EAGAN AT THE MOVIES
Reviewing Movies Because We Care
Since 2010, and Still Unpaid!
The Monkey by James Eagan ★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Still not as scary as the Monkey from "Toy Story 3".
It's hard to believe that it wasn't even a year ago when Osgood Perkins made an official name for himself in the eyes of the public with his acclaimed and surprisingly financial successful film, "Longlegs".And after providing us with a look into the fires of Hell, now he's free to let his true freak flag fly. Basically he can show us what a macabre and bloodthirsty guy he really is. You've probably never seen a horror-comedy quite like this. One that wants you to know just how hilarious it can be to see someone just go out in the least dignified, most unhinged, and grotesquely violent of ways, while a creepy ass little monkey just plays his little drum with a smile on his face. The monkey is likely symbolic for Osgood Perkins himself. That's my headcanon anyways.
Based on the short story by Stephen King, "The Monkey" follows the awkward "Hal Shelburn" (Played by Christian Convery as a kid, then by Theo James as an adult), and his more abrasive twin brother, "Bill" (Also played by Christian Convery, then Theo James), after they discover a creepy drumming Monkey figurine a closet full of their disappeared dad's things. Living with their cynical, but nonetheless loving mother, "Lois" (Tatiana Maslany), Hal and Bill despise each other to the point where they don't even seem to consider each other brothers. After turning the key on the Monkey's back, resulting in the toy playing its cute little drum, Hal and Bill's babysitter ends up decapitated. When it becomes clear that the Monkey has this strange, unexplainable power to cause people to die in horrifically violent, though pretty hilarious ways, the brothers attempt to get rid of it. Twenty-Five years later, Hal is now a failed dad and is on the verge of losing any and all contact with his son, "Petey" (Colin O'Brien), taking him on a week-long trip to compensate. When more bonkers deaths start to happen, Hal gets a call from Bill (Who he lost contact with years prior) that the Monkey has apparently returned. Hal embarks on a wild goose chase to find out where the Monkey is, how its come back, and all before more bodies start to pile up.
Written and directed by Osgood Perkins ("Longlegs", "Gretel & Hansel"), with a producing credit to James Wan (Creator of the "Saw" and "Conjuring" series), "The Monkey" is something that can only come into existence from the most f*cked up minds in the business, and with the posters straight up only advertising the involvement of Perkins, Wan, and Stephen King, horror movies got a lot to live up to for the rest of the year. This movie makes last week's "Heart Eyes" look tame by comparison! Perkins, who is the son of Actor Anthony Perkins {"Psycho"}, lost both his parents too soon, and you can tell he's incorporated that kind of tragedy into much of his work, though in such a wildly comedic manner. "Longlegs", despite how sinister and sadistic it was, still had an odd, almost quirky sense of humor, and this movie dials that up to past a hundred. This is straight up a live action "Tom & Jerry" cartoon, except the cartoon violence will actually result in grisly deaths. These kills are just absurd and are done through mostly practical effects, resulting in some gnarly images that also seems to treat them like a sick game. Nothing about the movie is pleasant, and yet, Osgood Perkins shoots the film with a sense of whimsy that's too damn contagious. It's the kind of movie that gets you to burst out laughing at a random loaded shotgun literally obliterating a character (Next to a sign that states "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People") and a woman running around wildly with a flaming stroller. It's so freakin wrong and often in such poor taste, but that's what makes it awesome.
Theo James is quite the revelation in this, playing double duty and proving to have rather remarkable comedic timing. Encompassing two varying versions of the overgrown man child archetype, James brings to life levels of eccentricity and crazy that would make Nicholas Cage blush (Credit to Christian Convery too, who has to do the exact same thing for the film's first half hour). While the film obviously doesn't quite have the budget to blend him playing both characters in the same scene in an entirely seamless manner (Lots of back and forth shots), the performances are so good and unique on their own that you really have to simply go with it. Tatiana Maslany is wonderful in her important small part, and there are some equally strange parts for the likes of Rohan Campbell (as "Ricky", who basically injects himself into the whole Monkey situation, along with his silly hairdo), Elijah Wood (as "Ted", Petey's adoptive self-help advertising dad), and a couple out of nowhere cameos. The titular Monkey itself is fittingly creepy, despite rarely moving at all. It just has this kind of thematically nightmarish glow that somehow finds ways of retaining a presence, even when it's not onscreen.
While it might be just too quirky for some (The movie is pretty nonsensical, even if that's meant to be part of the fun), "The Monkey" is a joyfully fiendish farce, which never pulls punches, but rather jabs a fist full of glass shards into your face. Then randomly sets you on fire, while being Blasé about it in an oddly charming manner. You'll be disturbed and terrorized, then will leave the film with a grin bigger than the Monkey itself. 4 Stars. Rated R For All Kinds Of Deaths Both Real And Unreal, Complete With Bowling Balls, Arrows, Lawnmowers, A Cobra, Sign Posts, Hornets, And Vapes.
Love Hurts by James Eagan ★★ out of ★★★★★
Image: Ke Huy Quan enjoying a nice big cup of Awesome.
I love Ke Huy Quan. You love Ke Huy Quan. We all love Ke Huy Quan. How can you not? And now we got him in his own, "John Wick" style action movie? That sounds awesome by construction, and that's why the final film is, well, not so much bad.....Okay, it's a little bad. It's just more, er, immensely disappointing.
"Love Hurts" opens with goody-toe shoes real estate agent, "Marvin Gable" (Ke Huy Quan), going about his day normally, only to get a mysterious Valentine's Day card from "Rose" (Ariana DeBose), a woman from his past. It turns out that Marvin was a deadly assassin from his even worse brother, "Alvin" (Daniel Wu) aka "Knuckles". Marvin had previously been tasked to kill Rose for betraying his brother, only to let her go due to falling in love with her (As any man would do with Ariana DeBose). Marvin quit his murderous lifestyle to live a normal life and has embraced it. However, it seems Rose wants to come out of hiding and bring down Knuckles and his criminal empire. Sadly, this leaves Marvin also exposed and now he has to avoid several specialized killers as he reunites with Rose, who is determined to return Marvin to what she believes is his true self. Marvin on the other hand loves his new life, though he can't help but wonder which of his personas is the real him. The tough, unstoppable killer or the harmless, kind hearted dork.
Directed by first timer, Jonathan Eusebio (Known for his stuntwork on "The Fall Guy", "Black Panther", and "John Wick"), with a screenplay by Matthew Murray, Josh Stoddard ("The Shannara Chronicles"), and Luke Passmore, along with a producing credit from David Leitch ("Bullet Train", "The Fall Guy"), "Love Hurts" has all the ingredients for an instant action classic. Fun premise, with a charming cast playing what should have been colorful characters, and elaborate action set pieces, brought to life via crazy, yet well thought out stuntwork. It's so depressing how much of a mess the film is and even for a barely hour and twenty minute runtime, it feels so padded out and longer than necessary. That's something that's also funny, because it also feels incomplete, like another hour is missing from the film. The film can't seem to figure out its own tone or even what genre it wants to be classified as. It's okay for a film to mix genres or twist them around. However, it's not organic. The comedy clashes with the heavy violence (Which is much bloodier and gorier than you'd expect) and the odd 70s exploitation feel. Not to mention, it also wants to be a Romantic Comedy too! Maybe if there was more character development, better dialogue, or some less time spent on certain goofier, unnecessary aspects. There's a lot weirdly going on in such a fast paced amount of time (Twenty minutes in, we already got our main plot going on, followed by the romance, along with a couple subplots involving some of the villains, and another separate romantic subplot introduced).
Ke Huy Quan is great, period, and he's great here. He's pretty much doing all of the heavy lifting, and boy, that baggage can be pretty damn heavy at times. Ariana DeBose looks like she's having a lot of fun, and yeah, she's just gorgeous beyond reason, though her character is frustratingly incoherent and DeBose suffers for it big time. They also shockingly don't have much chemistry, and I can't tell if that's because of the performances, the script, the editing, or all of the above. Daniel Wu is a serviceable, if underdeveloped, villain, while Cam Gigandet (as "Merlow", Knuckles' number two, with his own agenda) starts off like he's going to be a bigger deal and then fizzles out. There's another subplot with Mustafa Shakir (as "Raven", a poetic, knife throwing assassin sent after Marvin) and Lio Tipton (as "Ashley", Marvin's assistant, who falls in love with Raven), that's more annoying than funny, while the most surprisingly fun characters end up being Marshawn Lynch and André Eriksen (as "King" and "Otis", a pair of bumbling assassins hired by Merlow), getting a few genuine laughs. It was also pretty cute to see Ke Huy Quan reunite with "Goonies" buddy Sean Astin (as "Cliff", Marvin's caring boss), and there's a whole thing where one of the Property Brothers pops up in a prolonged cameo that's bizarrely hilarious in a way I still can't exactly comprehend (It makes you wonder who this movie is meant for exactly).
While not quite the disaster that some would lead you to believe, "Love Hurts" really needed more time in development, because this doesn't feel remotely finished. It has its moments of charm (And picks up action-wise during the last act with an admittedly well done final fight), but its beaten down by the weak script, a lack of laughs, somewhat cringey dialogue (Which may have been intentional, but it falls flat), and ironically, its own identity crisis. It was a cool concept. Just never came together. Everyone deserves better. Including audiences. 2 Stars. Rated R For Excessively Strong Violence, Ke Huy Quan Do, Beast Mode, And Brutal Boba.
Heart Eyes by James Eagan ★★★½ out of ★★★★★
Image: Nothing but love in his eyes. A love of DEATH!
They really screwed the pooch with the "Scream" franchise, didn't they? I mean, there's a chance the next movie will be fine, but the goodwill, especially from the fans, is gone. Guess we're gonna need a new slasher, folks!
"Heart Eyes" opens with the now notorious "Heart Eyes Killer" (Or "HEK" for short) has been on several Valentine's Day killing sprees for the past couple years, with there being no leads as to who the killer is or their true motivation, other than slaughtering couples on the day of love (Mostly the overly in your face, love dovey ones). In Seattle, a pitch designer for a fashion company (Specialized in romance), "Ally" (Olivia Holt), is not doing too well after a recent breakup, and is now fearing that she is going to lose the job that she also happens to hate so much. After a failed marketing campaign based around doomed lovers (Including some amusing parodies of "Titanic" and "Bonnie & Clyde" in pretentious ad form), Ally's boss, "Crystal" (Michaela Watkins) forces her to work with a new designer, "Jay" (Mason Gooding), who Ally did happen to have a semi-meet cute earlier that day. Jay invites Ally to dinner to discuss the new campaign, though Ally's newfound cynicism kind of gets in the way, despite the two of them actually having genuine chemistry. Unfortunately for the two of them, the Heart Eyes Killer happens to notice and now targets them as the next pair of victims. Ally and Jay now must evade the ruthless killer, who is willing to slice and dice anyone who happens to get in the way, while their possible romance starts to blossom amidst all the blood and carnage.
Directed by Josh Ruben ("Werewolves Within"), with a screenplay by Phillip Murphy ("Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard"), Christopher Landon (The "Happy Death Day" films), and Michael Kennedy ("It's A Wonderful Knife"), "Heart Eyes" isn't anything too new for the slasher genre, and in some ways in spite of the decent size body count and grisly deaths, it's more of a comedy first and a slasher second. It's as if a pretty normal Romantic Comedy is happening, only to get interrupted by a serial killer. What the film lacks in originality, it makes up for with some clever twists to the genre, Ruben's inspired direction, and the fact that it's genuinely really funny in such a nihilistic kind of way, yet still comes across as oddly adorable due to the liability of its main characters. It's a shock to me how much fun this is. Right when the film starts (With a couple trying to make the perfect engagement, getting rather comically, though nonetheless gruesomely, murdered in a winery), you get the idea what this movie is going for. Even the deaths aren't meant to be taken overly seriously due to how absolutely unhinged they are, and Josh Ruben can still craft some elaborate setpieces that can be equally suspenseful and fun (It's never particularly scary, though Slasher movies rarely are to me anyways). It's brutal at times, though that quite hilariously only makes the film's surprisingly big heart both effective and funny at the same time. It's how you do a complete tonal shift right.
Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding are an excellent pairing, with charismatic chemistry, that avoids certain Rom-Com pratfalls. They get on each other's nerves at times, yet aren't always bickering. They're infectiously cute together, though never overtly so. With great comedic timing, Holt and Gooding really are the film's biggest selling point. There are some amusing moments from the likes of an overly intense Devon Sawa and an overly flirty/really hot Jordana Brewster (as bumbling cops, ludicrously named "Hobbs" and "Shaw"), while I was shocked at how small of a role Michaela Watkins and Gigi Zumbado (as "Monica", Ally's sassy friend) ended up playing, despite it seeming as if they were going to serve bigger purposes at first. As for the titular killer, Heart Eyes makes for a good, fairly old school, slasher, even with the humorous edge. The mask is creepy, and the killer's unhinged ways of taking out their victims are certainly unique (Not to mention how the killer will take moments to just kill a random bystander who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time). The whole aspect of who the killer actually is isn't exactly a big deal in the grand scheme, which is good because it's actually really easy to figure out, even with the curve balls the movie tries to throw in.
As usual with Slasher films like this, "Heart Eyes" does start to lose some steam towards the end. Still, it's well paced, deliciously deranged, and even quite adorable, thanks to the killer back and forth between Olivia Holt and Mason Gooding. It's the right amount of vicious and the right amount of sweet. A date movie that all can enjoy, whether you're cheesy and want some romance, snarky and are just looking for a good comedy, or if you're just sick as f*ck and are looking to see some poor saps get horrifically murdered in grisly fashion. You could do much worse this Valentine's Day. 3 1/2 Stars. Rated R For Bloody Violence, Scary Stuff, And The Best Use Of A Metal Straw.
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.