EAGAN AT THE MOVIES
Reviewing Movies Because We Care
Since 2010, and Still Unpaid!
Dog Man by James Eagan ★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: If Dog Man is willing to wear a body-cam, then so should you!
Believe it or not, cartoonishly frantic and dangerously energized kids movies might be therapeutic for the mind.
Based on the book series by Dave Pilkey (The books being a spin-off of his "Captain Underpants" series, being one of the comics made by George and Harold from those books), "Dog Man" opens in the colorfully wacky world of "OK City", which is repeatedly terrorized by the dastardly (And incredibly cynical) villainous cat, "Petey" (Pete Davidson). Moronic cop, "Officer Knight", and his beloved dog, "Greg", attempt to capture Petey, only to end up being blown up to the point where the doctors can only save Knight's body (But not his head) and Greg's head (But not his body). This leads to them coming up with the brilliant idea to.....put the dog's head on the man's body. This results in "Dog Man", a crime fighting "Supa Cop", who immediately becomes beloved by the community, despite his inability to successfully catch the always escaping Petey. The city's mayor (Cheri Oteri), demands some results, telling the "Chief" (Lil Rel Howery), that if Dog Man can't catch Petey for good, then Dog Man must be taken off the case. Meanwhile, after failing to defeat Dog Man several times, Petey comes up with a new scheme, involving a dead, evil robotic fish named "Flippy", a building that makes "Living Spray", and a cloning machine, which he uses to clone himself. Unfortunately, Petey ends ups with a kitten clone of himself, "Li'l Petey" (Lucas Hopkins Calderon), who sees Petey as his papa. The ever lonely Dog Man befriends Li'l Petey (After Petey abandons him), leading to Dog Man and Petey's rivalry to come to an end, and an even bigger threat about to bring an end to the city and its citizens.
Written and directed by Peter Hastings (Known for work on "Tiny Toon Adventures", "Animaniacs", "Pinky and the Brain", and others), "Dog Man" is, as you can tell from that mumbo jumbo I described in the plot, not meant to be logical. It's literally supposed to be a story, come up with by some sugar-fueled Elementary school kids, and the film perfectly encompasses that. If you're up to what's not even an hour and a half of that is up to you. However, I can bet fans of the book series and kids in general will have a ball with it, and while it doesn't have the depth of say "The LEGO Movie" or even the same level humor of "Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie" (Which also came from DreamWorks Animation like this did), it's still an irresistible and often, pretty hilarious bit of silly nonsense. It knows what it's meant to be, and thankfully, it doesn't use that as an excuse to be lazy or to just dangle some keys for a quick runtime.
For what the film lacks in, er, coherence I suppose, it makes up for in clever wordplay, creative visuals, a surprising amount of heart, and enough laughs that might even get some of the parents snickering more than they thought. I also can't praise the animation style enough. It looks like a stop-motion comic book, brought to life with vigorous energy, breathtaking storyboarding, and even a few intentionally conflicting art aesthetics (Where the animation will jump back and forth from 3D to 2D, or find something in-between). It's genuinely quite funny, whether it be the outlandish places the plot goes, some blink and you'll miss it background or sign gags (Always a favorite of mine), or just plain things that are so absurdly stupid that it gets a big laugh out of you. Like Petey's "Secret Lair" is literally out in the open, with signs pointing to it, or the Chief taking Dog Man through a secret tunnel to show him his awesome, special gear, which only leads them right back into the same exact room as before. (There's also apparently a hotline that character's can call when they say "Life's Not Fair", where the guy on the other line just tells them "Life's Not Fair", and then hangs up) Props to the filmmakers for making the first funny "I can see my house from here" joke I've seen in years.
It may be Dog Man's movie (And he's plenty lovable), but the real scene-stealer ends up being Pete Davidson. He's got the kind of active personality and animated voice that seems made for voice work, while also being the film's most complicated character. Somehow, he's hilariously dastardly, yet shockingly tragic, with his whole relationship with Lucas Hopkins Calderon serving as a place where the film finds some extra heart. Lil Rel Howery is a blast, along with an adorable Isla Fisher (as "Sarah Hatoff", the city's news reporter, that the Chief has a crush on), Billy Boyd (as "Seamus", Sarah's loyal cameraman), Cheri Oteri, Stephen Root (as Petey's absolutely terrible, uncaring father), and underused, but delightful Ricky Gervais (as the voice of the eventually resurrected "Flippy the Fish"), who only comes in during the third act as the true main villain (Making the most out of limited screentime).
Underneath all of the manic silliness, "Dog Man" has a sweet side, a good message of optimism, stellar animation, and some outstanding voice work (Peter Davidson especially is unexpectedly wonderful). I can't say that the movie will do much for the older crowd, with there being more mature animated films to choose from that the whole family can love. However, there isn't a mean bone in this movie's fluffy body, making for a totally Supa time for the kiddies and maybe enough for the parents to just go with the goofy antics. As for me, I got a soft spot for it. Crazy kids movies like this are going to keep me sane and hopeful during another four years of Trump. 3 1/2 Stars. Rated PG (Though It's Fairly G Rated For The Most Part) For, Well, The Disturbing Concept Of A Man And A Dog Being Forced To Become One Against Their Will, With The Man's Original Head Wasting Away In Some Lab And The Dog's Body Likely Thrown Out To Make Mulch, While......Just Don't Think About It.
Companion by James Eagan ★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: If you're somehow not in love with Sophie Thatcher after seeing this movie (At least in a metaphorical sense), you're obviously not human.
This is another one of those movies that I can see not sitting well with some people. Dudes mostly. Straight dudes. You know who I'm talking about. The kind who likely get their "Star Wars" news from YouTubers and still have their hate boners for the likes of Brie Larson and Rachel Zegler (Emphasis on the boner part). You gotta love to see it, and it makes for the first really good film of 2025. (And hey, perfect date movie if you ask me. Double Feature with "Your Monster" while you're at it!)
"Companion" opens with loving couple, "Iris" (Sophie Thatcher) and "Josh" (Jack Quaid), taking a trip to remote cabin in the woods (It's less of a cabin, and more of a full blown estate), owned by the morally questionable and very Russian, "Sergey" (Rupert Friend), to meet with Josh's friends, including "Kat" (Megan Suri), along with "Eli" (Harvey Guillén) and his boyfriend, "Patrick" (Lukas Gage). Iris is seemingly the perfect girlfriend, who loves Josh unconditionally, is hot as Hell, completely devoid of her own hobbies or interests, and only lives to make Josh happy (Which should clue you in that something is obviously wrong here). After an altercation with Sergey, Iris' world comes crashing down as she realizes her life is a lie and ends up as part of an elaborate (And poorly planned scheme), which takes some turns that really are best not spoiled.
Written and directed by Drew Hancock (Whose writing credits include, and I'm not making this up, the third "Fred" film for Nickelodeon and a few episodes of "Mr. Pickles" on Adult Swim. Weirdly makes sense now that I think about it), with a producing credit from "Barbarian" director Zach Cregger, "Companion" is what happens when someone takes a hammer to the facade of your average Rom-Com. I will say that the first twist isn't that hard to figure out (And it's revealed in the first twenty minutes or so, along with apparently the most recent trailer), though where they take this macabre, pitch black comedy is both ludicrously insane and cleverly unpredictable. Similar to "Barbarian", the genres are flipped around so much that by the second act, it feels like a completely different film, which I do genuinely mean in the best way. Hancock's direction and screenplay skillfully deconstruct the idea of the perfect relationship (At least the male's version of it), along with the nonsensical feelings of love itself (How does it make us both very happy and violently angry at the same time?) Then of course, the unhinged levels of toxic masculinity, that at the rate we're going, will never not be relevant in some way. I also love how the film plays like a horror movie, yet is filmed like a romance movie, except the film's tone is more darkly comedic than anything else (Credit to the editing, which is intentionally quick and chopped up, giving the feel of an Edgar Wright film). It's an ingenious bending of the genres that pay off with the film's themes. It's also just really funny, particularly when more of what's going on is pieced together and how so much of what's happening could have been avoided, though you damn well it would actually go down like this due to some good old fashioned humor error and stupidity.
Sophie Thatcher, who has been making a big name for herself lately and for good reason too, is mesmerizing in a role that requires her body language, eyes, and even her voice in cleverly surreal ways (Her really hot voice especially). Jack Quaid plays a fidgety douchebag better than any other actor working today, while Lukas Gage really gets to show off his surprise versatility in one of the movie's more complicated parts. Megan Suri is appropriately unapologetic, Rupert Friend has embraced just playing whatever weirdo comes to mind lately, and Harvey Guillén is hilarious, I do like that, despite some of the characters being likely being characterized via certain aspects that have by this point become stock, everyone is fully realized and have more to them than what first appears. Maybe they have unexpected depth or might actually be much worse. You do have to put it all together yourself.
Funny, twisted, and most importantly, smart, "Companion" is a strong first film for director Drew Hancock, with a refreshing take on its subject matter and an eye-catching breakout performance from Sophie Thatcher (Seriously, how can you not have a crush on her after this?). With some shockingly brutal violence, unconventional approaches to old ideas, and damn good satire, it's this year's first must see. 4 Stars. Rated R For Bloody Violence, Sexual Content, Bad Boyfriends, Killer Apps, And Irredeemable Incelness.
Flight Risk by James Eagan ★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: And here I thought if you were on that plane, 9/11 never would have happened. Yet another Marky Mark disappointment.
From one of our newly appointed, so-called "Special Ambassadors of Hollywood", comes the most generic, clearly old school bad January release in recent memory that quite frankly, looks like it could have been directed by literally anyone on auto-pilot. If THIS is what we're supposed to be stuck with for the next few years, the industry truly is doomed. Thanks Mr. President!
"Flight Risk" opens with United States Marshal, "Madelyn Harris" (Michelle Dockery) capturing the fleeing, "Winston" (Topher Grace), who did some accounting for a crime lord, "Moretti". Winston agrees to become an informant to save himself, so long as he gets the best protection possible, knowing what Moretti is capable of. It's arranged for Madelyn to oversee Winston's transportation over the Alaskan mountains in a small plane, piloted by the overly Southern, rednecky pilot, "Daryl Booth" (Mark Wahlberg). Something obviously isn't right from the beginning and Daryl is revealed to be a psychopathic, balding, non-Southern unnamed hitman, who Moretti hired to silence Winston. After subduing the hitman and handcuffing him to the back of the plane, it's up to Madelyn to pilot the aircraft herself, despite not knowing what she's doing. It also becomes apparent that there might not be anyone that she and Winston can trust, while the hitman repeatedly plots ways of killing them both and completing his mission.
Directed by Mel Gibson ("Braveheart", "Hacksaw Ridge"), with a screenplay by Jared Rosenberg, "Flight Risk" is a forgettable and oddly pedestrian feeling thriller, that's not without a cool premise, yet is sadly hindered by uninspired direction and an incredibly safe screenplay. It's easy to rag on Gibson for some of his recent work (The man hasn't given a performance in the last five years or so where he looked like he gave a crap and is slowly turning into one of those steel wool sponges), and even easier to criticize all the, um, "other stuff", that we've all either decided to ignore or are for some reason okay with. Still, the man is a capable director, but you wouldn't know it here. It's not terrible. It's just so damn unremarkable. Nothing about it stands out, aside from some occasionally shoddy CGI and some really bad off screen dubbing (Did Mark Wahlberg not originally do an accent at the beginning? Because most of his dialogue wasn't remotely syncing up with his lips at first!). I'm all for a bare bones story, where everything you see is strictly from the point of view of our main characters, which could make for a tense bottle film. It ends up being too bare bones though, with lots of predictable tropes and the most basic of characterizations for the most part. If anything happens outside of the film's main setting, it has little to no effect on the characters, despite the film trying to convince us that it is.
The always classy and respectable Michelle Dockery (Also, she's so pretty!) is at least capable, even when the script isn't. She does a good job considering the film's limitations, and especially since the film is restricted to its tight quarters, she has to carry a lot of the film's baggage. Topher Grace is also pretty great, getting a few funny lines, and perfectly playing the cowardly dweeb, who should have been killed five minutes in. He also easily gets the film's best character arc, where you do see past his ineptitude and spinelessness to find his humanity. Dockery and Grace are solid together, and that leaves Mark Wahlberg to be a third wheel. It does seem that Wahlberg is trying to do something a little different here, abandoning his Marky Markness in favor of a cartoonishly over the top villain, and I can see what they were going for. Frustratingly though, it just doesn't work. He ends up coming across as more of a silly nuisance than a scary threat. He ends up being so inconsequential to the narrative in a few rinse and repeat sequences where he busts free, tries to kill our main characters, makes a crude (Or mostly homophobic) remark, and then easily gets his ass beat before getting tied back up. That happens like three or four times. Once we reach the film's climax, you realize he didn't need to be there at all.
Despite a few tense moments, "Flight Risk" is sorely lacking in thrills, especially in the last act. It's rather baffling how nonchalant the film ends, cutting to black and leaving you wondering if there was actually supposed to be more or not. It's not like I was exactly asking for more, but it was jarring to see the film literally just stop on such a non-cinematic note. Feels more like a commercial break than an actual ending or what happens when you get tired of watching something on Netflix and simply cut it off. Fitting because this should have been a Netflix movie. Something you either leave on in the background and don't pay attention to or watch on your phone in an almost zombified fashion and immediately forget all about it after. I'd probably be a little easier on it if that had been the case. Seeing it in the theaters feels more like you're actually trapped on a doomed flight with Mark Wahlberg and his bald cap. It's just the lame kind of bad. 1 1/2 Stars. Rated R For Strong Language, A Little Violence, On The Phone Flirting (I Do Genuinely Hope They Ended Up Together Though!), And That Butt Ugly CGI Moose. Whoever Thought That Was Okay Needs To Be Fired!
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.