Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
MrDHWong
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Welcomes both the "Merc with a Mouth" and his clawed counterpart into the MCU with open arms
"Deadpool & Wolverine" is the sequel to both 2016's "Deadpool" and 2018's "Deadpool 2", and the 34th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Directed by Shawn Levy ("Night at the Museum" trilogy, "Cheaper by the Dozen") and starring Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman in the lead roles, it alleviates any doubt that Disney would ruin the iconic "Merc with a Mouth" in a film that welcomes both him and his clawed counterpart into the MCU with open arms.
Sometime after the events of "Deadpool 2", Wade Wilson/Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) is now working as a car salesman after his application to join the Avengers was declined. One night, Wade is enjoying a surprise birthday party with his friends when he is suddenly visited by the Time Variance Authority (TVA), who forcibly take him to their headquarters to meet their high ranking agent Mr. Paradox (Matthew Macfadyen). While there, Mr. Paradox informs Wade that due to his previous escapades through the multiverse, he has inadvertently caused his own universe to unravel, giving him just 72 hours until everyone and everything he loves disappears forever. To prevent this from happening, Mr. Paradox tasks Wade with searching through numerous universes to find a suitable variant of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to assist him on his mission. During his journey, Wade eventually stumbles upon a disgraced, alcoholic variant of Wolverine and after some initial hostility, the two pair up to stop further damage from spreading throughout the entire multiverse.
In recent years, the MCU has found itself stuck in something of a creative rut, churning out lukewarm to terrible content that is causing the interest of general audiences and longtime fans to dissipate. Though it is indeed a tall order to top the two recent "Avengers" films, it has since become clear that the best days of the once adored superhero franchise are now well and truly in the past. When Disney acquired 20th Century Fox in 2017, this allowed for some previously unavailable Marvel heroes to join the MCU, keeping fans hopeful that there could be some exciting new additions in the future. After some lengthy creative negotiations, we now have the first MCU film to focus entirely on heroes once owned by Fox in "Deadpool & Wolverine", which makes great use of both character dynamics without ever forgetting their trademark appeal.
Something practically everyone knows and loves about Deadpool's character is his crude, unapologetically violent approach to getting the job done, a trait many would assume has no place within the otherwise PG-13 rated MCU. However, it is soon shown to us that this is definitely not the case this time around, as we are quickly treated to all of his signature blood, gore, swearing, and sexual innuendo that many feared would be absent after the Disney buyout. As our red-suited anti-hero playfully hums along to the opening logos, he then breaks the fourth wall in his usual fashion by directly informing the audience that a lot has happened since his previous adventure. We see him make sly references to his IP being under new ownership, the spotty legacy of the 20th Century Fox era of superhero movies, and even some self-referential jabs at the current decline in quality of the MCU itself. This is then followed up with an impressively shot, yet brutally violent action scene set to a song made famous by a popular early 2000s boyband. It was at this point I knew that Deadpool is in good hands with people who actually understand his character, at least for the time being.
Similarly, Wolverine's return to the spotlight is handled rather well too. At first, I was apprehensive about revisiting the character out of fear it would diminish the perfect ending to 2017's "Logan", but to my relief we soon learn that this is an entirely different variation from another multiverse altogether. This variant is viewed as a complete failure in his universe, reduced to drinking his problems away hoping in vain he will eventually succumb to alcohol poisoning and die, which is impossible considering his genetic makeup. After this Wolverine and Deadpool form an uneasy alliance, we soon see their comedic dynamic come into play. Deadpool is of course the loud-mouthed, wisecracking comic relief making humorous observations to help move the plot along, and Wolverine is the disheveled straight man whose reactions to certain situations allow for him to learn from his previous mistakes. Each of the two characters are given equal amounts of screen time throughout the story, and watching them grow in their own respective ways leads to a very satisfying conclusion on both fronts.
In addition to this, the action sequences never stop being fun. Director Shawn Levy frames each of these scenes with all of the same visual style as the previous two "Deadpool" films, littering them with graphic violence, sexual references, and the occasional funny allusion to the real-world actors playing the characters involved in the skirmish. Nothing is ever compromised for the sake of appeasing a family-friendly audience, with this film proudly wearing its R rating as a badge of honour. Best of all, there wasn't a single action scene that felt out of place or one where it was hard to tell who was fighting who. Many times I found myself genuinely invested in everything that was happening during a fight, as the outcome could seriously affect how the rest of the story was going to play out. This is something that has been missing from recent MCU films, where most of the action sequences feel pretty much the same the whole way through.
Without giving away too much, it is worth mentioning that this film has a number of hidden surprises and cameos that aren't strictly limited to just the MCU. In one scene, both Deadpool and Wolverine team up with other heroes who have been absent for a very long time, which is sure to excite people in a similar manner to that portals scene in "Spider-Man: No Way Home". These characters were used well within the context of the story, and some of them I had almost forgotten about had this film not reminded me of their existence. Of course, I am not going to reveal who they all are due to spoilers, so all I will say is that it has me curious to see what could happen in future MCU projects if Disney ever decides to use them again.
I have said it twice before and I will say it again; Ryan Reynolds was born to play the role of Wade Wilson/Deadpool. From his quick-witted observations at whatever predicament he has found himself in to his assured skills in weaponry and hand-to-hand combat, there is simply no other actor out there capable of imitating Reynolds's trademark charisma. What's also interesting here is watching how much Wade has changed in between the previous film and this one. It is established that Wade desperately longs to become one of the Avengers, naturally feeling devastated upon finding out he has been turned down by those he admires most. This has clearly affected his self-esteem, and watching Wade try to regain his signature confidence over the course of the story is a nice way to help him develop into the worthy hero he wishes to become.
Likewise, it is great to see Hugh Jackman return to the role that made him into an international star. As mentioned earlier, this Wolverine is at rock bottom, having failed to meet all of the expectations required of him in his respective universe. He fully realises he has messed things up, and it is going to take somebody as determined as Deadpool to drag him out of this hole. Jackman maintains that same amount of surliness and feeling of inadequacy as all of his previous versions of Wolverine, only this time it is used to play off his comedic partner in Deadpool. Though he clearly can't stand him at first, Wolverine soon realises that Deadpool is an important catalyst towards his potential redemption, and so begrudgingly tolerates his antics throughout the film. It is here we see that Reynolds and Jackman have great chemistry with each other, with their interactions contributing many humorous and heartfelt moments that feel right at home with the MCU.
For anyone still uncertain over the future of both IPs, "Deadpool & Wolverine" is sure to put most people at ease with its seamless integration into the rest of the MCU. It treats the characters with the same level of respect as their fans and it never lets up with everything that made each of them so iconic in the first place. Although I think it's a bit early to tell if the MCU has now been "saved" from its downward spiral, I can at least say that this film provides a highly entertaining experience regardless of which direction things end up going. At this point in time, that reason alone is something commendable.
I rate it a solid 9/10.
IF (2024)
Fails to take advantage of its interesting premise by squandering virtually all of its potential
"IF" is a fantasy family film written and directed by John Krasinski ("A Quiet Place" Parts I and II). Starring Cailey Fleming and Ryan Reynolds, it fails to take advantage of its interesting premise by squandering virtually all of its potential.
In New York City, 12-year-old Bea (Cailey Fleming) moves into an apartment occupied by her grandmother Margaret (Fiona Shaw) while she waits for her father (John Krasinski) to undergo heart surgery. One day, Bea notices a strange creature being accompanied by a man and decides to follow them both to a nearby house. While there, Bea witnesses the man and the creature retrieve a large purple monster named Blue (voiced by Steve Carell) and is soon spotted by the trio, causing her to faint in shock. Upon awakening, Bea finds herself in the man's apartment, who introduces himself to her as Cal (Ryan Reynolds) and informs her that he works with other people's abandoned imaginary friends ("IF" for short) to help them find new homes. After some convincing by Cal, Bea eventually decides to assist him on his mission to rescue as many discarded IFs as possible.
Throughout pop culture, the concept of having imaginary friends has been explored numerous times. Some of the more prominent examples of this include Bing Bong, the childhood imagery friend of "Inside Out" protagonist Riley Andersen, and the Cartoon Network series "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends", which is set in an orphanage dedicated to housing the titular creatures. Part of the reason this idea works so well in fiction is due to the fact that people of all ages at one point have imagined having that perfect friend to spend their time with, whether it's another person or some odd creature dreamed up on the spot. The 2024 film "IF" attempts to use this intriguing concept to remind its audience of the importance of retaining our youthful innocence where necessary but falters at nearly every opportunity.
Among the film's many problems, I would have to say that its bizarre narrative structure is what stands out the most. As the story begins, we are introduced to Bea, a young girl who learns she now has the ability to see other people's imaginary friends (IFs). No explanation is ever given as to why she suddenly has this power after twelve years and the film never bothers to explore the idea of why she wasn't able to do so beforehand. Immediately after, Bea decides to work with Cal, a strange man whom she recently saw sneaking into another child's bedroom at night, in order to help him find new owners for neglected imaginary friends. From here on out, the rest of the film consists of scenes featuring Bea and Cal interacting with other IFs who long to be re-homed or Bea hoping that her sick father will recover from his illness. The film's repetitive, non-sensical plot elements coupled with equally strange character motivations make it hard to become fully invested into what can be loosely referred to as a story. As a result, I simply did not care at all about any major event that happened in this movie.
Though he has proven himself capable in the past with the "A Quiet Place" series, John Krasinski's direction here is painfully lacklustre. His handling of the film's world building leaves so much to be desired that it feels like he himself didn't understand what type of film he was trying to make. In one scene, we are shown that all of the IFs reside within a large ride at Coney Island that contains a hidden trap door leading to each of their living quarters. Instead of coming alive as a living, breathing fantasy world, the interior of this ride is nothing more than an excuse to show off the film's decent special effects, with practically no sense of atmosphere or immersion. Krasinski makes no effort to draw distinctions between any of the different IFs, aside from the fact they are all voiced by random celebrities who are only there for the pay check. When you can't even get the fantasy elements right in a fantasy movie, you know it's not going to work out.
Something else worth mentioning is the film's unnecessarily bleak tone. What appears to have been advertised as a light-hearted story about a young girl helping imaginary friends find new homes is actually a disheartening experience that is constantly reminding the audience about death, losing friends, forgetting the things you love, and never attaining true happiness. What's strange is that while the film tries to address each of these depressing themes, it only ever manages to offer the typical empty promises that things will improve eventually. Which is not what happens out in the real world. If you're going to make a family film that touches on downbeat topics like this, then you should at least show constructive methods for how to overcome these obstacles, something that we never get to see at any point in this movie.
In addition to this, the film's pacing is so slow that it's hard to remain invested in anything long term. Practically nothing exciting happens that is worth mentioning, and other than one brief scene near the end, most of the film has so little occurring throughout the story that I struggled to remember any other genuine moments that stood out to me. Because of this, I found myself bored out of my mind for almost the entirety of the film's 104 minute run time, which also includes ten minutes worth of credits. In most other cases, I can forgive a film for being inaccessible to older viewers if the children at least enjoy it, but I cannot imagine any kids staying focused for very long while sitting through this one. If anything, this is the type of film you would put on to help your children fall asleep, because I was often at the point of dozing off at any given time.
As far as child actors go, Cailey Fleming tries her hardest with the mediocre material she has to work with, though this ultimately proves to be a futile effort. Bea is so underwritten and generic that there is nothing Fleming can really do help her stand out beyond your typical "child with powers" character. Her struggles are all surface level and don't offer any real insight as to why she is even the right person to be helping the IFs in the first place. For most of the movie, Bea either looks bored or confused as to what is happening around her, and aside from some of the interactions she has with Cal and her father, she doesn't feel like she is growing all that much over the course of the story. It is possible Bea was written this weakly on purpose to serve as an avatar character for children to imagine themselves in her role, but this is still no excuse for how poorly utilised she is within the film's plot.
Another disappointment would be Ryan Reynolds in the role of Cal, a character so far removed from what he would normally play. Anyone familiar with Reynolds would know that he is at his best playing likeable, wisecracking characters (which is why he is so perfect as Deadpool), yet Cal is so unbelievably dull and reserved that I had to keep reminding myself that it was him in the role. For most of the movie, Cal remains pessimistic towards his goal, only occasionally having his spirits lifted by either Bea or one of the other IFs. At no point does Reynolds ever contribute anything humorous or noteworthy to the story to help him leave any real impression on the viewer.
On the other hand, John Krasinski's character of Bea's father is far closer to somebody you would expect Ryan Reynolds to be playing. He is eccentric, fun-loving, and isn't afraid to embrace his inner child whenever he plays with his daughter. Unfortunately, he is mostly confined to a hospital room for the duration of the film, only ever showing up when he needs to provide any expositional dialogue. In my opinion, Krasinski and Reynolds should have swapped roles, as this could have helped the movie somewhat, although not by a whole lot.
In the voice role as Blue, the only IF with some substantial character development, Steve Carell's performance is decidedly underwhelming. Every comedic moment Blue tries to add to the story falls flat, with Carell's signature delivery coming across as desperate to make the audience laugh. Aside from Blue, the rest of the IFs feel more like forgettable throwaway gags. Sure, some of their voices are provided by celebrities like George Clooney, Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Bradley Cooper, and Bill Hader, but aside from that, they all feel indistinguishable from one another. It's quite an achievement for a film about imaginary talking creatures to be this boring, but by some miracle it found a way.
Despite having so much going for it, "IF" is a failure on a large scale that makes poor use of every one of its otherwise engaging attributes. The characters are underdeveloped, the story is uninteresting, the pacing is sluggish, and its depressing tone certainly brings the mood down. I honestly wanted to like this movie but I just cannot recommend it to anyone, as both children and adults would be hard-pressed finding anything worth appreciating from either point of view. If you ask me, you're much better off imagining a better movie to watch than this one, because even that provides a better use of your time.
I rate it 4/10.
Twisters (2024)
An exciting adventure film that works perfectly fine on its own without any prior knowledge of what came before it
"Twisters" is a standalone sequel to the 1996 disaster film "Twister", Directed by Lee Isaac Chung ("Minari") and starring Daisy Edgar-Jones, Glen Powell, and Anthony Ramos, it exceeds its loosely related predecessor as an exciting adventure film that works perfectly fine on its own without any prior knowledge of what came before it.
Five years after losing most of her friends in a devastating tornado, former storm chaser Kate Cooper (Daisy Edgar-Jones) has since retired and pursued a career as a meteorologist in New York City. One day, Kate is approached by her friend Javi (Anthony Ramos), who informs her that tornado season is intensifying in Oklahoma and wants her to assist him in testing out some new weather tracking technology he has developed. After some convincing, Kate reluctantly comes out of retirement to accompany Javi into the dangerous, wind-stricken state in hopes that this new device can prevent future casualties of this natural phenomenon. Upon arriving, Kate and Javi find themselves crossing paths with Tyler Owens (Glen Powell), a social media influencer who has gained fame by posting all of his storm chasing adventures online for his millions of followers. With the storm season worsening, Kate, Javi, and Tyler work together to further study the patterns of these deadly winds while also trying to survive being blown away in the process.
Thanks to advancements in technology, disaster movies experienced quite a resurgence back in the 90s, with films like "Independence Day", "Armageddon", and "Volcano" dominating the box office throughout the course of this decade. One of the more notable examples of this genre would be "Twister", a film about a group of tornado chasers determined to research these destructive winds even if it means placing their lives in danger. Although the film was flawed in many places, it nonetheless managed to win audiences over with its great special effects and sound for that particular era. On that note, it's worth mentioning that "Twister" was also one of the very first films to be released on DVD, likely as an ideal way to demonstrate the sound capabilities of home theatre systems. Almost 30 years later, we now have a standalone follow-up in the pluralised "Twisters", which still provides many of the thrills of its similarly themed relative with plenty of technical updates and even some narrative improvements that were previously lacking.
It's pretty obvious that most people only watched the original film for the special effects, choosing to disregard the poor characterisation and paper-thin plot as irrelevant to the enjoyment factor. However, this time around, it seems like actual effort has gone into developing the characters beyond one-dimensional people placed in the path of danger simply for the sake of an action scene. As we are introduced to our protagonist Kate, we see that she is still suffering from PTSD as a result of watching her friends literally blown away right in front of her by a huge tornado. With her confidence in her abilities now in doubt, Kate decides to work in the less dangerous field of meteorology behind the safety of an office desk. When her friend Javi convinces her to help him with his research, Kate musters up the courage to return to what she knows best; chasing tornadoes right up close and personal. Most of the film focuses on Kate putting her extensive tornado knowledge to great use, and it's nice to see her work hard to conquer her trauma over the course of the story.
As the film progresses, we then meet the bombastic but charming Tyler Owens, whose high-octane methods of chasing tornados have gained him a large following online. Donning a stetson and cranking the rodeo music up loud, Tyler and his crew are shown speeding their way directly inside the whirling vortexes and recording their antics for the entire world to see, earning him the nickname "The Cowboy Meteorologist". He treats tornadoes almost like wild broncos, wrangling his way through the extreme winds to "tame" them using the technological features attached to his customised pick-up truck. What I found interesting about Tyler's character is that despite his rowdy demeanour, he is quite knowledgable about meteorology and is passionate about what he does for a living. He is genuinely fascinated by the unpredictability of these dangerous wind anomalies, using his adventurous nature to encourage his fans to learn more about the world's weather, so long as they don't try to imitate what he does at home, of course.
Also improving upon the original is the film's visual effects and pacing. Director Lee Isaac Chung's quick editing and atmospheric cinematography skilfully places his audience right into the thick of the intense winds, making it easy to understand their destructive capabilities. We see objects consumed by the tornadoes like a monstrous creature devouring everything in its path, playing into the notion that this extreme weather is truly a force to behold. The CGI effects are all highly convincing here, and the very idea that a large object like a truck or even a barn could drop out of the sky amidst the chaos at any moment helps keep viewers in suspense. Additionally, unlike the 1996 film, which was borderline comical in how convenient the tornadoes would appear randomly whenever the plot desired it, each time one was featured here it was because the characters were actively searching for it. As a result, it really felt as though these storms were being chased by the chasers rather than the storms chasing them instead.
In the lead role, Daisy Edgar-Jones is likeable enough as Kate, although it does take her a bit of time to gain some personality throughout the film. At first, her character is understandably still coming to terms with the trauma she is enduring over what happened five years earlier, so she does little else but react stoically to things for the first half of the movie. I suppose you could interpret this as a commentary on how people handle PTSD differently from others, but it doesn't help Kate stand out among the more interesting cast members who are doing far more exciting things in the mean time. Eventually, Kate does come into her own as she regains her confidence over time, and in doing so she becomes a believable heroine whose actions make you want to cheer for her to succeed.
I was somewhat disappointed by how underused Anthony Ramos was as Javi, whose role in the film is nothing more than a basic sidekick for Kate. Though his interactions with her did provide some reasonable insight at first, he is later demoted to being a typical expositional character, only really showing up to inform Kate about a tornado that might be forming. Since Javi is the one who built the technology that could teach others more about how tornadoes function, it seems like a waste not to have featured him in the story as much as he should have been. Aside from one scene near the end, Javi's overall presence in the film is mostly forgettable.
However, Glen Powell is definitely a major highlight as Tyler, whose character steals the show in nearly every one of his scenes without even trying. Powell's performance is reminiscent of a young Matthew McConaughey, always wearing his Texan roots on his sleeve and exhibiting a level confidence that always has him in control of the situation, no matter how bad things might get. Tyler's unique methods of chasing tornadoes are so much fun to watch that if he were a real, I'd be more than happy to subscribe to his YouTube channel. Tyler's interactions with Kate also add some much needed emotional warmth to the film, as it is comforting to watch the two bond over their mutual interest in tornados. This is certainly a refreshing change from the 1996 film, which consisted primarily of Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt bickering at each other until another tornado decides to strike out of the blue.
Regardless of whether you've seen the original or not, "Twisters" is sure to provide all of the necessary thrills one would expect from a film about people chasing tornadoes. It only wishes to please its audience with laidback popcorn entertainment and never becomes too bogged down with deep themes or complicated exposition. With that said, I would be willing to call this one of the best movies to feature tornadoes as its main plot device. Then again, apart from the 1996 film, the "Sharknado" series, and "The Wizard of Oz", it's not like it has much competition on its hands.
I rate it 8/10.
Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F (2024)
Successfully recaptures most of what made the series so fun in the first place by making great use of its setting and characters
"Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F" is the sequel to the action comedy film "Beverly Hills Cop III" and the fourth film in the "Beverly Hills Cop" franchise. Directed by Mark Molloy and starring Eddie Murphy, Taylour Paige, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Judge Reinhold, John Ashton, and Kevin Bacon, it successfully recaptures most of what made the series so fun in the first place by making great use of its setting and characters.
Thirty years after the events of "Beverly Hills Cop III", detective Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy) still patrols the streets of his home city of Detroit, becoming something of a minor celebrity among the local citizens. One day, Axel learns that his estranged attorney daughter Jane (Taylour Paige) is now in danger due to her client's criminal background, and decides to venture back to Beverly Hills to investigate further. Upon arriving, Axel reunites with his old friends John Taggart (John Ashton) and Billy Rosewood (Judge Reinhold), who inform him that Jane's client has links to a conspiracy involving a large criminal enterprise encompassing the entire state of California. After Rosewood is suddenly abducted, Axel teams up with a reluctant Jane and her ex-boyfriend detective Sam Abbott (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to bring down this illegal operation and save Rosewood's life in the process.
If there were ever a character who truly encompasses the full extent of Eddie Murphy's talents, look no further than Axel Foley, the protagonist of the popular "Beverly Hills Cop" franchise. Since making his debut four decades ago, Axel Foley has endured on as one of the most memorable comedic characters of 1980s cinema, and is in my humble opinion, Eddie Murphy's very best role. With his street-smart attitude and a catchy background theme to boot, it's hard not to be charmed by Axel's presence whenever he is on screen thanks to that signature Eddie Murphy energy we all know and love. After 30 years of multiple attempts at a franchise revival, the future of Axel Foley appeared in doubt, especially since the third film in the series fell so short of many people's expectations. Now after all this time, we finally have a fourth entry in "Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F", a solidly entertaining return to form for both Eddie Murphy and the series as a whole.
In a similar vein to the mutually belated sequel "Top Gun: Maverick" (interestingly, both films were produced by Jerry Bruckheimer), the film begins by showing our lead character still at the top of his game, with age hardly slowing him down at all. We see Axel Foley attending an ice hockey game with a younger white cop who idolises him to the point where the latter nervously tries to avoid saying anything that could be misconstrued as racist. As to be expected, Axel chooses to string his underling along only to later admit he's just playing him for laughs. It is soon revealed that Axel is only at this event to catch a group of criminals operating within the locker rooms, leading to a fast-paced chase sequence that results in a great deal of collateral damage and comedic banter along the way. This opening does a very good job of establishing how Axel has been able to remain so relevant for such a long time, as his classic unorthodox approach to tackling a situation is still serving him well even to this day, despite some of the usual setbacks.
However, unlike "Maverick", which kept its 80s roots to a minimum, this film happily plays into every bit of 80s nostalgia it can find, but in a way that actually works to its advantage. For instance, Lorne Balfe's musical score brims with an intense, upbeat 80s-style synthesiser, giving the old "Axel F" theme a more slick and impactful effect on a scene when necessary. Additionally, director Mark Molloy pays homage to the cinematography of the original film, in an updated sequence showing how much different Beverly Hills is from Axel's home city of Detroit. Even the chase scenes and shoot-outs have a decidedly 80s flavour to them, with quick-cut editing and humorous situations involving the characters. In most other films that capitalise on the tropes of the past, these types of references would come across as a desperate attempt to appeal to older audiences, but here they are done in such an affectionate and fun way that they end up enhancing its entertainment value. After all, you've got admire a film that can make a chase scene with a comical three-wheeled parking officer's vehicle look intense.
It may have been 30 years since he last played the role, but Eddie Murphy proves any doubters wrong that he no longer has it in him to reprise one of his most iconic characters for the audiences of today. Though he is now well into his 60s, Murphy nonetheless demonstrates a surprising amount of manic energy that has been sorely missed over the past several years, and he never once misses a beat. As mentioned earlier, Axel Foley remains as quick-witted, motor-mouthed, and profane as he was decades ago, refusing to let time wear him down too much. Something I've always loved about Axel's character is that in addition to providing comic relief, he's also a highly efficient detective, using his own unique street-smarts to solve a crime in a style that no other cops would ever be able to replicate. As a result, we have the perfect balance between a character whose jokes we can laugh at and one we can take seriously if the situation calls for it. Very few actors would be able to play such a role in this manner, but Eddie Murphy once again pulls it off with flying colours.
The supporting cast, both old and new, also compliment the film rather nicely here as well. As Axel's daughter Jane, Taylour Paige manages to stand out alongside Eddie Murphy, without ever once trying to upstage him. Although I was annoyed at first with how she starts out as the typical "I hate my father" estranged daughter character, over the course of the film Jane does grow to appreciate him as an important asset to her investigation. You can tell that while Jane still resents her father because of his questionable decision-making in the past, there's a part of her that wants to forgive him and invite him back into her life. There are even moments where you tell she is definitely Axel Foley's daughter, with her determined attitude being one of her most obvious character traits.
I also liked the addition of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Kevin Bacon to the cast, whose combined presence in the film fits seamlessly into the story. It is clear that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Bobby is intended to represent the modern day cops who have become more lax in their investigative strategies, as opposed to Axel's more raw, unabashed approach. Watching Bobby learn from Axel throughout the story leads to some humorous and interesting character dynamics that help bridge the gap between the policing of the past and present. On the other hand, Kevin Bacon looks like he's enjoying himself in the antagonistic role of Captain Grant. Without giving away too much, Captain Grant is a nice throwback to the corrupt police officers of classic cop thrillers, using his connections to the criminal underworld to try and skim some off the side for himself.
For fans of the original three films, John Ashton and Judge Reinhold both return as Taggart and Rosewood, whose roles in the previous entries were the ideal straight men for Axel to play off comedically and dramatically. Though they each aren't in this film as often as I had hoped they would be, they at least contributed significantly to the plot and aren't simply cameos for nostalgia's sake. Taggart was always a by-the-books cop who never relented on police protocol and now that he's in the position of police chief, he is able to grant Axel otherwise top secret information regarding the case he is investigating. Likewise, Rosewood has had many years to step up in the world of law enforcement, adopting some of the useful strategies taught to him by Axel so long ago. It's great to see these two working alongside Axel again, although there are the occasional times where their advanced ages are quite obvious.
As we continue to receive more belated sequels to classic IPs, we should take some comfort that "Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F" avoids most of the mistakes that many others like it have made in the past. It keeps its main character front and centre, never allowing him to be upstaged by the younger, more energetic cast members, and it never relents on the exciting action sequences in favour of playing it safe. For those who were disappointed by the third film in the series, I can say that this one is a big improvement in nearly every regard. Reportedly, Eddie Murphy has confirmed that a fifth film is in development, which has me both concerned and curious as to where things will go from here. So long as Murphy can once again keep up the pace, I have faith that it will be another success.
I rate it 8/10.
A Quiet Place: Day One (2024)
A worthwhile origin story/spin-off that establishes the beginning of a world turned silent
"A Quiet Place: Day One" is a prequel to the 2018 suspense horror film "A Quiet Place" that serves as the third installment in the series. Co-written and directed by Michael Sarnoski ("Pig") and starring Lupita Nyong'o and Joseph Quinn, it is a worthwhile origin story/spin-off that establishes the beginning of a world turned silent.
In New York City, Sam (Lupita Nyong'o) lives alone amongst the hustle and bustle of her urban environment, preferring to keep to herself rather than interact with others. While Sam is out and about one day, the city is suddenly invaded by blind, lightning fast extraterrestrials that hunt their prey based entirely on sound. To contain the problem, the US government immediately orders all bridges leading out of Manhattan to be destroyed, trapping Sam and several other people with the monstrous alien creatures. As she narrowly avoids attracting the creatures' attention, Sam soon crosses paths with Eric (Joseph Quinn), a young law student desperate to escape the city along with her. Using only their wits and quick thinking, Sam and Eric work together to navigate the confined island in an effort to cross the water and reach the safety of the mainland.
To my surprise, the success of the 2018 film "A Quiet Place" has now resulted in the emergence of a media franchise, with its first continuation released three years later. Although I still think the original works just fine as a standalone film, "Part II" nonetheless managed to expand upon what was previously established by introducing some important elements that allowed for more world building within this silent society. As a result, the groundwork had now been laid out for further additions to this story, including learning about the strengths and weaknesses of the alien monsters terrorising the Earth. In the spin-off/prequel film "A Quiet Place: Day One", we see the very beginning of this extraterrestrial invasion from the perspective of two people who are forced to remain quiet at the risk of losing their lives.
The exact timeframe of the film is unclear, although judging by the fact that Sam is seen listening to an iPod Classic, it can be assumed that it takes place sometime in the 2010s before the events of the first movie. As opposed to the rural setting of the previous two films, this one takes place in the concrete jungle of New York City, a location where loud noises and other cacophonies are an everyday occurrence. On that note, at the very start of the film, we are even informed that a typical day on the streets of New York will expose a person to 90 decibels of sound, equivalent to someone repeatedly screaming in your face at top volume. Our protagonist Sam, who is desensitised to this constant noise she hears on a daily basis, soon realises that the city is now under attack by an alien threat, but like everyone else she is too caught up in the chaos to figure out how to elude their advances. Sam is later informed by a small group of survivors that these creatures have ultra-sensitive hearing, which alert them to anything they can attack at an extreme speed. To make matters worse, Sam and the city's other remaining inhabitants discover they are trapped on the island due to all the bridges being destroyed, leaving them as prisoners along with creatures who can kill them instantly upon making the slightest audible sound.
After it is discovered that the monsters cannot swim, those trapped on the island all mutually agree that the best solution would be for them all to walk as quietly as possible towards the water to board any available ship heading to the other side. Although things seem to go well at first, this is soon ruined by someone accidentally brushing past a parked car that sets off the alarm, alerting the monsters to their location and mass panic erupting. Amidst the chaos of people being devoured and collateral damage to nearby buildings, Sam tries her hardest to seek shelter through the smoke but while doing so she becomes covered in ash and soot from all of the destruction occurring all around her. Since the film is set in New York City, it appears quite obvious that this imagery is meant to allude to the 9/11 attacks, as there is clearly no other comparison that can be drawn here. At first glance, this might seem disrespectful to the victims of the real-world event but I interpret its inclusion as a way of showcasing the resilience of the citizens of New York who survived a near-death experience despite the pandemonium occurring all around them.
Like its predecessors, the film makes great use of its sound design to frighten the audience through the combined efforts of building suspense and setting up situations that could easily go wrong for the characters involved. For instance, in the scene mentioned above, we see several hundred people walking in unison with their feet quietly treading in sync with each other to avoid detection from the creatures. Along their way, we see the various hazards on the ground they could encounter, including accidentally splashing in a puddle to kicking a small rock of gravel by mistake. Every step these people take, every object they pass by, and every surface they walk upon holds many risks that put them all in danger of being ripped to shreds by the monsters at any given time. As a result, it's hard not to feel a sense of anxiety watching our two lead characters navigate the sprawling metropolis of New York City while simultaneously trying to make as little noise as possible.
Though this series of films has never really had any deeply written characters, I've always liked how we still care enough about them to hope they make it to the very end. With that said, I think Lupita Nyong'o does a fine job in the lead role as Sam, whose determination to outsmart these monstrous creatures is a perfectly valid reason for us to hope she survives. It's interesting to watch as Sam sets aside her personal aversion to others in order to figure out how she is going to make it through such a large scale apocalyptic event. This makes her interactions with Eric so much more engaging as we see the two of them work in collaboration to come up with a plan to reach the mainland unharmed.
Joseph Quinn is also nice enough in the supporting role of Eric, a British expatriate law student in the wrong place at the wrong time. Due to his limited understanding of this foreign city, Eric requires a local like Sam to guide him through the unfamiliar environment of New York City, which is now hampered by the fact that it is overrun with sound sensitive monsters. Since verbal dialogue is limited and nobody uses sign language like in the previous films, we see the two communicate mostly through hand signals or by writing things down on a piece of paper. Despite having practically nothing in common with Sam at first, it's nice to see the pair grow closer over the course of the story, making their otherwise unlikely relationship so much more endearing to watch.
If you enjoyed the anxiety-ridden suspense of the first two films, then "A Quiet Place: Day One" once again delivers the goods on every front. It keeps the audience on its toes as the tension continues to mount over time while it also contributes some necessary world building elements to enhance its entertainment value. Like with the other two, this film absolutely needs to be experienced on the big screen with surround sound for maximum effect, as I can't imagine it achieving the same impact when watched on a small TV or a smartphone. According to some research, a fourth entry is in development that is set to serve as the conclusion to the entire series. So long as it finds a way to end this whole saga on a high note, then we have nothing to worry about.
I rate it 8/10.
Challengers (2024)
A creatively uneven but mostly interesting love triangle that benefits greatly from the performances of its three leads
"Challengers" is a sports drama film directed by Luca Guadagnino ("Call Me by Your Name", "Bones and All"). Starring Zendaya, Josh O'Connor, and Mike Faist, it is a creatively uneven but mostly interesting love triangle that benefits greatly from the performances of its three leads.
In 2006, tennis playing best friends Patrick Zweig (Josh O'Connor) and Art Donaldson (Mike Faist) win the junior boys' doubles title at the US Open. Afterwards, the pair develop an attraction to up-and-coming tennis star Tashi Duncan (Zendaya), who later invites the two friends up to her hotel room. Although they don't end up sleeping with each other, Tashi promises to give her phone number to whoever wins in a match against each other, with Patrick later emerging as the victor. Over time, the two friends drift apart as each of them pursue different professional tennis-related paths, culminating in Patrick and Tashi's relationship deteriorating and Art stepping in to take his place. Thirteen years later, Tashi and Art have since married with her acting as her husband's coach while Patrick is struggling to get by financially. With Art on a losing streak and Patrick wishing to regain the spotlight, the two former friends soon find themselves playing against one another at the New Rochelle Challenger event, causing Tashi to question where her loyalty truly lies.
Throughout most works of romantic fiction, the "love triangle" trope has played an important role in many stories, ranging from classic literature to modern cinema. The basic appeal of this storytelling technique can be found in the way it addresses the audience's anticipation over which suitor the object of affection will end up choosing at the expense of the loser's humiliation. In addition to this, many people in the real world have found themselves involved in such a predicament, which makes this scenario all the more relatable to the general public. The film "Challengers" features a love triangle rivalry between a former tennis player and two tennis playing friends in a film that shows us the competitive nature of this relationship both on and off the courts.
Told in a non-linear format, the film begins by introducing us to Art and Tashi, a tennis power couple whose long-lasting celebrity status is beginning to wane. Thanks to the coaching advice given to him by Tashi, she and Art have become recognisable faces around the world, but the couple's legacy is now in jeopardy due to Art's advancing age and the recent injuries he has sustained. It is made clear to the audience that the once unbeatable Art has failed to win a single match in years, with his reputation now riding on this new "Challenger" event. We are then shown that Art's first opponent will be his former best friend Patrick, whose poor decision making has led to him sleeping in his car and getting by on winning tennis matches at minor circuits. What makes this matchup so interesting isn't just the fact that these two were once the best of friends, but that they each shared a mutual infatuation with Tashi.
Flashing back thirteen years earlier, we see how close the pair were during their youth, with their bond soon tested by their shared interest in pursuing a relationship with Tashi. As a result, a fierce competitive urge arises within both friends, leading to an eventual falling out over who will end up with Tashi. Three years later, the film shows how both Art and Patrick are dealing with the pressure of making it big in the world of tennis while also coping with the idea that only one of them will win Tashi's affections. Although she chooses to be with Art, Tashi still finds herself having a one night stand with Patrick while he is in town, something that Art discovers later to his great displeasure. I enjoyed watching the way the film shows the erosion of Art and Patrick friendship over the course of their respective careers while Tashi's dilemma of longing for both of them proves equally distracting. In doing so, it gives off the impression that Tashi's huge influence over the pair's inability to make rational decisions is the true catalyst towards placing them at a perfect stalemate for their final showdown.
Like in many of his previous films, director Luca Guadagnino inserts a number of homoerotic overtones into the friendship between the two male characters. For instance, during the scene where Art and Patrick are fooling around with Tashi, she tricks the pair into making out without her involvement. Upon discovering this, rather than stop right away, the two continue passionately kissing for a bit longer before pulling away begrudgingly. Also, during one scene with the two friends watching a tennis game, Patrick peels a banana and eats it suggestively while staring into Art's eyes. I'm not sure if this is Guadagnino's way of showing how close these two really are or if it's just his attempt at being artistic for the sake of it, but it doesn't really add much to the story beyond something unintentionally comedic. Then again, I suppose it does make their vying for Tashi's attention slightly more intriguing.
As mentioned earlier, the film's storytelling structure is non-linear, which yields mixed results in the narrative department. In keeping with the tennis theme, the film often cuts back and forth between different time periods, almost like a tennis ball being repeatedly hit over a net by two players. At first, I actually liked this creative decision, as the fast pacing meant the film always had something happening on screen to prevent a scene from dragging on too long, but over time the concept became rather annoying. This is due to the fact that the film shows us four different years (2006, 2009, 2011, 2019) throughout the whole story, and the constant cutting from one year to another made it tricky to keep up with what event was taking place at what particular time. If the film had just two years instead of four, this editing technique may have worked better, because trying to stay invested with all the frequent jumping between multiple time periods is just as exhausting as playing a tennis match itself.
For a character like Tashi, it's interesting to see how Zendaya shows how conflicted she is at choosing between her two potential suitors. At first, Tashi seems to lust over them just as much as they do for her, but as the film progresses she becomes more focused on long term prospects. Though she does end up choosing Art based solely on him being at the right place at the right time, it is clear she still has lingering feelings for Patrick, especially when he suddenly reappears after such a long time. No matter how hard she tries to fight it, Tashi would obviously choose to be with both if there were a practical way of making this happen.
Additionally, there is definitely solid chemistry between Josh O'Connor and Mike Faist as Patrick and Art, respectively. You really get the sense that these two skilled tennis players have known each other since childhood, and despite their heated rivalry in winning over Tashi, they still retain a notable level of respect among themselves. I personally found Patrick the most interesting out of the two due to how much harder he has to work to make something of himself, as opposed to Art, who owes a great deal of his success to good timing. Regardless, I was never bored watching how each of their lives unfolded upon meeting Tashi for the first time.
Although some of its odd creative decisions may prove off-putting to some, "Challengers" is nonetheless an entertaining love triangle that works thanks to its believable cast and quick pacing. It's hard not to be at least a tiny bit curious as to how this saga of in-fighting, betrayal, and desire to be the best can take its toll on our three main characters, especially over the course of more than a decade. Best of all, you don't even need to be a fan of tennis to understand and appreciate how the film cleverly implements its numerous related metaphors and symbolism intended to parallel the situations of this trio of players. Coming from someone who doesn't watch tennis at all, that alone is quite admirable in my eyes.
I rate it 7.5/10.
Inside Out 2 (2024)
A worthy follow-up that might just be the best Pixar sequel that is not related to the "Toy Story" series
"Inside Out 2" is the sequel to Pixar's 2015 film "Inside Out". Directed and co-written by Kelsey Mann and featuring the voices of Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Lewis Black, Tony Hale, Liza Lapira, and Maya Hawke, it is a worthy follow-up that might just be the best Pixar sequel that is not related to the "Toy Story" series.
One year after the events of the first film, Riley Andersen (voiced by Kensington Tallman) has just turned 13 and is ready to start high school. Once again guiding Riley on her journey are her emotions Joy (voiced by Amy Poehler), Sadness (voiced by Phyllis Smith), Anger (voiced by Lewis Black), Fear (voiced by Tony Hale), and Disgust (voiced by Liza Lapira). When Riley ventures off to ice hockey camp with her best friends, her five emotions try to work together to ensure she is able to make a good first impression by removing her negative memories and sending them to the back of her mind. To her shock, Riley soon learns that her friends will be attending different high schools and her emotions are unable to help her react to this in the usual clear manner. Complicating matters further, Riley also gains four new emotions in the process - Anxiety (voiced by Maya Hawke), Envy (voiced by Ayo Edebiri), Embarrassment (voiced by Paul Walter Hauser), and Ennui (voiced by Adele Exarchopoulos).
Back in 2015, Pixar released what myself and many others consider to be one of their very best films - "Inside Out". This landmark movie, which focuses on the personified emotions of a young girl named Riley, successfully appealed to viewers from all walks of life thanks to the clever way it tackles deep and important themes that virtually anyone can relate to regardless of their age. As a result, the film has deservedly cemented itself among not only Pixar's crowning achievements but also as quite possibly one of the greatest animated films of all time. Unlike many other Pixar films, I've always thought that this one had the most amount of sequel potential due to the character of Riley growing older and her emotions needing to assist her with even more of life's problems. Nine years later, we now have "Inside Out 2", a follow-up that covers the complexity of early adolescence and the obstacles we are all bound to face along the way.
As to be expected, this film does away with Riley's naive, child-like view of the world in favour of her adopting a more mature outlook as a teenager. We see how her five emotions, led by the perpetually optimistic Joy, have learned to work in harmony with each other to ensure that Riley has the most enjoyable experience possible in this new period of her life. While things seem to be fine for everyone at first, certain situations start to arise that cause many issues for the five emotions, such as how the quintet are unable to decipher the sarcastic facial expressions of Riley's friends. In an effort to correct issues like this, Joy has all negative memories like this launched into the back of Riley's mind as a form of suppression, which seems to work until one night. This is when the emotions notice a large alarm labelled "Puberty" flashing brightly, and despite their best efforts to rid themselves of this warning signal, they soon realise that things can only worse from here on out.
We are then introduced to four brand new emotions who suddenly show up out of the blue. Anxiety, who nervously tries to control any situation, Envy, who covets everyone's best features, Embarrassment, who regularly makes a fool of himself, and Ennui, an apathetic emotion who would rather stare at her phone than interact with others. Though these new additions to Riley's emotional state are welcomed by the other five, it becomes clear that this place has little room for so many emotions working at the same time. Believing the original five are now no longer needed, Anxiety has them placed inside a glass bottle and stored away to allow her to take control of Riley's new teenage mindset. With this new power at her fingertips, Anxiety starts to create negative memories out of nothing, which causes havoc on Riley's self esteem. What we see here is the emergence of something most teenagers can relate to - a paranoid, distorted world view that changes the way they see themselves. In poor Riley's case, she starts viewing herself as an outcast loser.
The film does a solid job showing all of the resulting awkwardness that Riley faces with her new emotions at the helm. She constantly assumes the worst in everything, she craves becoming a great hockey player like her heroes, she clumsily tries to look cool in front of others, and she cannot find the motivation to overcome her problems in a constructive manner. Without her original five emotions around to help her, Riley loses sight of who she truly is, becoming an insecure shell of her former self. For the majority of the story, we watch as Joy and the other four original emotions journey back to headquarters to stop their successors from corrupting Riley further, finding creative ways to sneak their influence in to fix any damage they have caused. Like the previous film, this one cleverly uses Riley's emotional state to show us how we all must find the right methods to cope with the obstacles we face in life to grow into a better person.
In addition to this, the film also looks as fantastic as ever, something that should go without saying in a Pixar movie. In one scene, we see a dark and mysterious location known as the "Sense of Self", where all of Riley's core memories are stored through string-like strands that play quotes that resonate through Riley's mind to remind her of the type of person she is at heart. When Anxiety takes over, she corrupts some of these memories in the form of a small tree, which grows larger as Riley makes more mistakes over time. It's interesting to see how each of these places change once the new emotions have seized control, and the film gives us glimpses of what they were once like with the original five in charge.
All of these new emotions means more characters than before, which is unfortunately one of the film's most obvious weaknesses. With a total of nine emotions now inside Riley's head, it feels like the film is struggling to juggle so many different characters within the story at the same time but only managing to pull it off sparingly. The only new emotion that is given the most spotlight is Anxiety, and although this makes sense within the context of the story, it does not allow for the other three to be featured nearly as enough. I was hoping to see more of the dynamic between Anxiety and her other three compadres, yet this only really happens at about two crucial moments in the film. Still, there was one scene near the end that utilises everyone reasonably well, even if it did take a long time to reach that point in the story.
The film's voice acting is a strong as ever, with Amy Poehler injecting that much needed positive relief into Joy. Like Riley, Joy appears to have grown considerably since the previous film, changing from a blind optimist to a sensible pragmatist. She now understands the value of teamwork, often seeking advice from her fellow emotions whenever she can't figure out how to make Riley react in certain situations. As a result, this film feels more like a team effort rather than a solo adventure, with Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust contributing significantly to both Joy and Riley's growth as characters. I really liked watching the way Poehler portrays Joy's collaborative personality throughout the film, and her respective chemistry with Phyllis Smith, Lewis Black, Tony Hale, and Liza Lapira really gives the impression that these emotions are a tight-knit group.
As mentioned earlier, it is Anxiety that the film chooses to focus on the most out of the four new emotions. Maya Hawke is great at showing the character's intense neuroticism coupled with her desire to maintain her own twisted sense of control over Riley's life. She can be considered the antithesis to Joy's level-headed, confident nature, projecting all of her insecurities into Riley's personality. I just wish Anxiety interacted more with Envy, Embarrassment, and Ennui, whose voice talents in Ayo Edebiri, Paul Walter Hauser, and Adele Exarchopoulos felt somewhat wasted by the time the film had finished.
For a sequel to a highly regarded original, "Inside Out 2" may not quite live up to the level of its predecessor, but it is nonetheless a satisfying continuation of a story about someone's emotional journey through life. Without revealing spoilers, its end moral is equally as impactful as the original and is sure to strike a chord with just as many adults as it will with children. It seems the next logical step that a third film should cover Riley and her emotions during her late teens to early adult years, although this may prove challenging to remain family friendly. Regardless, I'm still curious to see what happens from here.
I rate it 8/10.
Late Night with the Devil (2023)
An effectively creepy experience that frightens the audience through atmosphere and characterisation
"Late Night with the Devil" is a horror film written and directed by Colin and Cameron Cairnes. Starring David Dastmalchian in the lead role, it is an effectively creepy experience that frightens the audience through atmosphere and characterisation.
After retiring from the spotlight for sometime, late night talk show host Jack Delroy (David Dastmalchian) decides to return for a specially-themed episode of his show "Night Owls with Jack Delroy" to be broadcast on Halloween, 1977. For years, Jack's show had struggled in the ratings behind "The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson", and he hopes to use this reappearance as an opportunity to stage a much-needed comeback. Jack's guests on this episode include psychic Christou (Fayassal Bazzi), former magician turned skeptic Carmichael Haig (Ian Bliss), parapsychologist June Ross-Mitchell (Laura Gordon), and Lilly D'Abo (Ingrid Torelli), a young survivor of a mass cult suicide and June's latest subject. As the show continues throughout the night, various unexplainable and terrifying incidents start to occur that cause Jack to question whether his attempt to regain popularity is worth all this trouble.
Part of the large appeal of live television is the unpredictable nature of certain events that could take place at any given time. From a certain wardrobe malfunction in 2004 to an overreaction to a joke told at the 2022 Academy Awards, many of these unscripted moments have found themselves burnt into the memories of many TV viewers all over the world. One popular form of live TV where anything could happen is of course talk shows, where the nature of the featured guests can result in many mishaps at the expense of the host and the audience themselves. "Late Night with the Devil" is a film that works with a concept like this to create a successful horror movie that strings the viewer along until the very conclusion.
Setting itself up as a found footage documentary feature, the film transports its audience back to the 1970s, a decade rife with violence, economic instability, and a fear of occultism gripping America at that time. As a necessary form of distraction, television viewers turned their attention to various forms of light entertainment, in this case, late night talk shows. We are then shown that Jack Delroy, the charismatic, affable host of his programme "Night Owls with Jack Delroy", is one of the leading figures that viewers choose to watch for their fix of escapism, but he is constantly kept out of the top spot by the more popular Johnny Carson. Despite the odd spike in viewership, the final straw for Jack is the death of his wife Madeleine from cancer, which causes him to withdraw from public life. However, one day Jack suddenly decides to return to hosting his show for an occult-themed episode on Halloween, seemingly as his final ditch attempt to triumph in the ratings. It is then revealed that what we will be watching is in fact the previously lost master tape of this special, presented to us complete with behind the scenes footage detailing everything that went wrong on this fateful night.
As the broadcast begins, things seem normal enough for a Halloween-themed show, with Jack showing off his audience dressed in their monster costumes and his guests fulfilling the typical "spooky" quota of psychics and magicians. Where things become particularly interesting is when the spiritual medium Christou starts to react violently upon receiving a sinister premonition. This is then followed up with the introduction of the skeptic Carmichael Haig, who dismisses every apparent supernatural occurrence as nothing more than just part of the act. It is through Carmichael's constant attempts to disprove everything that the film has an efficient anchor in reality, which makes all of this bizarre otherworldliness much scarier than usual. You can chalk this up to Carmichael's increasing unease as even more evil events start to occur over time, which prove challenging to a veteran debunker like himself. Like how every good comedy act needs a straight man as a foil, every good horror story needs an unbeliever who requires convincing.
Making the most of the premise and setting, the Cairnes brothers are not only great at holding the audience's attention, but also at eliciting real scares whenever the situation calls for it. I often found myself intrigued at what was going to happen during a scene involving each of the guests interacting with one other. Without giving too much away, this led to several genuinely frightening moments that felt earned because the film had spent time building up to them. For instance, in one scene Jack plays news footage showing how June rescued Lilly from a Satanic cult, which then leads the audience to believe that the cult's influences still have control over Lilly. Naturally, Carmichael is not receptive towards the two female guests, regarding Lilly's claims of demonic possession as simply PTSD from being held captive for so long. At this point, it is clear that the Cairnes brothers want us to dislike Carmichael for his lack of empathy, but at the same time want him to keep provoking the pair further out of sheer curiosity. To my surprise, this strategy actually works in the film's favour, as when the audience becomes more curious, the following scary scenes are more fear-inducing as a result.
In addition to its appropriate pacing, the film also uses its 1970s aesthetic quite well too. I really enjoyed the way the film is presented to us as through it came from an old grainy VHS or Betamax tape you might find in a TV station camera, which helps immerse the viewer in that era of television. Even the film's colour scheme, comprised primarily of beige, red, yellow, and shades of orange, are crucial at establishing this particular decade as a pivotal time for television viewing across the country. To distinguish between what is being broadcast live and what isn't, the behind the scenes footage is shown to us in black-and-white, which is an important way of reminding the audience of what is actually a product of on-air sensationalism versus the real emotional moments taking place backstage. It's easy to feel invested in this stylised old footage from several decades ago, something that contributes significantly to the film's entertainment value.
As the lead character, David Dastmalchian is highly convincing as talk show host Jack Delroy, whose desperation to stay relevant has him resorting to more extreme measures than what is usually expected of him. It's fascinating to watch how Dastmalchian is able to efficiently mimic the way any talk show host would react in live and unscripted situations, especially while trying to remain an entertaining presence for his viewers at home. At his core, Jack is just a man who wants to keep his audience invested in him at all times, acting like he is in control despite the obvious chaos happening right before his eyes. In spite of this, as more information about his past is exposed, you can't help but feel as though he brought some of these problems on himself.
Ian Bliss is also worth mentioning as Carmichael Haig, whose skepticism proves catalytic towards the film's most notable scares. This is a man whose previous venture as a magician has allowed him to see hoaxes for their deceptive effect on other people, giving him the ability to expose frauds and become famous in the process. As mentioned earlier, Carmichael is an important character to this story, as without him the film would lack any rationality and become an incoherent mess of one supernatural event happening after another. Unfortunately I can't mention any more about Fayassal Bazzi as Christou, Laura Gordon as June, or Ingrid Torelli as Lilly without giving away spoilers so all I will say is that they are equally as important to the story as both Jack and Carmichael put together.
Rising above the usual supernatural possession horror flick, "Late Night with the Devil" may just be one of most effective films of its genre to be released in years. It finds ways to frighten people not through cheap jump scares but by building up tension through its unsettling atmosphere and unique character traits. My only real issue is that the ending seems somewhat underwhelming in comparison to everything else, but considering the excellent handling of the first and second acts, it doesn't bother me as much as it should. Regardless of that, I'm willing to admit this film was successful at scaring me where it counts.
I rate it 8/10.
Civil War (2024)
An unfulfilled, superficial take on a rather deep, contentious topic
"Civil War" is a dystopian thriller film written and directed by Alex Garland ("Ex Machina", "Annihilation"). Starring Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny, it is an unfulfilled, superficial take on a rather deep, contentious topic.
In the midst of a second American Civil War, renowned war photographer Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) meets up with her team of journalists consisting of Joel (Wagner Moura) and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson). After surviving a suicide attack in New York City, the group decide to travel to Washington D. C. in hopes of interviewing the President (Nick Offerman) before he is overthrown. As the group prepare to venture off, Joel allows aspiring young photojournalist Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) to accompany them on their lengthy journey, with whom Lee reluctantly decides to take under her wing. While the team drive through the war-torn states, Jessie soon learns from Lee that in order to become a credible photographer, she must overcome her fears in covering the carnage taking place right before her eyes.
Regardless of your personal beliefs, there's no denying that we are currently living in one of the most politically divisive times in the history of Western civilisation. Not since the 19th century has there been so much hostility that one would assume if things continue to escalate, the American superpower could very well break out into another civil war. Considering how much technology has advanced over the past hundred years, things could certainly take a turn for the worse with the possibility of neither side emerging as the victor. The 2024 film "Civil War" deals with this hypothetical scenario from the perspective of the risk-taking photojournalists in a lacklustre manner that fails to do justice to its intriguing concept.
In the first scene, we see the President of the United States practicing a speech he will be delivering as his State of the Union address to the entire divided nation. We watch as the President nervously stumbles his way through the words he will be using to assure the country that this conflict is under control, almost as though he does not believe everything he is about to say. It is then revealed that the President's words are nothing more than lies, as his adversaries are fast approaching Washington D. C. with the intention of taking the nation's capital for themselves. What was once the safe and dignified capital city of America is now shown to be a violent war zone, complete with gunfire, military vehicles patrolling the streets, and various bodies littering the landscape.
Though this opening does begin the film on a promising note, it finds itself unable to maintain this level of curiosity for the duration of its runtime. Simply put, not enough is revealed about the President to make the audience believe that such a man could credibly stay in power among this huge war taking place. To the film's credit, there are some hints dropped throughout the story regarding what he has done, like how he apparently abolished term limits (he is now in his third term in power) and disbanded the FBI. Yet is it never properly explained how he is now in danger of being deposed from his position after so long. How did he suddenly lose this much support? Which political party does he belong to and which one wants him out? Why is he fighting this war with only a small amount of his staff to protect him? The movie never tells us.
Soon after, we are introduced to veteran photographer Lee, whose graphic pictures taken directly on the field of battle have gained her worldwide notoriety. This attracts an admirer in the young Jessie, who aspires to work alongside her idol as the war rages on. While on their journey towards the nation's capital, Jessie becomes increasingly exposed to the very worst that the war has to offer, something Lee informs her is a necessary part of the job. It is clear the film is intending to show us just how much war can affect the on-site journalists as much as those actually fighting on the frontline, yet it never quite utilises this idea properly.
For instance, the relationship between Lee and Jessie is decidedly two-dimensional. At no point did it ever feel like Lee really cared about Jessie beyond her being a mere work colleague. There is only one scene where it felt like Jessie was learning something from Lee about human brutality but it is quickly glanced over and never mentioned again. All the potential was there to have shown these two growing closer as student and teacher, yet the film squanders nearly every opportunity available. It's hard to become attached to these characters when the situations they are placed in add practically no emotional weight to the overall story, and in a film that is supposed to examine the impact of war on people, this is a major problem.
In spite of these deeper issues, the film at least manages to get its wartime atmosphere right. Director Alex Garland places the audience right in the middle of the conflict, with the possibility of danger lurking around just about any corner. I especially enjoyed the way he shows Washington D. C. as a warzone, resembling early 2000s Baghdad rather than a safe capital city within modern Western civilisation. Soldiers patrol the streets, major monuments like the Lincoln Memorial are constantly under threat of destruction, and the President is reduced to hiding in the White House with limited protection from his staff. This is far from the clean cut image America has held onto for so long, having now descended far into chaos and disunity.
Unfortunately, Garland falters in the world building aspect of this superpower gripped in a civil war, as there is little effort put into why certain locations adhere to one political belief over the other. In one scene, the group of journalists stop by a seemingly normal town that has chosen to remain neutral to this war, with its citizens going about their daily business like nothing is happening. Instead of exploring this interesting concept, the main characters merely use this town as a brief pitstop and quickly move on somewhere else. This raises many questions, like why did this town choose to stay out of the war? How have they avoided being attacked from outsiders for so long? How are they not suspicious of this random group of people suddenly appearing in their town? Yet more important plot holes that are glanced over and never properly addressed.
Although their characters are woefully underwritten, both Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny try to make the most with the weak material given to them. Out of the two of them, Dunst is the biggest standout as Lee, whose frequent trips into the war torn locations of America have clearly taken their toll on her mental health. Here, it is shown that Lee has become almost completely desensitised to the bloodshed happening right in front of her, even barely flinching whenever a gun is fired in her presence. Dunst does a nice enough job portraying Lee's nuanced reactions to all this butchery, as this is nothing more than another day at the office for her.
On the other hand, Jessie's young, naive attitude towards her future career prospect is something that ends up defining her character throughout the whole film. At first, she is so shocked by what she is witnessing that it causes her to vomit and miss the chance to take a great photograph. Like Lee, Jessie also becomes desensitised to everything she sees, and in the process her photography skills improve drastically. Spaeny shows Jessie's emotional state becoming less and less of a issue, trading general compassion for on-location experience. As mentioned earlier, I just wish the film had explored Lee and Jessie's relationship better, as it would have made things more interesting to see their dynamic expanded upon throughout the story.
Given the current state of the world right now, it is a huge shame that a film like "Civil War" is unable to provide more than simply a curious look at how things could be. It has a lot on its mind about the future of America but it never expresses it in a manner that can leave a lasting impression. In my opinion, this concept would have worked much better as a miniseries rather than a condensed feature film, as this would allow for the necessary fleshing out of the characters and world building. Hopefully someone will run with that idea one day, because I would definitely watch that over this any day.
I rate it 5.5/10.
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024)
About as close to perfect as an action film can get in virtually every regard
Just saw "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga", the fifth film in the "Mad Max" film franchise that serves as both a spin-off and a prequel to 2015's "Mad Max: Fury Road". Once again directed and co-written by George Miller ("Lorenzo's Oil", "Babe: Pig in the City", "Happy Feet") and starring Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth, it is about as close to perfect as an action film can get in virtually every regard.
In a post-apocalyptic Australia, young Furiosa (Alyla Browne) is forcibly taken from her home in the Green Place of Many Mothers by members of a large Biker Horde. The Horde's leader Dementus (Chris Hemsworth) tries to extract the necessary information about Furiosa's origins, but she remains tightlipped throughout her ordeal. For failing to cooperate, Dementus then executes Furiosa's mother right in front of her and later decides to adopt her as his own surrogate daughter. Over time, Furiosa (Anya Taylor-Joy) works her way up through the ranks of Dementus's Horde, eventually becoming a valuable asset to his entire team. One day, Dementus's Horde stumble upon a large citadel operated by the ruthless Immortan Joe (Lachy Hulme), whose refusal to give up dominance results in a large scale war erupting between the two factions. Amidst the chaos, Furiosa finds herself fighting back against various enemies from both sides, all while trying to navigate her way back home to the Green Place.
Decades ago, many unsuspecting international audiences were first treated to the world of Australian cinema through the "Mad Max" series. This set of films, which follows the story of the wandering nomad Max Rockatansky (Mel Gibson), has since gone on to become one of the most influential post-apocalyptic forms of media, attracting a loyal fanbase worldwide. In 2015, the belated fourth film in the series "Mad Max: Fury Road" was successful in bringing the franchise back into public relevance after a 30 year long absence. One of the most notable supporting characters in "Fury Road" was Furiosa, a tough-as-nails amputee played by Charlize Theron who teams up with Max (Tom Hardy) to bring down their mutual enemy. Nine years later, Furiosa's origins are told to us in "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga", which not only works as a great action film on its own, but also as an excellent study of the title character's motivations and the situations that moulded her into the fierce warrior she was forced to become.
Taking place several years before the events of "Fury Road", the film introduces Furiosa as a naive young child living among the inhabitants of the utopian Green Place. In this idealistic paradise, Furiosa lives a peaceful existence with her mother, remaining blissfully ignorant of the apocalyptic conditions that lie beyond her familiar home. However, Furiosa's innocence is soon shattered after she is kidnapped and used as leverage by a Biker Horde, which in turn becomes her first real exposure to the outside world. After she refuses to help their leader Dementus, he cruelly forces Furiosa to watch as he kills her mother, never allowing her to shut her eyes throughout the whole process. It is here the film begins to show us the interesting relationship between Furiosa and Dementus, with the two taking on the roles of adoptive daughter and authoritative step-father, respectively.
As she grows older, Furiosa works hard to adapt to the harsh environment she is subjected to against her will. Since this is a world where fuel, food, weaponry, and even basic human intellect are hard commodities to come by, proving yourself useful to the specific group you belong to is the most important asset for survival. For instance, to prevent herself from standing out as a woman among a crew of mostly men, Furiosa shaves her head bald, becomes selectively mute, and masquerades as one of the male Horde members using a cloth to cover most of her face. But most notably, we see how she has become desensitised to the brutal nature of her new reality, often staring death in the face multiple times.
Over the course of Furiosa's time in the Horde, Dementus develops something of a paternal fondness for her. After forcing her to watch him execute her mother, Dementus offers the young Furiosa the gift of a plush toy rabbit that once belonged to his biological daughter, hinting that he now considers her part of his close family. Naturally, Furiosa rejects this gift, refusing any kind of comfort from the man who murdered the one person that mattered to her the most. Nevertheless, Dementus recognises the young girl's resilient nature, later using her as a crucial member of his Horde as they conquer and annex other settlements throughout the wasteland. Unbeknownst to Dementus, Furiosa is secretly planning her own revenge plot, biding her time for the correct moment to bring him and his Horde to their knees.
In addition to this engaging story, the film also contains plenty of the signature vehicular chase scenes the series is known for. George Miller frames every one of these fast-paced action sequences like they were crucial to the plot, and not a single second of them went to waste. All kinds of vehicles ranging from high octane motorcycles, large fuel trucks, and even parasailing scooters rush through the desert at top speed with precision that even rivals "Top Gun: Maverick". The stunt work is also commendable here, with characters leaping to and from vehicles with only a matter of centimetres driving a wedge between them and certain death. According to producer Doug Mitchell, one of these stunt sequences actually took 79 days to shoot properly, which is quite incredible the more you think about it.
Visually, the film also features some gorgeously shot scenes that immerse the audience in the atmosphere of this post-apocalyptic world. Whether it's Furiosa standing silhouetted among the landscape of the empty wasteland or the clever framing of Dementus as some kind of deity, the cinematography makes it easy to feel like you are a part of this story where basic human civilisation has collapsed. One shot I particularly loved was when Dementus's large convoy are invading another settlement and the camera zooms out to show how isolated this sizeable encampment is from other inhabited colonies. The sheer size of the location juxtaposed with how insignificant the Horde looks in comparison reminds the audience of how much work will need to be done if humanity were to rebuild after such a cataclysmic event.
Taking over from Charlize Theron, Anya Taylor-Joy does a fantastic job stepping into the shoes of Furiosa, one of the best written female heroes to grace cinema screens in a long time. Though Furiosa is a character of few words, Taylor-Joy's ability to act using her facial expressions and body language are able to speak more than any verbal dialogue ever could. There are so many instances where you can see the pain in her eyes as she endures one hardship after another, yet she painstakingly fights through it all despite how much it hurts. Her struggles draw comparison to other notable female film heroes, like Ellen Ripley from "Alien" and Sarah Connor from "The Terminator", in that we can actually see her grow as a person throughout the course of her suffering. Other film studios should take note that this is how you're supposed to write a strong female character, by putting her through real, believable challenges and learning how to come out on top in the end.
As the villain of the story, Chris Hemsworth is highly effective in the role of Dementus, who seems perfectly tailored to a character like this. I really enjoyed watching how Dementus is able to maintain control over his followers, to the point where he is even worshipped by some members of his Horde. He does this by instilling a sense of fear into others while simultaneously maintaining a level of respect towards those he can find some use for later. It is through Dementus's relationship with Furiosa where he starts to show his softer side, viewing her as the daughter he never had the chance to see grow up. Hemsworth previously played a manipulative cult leader in 2018's "Bad Times at the El Royale" so it's not too much of a stretch to see him portraying a character like Dementus, who has similar objectives.
Being a "Mad Max" film without Mad Max, "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" deservedly earns its place as a fantastic addition to the franchise by reminding us all of why this series has remained so popular for over four decades. It finds ways to explore the already established universe with a completely different character but without ever disrespecting the original hero in the process. I would be more than happy to see Furiosa's character in other "Mad Max" related media, as there is potential for her story to continue beyond this one and "Fury Road". Personally, I think it would be in George Miller's best interests to redirect his focus back to the series' namesake, since there is even more of his story that still needs to be told. Regardless, the future certainly looks bright for both Miller and the "Mad Max" series as a whole.
I rate it a very high 9.5/10.
Kung Fu Panda 4 (2024)
A worthy fourth entry in this popular martial arts series that exudes the signature charm of its predecessors
"Kung Fu Panda 4" is the sequel to 2016's "Kung Fu Panda 3" and the fourth installment in the "Kung Fu Panda" franchise. Directed by Mike Mitchell ("Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo", "Sky High", "Trolls") and featuring the voices of Jack Black, Awkwafina, and Viola Davis, it is a worthy fourth entry in this popular martial arts series that exudes the signature charm of its predecessors.
In the Valley of Peace, Po (voiced by Jack Black) is enjoying his life as the "Dragon Warrior" while also helping out his adoptive father Mr. Ping (voiced by James Hong) and biological father Li Shan (voiced by Bryan Cranston) with running their restaurant. One day, Master Shifu (voiced by Dustin Hoffman) informs Po that he must choose a suitable successor to take over as he is due to retire to become the Valley's next spiritual leader. Meanwhile, an evil shapeshifting sorceress known as "The Chameleon" (voiced by Viola Davis) vows to summon all of Po's previous adversaries to absorb their kung fu powers and use them for her own sinister needs. As Po struggles to find a new beneficiary, he decides to postpone his decision making to team up with a cunning fox thief named Zhen (voiced by Awkwafina) to stop the Chameleon from achieving her goal of ruling all of China.
Since beginning all the way back in 2008, DreamWorks Animation's "Kung Fu Panda" series has gone on to become one of its most popular franchises, grossing more than $2 billion at the box office. In addition to its humour and action sequences, the series also owes a great deal of its success to the respectful, well-researched depiction of Chinese culture shown throughout each of its films. In fact, the first film was so successful in this regard that it even caused a national debate in China over why a Western animation studio could make a better film about their culture than they have ever done up to that point. Now sixteen years after its debut, the franchise now welcomes a fourth film to the series with "Kung Fu Panda 4", which still contains most of the same fun you'd expect with a few other surprises along the way.
Much like the previous sequels, this one shows us how much Po has matured since becoming the revered "Dragon Warrior" in the first film. As the story begins, we watch Po effortlessly fight a large stingray terrorising a seaside community before heading back home for his duties at the restaurant operated by both of his fathers. No longer viewed as a clumsy buffoon by others, Po is now highly respected among the local citizens of the Valley of Peace, so much so that he has numerous admirers lining up to meet him. Though he has now stepped up in the world, Po has never lost sight of his roots, remaining true to both himself and to those who have cared about him from the very start.
However, Po's time in the spotlight is set to end soon after Master Shifu informs him that he must stand down in favour of an inevitable successor taking his place. Of course, Po does not want to leave his heroic position and shows his childish side once again by making a comedic display of choosing himself over the potential candidates lined up before him. This leads to Po having a brief but deep discussion with Master Shifu on making important decisions about life whenever the opportunity presents itself. Po then tries his hardest to meditate on what he has learned but finds it difficult due to him becoming distracted by his own stomach. It's interesting to watch Po attempt to balance his fun-loving instincts with his adopted warrior persona, as it shows the growth in his character over the course of the preceding films.
Another thing that the "Kung Fu Panda" films can attest to is the impressive visuals. Even after more than a decade, the older films still contain some rather beautifully shot scenes that make this world of the Valley of Peace look straight out of an ancient Chinese artwork. This film shows how much technology has advanced since then, showcasing the sweeping landscapes of certain locations like the mountains covered in mist or the peach tree surrounded by pink blossoms blowing in the wind. Each place looks like it has some kind of history behind it, even a seemingly cliched bar full of criminals that only serves the purpose of setting up an obligatory action scene.
But it's not just the locations that look nice, it's also the characters themselves. I couldn't help but notice the attention-to-detail paid to the fur on Po's body, especially when he is fighting against his enemies. The way the strands of hair flicker about and how the light shines off them looks more real this time, which is even more noticeable after rewatching the other three films leading up to this one. With that said, this is easily the best-looking film in the series so far, and things can only get better from here on out.
As mentioned above, the evolution of Po's character is part of the main appeal of the entire franchise, and it is primarily thanks to Jack Black's loveable performance in the role. Black has always excelled at playing characters who are funny but are still able to be taken seriously if the situation calls for it, which is a trait that fits Po perfectly. You can't help but want Po to succeed at what he wants in life, even if that means reluctantly stepping outside of his comfort zone. To my surprise, this film appears to have toned down the usual fat jokes and slapstick humour in favour of comedy more focused around Po's banter with his new travelling partner Zhen.
On that note, Awkwafina is a nice addition to the cast as Zhen and her chemistry with Jack Black is solid. It would appear that Awkwafina is certainly making a name for herself in the world of voice acting, as this is yet another project that uses her unique voice to the film's advantage. At first, I expected Zhen to be another one of those generic sidekick characters added for the sake of moving the story along, but she actually manages to stand out on her own terms. Zhen has worked her way up from the bottom, developing street smarts and a sassy attitude that makes her the ideal type of character to play off someone like Po. I enjoyed watching Zhen and Po interact with each other, and the two also make a fine fighting duo together.
It's also fun to watch Po's two fathers Ping and Shan work alongside one another, with the pair often finding themselves in some humorous situations. Anyone who watched the third film will remember that these two did not like each other at first due to them conflicting over who was Po's real father, but here they have since buried the hatchet and learned to collaborate on certain projects together, like running the restaurant for the locals. Like Jack Black and Awkwafina, James Hong and Bryan Cranston have a nice comedic dynamic playing off each other's conflicting views, which adds some emotional weight to how much they care about Po in the long run. I wouldn't mind seeing a spin-off focusing around the two of them, as the potential is definitely there.
In the villainous role, Viola Davis is clearly enjoying herself as the Chameleon, a powerful sorceress with the power to shape-shift. She feels like more of a threat than most of the other villains in the previous three films, especially considering how she is able to change into either of them whenever she pleases. Without giving away too much, the Chameleon's backstory was interesting in the way it parallels with both Zhen and Po. Davis plays into the Chameleon's most sinister traits, making her the most dangerous enemy Po has had to face since becoming the "Dragon Warrior".
Now four entries in, the "Kung Fu Panda" franchise may not be breaking much new ground in terms of storytelling, but this film is still just as fun as the ones preceding it. There's enough humour, action, and nice visual eye candy to hold one's attention for its short 93 minute runtime, which is more than can be said for most other family-oriented entertainment released nowadays. According to some research, this film is meant to be the start of a new trilogy, and there is certainly room for more enjoyable antics from Po and the other characters in the not-to-distant future. So long as all of the cast members are able to return, I'm curious to see what happens next.
I rate it 7.5/10.
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024)
Lays the foundation for an exciting new trilogy by successfully building upon the previous three films
"Kingdom of the Planet of The Apes" is the fourth installment in the "Planet of The Apes" reboot series and the tenth film overall. Directed by Wes Ball ("The Maze Runner" trilogy) and starring Owen Teague, Kevin Durand, and Freya Allan, it lays the foundation for an exciting new trilogy by successfully building upon the previous three films.
Over 300 years since the events of "War for the Planet Of the Apes", the Earth is now completely ruled by various ape tribes borne out of the ideologies taught to them by Caesar (Andy Serkis). On the other hand, the humans have regressed into a primitive state and are now forced to live within the shadows of their ape superiors. Among this new world order, the tyrannical ape Proximus Caesar (Kevin Durand) has grown obsessed with finding ancient human technology and perverts Caesar's wise teachings into influencing other apes to help seek them out for his own selfish reasons. One day, a young chimpanzee hunter named Noa (Owen Teague) decides to reluctantly team up with a young human woman named Mae (Freya Allan) to stop Proximus from causing further damage for the future of both apes and humans after Noa's village is destroyed by Proximus's fanatical followers.
One of the most underrated film trilogies released this century would have to be the rebooted "Planet Of the Apes" series. This trio of films, which exceeded the expectations of many people like myself, featured some impressive visual effects, engaging social commentary on the ethics of certain leadership roles, and an excellent performance from Andy Serkis in the lead role as the protagonist Caesar. Yet to my surprise, not many people seem to be talking about this trilogy as much as they should, at least not on the same level of your typical superhero film series or other similar blockbuster franchises. Although I think things wrapped up nicely enough with the third entry in 2017, "Kingdom of the Planet Of the Apes" kickstarts a new trilogy of films by continuing the basic story laid out by its predecessors while also offering some new and intriguing elements that are bound to win over newcomers to the series.
Taking place several generations after the conclusion of Caesar's story, the film shows us how his influence has spread throughout the entire world and how he is now universally viewed as a messianic figure among all apes. While the previous films examined leadership statuses like democracies and dictatorships, this film distinguishes itself from that trilogy by exploring the way a posthumous cult of personality can cause others to hold conflicting views on how to follow that particular figure's teachings. As anybody who has seen how major political and religious leaders with ignorant followers have fared throughout history, this can lead to deadly results. It is here we see the way in which Proximus has taken the lessons Caesar left behind and twisted them into his own corrupt method of placing himself on top of the food chain under the guise that he is helping others to survive.
Of course, this later leads to the destruction of the village occupied by Noa and his family, whose tribe disagrees with Proximus's extremist views. In the wake of this, Noa sets out on a journey to learn more about Caesar's beliefs and whether or not his dogmatic mantra of "Apes together strong" still holds ground many centuries later. On his travels, we see Noa discover various things about the world that once was, with strong evidence that humans were the dominant species on Earth well before the apes took over. He finds himself doubting the world view imposed upon him from birth, yet still acknowledges Caesar's role in reclaiming ape dominance from the oppressive human rule of the past. The interesting part about all of this is that in spite of there being a number of contradictory views that the apes may have towards each other, it is shown that they all nonetheless hold Caesar's core principles in high esteem.
In addition to analysing the power of dogma, the film also reminds the audience of how much human civilisation has collapsed since the ape uprising centuries earlier. Director Wes Ball immerses the viewer in this post-apocalyptic world now reclaimed by nature, save for some prominent steel structures that serve as a reminder of a world that once was. We see skyscrapers completely covered in vegetation and their once bright interiors reduced to nothing more than a dark cavern filled with objects that humans used for their material benefit. Yet despite the apes' advanced intelligence, it is made clear that they are unable to figure out how to make this archaic human technology work in their favour.
For instance, it is established that even after 300 years, the apes have no written language and are unable to decipher the writings of books found inside the abandoned buildings. Also, some of the apes are able to ascertain that humans once flew due to the abundance of crashed commercial planes that litter the landscape. The apes' curiosity of how humans once lived functions as the key driving force for this story, which is why it makes perfect sense for someone like Proximus to use this to his advantage. Like any fundamentalist leader, Proximus believes he is doing the right thing for his people, but as previously mentioned, this kind of extreme authoritarianism never ends well.
In the lead role as Noa, Owen Teague has some big shoes to fill taking over from Andy Serkis, but for the most part he plays the character quite well. I enjoyed the way the film showed the parallels between the way Noa and Caesar were raised in the respective worlds they each grew up in. Anyone who saw the previous films will remember that Caesar had a major uphill battle to survive the cruelty he faced from not only the humans but also some of the apes he presided over. In contrast, Noa is shown to have had a relatively comfortable upbringing in his village, remaining ignorant to the human settlements that came generations before him. Teague does a fine job playing into Noa's curiosity, wishing to figure out what kind of future may be left for him if fanatical leaders like Proximus are left in charge for too long.
Freya Allen also played an interesting role in the film as Mae, a human woman who harbours far more intelligence than what the apes may have assumed at first. Without giving away spoilers, it would seem that Mae could be the key to bridging the rift between humans and apes in a future entry, given her significance in assisting Noa on his journey. I cannot discuss her major contributions to the story without revealing important plot points but I was pleased with the way she was fleshed out as a real person and not reduced to being some obligatory sidekick character. Allen and Teague had a solid chemistry with one another, effectively showing us that it is possible for humans and apes to find common ground in this new world despite their differences.
As the film's main antagonist, Kevin Durand treats Proximus Caesar more like a deranged cult leader as opposed to a brutish dominant male. He is a master manipulator, preying on the apes' desire to learn about human technology and how they can possibly use it to make their lives better. Naturally, when Proximus's authority is challenged by Noa, he tries to use the original Caesar's teachings to make his followers assist him in dealing with this outsider threat. This leads to some interesting moments between Noa and Proximus regarding their specific interpretations of Caesar's wise words, much like how people from different backgrounds might impose their views on religion or politics towards others who disagree.
For the beginning of a new trilogy, "Kingdom of the Planet of The Apes" does more than enough to justify its existence beyond being simply another cash-grab sequel to a recognisable IP. It remains respectful to the source material that preceded it while also adding in some fun surprises that might even catch veteran viewers off guard. Though I am now optimistic for the inevitable sequels, a part of me also worries that the series may go down the same wrong path as "Star Wars" with a lack of direction for the overall story to take. At this point, given Disney's recent track record of running beloved franchises into the ground, it looks like things could go either way. Until then, we'll just have to expect the worst but hope for the best.
I rate it 8.5/10.
Monkey Man (2024)
Succeeds as a stylised action experience that shows a promising future for Patel as a filmmaker
"Monkey Man" is an action thriller film co-written, co-produced, and directed by Dev Patel. Starring Patel in the lead role, it succeeds as a stylised action experience that shows a promising future for Patel as a filmmaker.
In Yatana, India, an anonymous young man known as "Kid" (Dev Patel) carves out a living as a fighter in an underground fight club. Kid's monetary gimmick is wearing a monkey mask and deliberately losing fights against stronger opponents for the spectators' amusement. After years of fighting and planning, Kid hatches a scheme to infiltrate the organisation responsible for murdering his mother when he was a child and settle the score once and for all. As he fights his way through this criminal underbelly, Kid quickly learns that corruption runs deep among the political factions of Yatana, with his targets constantly exploiting the impoverished for their own financial gain.
Within the past ten to 15 years, it would seem that the "John Wick" series has had a far greater influence on the action film genre than any other set of movies released to theatres. Though the "one-man army" trope is hardly new, it would seem that John Wick has helped redefine the action hero archetype so much that there have since been a number of copycat action film protagonists that attempt to emulate his particular style. Two good examples of this would be "Nobody", which featured the seemingly ordinary Bob Odenkirk as a secret deadly assassin, and "Gunpowder Milkshake", which swapped out the male action lead for a female one with Karen Gillan. In his filmmaking debut, Dev Patel's "Monkey Man" also takes evident cues from the "John Wick" movies, in a film that essentially combines the exciting action sequences of this popular franchise with some interesting aspects of Indian culture.
As the film opens, the audience is shown a rather curious fable about the Hindu deity Hanuman, who incurred the wrath of the other Gods for trying to eat the sun after mistaking it for a large mango. As a result, the monkey-like Hanuman was quickly punished by the Gods but was blessed by them later on for remaining humble and not allowing his ego to dictate his future actions from this incident. It is then revealed that this story is being told to a young boy by his mother as a means of teaching him about humility and remaining strong in spite of your current situation. This parable becomes the backbone for the entire film's moral identity, in that Kid must apply what he was taught about Hanuman in order to effectively bring down the organisation that killed his mother right before his eyes.
In his directorial debut, it seems that Dev Patel has not only taken inspiration from the aforementioned "John Wick" films but also from the works of Danny Boyle. For those who aren't aware, Boyle previously directed Patel in his breakout film "Slumdog Millionaire", which also featured the poverty-stricken areas of India as its primary setting. Patel mimics Boyle's breakneck editing style during establishing shots to give the audience a more raw look at the unpredictable, changing nature of these dangerous locations. Additionally, like Boyle, Patel spices up these shots with thumping hip-hop or techno music to show the seedier side of these places that are rife with crime and corruption. Whether or not Patel intentionally included these creative decisions to pay homage to Boyle is a matter of debate but they certainly work in the film's favour, at least on a visual basis.
The film's biggest strengths lie in its impressive action scenes, especially during the climax. We watch as Kid plows his way through hordes of enemies determined to bring him down at all costs, relying solely on his own physical strength and knowledge of the lessons he learned from the teachings of Hanuman. These violent sequences are just as brutal, bloody, and gory as any of the "John Wick" movies, something that is certain to entertain fans of that specific style of filmmaking. In fact, the film even references the series by name in one scene where Kid purchases a gun from a dealer who states that the very same weapon was used by the eponymous hero.
However, one problem I noticed was that the film has a tendency to overuse "shaky-cam", something I have grown to hate seeing in modern action movies. Whenever characters are fighting each other in hand-to-hand combat, the screen sometimes becomes blurry due to the excessive shaking of the camera as a cheap way to show the intensity of what is happening during the scene in question. In most other films of this type I would not have been as bothered, but in the recent "John Wick - Chapter 4", all of the fighting scenes were handled without any shaky-cam at all, so something like this stands out to me quite considerably. It's a shame because this spoils what could have been an exciting sequence with an unnecessary exercise in motion sickness.
Another issue with the film is its weak world building. One of my favourite things about the "John Wick" series was that the world that the characters inhabited all felt like living, breathing environments that audiences could easily immerse themselves in while watching. In this film, we only ever see the basics of the slum-like conditions the population of Yatana have to endure, without ever once feeling like it's affecting the main character personally. You can attribute this to Kid's limited interactions with the cast of supporting characters, whom most only serve the purpose of peddling expository dialogue rather than for actual human interaction. I would have liked for there to be more scenes of Kid learning about how Yatana became such a haven of corruption, but the film never really explores this in great detail.
For his first action role, Dev Patel is surprisingly effective at handling his way through the various fist fights and shoot outs that the film requires of him. Though he is clearly using the John Wick character as a template, Patel still finds a way to add his own unique spin on his performance as Kid without drawing too much comparison. Unlike Wick, Kid is considerably more spiritually grounded in the way he handles certain situations, following the life lessons taught to him by his deceased mother. This allows him to become something of a religious vigilante, acting on faith-based notions rather than just blind vengeance. Of course, there are moments where the John Wick similarities are made quite obvious, like when Kid is seen feeding a stray dog outside a restaurant.
Among the growing sea of "John Wick" clones, "Monkey Man" nonetheless manages to stand out thanks to its entertaining action scenes, social commentary, and a sense of spirituality to distinguish itself from many others like it. Based on this film alone, I'd be willing to say that Dev Patel definitely has what it takes to be a memorable action star, in addition to being a filmmaker in his own right. Although there are currently no plans for this to become a serialised franchise (at least at the time of writing this), the potential is certainly there for Kid to become India's answer to John Wick, something I would be very keen to see happen sometime soon. Until then, this standalone film provides enough for the time being.
I rate it 7.5/10.
The Fall Guy (2024)
A fun ode to the often overlooked stunt workers of the film industry
"The Fall Guy" is an action comedy film loosely based on the 1980s TV series of the same name. Directed by David Leitch ("Atomic Blonde", "Deadpool 2", "Bullet Train") and starring Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt, it is a fun ode to the often overlooked stunt workers of the film industry.
Eighteen months after a near fatal accident on set, stuntman Colt Seavers (Ryan Gosling) returns to work as the stunt double for famous film star Tom Ryder (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) on an action movie being filmed in Sydney, Australia. One day during filming, Tom suddenly goes missing, which causes major problems for the film's first-time director Jody Moreno (Emily Blunt) who just so happens to be Colt's ex-girlfriend. With production shutting down indefinitely, Colt decides to seek out for Tom himself to save both Jody's film and her reputation as an up-and-coming filmmaker. While searching the unfamiliar city, Colt soon finds himself framed for a crime he didn't commit, leading to a series of events that put his life in far more danger than any stunt he has ever performed.
When watching an action movie, it can be easy for us to neglect just how much effort goes into some of the intense stunt work taking place onscreen. Most of the brave men and women responsible for this are frequently risking their lives for the sake of our entertainment and often end up forgotten in favour of the more well-known actors they are doubling for. If you're like me, I think it's about time major accolades are handed out to these performers at mainstream award ceremonies as a formal way of acknowledging all of their hard work. "The Fall Guy" pays an affectionate tribute to these stunt performers in a film that manages to both entertain and serve as a reminder of some of the lengths these people will go to ensure audiences always keep coming back for more.
As a demonstration of the intricacies in this line of work, the film opens on Colt performing a stunt that almost costs him his life. We see him being strapped into a harness intended to drop him from the top floor of the inside of an office building, with the real actor Tom watching on from a safe distance. Of course, things go horribly wrong for poor Colt, as the straps suddenly fail and cause him to plummet several storeys without any means of saving himself. His serious injuries force him to sit out working for over a year, and during his period of recovery he starts to notice the consequences of working in the shadows of somebody famous for too long.
Later, as Colt wanders the streets at night, he passes by various billboards and ads adorned with pictures of Tom plastered all over them. This causes a man at a nightclub to mistake Colt for Tom due to a passing physical resemblance, though the stunt performer quickly proves that he has more gumption than the famous actor ever did. Colt is then tasked with being the valet driver for the man at the club, in a scene where he lets loose and drives the car as quickly as possible, much to the owner's surprise. This is intended to establish that while someone like Tom is recognised the world over as an action star, there are still those who question if it is really him doing all of his own stunts. Colt is naturally the one doing all the hard work, and it is here we see the parallels drawn between an actor with a "tough guy" image versus a real tough guy who did long term damage to his body only for someone else to take the credit.
Being a film about stunt performers, you'd be correct in assuming that there will be scenes of car chases, explosions, shoot-outs, and inside references to other movies that contain all of the above. Director David Leitch, himself a former stuntman, makes good use of this film's premise to poke fun at the world of stunt work in a respectful, tongue-in-cheek manner. In particular, the film humorously calls out the similarity of its plot to that of 1993's "The Fugitive", with Colt realising he has been relegated to a role mirroring Harrison Ford on the run despite his innocence. This leads to some exciting chase scenes taking place throughout the streets of Sydney, with the action even finding its way onto the iconic Harbour Bridge. Not since "Mission: Impossible 2" has the city of Sydney been featured so prominently in a Hollywood action movie, and the film uses this uncommon location to its advantage.
We also see during the filming of the "movie-within-a-movie" how tedious it must be for Colt being forced to perform the same stunts over and over. Many of these stunts usually involve subjecting himself to painful situations, like being set on fire or thrown out of a car window. On top of that, it is shown that many of those working on the film don't even bother to acknowledge him by name, dismissing him as merely "The Stuntman". Seeing this side to stunt work told from the perspective of an actual performer like Leitch certainly gives the film a sense of authenticity in his storytelling, especially when done in a way that helps the viewer understand the difficult process undergone by these hardworking crew members.
Though not the first time he's played a movie stuntman (see 2011's "Drive"), Ryan Gosling fits into the role of Colt perfectly, approaching the character with considerably more humour and less stoicism. Gosling does a great job balancing out Colt's tough, resilient image of a stunt performer with that of someone who genuinely cares about those who are likely to eclipse his success. It is Colt's familiarity with the combative nature of his career choice that allows him to handle himself during any kind of physical altercation, usually resulting in him gaining the upper hand against adversity. In spite of everything he goes through, you've got to admire Colt for his work ethic, as well as his personal obligation to help complete this movie at all costs.
Emily Blunt is a great addition to the cast as well, with her character Jody taking on the role of a rookie filmmaker finally getting her big break in the industry. Her chemistry with Gosling works quite well in the film's favour, showcasing her secret longing to rekindle an old romance while still maintaining a level of professionalism. I also found it interesting to see how the film touched upon Jody's insistence on having her story told exactly to her specifications, even if it caused her to lock horns with the film's producers and cast members. This was likely done as a commentary on the way a director's vision can often end up compromised in favour of what the studio higher ups want to see instead, which is still an ongoing problem in Hollywood today.
As an appreciation of stunt workers everywhere, "The Fall Guy" is an appropriately fun ride that virtually all audiences are bound to enjoy, with no prior knowledge of the film industry required. It is comforting to know that behind every great action sequence in the movies we watch, there will always be those brave people willing to risk everything in the name of entertainment. Though we may be waiting a long time before stunt performers receive the mainstream recognition they deserve, we at least have this film to remind us of their significance until that day arrives. If anything, thanks to this film, that day might come sooner rather than later.
I rate it 8/10.
Bob Marley: One Love (2024)
A blandly sanitised biopic that fails to properly address the most important details of its main subject
Just saw "Bob Marley: One Love", a biographical drama film directed and co-written by Reinaldo Marcus Green ("Monsters and Men", "Joe Bell", "King Richard"). Starring Kingsley Ben-Adir in the lead role, it is a blandly sanitised biopic that fails to properly address the most important details of its main subject.
In 1976, Jamaica is experiencing an ongoing political conflict between right-wing and left-wing factions. As an attempt to ease tensions, local musician Bob Marley (Kingsley Ben-Adir) decides to perform a concert that will promote peace among the community. While making preparations, Marley and his wife Rita (Lashana Lynch) are shot a group of would-be assassins but both manage to make a full recovery before the concert can take place. Upset by the deplorable violence enacted upon him and his wife, Marley ventures away from Jamaica to the United Kingdom with his band while Rita and the children stay in Delaware, United States. During their time in the UK, Marley and his band brainstorm ideas for a new album, eventually deciding to take inspiration from the movie "Exodus", with Rita later joining them for the recording sessions.
If there were ever one person who could be solely credited with popularising reggae for the entire world, it would undoubtedly be Bob Marley. Throughout his lifetime, Marley and his band "The Wailers" recorded twelve studio albums, with his signature vocal style and deep lyrics cementing him as one of the most important musicians of the twentieth century. Even more than 40 years after his death, Marley still continues to inspire and influence musicians around the world, spanning a wide variety of genres that are not strictly limited to the reggae his music originates from. Being a subject this significant, Marley's life is certainly a prime topic for a cinematic biopic, but in "Bob Marley: One Love", all we get is a watered down, compromised look at only the surface level achievements of this man's legacy.
Given what an interesting life Bob Marley lived, it comes as quite a surprise that this film chooses to glance over so many notable things that he accomplished during such a pivotal time in his career. Granted, we do see some basics outlined to us, like how Marley considered his music apolitical in a heavily politically divisive Jamaica, but they are never properly explored in real detail. In addition to this, Marley was known for incorporating his Rastafarian beliefs into his music, however, we are never shown how he managed to make this work so well. The whole time throughout this film I wanted to see Bob Marley's clever ability to fuse all of these heavy-handed themes into his music, yet all we ever get are just brief glimpses at what could have been instead. Taking into account
how Marley's talents have had such a huge impact on the way the entire country of Jamaica is viewed by the rest of the world, I couldn't help but feel cheated whenever the film teased us with all these seemingly important moments that ended up going nowhere.
On that note, one of the biggest artistic issues with this film is its terrible pacing and editing. For instance, the film establishes that Marley was already well known within his native Jamaica, yet the audience is never made to feel as though his local fame is anything significant. We are only ever shown brief scenes of him interacting with his wife and children, recording music with his band, and giving press conferences regarding his upcoming concert. Before too long, and without any real build-up, Marley and his wife Rita are shot and rushed to hospital in a scene that is so hastily edited together that you can barely comprehend what just happened. To complicate matters further, the film then inserts an oddly placed flashback to Marley and Rita when they were younger as an arbitrary way to show the enduring strength of their relationship. After this scene has concluded, the film then cuts to a recovered Marley returning to rehearse with his band, without any indication of how much time has passed or whether the attempted assassins were apprehended. It's hard to care about the subject of this biopic when so little care has been put into crafting out this particular timeframe, and if you can even get that right within the first 15 minutes, you're in big trouble.
Despite all of these major issues, the film at least has a nice soundtrack, which should go without saying since it is about the most iconic reggae musician of all time. Practically all of Bob Marley's most famous hits can be heard here, ranging from "I Shot the Sheriff" to "Get Up, Stand Up", all of which give the film a bit more personality than it would otherwise lack. I also liked watching the scenes where Marley is shown coming up with some of his best known songs, like how spending time with his sons inspired him to write "Three Little Birds" and how "Redemption Song" is actually a reworking of a track he wrote when he was much younger. Though it is clear the film is taking an artistic licence regarding the origins of these tunes, there is at least some emotional weight behind moments like this, which is more than can be said for most other parts of the story that constantly feel dead on arrival.
In the lead role as the film's main subject, Kingsley Ben-Adir does a decent enough job playing Bob Marley. I thought the scenes where Ben-Adir shone the most were the ones where he is performing at concerts, where he efficiently mimics Marley's stage mannerisms and his ability to keep the crowd invested in both the melody and the lyrics. It's a shame the rest the material he has to work with is so painfully weak, especially during the repetitive dialogue scenes which consist of him either questioning the sanctity of his marriage or telling his bandmates what song he's going to write next. It also doesn't help that all of the supporting cast are so vastly underwritten that you'd be struggling to remember the name of anyone significant besides Marley's wife Rita. With that said, I would say Ben-Adir's performance is one of the better features of this otherwise lacklustre biopic.
Considering the enduring popularity of Jamaica's most famous musician, it's exceptionally disappointing that "Bob Marley: One Love" has fallen so short of telling the full story about this fascinating individual. There are several missed opportunities for this film to have explored Marley's life in such great detail given the magnitude of his contribution to music, as well as the overall reputation of Jamaica itself. Instead, all we get is this mediocre autopilot biopic that barely scratches the surface of everything Bob Marley and his songs were all about. Thankfully, the timeless quality of Bob Marley's music will escape unharmed from this and continue to bring joy for many generations to come. It's too bad the same can't be said for the film itself.
I rate it 5/10.
Anyone But You (2023)
A safely predictable romantic comedy that gets by on the watchability of its two stars
"Anyone But You" is a romantic comedy film directed and co-written by Will Gluck ("Easy A", "Friends With Benefits", "Peter Rabbit"). Starring Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell in the lead roles, it is a safely predictable romantic comedy that gets by on the watchability of its two stars.
In Boston, law student Bea (Sydney Sweeney) meets investment banker Ben (Glen Powell) in a coffee shop and the two decide to spend the day together. After falling asleep on his couch, Bea sneaks out of Ben's apartment without waking him, only to have second thoughts and return later that day. However, upon returning, Bea overhears Ben talking about her to his friend Pete (GaTa), where he disregards her as nothing more than a casual fling. Six months later, Bea and Ben unexpectedly cross paths once again when Bea's sister Halle (Hadley Robinson) becomes engaged to Pete's friend Claudia (Alexandra Shipp), with the wedding due to take place in Sydney, Australia. Despite their mutual animosity, Bea and Ben choose to maintain a ruse that they are actually a loving couple so as to appease the feelings of all the wedding guests and the brides to be.
Something that I really enjoy watching in virtually all forms of media is contemporary adaptations of the works of William Shakespeare. From the film and stage musicals of "West Side Story" (Romeo and Juliet) to Disney's animated classic "The Lion King" (Hamlet), many of us have likely viewed at least one form of entertainment that originates from Shakespeare's plays, whether we're aware of it or not. There's certainly something to admire about how the Bard's work can still be told in a modern context without losing anything important regarding its core meaning or overall impact. In a loose retelling of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing", the 2023 film "Anyone But You" has a lot going for it on the surface, but once you strip away these factors, all you end up with is another by-the-numbers romantic comedy that squanders its full potential.
Even from the very beginning, it's easy to tell exactly how this film is going to play out. When our two lead characters Bea and Ben first meet each other, it seems like love at first sight, with the pair spending the day affectionately strolling through a park and later heading back to his apartment for some home cooking. Eventually, the two realise that they don't really love each other all, with a series of misunderstandings causing them to "break up", despite not being a real couple to begin with. Later on, circumstances arise where they are forced to be around one another once again for an extended period of time, eventually deciding to put up with each other for the sake of keeping up appearances. There are no prizes for guessing the direction this story is going to take from here, as anybody who is familiar with the romantic comedy genre can figure out that these two will end up together at some point later on. This is where the appeal of the genre proves polarising, since there are many viewers who find enjoyment in that predictability whereas there are numerous others who hate it for the very same reason. It all depends on what you consider entertainment, but I personally don't care for this approach at all.
As a contemporary take on a Shakespearian story, the film still follows the same basic plot with certain updates added to make it feel better suited for today's audiences. For instance, the location of the wedding is now in Sydney, Australia, as opposed to the Sicilian city of Messina. In addition to this, the main characters' names from the play have been shortened down, with Benedick becoming "Ben" and Beatrice becoming "Bea". However, the dialogue is the modern vernacular without any of the "Old English" sentence structure that Shakespeare plays are best known for. Though I did approve of most of these changes, some of the miscellaneous Easter eggs and references to the original story felt very tacked on. In some scenes, we see lines from the original play graffitied on a wall that a character walks past or on a sign at a wharf where a large group of wedding guests are all getting ready for a cruise. The only one of these references I kind of liked was a boat named "Sigh No More", which alludes to a notable song from the play.
Since the film takes place in Australia, I expected there to be some gags about this group of Americans feeling out of place in a foreign country, yet there are barely any comedic moments that truly made me smile. In one scene that goes on longer that it should, Ben and Bea are pretending to be feel each other up intimately in front of the other wedding guests, even though everyone else is distracted by a nearby koala. It is here where Ben discovers that a large Huntsman spider has found its way into his pants, leading to him frantically taking off all his clothes and throwing them off a cliff. Why he decided to throw them somewhere he cannot get them back so easily is unknown, but it appears to have been done to set up for a rather contrived scene where he is now naked in front of Bea and the others. The fact that this scene has such an obvious punch line from the start should indicate the level of weak humour this film has going for it, as it would appear the writers found this hilarious enough to drag it out for nearly five minutes straight.
That's not to say the film is completely unfunny, because there are a handful of moments that raised a snicker out of me. I liked this running joke about the Americans thinking that Australian coffee is "amazing" due to how much more powerful it is compared to what they have back home. Without giving away too much, this actually led to one part that came close to making me laugh out loud. There is also a character named Beau who looks and acts exactly like your modern stereotypical Aussie bloke. He has long blond hair, is often shirtless, loves surfing, and speaks with a thick Australian accent while using slang that most Americans won't understand. Admittedly, Beau did make me smile at the idea of how us Australians must look in front of foreigners, but unfortunately he wasn't featured enough in the story to be considered a scene stealer.
Though their characterisation was rather bland, the performances of both Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell as Bea and Ben are what saves this otherwise routine romantic comedy from sinking without a trace. There's no denying these two have solid chemistry, even during moments where they are hurling verbal abuse at each other. Sweeney has this specific look on her face that allows her to hold the audience's attention long enough to wonder how she will react to a certain situation, whereas Powell is a decent straight man who is capable of giving her solid material to work with. I just wish these two had more interesting character traits other than being the stock boy and girl who need to fall in love with each other simply because the plot demands it. Aside from this, there is very little else worth mentioning about their contribution to the story.
Considering how much it seemed to have going for it, "Anyone But You" does little to elevate itself above being yet another mediocre romantic comedy among many others. Its attempt at retelling a classic Shakespearian story leaves a lot to be desired, featuring only the bare bones of the original plot and some uninspired modern references shoehorned in for good measure. If it weren't for the charismatic leads and a few nice shots of the Australian scenery, I wouldn't give it the time of day. In the end, you can only really view this film as one of those cookie-cutter modern romantic comedies that just so happens to come with a Shakespeare paint job. Of course, if that's more than enough to keep you entertained then the film may just be worth your time. As for me, I think the Bard deserved better than this.
I rate it 6/10.
Road House (2024)
Serves no real purpose other than to prove that modern remakes of popular 80s films will always be inferior to the original product
"Road House" is a remake of the 1989 cult classic action film of the same name. Directed by Doug Liman ("The Bourne Identity", "Mr. & Mrs. Smith", "Edge of Tomorrow") and starring Jake Gyllenhaal in the lead role, it serves no real purpose other than to prove that modern remakes of popular 80s films will always be inferior to the original product.
Since retiring, former UFC fighter Elwood Dalton (Jake Gyllenhaal) has made a living scamming fighters within the underground circuit, attracting plenty of notoriety in the process. One night, Dalton is approached by a woman named Frankie (Jessica Williams), who offers him the job as the head bouncer at her disorderly roadhouse located in Florida Keys. Despite some initial reluctance, Dalton accepts the job and heads over to Frankie's roadhouse known simply as "The Road House". Upon beginning work, Dalton soon learns that his job is going to be much harder than he had anticipated, as the local area is filled with violent motorcycle gangs, corrupt law enforcement, and greedy businessmen intent on making life difficult for anyone unfortunate enough to cross their paths.
If there were ever a definitive decade for guilty pleasure movies, most would agree it would have to be the 1980s. From the overindulgent special effects of David Lynch's "Dune" to the cheesy love story laced with synthesiser music of "Top Gun", the 80s aesthetic of "so-bad-it's-good" remains unmatched even to this day, with many of these films attaining loyal cult followings for this very reason. One such movie that fills this role perfectly is 1989's "Road House", a Patrick Swayze-led project that has gone on to become a quintessential 80s guilty pleasure movie, containing just about everything that is ridiculous about cinema from this decade. In yet another attempt to cash in on people's nostalgia of the 80s, the 2024 remake of "Road House" tries to replicate all of the original's over-the-top qualities to appeal to a modern audience, but like all the others it fails in every way possible.
The most notable reason why this film just doesn't work is in its failure to understand why audiences found the 1989 version so entertaining in the first place. You can say what you will about the overall quality of the original film from a critical standpoint, but it at least knew how to set up its lead character and invest us in what could happen to him throughout the story. For the first two thirds of this film, instead of spending time developing its characters and establishing its plot, all we get are repetitive fight scenes that begin and end the exact same way. Someone causes trouble in the Road House, Dalton tries to prevent things from escalating further, the problematic person ignores Dalton and tries to fight him, Dalton quickly gains the upper hand and ejects the person from the premises. Rinse and repeat.
Although the original film did contain scenes just like this, they at least had some build up and an element of fun to help you look forward to watching Patrick Swayze's Dalton handling himself efficiently in hand-to-hand combat. Here, all of the fights seem like copy-paste versions of each other, only with different thugs each time. It's as if the screenwriters for this remake watched the original and assumed that the only reason people liked it was solely for the fight scenes, but that's simply not the case. Audiences like myself enjoyed watching Swayze's Dalton form a connection with the staff of the Road House before getting into the nitty-gritty fist fights he is known for. Unfortunately, this film does nothing like that with Gyllenhaal's Dalton, preferring to keep him emotionally distant from everyone he comes into contact with, at least until we're already 60% into the film's runtime. As a result, it's near impossible to care about anything that happens to this version of Dalton, as we just cannot relate to him on any personal level.
To add insult to injury, none of the fight scenes this time around are framed efficiently enough to leave any lasting impact. One of the reasons people enjoyed the fighting in the original was how realistic these scenes looked, as they all seemed as though they were happening right in the very moment at the actual location in question. In this film, there were several instances where it was obvious that CGI and green screen was being used to make it look like the people were fighting somewhere they obviously weren't. Though this may be excusable in other movies, it felt completely unnecessary here considering most of the fights took place inside the Road House as opposed to somewhere exotic like the inside of a volcano.
This leads to another major problem with the remake, the lack of grit and an appealing atmosphere. The excessive use of CG effects causes all of the fight scenes to look so clean and sterile, as though the actors are obviously performing within a controlled environment without any sense of danger from their surroundings. Because of this, there is little to no excitement in watching people fight one other since everything plays out in the same safe and predictable style each time. At least the original film gave off the impression that the characters are in places that could pose a threat to their safety, but here I never once felt as though anybody was in the location they were supposed to be due to the lacklustre special effects. When you can't even get the fighting scenes right in a "Road House" remake, you know you've messed up somewhere.
The film also fails to elicit any real laughs, which is something that helped the original attain the cult status it still holds today. Sure, there are moments that are clearly intended to make the audience laugh, but they all feel poorly integrated into the story. For example, when we are introduced to Conor McGregor's character, he is shown proudly wandering around an Italian town completely naked after being forcibly ejected from a woman's bedroom. As he searches for clothes at a nearby market, he decides to headbutt an innocent passerby to steal his outfit and later burn down the market immediately afterwards. Normally I would laugh at the excessiveness of a scene like this, but instead it felt like it was trying too hard to be funny and edgy rather than add something important to the story, or lack thereof. Then again, it's not like the original film didn't have similar ridiculous moments as well, so what didn't make me laugh just might make several others guffaw in disbelief.
None of the characters are interesting enough for us to care about in the long run, coming off as one dimensional caricatures of who they are all supposed to be. Even the otherwise watchable Jake Gyllenhaal has very little to do other than fight people in the exact same repetitive style from beginning to end. Though Gyllenhaal tries his best with the material given to him, there's no denying that he lacks the iconic charisma and screen presence of the late Patrick Swayze. Had Gyllenhaal's Dalton been written better, I would say that the film would be worth watching just for him, but I'm struggling to remember anything remotely important about his character other than that he's simply good at fighting.
Additionally, the two lead villains are just so cartoonishly absurd that they feel as though they were plucked right out of the 80s and made to interact with the world of the 2020s. For instance, the main antagonist is a wealthy real estate developer who runs a drug empire and wants to expand his development onto the land where the Road House is located. The actions of this character are so bizarre, like when he requests to be shaved with an old blade on his boat while traversing rough seas. If you can consider that character to be the brains, then the brawn would have to be Conor McGregor in his first acting role. However, all McGregor does in this film is punch things and pick fights simply because he feels like it, all while brandishing a menacing grin on his face. It's hard to tell if all these creative decisions were added as an ironic attempt at leaving a lasting impression on today's audience, but it just comes across as woefully desperate in my point of view.
For an already unnecessary remake of a popular guilty pleasure, this 2024 version of "Road House" just cannot find a way to distinguish itself any more than as a poor imitation of an arguably better original. The 1989 film might be considered bad by some, but it at least has a certain charm that has allowed it remain in the "so-good-it's-bad" category even after more than three decades. On the other hand, while this remake is indeed a bad film, it is bad in an uninteresting way; the kind that leaves you scratching your head as to why it was even made in the first place other than to capitalise on nostalgia. I cannot imagine this version ever achieving cult status like its 80s counterpart, but I could be wrong considering the general public's tendency to find appeal in almost anything. With that said, I believe it will be the original film that future generations choose to keep in high esteem.
I rate it 4/10.
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024)
Delivers what it promises for fans of Kaiju action with a handful of pleasant surprises along the way
"Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" is the sequel to 2021's "Godzilla vs. Kong" and the fifth film in Legendary Pictures' "MonsterVerse". Once again directed by Adam Wingard and starring Rebecca Hall, Brian Tyree Henry, and Kaylee Hottle, it delivers what it promises for fans of Kaiju action with a handful of pleasant surprises along the way.
Following the events of "Godzilla vs. Kong", both the giant ape Kong and the giant reptilian Godzilla have agreed to keep their distance from one another, leading to a safer world as a result. Kong has since made his home within the depths of Hollow Earth while Godzilla continues to swim the surface world's oceans only occasionally emerging to attack any invasive Kaiju. One day, Kong ventures deeper into Hollow Earth where he discovers something huge that could threaten the very existence of not only his species but all life on the surface. Quickly realising that he cannot handle this threat alone, Kong attempts to form an unlikely alliance with his fierce rival Godzilla before both Hollow Earth and the surface world is destroyed.
Ten years since its debut, Legendary Pictures' "MonsterVerse" has managed to give western audiences their own cinematic universe of giant monsters, with Japan's iconic Kaiju Godzilla leading the way in his own self-titled 2014 film. Joining this colossal reptilian from the east is the equally famous King Kong (or just "Kong" for short) from the west, who also had similar success after first appearing in 2017's "Kong: Skull Island". It was inevitable that these two Kaiju would face off against one another, which is exactly what happened in "Godzilla vs. Kong", marking the first time since 1962 that both monsters have appeared in the same movie together. After that fight ended in a decisive draw, it seemed uncertain what direction things would head from there, but in "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire", we see the pair working together in an entertaining follow-up that once again showcases great special effects and that signature Kaiju destruction.
Rather than focus on two separate stories at once, this time the plot is mostly centred around Kong by himself. Though he is a powerful and respected figure among the inhabitants of Hollow Earth, Kong still needs to assert his dominance whenever necessary. Much like any gorilla, he demonstrates this through physical combat and by roaring loudly while pounding his chest. However, like any primate, curiosity gets the better of him as he decides to explore further into Hollow Earth to find out what lies beneath. Of course, what he ends up discovering poses a threat to his position of power, which later leads to some interesting lore about the origins of both Kong and the other Kaiju who call this planet home. These scenes are what I would consider to be the best parts of the film, as they allow us to see that Kong isn't just a mindless monster who wants to destroy everything he sees, but in fact a curious animal with a natural instinct to remain at the top of the food chain.
Maybe it's the better special effects or maybe it's the better way the mythology is handled but I actually found myself more invested in this story than I did with the previous film. This is likely due to the way the film is told primarily from Kong's perspective, as when we see him learn more about ancient life in Hollow Earth, we are learning along with him. From his surprised expressions to his determination to defeat his opponents, the visuals do a fine job at clueing us in to how Kong must be feeling on this journey into unknown territory. As a result, Kong is a surprisingly relatable character this time around, at least by giant gorilla standards.
On the other hand, Godzilla's role in this story has been significantly sidelined in favour of his mammalian rival. Whenever we see him on screen, Godzilla is either fighting off any large miscellaneous Kaiju that dare to appear on the surface or he is swimming around looking for another place to rest. Humorously, it would seem that Godzilla has taken a preferential liking to curling up inside the Roman Colosseum to sleep in the same way a dog might curl up in its own fluffy bed. In any other case, I would be annoyed that the "King of the Monsters" has been reduced to playing second fiddle to Kong, but remembering that he has already had two other solo movies that adequately established all we need to know about his character, I wasn't nearly as bothered.
As is usually the case with giant monster movies, there are plenty of action sequences and scenes of chaotic destruction that are sure to keep audiences satisfied with what they've paid to see. For example, we see Kong punching his way though large, mysterious creatures who attack him and we watch Godzilla smashing through skyscrapers and other landmarks to destroy any other Kaiju that threaten his territory. Out of all these parts, I found the scenes with Kong to be the most exciting due to him being the more emotionally sympathetic of the two monsters. That's not to say I didn't enjoy Godzilla's scenes at all, as he certainly has some memorable moments too, especially during the film's climax. It's worth noting that most of the time Kong is merely defending himself from opposition while Godzilla is usually the instigator of his large-scale fights.
Regarding the human characters, they all serve their respective purpose to the story and nothing more. I didn't really care much for Rebecca Hall or Brian Tyree Henry's roles in the story other than for them to quote exposition that Godzilla and Kong cannot verbally communicate to the audience. Though they were far from annoying, I just wish there was a way for them to have had a more memorable impact on the story other than being the stock humans with scientific knowledge on the titular monsters. It is clear that these two human characters are only there to set things up for the next action scene involving either Kong, Godzilla, or both of them at once, meaning that practically anybody could have played their roles.
The closest the film comes to having an emotional moment with a human character is with the deaf girl Jia (Kaylee Hottle), who is able to communicate with Kong using sign language. Without spoiling too much, there is one scene with her and Kong that I found quite touching, which is more than can be said for all the other human characters whose names I can barely remember. At the end of the day, this lack of human drama doesn't really matter because as I said once before; we don't pay to see a monster movie for the human characters the same way we don't go to McDonalds to order a filet mignon. Then again, if "Godzilla Minus One" was able to accomplish greatness along these lines, then the potential was certainly there at least.
For yet another giant monster movie filled with gratuitous destruction and chaos galore, "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" is a worthy addition to the decade old "MonsterVerse" that promises to entertain with its great visuals and plentiful action scenes. As I said about the film's predecessor, you shouldn't expect anything less from a movie that has Godzilla and Kong's names in the title, and once again that's just what we get. I'm curious to see what direction the franchise will head in from this point forward, as there are a number of ways this story could continue with its already established mythology. Until then, I'm satisfied with simply watching these giant monsters beat the hell out of each other for our own amusement.
I rate it 7/10.
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024)
A mediocre follow-up that proves the series has now run its course
"Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" is the sequel to 2021's "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" and the fourth film in "Ghostbusters" franchise. Directed and co-written by Gil Kenan ("Monster House", "City of Ember", "A Boy Called Christmas"), it falls short of its predecessor in a mediocre follow-up that proves the series has now run its course.
Two years after the events of "Ghostbusters: Afterlife", Callie Spengler (Carrie Coon) and Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd) decide to move their family from Oklahoma to New York City. Setting up home in the old Ghostbusters' firehouse, the Spenglers work alongside the original team members Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson), and Peter Venkman (Bill Murray) in an underground research lab that holds all of their captured ghosts in specially modified enclosures. One day, local resident Nadeem (Kumail Janjiani) discovers an ancient artefact that unleashes an evil supernatural energy capable of trapping the entire world in a permanent ice age. With the fate of the living now in turmoil, both the new and old Ghostbusters must set aside any generational differences to save the Earth from becoming frozen solid.
After decades of patiently waiting, fans of the "Ghostbusters" franchise were finally treated to a third film in the series with "Ghostbusters: Afterlife". This legacy sequel, which served as a belated continuation of the original two films, managed to find ways to appeal to the current generation while simultaneously paying respects to the older fans who made the series popular in the first place. Though not without its faults, fans such as myself found the film to be a satisfactory follow-up that left us with a good feeling after watching, which is exactly what I had hoped for leading up to its release. If it were up to me, I would have chosen to end the series here on a high note but considering its success at the box office, it was inevitable that Sony Pictures would produce more films somewhere along the pipeline. In the year of the franchise's 40th anniversary, we have "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire", a sequel to a legacy sequel that fails to milk any fresh or exciting ideas out of this beloved series.
Admittedly, the film does begin on a promising note, which I initially assumed was setting the mood for the rest of the story. In a fun opening scene, we watch as the Spengler family chase a large dragon ghost throughout the streets of Manhattan in the Ecto-1. As the spectre weaves its way through the various buildings, the Spenglers hastily try to catch it using an array of devices, including a drone with a ghost trap fitted to the top. Upon successfully bringing the creature's rampage to an end, the Spenglers are reprimanded for the collateral damage they caused in the process, later receiving a lengthy scolding from a certain environmental agent. From this point forward, the film takes a decidedly dour tone, with a general lack of excitement beyond the odd nostalgic references to the older movies. Each of the original two films had a nice blend of humour and horror that helped them become memorable staples of 80s pop culture. With this entry, however, I failed to remember even one remotely amusing part of the film once the end credits started rolling.
This brings us to one of the film's biggest problems; the poor attempts at humour. Whether it's a case of weak direction, a subpar script, or a combination of both, every one of the film's comedic moments fell flat. For example, in one scene Gary tries to motivate Callie during a time where she is depressed and feels unable to continue working. He does this by quoting the lyrics to the "Ghostbusters" theme song, a tune anyone with even a passing knowledge of the series has heard at some point. What could have been an affectionate homage to the franchise's iconic theme becomes an awkward moment that drags on longer than it should. All the potential was there for this scene to be funny, but something felt off about the overall delivery from both Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon. The film is littered with misfired comedy just like this, which certainly puts a hamper on its already downbeat tone. In other words, what should have been cringe comedy is instead simply cringe on its own.
Another problem with the film is its uninteresting story. As mentioned above, the film focuses around an ancient artefact with the ability to bring about an apocalyptic series of events. On paper, this sounds like a perfectly fine plot for a "Ghostbusters" film, but the execution is handled very poorly. For instance, the backstory regarding the artefact is told to the audience in a rather clunky, forced manner; by having a random character played by Patton Oswalt explain it through lengthy exposition accompanied by artistic visuals reflective of that era. Even with all that information provided, we never really feel like this is a genuine threat throughout the whole film. There's no sinister build-up, no sense of real danger, and no reason for the characters to be worried about the long term consequences of them failing their mission. As a result, I found it near impossible to become fully invested in the story this time around.
However, perhaps the film's most notable undoing is in the mishandling of its characters old and new. There are simply too many character subplots intertwining at the same time that the whole film becomes cluttered. If you are going to have a film with such a large cast of characters, you better find an appropriate way to use them within the story. Unfortunately, the film fails at that in every way possible, as we are instead subjected to irrelevant plot elements that go nowhere and characters whose presence is only there for fanservice purposes only.
Like in its predecessor, the film's protagonist is Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), the bespectacled young girl who follows in her grandfather's footsteps using her intellect to help capture ghosts. Yet in this film, Phoebe hardly changes all that much throughout the story, save for her desire to be taken more seriously due to her being labelled as too young to be a Ghostbuster. Her interactions with others are nothing more than surface level complaints about her age, meaning that we never really feel sorry for her on a deeper level. I assume Phoebe's character was supposed to have a more detailed arc but it was likely abandoned in favour of focusing on less important creative aspects like nostalgic fanservice.
The three original "Ghostbusters" actors; Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson, also return for another outing as their respective characters. Unfortunately, the trio seem quite unenthusiastic to be here and each look as though they are phoning in their performances. I cannot go into too much detail about their roles in the film without giving away spoilers but I felt underwhelmed by each of their contributions to the story. Still, I will admit that it is nice to see them put on their old Ghostbusters uniforms at least one more time for us, especially after four decades since their debut. There's no denying these three are only doing this film for the paycheque, so hopefully they got their money's worth out of their participation.
From the perspective of a longtime fan, "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" is a sad reminder that some IPs are doomed to be milked for all they are worth by their distribution companies. Had the story ended at "Afterlife", I would have been satisfied to call the film series a trilogy, but its success has now opened the door to more byproducts of corporate greed like this one. According to some research, there are more films planned for release in the future, which has me concerned as I believe there is little else in the way of "Ghostbusters" lore to draw inspiration from. In my humble opinion, Sony should have quit while they were ahead, but so long as "Ghostbusters" remains a profitable name, things will continue in this direction for a long time.
I rate it 5/10.
The Iron Claw (2023)
An interesting yet undeniably tragic look at one of the greatest wrestling families in the history of the sport
"The Iron Claw" is a biographical sports drama film written and directed by Sean Durkin ("Martha Marcy May Marlene", "The Nest"). Starring Zac Efron in the lead role, it presents an interesting yet undeniably tragic look at one of the greatest wrestling families in the history of the sport.
In 1979 in Texas, former professional wrestler Jack "Fritz" Von Erich (Holt McCallany) owns and operates the wrestling company "World Class Championship Wrestling" (WCCW). Fritz is married to his wife Doris (Maura Tierney) and has five sons; Jack Jr, who died in infancy, Kevin (Zac Efron), David (Harris Dickinson), Kerry (Jeremy Allen White), and Mike (Stanley Simons). Following in their father's footsteps, Kevin and David choose to wrestle professionally, with the former eventually being crowned the Texas Heavyweight Champion. After Kevin starts a relationship with a local woman named Pam (Lily James), he informs her of the "Von Erich curse", which is believed to have started after the unfortunate death of his older brother Jack Jr as a young child due to his father changing the family name Adkisson to his mother's maiden name. Over the course of the following decade, the Von Erich brothers experience several misfortunes and accidents that give weight to this theoretical curse, but the family remains determined to preserve their legacy for all the right reasons.
Whether you believe in curses or not, it's hard to ignore the alarming amount of bad luck the Von Erich family have experienced since their foray into the world of wrestling. Without going into too much detail, it is clear that the legacy of the Von Erichs will be somewhat tarnished by a series of unfortunate events that almost destroyed everything the family patriarch Fritz had built over several years. In spite of so many things going wrong for them, the Von Erich family still managed to leave a notable impact within the sport of wrestling, as even to this day they remain a force to be reckoned with. Named after the family's signature wrestling move, the film "The Iron Claw" delves into the Von Erich dynasty by examining their achievements and the tragic circumstances that befell them during their prime.
As is necessary in any family drama, the film is told to us from the different perspectives of the Von Erichs during certain points of the story. For instance, in the beginning, we see how Fritz views the life choices his sons wish to make regarding their respective career paths. Though initially reluctant to have them do what he did, Fritz decides to support and later train Kevin and David to be the very best wrestlers capable of carrying on the family legacy. It is here we see Fritz balancing his fatherly duties with that of a determined coach, pushing his sons to the very limits of their wellbeing while also trying to remain a positive paternal figure in their lives. In most other sports dramas, the father character is often abusive and neglects the personal feelings of his children for the sake of his own gain, but here it is refreshing to see that Fritz is a genuinely loving parent who never forces his sons to do what they would never want on their own terms. Instead, he allows them to work out any of their differences in more constructive ways rather than destructive.
Similarly, we also watch Kevin, who is now the oldest child by default, take on his elder brotherly duties by working to make a name for both himself and the rest of his family. Being a firsthand witness to the damage this curse is capable of causing, Kevin understands how important it is for him to work extra hard to prevent any further misfortune from occurring to his younger siblings. In addition to this, he constantly feels the pressure to become the World Heavyweight Champion, not only from his father, but also out of personal obligation to overcome his family's alleged curse. Though things seem to be going alright at first, a tragic chain of events start to take place that almost derail everything he had worked towards up until that point. This is where the film shifts its primary focus from Fritz over to Kevin, with the latter finding it increasingly difficult to simultaneously stay focused on wrestling while all of these family tragedies are taking place around him. To make matters worse, other competing wrestling companies start to emerge that pose a major threat to the Von Erich's presence within the community.
At first, you might be forgiven for assuming this film is only about the Von Erich's time in the spotlight as a powerhouse wrestling family, but as the film progresses it becomes a far darker tale of emotional heartbreak. Director Sean Durkin handles this story with the utmost care, never allowing it to descend into a repetitive mess of sad moments and sentimentality. Instead, Durkin chooses to focus on the tight-nit family unit of the Von Erichs, keeping the wrestling aspects of their personal lives to a minimum. This is mostly shown to the audience through the eyes of Kevin, whose mental state is often tested with every passing issue he and his family end up facing. Because of this, the audience feels like they are actually part of the family, suffering along with them as more problems arise. As someone who doesn't follow professional wrestling, I was pleased to see that Durkin chose this approach and that I was able follow this story without any prior knowledge of the sporting jargon or terminology. With that said, Durkin is highly effective at showing how the Von Erichs rely heavily on this sport to support their livelihood, which becomes problematic as further tragedies start to mount.
Continuing his streak of playing interesting characters, Zac Efron is a major standout in the role of Kevin Von Erich, which is easily one of his best performances so far. It's truly heart-wrenching to watch as Kevin grapples with not only maintaining his tough wrestler image but also fighting through his depression as a result of having so many terrible things happening around him at the same time. Each of Kevin's brothers face multiple problems after another, leading him to believe that the Von Erich curse might just be real after all. Efron does a great job showing Kevin's conflicted emotional state, ranging from suppressed sadness to a fleeting optimism that his luck may eventually improve. Without spoiling too much, Kevin and the rest of his family have a bittersweet conclusion that is sure to evoke strong feelings of sadness in even the most hardened viewer.
Worth mentioning as well is Holt McCallany as Fritz, the Von Erich patriarch whose influence over his family has helped them remain relevant even to this day. As mentioned earlier, I was pleased to see that Fritz is actually depicted as a mostly positive role model for his sons, always supporting their chosen career paths and never giving up on them whenever things turn ugly. However, as a compromise, he does not allow the boys to show any outward sadness if something awful ever happens within the family, causing them all to bottle up their emotions instead. This leads to some rather heated scenes that arise from the boys' inability to properly express their grief, which add to the increasing problems the family must deal with in relation to the curse. Regardless, Fritz is still the best possible father to be in this position of power, and McCallany's believable performance is one of the key reasons the character works so well in this film.
Even if you aren't a fan of wrestling, "The Iron Claw" still functions on its own as a gripping family drama that manages to hit all of the right emotional cues. Although it remains up for debate whether the curse is actually real, there's no denying the Von Erichs have had their fair share of catastrophes over the years, to the point where it could even be considered an epidemic. At the end of the day, it was their own resilience that allowed them to rise above these obstacles to become one of the most respected families in the entire sport of wrestling. If that's not a subject worthy of a film, then I don't know what is.
I rate it 8.5/10.
Poor Things (2023)
An appropriately surreal odyssey of one woman's exploration into her true potential
"Poor Things" is a dark comedy drama film based on the 1992 novel of the same name by Alasdair Gray. Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos ("The Lobster", "The Killing of a Sacred Deer", "The Favourite") and starring Emma Stone, Willem Dafoe, and Mark Ruffalo, it is an appropriately surreal odyssey of one woman's exploration into her true potential.
In an alternate Victorian London, eccentric surgeon Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe) successfully resurrects a recently deceased pregnant woman (Emma Stone) by transplanting the brain of the unborn baby into her skull. Naming the woman "Bella" and caring for her as his own daughter, Godwin later hires medical student Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef) to observe Bella's behaviour around the workplace. Max soon finds himself falling in love with Bella, captivated by her childlike demeanour as a result of her infant brain, and decides to propose to her at Godwin's insistence. Although she immediately accepts Max's proposal, Bella's intelligence quickly develops over time, which causes her to become increasingly curious of the outside world. One day, Bella becomes acquainted with Godwin's sleazy lawyer Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo), and he convinces her to run away with him to explore the world on an adventure to completely change her perspective of everything she had known up to that point.
Nowadays, it seems there aren't too many filmmakers left that are able to leave an impression on the viewer based solely on their own unique point of view. In recent years, however, Yorgos Lanthimos has emerged as one of the most interesting examples of a director who can hold full creative command of his films to take his audience on a journey into the worlds he creates and the mindsets of the characters that inhabit them. This could possibly be attributed to the fact that Lanthimos is Greek and the Greeks are renowned for their epic storytelling abilities, which was made known thanks to Ancient Greek poets like Homer. In a similar vain to Homer's poems "The Odyssey" and "The Iliad", the film "Poor Things" shows a layered, sometimes bizarre journey of its lead character, in a story that is guaranteed to shock, amuse, but nonetheless wildly entertain the audience from beginning to end.
Perhaps the closest work of modern fiction to compare this story to would be Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", particularly through the way it shows its naive main character gradually learning what lies beyond her basic knowledge of everything around her. When we first meet Bella, we see she has the mental capacity of a toddler who only just learned how to talk, communicating through broken sentences and the odd temper tantrum. Her childlike innocence of how the world works can be seen in her finding amusement in smashing dinner plates and a cruel streak with her asking to kill a frog she found in a pond. Later, we see a turning point for Bella's character when she goes through something of a second puberty, causing her to view life and other people with a more mature viewpoint.
As she observes the actions of all the people she meets, Bella allows herself to become better informed of what she is capable of, leading to a desire to break away from her confined lifestyle and experience things on her own terms. Upon befriending Duncan, Bella quickly learns she has now acquired a convenient outlet for exploring the unknown, despite remaining blissfully unaware that his corrupt worldview is far more perverse than he had been leading her to believe. Once Bella has been taken out of her comfort zone, the film becomes far more philosophical in tone, as she begins to feel bad for the less fortunate. This leads to her performing what she considers to be good deeds at the expense of her own dignity, including selling her body for others to have their way with. There's a certain tragic element explored through Bella's character here, as while she is clearly an adult on the outside, her mind still retains a level of ignorance that only a child could harbour in situations like this.
Much of Bella's development throughout the story is told to us not only through the dialogue, but also through the film's distinct visual style. Yorgos Lanthimos's eye for detail can be seen in the way he depicts Bella's world opening up to her from a small, restricted laboratory to the large, sprawling cities she finds herself travelling to on her journey. One of the more notable creative directions Lanthimos takes here is in his use of colour, or lack thereof. For instance, the beginning the film is shown almost entirely in black-and-white, save for a flashback scene explaining how Bella died and was resurrected in the first place. Later on, as Bella journeys from one place to another, bright colours and saturation are used to reflect her mood depending on the specific location and what she is experiencing at that time. I interpreted this as a young child learning that their view of the world is more than the simple black-and-white they start out with and that as they grow older, a more interesting and colourful existence awaits them.
The parts that stood out to me the most were when Bella is walking along the deck of a cruise ship and the time of day is used to show her fluctuating optimism. At night, Bella sees everything in dark blue with only a distant island illuminating the murkiness while during the day she sees it all in a troubling yellow, which is intended to show the poor living conditions of the people on the mainland. Lanthimos frames each of these shots like a painting, with the characters and objects positioned in very precise spots to emphasise Bella's state of mind without the need for her to verbally communicate her thoughts to the audience. The stunning visual ambience used here is comparable to filmmakers like Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Terry Gilliam, both of whom are known for immersing their characters in distinct worlds that allow the viewer to understand a character's train of thought at certain points in the story.
Something that will prove off putting to some viewers is the film's excessive use of graphic sex scenes. Although most of these parts do serve a purpose to the story, their explicit nature is guaranteed to make many people feel uncomfortable whenever they are featured on screen. The best way to interpret scenes like these is to assume that we are watching Bella learn more about her physical desires on her journey, which comes as a result of her exploring the type of person she is growing into along the way. Regardless, I do think there were some moments where these sex scenes teetered dangerously close towards sensationalism rather than as a genuine way to make an artistic point about something.
In what I would call her best role to date, Emma Stone plays Bella with such a masterful degree of confidence that it's almost scary. Throughout the film, we watch Bella change from naive and child-like to experienced and mature, not simply by what happens on the journey itself but through the true potential she had hiding inside her from the very beginning. Though her infant mind limited her functionality at the start, we can see that some of her original personality before she died had been preserved during the swapping of brains. This would have been an incredibly tricky role to play given the amount of opportunities for it to descend into a caricature of a mentally handicapped person, but Stone manages to maintain a respectable level of subtlety that allows her to pull off playing both an adult with the mind of a child and adult with real world experience.
The supporting cast also provide different perspectives to Bella's journey, with Mark Ruffalo and Willem Dafoe being the clear standouts. Ruffalo's performance as Duncan is quite unlike any role he usually plays - he is debaucherous, crude, and holds a pessimistic view of the world. This is in stark contrast to the naively innocent Bella, which allows him to take advantage of her as an excuse to corrupt her mind with his own toxic beliefs. Despite this, Duncan does show some concern for Bella whenever she tries to do things on her own without his consent, as he is aware of how dangerous the world can be for an ignorant, attractive young woman like her.
On the other hand, Willem Dafoe is his usual eccentric self as Godwin, the surgeon responsible for bringing Bella back to life with a brand new brain. From a man whose past work involves surgically swapping the heads of animals with unrelated ones, it is obvious he considers reviving a human from the dead to be his crowning achievement. He interacts with Bella like she's a real child in his care, disciplining her whenever she acts out of line and observing how fast her intellect is growing over time. As odd as he may seem on the surface, Godwin is actually shown to be nurturing at heart, as being unable to father biological children of his own is the main reason why he chooses to treat Bella as his adoptive daughter.
As an odyssey in the strongest sense, "Poor Things" succeeds at taking its audience on an absurd yet fascinating adventure with its cast of interesting characters and some great visuals to complement things nicely. Though its approach to storytelling may prove challenging in certain areas, one thing's for sure, it never forgets to entertain. This is easily Yorgos Lanthimos's best film so far, as well as another great opportunity for Emma Stone to demonstrate her wide range as an actress. For these reasons alone, it's hard not to be excited for whatever future projects lie on the horizon for these two. If they're anything like this, we're in for a real treat.
I rate it a solid 9/10.
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Brilliantly continues this highly engaging story without ever once letting up on what made the preceding film so great in the first place
"Dune: Part Two" is the sequel to the 2021 science fiction film "Dune", based on the 1965 novel of the same name by Frank Herbert. Directed and co-written by Denis Villeneuve ("Incendies", "Prisoners", "Arrival", "Blade Runner 2049") and starring Timothée Chalamet, Zendaya, and Rebecca Ferguson, it brilliantly continues this highly engaging story without ever once letting up on what made the preceding film so great in the first place.
After the fall of House Atreides at the hands of the House Harkonnen, Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) and his mother Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) find themselves joining up with a native Fremen tribe on the desert planet of Arrakis. In an effort to gain the Fremen's trust, the two undergo a series of challenges, with Paul learning their language and taming the large sandworms, and Jessica drinking from the Water of Life to replace the tribe's dying Reverend Mother. Over time, Paul develops feelings for Chani (Zendaya), a young Fremen woman whom he had been seeing in his visions, and the pair start working together to prevent the Harkonnen from harvesting all of the spice on Arrakis. It soon becomes clear that the Harkonnen will stop at nothing to steal all of Arrakis's most prized resource, and while Paul wrestles with his personal emotions, he plans an effective way to stop them before the entire universe itself is placed in mortal danger.
Without any doubt, the 2021 film adaptation of Frank Herbert's first "Dune" novel has proven to be one of the most engrossing science fiction movies to be released in the past few decades. Cleverly alluding to the real-world history of trade, this film takes that very concept and places it into a futuristic outer space setting with the underlying social commentary that hostility between different cultures will always remain a problematic concept. Due to the sheer scale of the story being told, it would be impossible to tell this epic tale within the confines of a single film, which resulted in it being split up into two parts. In this long-awaited second half of the story, the plot continues in an incredibly well-made science fiction masterpiece that retains everything great about the original and more.
Like its predecessor, this film does a fantastic job of captivating its audience within the first ten minutes and maintaining that level of intrigue the entire way through. We watch as Paul and his mother Jessica work together with their new Fremen allies to overcome a potential ambush from a group of Harkonnen soldiers. Rather than attacking the enemies up close, the Fremen are observed sniping them from a safe distance, using their own wits to dispose of them without drawing too much attention to their location. Later, as Paul and Jessica strive for acceptance among the Fremen, we are shown each of the painstaking ways the pair try to exert themselves to win their favour.
Paul's taming of the skyscraper-sized sandworms proves to be a challenging task, but once he masters it, the audience is treated to an incredibly exciting sequence that is certain to leave a lasting impression. This later leads to him bonding with Chani, who admires Paul for his commitment to the right cause and the two start to harbour romantic feelings for each other. On the other hand, Jessica's journey is more of a spiritual one, with her taking on the role of the Fremen's new Reverend Mother. By consuming the mysterious "Water of Life", Jessica gains the ability to hear the memories of all her ancestors, allowing her to become an important figure for both her son and the rest of the Fremen. The two contrasting journeys to enlightenment are balanced perfectly alongside each other, allowing for a necessary emotional undercurrent for the thought-provoking themes scattered throughout the main story.
We also learn more about the Fremen themselves, whose lifestyles were only hinted at in the first film. Far from the uncivilised "rats" that they are labeled as by the Harkonnen, the Fremen are an interesting group of natives who have learned to adapt to the hostile environment of Arrakis and live in harmony with the other dangerous creatures. However, it is also established that there are some disagreements between the Northern and Southern tribes over which lifestyles they should all be following. I interpret this as the film's way of alluding to real world religious disputes over how someone's personal beliefs will always clash with others, which is shown to still be a problem thousands of years in the future.
If the story doesn't invest you right away, then the film's amazing visuals are sure to do the trick. All too often, I see films that use CGI as a way to distract the audience from its faults but here it is all implemented flawlessly as a method of advancing the story forward. I often found myself in awe at the fantastic use of cinematography for even the most trivial of scenes. For example, as a way of showing how small the human presence on Arrakis is compared to the planet itself, there are moments where we see the large building settlements being dwarfed by the size of the huge sand hills in the background. And if that isn't enough to get the point across, the even larger sandworms just might pop up from underground to devour anyone or anything unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Also, despite being a desert planet, the appearance of Arrakis is never a dull sight. Spice glimmers brightly in the hot sunlight and the film's creative colour palette allow it to effectively reflect the particular mood of a scene that would have otherwise become straining to the eyes. But it's not just Arrakis that is impressive to look at, as there are other locations that brim with visual brilliance as well. The Hardkonnen homeworld of Giedi Prime has noticeable shades of black-and-white that give the planet a militaristic vibe in the vein of a World War II propaganda film, complete with marching soldiers wielding emblematic flags. Additionally, during some sword fights, the film even starts to resemble a classic samurai feature, in particular those by the legendary Akira Kurosawa. Just when I thought I was becoming desensitised to dazzling visual effects, this movie has proven me wrong.
But perhaps the best part about all of this is the film's pacing and editing. Even though it clocks in at a whopping 167 minutes, at no point does the film ever drag or contain any unnecessary filler. Director Denis Villeneuve has masterfully used his skills to combine all of the film's aforementioned strengths into a perfectly paced story that is able to simultaneously wow the audience with its great visuals, immerse them in the atmosphere of a faraway planet, and keep them invested in what happens to each of the characters. One scene where this is prominent is during Paul's attempt to tame a sandworm. Here, Paul places a device into the sand that is used to attract them to his location and waits patiently for one to appear. The suspense of whether or not a sandworm is going to suddenly appear out of the ground without warning is so cleverly done that I could not take my eyes off the screen during this whole sequence. There aren't many filmmakers capable of pulling off a scene like this, but Villeneuve is clearly more than qualified in this particular area of expertise.
As I said about him in the previous film, Timothée Chalamet is perfect in the role of Paul Atreides, whose importance in the story has increased significantly since last time. Watching Paul grow closer to the Fremen through Chani is a solid emotional anchor for his character, and helps him become more sympathetic to the audience. As Paul learns more about the Fremen, the audience is learning along with him, and the film never skimps on the details regarding what he needs to do to win their trust. Even Paul's character arc is more interesting this time around, as we watch him wrestle with his conflicting emotions and the stoic pragmatism he trained for all his life.
Zendaya also stands out as Chani, who has a more prominent supporting role teaching Paul everything he needs to know about her people. Though Chani is more than capable of handling herself in combat, she and Paul nonetheless make a great team together, allowing the two of them to grow closer romantically. Rebecca Ferguson plays a larger role in the story as Lady Jessica, not only as the mother of Paul but also as a new maternal figure among the Fremen. Without revealing any important details, Jessica's character provides an almost supernatural quality to an otherwise grounded story as a result of her consuming the Water of Life.
Much like last time, this second part of the story that began with 2021's "Dune" has found a way to go all out to entertain its audience at every opportunity. It draws you in with its fantastic visuals, keeps you invested in its intriguing plot, and also provides some insightful commentary on the general nature of human behaviour. This film is an epic in every sense of the word; both in scale and narrative. There are still five other "Dune" novels written by Frank Herbert with the potential to be adapted into feature films, so I remain hopeful that this one is not the end. Judging by the success of both this film and its predecessor, there is a bright future ahead of us.
I rate it a very high 9.5/10.
The Zone of Interest (2023)
A disturbing analysis of evil from a fascinatingly banal point of view
"The Zone of Interest" is a historical drama based on the novel of the same name by Martin Amis. Written and directed by Jonathan Glazer ("Sexy Beast", "Birth", "Under The Skin") and starring Christian Friedel and Sandra Hüller, it shows a disturbing analysis of evil from a fascinatingly banal point of view.
In 1943 in Poland, Nazi SS officer Rudolf Höss (Christian Friedel) lives with his wife Hedwig (Sandra Hüller) and five children in a nicely maintained house directly neighbouring the Auschwitz concentration camp he presides over. As he enjoys being stationed in this convenient location, Höss soon starts facing problems when he realises his work life and family life are beginning to intertwine. Things become especially complicated for Höss after he is given a promotion that will require him to move his family away from the very home they have all become so personally attached to. While trying to reach a compromise with his superiors regarding his family, Höss continues his work as per usual, transporting several Jewish prisoners to Auschwitz for execution.
If it hasn't already been made clear by now, the Holocaust was one of the deadliest mass genocides in human history. The horrific events that took place during this time period have been heavily preserved throughout the media, including but not limited to art, literature, and of course film. Many feature films have showcased the raw brutality and purely evil acts that occurred at this time, which serve as a reminder of why it is important that the general public never forget this monument to inhuman cruelty. Due to the shocking nature of what happened, most films understandably focus on the more sensationalistic side of the Holocaust, but in "The Zone of Interest" we see a more nuanced perspective of what was going on, which nonetheless achieves its intended goal of bringing attention to these atrocities.
What this film does that separates it from other Holocaust related media is that it focuses on the more mundane side of what was happening during this time. For instance, we see Rudolf Höss, a man who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews at Auschwitz, happily spending time with his family and interacting with close friends. While Höss relaxes in the backyard of his idyllic home, meanwhile over the large, grey wall, a genocide is being carried out at his orders, with faint screams in the background being a common sound. It is made clear to the audience that both Höss and his family are used to these otherwise horrifying sounds, with them all going about their daily routine like it is business as usual.
Later, Höss is seen talking with his two co-workers in the living room where they show him the plans for a bigger, more efficient crematorium to be implemented into the camp. As the three men interact with each other, it's jarring to watch how casually they treat the potential deaths of several hundred people as some kind of normal business decision. The most disturbing part is how this whole situation plays out in a manner more befitting to discussing something innocent like new labels on jars of peanut butter, even though the conversation in question involves the destruction of human life. A scene like this proves that true evil is actually in the smaller details rather than what is located at surface level.
Where I think this film truly shines is in its clever cinematography, which director Jonathan Glazer frequently uses to juxtapose the horror of the Holocaust with the simple, everyday life that Höss and his family have built for themselves. Throughout the movie, Glazer shows scenes with Höss enjoying the luxurious house he lives in with his family, mirroring how one in the 1940s might have spent their free time at home during this era. In one scene, Höss's children are seen happily playing in the garden pool with the looming concentration camp in the background. Oblivious to the barely audible gunshots, burning furnaces, and screams of terror, the kids happily continue to play in blissful ignorance. Similarly, Höss's wife Hedwig tends to her flower garden, remarking at the beautiful sight of what has finally started to bloom. A short time later, the family gardener cleans up what appears to be excess dirt near the wall, only to reveal that this "dirt" is actually something far more sinister. Glazer frames this shot with the bright garden greenery on the left and the dark threatening camp wall on the right, which I interpret as a juxtaposition of life and death in a twisted state of balance.
In addition to this, Glazer opts for a more simplistic approach to his storytelling technique as an effective way to showcase the "ordinary" activities happening around Rudolf Höss and his family. Rather than just focusing on Höss himself, Glazer instead decides to go for a more fly-on-the-wall point of view, often featuring Höss at a considerable distance away from the camera. For example, in one scene we see Höss taking his children fishing in a nearby river, where the kids innocently play together close to shore while Höss notices something that resembles a bone in the water. Glazer shoots this scene from far away so that the audience can hardly recognise what Höss pulls out from the river until the last minute, which in turn makes this scene more distressing in nature. In effect, it also prevents the viewer from garnering any sympathy for Höss and how this unsettling discovery has ruined his family's fun at the river, as we are kept at a distance from the character both literally and emotionally. It is clear that Glazer does not want anyone to ever empathise with a Nazi, even if he is doing something otherwise honourable like being a good father.
Though the individual cast members are not supposed to be the main focus of the story, each of the two lead actors did a decent job in their roles. Christian Friedel plays Rudolf Höss not as a caricature of a Nazi but as a seemingly regular man working to provide for his family. Unfortunately, that job Höss works just so happens to involve the genocide of a large group of people, which the film makes sure to remind us of whenever we may feel like identifying with him. Höss may seem like a nice enough guy when he's around his family and friends, but when you remember what he shamelessly does at his job on a daily basis, he's actually an irredeemable monster.
Likewise, Sandra Hüller's approach to playing Hedwig is that of a supportive wife who only wants what's best for her husband and children. She wants to stay where she and the family feel most comfortable, and is understandably upset when she learns that they all might have to move away. In most other cases, someone like Hedwig could be viewed as a good wife for Höss with a moral compass that the audience can find themselves supporting throughout the film. However, it is quickly made clear that Hedwig is fully aware of what her husband does for work, and choosing to remain married to him with that in mind makes her an equally terrible person.
As another important reminder of one of the deadliest mass murders in history, the approach taken by "The Zone of Interest" helps it stand out not through conventional shock but rather through its subtly evil undertones. Though it may not induce the same level of trauma as other more notable Holocaust films, it nonetheless leaves an impression on the viewer in different ways. It's easy to forget that sometimes the devil is in the details, as all of the horrible things that occurred during this dark event didn't simply happen all at once, they were intricately planned out over a period of time. There aren't too many movies that examine a topic like the Holocaust in such a sophisticated manner, so for that reason alone the film is commendable.
I rate it 8/10.
Madame Web (2024)
Continues Sony's complete lack of creativity in carving out their own superhero cinematic universe
"Madame Web" is a superhero film based on the Marvel comic book character of the same name. Directed by S. J. Clarkson and starring Dakota Johnson in the title role, it continues Sony's complete lack of creativity in carving out their own superhero cinematic universe in another dull, forgettable origin story.
In 2003 in New York City, Cassandra "Cassie" Webb (Dakota Johnson) works as a paramedic saving lives and driving patients to the hospital in an ambulance. One day, Cassie finds herself involved in an accident which causes her to develop psychic abilities that allow her to see into the future. With her new clairvoyant powers, Cassie learns that three young women; Julia Cornwall (Sydney Sweeney), Mattie Franklin (Celeste O'Connor), and Anya Corazon (Isabela Merced) are now being hunted by the dangerous Ezekiel Sims (Tahar Rahim) and vows to protect them from him at all costs. While the quartet are on the run, Cassie soon realises she must confront her own troubled past in order to ensure that the three women don't fall victim to Ezekiel's influence.
It's pretty clear at this point that Sony have no clue what direction they are heading in with their superhero IPs. Not only is their shared timeline with Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe a convoluted mess, but it also seems that they are unsure how to handle the characters inhabiting the very universe they created themselves. The public's reception of these films appears to reflect this as next to no one can be bothered investing their time in something they have little interest in watching in the first place. Following suit from the failure of "Morbius" two years earlier, "Madame Web" attempts to introduce more characters into Sony's pitiful "Spider-Man" Universe but like last time it is dead on arrival.
From the way this film started, I could already tell it just wasn't going to work. Here, we see a pregnant scientist in 1973 searching the jungles of Peru for a rare spider that is supposed to have mysterious properties in its venom. It should be noted that this information is not conveyed to us here through what the characters are experiencing but rather through awkwardly worded exposition that feels like it was added to the script at the last minute. Immediately after, the scientist announces she has discovered the spider and is soon shot and left for dead by one of her fellow explorers. Flashing forward thirty years, the film then shows our protagonist Cassie rushing to the scene of an accident without any real context of what happened within those three decades, instead choosing to shelve this important plot element for much later on in the story. The jumbled, poorly edited way the film tries to set up its plot within a short time frame makes it hard to care about anything else that happens afterwards because if a solid storytelling foundation cannot be done in just the first 10 minutes then it's clearly going to be all downhill from here on out.
To make matter worse, the action scenes, if you can call them that, are never exciting. There were only about two scenes throughout the entire movie that could be considered "action packed" in the loosest sense and even then there wasn't any enjoyment to be had from any of them. In one, we see Cassie trying to defend the three girls from the advancing Ezekiel on a subway train, only for the scene to end almost as quickly as it started. I couldn't help but feel cheated after this sequence concluded, as it gave the impression it was going to be an intense demonstration of skills between hero and villain. But instead, the scene simply moves onto the next one as though we are supposed to forget about everything that just happened. Because of this, the film's general lack of excitement makes it quite boring to watch most of the time, especially considering some of the weak dialogue the characters are made to speak.
Though not quite as bad as in "Morbius", the film's visuals and editing definitely leave a lot to be desired. What is supposed to be the film's way of showing Cassie using her powers is seen through a series of quick-cut shots of something bad taking place clumsily inter-spliced with repetitive seizure-inducing flashes. At first I didn't mind this creative technique, but as the movie continued on it really became irritating to watch each time Cassie showed her signature abilities. This is problematic since it is the backbone for her entire character's superhero gimmick, and when that starts to wear you down, you know your film is not working the way you had intended. What I would have done instead is focus on the very thing Cassie is looking into the future for an indeterminate amount of time before cutting back to the present, as the constant flashes are an unnecessary addition to this visual style.
In the role of Cassie, Dakota Johnson looks like she's trying her best with the awful material she has to work with, even if it was probably all for nothing. It can't be easy making such a bland character seem somewhat likeable, but Johnson puts on a brave face and powers through the mediocrity of the film's script. There's not a lot of depth to Cassie as a character, other than that she is socially awkward and has a caring nature. One thing I was relieved to see is that Cassie is not depicted as a man-hating "girlboss", as has been the trend in many female-led films released in the past few years. For the most part she appreciates all the male help she receives, especially from her co-worker Ben (Adam Scott), which is one of the reasons her character is a bit more endearing to the audience.
On the other hand, I found myself struggling to remember anything remotely substantial about the three other women in the cast beyond what is seen on the surface. Sydney Sweeney's Julia is an introverted nerd who wears thick rimmed glasses and has difficulty interacting with others, Celeste O'Connor's Mattie is a short tempered skeptic who flips people off when they get in her way, and Isabela Merced's Anya does little more than act like a third wheel among this trio. Without doing any extensive internet research on these characters, this was all that came to my mind when thinking carefully about them. Given their supposed importance to the story, this is pretty sad when you think about it.
In addition to their poor development, it would seem that these three each aren't very bright either. One scene where this is evident to audience shows the trio hiding out in a diner where they are told by Cassie to keep a low profile. A short time later, the three of them walk over to a group of high school boys where they proceed to climb onto the table and dance to "Toxic" by Britney Spears, alerting Ezekiel to their presence. It's hard for me to like characters who do such brazenly stupid things like this for no other reason than for a cheap attempt at comedy.
However, where the film really falters in terms of character development is in its villain Ezekiel, and Tahar Rahim does little to add anything noteworthy to his performance. At no point did Ezekiel feel like a genuine threat since there's nothing interesting about him as a character. It is established that Ezekiel has the same powers as Cassie but they only ever seem to work whenever the plot demands it. What could have been an interesting adversary for Cassie is instead a one dimensional bad guy who wants the three girls dead because he had a brief vision they were going to kill him. This leaves many unanswered questions regarding his purpose in the story. Why do these specific girls play a part in him dying? Why is he so easily avoided despite his pursuits taking place in broad daylight? Why doesn't he see some kind personal connection to Cassie as they share the same abilities? Being a rich as he is, why couldn't he just hire someone else to deal with the girls instead of doing it himself? When the movie leaves you in the dark this much about a villain and his motives, you tend to lose interest in wanting to see what happens to him in the end.
With such a poor track record so far, Sony doesn't seem to be learning any lessons regarding the state of their own Marvel Cinematic Universe. Like "Morbius" before it, "Madame Web" is simply a bad product, not bad as in the cheesy fun kind, but rather
a forgettably boring type of bad, which is debatably worse. Previously, I said that the poor reception of "Morbius" should serve as a wakeup call for the company, although judging by the quality of this film, it would appear that yearning has fallen on deaf ears. I wish plenty of good luck to all future additions to this cinematic universe, because they are definitely going to need it.
I rate it 3/10.
American Fiction (2023)
One of the best written, most damning satires about racial stereotypes to hit movie screens in a very long time
"American Fiction" is a comedy drama film written and directed by Cord Jefferson, based on the novel "Erasure" by Percival Everett. Starring Jeffrey Wright in the lead role, it stands as one of the best written, most damning satires about racial stereotypes to hit movie screens in a very long time.
In Los Angeles, literature professor Thelonious "Monk" Ellison (Jeffrey Wright) is placed on mandatory leave by his university after frequently arguing with his students over differing opinions on racial issues. Wishing to spend this time off with his family, Monk travels to Boston to meet up with them and later decides to attend a literary seminar taking place nearby. Monk's Q&A panel receives very little attention due to most of the attendees choosing instead to watch an onstage interview with author Sintara Golden (Issa Rae), whose novel "We's Lives in Da Ghetto" has become a number one bestseller. Surprised at how much Sintara's book panders to African American stereotypes yet receives such glowing praise from readers, Monk decides to write his own novel in the exact same style, titling it "My Pafology" and loading it up with every cliche imaginable for a black writer. Under the pen name "Stagg R. Leigh", Monk sends his completed novel to various publishers out of spite and is soon shocked to discover that he is now being offered $750,000 and a movie deal for the rights to his story.
It can be difficult for creative people to compromise their vision for the sake of pandering to others. All too often, many writers, artists, performers, and other similar folk are at the mercy of company executives forcing them to make changes to their work as a result of wishing to keep up with the times. Of course, this can yield mixed results, as while the creators in question will likely profit greatly from their amended product, a major part of their true selves may have been severely altered in the process. This is especially the case with the current political climate, with many people being forcibly made to acquiesce to modern views on race, sexuality, and gender identity whether they agree with any of it or not. The film "American Fiction" is an excellent example of how it is possible to satirise the world's view on stereotypes without once resorting to sensationalism or condescension.
From the very opening scene, you can immediately tell what direction this movie is going to take with its satirical point of view. We watch as Monk, a well educated African American university scholar, has an argument with one of his white female students regarding the title of a book he is teaching the class. The book in question, whose title contains a racial slur, offends the young student with hair dyed neon green, prompting her to question why he isn't offended along with her. Monk tells the student that if he is capable of understanding the proper context of what is being taught, then she can as well, which he soon learns the hard way is not the case at all. The scathing yet humorous look at the way modern teachers have to deal with these types of students, especially from an African American perspective, is one of the many reasons this movie works as well as it does. This is because it allows the audience to see the hypocrisy of virtue signalling, which calls attention to the subconscious racism on display by the very ones who claim to be against it.
Later on when Monk writes his book, we watch as he dumbs down every element of his otherwise intelligent storytelling technique. Gone is his sophisticated writing style and in its place is the stereotypical African American street vernacular spoken by violent gun-wielding criminals as the main characters. Coming from a man with such a highly educated background, it becomes obvious to the viewer that it is a painful experience for Monk to compromise what could have been a clever in-depth story about two black friends, but he forcefully presses on to prove his point about pandering. To his surprise, Monk's experiment works a little too well, and he finds himself offered a large sum of money just for the publishing rights alone. On that note, perhaps the best way to describe this film is that it's like a combination of Mel Brooks's "The Producers" and Spike Lee's "BlacKkKlansman", as each involve some kind of deceptive plan that goes horribly right for the protagonist.
In addition to the sharply satirical humour woven throughout the story, the film also has its fair share of deeply emotional moments, primarily shown through members of Monk's immediate family. Although it is shown that Monk had a respectable upbringing, his family has still been subjected to various ups and downs that have essentially shaped him into the person he is today. For instance, his mother Agnes (Leslie Uggams) suffers from early stages of Alzheimer's disease, causing her to forget most of the great achievements he and his other siblings have accomplished throughout their lives. Because of this, Monk is forced into an ultimatum; move her into an expensive nursing home with his own money or let his siblings sort things out for a cheaper price.
Also, Monk's estranged brother Cliff (Sterling K. Brown) has been living a hedonistic lifestyle after divorcing his wife, frequently engaging in drug use and sexual encounters. We later see that Cliff, whose divorce was the result of him coming out as gay, is now at odds with Agnes due to her homophobic views on family values, putting a strain on his relationship with her. I was highly impressed with the way director Cord Jefferson was able to juggle all of Monk's family issues so smoothly while simultaneously keeping the core satirical elements at the forefront of the story. Most first time filmmakers would greatly falter in this department, but Jefferson strikes the perfect balance between darkly comical and touchingly dramatic without ever using cheap jokes or unearned sentimentality to get the point across.
In his best film performance to date, Jeffrey Wright does a fantastic job in the role of Monk. Several times throughout the film, we witness Monk react to all of the bizarre, sometimes frustrating things that end up happening to him, and Wright's facial expressions and body language certainly shine during these scenes. In the previously mentioned opening, it's easy to understand how irritated Monk must be at dealing with socially ignorant people like his offended student, and the repressed annoyance he shows is both funny and relatable just by the level of self control he has during this situation. I've always found Wright to be an underrated actor who has never become a household name despite starring in several on screen productions over the years, so it's nice to see him finally receive some mainstream acknowledgement for his work in this film.
Worth mentioning as well is Sterling K. Brown as Cliff, Monk's estranged homosexual younger brother. What I liked most about Cliff as a character is the way in which he acts as a reminder to Monk of the importance of staying true to himself. In one scene, which I won't discuss in too much detail due to spoilers, we see Cliff and Monk talking about the long term impact of doing things to appease others rather than yourself. This introspective chat about living life your own way is among the most emotionally affecting parts of the film, and Brown definitely holds his own alongside Wright during this particular moment. You are really given the sense that these two brothers now share a common ground, despite all of their past disagreements.
Taking into account its timely subject matter, Cord Jefferson's "American Fiction" stands triumphantly as one of the cleverest, funniest satirical films to be released in many years. It's so rare to see a brand new filmmaker get everything right on their first try while at the same time create something that has the potential to be a talking point for generations to come. Of course, Jefferson could not have accomplished any of this without the help of the film's cast, whom he has given them all great material to work with thanks to his excellent screenplay. With all that said, Jefferson has now established himself as a filmmaker to watch and I eagerly await any future projects he may have on the horizon.
I rate it a very high 9.5/10.