Welcome to my blog dedicated to movie riffing! Here we will journey through the many episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000, the files of RiffTrax, the DVDs of Cinematic Titanic, and hopefully many others.
Join me, won't you?
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ralph Fiennes, Jodie Comer, Alfie Williams, Jack O'Connell
To be bluntly honest, I watched the original 28 Days Later once when it first came out, and I don't remember what I thought about it, if anything. I remember vague superficial things about it, including that it was probably the first time I saw a dick in a movie, but I think that movie came out during my "Fuck yeah, zombie movie" teenager phase and unless it was something that really kicked ass or was hilariously stupid, it was unlikely to leave a full impression on me. Never saw the second one. I considered watching both leading up to 28 Years Later, but ran out of time. So, while I'm not entirely novice on this franchise, I'm not entirely versed upon it.
28 Years Later takes place, ya'know, 28 years later, after a weird "rage virus" took over a portion of Europe. It focuses on a small little refuge in the danger zone, where a young boy seeks out a doctor to diagnose his ill mother. The film's story is a very low-stakes, personal tale a kid playing in the dystopia, caring for his mother and occasionally coming across a giant screaming naked man who is hung like a horse. The evolution of the infected is something that is stumbled across, expositioning when needed to explain why some are fat, some are pregnant, and some are enormous and semi-sentient. Meanwhile, Danny Boyle gives the film an evolved style over the first film, that makes for a slightly tilted experiend. But stylish as it may be, 28 Years Later at times comes off as a dull YA spin-off of the original rather than a serious continuation. The fact that it hamfistedly sets up a sequel doesn't help shake that vibe. I understand the story Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland are trying to tell, which is that of a kid coping with the eventual fate of his mother, and it even ends on a note that's poignant enough. I even understand why this story of accepting mortality would resonate strongly with viewers. I struggle with the film dwelling too much within a story that feels like the world around them is an annoyance, meanwhile it's very clear from the symptoms on display that the chance that there will be a happy outcome to this is very slim, meanwhile the thriller elements are flavorless garnish. It thinks it's more gripping than it is, and it even devotes its climax to emotional resolution rather than a resolution to any sort of conflict. This only partially satisfying, because it feels as if the movie just kind of whiffs and wanders off, leaving me shrugging my shoulders and thinking "That was it?" But the movie reminds you before the end credits roll that 28 Years Later isn't just one sequel, but a trilogy of sequels that were all in simultanious production. That promise of "The real story is just beginning" doesn't really hit when the first movie barely had a story to tell.
Bride Hard
⭐️
Genre: Comedy, Action
Director: Simon West
Starring: Rebel Wilson, Anna Camp, Anna Chlumsky, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, Gigi Zumbado, Stephen Dorff, Justin Hartley, Stephanie Hsu
Rebel Wilson is a secret agent (which are six words I never thought I'd say in sequential order) in this action/comedy from the director of Con Air (though you wouldn't know it by watching it). She's also really bad at lying and keeping secrets, so I'm not sure how that works. Anyway, as you can probably guess from the title, the movie forces Wilson into a Die Hard scenario at a wedding, where a group of mercenaries take everyone hostage while Wilson stirs up trouble on the outskirts. As a high-concept vehicle for a well-liked performer like Rebel Wilson, there is probably promise somewhere within Bride Hard. I don't hate the concept of this movie. If you workshopped it a little (okay, maybe a lot), there is probably something much more enjoyable here. This movie only barely has a screenplay, seemingly wanting to coast on performer charisma. There are plenty of talented people on display, but they all are directionless in a movie that is mostly cheese and chaos. The action is okay enough for a goofball movie like this, but the comedy is hammy and performative, like an anxious child who is desperate to be liked. Da'Vine Joy Randolph comes closest to actually pulling it off, but even she succumbs to how lost the movie gets in its noise. When your biggest asset looks like she's close to throwing up her hands and leaving, that's probably a sign that your movie needs a page-one rewrite.
Elio
⭐️⭐️1/2
Genre: Comedy, Science Fiction
Director: Madeline Sharafian, Domee Shi, Adrian Molina
Pixar's latest sees an orphaned boy named Elio wishing to escape to the stars to get away from his pain, not unlike Starlord. Also like Starlord, he is pretty swiftly abducted by actual aliens. Unlike Starlord, Elio is mistaken for an actual leader on Earth and is sent to negotiate peace with a deadly race of warrior silkworms. One would be forgiven if it felt like Disney was trying to bury Elio because the marketing push for the film feels negligible. I'm mostly convinced this was because Disney opted for a huge campaign for Lilo & Stitch and Elio's close release date got eclipsed by it. Elio is a better movie than Lilo & Stitch but it's also one of Pixar's more humdrum releases, probably missing out on being the company's low-hanging fruit if only because The Good Dinosaur exists. Pixar has struggled to reignite the imaginative sense of wonder that has dominated its early efforts for a while now, the last to convincingly hit that note being Coco in 2017, with only a couple of bright spots since. Elio feels like it's willing to settle for being earnest and cute instead of enchanting and meaningful. The themes its playing with are obviously about familial bonds but it often overrides them for the sake of silliness. It does pick up the slack in production design, which is delightful. It also successfully stirs some emotions up at the end, typical for a Pixar film, but they're muddied in a messy conclusion which is underdeveloped and arguably unearned. The movie winds up being fine, and it's a good rental for family movie night. I can't quite get enthusiastic about it, though.
Starring: Gerard Butler, Mason Thames, Nico Parker, Gabriel Howell, Julien Dennison, Bronwyn James, Harry Trevaldwyn, Nick Frost, Peter Serafinowicz
I'm not one to be so arrogant as to say when a movie shouldn't have been made. However, I am adept at figuring out when a movie was made for all the wrong reasons, purposefully refusing to acknowledge the things that could have made it something interesting, opting to be creatively inert because it makes them more money. That doesn't necessarily make a bad movie, because I love quite a few films that were only made to turn a profit. What makes a bad movie is when even the movie itself doesn't seem to care, which is the experience of watching the remake of How to Train Your Dragon. Granted, the movie sometimes goes to great lengths to capture the same beats as the first film, but at the expense of putting actual heart in its own production. It's an apallingly lazy movie, with the only ambition being to cozy up to the safest possible course to make sure they don't put off anybody who already likes this series. That is, unless you liked this series because of how creative, touching, adventurous, and fun it is. If so, this new film will absolutely turn you off, because its about as anti-creative as it can be while not alive enough to be recreate the emotion and excitement of the previous films. It's an assembly line production waiting for you to hand it money. I kept waiting for this movie to give me just one reason to justify coming to the theater and watching it instead of staying home and watching the original. In response, it kept asking me if it could borrow five dollars.
But let's just take a moment and pretend the original doesn't exist and look at it from a production standpoint. How to Train Your Dragon is loosely based on the children's book series, telling of a Viking boy named Hiccup who is taught to hate and fear dragons by his village. One day, he captures a Night Fury dragon that he names Toothless, who he is unable to kill. The two become friends, learning to trust each other while overcoming the fear between the two species. It's a good script, and we know this because they already made a good movie out of it. Using it a second time seems to be a safe bet, at first. Plays can do multiple productions based on one script, and they are often worth seeing. Some can crash and burn with that exact same script, too. In the case of How to Train Your Dragon, a lot of what this script was was based on the fact that it was written specifically for animation, and trying to adapt these lines and gestures into live-action requires some sort of effort. The movie doesn't put this effort forth, often reciting the script word-for-word because it worked the first time. This leads to a lot of stilted delivery, as actors all recite their lines in a way that makes it sound phonetically rather than organic. The performances in this movie are trash. The drama doesn't take hold because nobody feels authentic, and the levity humor doesn't land because the movie just delivers it incorrectly (the new moment of "Thanks for nothing, you useless reptile." is quite possibly the worst line-delivery I've heard all year). Even Gerard Butler, who is reprising a role he played in the original, looks like he is performing in two separate movies. One where he is fierce and humorless, and another where he is jolly and whimsical. On a brighter note, I have slight praise for Nico Parker and Harry Tavaldwyn, who both seem to at least have some vision of adequately adapting their respective characters of Astrid and Tuffnut to a live-action setting.
And while I can lay some of this at the performers' feet, the truth is that a lot of the movie's problems are a production issue. To be frank, none of the actors look as if they're occupying the same space as the CGI dragons, looking like they are glancing at harmless ping-pong balls rather than the fierce firebreathers that they should be afraid of. Bringing up the dragons, some of them look fine, while some of them are off-putting, because the film takes the original designs and is afraid to change them. This hurts Toothless the most, because the movie wants him to be recognizable for marketing and merchandising, but they are taking a design that was specifically designed to fit the aesthetic of the animated movies and tossing it into a completely different aesthetic entirely. Toothless looks odd and out-of-place, looking like an overly textured cartoon character. If the movie were more stylized, like a Tim Burton or Guillermo del Toro movie, maybe this could have worked (the word "maybe" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there). This is the first live-action movie from Dean DeBlois, who directed the previous three How to Train Your Dragon movies, so we know there is talent there. These production faults fall squarely on him, because everything about this film hurts from inexperience in a format. There is no comfort in what he is doing, hoping just trying a rough equivalence will make things balance out, but instead everything bursts into flames.
Am I being harsh on this movie? Is the truth really that it's not that bad? Possibly. The truth is that I don't much care. I had a miserable time watching this and I hated just about every minute of it. If the ambition of this movie was to take a great script that already made a great movie and make something that wasn't fun in the slightest, then all I can say is mission fucking accomplished.
The Life of Chuck
⭐️⭐️⭐️
Genre: Drama, Fantasy
Director: Mike Flanagan
Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Karen Gillan, Mia Sara, Carl Lumbly, Benjamin Pajak, Jacob Tremblay, Mark Hamill
Mike Flanagan's first non-thriller movie, though he does jump into the well of horror maestro Stephen King's infinite stories to find it. The Life of Chuck is Flanagan's third King adaptation, following Gerald's Game and Doctor Sleep, and he is already in production of his fourth, a miniseries adaptation of Carrie. The Life of Chuck sees Flanagan trying to emulate that of Frank Darabont when he brought The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile to the big screen. Life of Chuck feels probably closer to Forrest Gump with how schmaltzy it is, so be warned that it's not exactly an apple-to-apples comparison. As to what the movie is about, it feels like it's more about the discovery of what it's story is than an actual story that can be summed up. If anything, the film's story is more metaphor than narrative, with the titular Chuck being a stand-in for anyone who walks this earth. Chuck is a man with dreams and passions who lives to be an adult who had to let them slip away. Mortality is a presence in the movie, as it is contemplative of the ultimate abrupt end while bellowing an idea above it to live life without being haunted by it. The movie is abstract and sentimental, sometimes to its detrement, but it's destined to be on someone's all-time favorite list based on its fearless face. It's going to inspire someone, despite its imperfections. That someone is going to do great things.
Materialists
⭐️⭐️⭐️
Genre: Drama, Romance
Director: Celine Song
Starring: Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans, Pedro Pascal
Dakota Johnson has to deal with the impossible task of choosing between a hot wealthy man who looks like Pedro Pascal and a hot struggling theater performer who looks like Chris Evans in the sophomore film of Past Lives director Celine Song. Johnson plays a New York matchmaker for a very picky clientele, and is probably the best at her job. But her mathematics at matchmaking are put to the test as she starts a relationship with rich dreamboat Pascal and old flame Evans stumbles back into her life. Materialists is another analysis of romance by Song, simultaneously more upbeat than Past Lives but also just as bittersweet, in its own way. Materialists isn't as interesting as Past Lives, which was a deeper and more nuanced movie. Materialists does find value in a scathing analysis of dating practices, standards, and the presentation of human beings as products to be purchased, equating marriage as a business arrangement instead of a symbolic gesture of affection. It puts on display the risks and fears of putting yourself on the market, both in the small and the extreme. There is a lot of poetic dialogue in the film, some of which is probably too on-the-nose, but it's a passionate cry of geniuneness in an artificial climate. At the same time, it doesn't judge or shame the struggling lonelyhearts, though it will occasionally mock those with unrealistic or trashy standards and point and laugh. It's a smart and smooth movie that is a joy to watch. Some storytellers run out of things to say after one all-encompassing effort but are forced into another because of success. What's impressive about Celine Song is that she finds new things to say about love even after pouring her soul into Past Lives. If she continues, she might become the defining romantic voice of this generation. If she branches out away from that, I'm sure she'll succeed as long as her stories stay this distinct.
The Unholy Trinity
⭐️⭐️
Genre: Western
Director: Richard Gray
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Samuel L. Jackson, Brandon Lessard, Veronica Ferres, Q'orianka Kilcher, David Arquette, Ethan Peck, Tim Daly
Sins of the father and all that jazz in this western that sees a boy traveling to a town named Trinity to avenge his father only to find all the trouble he was neck deep in. The movie is haunted by overbearing theatrics and haphazard plot points, but Pierce Brosnan is locked-in and Samuel L. Jackson is having the time of his life. There's not much else to say about the movie, but it's also a movie that I don't feel was specifically made to leave an impression. I suspect it was just a western that was made for the sake of making a western. It can fluff itself with some star power in Brosnan and Jackson, some character actors on the side, and a few fun shootouts and be a passable time waster for people who keep Gunsmoke and The Rifleman on as background noise as they go on about their lives. There is also a hooker who shows more balls and humanity than the rest of the cast. She dies in about five minutes because of course she does, the best characters always die in westerns. That's about the only impact it will have on me as it comes and goes from theaters, never to be thought of again. Movies without a particular story to tell will do that to you.
Starring: Ana de Armas, Angelica Huston, Gabriel Byrne, Norman Reedus, Lance Reddick, Ian McShane, Keanu Reeves
The second attempt at branching out the John Wick franchise into a Cinematic Universe, following the Continental miniseries on Peacock, Ballerina gets more in depth with what Angelica Huston was up to in the third movie. Ana de Armas plays a Kikimora assassin who bumps back into the cultmembers who are responsible for her father's murder. Defying the orders of her house to let sleeping dogs lie, she furthers herself into her own investigation, leaving a trail of bodies in her wake. From my understanding, Ballerina was derived from a screenplay that was inspired by John Wick but otherwise unrelated. In a curious case of serendipity, Lionsgate purchased it and decided to incorporate it into the John Wick franchise, even setting elements up in Chapter 3 to directly tie into this film. The film does smell like it has been shoehorned into this franchise, because it doesn't entirely feel like it's walking at the same pace. The action is on point, and de Armas is capable lead, but the film is just too slow. The John Wick franchise stretched itself to three-hours, and even then it never became slow. The film is a continuous stretch of stop-and-go, slowing to a crawl and interrupting itself with a raucous action sequence. If the film were littered with the colorful characters that John Wick is known to bring, there might be more fun to be had, but we're given a cast that's is full of stoic tropes, where everyone has a sob story and a rehearsed monologue. Ballerina becomes a blend of that new generation post-John Wick hyperenergy while also being old fashioned to a fault. This might be an issue that director Len Wiseman brings with him, because he is a filmmaker of the post-Matrix generation, who created action films with slow motion and wirework. This franchise is the next level after that, and that flavor was seemingly added in reshoots with previous Wick helmer Chad Stahelski on hand as a consultant. If Lionsgate wants John Wick to be the franchise that they seemingly want it to be, they need to learn how to do this without Stahelski, otherwise it's just going to flail and waffle off, like a fart in the wind. That's not to say that the movie doesn't have its moments, because the flamethrower duel was worth the price of admission by itself. There is little reason to yet be concerned that John Wick might lose its status as the defining action franchise of the post-millenium. But if Lionsgate wants to keep pumping out spin-offs, they need to really work hard to maintain its mojo. You can tell Ballerina tried, which is better than nothing. But I'm going to have to insist that they push themselves until their feet bleed. Otherwise, they're just going to die in the field.
Dangerous Animals
⭐️⭐️1/2
Genre: Thriller
Director: Sean Byrne
Starring: Jai Courtney, Hassie Harrison, Josh Heuston, Rob Carlton
Jai Courtney plays a man who runs a "swim with the sharks" experience off the coast of Australia who feeds his customers to said sharks for kicks, though one wonders how he manages to actually stay in business if the mortality rate is 100%. For the most part, Dangerous Animals is just Wolf Creek on the ocean, where unsuspecting wanderers just fall afoul of some grizzled Aussie who kills people because he's an asshole. Simply being an asshole is one of my least favorite serial killer motivations in films like this, which is why I don't particularly care for Wolf Creek, but Jai Courtney is eating this role up and I'm going to let him have his fun. Besides, he seems to genuinely get off on watching people get eaten, so maybe he's just really into vore. The screenplay focuses on suvivalist elements, though feels stretched thin, while the main leads are not very compelling and some wonky CGI can take one out of the movie. It comes back to how committed Courtney is and how tense the movie can get, and both are of a higher tier, making Dangerous Animals a casual recommend for those looking for a Saturday night thriller.
The Phoenician Scheme
⭐️⭐️1/2
Genre: Comedy
Director: Wes Anderson
Starring: Benicio del Toro, Mia Threapleton, Michael Cera, Riz Ahmed, Tom Hanks, Bryan Cranston, Mathieu Amalric, Richard Ayoade, Jeffery Wright, Scarlett Johansson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Rupert Friend, Hope Davis
Oh look, Wes Anderson made a movie. Not only that, it's a movie about arms dealers, espionage, and assassins. I mean, the mere idea of a Wes Anderson movie with any of that is kinda funny (of course, "kinda funny" is probably the base description of Anderson's entire filmography). Obviously, the movie needed a title like a Robert Ludlum book, because if Anderson did a Ludlum adaptation, it would likely look a lot like The Phoenician Scheme. Benicio del Toro stars as an arms dealer who, after a near-death experience, decides to bond with his daughter (who is a nun, but wears far more make-up than any nun I've ever seen outside of pornography). All the while, he puts forth a swindle that allows him control of Phoenician labor. The movie is what I expected it to be, which means my experience is the same as any Anderson movie. That is to say that I think it's amusing for a while, think it's almost over, check the time, discover there is an hour left, then wish I were dead. I'm perfectly happy knowing that Anderson sits in his corner and does the thing that he's good at. And as always, that's no promise that I'll care when it finds its way in front of my eyes. As I've said many times before, a little bit of Anderson goes a long way, and I'll never be a completionist of watching his work because it really doesn't appeal to me. Is there anything distinct about The Phoenician Scheme that sets it apart? Nothing too notable, though Anderson does attempt to block out his unique take on an action scene toward the end. Not sure if I've ever seen him do that before, and the result is kinda cute. I watched the movie just fine, so I'll give it a pass. There's nothing here to change my mind about Wes Anderson movies, though. I'm content with accepting that, and Anderson is content with only appealing to those who are obsessed with his movies. If it ain't broke, let's let it be.
The Ritual
⭐️1/2
Genre: Horror
Director: David Midell
Starring: Al Pacino, Dan Steven's, Ashley Greene, Abigail Cowen, Maria Camila Giraldo, Meadow Williams, Patrick Fabian, Patricia Heaton
Based on a real-life, well-documented exorcism from 1928, The Ritual features Dan Stevens as a priest who assists exorcist Al Pacino with the lengthy process of expelling a demon from a young woman. Basically the same story as every exorcism movie ever. If you're going to do something derivative, true story or not, at least do it with personality. The Ritual is like watching a mockbuster of The Exorcist that accidentally spent what little budget they had on Al Pacino. That almost seems like what it's aiming for, a performance drama where we're meant to be captivated by Pacino and Stevens as they interact with one another. There's not enough to their interactions to get excited about, unfortunately. That means it's up to the horror to pick up the slack, but it's mostly flash zooms and screeching noises. The film is a failure as both a drama and a shocker, making it a hollow watch.
Netflix & Chill
Predator: Killer of Killers
⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2
Streaming On: Hulu
Genre: Action, Thriller
Director: Dan Trachtenberg
Starring: Lindsay LaVanchy, Lewis Ozawa, Rick Gonzalez, Michael Biehn
We need to mark this day on our calendars because for the first time in human history we have made two good Predator movies in a row. This new one, Killer of Killers, is the first animated film in the franchise, and it's enough of an argument in the format to make me hope it isn't the last. Probably the biggest fear when it comes to such a project is that it would turn out like The Animatrix, a wildly inconsistent collection of short stories that only served as advertisement for 2003's Matrix sequels. Killer of Killers might be a hype-builder for this year's theatrical sequel, Predator: Badlands, but even if it is, it works as its own individual sequel and not just a promotional tool.
The film is also an anthology of sorts, following suit of the previous Predator movie, Prey, by showcasing stories of Predators appearing throughout human history, fighting with Vikings, Samurai, and World War II soldiers. Each story shows one human overcoming each Predator, which isn't really a spoiler because that's what happens in every Predator movie, and all come to a head when they are collected by a Predator clan that seems to specifically seek out the prey that manages to overcome their race. I have questions about this process, seeing how this collection seemingly has been frozen for centuries only to randomly get defrosted to partake in a bitchy little honor fight for what appears to be no reason. There's not a lot of purpose to the film's entire central premise, but it makes up for in sheer amount of badassery. Killer of Killers exists to be a bloody showcase of the Predator franchise unrestrained. This is seemingly what Shane Black's The Predator wanted to do with its larger budget blockbuster approach but dropped the ball on by overthinking the concept of Predator. Killer of Killers keeps things basic and lets them build, working its way to a climax that the audience is building anticipation for as the movie gets more and more brazen with how hardcore it's going to be. The climax is arguably the least exciting sequence in the movie, and it ends on an almost ill-advised cliffhanger that copies a better-executed ending in 2010's Predators, but the movie has earned enough good-will by this point that the whole of the film is not damaged.
Killer of Killers is enough of a sign that the franchise is in safe hands with Dan Trachtenberg, who is not only the first person to direct more than one Predator movie, he already has a third one due out in a few months. My appetite is properly whetted as the franchise finally has found its footing after a few rough false-starts. But we're finally getting movies that we can hold up with the Arnold Schwarzenegger classic (and the underrated 2010 sequel, but I'll forgo my soapbox for now). That's impressive by itself, but if Trachtenberg really wants to turn this franchise into gold, he'll pick up Shane Black's baton and follow-up that plot thread of Predators harvesting autism. If he can turn that into a coherent storyline, this franchise will truly be salvaged.
The Philippous are back in their follow-up to one of the most impressive horror films of the century, and it's just as visceral and uncomfortable as you would hope it to be. Bring Her Back plays with similar themes to Talk to Me, that of grief and trauma, albeit in a messier, less satisfying package. Bring Her Back centers on a pair of siblings who are fostered after the death of their father, put in the care of Sally Hawkins, who is secretly creating a rift between the two for her own benefit, which involves spooky kids and flesh-eating. The film is a slow-burn, offering context clues throughout the film as to what Sally Hawkins is elbow deep into without spelling it out for the audience. This isn't exactly a problem, though its choice to end ambiguously without some clarity on this seemingly complicated process Hawkins is going through can make the film frustrating. Compare this to Talk to Me, which swiftly establishes the rules it's playing with through naturally delivered exposition, leaves unimportant aspects to the imagination, then uses them to create an emotionally draining rollercoaster. There feels like there is a lot that is not being said in Bring Her Back, which is likely inviting closer analysis of what's boiling underneath it. It can make it a more interesting movie for some viewers based on that, who will likely return for repeat viewings to study and theorize, and while being a raw and uncaged movie for those who come to be disturbed. It even delves into a level of body horror that makes Cronenberg look like he makes My Little Pony movies. Bring Her Back delivers the goods, though it only feels like a fraction of the movie is actually onscreen.
Karate Kid: Legends
⭐️⭐️
Genre: Drama, Sports
Director: Jonathan Entwistle
Starring: Jackie Chan, Ralph Macchio, Ben Wang, Joshua Jackson, Sadie Stanley, Ming-Na Wen
I've probably seen enough of The Karate Kid to know that I like The Karate Kid, which is to say that I've watched the original and the Jackie Chan remake (which has been retconned into the same universe) and didn't watch the bad ones. I also haven't seen Cobra Kai, because I never felt like my connection to the franchise was strong enough to merit the investment in a TV series. Maybe if I'm bored one day and looking for a new binge, I'll give it a shot. But it's hard not to have some reverence to the franchise if you were born in the 80's, since it was basically just Rocky for ten-year-olds (Rocky and Karate Kid even shared the same director). Now, Karate Kid is back in theaters, and its big selling point is the franchise crossover between previous franchise leads (even though this is Hillary Swank erasure and they should be ashamed of themselves). I think Karate Kid: Legends wants to Karate Kid what Creed was to Rocky, but I think they undervalue just what exactly Creed brought to the table.
This time a former student of Jackie Chan's Mr. Han character has moved to New York, where he is roughed up by the karate-using hoodlums of the neighborhood, who are also linked to loan sharks who are gunning for the father of this kid's new love interest. They go through a whole spell where new Karate Kid teaches the father character how to punch so he can win a boxing match, which is an interesting flip on the concept that never really pays off. It is kinda funny that the adult student is played by Joshua Jackson, star of another nostalgic underdog franchise, The Mighty Ducks. Anyway, Joshua Jackson gets beaten up, which results in Jackie Chan coming to New York...for reasons. He also brings original Karate Kid, Ralph Macchio, along with him...for reasons. They spruce up new Karate Kid's martial arts so he can win the local karate tournament...for retribution...or something. I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the point of this movie's third act is other than to squeeze in a karate tournament. I'm guessing it has something to do with overcoming fear, but this plot theme is underdeveloped and only broken out when it's convenient to the climax. Very little about the film is cohesive, which is why it's surprising that it's a hard movie to dislike. Its story is janky and dumb, but it has a little bit of spark to it that makes it feel like the production crew had spirit and heart. It's not enough to turn it into anything in particular, but it helps it go down easy.
I imagine the movie is going to coast hard on nostalgia, and most of my audience seemed to just be there to see familiar faces (including a cameo at the end that people clapped at). I liked seeing Chan and Macchio. I wish they were given something more expansive to do except bicker and flare a martial arts move every now and again, but that's just me. But at the same time, there are few things more frustrating than watching Jackie Chan get old. He's one of those symbols of youthful exuberance that we all wish achieved a semblance of frozen-in-time immortality. Macchio is probably a different case, because while we always associate him as being the Karate Kid (when we're not associating him with My Cousin Vinny), we also haven't seen all that much of him over the years, so while seeing him aged is startling, it's just nice to see him at all. Legends would have benefitted from utilizing them as much as the original films would have used Pat Morita as the beloved Mr. Miyagi, who was an actual character and not just a face. Chan and Macchio are just faces here for appearances. If the actual Karate Kid story were better, this might not matter, but it isn't and the whole movie rings hollow. That being said, Legends might be the best of the not-very-good Karate Kid sequels, so it should probably take that as a win.
Jane Austen Wrecked My Life
⭐️⭐️⭐️
Genre: Comedy, Romance
Director: Laura Piani
Starring: Camille Rutherford, Pablo Pauly, Charlie Anson, Annabelle Lengronne, Liz Crowther, Alan Fairbuirn, Lola Peploe
It's funny to see this movie playing mere weeks after the 2005 Jane Austen adaptation of Pride & Predjudice completed its 20th anniversary run. I doubt this is a slight against it and more of a silly coincidence, but at any rate, here we are with a charming French romcom that takes influence from Jane Austen romanticism and goofs on it a little bit.
Jane Austen Wrecked My Life centers on a bookshop worker and hopeful writer who struggles with imposter syndrome, while also finds he love life dissappointingly uneventful. After her best friend and co-worker sends several of her chapters to Jane Austen's estate, she is accepted into a writer's retreat, while unexpectedly being thrust into a love triangle as she confronts her feelings toward her BFF and her attraction to Jane Austen's great-great-great grand nephew. The film is mostly a pleasant romcom, but it's bristled with ideas of exploring both romantic idealism against modern day sexuality, as well as battling one's own creative frustration. The film's answer to both of these is "Figure out your own shit," which seems brazen at first, but what makes it work is that the message isn't "Finding happiness in a good man," but rather "Find contentment in yourself, and maybe positive things will follow." The themes are smart and relatable, though sometimes the narrative dips in favor of bending itself backwards to create its next plot complication instead of flowing straight to it. It's enough to hold the film down as a fun evening watch as opposed to something more resonating, but there is an admirable spirit in its heart.
Tornado
⭐️⭐️1/2
Genre: Action, Thriller
Director: John Maclean
Starring: Kôki, Tim Roth, Jack Lowden, Takehiro Hira, Joanne Whalley
I do love me a good samurai movie. Tornado has the makings of one, but is probably too meandering and shallow to achieve what it aims for. The film feels like it borrows a handful of elements from 70's exploitation flicks about victims coming back to extract revenge on their aggressors, like I Spit on Your Grave or Last House on the Left. It's not quite as extreme as those examples, but it does try to put weight behind what violence it does offer. Each death or aggression is carried out with meaning, wanting to stir up feelings in the audience, which not a lot of films like this do. The story is simple enough, as a young Japanese girl named Tornado is a part of a traveling puppet show, which she uses as a distraction to steal gold from local bandits. The bandits catch wind and kill her mentor, causing her to go on the run until she gains the confidence to weild a samurai sword and take them all out. There's not much to it, and it can get choppy in a light non-linear narrative, but there are decent thrills to be had. The film, at times, tries to be a psychological piece, which it's not very successful at. There just isn't enough here to gain a foothold in analyzing mankind's violent nature. It makes the film a little slower and it builds to a soft anti-climax when it should be full adrenaline. But Tornado is a solid watch for those who like these sort of lone-wolf-against-the-world movies.
Starring: Tim Robinson, Paul Rudd, Kate Mara, Jack Dylan Grazer
Prepare to feel startlingly uncomfortable because this new black comedy is kind of a crossbreed between Uncut Gems and The Cable Guy, so take that as a warning for what it feels like to watch this thing. Tim Robinson plays a socially awkward middle-aged man who strikes an unlikely bromance with charismatic neighbor Paul Rudd. After Robinson makes things awkward during one of their hang-outs, Rudd attempts to cut ties with him, which makes Robinson even more frustrated and desperate for social acceptance. The film pulls no punches in depicting the awkwardness of each scenario, almost turning social anxiety into an artform. It tries to turn its cringe comedy into psychological tension, and sometimes vice versa. The scary part is that it's actually successful at it. Robinson is quite exemplary at the role he is asked to play, working a very thankless character that creates discomfort in every scenario while simultaneously making things worse because he is unable to identify the unhealthiness of his obsession with being liked by a single man. Robinson plays it in a way that is both relatable innocent and disturbingly unhinged, trying to be more like Rudd even when those attributes don't suit him, and loses himself in the effort to be someone he is not while he loses everything he does have in a quest to feel like he belongs. The one downside is that the movie leans so heavily into discomfort that it sometimes physically hurts to watch. That's a sign that it's doing what it's doing well, but it's hard to describe the reaction of "But I don't want to watch this" as a positive attribute.
The Last Rodeo
⭐️⭐️
Genre: Drama, Sports
Director: Jon Avnet
Starring: Neil McDonough, Mykelti Williamson, Sarah Jones, Dayton Swearingen, Christopher McDonald
If there are two things in this world that I have little tolerance for, they are rodeos and Angel Studios. To my surprise, I didn't hate this Angel Studios produced rodeo drama. At least, not nearly as much as I thought I was going to. Neil McDonough plays an aged bull-rider who finds out that his grandson has a brain tumor, and they don't have the money to pay for the surgery. Instead of starting a GoFundMe, like a normal person, McDonough decides he's too macho for that and returns to bull-riding for big bucks, at great risk to his injured body. It's pretty basic stuff, because many a film play with the template of "We need money fast, because affordable health care doesn't exist in America." There is a bit of a contradictory idea at play in The Last Rodeo, because when McDonough's grandson first shows signs of sickness, McDonough's first instinct is to tell him to walk it off. Meanwhile, the main conflict hinges on the possibility of his grandson getting better while putting McDonough's health at risk. That latter idea is forgivable, because it's probably the conundrum that the movie is aiming for. It's slightly deflated by McDonough's attitude of dismissing serious injury, while never actually facing repercussions for his activity, all in favor of a feel-good ending. That's also without mentioning the fact that McDonough doesn't actually need to win in order to gain the money he needs. It's stated early on that he could gain the funds he needs with a runner-up position. His being dead-set on getting first is merely for pride. I'd prefer the bills being paid as the more important conflict.
I'm almost tempted to say this movie is lightly above average, but some of the supporting acting is too rough to dismiss. I'm working under the assumption that some of the fellow bull-riders were played by real-life bull-riders because they sure as hell weren't actors. It gets kind of painful. But in all fairness to The Last Rodeo, those who are looking for something unambitious and trite will find that The Last Rodeo wears it about as well as it can without being charming enough to entertain casual audiences. Part of that is Angel Studios wallowing in its own mediocrity, though the film does have the self confidence to know exactly what it is and be content in that. If you were raised on a diet of 7th Heaven and Little House on the Prairie, I couldn't recommend this film highly enough. The target audience doesn't quite extend beyond that. But if I'm not feeling cynical, I guess it doesn't have to.
Lilo & Stitch
⭐️⭐️
Genre: Comedy, Science Fiction
Director: Dean Fleischer Camp
Starring: Maia Kealoha, Chris Sanders, Sydney Elizabeth Agudong, Billy Magnussen, Zach Galifianakis, Courtney B. Vance, Kaipo Dudoit, Hannah Waddingham, Tia Carrere, Amy Hill, Jason Scott Lee
For what it's worth, I'm the wrong person to ask for an opinion on a Lilo & Stitch remake, because I didn't even like the original when I was in the target demographic. The new Lilo & Stitch is slightly lesser than the original. That statement will mean something different to most people, but to me, that just means it's even more mediocre than an already mediocre movie. The story of Lilo & Stitch centers on an alien who crashes on Earth, befriending a small child and being accepted into the family. Basically, it's just E.T., only instead of being a deformed, fleshy creature, the alien is designed by committee to be as cute, cuddly, humorous, and safely merchandizable as possible. That's probably my cynical outlook at a movie that means a lot to the people who grew up with it, but that was my impression when I first saw that movie way-back-when, that's my impression every time I rewatch it to see if maybe this time it will click with me, and that's my impression when watching this remake. I've never particularly liked Stitch as a character, and find the alien lore around him haphazard. Like the original, the Lilo portion is more investing to me than the Stitch shenanigans, because it has heart to its story while the outer space nonsense is just nonstop, obnoxious noise. Even that has its limits though, because this version of the film isn't particularly good at conveying that aspect of the story because it comes off as overly manufactured. Lilo & Stitch is too slavish to the original in its attempts to recreate the tone, adapting a lot of things that work just fine in animation but are awkward in live-action. The movie's comedy is so overtly broad that very few actors come off as genuine, and it feels so scripted that very little of it is actually funny. The film's "family" message is a whiff because the unit just doesn't mesh. Kids in the audience still liked Stitch, though. I'd dare say family movie night is still on, despite my dismissal of the film in question.
Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part Two
⭐️⭐️1/2
Genre: Action, Adventure, Spy
Director: Christopher McQuarrie
Starring: Tom Cruise, Haley Atwell, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Esai Morales, Pompeii Klementiff, Shea Whigham, Greg Tarzan Davis, Henry Czerny, Angela Bassett
Ethan Hunt continues on his quest to destroy ChatGPT in the second half of the Dead Reckoning duology (we don't acknowledge the cowardly title change for douchebags in this house), which sees him trotting across the globe on several more MacGuffin chases before finally reaching the submarine that holds the secret to destroying the rogue A.I. known as "The Entity," while the Entity's failed collaborator Gabriel finds a new path in trying to control it for his own gain. Things come to a head, and old aspects of missions past unexpectedly come into play as star Tom Cruise and writer/director Christopher McQuarrie seek to give the consistently exhilarating franchise its own "Avengers: Endgame." The movie tries so blistering hard that it impresses as equally as it frustrates, telling a story across two movies and nearly six hours that a more efficient production could have done more in-depth in half of that time. Despite the high stakes at play, it's kind of amazing how little actually happens across the span of two movies, as both films wave off the intrigue of most spy thrillers and just send Tom Cruise running from one location to another to find one of several little objects that will help him save the day and stop the shadowy being that is threatening the world. I recall way back when they announced that Mission: Impossible 7 & 8 were going to be a two-part production that I jokingly referred to them as "Ethan Hunt and the Deathly Hallows." Funnily enough, that's kind of what the movies wound up being.
Bizarrely, despite there being less happening in it, and only a single MacGuffin to chase, the first film is actually the better paced movie. Part Two stops and goes at many points, often to introduce the new play and deliver a lot of exposition before the I.M.F. team carries it out. This isn't even going into a few puzzling character beats, which sees a status quo change for Ving Rhames' fan favorite character of Luther that the previous film never even hinted at and is introduced out of nowhere. Meanwhile, previous baddie Gabriel becomes more of a cackling madman, while his past with Ethan, which the previous film aggressively teased, is never embellished upon, leaving the audience to wonder what was the point of even bringing it up. The movie is beefy and disjointed, to say the least.
I'm probably dogging this movie too hard, but that's mostly because we've come to expect better from this franchise, and if Mission: Impossible II weren't as clumsy as it was, this movie would likely be the the most unsatisfactory moment for what is probably the best movie franchise that is currently running. The things that we come for in a Mission: Impossible movie still happen. Tom Cruise tries to kill himself for our entertainment by doing stuntwork that most films regulate to CGI for safety and budget concerns, there is spellbinding action, globe-trotting adventure, and a couple of the ridiculous facemasks that we all love. The movie steadily gets heavier as it goes, leading to two showstopping setpieces. The first is Ethan finally unlocking what he needs from the submarine, which is a much slower, more haunting, and more claustrophobic action sequence than we're used to. The finale is more of the areal stunts that have come to define the franchise, and it's pretty spectacular. In between all of this, many of the callbacks to previous films that come into play are actually smartly reasoned and well-integrated. The only one I'm a little iffy on being one of our characters tying into to another character from the first movie, which felt a bit muddy to me.
It's probably clear that there was more difficulty getting Dead Reckoning into cinemas than previous Mission: Impossible movies, following production delays, Covid complications, ballooning budgets, and not-so-great release dates that counter them to movies that are set to tear them apart. I'm not entirely sure how much of this particular film's less clean aspects can be blamed on those hurdles, save the stupid title change. Despite the high stakes, there is very little that seems "final" about the movie, save from a character fate or so. The movie doesn't even seem to be aware that it was supposed to bring closure to Tom Cruise playing around with this TV series from the 60's. The only argument that it puts forth that it should stop at all is because this one didn't pan out perfectly. If Mission: Impossible could still fly as high as it did a decade ago, there is little reason to stop here, even if its record is less pristine than it was a year ago. I'd still choose to accept this mission.
Netflix & Chill
Fear Street: Prom Queen
⭐️⭐️⭐️
Streaming On: Netflix
Genre: Horror
Director: Matt Palmer
Starring: India Fowler, Suzanna Son, Finna Strazza, David Iacono, Ella Rubin, Ariana Greenblatt, Lily Taylor, Katherine Waterston, Chris Klein
It's been four years since Netflix weekly dropped a trilogy of Fear Street movies, inspired by R.L. Stein's more mature alternative to Goosebumps young adult pulp novel series. The three movies were fun, if overly ambitious, providing an evolving homage to different eras and types of horror filmmaking, while not actually being based on anything from the actual book series. Their first follow-up production, by contrast, adapts a specific novel from the series, "The Prom Queen," which takes place on Prom Night of the spooky town of Shadyside, where Prom Queen nominees are brutally murdered leading up to the big crowning. Where it goes from there is largely predictable and nonsensical, though those who have watched many-an-80's-slasher and are always hungry for more will likely heed little notice to that. The movie's strongest assett is its presentation, which is far more era-influenced than the previous Fear Street films. The film's vibes are impeccable, effortlessly recreating the tone of unserious 80's gore chillers, while also replicating the feel of being a 90's kid that was locked in your room, under the covers, reading a Stein book by flashlight, while listening to a bangin' mix-tape. Those who don't appreciate the work put in to make a very specific feel to this movie will likely undervalue just exactly what this movie does, but it plays itself hard into a niche, and part of being in a niche is the risk of being watched incorrectly. The film isn't nearly the gargantuan crowd-pleaser as the trilogy it follows, but Prom Queen is arguably the more impressive and successful artistic achievement.
Starring: Tony Todd, Kaitlyn Santa Juana, Teo Briones, Richard Harmon, Owen Patrick Joyner, Anna Lore, Brec Bassinger
For context, Final Destination isn't my bag, so consider the source on this lackluster take on the best-reviewed film in the franchise. I've never found the Final Destination franchise very interesting or exciting, while some are more entertaining than others. I like how campy the third one is, and I remember the fifth one being okay but, for the life of me, I don't remember why. Then there is the second one, which is just bland extravagance, and the fourth, which is straight up garbage. To say it's a mixed-bag is an insult to mixed-bags because it has never been particularly good, and they always end on a note that make the entire movie pointless. Final Destination: Bloodlines has the most in common with Final Destination 2, which, from what I hear, is the fan favorite. I have absolutely no love for that movie, so Bloodlines didn't particularly leave an impression on me, either.
The new film has the death-defying premonition happening decades earlier than normal, after a woman goes into hiding so death doesn't kill her and begin stalking her entire family. Ignore the fact that this premise actually defies the rules established in previous movies, where death will skip people in the sequence if its attempts fail and just jump to the next person. But Final Destination has never been about lore, but gore, which Bloodlines has in spades. Viewers who like seeing people go splat will be at home here. Those who like death variety in their body count movies will probably prefer earlier entries, because Bloodlines has a tendency of doing the same effect of people turning into red goop over and over. It's amusing at first, but when the movie struggles to figure out something new to do, it will always default to it and it gets less fun as it goes.
The idea of a family that should have never been being the center of one of these movies is an interesting one, though. I wish there was something this movie could do with it that doesn't make it feel exactly the same as the movies that preceeded it, but if there was a way, the movie isn't smart enough to figure it out. Bloodlines adds a few new flouishes to the formula, but they drown in an ocean of things this franchise has done ad nauseum. Those who love Final Destination will get the most out of it, but those of us who find the series tiresome will find it boring. As for me, I had the same experience I've always had with these movies, where I just let it play in front of me, then I go about my day without giving it a second thought. Apparently this is supposed to be the best one. I'm going to have to take your word for that. My counterpoint is that the third one has Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and that makes that one the best one. My logic makes sense to me. But, to be frank, this whole series peaked when that girl got hit by a bus in the first one, and it has struggled to find a reason for continuing ever since.
Hurry Up Tomorrow
⭐️
Genre: Thriller
Director: Trey Edward Shults
Starring: Abel Tesfaye, Jenna Ortega, Barry Keoghan
Forgive me when I say that I don't know who The Weeknd is. I could say it's one of those "old man isn't hip with the times" things but I follow music so sparsely that even if The Weeknd was the hot thing when I was a teenager, I still probably wouldn't know who he is. Hell, the only reason I've heard of Taylor Swift is because Republicans like to whine about how much she makes them upset. So, I have little context for this guy, and the only reason I may of heard of him is because I heard a bunch of people making fun of his TV show with Lily Rose-Depp a few years back. Well, now we can all make fun of his movie, too. Hurry Up Tomorrow is a production The Weeknd made in collaboration with his new album of the same name. I haven't listened to the album because I don't care. Moving on.
This movie sees Abel "The Weeknd" Tesfaye playing himself, who is cheating on his wife but upset because the world is against him and that means he can't sing for some reason. Depression, I guess. He meets Jenna Ortega, who he has an affair with and she traps him in the bedroom so he can't go on tour. So, basically it's just Stephen King's Misery, except it thinks it's an expressionistic metaphor. Expressionistic metaphors work a lot better if you aren't constantly talking about your themes in dialogue. That about sums up Hurry Up Tomorrow, which is one of those movies that demands your attention so it can brag about how meaningful it is while its theme primarily seems to be The Weekend wanting to explain his music to the audience because he doesn't think enough people understand it. I'm not joking, the climax literally is Jenna Ortega bouncing around a room to his music and telling him the details of his lyrics while he is strapped to a bed. To be fair, if there is one actress who can sell a scene this stupid, it's Jenna Ortega, who plays her unhinged character with colorful intensity. If she can do this well with such an awful script, it just reinforces that it's only a matter of time before Ortega is nominated for an Oscar. She just needs to pick projects that are better than this.
Ortega is a slight bright spot, and the film is interesting visually, directed with flair by It Comes At Night's Trey Edward Shults. Barry Keoghan is here, also. The Weeknd surely knows how to surround himself with the best talent, but Hurry Up Tomorrow is a masterclass lesson in that no matter how good your talent is, if the script is rubbish, then the foundation of your film is faulty. It results in a movie so insufferable that it achieves a unique burning sensation on those who watch it, so if you leave the theater with a rash, please consult a medical professional.
The Ruse
⭐️1/2
Genre: Thriller, Mystery
Director: Stevan Mena
Starring: Veronica Cartwright, Madelyn Dundon, Ralph Ayala
This modern day "haunted house" mystery has the flavor of 1930's spook flicks that inspired it, right down to the Scooby-Doo explanation that concludes it. It's old-fashioned to a fault, however, and doesn't work up the energy to sell itself. Veronica Cartwright plays an elderly patient with dementia who needs around-the-clock care. A new nurse is sent in to replace the previous one, who went missing, and she begins to notice bizarre occurrences happening around the house, which may be related to the fate of the previous nurse. Ghost, maybe? Well, the movie is called "The Ruse," so take a wild stab at guessing whether the event is supernatural or not. To be honest, the movie is at its most fun when it's putting on the charade of being a ghost movie. It's not great, but there are a few okay suspense moments. When it gets to characters throwing random theories at the audience of what is actually going on, that's when it feels like it's cornered and screaming for help. And the ending is going a hundred miles per hour, trying layer twists on top of each other to keep the audience guessing. The one it finally lands on is probably the best possible explanation, but a gentle unraveling over the course of the movie would have been preferable to the info dump and conclusion-jumping the movie leaves us with. It turns a movie that has its moments into a chore, and even the film's better aspects don't seem to matter anymore.
Things Like This
⭐️
Genre: Comedy, Romance
Director: Max Talisman
Starring: Max Talisman, Joey Pollari
This gay romcom features a pair of insecure men, both named Zack (funny?), who meet and fall in love in traditional romcom fashion, though their own anxieties get in the way of embracing their relationship. The film is very strict to the romcom playbook of the mid-2000's, only instead of Sandra Bullock or Cameron Diaz, it's another dude. Things Like This lacks desire to deliver anything beyond that. A movie having almost no ambition isn't necessarily a problem. It becomes a problem when the movie can't replace ambition with charisma. It's not for a lack of trying, but Things Like This has no idea how to deliver the quirk it's shooting for. The script is full of quippy dialogue, some approaching a light chuckle, but most seems to be a joke for the sake of a joke, randomly digressing from the scene to squeeze in a laugh when the movie starts to be flavoring too dramatic. Some of it barely makes sense, like the film's opener where Max Talisman's Zack is breaking up with an attractive Black man because the other dude says men as sexy as him don't have sex with chubby little men. The missing context for this relationship is bizarre, to say the least, because it doesn't account for why they're together in the first place if this is his attitude toward intimacy. And I understand that the primary theme of the movie is how anxiety effects romantic relationships, but such a scene works best if it feels at the tail end of something organic and not just in a vacuum. That kind of sums up the writing in the entire movie, where things feel introduced and unimportant. The leads discover they were childhood sweethearts that were separated. Does the movie lean into this? Not really. It's the movie's attempt at portraying "destiny," but is a very aside notion in the story. The movie also makes a point to make sure the audience knows they're both named Zack. Is this a run-on joke? Nope. It doesn't even seem to be played for laughs. It's just some incidental thing. The other Zack's dad is a homophobe. What does this serve the story? Nothing. He's just here to be a homophobe.
I'm assuming Max Talisman wrote and directed this movie specifically to sell himself as a leading man after a career of bit roles. He clearly thinks he wrote himself the funniest dialogue but the moment he tries to deliver it, it becomes clear why he has never been a leading man. He delivers his lines with varying degrees of quality, often stiff and lifeless and without any emotive charm to maintain audience investment. And even if he were a better actor, his character is written pretty obnoxiously, where he's clearly supposed to be a charismatic creative but comes off as childish and a little bit dim. Honestly, most of the movie's faults fall on Talisman, because he's responsible for this performance, the writing, and even the flat direction that fails to emphasize punchlines properly. The comedic chops just aren't synergizing. Maybe with a better screenplay, this movie could have found its mojo. Without one, it's a bit of an awkward wallflower.
