smiles. Skye, with her mental health constantly in question, is forced to deal with her entire life crashing down as well as the entity's eventual endgame, forcing her to kill herself in a brutal manner.
Written and directed by the returning Parker Finn, "Smile 2" does what most sequels tend to do (Especially horror ones), and that goes for bigger, badder, and grander. However, when that becomes the intent, they generally risk losing sight of what made the original so effective and why it connected with people in the first place. Look at stuff like "Friday the 13th" or the bizarre places the "Halloween" franchise was going. Parker Finn seems to keep in mind that while one should strive to take things further than before, yet also can't lose sight of the humble beginnings that birthed this demented horror franchise, crafting a sequel that's in some ways, just as resonate as the original, though in many ways, genuinely superior. In fact, in terms of straight up horror sequels, this might be one of the best ones I can think of at the moment in some time. To the point where I'm not dreading the concept of more and more sequels being on the way. I'm actually just thoroughly fascinated and even anticipating what kind of terror Finn will come up with next. The film, which opens as if it's just cutting to the next scene, directly after the cruel twist ending of the first one, quickly shows that while it's definitely a sequel through and through, it also wants to serve as a continuation of the nightmare from before, while also stand on its own in terms of setting, characters, and even down how it looks. Due to a slightly bigger budget, Parker Finn is able to up the ante with its scale and story, but also, crafting a delirious rollercoaster of a trip into Hell-based madness, where you start to feel like you might be losing your own grip on reality, just as much as the lead character.
Through the use of some well shot single take sequences, some dizzying camera work, and just some really odd, off-putting takes that put you in a state of unease throughout, it somewhat feels like the movie itself was directed by the twisted demonic entity. This movie, just like the first film, is genuinely ingenious in how it uses sound, editing, and yes, even jump scares to terrify its audience. So many horror films rely on such type of thrills as a crutch, to make up for the lack of anything actually scary. This film finds creatively messed up ways to make them a macabre mix of fun, humorous, and actually frightening. Whether it be a quick snap of one of those devilishly grinning faces, or a long, drawn out sequence involving many faces just staring our poor protagonist down, looking like they're all about to pounce on her at once. Again, the fact that it feels like the film has a mind of its own and is just f*cking with you the entire time, has it almost veer into dark comedy territory, except these diabolical pranks are on the main character and the audience as a whole.
The terror is one thing, but it could only work if you had a character to care about, and Naomi Scott is brilliant in a performance that I swear has to levitate her more into well known stardom. Scott is forced to give what looks to be an emotionally draining performance, going back and forth between so many emotions, and sometimes to do them over the course of a brief moment. She can be sympathetic, though very flawed with some questionable moral choices. She's funny at times, even during scenes where the humor comes from the unhinged madness onscreen. She's clearly vulnerable and terrified beyond reason, yet it's not like she's incapable. It's such a nuanced role that wouldn't seem out of place in the most sophisticated of dramas, except it just so happens to be coming out of a horror movie that most would want to go see simply because they think they're only going to get gore-filled schlock. I mean, sure. I enjoyed the silliness of "Terrifier 3". However, this actually has something to say, with depth and understanding, even when it's surrounded by the kinds of images that you swear you'd only see in the deepest, darkest interiors of Hell itself. And on a side note, her songs in the movie are actually pretty damn solid. Kind of makes "Trap" (Which also featured a pop star being in a Thriller plot) look like a pile of crap, really.
There's even a bit more to the side characters, who all have some kind of relevance to the story even with limited screentime. At first, Rosemarie DeWitt comes across as the worst kind of mother imaginable (With little subtle hints that call into question if this is truly how she is or simply how Skye is seeing her), a humorous Miles Gutierrez-Riley (as "Joshua", a total doormat of an assistant to Skye's mother, who is oddly treated like absolute crap by everyone around him), Dylan Gelulla (as "Gemma", Skye's former best friend that she had a falling out with) in a part that feels out of place in its quirkiness in a way that ends up making strange sense, and a really small, yet vital part for Ray Nicholson (as "Paul Hudson", Skye's deceased boyfriend, whose smiling face also seems to be haunting her as well), the son of Jack Nicholson. Other great parts include the returning Kyle Gallner (Who is making quite the career of playing that one guy who just has the worst kinds of luck in horror movies), a wonderfully deranged Lukas Gage, and Peter Jacobson (as "Morris", a nurse, who knows a little about what this entity is, and might even know of a way to permanently stop it).
Expertly crafted from start to finish and superior to the already pretty damn good first film, "Smile 2" feels mainstream, though not stupid, and also quite artsy, yet never obnoxious. It masterfully finds that perfect balance in appealing to those looking for scares that make them scream out loud in a crowded audience, along with intelligence, freaky imagery you won't be able to get out of your head, and profound storytelling. Not to mention a few twists and turns that even left me wondering what was real and what wasn't by the end. The themes of mental illness are carried over from the first film, along with how the stress of fame, the fear of failure, and one's dark perception of the world around them, as well as themselves can only add to that. It's heartbreaking and frightening at the same time, with a pulsating score, axiety spiking sound design, and Parker Finn's sadistic direction feeling like a cruel joke at your expense, making for an early Halloween treat that will disturb and delight moviegoers this spooky season. And most importantly of all, it's a horror movie that's actually freakin scary! For some, it might even do its job TOO well. :) 4 1/2 Stars. Rated R For Blood-Curdling, Upsetting Images, Gory Visuals, Greasy Psycho Fans, And So Much Voss Water!
Terrifier 3 by James Eagan ★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Eh, he's about as clean as your average mall Santa.
I can't say that this is necessarily a good thing here. Hell, I can't even imagine something being just so damn offensive that it got banned in France to underaged viewers. Freakin France! They let everything slide! The "Terrifier" films, which began with a series of short films, later combined into the film "All Hallows' Eve", along with its main murderous clown villain "Art" becoming an instant icon, have gained quite the following. Both positively and negatively. Mostly because of how grotesquely violent they are, going old school slasher horror, with practical effects and aggressive attention to bloody details, with every single death being as repulsively in your face as possible. It's borderline torture porn in a way. A splatter film series which, despite their minuscule budget, has made a fortune. You kind of got to commend the commitment, and to be a bit nicer about it, I can say these films are getting better. Slowly, but surely. Emphasis on the "slowly" part, yet there's genuine progress.
Following the events of that fateful Halloween night in the previous film, "Terrifier 3" the deranged, mute serial killer, "Art the Clown" (David Howard Thornton), surviving a decapitation, reuniting with a now mangled, deranged survivor of one of his previous rampages, "Victoria Heyes" (Samantha Scaffidi), before entering a state of hibernation until it's time to kill again. Years later, the heroic final girl from the last film/Art's new arch-nemesis, "Sienna Shaw" (Lauren LaVera), who despite using a magical sword to defeat Art before (It's a whole thing. Don't ask), she's not in the best mental state, now being in the care of her aunt "Jessica" (Margaret Anne Florence) and uncle "Greg" (Bryce Johnson). While Sienna at least gets to hang out with her lovable cousin, "Gabbie" (Antonella Rose), she's become estranged from her equally mentally scarred brother, "Jonathan" (Elliott Fullam), who just wants to move on from the terror. However, with Christmas coming up, Art, with some aid from Victoria, decides it's time for a big bloody comeback. Armed with his trash back full of killer goodies (Hammers, chainsaws, knives, nitroglycerin, etc.), Art dons a Santa Claus costume to give the people the reddest Christmas they've ever seen, while also taking time to get some revenge on Sienna.
Written and directed by series creator Damien Leone (Who directed all entries in the franchise), "Terrifier 3" is another one of those cases where one can only say "It is what it is", and unlike say something like those "Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey" movies, there is at least something appealing here. And I'm not talking about the pealing of human flesh off the bone. While the first film had its moments, it was just a decent looking gore-fest, while the second film actually did bring in a couple likable enough characters and had some more story to it. This one retains some of those solid enough elements, along with more of an embracing of its sadistic, macabre sense of humor and most fun of all, the holiday setting. The film already has that retro, grind house inspired 80s look going for it (Despite being set in the present), but giving it this Christmas feeling only adds to the film's twisted nature. Seeing such a beloved, wholesome holiday turned into a total nightmare is as terrible as they come and only feels right with this franchise. And for the gore fanatics, this movie has you covered, in more ways than one to the point where it was enough to piss off plenty of moviegoers. Right off the bat, the movie opens with a Santa dressed Art brutally murdering an entire family (Kids included), and those are the tamer kills in the movie. People, who most of the time don't deserve their fates, get chopped up, sliced up, ripped apart, and a few other grotesquely demented acts of pure evil violence in such terrible (And I'll even admit, at times fairly clever) ways. Nobody goes out easy and much like the other films, it will stop just to wallow in it, letting Art's rampages take up good chunks of the film's screentime, which literally has him taking out chunks of people's flesh. It's stuff I personally don't want to watch often, though I can see the craft in spite of that. The filmmakers, based in Indie film roots, utilize the most impressively done kinds of old school practical effects that add something to the experience.
It also helps that Lauren LaVera is once again shockingly wonderful in a film that I bet even the filmmakers would admit doesn't deserve her. She brings a lot of charm and heart to a movie that's so mean spirited and cruel that she really is a light in such darkness, and to give some credit, that seems to be precisely the point. LaVera's chemistry with Antonella Rose is also an endearing friendship. On the downside, Elliott Fullam kind of gets the short end of the stick, reduced to more of a secondary player with an underdeveloped story arc. There are some likable side characters that you don't want to die, some not so likable ones that you don't mind getting dispatched violently, and a few pretty amusing cameos appearances from some familiar faces, such as a quite funny sequence where Art wanders into a bar to screw around with a drunken "Santa Claus" (Played by Daniel Roebuck) and a couple patrons (Played by Bradley Stryker and Clint Howard). Samantha Scaffidi looks like she's more than pleased to embrace her character's villainous turn from that one survivor in the first film to mentally unstable, homicidal maniac in the second and now becoming a bloodthirsty mastermind. She's clearly having a ball and is definitely a creepy piece of work. Once again though, one can't praise enough the star of the show, David Howard Thornton, who has turned Art the Clown into such an icon for horror fans. Regardless of how you might feel about what they've done with this character, he's still effective to say the least. Unsettling, yet oddly funny, Thornton's 100% physical performance is what sells it and makes it memorable to watch. Despite the film being more focused on story and character, they do at times take backseats to whatever big banquet of blood that the film wants to indulge in. Not to mention, there's a rather upsetting reveal during the film's last act that's done offscreen in a way that doesn't feel genuine. It's hard to tell if it's just some sloppy storytelling or sloppy attempts at setting up later revelations for the next entry in the series.
"Terrifier 3" is more of the same, but just a little better. The kills are creative, if not a little too exploitative. The story is silly and always feels secondary, though the pitch black comedy adds much needed personality along with LaVera's capable performance. Damien Leone's love for old fashioned chills and kills is both repulsive, though so unrestrained that you really can't help but admire it in some way. And the main attraction, that maniacal moment, Art the Clown, is still such a fascinating creation that you find yourself at least slightly curious what exactly can happen with him next. And hey, if these movies are truly starting to get better, maybe I won't mind taking a few more turns on the Terrifier again. 3 Stars. Not Rated, Though Feels Like A Very Hard R Rating, Due To Bloody, Gory Gruesomeness, Including Dismemberment, Face Pealing, Beard Ripping, Rat Swallowing, And, Er, The Old "Chainsaw Up The Ass Routine"! Merry Christmas Indeed!
Piece by Piece by James Eagan ★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: "How can I possibly clap along if I feel that happiness is the truth, with these little LEGO claw hands?"
So does this mean that the Imagine Dragons biopic is going to be told with Mega Bloks? Or the Nickelback one is going to be told with Playmobil sets? Or how about Milli Vanilli's story being told with Lincoln Logs? God help us what they'd do the Michael Jackson one with!
Inspired by the life story of singer/songwriter/rapped/producer/"Despicable Me" soundtrack contributor, Pharrell Williams, "Piece by Piece" opens with "Pharrell Williams" (Played by himself, obviously), meeting with director, "Morgan Neville" (Also himself), proposing the idea that they tell his story with LEGO pieces. The movie showcases important aspects of Pharrell's life through a childlike lens via LEGOs, from his childhood fascination with music, his friendship with future producer "Chad Hugo" (Himself, duh!), his rise through the music industry, claim to fame, and the eventual discovery of what his true identity is as an artist, becoming the icon he is today. Not to mention, his many, many contributions to pop culture, such as the fact that he was the one who came up with the "I'm Lovin' It" jingle for "McDonald's". I legit didn't know that!
Directed by Morgan Neville ("Won't You Be My Neighbor?", "Mickey: The Story of a Mouse"), who co-wrote the film with Jason Zeldes, Aaron Wickenden, and Oscar Vazquez, "Piece by Piece" is essentially a documentary, biopic, that seems to know that it's not some grand tale. It's not particularly complicated. It's a puff piece around its central figure. The film knows this. To make up for it though, the filmmakers decide to come up with an admittedly quirky, yet delightfully original way of telling its story, with sincere humor, colorful visuals and animation, and most importantly of all, creativity. That's always the thing I associate with Pharrell Williams, and in a way, making this into a LEGO movie (A product that straight up promotes creativity), it's a match made in heaven. While I can't necessarily say that the film's animation reaches the more epic heights of some of the previous LEGO movies, like the original "The LEGO Movie" or "The LEGO Batman Movie", but there is something so naturally charming about seeing it in any shape or form. It still has that stop motion looking aesthetic and lots of wildly bright, vibrant spectacle to make up for it.
Due to the film not taking itself so overly seriously, the film has loads of fun with this brick by brick style, especially using it to turn what could seem like a simple "Rags to Riches" story into a fairy tale of sorts. I do love the film's use of music as well, using the metaphor of special, glowing LEGO pieces to symbolize the beats that Pharrell comes up with, along with a neverending vault of ideas that he even admits will likely never see the light of day. The film's voice work is mostly made up of interview audio, with some having more professional personality than others, with the likes of Pharrell himself, along with Gwen Stefani, Kendrick Lamar, and Busta Rhymes, having more than enough personality to match the animated setting (Though some like Jay-Z and surprisingly Justin Timberlake sound really off). It's also no shock that the biggest scene-stealer ends up being Snoop Dogg, who aside from the hilarious image of a literal LEGO Snoop Dogg showing up on a big theatrical screen, is always just such a natural with this kind of thing. It's also pretty funny how the filmmakers found a way to get some slight pot use in a PG rated LEGO film.
"Piece by Piece" is a clever, pretty delightfully simple movie that you're willing to forgive its lack of depth into its subject (Which shouldn't be shocking anyway, especially since this was all something Pharrell Williams signed off on). However, the film does take time to address some more serious issues in its last section, and it seems to be the film's more innocent facade breaking just slightly (It's genuinely quite jarring, yet oddly surreal to see the Black Lives Matter protests after the death of George Floyd portrayed in a LEGO form. It's as if things became real for a moment, tearing down its toy based world and hitting it with a heavy dose of reality. The film finds some elevation in these moments and I appreciated that. It's a more family friendly, but pretty inspired biopic that uses its endearing peculiarity to its advantage, and in a way, saying more about who its subject might be than some of us might have expected. Also, it's just good to have LEGO movies again. Something just so whimsical about this look and I feel we let it fade too fast. 3 1/2 Stars. Rated PG For Some Slight Adult Content, Slight Language, Snoop Smoking, And That Impossible To Remove Ear Worm That We All Know As "Happy". Just Try To Get That Thing Out Of Your Head. I Dare Ya!
A Different Man by James Eagan ★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: When she hits you with that "Mission Report: December 16, 1991".
Believe me when I say that out of all the movies I've seen this year, this might be the strangest, most surreal one of them all. So yeah, obviously you know I dug the Hell out of it!
"A Different Man" follows a sad, reclusive, mostly failing actor, "Edward" (Sebastian Stan), who suffers from an extreme case Neurofibromatosis, with his deformed face causing him to live in isolation. Despite striking up a friendship with his lovely playwright neighbor, "Ingrid" (Renate Reinsve), Edward seeks surgery to "normalize" himself. Suddenly though (Due possibly to new medication, the movie doesn't completely elaborate), clumps of Edward's face start to come off, resulting in him appearing as a brand new man (A very Sebastian Stan looking man!). Edward, who decides to change his name to "Guy", completely abandons his old life, claiming Edward committed suicide, and proceeds to make a new, seemingly better life for himself as one of the beautiful people. Some time later, Edward, er, I mean, Guy, finds out that Ingrid has successfully begun production of an off-Broadway play, titled "Edward" (Inspired by the old life he left behind). Guy becomes obsessed with it, eventually landing a role as the lead, and even gaining the affections of Ingrid, who has no idea who he really is. However, when a man named "Oswald" (Adam Pearson), who also has Neurofibromatosis (And unlike Edward/Guy, has embraced it, living a rich, fulfilling life), randomly shows up and slowly starts to take the life that Edward/Guy has made for himself, simply by being just likable beyond reason. This leads to Edward/Guy to lose control of his mental state.
Written and directed by Aaron Schimberg ("Chained for Life"), "A Different Man" is the perfect title for a very different kind of film. It's a dark comedy, that borders on psychologically terrifying and with hints of a slight screwball element. It's a little like "The Substance", though even more subtle in the ways that it feels like I'm watching the real world and yet, something is just off. Sometimes it's the characters, or the dialogue, or just plain how the story unfolds. It's quietly feverish, but still plenty engrossing, funny, and poignant in so many ways. Schimberg is respectful of the subject matter, never playing things for repulsion or for jokes, even with some light body horror elements (Such as the sequence where Edward's disfigured face literally comes off like a melting Play-Doh). However, the film doesn't exactly play it up for false sympathy or tragedy. In fact, Schimberg genuinely asks some tough questions about how people with conditions can be perceived, along with how demeaning even good intentions can be. Not to mention, regardless of how you look, if you don't love yourself as you are, you're likely going to end up being more miserable.
Sebastian Stan suitably has to act a lot with his face, even during the film's first act when he's under heavy, caked on prosthetics. He has such a complicated role to perform, shifting around between this sympathetic soul who believes he has nothing, to a more confident if not shallow facade, with the fidgety, envious person he's always been still there, lurking behind this new handsome face. There's also a hint of something more spiteful and demanding too, which Sebastian Stan expertly conveys, sometimes with just the simplest, though hardest of glares. The also fantastic Renate Reinsve at first seems fairly normal, but even she kind of plays into the film's quirky tone, in a world full of characters that seem to inhabit their eccentricities. The real star of the show (And one of this year's biggest MVPs if you ask me) is Adam Pearson. An actor, who in real life has Neurofibromatosis, Pearson is an instant delight, full of so much infectious charm, humor, and confidence that you just can't help but fall in love with. He's the definition of someone just being such a nice guy that you almost question if he's even really there at all. He also just plain has some pitch perfect line delivery that makes him an absolute joy to watch, and not just comedically, especially during a musical moment where he just randomly sings "I Wanna Get Next To You" (by Rose Royce). For someone who is not meant to abide by society's heinous, bland standards of normalcy, Oswald is ironically the most human character of all.
"A Different Man" is all kinds of peculiar and at times, you are left wondering where this story is going because of how often that weirdness takes us on a brisk detour (And I'm not just talking about that random, though very welcome cameo from a certain well known actor during the last quarter). It's like you're going on a journey through what you believe to be reality, only to catch yourself consistently questioning everything you see and hear. It's funny as Hell, bonkers, at times incomprehensible, and nonetheless valiant in what it's trying to say. Different in all the right ways. 4 Stars. Rated R For Some Unsettling Content, Slightly Off Sexual Content, And Dangerous Levels Of Lovability That Oswald Exudes From His Very Being.
Joker: Folie à Deux by James Eagan ★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: I can fix her. I mean, logically she needs no fixing. So I guess, she can, er, unfix me?
Are we about to have a new massive divide? Another purely, likely intentionally, polarizing film that will infuriate many on the internet, only to be rescued years later by contrarians who are just waiting in the wings with their latest hot takes about how this movie was far bolder and ahead of the curve than people first gave it credit for? I'll admit, this is definitely one of those films that I can see getting reevaluated in the future because it leaves its audience with so much to talk about. And for good reason. With that said, current October 2024 James Eagan admits that while he appreciates what it appears to be going for, he still just didn't like it.
Following the events of the first film, "Joker: Folie à Deux" with former loner, turned clown based killer, "Arthur Fleck" (Joaquin Phoenix), aka "Joker", imprisoned in "Arkham State Hospital", awaiting trial for the murders he caused and the riots all around "Gotham City" that he inspired. Arthur's lawyer, "Maryanne Stewart" (Catherine Keener) wants to make the argument that Arthur suffers from a split personality disorder (With "Joker" just being a psychopathic persona he developed through childhood abuse), while the District Attorney, "Harvey Dent" (Harry Lawtey), wants to dismiss any claims of insanity and have Arthur receive the death penalty. While in Arkham, Arthur forms a connection with another patient, "Lee Quinzel" (Lady Gaga), who is utterly obsessed with Arthur's Joker identity, and Arthur, who has nobody in his life at this point, starts to believe that he's finally found someone who truly understands him. With the weight of his newfound stardom hanging dangerously above him (With hundreds of fanatics believing him to be their anarchic savior), Arthur's trial commences, which will determine the fate of the possible future clown prince of crime.
Directed by the returning Todd Phillips (The "Hangover" films, "War Dogs"), who co-wrote the screenplay with the also returning Scott Silver ("The Fighter", "8 Mile"), "Joker: Folie à Deux" has an unbelievably difficult task that it's set up for itself. Being a sequel to a controversial, Oscar Winning, critically polarizing, and very unique take on the fan favorite villain from the "Batman" comics, which also only militarized an already unstable fanbase (Made up of mentally questionable loners, fanatics, and, well, incels), calling into question if this would actually do society more harm than good. Not to mention, while I completely agree that its very existence and execution clearly amassed the worst kind of audience, I also saw it to be an excellent, unique and unsettling reinvention of the comic character, only getting more and more captivating the more you see it, while also just making you think differently about certain aspects every time. Quite frustratingly though, the film can't fully answer the most important question on everyone's mind. "Was this necessary?"
The film seems to be stuck somewhat in the past, often returning to the original in some capacity, mostly through the age old way of the sequel, callbacks (And yes, there are a lot of them). The story can't seem to help but sporadically reference events of the original, or at the very least, attempt to replicate it in some way, though this time with less effective results. Phillips' capable, gritty direction style is still on full display, creating such a memorable, grimy look to Gotham than what we've ever seen before. However, we get much less of the city itself this time (Which was practically its very own character in the first film with how much personality it had), with the exception of this more grounded, sewer-esque prison-like iteration of Arkham Asylum. That kind of strips away some of the first film's identity. The same goes for the score from Hildur Guðnadóttir, who deservedly won an Oscar for the original movie's soundtrack. It's still haunting as ever, yet is drowned out by the film's choice to become a sort-of musical. I get the idea behind the concept. Aside from the obvious wanting to cater to Lady Gaga's talents, the musical sequences are meant to serve as a juxtaposition to the dark, though mundane trial film we're watching, and sure, some of them are lovely to look at. The production design alone is worthy of praise, particularly when it comes to the costumes and the colorful set pieces. The film sadly never makes it feel like more than just a gimmick, padding out the runtime, with song choices that don't particularly stand out. It's just a glorified jukebox musical, except it doesn't fully commit to the premise. Most of the film is the trial itself, which is compelling in places, but also drags on for the film's over two hour runtime and, well, doesn't always add up. The whole thing is based around if Arthur is of sound mind to face the death penalty, and while I can't say to be a total expert on how the law works, it becomes increasingly obvious that he is not remotely a mentally well person in the slightest. I guess it's just one of those things you just have to go with. However, considering this is supposed to be a much more grounded, realer approach to more extravagant source material (Which is known to play it loose with certain logistics), it's a bit contradictory.
Joaquin Phoenix is still damn good in the role, conveying a sort of humanity to a character we know, drifting between at times sympathetic, frightening, and even just kind of pathetic. There is a good twist to the usual Joker/Harley Quinn dynamic where it feels more like she's the one manipulating him, instead of the other way around. It is a disappointment to admit that Lady Gaga doesn't get near enough as much screentime as you'd expect (Think of it as 65% a Joker movie and another 35% a Harley Quinn one). That said, she's f*cking amazing in this in spite of that. From her mesmerizing presence to her Earth shattering singing voice, Lady Gaga continues to prove her immaculate talent and range, playing this part in a way that you too feel yourself oddly entranced by her, even when you know damn well you shouldn't be. They are good together, particularly during some of the fantasy sequences, even though one does think all of this should have been much better than simply good. There are some really solid supporting parts, like for a terrific Brendan Gleeson (as "Jackie Sullivan", a seemingly affable, then abusive guard at Arkham), Catherine Keener (Who plays Arthur's lawyer as probably a little misguided, yet well intentioned, with only his well being in mind), a perfectly smug Harry Lawtey (Who makes the most of such a thankless part really, which is disappointing considering he's playing such a known character), and a brief appearance from Steve Coogan (as "Paddy Meyers", a television personality who interviews Arthur, in a suitably antagonistic fashion), doing such a flawless American accent that it absolutely terrified me every time he spoke. It's also good to see some returning faces, like Zazie Beetz (as "Sophie", Arthur's former neighbor, that he imagined having a relationship with in the first film) and Leigh Gill (as "Gary", Arthur's former co-worker, who he spared from his violent rampage in the first film), who probably gets the most emotional powerful scene in the entire movie out of nowhere.
With a commanding performance from Lady Gaga (No shock there), "Joker: Folie à Deux" has some genuine brilliance in places and fascinating themes, but is bogged down by its very conception, padding itself out to justify its very being and comes across as sloppy in execution (Not to mention quite a few shots from the trailers that are nowhere to be found in the actual film, like the very image I'm using for this review!). It does away with all the ambiguity that the original film had in favor of forcing a sequel that just doesn't need to be here. Or at least, not until the final fifteen minutes. This is where I feel that, despite the film's major flaws and my overall indifference to the film as a whole, Todd Phillips makes the film feel warranted. He basically decides to completely torch the franchise and run, taking the expectations of the fan base (The worst of them mostly) and completely shattering everything they likely gravitated towards in the first place. In a way, it's as if Todd Phillips is coming to terms with the legacy he's created, much like the film's titular character, and letting us know there's nothing to idolize. In a way, this whole story has been leading to this very revelation that maybe this "Joker" was nothing but a clown. I applaud just giving the middle finger out to your audience like this, especially when it not only plays into the themes of both films, it also just kind of forces you to look at things from a completely different perspective (And boy, I already know this is gonna piss so many people off). I may not like the film as a whole, but I can appreciate what it represents. That's life, I guess. 2 1/2 Stars. Rated R For Strong Dark Content, Disturbing Images, Joker's Southern Gentlemen Accent (Need To See It To Believe It), And That Really Smelly, Moist Guy Sitting Next To You In The Theater (Who Says That The First Film "Spoke To Him On A Personal Level"). Yeah, He Ain't Leaving In A Happy Mood After This.
Megalopolis by James Eagan ★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: Francis Ford Coppola after he's sees this movie's box office.
I was actually kind of excited about this movie when it was first announced. The director of "The Godfather" and "Apocalypse Now" making his magnum Opus, a grand science-fiction epic, set in the real world, but not, with an all star cast and crazy visuals? Hell yeah! Or at least, that's how I felt until literally every aspect of this movie became so goddamn annoying. The wildly publicized production troubles aside, we got Film Twitter a-holes already bending themselves into a pretzel to adamantly endorse this film as the next great masterpiece (Long before any of us saw a single frame of it), and only went harder when early reviews came back as less than stellar. Then we had the whole "If you don't like it or understand it, you either just don't get it or refuse to vibe with Coppola's genius. This was followed up with Coppola being a total creep to women, saying continuously baffling and moronic things that he feels he should get away with because he too thinks himself a genius, and an onslaught of articles detailing all the perplexing decisions that went into the film, right down to a moment where someone from the audience gets up to talk to the screen, only for it to respond back (All pre-recorded mind you, and wasn't available where I saw it). So I'm actually getting to this movie fairly late, due to being sick, and after all the talk of how insane this movie is, maybe my expectations ended up being a little too high. Sure, there are some occasional moments that you'll likely see being memed through Twitter and YouTube. Sadly though, especially when you see so much weird sh*t in movies as it is, this was shockingly dull.
Advertised as a "Fable", "Megalopolis" is set in a sort of "American Republic" (Designed to resemble our reality, though everyone looks like they stepped out of a theater show about the Roman Empire) in the on the nose city of "New Rome", where controversial architect, "Cesar Catilina" (Adam Driver) is at odds with the unpopular mayor, "Franklyn Cicero" (Giancarlo Esposito). Cesar has created some kind of magical new building material called "Megalon", which he intends to use to create a futuristic utopia known as "Megalopolis", due to the belief that all empires must fall, with New Rome likely being next. Cesar can also stop and restart time too, by the way. Don't ask how. He just can do it. Cesar strikes a connection and eventual romance with Cicero's daughter, "Julia" (Nathalie Emmanuel), while facing some other antagonistic forces, such as his maniacal cousin, "Clodio Pulcher" (Shia LaBeouf) ,and ex-girlfriend, the TV reporter "Wow Platinum" (Aubrey Plaza), along with Cicero's rampant smear campaign.
Written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola ("The Godfather", "Apocalypse Now", "Bram Stoker's Dracula", and who could forget, "Jack"?), Megalopolis" has been plagued by bad press, bad marketing, and just plain bad vibes all around. It's gone from people saying "Pfft! I'm sure it's gonna be a five out of five regardless" to "That's the greatest disaster I've ever seen in my life". What in reality makes it more frustrating is that the film itself is neither of those, but rather just glossy trash. It gives off the appearance of something shiny like a diamond, when it's actually just a big ol' pile of crap that somebody happened to place a pretty little bow tie on. There are some disastrous elements here and there, with filmmaking, storytelling, basically writing and even editing decisions that don't make any lick of sense, yet once you get past the silliness, it's a rather uninspired, even dare I say, soulless slog that runs for over two hours. Coppola's vision seems to be based in its own reality, which bends the rules at whim, and in theory, that could work if there was actually anything remotely interesting about any of it.
The film's time freezing aspect contributes little to nothing (Almost as if it could have been cut out entirely), and despite some admittedly lovely use of some fairly hallucinogenic imagery, the film's reliance on heavy green screen and overly smooth and shiny CGI, giving the film an unfinished look. The film goes back and forth between looking like a moving portrait to looking like one of those unfinished film reels that you can only find on YouTube in the lowest of quality. There film also seems to think itself a Shakespearean epic, with long, overwritten dialogue meant to over explain and over analyze the obvious, yet is also very low brow and crude in its sense of humor, struggling to find any sort of balance. I suppose it's trying to have a satirical edge, though it's not near insightful enough to make it work. The themes and messages of the film aren't without merit. However, they're nothing new and suffer from the film's overabundance of, well, overabundance. From the very idea of the United States at some point following the fate of the Roman Empire, along with political corruption, media fabrication, out of touch elites, and of course, Trump/Nazi/Fascist allegories (Right down to a sign that literally says "Make Rome Great Again!"), it's not remotely clever and seems to have the oblivious idea that it is.
The film's remarkable ensemble seems eager, but most of them don't remotely seem to be on the same page in terms of what kind of movie they're actually in. It's a credit to Adam Driver that regardless of what he's in, whatever over the top costumes he's subjected to wear, and whatever kind of silly accent he's doing, you can rely on him to commit to a role no matter what. Nathalie Emmanuel is also nevertheless charming and beautiful, feeling like one of the only normal characters in the entire film, along with the likes of Giancarlo Esposito, Laurence Fisburne (as "Fundi Romaine", Cesar's driver/the film's also apparent narrator), an underused Kathryn Hunter (as Cicero's wife), and Talia Shire (as Cesar's mother), who are more or less trying. We also get an enjoyable over the top (And very hot!) Aubrey Plaza, who looks like she's having a lot of fun. Meanwhile though, we get some god awful work from Shia LaBeouf (Who is both too incoherent to be hammy and too ridiculous to be taken remotely seriously as our villain) and a thankless part for Dustin Hoffman (as "Nush Berman", Cicero's fixer), who at some point just gets his story cut short to the point it seemed like an afterthought. There's also everything to do with Jon Voight (as "Hamilton Crassus III", Cesar's rich uncle/Wow's sugar daddy), in a role that straight up feels like elder abuse, being an eighty year old man, who looks like a ninety year old man, and mumbles around like a hundred and ninety year old man (He'd be unintentionally hilarious to watch, if it didn't look so wrong at the same time. And you know, if I could have understood a word he was saying!).
Overindulgent, overproduced, and overlong,"Megalopolis" is a goofy live-action cartoon that features dialogue you swear was made up on the fly in a drunken stupor, with plot elements that never mix, characters that are neither captivated or eccentric enough to become memorable, wildly inconsistent visuals, and worst of all, just being forgettable. It's got some disastrously made scenes that will find a home as recycled clips for comedic purposes, while the overall final product as a whole doesn't work enough to warrant watching it all the way through. You get Adam Driver saying "In daaaaa club", Jon Voight talking about his boner, Aubrey Plaza being both anal and oral, and the sight of Shia LaBeouf's pubes, and yet, considering some of the weirder/much better quality films we've gotten (Go see "The Substance" or "The People's Joker"!), this feels really small for what was meant to be Francis Ford Coppola's final masterpiece. A master piece of sh*t maybe, though not even really that. For something that wants to be bold, original, and change the way we look at the cinematic world, this is ironically lacking an artistic heart of its own. All empires must fall. Coppola's first. 1 1/2 Stars. Rated R For Strong Language, Sexual Content, Debauchery, Decadence, And The Fact That I Will Never Be Able To Scrub My Eyes Enough To Rid Myself Of The Image OF Shia LaBeouf's Pubes. Trust Me. I'm Trying!
The Wild Robot by James Eagan ★★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Be honest. You just went "Awwwwwwww!".
To be honest, I kind of thought Pixar had that Academy Award for Best Animated Feature in the bag. However, as it turns out, getting big emotions out of large, metallic beings, instead of people, seem to be all the rage with animation right now.
Based on the book series by Peter Brown, "The Wild Robot" is set in a possibly apocalyptic world (It's never explicitly stated, but it's clear that something has happened to the world we know), where a cargo ship carrying some utilitarian robots crashes into an island, completely devoid of humanity. The only surviving robot, "ROZZUM Unit 7134" (Lupita Nyong'o), tries to do what she's literally only programmed to do, which is to complete a task. After disturbing much of the wildlife and crashing into a goose nest, killing the mother and destroying all of her eggs but one. ROSSUM Unite 7134, or "Roz", as she's called, is given a new task to complete with the newly hatched gosling, "Brightbill" (Played by Boone Storme as a baby, then by Kit Connor), imprints on her. After befriending a local shifty fox, "Fink" (Pedro Pascal), Roz and Brightbill make for a rather unconventional family, being shunned by most of the other animals on the island. Due to Brightbill not fitting in and already being a runt from birth, Roz's mission to help him grow and eventually migrate before the coming winter proves to be a difficult task. As the big day draws closer and closer, with Brightbill slowly maturing, Roz starts to struggle with her newfound sense of motherhood and the fact that she might be becoming more than she was programmed to be.
Written and directed by a master of animated storytelling Chris Sanders ("Lilo & Stitch", "How to Train Your Dragon"), "The Wild Robot" lets you know right off the bat that despite themes and story beats that could seem familiar on paper, there is something much more to this than the cover would suggest. Serving as a big milestone for DreamWorks Animation (Being the final film to be completely animated in-house at DreamWorks), it once again proves that the beauty of animation can tell any story, regardless of how many times you may have heard it before, with the right amount of heart, humor, and nuance, then make it an instant classic that all ages, from kids to adults, will want to revisit again and again. It's just one of those rare films that just finds a way to fire on all cylinders, with the filmmakers clearly putting so much affection into every single possible aspect to create something truly unforgettable. Much of this is because of how the story itself is told. With an animation style (Similar to DreamWorks' most recent classic, "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish"), gives off the whole "Painted Storybook Illustrations" come to life motif. This means that you could almost pause any single frame of the film and find a work of art, where the stylized look makes for something not so much overly realistic looking, but rather visually expressive and magically wondrous. This is saying something considering our main character literally just has a pair of eyes, rather than an actual face.
Despite the sentimental storytelling, the film is by no means overly cutesy or immature. Sure, some of the animals are infectiously adorable, but there is always this underlying sense of harsh reality that's always lurking in the background. Shockingly, sometimes these darker elements are even played for laughs, with many of the characters just being so used to the whole "Circle of Life" structure that death can randomly happen without warning, while everyone else just has to shrug it off and move on. This sense of harshness perfectly balances with the cuter aspects of the story, and even makes the characters themselves more complicated than the archetype the film at first suggests they are. Sanders' eye for incredible visuals and allowing the imagery to tell its story, without the need for an overt explanation for what's going on. It's impressive for a family film, that has every intention of bringing in the littlest of kids, to leave much for the audience to figure out and interpret on their own. It's still not to say that the film isn't still dialogue heavy, with much of the character interactions being brought to life by their distinctive voices, as well as the smart screenplay accompanying them. Yeah, there is some well timed slapstick here and there, yet some of the biggest laughs genuinely come from the script itself. Again, relying on mostly just intelligent writing in what just seems like an adorable, colorful cartoon from a distance? And one made for a mainstream audience too? This is definitely one of DreamWorks' boldest films yet.
The lead vocal performance of Lupita Nyong'o is truly something to witness with your own eyes and ears. She brings a sort of warm naivety to a character that's literally designed to be cold, without emotions. Her performance feels very natural, where the film does seem to blur the lines between what's just simple programming versus genuine feeling. The ultimate conflict between science and nature really. This is also elevated by her chemistry with the rest of the wonderful ensemble cast of memorable characters, with an excellent Kit Connor (Who never once drifts into the moody teenager role, even when the character logically had the right to do so) and a perfectly cast Pedro Pascal (Who I'm starting to think can just instantly become one with any role he's given). We also got a perfectly motherly Catherine O'Hara (as "Pinktail", a mother opossum, stuck carrying around several babies, who are always eager to play dead), a regal Bill Nighy (as "Longneck", a wise old goose, who sees the potential in Brightbill, even when the other geese don't), a suitably grizzled Mark Hamill (as "Thorn", a grizzly bear, who is feared by everyone on the island), a profoundly pompous and hilarious Matt Berry (as "Paddler", an overly refined beaver), a flawlessly cast Ving Rhames (as "Thunderbolt", a deep voiced falcon, who provides Brightbill with some flight training), and an adorably creepy Stephanie Hsu (as "Vontra", the seemingly cheerful, yet menacing villainous robot, tasked with bringing Roz back by any means necessary).
Funny, but never silly. Heartfelt, but never cloying. Old fashioned, but never derivative. Complex, yet never hard to follow. "The Wild Robot" is a remarkable achievement in animated storytelling, that's bound to become one you and the rest of your family will be watching continuously on repeat for years to come (And also features one of the best title drops I've seen in quite a while). It's all thanks to so many beautiful aspects working together in pure harmony, from Sander's thoughtful script and stunning direction, the eye popping visuals and animation, the terrific voice cast and characters, the epic score from Kris Bowers, and certain, always relevant themes that we're always going to need reminding of. Right before I went into this movie, I just so happened to finish watching Dinesh D'Souza's "Vindicating Trump" (A movie I refuse to do a full review because it's both not a movie and is too diabolical in conception, that I can't in good conscience give it the time of day), which only promoted fearing what's different, never questioning what's in front of you, and only seeks to separate people more than they already are. This movie though, is the perfect antithesis to that. It's about embracing what makes you different, aspiring to be more and daring to go against what we're expected to be, and most poignant of all, coming together, regardless of who or what you are (Or whether you're a bear, goose, fox, or robot), to survive. One moment you'll be charmed senseless by the endearing tale of a robot mother and her goose son, then you'll be laughing out loud, and then, you'll find your heartstrings tugged to the point of tears you swore you weren't going to shed. It will get to ya, and just maybe, it might give you some hope for the future. How would I rate this performance on a scale of 1 to 10? How about a 20? 5 Stars. Rated PG For Mature Content, Harsh Reality, And Male Bovine Excrement.
The Substance by James Eagan ★★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: So what do you guys think? Will the Academy even acknowledge a movie like this enough to even consider giving Demi Moore a nomination? Maybe?
So that was a nice couple hours of "What in the absolute f*ck?" filmmaking. That is a glowing recommendation by the way. Slap that one on one of those TV spot blurbs!
"The Substance" follows a once beloved celebrity "Elisabeth Sparkle" (Demi Moore), star of an equally once popular aerobics television show, who finds out that her sleazy producer, "Harvey" (Dennis Quaid), wants to fire her and then replace her with somebody "Younger and hotter". With all of this happening on her fiftieth birthday, Elisabeth also gets into a car wreck on her way home, though receives the contact information for something called "The Substance" (Revealed to be a type of procedural serum that will allow the user to experience a newer, better version of themselves). Elisabeth decides to give the serum a try, despite the incredible amount of details and instructions that come with it (Such as the user and newer model having to switch back on a weekly basis, along with the very serious reminder that they must always be "One"). Immediately after injecting herself with the serum, Elisabeth collapses on the ground, then painfully births her new body from her own back (Think peeling off an orange, except gorier). This lovely, younger body, dubbed "Sue" (Margaret Qualley) can now roam free, while the old Elisabeth remains unconscious on the floor until its time for them to switch back (Via exchanging of certain vital fuilds and whatnot). Sue takes this chance to replace her old self, instantly winning over everyone around her with her jaw dropping hotness, and becomes an instant star with her own show. Of course, mistakes are made and it soon becomes hard to tell if Sue is really gaining a mind of her own, or if Elisabeth's own insecurities are preventing her from remaining "One" as the product demands. When the instructions aren't followed 100% to the very last detail, the side effects prove to be disastrous and absolutely revolting beyond reason.
Written and directed by Coralie Fargeat ("Revenge"), "The Substance" is a wacked out nightmare of sorts, that gives off the feeling that it's set in some kind of reality that we can relate to, yet something is always just a little, well, off. Fargeat does a fantastic job crafting a world that feels like something Wes Anderson might have come up with if you injected him with the strongest of hard edge drugs. So many shots are shown from a wide lens, like the characters are walking around a colorful dollhouse of sorts, while also consistently giving off this feeling that you're being judged by everyone around you due to how much focus we get on peoples' faces. In all seriousness, is this what it's like to be a woman? Because it's genuinely terrifying at times. It's clearly very David Lynch-like when it comes to the surrealist reality of the production design and the way Fargeat uses that kind of quiet uneasiness to keep you constantly on edge. And all this is before the true horror actually starts. This features the definition of grotesquely absurd body horror, which is all brought to disgusting life through some award worthy practical effects and makeup that's bound to make even Cronenberg blush. It's not just purely exploitative though (Okay, maybe just a little bit, but I feel that the film is essentially trolling us with it). This makes for a brutally scathing and incredibly harsh satire of stardom, the impossible and unrealistic beauty standards that come with it (Particularly for women), and the overall sense of sleaze that despite the current acknowledgement of it in our modern times, has only continued to fester to the point where I'm starting to think it'll never get completely better. However vile and gross it might be though, it's still very funny in the most twisted of ways, clearing savoring in its repulsiveness with the glee of a mustache twirling, cartoonish villain.
Demi Moore gives possibly this year's most fearless performance that's equal parts raw, honest, hilarious, and heartbreaking, even within the same scene. She's very unapologetic in this role, tragically conveying the natural human tendency to struggle with the aging process, such as losing one's passion for living, perceived nostalgia doing a number on one's mental health, and the ability to, in spite of Moore's still absolutely impeccable beauty, only see the slightest imperfections (Whether they're real or not). A perfectly cast, and er, "digitally enhanced" Margaret Qualley is absolutely mesmerizing, encompassing that sort of seemingly innocent looking, sexual fantasy that seems completely unreal (Which humorously, it turns out she very much is). It's especially great to see Qualley just go more wild as the film progresses, when the glossy facade starts to crack (Plus her expressively cute face is just one of those things needs to be framed in a museum). The two of them rarely share a moment together, and yet, you feel the tension between them, with both trying to screw with each other's lives whenever they're in control, even though they're literally the same person. It really is a brilliant metaphor for having a love-hate (And eventually, despite) relationship between the real you and the you that you pretend to be. A likely coked out of his mind Dennis Quaid is hysterical in every scene he's in, with his scenes appearing shot through a baffling fish eye lens, meaning he's literally shoving himself into your face every chance he gets. There are a handful of fun supporting performances from the likes of an amusing Gore Abrams (as "Oliver", Elisabeth's obnoxious dick of a neighbor, who quickly changes his attitude when he meets Sue) and Edward Hamilton-Clark (as "Fred", a guy who knew Elisabeth in high school, who in spite of his dweebishness, genuinely still seems to think she's the most beautiful woman he's ever seen).
"The Substance" is wickedly funny, and just plain wicked. It's absurdity reaches levels unheard of once we reach the film's go for broke last half hour. It's amazing that even though the film is about two hours and twenty minutes long, you never feel it, mostly because you're too much in awe of the madness enveloping the screen. Disturbingly smart, poignant, and messed up from head to toe, it's a sadistic piece of work that will have you captivated, grossed out, and laughing from start to finish. Probably one of the best films of the year thus far. There's a lot of bewildering style here, and beneath all the squelching flesh, a whole lotta substance too. 4 1/2 Stars. Rated R For Strong Sexualized Content, Nudity, Fanservice, Fandisservice, Unhinged Bodily Horror, And The Ultimate Geyser Of Gore. If The Birthing Scene From "The First Omen" Made You Quesy, You Ain't Gonna Make It Through This One!
Transformers One by James Eagan ★★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: “And we’ll always be friends forever. Won’t we?” “Yeah, forever.”
I’ve been holding this one inside me for weeks now. Me, a longtime “Transformers” fan, getting to see the newest movie early (For free, too!), with other fellow geeks and nerds, but sadly, not being really allowed to talk about it until now. Sure, I may not be exactly one of those “Big Time” film critics, but I didn’t wanna risk getting shut down. It’s not worth it. Especially since the movie is basically everything we’ve been dreaming of for the past seventeen years. The live-action Michael Bay films may deserve at least some credit for resurrecting the franchise after some temporary dormancy in the late 2000s and also thrust the franchise into the mainstream (For better or for worse in the eyes of many), but none of those films have been what we were imagining a true “Transformers” movie to be. Think of this as the light in our darkest hour.
Based on Hasbro’s beloved toyline/animated series/multimedia franchise (And the first theatrically released fully animated film since the 1986 film), “Transformers One” opens on the metallic planet of “Cybertron” (Home of the “Transformers”, robotic beings who can shift from robot to vehicular modes). The story takes place before the war began between the “Autobots”, led by the heroic “Optimus Prime”, only now known as “Orion Pax” (Chris Hemsworth) and “Decepticons”, led by the villainous “Megatron”, only now known as “D-16” (Brian Tyree Henry). Unable to transformer along with most of the underground population of “Iacon” (Due to not having “Cogs”), Orion Pax and D-16 are actually best friends, who work as miners, while their widely respected leader, “Sentinel Prime” (John Hamm), fights off invading forces known as the “Quintessons” on the surface of the planet (Where nobody is allowed to go because of how supposedly dangerous it is). Orion, though, believes that there is more to them than meets the eye, wanting to decipher the secrets of the lost Primes and what became of the mystical “Matrix of Leadership”, in hopes of ending the conflict, ending their energy drought, and restoring Cybertron to its former beauty. In an attempt to prove themselves, Orion and D-16 cause a fiasco at a race in Iacon, resulting in the two of them being tossed down into the depths of Cybertron with waste management, where they meet the very talkative and quite eccentric “B-127” (Keagan-Michael Key), who is nicknamed “Bee” (He personally would prefer to be referred to as “Badassatron”).
They discover an old distress signal, from one of the long lost Primes, “Alpha Trion” (Laurence Fishburne), along with his last known location, giving Orion the idea that possibly the Matrix of Leadership may actually be there as well. Orion, D-16, and B-127, after accidentally roping in the recently demoted (And still rather pissed off about it), “Elita” (Scarlett Johansson), head to the surface of Cybertron to search for the signal’s origin. However, once they find it (And the still living Alpha Trion), they also discover that Sentinel may not have been the great hero they’ve been led to believe and that much of their lives have been fabricated from birth. Alpha Trion gifts our heroes new Cogs so they can finally transform, along with many other unique abilities, with them taking on the task of liberating their world from a controlling regime that they had no idea even existed. Along the way though, Orion and D-16 both embark on their own paths, resulting in their transformation from the closest of allies to the most bitter of enemies.
Directed by Josh Cooley (“Toy Story 4”), with a screenplay by Eric Pearson (“Thor: Ragnarok”, “Black Widow”, “Godzilla vs. Kong”), along with Andrew Barrer and Gabriel Ferrari (“Ant-Man and the Wasp”), “Transformers One” right off the bat feels completely detached from the Michael Bay films (Along with the other live-action entries like “Bumblebee” and “Rise of the Beasts”). Aside from being completely animated, via “Industrial Light & Magic” (“Rango”, “Ultraman Rising”), it’s also the only entry to entirely focus on the titular characters that everyone wants to see in the first place. The actual Transformers themselves. What we get is something pretty special that is sure to please any of the fans, both young and old, while also just plain being so much better than it really has any right to be. And I also need to stress the fact that this isn't a prequel to the live-action films in any way. It's 00% a reboot, meaning it can stand completely on its own, which means more room for the filmmakers to make their own rules. The animation itself deserves some of the most praise, giving us a much different look at Cybertron than what we’ve seen before in any previous incarnation (With most of them focusing on the war itself or its aftermath, meaning the planet ends up looking like a barren, metallic wasteland). This Cybertron is lively and colorful, with hints of growing fauna, other strange creatures (Like robotic deer), and plenty of visual wonder that just pops off the screen, even when you’re not seeing it in 3D (Although I can only imagine it’s pretty jaw dropping).
The world itself has so much personality, with loads of background appearances from characters familiar to the fanbase, along with even more references that only the biggest of nerds will understand. They’re Easter Eggs that never feel in your face or cloying, with any of the non-fans (Or the uninitiated, if you will) being able to watch without feeling the need to do homework. One of the major aspects that works about the movie is that, regardless of how much knowledge you have of the franchise (Maybe you just grew up with one of the cartoons, played with the toys, or have only seen the movies), the film establishes its own worldbuilding that takes much inspiration from the likes of the comics, shows, and popular lore of the series, yet explains it in a way that’s pretty easy for anyone to understand. In fact, despite the fairly traditional “Rise of a hero/villain” character arcs, there is some depth to the world and its characters.
The characters are all quite likable and have lots of chemistry together, making up for some easy to decipher plotting. Chris Hemsworth, doing a remarkable American accent, perfectly embodies his character’s early naivety, along with his sense of right and wrong, while sounding like a young Peter Cullen (Optimus’ original voice actor). Brian Tyree Henry is especially excellent, giving his character a lot of heart and charm, which only makes his inevitable fall into darkness all the more painful to watch. Megatron becomes a sort of Magneto-type character, where you could make the argument that he’s objectively right, though takes his actions so far that he becomes the very thing he despises. Considering how the Michael Bay films never seemed to know what the Hell they wanted to do with the character (With Megatron’s motivations changing on a whim in every single one of those movies), it’s safe to say that this might be one of the best incarnations of him. For a family film, it’s a pretty bold move to make the future big bad into such an endearing character before his turn, showing the younger audience members that sometimes the most nefarious of villains can come from the most well-intentioned of places.
Scarlett Johansson is another appealing character, who is given much more to do dramatically, and even comedically, while wisely avoiding the pitfalls of the “The One Main Female Character” trope (And I personally could just listen to her really attractive voice for hours. I know I’m not the only one!). Keegan-Michael Key is hilarious and absolutely lovable, bringing an energetic voice to the usually silent “Bumblebee” that we’ve seen in the movies, and is sure to either be somewhat grating or your absolute favorite character (Bumblebee tends to do that these days). Laurence Fishburne’s epic voice brings so much gravitas to a small, though vital part, while Jon Hamm steals the show with his Homelander-esque performance that’s equal parts thoroughly pompous and loathsome, yet in the best way possible. We get a relatively brief appearance from an incredibly perfectly cast Steve Buscemi (as “Starscream”, the leader of a rogue group of High Guard members/Megatron’s future punching bag), along with the likes of Vanessa Ligouri (as “Airachnid”, Sentinel’s scary, spider-like second in command), Honest Trailers’ Jon Bailey (as “Soundwave”, another High Guard member, who will eventually side with Megatron), Jason Konopisos-Alvarez (as “Shockwave”, a one-eyed High Guard member/future Decepticon), Isaac Singleton Jr. (as “Darkwing”, a cocky bully to Orion and D-16), and so many quick appearances from some faces that will only be familiar to the fans. I don’t think I can stretch enough how much of a wet dream this movie is for “Transformers” fans, especially considering all the crap we’ve had to suffer through cinematically.
I’ve had about a month to let my thoughts on “Transformers One” marinate since I got to see it early last month, and I had to get the whole contact high of being surrounded by fellow dorks and obsessive fans like myself out of my system, so that I can look at the film from a critic's standards. So what we get is a visually stunning and shockingly emotional family film, that features some creative action set pieces, engaging characters, lots of humor, and more of a harsh edge than you might be used to seeing in these kinds of movies (Trust me, it may start off light, but takes a real dark and heavy turn in the second half). It will please the longtime fans for sure. Easily, it makes for the best "Transformers" movie we've ever gotten and feels like the one we should have gotten years ago. However, it has much to offer newcomers of all ages, from the kids to even their parents, who probably will go into this thinking it's just gonna be your average forgettable kids movie and nothing more only to be pleasantly surprised. Maybe with a more critical analysis I could find some issues (After all, I gotta save all my glowing praise for Francis Ford Coppola's new movie in a couple weeks, which film hipsters are saying that we all have to love before having even seen it). With all that said, this is my review, damn it! I needed this. In the words of the mighty Megatron himself, I would have waited an eternity for this. 4 1/2 Stars. Rated PG For Minor Language (Good To See PG Rated Movies Actually Utilizing That), Hardcore Robot On Robot Violence (Just Because There's No Blood, Doesn't Mean It Isn't Gruesome), Cog Fondling, And The Unmistakable Tragedy Of Steve!
The Killer's Game by James Eagan ★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: To get the perfect shot, one has to have mastered the ability of of standing so incredibly still that they become invisible to the eye.
There is a part of me that thinks the writer's strike last year may have affected this movie a bit. Not necessarily sure how I can confirm that, but there is this feeling of conflicting interests (Between tones, direction, performances, etc.) that just keeps the movie down. It's a shame because it's actually an enjoyable enough, even occasionally charming film, that just won't seem to fully add up.
Based on the book by Jay Bonansinga, "The Killer's Game" follows professional hitman, "Joe Flood" (Dave Bautista), who has gained a profound reputation for himself in the game, along with all things considered, being an all around decent guy (Only killing criminals and bad people who have it coming). Joe is told by his fatherly handler, "Zvi" (Ben Kingsley), that maybe it's time he actually starts to get a life of his own instead of just taking them. Joe ends up meeting a beautiful ballet dancer, "Maize" (Sofia Boutella), and the two immediately fall in love. It's to the point that Joe decides to leave the game, only to discover some life-ending news after a doctor's checkup. Not wanting to leave Maize with nothing (While also hoping she never finds out about who he really is), Joe decides to put a hit out on himself and leave his life insurance money to Maize. Since Zvi wants nothing to do with this plan, Joe goes to an arch-rival, "Antoinette" (Pom Klementieff), who is more than eager to have Joe killed, due to Joe having previously killed her father years earlier. When the contract is set and everything is about to go down, Joe learns that his medical report was accidentally switched with someone else, meaning he's actually going to live. Sadly, Antoinette has no plans of canceling the contract, bringing in a whole lotta wacko killers, such as the very 70s "Lovedahl" (Terry Crews), to take out Joe, who now has to save himself, as well as Maize, after getting her caught in the crossfire.
Directed by J. J. Perry ("Day Shift"), with a screenplay by Rand Ravich ("The Astronaut's Wife") and James Coyne ("Puncutre Wounds"), along with apparent extra material credited to several others (Again, not shocking), "The Killer's Game" fittingly has a killer premise and the makings of something really fun, even if the execution is just a little off. As an action movie, there are some creative set pieces, stunning locations, and a pitch black sense of humor, that gets a good laugh from time to time. However, the story lacks the intelligent world-building of the "John Wick" franchise or even the wit of something like "Bullet Train" or "Hotel Artemis", which you can tell this movie desperately wants to imitate. The film is shockingly violent in an over the top fashion, which could have had a bit more bite if it weren't for the gallons of terrible CGI blood that litters every action scene. I get that it's supposed to be like a cartoonish comic book, but while the film itself is stylish, the effects themselves are so copy and pasted. The film's strengths don't come from the action, like how you think it would. Instead, they come from a place much more genuine, and dare I say, cuter.
Dave Bautista, who continues to prove that he really can play a variety of roles, is very likable here. Yeah, he's an assassin, but he's cool, sweet, and doesn't want to hurt anyone remotely innocent. Sofia Boutella, who I'm shocked to see not playing one of the badasses, is instantly adorable and charming. Bautista and Boutella have such wonderful chemistry together that you kind of wish that this was just some straight up romantic comedy, especially due to how well they play off each other. The legendary Ben Kingsley is also really great, giving a warm performance for movie with such a dark sense of humor. There is a sense of heart to the film that you don't expect to see. It's the plot itself that doesn't always gel. Pom Klementieff is clearly having some fun as our main baddie, while Terry Crews basically plays a character that you swear stepped out of an old Blaxploitation movie, yet the joke doesn't quite match the rest of the film. The rest of the villains vary, with many of them getting some nice introductions, yet don't do much of anything, like Marko Zaror (as "Botas", a dancing assassin, with a Spanish edge), along with Scott Adkins and Drew McIntyre (as a pair of Irish hooligan assassins, who may be speaking English, but still have subtitles explaining everything they're saying in simpler terms. A genuinely funny running gag). There are some amusing side characters, though too much is never developed near enough or at least leaves a big enough impression.
"The Killer's Game" is okay, serving as a perfectly adequate way to spend an afternoon if you need some time to kill (Tee Hee!). It's also just sloppy in much of its delivery, where the action storyline doesn't excite near enough, while the romance ends up being the aspect that keeps you interested, mostly due to how lovable Bautista and Boutella are together. It gets a couple decent shots in, but still just barely misses the target in the end. 3 Stars. Rated R For Gratuitous Bloody Violence And Bautista Battery