Cinema Playground Journal 2025: Week 39 (My Cinema Playground)

Multiplex Madness

Dead of Winter

⭐️⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Thriller

Director:  Brian Kirk

Starring:  Emma Thompson, Judy Greer, Marc Menchaca, Laurel Marsden, Brían F. O'Byrne

A snowbound Emma Thompson accidentally stumbles upon a kidnapping plot in the middle of nowhere in this thriller.  Thompson plays her heroine both resourcefully and haplessly, sometimes working hard to gain an advantage and other times accidentally stumbling into the right area.  Sometimes she leaves so obvious of a trail that I can't tell if she's doing it intentionally or if she's just obliviously ignorant.  Judy Greer is a pretty great villain, playing cold, manipulative, and selfish with a desperate drive.  The movie has a pretty rich atmosphere, with its unforgiving setting and relentless pace.  Some plot points are a bit of a stretch, trying to reward Thompson's character for being empathetic, though you can easily see how it could go wrong for the character if that empathy were misplaced.  All of these elements make the film sometimes stirring and sometimes a bit dim but it's definitely a good watch for people who love a chase movie.

Eleanor the Great

⭐️⭐️1/2

Genre:  Drama, Comedy

Direcror:  Scarlett Johansson

Starring:  June Squibb, Erin Kellyman, Jessica Hecht, Chiwetel Ejiofor

Scarlett Johansson makes her directorial debut with a curious farcical dramedy starring June Squibb as an elderly woman with a flair for exaggeration who's Jewish best friend passes away.  Squibb seeks comfort in a support group, which turns out to be a support group for Holocaust survivors, where she tries to save face by telling her friend's tales of the era and claims them as her own.  She befriends college student Erin Kellyman, who finds herself inspired by her stories, which forces Squibb to double down.  Hundreds of movies have been made with a variation of this story, though most don't go into the heavy drama of Holocaust survival.  Because this movie does, the tone is strange and disingenuous.  The movie buoys back and forth between offhandedly humorous and really dark and draining subject matter.  Squibb tries to balance all of it but, as talented and as naturally funny as she is, she can't carry such a small production that has too much on its plate.  That being said, I respect the story trying to be told about a woman who is both living her own life and trying to continue the life of her departed friend.  That's an idea, and I see why it was thought to be a worthy one to make into a movie.  I also respect that Johansson tried to storm out the gate with a project that had both heart and audacity, though sometimes you need to know when you're juggling too much.

Gabby's Dollhouse:  The Movie

⭐️⭐️1/2

Genre:  Comedy, Fantasy, Adventure

Director:  Ryan Creggo

Starring:  Kristen Wiig, Laila Lockhart Kraner, Jason Mantzoukas, Gloria Estefan

Whenever I see a modern-day G-rated movie, I reflect on how different the rating is today than it was when it was conceived.  Back in 1968, you could show Charlton Heston's bare ass and people getting shot through the neck in Planet of the Apes and achieve a G rating.  During my childhood, G mostly seemed to mean a family movie that might have tepid violence at worst.  In 2025, a G movie means a movie has been scrubbed with bleach to cure it of any offensiveness and is targeted at toddlers.  I don't understand how this happened, but nobody wants a G anymore.  I'm trying to think if I ever watched a G-rated movie for this section of my blog.  Even that Paw Patrol movie was a PG.  If you're rating is supposed to mean "kids can watch this" and you're losing Paw Patrol, I think the rating has been rendered essentially meaningless.

So yes, I sat through a movie made for three-year-old girls this weekend.  I can justify it by saying I'm just supporting Kristen Wiig or I can double down in a ridiculous fashion and say that I firmly believe this movie has a better chance at winning Best Picture than One Battle After Another.  Either way, I'm still the one who watched the Gabby's Dollhouse movie.  Yay me.

Based on a Dreamworks television series, Gabby is a young girl with a dollhouse full of cat-themed toys.  By way of magic and sparkles or something, she can tug on her clip-on cat ears and hop into the magical world her toys inhabit and go on adventures with them.  On a road trip with her grandmother, Gabby loses her Dollhouse, which winds up in the clutches an adult collector and Gabby needs to save her friends from a lifetime of not being played with.  Movies like this seems to have some weird beef with adults who collect toys.  Some adults collect toys as a hobby.  It's not even that weird.  But if you asked Toy Story 2 or The Lego Movie, it is some sort of unforgivable sin.  I guess it's trying to look at it from a child's point of view that toys should be played with, but every time a talking toy movie comes out, it feels like shots are fired.  This movie's toy collector is played by a deliciously hammy Kristen Wiig, who spends the movie positively eating.  I love that Wiig is this sort of Cruella-deVille-lite who is so much of caricature of a self-absorbed spoiled rich brat that she seemingly has a blood feud with a group of girl scouts for no reason.  Eventually, she seems to discover that she's an adult woman who has stumbled into a children's show and she plays it as a sign that she's having a psychological breakdown.

And the cherry on top is the hair.  Wiig's fake hair piece in this movie is way too sexy for a preschooler movie.  I love it.  I shall call it "The Kristen Wig."

There's a pretty good chance that this movie would have zero adult appeal if Wiig weren't present and giving the film a moderate feeling that it's not always talking downward to kindergarteners.  Even still, I'm actually surprised at how much of the humor of this movie actually is genuinely well-crafted.  The movie does walk around on pillows most of the time, and while most of it is baby-proofed, occasionally it will impress by throwing one of it's soft punchlines with expert timing and rhythm.  Despite the movie's plastic presentation, it feels like it was assembled a touch of humanity.

As for educational value, the movie does have a theme of growing up that the Toy Story movies have already been melancholy about several times over.  What's interesting about the way it's presented here is that it seems to be coping with the fact that Gabby's Playhouse star Laila Lockhart Kraner is growing up.  The cat-eared youth is well into her teenage years now and probably has goals outside of playing with dolls for the rest of her life.  Interestingly, the movie seems against the idea of putting childish things away, which can be a damaging lesson if done poorly.  If one refuses to grow up, then the life of an adult will probably destroy you.  The morality should probably be closer to treasuring the joy of childhood and keeping it within your heart, no matter how much adulting sucks.  Gabby's Dollhouse is a movie I'd be hesitant about telling children that they should take too seriously because of that, but it's sparkly entertainment for the wee ones.

The Lost Bus

⭐️⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Thriller

Director:  Paul Greengrass

Starring:  Matthew McConaughey, America Ferrera, Yul Vazquez, Ashlie Atkinson

Matthew McConaughey finally plays the role he was born to play:  a divorced, disgruntled bus driver.  And now he is driving around aimlessly through a wildfire.  This is when we should demand higher wages because the cost of living is too high to put up with this bullshit.  McConaughey is struggle-bussing (see what I did there?) with family squabbles at home and is prepared to lose his job so he can give his kid an all-important dose of Tylenol (this is an actual plot point, so eat shit, RFK Jr.).  But he is detoured as a raging wildfire has left a group of children stranded at their school and he is the only bus close enough to deliver them to safety.  Of course, getting across a raging inferno and, even worse, evacuating civilians is easier said than done.  The villain of the movie should be the fire but the actual villain of the movie is bullshit traffic.  As someone who has also driven in California, I fully understand.  The film is directed for thrills by the less numbing Michael Bay, Paul Greengrass.  Greengrass adds this to his collection of "real hero" films like United 93 and Captain Phillips, and it is decently thrilling and mildly inspiring enough.  It feels a little too much like an embellished melodrama.  Greengrass's commitment to throwing the audience straight into the chaos succeeds in building urgency but is also too frantic to really take in the big picture.  The few times it does expand beyond that, it's mostly dry exposition noise, as the film wants us to be fully on-board with the people in the midst of warring with the blaze while making sure we know that the power company caused it, while not giving them actual presence except for a few one-dimensional scenes of indifferent incompetence that seem to try to demonize them but honestly mean nothing.  It will certainly play well with the audience it was made for, as it should.  It's a tad empty, but it's pretty good.

One Battle After Another

⭐️⭐️1/2

Genre:  Thriller, Comedy

Director:  Paul Thomas Anderson

Starring:  Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro, Regina Hall, Teyana Taylor, Chase Infiniti

Paul Thomas Anderson deals with political violence, interracial relationships, and daddy issues in his latest, where Leonardo DiCaprio plays a neurotic former-freedom fighter whose thought-to-be daughter is in danger from her militarist biological father Sean Penn, who sees her biracial existence as a threat to his white supremacist ambition.  One dad tries to kill her as one dad seeks to save her as Anderson tells his spin on the blood family against chosen family.  You know, that theme that James Gunn likes to play with.  It's not the only thing Anderson stuffs into this behemoth film, wanting to tackle racism, power abuse, and even a little bit of the generation gap, which makes the movie come off more "Old Man Yells At Cloud" than I think he realizes.  But the movie is nothing if not ambitious.  I just wish I liked it.

I knew this movie was not for me from the first scene, when Teyana Taylor corners Sean Penn with a gun, arousing him, which she takes advantage of by goading him into masturbating.  It sets up a discomforting sexual relationship between the two but it's a sort of a overplayed, self-indulgent creative choice that I find myself a little bored at how desperately "edgy" it's trying to be.  The movie plods through the rest of the prologue, trying to lay out what happened to Taylor and DiCaprio to get them where they are at the beginning of the main story.  It's a lot to detail out but the movie somehow makes it both feel choppy and padded at the same time.  And there is more of that Anderson quirk along the way, naming a character "Jungle Pussy" and successfully making me hold face in hand while saying "Jesus fucking Christ, this movie sucks."  Anderson's writing gets better once the opening is out of the way and he stops trying to shock the prudes, and his humor begins to have a higher hit ratio.  It's still not winning me over because the movie is still a lumbering beast, crawling through scenarios without any sort of rhythm to the pacing.  But rhythm is not something the movie is concerned with, as even the musical score sounds like a cat licking itself on top of a piano.  Really nothing about this movie is grabbing me.  I'm not invested in DiCaprio's relationship with his daughter, Taylor's post-natal spiral isn't very interesting, and Penn being a one-note racist scumbag gets old pretty fast.  On that last note, I did appreciate that Anderson did include a satiric commentary of racism stemming from suppressed sexual desire that one internally loathes.  There are several things like this that are based in intellegent observation.  I get this movie.  It just never engaged me.  The movie lost my interest so early that I just felt like I was watching it through sterile plexiglass through the rest of it, taking note of what few things caught my gaze but mostly viewing it with disinterest.

I spent nearly three hours (which is much longer than I'm willing to humor Anderson's personal quirks and idiosyncracies) trying to feel something, anything, about this movie.  Love, hate, laughter, thrills, dramatic investment, endearment, something that made what the movie was throwing down worthwhile to me.  The conclusion I came to is that if I were working this hard to try to convince myself "No, this movie is actually great, probably, maybe," then I need to stop jumping through hoops and just accept that this movie doesn't have rizz.  Sometimes two sexy entities don't vibe together and they aren't meant to make sweet love.  Not their fault.  I'm willing to accept that this movie isn't my speed, and that's okay.  Maybe there is another award season contender that is.  As it is, One Battle After Another is one of those movies that I'm sure a thousand cinephiles are going to tell me I'm supposed to love unconditionally but I just throw my hands up and say "Yeah, no thank you. You go on and have fun though, kiddo."

The Strangers:  Chapter 2

⭐️

Genre:  Horror

Director:  Renny Harlin

Starring:  Madelaine Petsch, Gabriel Basso, Ema Horvath

The audience:  "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO US?!"

Renny Harlin:  "Because you were in the theater."

Picking up straight where the previous film left off, the sole survivor is in a hospital where the killer continues to track her down, meanwhile Dr. Loomis continues his hunt for serial killer Michael Myers to put a stop to his rampage for good.

Oh wait, I was recapping Halloween II by mistake.  Oh well, doesn't matter I suppose.  The Strangers:  Chapter 2 is the same idea.  The film's not-Liv-Tyler lead Madelaine Petsch survives the attack on her and her boyfriend in the last movie.  The Strangers catch wind of it, murder an entire hospital, block every emergency exit, and somehow knock out the cell service, all just to get this one chick.  This seems like a hefty amount of going-out-of-your-way-to-finish-the-job when the premise of The Strangers seemed very reliant on the alluded idea that they were stabbing people for self-amusement and not because they were committed to the cause.  They chase her down through the woods, somehow maintain her trail after she is driven down the road by someone else, stay at it all fucking night fueled on zero sleep at all, send a bloodhound wild boar after her for some reason, and keep at it until they have a sudden stand-off that the movie never actually built-up to until it abruptly ends with nothing resolved.  This movie is so fucking stupid, y'all.

Look, I've gone on record saying that I'm not the biggest fan of the Strangers franchise.  I can watch the first two just fine but I'm not over-the-moon about either of them, despite acknowledging the attributes that make the first a horror classic and the second a cult classic.  The first installment of this revamped trilogy was one I reviewed on this very blog and I was not kind to it.  Right now I feel like I owe it a tiny apology because it's not as goofy as the second movie, but then I retract that apology and feel like I wasn't hard enough on it because that movie led straight into this one.  That movie was a dull remake of the original film but one can justify that the reason it was made was to establish their own leading lady and then write their own version of "What happens next" and utilize her in her own story instead of continuing off of someone else's.  From that point on, a Strangers trilogy could have gone one of two ways.  The first is an upswing of intrigue, finding out what makes these films thematically interesting and justifying the entire experiment.  The second is an instant justification to the first impression that the entire endeavor was a failure from conception.  Clearly, this series has established itself as the latter, even if there are hints creeping in that allow you to see why someone thought it might have been a good idea.  It's not but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Here's what I'll give this movie:  the suspense sequences in it are a step up from the previous film.  The paranoia aspect of the film is actually really interesting and Madelaine Petsch is effective in all of these scenes.  The context to these sequences is often inane, but the movie is occasionally an effective chiller if you try not to think about it.  But the honest-to-god truth is that you really have to ignore common sense for any of this to work at all.  Nothing about this movie makes any sense.  Right from minute one when Petsch tells the police "It was some kind of ritual."  Wait...was it?  When did we establish this?  Three people banged on your door, chased you through the house, and stabbed you in the gut.  What was ritualistic about it?  From then on it's a chase movie.  Petsch runs through the woods, occasionally coming across someone who might help, she becomes suspicious that they might be a masked killer, then they die almost as quickly as they're introduced.  This happens over and over again, culminating in Petsch being bandaged up in someone's house when suddenly the Strangers are already inside and chasing her, having committed at least four murders within the span of five seconds and without having made a sound, several of which seem to be quite elaborate, with chairs and torture and shit.  It's official, the Strangers have entered the Speedforce.  The film ends abruptly, with Petsch still running and the Strangers still in pursuit.  I think the climactic moment is that they want the audience to think the Petsch successfully struck back against them while also uncovering the identity of one of them, but it's not really much of a concluding moment.  It has echoes of the second Hobbit movie where the big cliffhanger tease was that Bilbo accidentally pissed off a dragon and the "To Be Continued" moment is just "oops."

Another minorly soiled positive is that one does understand why the filmmakers seem so smitten with Madelaine Patsch.  She's a solid actress, is quite photogenic, and her booty does round out those yoga pants that the climax shoves her into quite well.  The first movie gave her nothing but generic happy relationship dialogue to chew on, while here she's allowed to go feral and hits her marks quite nicely even if she's surrounded by a lot of questionable production choices.  That she's able to mostly survive the experience feels like a testament to her screen presence.  If the movie threatens to work at all, it's because of her.

But the movie isn't really about her, it's about its attempted theme.  The movie feels like it's building itself up to be a commentary on psychosis.  I'm not convinced the filmmakers understand psychosis enough to be a nuanced take on it.  This feels like a bunch of generic, stolen ideas of portraying psychopathic tendancies, not wanting to portray it seriously, but just relating the idea of "it's fun to kill people!" with a smile on the killer's face.  This is all brought up in a series of flashbacks that attempt to enrichen "Strangers lore" by explaining why the hell they say "Is Tamara here?"  I don't think anybody ever wanted a backstory on just who the fuck Tamara is but we get an answer in this movie.  It's not the dumbest thing in the movie but it might be one of the most curious things that they felt they needed to do.  I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested in knowing where they were taking this bullshit embellishment of Strangers mythology that they've created.  Everything they've concocted is the oddest creative decision they could make that I kind of have to know, at this point.  I also need to know if any of this is salvagable.  I swear to god, if the best movie in this trilogy winds up being the boring retread of the original movie, that will be seriously nuts.

Movies Still Playing At My Theater

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey ⭐️⭐️

The Conjuring:  Last Rites ⭐️⭐️

Downton Abbey:  The Grand Finale ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Freakier Friday ⭐️⭐️1/2

Him ⭐️

The Long Walk ⭐️⭐️⭐️

The Senior ⭐️⭐️

Superman ⭐️⭐️⭐️

New To Digital

The Fantastic 4:  First Steps ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Splitsville ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

New To Physical

28 Years Later... ⭐️⭐️

Flow ⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2

M3GAN 2.0 ⭐️⭐️

Superman ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Coming Soon!

Cinema Playground Journal 2025: Week 38 (My Cinema Playground)

Multiplex Madness

Afterburn

⭐️⭐️1/2

🏆"Hurts So Good" Must-See Bad Movie Award🏆

Genre:  Action

Director:  J.J. Perry

Starring:  Dave Bautista, Samuel L. Jackson, Olga Kurylenko, Kristofer Hivju, Daniel Bernhardt

Even though we already had a genuine Paul W.S. Anderson movie starring Dave Bautista this year, somehow Afterburn is the most Paul W.S. Anderson movie starring Dave Bautista of the year.  A solar flare has sent the world into a post-apocalypse, and Bautista is a dude who collects fine valuables of the previous civilization for head honcho Samuel L. Jackson.  His next target is finding the Mona Lisa and delivering it to Jackson's collection.  This story is kind of doubly ironic when you consider the Mona Lisa's history because it wasn't considered a great work of art until it was stolen (twice), so stealing it because it is a "great work of art from the old world" is kind of funny.  Afterburn is a goofy and stupid low-budget actioner made for an audience who knows what they like the moment they see it.  They don't necessarily want realism, common sense, or even good filmmaking.  They just want to see shit getting wrecked.  Afterburn wrecks stuff up real good, serving up preposterous like it was gas station hot food.  There's little reason to judge it because it's just something made to fill a low expectation demand.  It's the perfect type of action movie for someone who watches every cheesy Italian knock-off of Escape from New York and Mad Max, owns every Deathstalker movie on VHS, thinks Death Race 2000 was robbed at the Oscars, and loves Conan the Destroyer more than Conan the Barbarian.

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey

⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Fantasy, Romance, Comedy

Director:  Kogonada

Starring:  Colin Farrell, Margot Robbie, Kevin Kline, Phoebe Waller-Bridge

Romcom enthusiests who don't want to be challenged the the nuanced analysis of love from a movie like Materialists and just want sappy sweetness of two people who are absolutely going to be together by the end might want to consider taking a big, bold, beautiful journey this weekend.  Colin Farell plays a lonely middle-aged man who seeks out a car rental service.  The car eventually starts talking to him (it took every fiber of my being to not scream "KNIGHT RIDER!" in the middle of the theater) and the self-aware GPS leads him to fellow rent-a-car traveler Margot Robbie.  Together, the pair are lead to magic doors that lead to their past lives, where they get to know each other and the mistakes that led them to being alone for all these years.  It's a story that is traditionalist while also going for a bold wit about it, playing into the whimsy of the piece with a dry sense of humor.  The movie is very into it's own humorous surrealist quirkiness, and I'm not sure it realizes that it's so lost in it that it doesn't read the room when it's not hitting.

It's difficult to really get into what goes wrong with this movie.  Technically, it's exactly what it wants to be, and that includes the flaws it puts on display.  Both Farrell and Robbie's characters have large mounds of dialogue describing their life choices that come out as phony and rehearsed.  At the same time, at the core of each of these speeches is a tender humanist tale of broken people, wanting to be relatable but verbalizing it in a way that's hard to relate to.  The movie uses its lighthearted cuteness to counteract that, trying to display itself as off-the-cuff and unpredictable even when it's anything but.  What's weird about this movie is that it's very clear that it doesn't work but it's so tender-hearted that it's difficult to dislike based on how committed it is to its own whimsical romanticism.  I can absolutely picture someone hammering out this script while bingewatching their favorite romance films from the 40's through the 60's and rereading Charles Dickins' A Christmas Carol.  And the message of the movie seems to be that lonely people who perceive themselves as bad people are really just good people who can't forgive themselves for their own worst mistakes and should stop being so hard on themselves and lighten the load by sharing it with someone else.  There's something charming about that even if the result is a whiff of the ball.

Him

⭐️

Genre:  Horror, Sports

Director:  Justin Tipping

Starring:  Marlon Wayans, Tyriq Withers, Julia Fox, Tim Heidecker, Jim Jefferies

Psychological horror hits the gridiron as an injured Tyriq Withers looks to rehabilitate himself and become the greatest football player ever under the mentorship of former legendary player Marlon Wayans, who trains him mercilessly through what appears to be a satanic cult.  Him is a movie that feels like it has all the elements it needs to succeed.  You can tell the movie is made with vision, with its commentary on the unhealthy pressure on athletes to push their limits and the cult-like nature of sports fans.  The fact that the movie knows what it's saying makes the parallel fact that it's boring, junky, and shitty disheartening.  It's one of those movies that really bums you out while watching it because you want to love it and it's just not vibing.  The actors are fully in command of their roles, especially Marlon Wayans, but they're also at the mercy of film itself falling into place and being the experience that it wants to be.  Instead of being an experience, it's like a bad bag of weed.  Maybe there's momentary kick, but you just sit in place and it kind of bums you out.  It fully let's the viewer down when it hits you with the climax, wanting to go-for-broke and instead just underwhelms with numbing violence that just leaves you feeling "That's it?  I guess.  Whatever."

Him is a movie that intentionally tries to initiate discomfort in the audience.  The risk of this is always the tradeoff of that leaking into what the viewers thinks of the movie's quality because regardless of how well made it is, the reaction of a viewer can easily be "But I didn't enjoy it."  Vertigo, for example, is one of the best movies ever made but it's a startlingly uncomfortable movie to watch, which might offset the movie's stunning qualities for someone who isn't prepared for that.  Reading in between the discomfort can be challenging, figuring out if it's genuinely a bad movie or if one just disliked the experience of watching it.  While Him has stylish flourishes that make feel like it's well made, after a while it really settles in that it just isn't very good and it has little to do with the discomfort it's inducing.  The movie's themes are resonating and powerful but the film itself is not.

The History of Sound

⭐️⭐️1/2

Genre:  Drama

Director:  Oliver Hermanus

Starring:  Paul Mescal, Josh O'Connor, Chris Cooper

Mark another gay romance into Paul Mescal's filmography, following 2023's All of Us Strangers.  I don't know if this is a niche he's building or if he's just taking the scripts as they come.  All I know is that The History of Sound isn't as good as All of Us Strangers.  This one sees Mescal as a young man in early-twentieth century America who falls in love with Josh O'Connor through their mutual love of folk music.  The years go by and their lives separate, though Mescal longs to reconnect with his former lover.  The movie has a tender sweetness to its core, it's mostly rhythmless and unnoteworthy.  It's mostly a two-hour generator of pining looks from Paul Mascal with little nuance to the drama.  I suppose one could defend the movie citing internal conflict, but the internal conflict never seems to shift.  It just sits still like in a staring contest.  And this is going to sound like the crappiest nitpick but this is a movie about two men who make a connection through song, so fuck it, I'm saying it anyway:  Paul Mescal's singing voice sucks.

Interestingly enough, the movie's sound-mix seems to supersede the need for any sort of musical scoring, making any sort of sound pop.  It's certainly a well-made movie, and I feel the people who made it fully put their heart in it.  It's going to depend on whether being crafted well is just as important as narrative flow.  If you just want a well-made LGBTQ love story, The History of Sound is one.  It's not one of the best, but it's a movie that was made.  Considering queer love stories are historically underrepresented in the history of film, just being made is an achievement itself.

The Senior

⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Drama, Sports

Director:  Rod Lurie

Starring:  Michael Chiklis, Mary Stuart Masterson, Brandon Flynn, James Badge Dale, Rob Corddry

Angel Studios is back to prove that Sketch was just a fluke by doing one of their patented "movie based on a true story that looks and feels fake" formula films that they've perfected.  This time they're playin' some football, baby!  Woo!  It can't be a worse football movie than Him, right?  Well, it's Angel Studios.  Don't underestimate how shitty they can get.  Michael Chiklis plays a man who was expelled from his senior year of college and kicked off the football team.  At the age of 59, he utilizes a loophole and decides to head back to college...to play some football.

I swear to god, there's an episode of King of the Hill that's exactly like this, and, somehow, that was more heartfelt and endearing.

To be perfectly fair, the movie's themes are primarily about unfulfilled potential and life regrets and it kind of works.  Most of that is because Chiklis is charismatic and likeable in the lead role.  When he's not on-screen, the movie tanks itself because nobody else has screen presence and everyone is saying generic faith film dialogue in a sappy tone.  Chiklis and the actor playing his younger self also seem to be in a competition to see who looks more like Curly Howard.  It's an unfair fight because Chiklis actually played Curly in a Three Stooges biopic, but they did find a decent challenger for him.

The movie is more entertaining on the football field than off, utilizing Chiklis with some fun setpieces and enjoyable team dynamics.  There is a minor issue when the movie seems more interested in being a presentation of good sportsmanship rather than compelling dramatics, but Angel Studios is going to be Angel Studios so we might as well accept that this movie has a ceiling to how good its interested in being.  I mean, this is a movie where the main character hurts his arm and struggles to mend it but picks up a Bible and is suddenly healed.  This movie is not interested in being a genuine drama.  Because of that, its inspirational story isn't inspiring because it really feels like barely anything of note happened.  Still better than Him, though.

Xeno

⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Science Fiction

Director:  Matthew Loren Oates

Starring:  Lulu Wilson, Omari Hardwick, Paul Schneider, Wrenn Schmidt, Trae Romano

Goddammit, Elliot, not again.  We have a brand new "child befriends alien" movie because every decade needs at least thirty of them.  Xeno's take on it centers on Lulu Wilson as a girl with an affinity for predatory animals who happens upon an alien in the desert.  She keeps in in her basement and tries to hide it from her mom, her alcoholic step dad, and federal agents.  The film is nothing if not earnest, wanting to genuinely ask the question of what if E.T. were gooey, scary, and flesh-eating, like the alien from Alien.  The movie has very few ideas outside of this, coasting on Lulu Wilson's youthful energy.  The bond between the two beings is undernourished, as Wilson just chatters away and the alien, whom she names Croak, just hangs around her.  It's unclear how much Croak actually understands, though the movie at times implies a telepathic bond but not always.  The movie just doesn't offer a lot, walking down certain paths but never fully committing, even leaving certain plot elements unfulfilled.  The low budget methods of bringing Croak to life are pretty fun, because they don't shy away from the idea that he might be able to bite your head off.  I'm not sure why he didn't try to eat Lulu Wilson in the first place if he really was willinh to go there, but then we wouldn't have a movie.  Most of the effects seem to be a man in a suit, with selective points where more enhanced effects are needed.  Some of the ways the cinematography hides the limited mobility of Croak without looking misframed are actually pretty clever, including hiding most of his body behind Wilson and keeping him out of focus and in the background.  The movie is competently made, it just never completes any of its goals.

Waltzing with Brando

⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Comedy

Director:  Bill Fishman

Starrijg:  Billy Zane, Jon Heder, Richard Dreyfuss, Camille Razat, Alaina Huffman, Tia Carrere, James Jagger

This week's film-going experience was brought to you by the two great Marlons in film history:  Marlon Wayans and Marlon Brando.  Walzing with Brando features no walzing and also no Brando, utilizing Billy Zane to play the famed actor.  Taking place in the early 70's, the film sees Brando around the same time he played a role in "some mobster movie," where he is living in Tahiti and befriends architect Bernard Judge (played by Jon Heder).  Together, the duo plan to develop the land into a eco-friendly tropical spot.  With themes of environmentalism and personal freedom, one would hope this movie is something.  Is this movie anything?  Well, no, not really.  The movie feels like it's just an excuse for Billy Zane to do a Marlon Brando impression surrounded by naked women.  To the movie's credit, it's a pretty decent impression and the naked women are exquisitely naked.  Outside of that, the rest of the movie is Jon Heder adapting to Brando's personality, occasionally explaining the plot to the audience ala Clarissa Explains It All or Malcolm in the Middle.  The movie stays put as this sort of casual thing that is just happening and the what dramatic plot beats it takes advantage of are too farcical to take seriously.  It feels like a pitch for what a Marlon Brando led HBO comedy series would look like.  It's mildly amusing but it's not interesting.

Movies Still Playing At My Theater

The Baltimorons ⭐️⭐️⭐️

The Conjuring:  Last Rites ⭐️⭐️

Downton Abbey:  The Grand Finale ⭐️⭐️⭐️

The Long Walk ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Spinal Tap II:  The End Continues ⭐️⭐️1/2

Superman ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Toy Story ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

New To Digital

Americana ⭐️⭐️

Eden ⭐️⭐️

Ne Zha II ⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2

Relay ⭐️⭐️1/2

Witchboard ⭐️⭐️1/2

New To Physical

My Dead Friend Zoe ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Coming Soon!

Cinema Playground Journal 2025: Week 37 (My Cinema Playground)

Multiplex Madness

The Baltimorons

⭐️⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Comedy

Director:  Jay Duplass

Starring:  Michael Strassner, Liz Larson, Olivia Luccardi

Both odd and oddly endearing, The Baltimorons is an interesting display of an unlikely bond formed by seasonal depression.  Those always form the strongest relationships, probably.  I don't know, really.  Just assuming.  Screenwriter Michael Strassner plays the lead, a man who last-minute bails on his girlfriend's Christmas Eve get-together when he breaks a molar, causing him to need emergency dental work.  The only dentist who picks up the phone during the holiday is lonely-heart Liz Larson, who patches him up and tries to send him on his way but an unfortunate series of events keeps the two together as they tour Christmastime Baltimore.  I think a lot of The Baltimorons' strength lies in that it feels like the premise is just taking two characters, throwing them together, and seeing where the story takes them.  The movie feels metaphorically about those moments in life that you just jump into, where you don't know what the future will be that stems from that moment, and it probably isn't great but you need to do it anyway.  I like that little vibe of "the moment" that the movie has.  I think it goes a little further than I would have liked it to, as it takes a turn of "sexual tension" that I wasn't really feeling the vibe of but the movie seems really into.  I also kind of feel like some of the supporting characters get shafted in the movie, especially Strassner's girlfriend, played by Olivia Luccardi, who is kind of delt a really shitty hand in this screenplay and the movie just kind of brushes her to the side as almost unimportant.  But the movie is a really interesting Christmas comedy, otherwise.  It's a little dark, a little cringe, and a little heartwarming.  Somehow, that seems like the right vibe for Christmas.

Downton Abbey:  The Grand Finale

⭐️⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Drama

Director:  Simon Curtis

Starring:  Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Jim Carter, Paul Giamatti, Elizabeth McGovern, Penelope Wilton, Laura Carmichael, Raquel Cassidy, Paul Copley, Brendan Coyle, Kevin Doyle, Michael Fox, Joanne Froggatt, Harry Hadden-Paton, Robert James-Collier, Alan Leech, Phyllis Logan, Sophie McShera, Leslie Nicol, Douglas Reith, Dominic West, Simon Russell Beale, Arty Froushan, Alessanrdo Nivola, Joely Richardson

Downton Abbey is back to shovel posh comfort food into your mouth until you choke on it.  Love it or hate it, nobody has that recipe nailed like Downton Abbey.  Bridgerton, maybe, but Bridgerton is more of a spicy smut rag finger food.  Downton Abbey is the classy vegan tray.  I've probably watched more Downton Abbey than you'd expect for a man who has seen every episode of Mystery Science Theater ten times.  I have no explanation for this.  Sometimes things just fall in front of my eyes.  I've also watched all three of the movies in a theater.  I have no one to blame but myself.  Perhaps I just have a thing for Michelle Dockery and seeing her in sparkly jewelry and fabulous gowns is a fetish of mine.  I'll never tell.

Scandal rocks the status quo of Downton, as word breaks out that Lady Mary Crawley and Henry Talbot are...(dramatic pause)...divorced!  ::gasp:: Well, I never!  Mary's socialite status falters in the wake of her nuptials being shattered, but the heiress must gain control of her family's name and reputation as her father Robert prepares to retire and pass the reigns of Downton to her.  All of the drama of polite conversations of spoiled rich white people talking about maintaining wealth, finances, investment, and stature is intact.  The plucky help is still offering counterprogramming, with the friendly "Happy to serve!" spirit that is underlined with a hint of common folk charm, along with the stern ones who take their work even more seriously that the aristocrats that hire them.  Everything that makes Downton Abbey what it is can be fully accounted for and it's just as self-adorning as ever.  I love how Downton is always revealed the same way the Enterprise is revealed in a Star Trek movie.  Slow, methodically, full of love, and letting the music whisk the viewer off into their fantasy.  It's a setting that the fans of the series find warmth in and they want to bask in it.  The characters are still ingrained in their pretention, though wry enough to humanize them.  There are small laughs here and there to take slight pleasure in, probably the highlight being when Robert tours an apartment flat and tries to wrap his head around the idea of it as a living space that non-wealthy people have to use, which is a hearty chuckle of a scene, I don't care who you are.  It's those little crosses between the pampered and the middlebrow that make the amusement in the movie glow.

"Is this funny or impertinent?"

"Find it funny, please."

Is this the best one?  I will admit that I don't remember the first movie all that well, which was pre-pandemic and that was a thousand years ago.  I remember liking how fun-spirited the second one was, with that low stakes story about a movie being filmed at Downton.  The Grand Finale is more relevant to the character arcs told through the series, which means this one might be the most dramatically satisfying of the three.  After all, one of Downton Abbey's earliest conflicts is Robert Crawley's struggle with the fact that he did not have a male heir and Mary facing the reality that what she felt was her birthright will be passed on to someone else.  The Grand Finale fully pays that off here in his final acceptance that he must pass his legacy on to his daughter, who is currently separated from her husband and free from male influence to distract from the fact that she now has full authority of the estate.  This feels like the best possible conclusion to this story.

Downton Abbey fans got pretty spoiled with a show that not only had a healthy lifespan on TV but concluded with three movies that are all in step with the spirit that made them fall in love with it.  There's nothing about any of these movies that make them feel more cinematic than their TV source material, but seeing the lush locales and stunning sets on a giant screen has more charm to it than you'd expect.  Now we have a complete trilogy to cap everything off.  Firefly only got one movie.  The Walking Dead's big screen continuation was dicked around with and cancelled.  And we're still waiting to see if the Community movie is just a pipe-dream.  Downton Abbey lived the dream.  Good for Downton Abbey.  They really showed them who was boss with that "Six seasons and a movie" rally call.

The Long Walk

⭐️⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Thriller

Director:  Francis Lawrence

Starring:  Cooper Hoffman, David Jonsson, Mark Hamill, Garrett Wareing, Tut Nyuot, Charlie Plummer, Ben Wang, Roman Griffith Davis, Josh Hamilton, Judy Greer

The second of three Stephen King adaptations this year, and the first of two based on his run under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, The Long Walk is the story of a group of adolescent boys who are selected for a "long walk," where they have to continually walk forward at a pace of three miles per hour or get shot in the head.  Winner gets a prize!  The Long Walk is an interesting story because it works as sort of this life allegory for the working class where people are forced forward by the privileged until they are in an exhausted state, filling time by bullshitting to keep their own spirits up.  One by one, they all drop, leaving those who knew them briefly behind to continue in their exhaution until its their turn to drop.  The actual competition itself doesn't seem to have a purpose, it's just a nihilistic display of the powerful to remind people that they have the power.  There is almost perfection in the concept because its a nihilistic display of puposelessness that tells a purposeful display of nihilism through its story.  It's hard to make nihilism meaningful, though Stephen King found a doorway in.  The fundamentals don't have much different than any other live-or-die dystopian competitive tale such as Battle Royale, Death Race 2000, that terrible book series that I'd rather not bring up, and another Stephen King story that is getting a new adaptation in November, The Running Man.  That being said, The Long Walk doesn't focus on action so the characters have to fill up the time with personality, each telling their own stories in their own words, hoping it doesn't end here.

Fans of the book will likely be pleased that most of it is stuffed in the movie, even though character traits have been jumbled around.  Normally, this would have been done to make the screenplay tighter and reel in the amount of characters to work in a film's runtime, but the curious thing is that this doesn't seem to be the case here.  The movie has about the same amount of speaking characters as the book, they just seem to be sharing each other's arcs without much reason.  It feels like the only purpose of this is to keep book-readers on their toes even if the movie doesn't really play with expectation enough for that to have any serious impact.  That is, aside from the ending, which is a complete rewrite.  The ending to the book is nothing to write home about and I have no inclination to be protective of it, but the ending to the movie is a flat attempt to make it more theatrical that only feels numb and meaningless.  If one was going to change the already not-excellent ending of the book, the last idea I would have chased is "Let's make it even more melodramatic."  But I guess director Francis Lawrence picked up too many bad habits from that other survival thriller book series that has been strangling his career.

Not enough of this offsets The Long Walk from being a mostly good experience.  Small flaws weight it back, as it could be less lean and meatier.  It feels brief, so the length of time that these characters have been walking barely sets in, and the characters rarely look as exhausted as they should be in an attempt to keep everyone in "Hollywood bad shape" instead of actual bad shape.  A lot of the violence is overly animated with CGI, making the film feel like a cartoon when it's trying to be haunting.  It undermines itself, sadly.  The story is still interesting, but it doesn't hit as hard as it could.

Spinal Tap II:  The End Continues

⭐️⭐️1/2

Genre:  Comedy, Mockumentary

Director:  Rob Reiner

Starring:  Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Harry Shearer, Rob Reiner

Spinal Tap is back, baby!  The fake band that was made famous by one of the greatest mockumentaries ever made broke up years ago and are now convinced to come out of retirement for a final reunion concert.  And yes, they have a new drummer.  Let's all pray that she doesn't die like the last eleven.  To be frank, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect.  I've seen This Is Spinal Tap, but while I enjoyed it quite a bit, it's been years and I was weary of what revisiting these characters might look like so long after the fact.  The movie loses something in how glossy it looks, but that's also because it looks like a modern documentary and not an 80's documentary.  Seeing the band together after so long but as old men feels a little deflating, but then you realize how many period rock stars are the same age and are still active, including ones who have cameos in this movie.  Spinal Tap feels a little different because they existed in that time capsule that is the original movie (and you can always pretend their story ends with that episode of The Simpsons that they cameoed in and perished), so seeing them aged feels hard to swallow, but I'm also willing to accept it if the movie is good.  Full of snickers instead of belly laughs, Spinal Tap II never fully sells that the world is richer for reuniting the band forty years later.  But if This Is Spinal Tap were to have any companion film at all, I'm just thankful that it's reasonably fun.  There is a lot of good material to mine from the artists, as they combat a sleazy new manager and try to move past old beefs, all of which bring fun sequences to the table.  I also greatly enjoyed their new drummer, Didi, mostly because I like a punk rock drummer girl.  I wish she were in more of the movie, because she's such an energetic presence, but I understand keeping the focus on the core three so I'll begrudgingly accept that she's strictly a background character.  But what it boils down to is that Spinal Tap II is a not-very-special sequel to a very special movie.  It's really hard to run away from that, even if it's probably worth watching once if you're a Spinal Tap fan.

Traumatika

⭐️1/2

Genre:  Horror

Director:  Pierre Tsigaridis

Starring:  Rebekah Kennedy, Ranen Navat, Emily Goss, Susan Gayle Watts

Traumatika is one of those horror movies that declined to show footage of itself in ads because it was "too terrifying."  Normally, when this happens it's because the movie is cheap trash and they don't want the customer to know it, so they show off as little as possible.  I wish I could say Traumatika bucks that trend but, honestly, it just solidifies it.  It's a shame because Traumatika shows promise in the beginning.  It's at its strongest during the opening twenty minutes when its just a confident tour of its grotesqueries and showcasing star Rebekah Kennedy being fully committed to whatever twisted thing it asks her to do.  When it comes time to explain what the fuck is going on, the movie wears its flaws like a broken toilet.  That opening, though, which sees Kennedy playing a witch-like woman crawling around and haunting a little boy through a house is an excellent short film, by itself.  The movie misses a step when it provides context for it, allowing lesser actors to ham up lackluster roles.  Then the movie grinds to a halt in its second half, which follows up on the type of adult the young boy from the prologue becomes.  This portion of the movie is slow, boring, and not really anything.  I think the movie convinced itself it's about adults who don't confront their demons becoming those demons.  It's hard to ignore the theme being trauma because the movie continuously states in dialogue that this is what it's about.  What exactly it's trying to say about trauma is a bit murky.  Maybe it's about needing to go to therapy now before you become a serial killer, but feels more like utilizing trauma to put on a geek show.  That probably would have worked better if an hour of this movie didn't feel like unnecessary padding to an opening that felt like it was the only portion of the movie with vision.  But telling stories is hard, especially when you don't have a story to tell and just wing it.

Movies Still Playing At My Theater

Caught Stealing ⭐️⭐️⭐️

The Conjuring:  Last Rites ⭐️⭐️

The Fantastic 4:  First Steps ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Freakier Friday ⭐️⭐️1/2

The Roses ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Superman ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Weapons ⭐️⭐️⭐️

New To Digital

Honey Don't! ⭐️⭐️

The Naked Gun ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Strange Harvest ⭐️⭐️

Weapons ⭐️⭐️⭐️

New To Physical

Ballerina ⭐️⭐️1/2

Bride Hard ⭐️

Clown in a Cornfield ⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2

Elio ⭐️⭐️1/2

Jurassic World:  Rebirth ⭐️1/2

Materialists ⭐️⭐️⭐️

The Ritual ⭐️1/2

Coming Soon!

Cinema Playground Journal 2025: Week 36 (My Cinema Playground)

Multiplex Madness

The Conjuring:  Last Rites

⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Horror

Director:  Michael Chavez

Starring:  Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga, Mia Tomlinson, Ben Hardy

Our favorite spook chasers who don't wear Proton Packs are back, except this time it's canonically the mid-80s so they can finally make Ghostbusters references too (and you better believe that they make Ghostbusters references).  Ed and Lorraine Warren are in retirement in 1986, only to be forced back into the game when a super evil mirror makes a house haunted with smiling ghosts, which is also connected to a case from the Warrens' past that coincided with the birth of their daughter.  More Warrens in a haunted house, testing the limits of the spirits and dealing with their own personal drama.  It's a return to the formula of the first two films for those who thought the third was too outside the box.  It's a more melodramatic presentation of said formula, but it's trying to be scary movie comfort food as opposed to a shock to the senses.

Most of the film's weaknesses stem from director Michael Chavez, who has never been as effective a director as series originator James Wan and it's slightly embarrassing that the producers push him as hard as they do.  I'm not sure what it was about The Curse of La Llorona that made them go "Yes, this is the guy" or if it's a budget thing and they keep hiring him because he's cheap, but Chavez is taking the franchise that housed talents like Wan, David Sandberg, and Gary Dauberman and making it stale.  Chavez is not an incapable director, but he doesn't elevate a screenplay like Wan (The Conjuring 2 would have been much worse in the hands of a less stylized director).  He's going to succumb to the drawbacks of a script because he just doesn't have a lot to offer in return.  That's not to say he's incapable of putting together an unnerving scene.  He has a few in the tank.  Chavez likes to use sequences that predominately involve hands as a focal point, for some reason.  What he does with them is not exactly scary but he likes to visualize them in interesting ways.  There is also a sequence in a mirrored room that is quite striking.

The horror is countered by the family drama centering on the aging Warrens, as the movie is primarily about them accepting that their baby girl is a grown woman now.  Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are just as charismatic as they've always been, giving the franchise a beating heart under all the terror.  The balance between the drama and the suspense is more off-kilter than it has ever been in this series, as the haunting story feels more like an afterthought at times.  The Warrens don't even interact with it until the third act, making the film feel like a drama and a horror movie warring with each other for audience attention.  It's this indecisiveness over what story the movie is committing to that exhausts it.  It's easily the weakest of the Conjuring movies, but it's also surprisingly difficult to dislike.  It's also better than two of the five Ghostbusters movies, so the Warrens can take comfort in that.

Lurker

⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Drama, Thriller

Director:  Alex Russell

Starring:  Théodore Pellerin, Archie Madekwe, Zack Fox, Havana Rose Liu, Wale Onayemi, Daniel Zolghadri, Sunny Suljic

A rising music star accepts some rando into his inner circle to help with filming his videos and documentation, not realizing that the fucking weirdo is completely obsessed with him.  Sounds like the traditional "public figure meets psychotic fan" narrative that has been done many times.  Most of those movies are done more for pop entertainment, while Lurker is hoping to be more artistic and psychological.  I'm not convinced it succeeded.  The internal conflict I have with this movie is that I get what it's going for and technically it's as well-made as it could possibly be but it feels like a portrayal of an idea that it doesn't fully understand.  It's not psychologically satisfying because everyone comes off one-dimensional and events play out too forced.  To be fair, the movie does try to keep its obsessive main character enigmatic, which is tricky to do.  The problem is that I can't get invested in a psychological presentation if the movie isn't interested in giving me a picture of psychology.  It's just a creepy guy doing creepy things.  Does he know he's creepy?  Probably not.  Nobody else seems to care that he's creepy though.  At least, not for a good long while.  The movie is at its most interesting in the third act, when the character has an aura of tension around him that other characters just stop cold the moment he enters a scene.  I would have enjoyed this more if the movie had a more satisfying endgame to any of this, offering up an unconventional ending that is supposed to be a curveball.  It just makes the entire film feel like suffering for nothing, though.

The more I reflect on this movie, the more I find that it has in common with another "cringe thriller" from earlier this year called Friendship.  That movie also centered on a desperate outsider that found himself in a friend group that he idealized and became more psychotic once he was denied it.  Friendship at the very least kept its viewers in on the headspace of its main character, causing one to understand him even if they couldn't sympathize with him.  The main character of Lurker is such a distant enigma that it's hard to do the same with him.  We spend a lot of time with him but we never actually know him.  The film's character development is limited to his longing glances at the object of his desire, making it clear that the movie wants to be a thriller spin on a twisted homoerotic romance.  But he's an empty character that just does things for attention.  There is no nuance to his psychological state that makes the film a worthwhile commentary.  Without that commentary, it feels like it's goal is demonizing the socially awkward in a package that can also be interpreted as homophobic.  That just feels gross.

Splitsville

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Comedy

Director:  Michael Angelo Covino

Starring:  Dakota Johnson, Adria Arjona, Kyle Marvin, Michael Angelo Covino, Nicholas Braun, David Castañeda, O-T Fagbenli, Charlie Gillespi, Simon Webster

Age-old adages say lots of things like "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" or "absence makes the heart grow fonder," both of which seem to make up the premise of Splitsville, a crazed comedy about our contradictory longing for freedom fighting our own longing for companionship.  This knockout effort sees Kyle Marvin reacting to wife Adria Arjona's request for a divorce by bolting to Michael Angelo Covino's house for comfort, where Angelo Covino confesses that he is in an "open relationship" with wife Dakota Johnson.  Marvin winds up having sex with Johnson, which Angelo Covino reacts negatively to and spirals into a depression as a result.  Marvin then tries to save his marriage by proposing openness to Arjona, which she gleefully takes advantage of while Marvin begins to realize that he might actually be in love with Johnson.  The premise is a trainwreck in the best possible sense, as it keeps the viewer on their toes as to see just how messed up this scenario is going to get.  To top things off, this movie has some of the best comic staging I've seen in a very long time.  Comedies aren't known for their cinematography, editing, or choreography but when you have lengthy bouts of slapstick sequences, the correct framing, pacing, and stunts can make or break it.  Splitsville painstakingly makes sure to get it right, allowing its kinetic branches of chaos to glide with ease.  This movie doesn't fully rely on slapstick either, switching back and forth between that style and screwball comedy when it decides to be more characterized.  The male leads shine with the former and the ladies with the latter.  If I were to judge a little harshly, I'd say Johnson and Arjona are given roles with greater personality than their co-stars, and Marvin, in particular, is too much of a passive protagonist that things just happen to.  Other than that, the balance is splendidly done.  So much so that I could easily picture a version of this movie that would have been made in the 1940's, albeit with some of the more promiscuous details danced around.  It's a movie that takes classical beats of farce that never get old and freshens them up and gives them a new spin.  I, for one, absolutely loved the ride.

The Threesome

⭐️⭐️1/2

Genre:  Comedy, Romance

Director:  Chad Hardigan

Starring:  Zoey Deutch, Jonah Hauer-King, Ruby Cruz, Jabouki Young-White, Josh Segarra, Robert Longstreet, Arden Myrin, Kristen Slaysman, Allan McLeod, Julia Sweeney

Obviously, we needed more than one edgy romcom about non-monogamy gone south this week, so here is The Threesome to provide us with more intercourse shenanigans.  Jonah Hauer-King crushes hard on Zoey Deutch, who chooses not to acknowledge his sad puppy dog eyes.  But the minute he begins chatting it up with random stranger Ruby Cruz, Deutch's jealous bug takes over and she takes control of the situation by highjacking their night which ultimately culminates with a ménage à trois between the trio.  Deutch and Hauer-King try to have a budding romance in the aftermath, when Deutch suddenly discovers that she is pregnant.  Things get more complicated when Cruz also reveals that she is pregnant.  Every man's wildest dream turns into every man's worst nightmare pretty fast.

The film isn't particularly well-made.  The direction is messy and the film's music cues are strange, both of which feel like they're undercutting the film's humor throughout the picture.  The fact that the film is still capably funny at times has a lot to do with its chosen leads who give grace to a less-than-stellar production.  The movie sounds wacky but it's less wacky than you'd expect.  It's actually quite earnest.  The movie's sense of humor derives from awkwardness without deriving from cringe.  It's almost as if it's trying to be sweet despite its smutty premise.  It doesn't entirely succeed but it's cute that it tried.  I mean, a movie with the jokey line of "I want to have this abortion with you" can only be so earnest without breaking character.  The movie doesn't have a lot of logic to it, though it does counter it with some strengths on its own terms.  There is actually an interesting theme of romantic idealism and reality failing to live up to it.  I didn't expect that from a movie about "Bro, two chicks at once?  Niiiiiiice."

The movie would be more interesting if there were a stronger conflict at its core.  This romcom premise is aching for a love triangle angle but it surprisingly shoots that down pretty early on.  Since they don't aim for that, it's a pretty basic romance with an awkward third wheel that the movie has little use for.  Ruby Cruz's character doesn't do a whole lot in this movie.  She's mostly an excuse to get the other people around her to argue about her.  By comparison, Zoey Deutch overwhelms the movie's main story by talking swiftly in mostly double entandre and dirty talk.  Most of the comedy comes from her, and I'm assuming this was likely because the movie was sold as a vehicle for Deutch (she has a producing credit on the movie).  If it is, it's strange that it's focusing on one actress in particular for this particular movie when a rich ensemble of the three leads with three juicy roles would have made this premise so much more enticing.  Cruz does well with what she has, though.  And she is also the second actress from the movie Bottoms that I've seen in a movie this week (following Havana Rose Liu in Lurker), in almost a spiritual successor to last week's unofficial Doctor Who theme.  Though if one wants to continue on from that trend, the central male character is played by Jonah Hauer-King, who played Ruby Sunday's douchy boyfriend in the latest season of the long-running sci-fi/fantasy series.

I expect most of these flaws won't matter to its target audience, who will likely eat up the taboo premise and enjoy the awkward tension.  Being a flawed product never seems to hurt romcoms much.  Just ask Anyone but You.  The Threesome is a more enjoyable and funnier movie than Anyone but You, so for that audience I can safely say it's worth a gander.  It could be sexier, it could be more romantic, it could be funnier, it could be more of all of those things you're going to ask of it, but it does hand out a product that sells exactly what the title suggests.

Tinā

⭐️⭐️

Genre:  Drama

Director:  Miki Magasiva

Starring:  Anapela Polataivao, Antonia Robinson, Beulah Koale, Nicole Whippy, Dalip Sondhi, Jamie Irving, Alison Bruce

Well-meaning, if generic, inspirational drama sees a grieving mother take on a job as a substitute teacher at a prep school, eventually leading the school choir.  Teacher and student bonding, life lessons, reignited will, laughter, tears, and all that jazz.  Movies like this could be better but you could also do a lot worse.  It's the type of movie made by someone who thinks cinema peaked with Dead Poets Society and thinks more movies should be Dead Poets Society so they decided to do their part in making a less interesting Dead Poets Society.  The secret to a movie like this always lies in who they cast in the inspirational teacher role, and one of the reasons Dead Poets Society is so fondly remembered is because it was an early showcase for the incredibly talented Robin Williams.  Tinā has Anapela Polataivao, who is charming enough without actually being a powerhouse presence.  Sometimes her role feels undercut by a questionable moment or two.  There is one particular moment where the movie comedically has her making an idle threat of "I'm gonna kill you" hypebole toward her students, which feels like an awful attempt at endearment humor to me.  As such, little imperfections about the movie make it weaker than it would be otherwise.  The moment where Polataivao is crying over the corpse of her dead daughter is obviously meant to be powerful but it loses impact based on the fact that the deceased supposedly died in an earthquake but is in a flawless state.  No bruises, no dirt, not even messed up hair.  The movie exists in that realm where it's trying to be so hard to be a relatable life story but it's presented in a package that looks fake.  This is not even bringing up screenplay issues, that compound as it goes along.  When it hits the home stretch, there is almost too much happening.  Important events happen in the blink of an eye with lackluster context, then it just pushes forward not noticing that its plot has broken down on the side of the road and needs a tow truck.

Apparently, this movie was quite the smash hit in its native country of New Zealand, where it became one of the highest grossing domestic films at its own domestic box office.  I'd like to think that a lot of my critiques boil down to cultural barrier but most of the issues I have are from the production itself.  I'm happy that it at least found an audience, though.

Twinless

⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2

Genre:  Comedy, Drama

Director:  James Sweeney

Starring:  Dylan O'Brien, James Sweeney, Aisling Franciosi, Lauren Graham

Dylan O'Brien's twin brother suddenly dies and he seeks out a support group for born twins with deceased siblings for comfort.  That's where he meets James Sweeney, and the two strike an unlikely bond of near brotherhood.  That's where the movie starts.  Where the movie goes is a different story.  What starts out as a contemplative dramedy switches gears early on, enveloping the viewer in a twisted and complicated narrative.  It's not often movies like this leave me guessing where they're going but Twinless is a surprising exception.  The film is at the very least consistent about what its theme is, always centering on loneliness and the longing for companionship.  O'Brien's character is a flawed character, who deals with his demons through pent up anger and violent tendencies which rear their heads at random points in the film and threaten to derail the few healthy relationships he builds in this movie.  Sweeney's character is arguably in a less healthy mental state, giving more context for what he's going through as the film goes.  Unfortunately, the positive relationship he builds with O'Brien is also the least healthy thing in the movie for him.  He brings so many positive things to O'Brien's life, but they're under his own cloud and he's doing them for reasons that are psychologically maddening.  Unlike a film reviewed above, Lurker, Sweeney's character is actually fleshed out and we understand all of his worst decisions.  We feel bad for him but we also want to take him aside and tell him that he crossed a line long ago and if he continues down it, everything is going to hurt much worse in the end.  It's a funny movie and a sad movie, brought to life by a pair of excellent performances.  The film is a yearning for unconditional love that only a family can provide even when we're in our most fucked up mental state.

Movies Still Playing At My Theater

The Bad Guys 2 ⭐️⭐️1/2

Caught Stealing ⭐️⭐️⭐️

F1 ⭐️⭐️

The Fantastic 4:  First Steps ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Freakier Friday ⭐️⭐️1/2

Jaws ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

The Roses ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Superman ⭐️⭐️⭐️

The Toxic Avenger ⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2

Weapons ⭐️⭐️⭐️

New To Digital

Nobody 2 ⭐️⭐️⭐️

She Rides Shotgun ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Coming Soon!