Change Your Image
MrDHWong
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Moana 2 (2024)
A subpar follow-up that delivers visually but not narratively
Just saw "Moana 2", the sequel to the 2016 Disney animated film "Moana". Once again featuring the voices of Auli'i Cravalho and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, it is a subpar follow-up that delivers visually but not narratively.
Three years after the events of the first film, Moana (voiced by Auli'i Cravalho) happily spends her time visiting neighbouring islands hoping to find others who share her ability to connect to the ocean, but to no avail. One day, Moana receives an unexpected vision from her ancestors where she learns that the reason no one connects to the ocean anymore is due to the storm God Nalo sinking the island Motufetu responsible for linking all of the islands together. In an effort to reconnect the ocean with mortal beings, Moana assembles a crew of her people to assist her on a journey to locate and raise the sunken Motufetu to the surface. Meanwhile, the demigod Maui (voiced by Dwayne Johnson) is on his own separate mission to find Motufetu because of his personal history with Nalo, but soon ends up captured and held prisoner deep inside Nalo's underwater lair.
Joining Disney's official line of Princesses back in 2016 was the strong-willed Polynesian Moana of Motunui. Brought to life by the refreshing vocals of then-newcomer Auli'i Cravalho, Moana's heroism and relatability has since seen her worthily earn a coveted place among the iconic canon of Disney Princesses. However, Moana's adventure towards greatness could not have been accomplished without the help of Maui, the tattooed demigod whose shapeshifting abilities complimented the titular hero's journey on both the humorous and informative front. The enjoyable pairing up of these two allowed things to conclude on a satisfying note, but since Disney values dollar signs over leaving well enough alone, a sequel was naturally green-lit to continue the story whether audiences wanted it to or not. Now in "Moana 2", we are treated to a nicely animated yet rather uninspired follow-up that does little to stir up the same level of excitement as the original.
The film's biggest problem, in my eyes, is that it never fully invests the audience in its surprisingly flat story. As three years have since past, we see that Moana has now embraced her title as chiefess, exploring different islands, albeit, without Maui's help. She has grown since her last adventure, but never so much that she forgets how to be compassionate towards all living things. Soon enough, Moana learns that her island home is in danger of becoming fully isolated from all the others unless the missing link island Motufetu is brought back to the surface. For no other reason than to set the plot in motion, Moana goes off on yet another journey to save her people from disappearing forever, at least that's what I assume the story was about. Unlike the first film, which was able to captivate the viewer with an intriguing look at Polynesian culture, this one's contrived plot device of a sunken island feels more like an afterthought as opposed to a legitimate way to invoke a sense of adventure. Because of this, most of the magic has been lost in the creative process.
Additionally, with the introduction of a new batch of characters, the film doesn't properly develop them beyond either convenient helpers or a cheap punchline. For instance, one of Moana's crew members Moni (voiced by Hualalai Chung) is shown to be a devoted fan of Maui, constantly gushing over how amazing and powerful he is. Most of the time, Moni's sole purpose is simply to remark how much he wishes Maui was part of the crew, usually resulting in repetitive visual gags that only hamper the flow of the story. Similarly, another crew member Keke (voiced by David Fane) is a grumpy farmer who frequently bickers and complains about everything that happens on their trip. What could have been someone amusing that reluctant older audiences can relate to is instead a bland, one-joke character who failed to raise even the slightest smile out of me. As much as I tried, I just could not find any interesting supporting characters that are able stand out significantly alongside Moana herself, leaving her as the only person in the entire movie with anything worth watching.
Worse still, the dynamic between the title character and the loveable demigod Maui is decidedly lacking. This can be chalked up to the fact that the two hardly interact with each other until about halfway through the movie. One of my favourite things about the original film was watching Moana and Maui learn to work together as a team. Their relationship was hostile at first, but over the course of the story it blossomed into a genuine friendship between these two unlikely heroes. For some reason, the writers of this film have decided to split them up since the events of last time, with Maui off doing his own thing completely independent from Moana. Most of the time, Maui is reduced to being an obligatory prisoner character with little else to do but make weak jokes that often miss the mark. When the time comes for him to be rescued by Moana, his shapeshifting powers frequently malfunction, rendering him fairly useless until the climax of the film.
Fortunately, not everything in this movie is a complete failure. Like with the original, the visuals and animation are quite impressive at most times. I actually really liked this one shot near the beginning of Moana looking out over the ocean and using her hand to help navigate the position of the stars. This can be interpreted as showing how much Moana has grown in terms of intellect, utilising her attuned nautical knowledge to size up a situation wherever necessary. Also, even though they aren't as memorable as before, the musical numbers help move the film along at a reasonable pace to prevent too much drag. It's just a shame that there aren't any major songs that leave a lasting impression, except for maybe "Beyond", which stands out primarily due to Auli'i Cravalho's passionate vocals rather than the content of the lyrics themselves.
If I had to single out just one consistently great thing in both the original film and this sequel, it would be Auli'i Cravalho's voice performance in the lead role. Though not much has changed from last time, there's just something instantly watchable about the way Cravalho brings to life Disney's first Polynesian princess, embodying all of her courageousness and humility to a tee. It's actually refreshing to see a female lead in a Disney film who isn't afraid to work in harmony with others as opposed to wanting to do everything all by herself to prove that she doesn't need any outside help. Even during the film's weakest moments, it's near impossible not to care about what will happen to Moana due to the sheer amount of personality Cravalho is able to draw out from the character, something highly important when portraying a member of Disney royalty.
However, the same cannot be said for Dwayne Johnson as Maui, who isn't used as well in this outing as he was previously. While Johnson does his best to contribute some comic relief, it just feels like the writers didn't know what to do with his character this time around to make him seem any different from how he was in the original. The only thing that comes to mind is the reason why he wants to raise the sunken island all by himself without Moana's help, and that is because he wants to shield her from danger. Apart from that, if it weren't for the fact that he was so prominent in the first film, it's quite easy to forget his presence in this follow-up.
Though not without its fleeting moments of fun, "Moana 2" ultimately proves to be an unnecessary sequel that adds barely anything notable to the expansive lore laid out in its predecessor. Unless you're a hardcore fan of the original film, there isn't any real reason to go out and watch it on the big screen, though it may be worth checking out on Disney+ if you are curious enough. Up next for the series is a live-action remake of the first film, and judging by the quality of Disney's recent efforts, it's probably nothing to get excited about. With that in mind, it's not like Disney has many new things to offer us anyway, so you can either take these films for what they are or leave them. Personally, I think we should leave them.
I rate it 6/10.
Wicked: Part I (2024)
Asolid character study of two very different witches and the origins of their unlikely friendship
"Wicked: Part I" is a fantasy musical film based on the 2003 stage musical and 1995 novel of the same name by Gregory Maguire, which themselves are both based around L. Frank Baum's novel "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". Directed by Jon M. Chu ("Now You See Me 2", "Crazy Rich Asians") and starring Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande, Michelle Yeoh, and Jeff Goldblum, it is a solid character study of two very different witches and the origins of their unlikely friendship.
Years before the events of "The Wizard of Oz", the shy, reserved Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo) and the pampered, perky Galinda Upland (Ariana Grande) both arrive at Shiz University to study magic. Because of her prominent green skin, Elphaba is quickly judged and ridiculed by others whereas Galinda's bubbly personality gains her many friends among the students. After demonstrating a fraction of her power in front of the whole university, Elphaba attracts the attention of Headmistress Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), who decides to tutor her in private, much to the chagrin of Galinda. Eventually, Elphaba and Galinda are forcibly assigned together as roommates where their conflicting views often put them at odds with each other, leading to many fights and disagreements. Over time, the pair find themselves growing closer as friends after learning more about each other's personal lives, as well as delving deep into some dark, sinister secrets in relation to the history of the Land of Oz.
Few modern fairy tales have captured our imaginations the way L. Frank Baum's "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" continues to do so up to this very day. Thanks to the classic 1939 film, Baum's Land of Oz lives on in the hearts and minds of several people the world over, even more than a century after the original novel was published. In the wake of the story's long-lasting popularity, various spin-offs and prequels in the form of books, comics, films, TV series, and stage productions have emerged to help keep it relevant within western pop culture, but hardly any have achieved the level of success like the 2003 Broadway musical "Wicked". After years of development, in 2024 we now have the first part of two film adaptations of this highly successful musical, which manages to translate surprisingly efficiently onto the big screen.
Serving as a prequel to the 1939 film, this story shows the audience the origins of its two distinguished witch characters; The Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good Witch. As the film begins, we see a mighty cheer go up among the citizens of Oz as they all celebrate the death of the Wicked Witch at the hands of Dorothy Gale. Amidst a town of celebrating Munchkins, Glinda suddenly appears in her bubble to check in on their festivities, where one of the young inhabitants inquires as to whether or not the two witches have ever crossed paths with each other. With a subtle hint of sadness, Glinda begins to tell the Munchkins about how she not only knew the Wicked Witch personally, but that she was actually once her closest friend when no one else wanted to be.
At this point, the film then flashes back several years earlier where we see the birth of Elphaba, whose green skin horrifies both her parents and everyone around them. As she grows older, Elphaba is subjected to numerous cruel reactions regarding her appearance, so much so that she even has a mentally scripted response ready for anybody polite enough to listen. In spite of her hardships, Elphaba still tries to be a good person, learning how to master magic and using it as a way to help others. This is later shown to us when we see Elphaba protect her wheelchair-bound younger sister Nessarose (Marissa Bode) from bullies using her developing magical powers.
On the other hand, the upbringing of Glinda, then known as "Galinda", was one of happiness and luxury. Her exuberant family life among the wealthy elite has turned her into something of a snob, viewing herself as of a higher social status than most others in the Land of Oz. All of this changes on her first day at Shiz University, where she becomes acquainted with Elphaba, whose unusual physical features causes her to stand out even more so than Galinda's predominantly pink fashion sense. This is where the film begins to examine the complex relationship between the two characters, exploring the vast differences in their demeanours and how they eventually find common ground. Being a musical, these moments are of course accomplished through some creative song and dance routines.
Having never watched the original musical live on stage, I am unable to properly compare this film to its source material, but from what I can gather it appears to be a faithful retelling of the story, albeit, in cinematic form. As such, I treated this film as I would any other musical, to which I can say it is very effective in the way it incorporates its music numbers into the plot. For instance, when Galinda and Elphaba are seen disagreeing with each other, the song "What Is This Feeling?" is used to showcase their contrasting personalities, whereas "Dancing Through Life" demonstrates how much the two have grown since their initial hostilities and have now become close friends. All of these moments feature catchy audio hooks and well-choreographed dance sequences which help the film stand out from other musicals while at the same time giving the impression it belongs to the same universe as "The Wizard of Oz".
In terms of visuals, the film looks vibrant and colourful, making it hard to look away during certain establishing shots. From the distinct pink of Galinda's wardrobe to the light-green interiors of the Emerald City, the film uses its colour palette quite efficiently. Not only that, but the overall production design is handled nicely too, with some interesting props for the cast of singers and actors to interact with during the musical numbers. However, there were a handful of scenes where it felt quite obvious that the actors were working in front of a green screen under the impression that the background will be made to look beautiful in post production. Though these moments weren't too common, they did stand out during times where I wanted to feel fully immersed in this fantastical world of Oz, which is something pretty important for a film like this.
Since this is a two woman show, it feels necessary to praise both Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande at the same time. Each of these two actresses compliment the other perfectly with their conflicting dynamic being the main dramatic force that drives the plot forward. I actually found myself heavily invested in watching how Erivo's Elphaba grows increasingly darker over the course of the story whereas Grande's Galinda becomes less snooty and more humble as she learns the importance of true friendship. As an added bonus, both actresses did all of their own singing, which adds a sense of realism to their performances on screen. Of course, Erivo and Grande are no strangers to singing on stage as they have each performed in various other Broadway shows in the past. The only other two cast members worth mentioning are Michelle Yeoh as Madame Morrible and Jeff Goldblum as the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, but as much as I would like to go into greater detail regarding their characters, I am unable to do so due to either spoilers or information that will likely be addressed in the film's second part.
For fans of both musicals and the "Wizard of Oz" series, the first film adaptation of "Wicked" succeeds not only at bringing the popular Broadway show to the big screen but also at adding some interesting backstory and lore to keep novices entertained for most of its 160 minute runtime. Granted, it is clear that the scope of the entire story is far too grandiose for just one film, which is why Part Two should hopefully cover everything else that wasn't properly examined here. Regardless, this first part of the story does a fine job setting the stage for things to come and leaves you with just enough to keep you satisfied before the follow-up eventually arrives. With that said, I can only hope its successor will conclude things on an equally enjoyable note, because I'll be waiting patiently until then.
I rate it 8/10.
Gladiator II (2024)
A worthwhile belated sequel that recaptures most of the exciting spectacle of the original
"Gladiator II" is the sequel to the 2000 epic action film "Gladiator". Once again directed by Ridley Scott ("Alien", "Blade Runner", "Black Hawk Down") and starring Paul Mescal, Pedro Pascal, Denzel Washington, and Connie Nielsen, it is a worthwhile belated sequel that recaptures most of the exciting spectacle of the original.
Over twenty years after the events of the first film, Rome has since fallen under the tyrannical rule of twin emperors Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) and Geta (Joseph Quinn). At the orders of these young emperors, the Roman army led by General Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) conquers the coastal town of Numidia where local resident Lucius Verus (Paul Mescal) is captured and forced into slavery. Seeking revenge against Acacius, Lucius is trained as a gladiator by former slave Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who has his own plans to seize control of Rome. As he fights battle after battle in the Colosseum, Lucius becomes greatly popular among the viewing public, eventually gaining notice of both the emperors and his estranged biological mother Lucilla (Connie Nielsen).
Along with the 1959 classic "Ben-Hur", one of the most popular and celebrated films set in Ancient Rome would have to be "Gladiator". This timeless tale of a hero's journey of revenge against the villain who wronged him still holds up remarkably well after all these years and has remained a staple of pop culture thanks in part to Russell Crowe's character Maximus's iconic line "Are you not entertained?!". In the almost quarter of a century since its release, the film continues to be the standard to which most epic stadium combat movies are measured against, with many modern cinematic arena battles falling short of equalling its level of high scale entertainment value. Although I'm sure most would agree that things wrapped things up neatly enough to not necessitate a sequel, the 2024 follow-up "Gladiator II" nonetheless continues the story decades later, and for the most part it actually ends up working in its favour.
Picking up two decades after the original, we see that the Roman Empire is still at the height of its power, albeit, under new rulership. With the Empire's desire for expansion, the small African province of Numidia captures the attention of its two corrupt emperors Caracalla and Geta, leading to them to carry out a full scale invasion. As the population of Numidia endures an onslaught of arrows and flaming projectiles, we are introduced to our hero Lucius, a family man who is forced to fight back against the Empire's hostile advances. Though he holds himself well against enemy forces, Lucius is eventually captured by the Empire's distinguished General Acacius and is quickly sold into slavery.
At this point in the story, we learn that Lucius is in fact the son of Maximus, Russell Crowe's character from the original film. Like his father, Lucius demonstrates major proficiency in gladiatorial combat, taking down foes almost twice his size in battle. Naturally, this type of skill set doesn't go unnoticed, as it attracts the attention of Macrinus, who agrees to train and promote Lucius as a gladiator in exchange for assisting him in taking over the Roman Empire. This is where the film starts to go down a similar path to its predecessor, in that it follows the protagonist's journey towards enacting revenge on the ones who took everything from him. In most cases, this retreading of familiar story territory would be detrimental to the entire viewing experience, but nearly all of the film's other creative attributes are able to make up for this.
If there's one thing you can never really fault Ridley Scott for, it's his eye for visuals and immersion on a grandiose scale. A fine example of this is in the original film with the way it perfectly captured the atmosphere of Ancient Rome, making you feel as though you have been transported back in time and are watching events unfold through the eyes of a Roman citizen. Thankfully, Scott is able to replicate this in the sequel, with even more interesting locations than before. For instance, we see the large sweeping oceans littered with Roman ships dwarf the small coastline of Numidia, signifying how outnumbered they are against the advancing global threat. In addition to this, the Colosseum is featured even more extensively than before, with the iconic Roman landmark flooded with water filled with sharks to reenact the naval battle of Salamis right in front of an adoring crowd. Though some fantastical liberties have clearly been taken here, it's hard not to feel whisked away to a different time during scenes like these, and the film has plenty of them to keep the modern movie going crowd just as entertained as the Ancient Romans.
Another thing that the film excels at is with its exciting gladiator combat scenes. Though it should go without saying that a film about gladiators should definitely have its fair share of intense arena battles, I was pleasantly surprised at how visceral and raw everything felt at all times. In one scene, we see Lucius do battle with a large group of rabid monkeys whose vicious natures cause them to ruthlessly maul the other combatants to death right in front of him. As he tries to fight them off one by one, Lucius realises he has to think of how to use his surroundings to his advantage if he is to gain the upper hand against this simian threat. Without spoiling the outcome, it was satisfying to see what Lucius was able to come up with on the spot. The film's quick, fast-paced editing and sudden bursts of brutal violence always kept me on edge as to how each fight was going to turn out, even if it's quite obvious who the winner will be.
As the main protagonist, Paul Mescal has decent enough screen presence as Lucius to hold one's attention, but he doesn't quite have as much appeal to me as Russell Crowe did in the original. That's not to say I think he's bad, in fact, I actually found myself cheering for him quite often during the aforementioned scenes of combat, it's just that Crowe is such a hard act to follow that it's a bit difficult for me to accept anyone else in the lead role. I suppose it could be Mescal's youth that stands out to me the most in comparison to Crowe (Mescal is in his late 20s here whereas Crowe was in his late 30s in the original), which makes it harder for me to believe someone this young could have accumulated so much gladiatorial experience in such a short amount of time. With that said, Mescal definitely holds his own wielding weapons in the arena against any and all opposition.
Worth mentioning as well is Pedro Pascal as Marcus Acacius, the tough but fair Roman General working under strict orders by his superiors. Without revealing too much about his significance in the story, I did like the connection Acacius had with Lucius, which made him a formidable enemy for the latter to work towards defeating on the field of battle. My one complaint is that the two don't really interact enough throughout the story to give off the impression that any noticeable progress was being made leading up to their inevitable showdown. Despite this, an actor like Pascal fits the mould of a Roman General quite comfortably, and his scenes where he is giving orders to his army are quite intense at times.
Of course, the actor who stood out the most for me was Denzel Washington as Macrinus, an ambitious former slave who has worked his way up from the bottom to become something of an entrepreneur in the world of gladiatorial combat and arms dealing. Macrinus is the type of man who can lure you in with his charismatic nature, only to betray you at the most inopportune time. Watching as Macrinus toys with other characters' emotions, sometimes for his own sick amusement, often had me wondering where his true allegiance lies, which makes him one of the most dangerous people in this whole story. Naturally, Washington does a fantastic job in the role since he is one of those actors who always gives 100% in every one of his performances.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the characterisation of the film's two villainous emperors Geta and Caracalla. Though they served their rightful purpose as the obligatory antagonistic politicians, I found their demeanours far too cartoonish for my liking. One of my favourite things about the original film was watching how the villain Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) became increasingly cruel over the course of the story, which was in line with how certain Roman Emperors acted during this era. Here, Geta and Caracalla seemed more like something you'd see in a Saturday morning cartoon, laughing comically and keeping small trained monkeys as pets on their shoulders. No matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't take these characters seriously.
Although the original was always going to be hard to top, "Gladiator II" is still well worth the time of anyone who enjoyed the epic scale and action-packed intensity of its predecessor. There are plenty of creative wonders that can help you overlook certain narrative inconsistencies, especially when you find yourself too distracted by the nicely shot action scenes to care all that much in the long run. Reportedly, there is in fact a third "Gladiator" film in development at the time of writing this, which has me concerned that this will become yet another franchise being milked for all it is worth. At this point in time, it's hard to tell which direction things will go, but so long as Ridley Scott can deliver more action and more spectacle, we are sure to be entertained.
I rate it 8/10.
The Substance (2024)
A superbly dark satire on society's view of beauty standards and the endless desire for outward perfection
"The Substance" is a body horror film written and directed by Coralie Fargeat. Starring Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley, it is a superbly dark satire on society's view of beauty standards and the endless desire for outward perfection.
In Los Angeles, the once famous but now washed-up actress Elisabeth Sparkle (Demi Moore) is informed on her 50th birthday that her long-running aerobics TV show has been cancelled due to her advancing age. Devastated, Elisabeth finds great difficulty in processing this bleak news, causing her to become involved in a serious car accident while driving home. As Elisabeth recuperates in hospital, a young male nurse bequeaths with her a small USB flash drive with the words "The Substance" written on top. Later, Elisabeth plugs the flash drive into her computer where she finds it contains an advertisement for a black market serum promising a more beautiful and perfect version of the user. After some initial reluctance, Elisabeth decides to take The Substance which causes a much younger and prettier version of herself to emerge from a hole in her back. The younger self calls herself "Sue" (Margaret Qualley) and is immediately hired to replace Elisabeth in a new aerobics programme tailored specifically to modern viewers. However, the rules of The Substance explicitly state that Elisabeth must transfer her consciousness between herself and Sue every seven days without exception, otherwise dangerous side effects will occur for both bodies.
It is an unfortunate certainty in our professional lives that the older we get, the greater the risk we run of being discarded in favour of younger, more attractive alternatives. This applies to few other professions more than in the world of Hollywood, where one's age and physical appearance is usually the deciding factor as to whether or not somebody soars to stardom or sinks without a trace. Regardless, no matter how much effort someone puts into preserving their youth and vigour, the cruel ravages of time will always catch up at some point to claim yet another unfortunate victim. In the 2024 film "The Substance", we are shown a brutal and often scathing social commentary on the way the general public continues to value superficiality over intellectualism, especially within the cutthroat entertainment industry.
As the film begins, we see the installation of Elisabeth Sparkle's star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame from a top-down perspective. Though her place in Hollywood history is initially met with rave responses, as time marches on, it becomes clear that Elisabeth's star presence is fading away both literally and figuratively. Despite her best days in the spotlight being well and truly behind her, Elisabeth at least has her aerobics programme to keep her somewhat relevant in the public eye, that is, until she is suddenly fired because of her old age. To rub salt in the wound, this redundancy occurs on Elisabeth's 50th birthday, which leaves her with little to no options for her future prospects.
Soon enough, Elisabeth learns of "The Substance", a mysterious illegal drug that can allegedly create a better, younger version of herself. Desperate and against her better judgement, Elisabeth decides to take The Substance and build a new life for herself inside the body of the young and beautiful "Sue", whose alluring good looks and moxie are everything that she no longer once had at her disposal. As to be expected, Sue's popularity skyrockets, leading to many new opportunities to do things she could not while as Elisabeth, but all of this immediate success naturally comes at a deadly price. Although it's quite obvious that things will eventually go horribly wrong for both Elisabeth and Sue, part of what makes the film so great to watch is anticipating exactly how bad events are going to play out.
Since there is a strict rule regarding Elisabeth and Sue only being able to masquerade as each other for just seven days at a time, there are several moments where the film cleverly shows the paradoxical relationship between the two while they are living in their respective bodies. For instance, when Sue is seen taking the world by storm as the new face of aerobics fitness, Elisabeth meanwhile goes about her daily business revelling in her insecurities as an older woman. Here, the film shows extreme close-ups on Elisabeth's worried face to emphasise her prominent wrinkles, which is in stark contrast to Sue's clear skin and radiant smile. On the other hand, we also see how Sue must ration her fun carefully, knowing that if she enjoys herself too much she could lose track of time and suddenly revert back to Elisabeth without realising it. Throughout the film, I couldn't help but feel invested in witnessing the growing animosity between this single consciousness sharing two conflicting personalities, which leads to an explosively entertaining finale.
Perhaps the best way to describe this film's distinct style is to take the visual cues of Stanley Kubrick, add in a nice helping of gory body horror from David Cronenberg, season it with a healthy dosage of surreal imagery from David Lynch and then sprinkle in a dash of John Carpenter's unsettling mood of paranoia. In any other case, this strange amalgamation of directorial styles shouldn't work this harmoniously, but somehow Coralie Fargeat managed to find a way. I was absolutely fascinated watching how Fargeat weaved everything in her film together so creatively without ever giving the impression she's arbitrarily stealing from these filmmakers that she clearly considers her biggest influences. Of course, I would have to say that the film feels most like something Cronenberg would make due to its graphic blood and gore practical effects, which particularly brings to mind his movie "The Fly". With that in mind, if the grisly sight of someone literally forcing their way out of another person's skin like how a butterfly emerges from a cocoon sounds shocking to you, then this film might not be your cup of tea.
For what can be described as possibly her greatest performance, Demi Moore brilliantly embodies the role of Elisabeth, whose yearning to stay relevant in the wake of growing old strikes the perfect balance between sympathetic and sinister. Watching how Elisabeth becomes increasingly obsessed with reliving her glory days as a young, beautiful icon of the screens is quite tragic the more you think about it. Moore's take on the character of Elisabeth allows the audience to understand why it is so important she seeks out this desire to adopt the alter-ego of Sue, who is everything she can no longer be at her current age. Ironically, in an effort to confirm the unfairness in society preferring more youthful, fresh-faced people in the limelight, Elisabeth soon discovers she prefers her own younger counterpart over her old true self.
Working flawlessly in sync with her co-star, Margaret Qualley stands out just as much in the role of Sue, whose peppy, enthusiastic attitude is undeniably infectious to watch. It is clear that Sue thrives on all of the attention she receives from her admirers, whether its the leering eyes of the sleazy male TV executives to the modern young generation who idolise her for having a perfect athletic figure and perpetually positive attitude. I was impressed with how Qualley was able to maintain a certain level of dignity as Sue, not playing her as an air-headed bimbo but instead as a confident young woman with a hidden insecure side that shows through as a result of Elisabeth's longing to reignite her waning popularity. Without giving away spoilers, the film's final act makes great use of both Elisabeth's and Sue's contrasting dynamic, culminating in a rather appropriately poetic climax.
Standing leagues above virtually every other film of its genre, "The Substance" just might be one of the most disturbing yet thought-provoking satires about human vanity to grace movie screens in the longest time. Though its gross-out imagery will likely prove off-putting to many viewers, I encourage those with a strong stomach to stick with it, as you are likely to find plenty to appreciate in the otherwise clever way the film handles its important subject matter. No matter how hard we try, there's no escaping the inevitability of growing old as this is simply a dark byproduct of being human. However, if there's one thing this film can teach us, it's that human egoism can be even darker.
I rate it a solid 9/10.
Saturday Night (2024)
A well-made, fun celebration of an iconic TV series that has rightfully earned its place among American pop culture
"Saturday Night" is a biographical comedy-drama film directed and co-written by Jason Reitman ("Thank You for Smoking", "Juno", "Up in the Air"). Starring an ensemble cast of Gabriel LaBelle, Cory Michael Smith, Matt Wood, J. K. Simmons, and Willem Dafoe, it is a well-made, fun celebration of an iconic TV series that has rightfully earned its place among American pop culture.
On the evening of October 11, 1975, writer and producer Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle) arrives at the NBC building in New York City to oversee the first airing of his brand new TV show "NBC's Saturday Night". Lorne is soon informed by his boss David Tebet (Willem Dafoe) that television executives from all over the country will be present at the studio to view the broadcast, placing an even greater amount of pressure on his reputation within the entertainment industry. To make matters worse for Lorne, several technical accidents are occurring on set and the show's cast of young comedians are finding it difficult to see eye-to-eye with each other. With only a matter of hours until the premiere, Lorne realises he must keep his cool and work harmoniously with everyone involved if he wants his show to be the success he is hoping for.
For almost half a century, NBC's sketch comedy programme "Saturday Night Live" (SNL) has entertained millions of Americans with its vast array of humorous skits, observant political satire, and memorable recurring characters brought to life by its talented cast of comedic actors and writers. Though some would argue that the show has seen better days in its current form, there's no denying the legacy the series has left in its wake, launching the careers of successful comedians like Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Akyroyd, and many others. As the show approaches its 50th year on air, it can be easy to overlook how much work went into bringing it into existence, especially considering how much time has passed since then. Fortunately, the 2024 film "Saturday Night" does a marvellous job at transporting the audience back to this era to experience the behind-the scenes happenings of when television history was made.
Though the film is clearly intended as an ensemble piece, the closest we get to a main protagonist would have to be Lorne Michaels, which makes sense as he is the creator of the show in question. Our story opens on a cold October night outside New York's NBC Studio building, where an intern is seen handing out free tickets to the live taping of their new show, albeit, to little enthusiasm from the general public. As Lorne arrives, he is greeted with numerous difficulties leading up to the premiere, including failing props on set, heated arguments with the cast of relatively unknown comedians, and the skepticism of TV executives who all believe his show will be a catastrophic failure. Despite all of these mounting problems, Lorne tries his hardest to keep everything in order, knowing that if he shows even the slightest indication of uncertainty, further chaos is likely to erupt.
Meanwhile, the rest of the cast and crew have their own sets of complications to deal with leading up to the show's debut. For instance, John Belushi's (Matt Wood) drug-induced diva-like behaviour causes him to pick fights with others, as well as making him constantly forget his lines for the comedy skits written especially for him. Anybody familiar with what ended up happening to Belushi seven years later should no doubt view this as a rather ominous foreshadowing of things to come. What I found interesting here is the way the film takes this opportunity to show how Belushi's talent for improvisation worked to his advantage during his problematic stages. This is seen in the way he trails off the script during what is supposed to be a relatively straightforward parody news segment to deliver a comedic rant that leaves both the crew and audience in stitches. As a result, a moment like this becomes a surprisingly touching tribute to a gifted comedian whose presence on SNL is still dearly missed even to this day.
Similarly, I also liked the way the film depicts the writers contending with several amounting issues that are bound to affect the creative direction the show could be heading. In one scene, an Evangelical Christian worker from the censorship board chastises the show's joke writers for using words such as "horny" and "sexy" in a programme to be broadcast live on television. In an effort to fire back at her prudish claims, Chevy Chase (Cory Michael Smith) and some of the other writers stand up to the censor by pointing out her hypocrisy in allowing violent content while simultaneously complaining about menial things like sexual innuendo. As to be expected, the censor does not take kindly to this and vows to have the show cancelled within a matter of weeks. Of course, seeing as the show is now about to enter its fifth decade on television, it's a safe assumption that she did not succeed.
Since there are so many different intertwining stories happening all at once, it would be extremely difficult for most directors to helm a film like this without things becoming too cluttered or hard to follow. Yet, by some miracle, Jason Reitman has found a way to pull the whole thing off in a concise, fluid manner. He does this by showing everything important that the audience needs to know before immediately moving on to the next scene, never once glancing over anything that could affect the film's overall narrative. This film moves at a brisk pace as a way to encapsulate the race around the clock to get things ready before the show is supposed to go live on TV for the first time. Here, Reitman places his audience at the forefront of the action, allowing them to understand the hectic nature of working behind the scenes of a television show from the perspectives of both the cast members and the crew. At times, I even felt as though I was actually part of the backstage crew observing events transpiring from a safe distance, whether it's from over the shoulder of a stagehand or from the room of the writing staff who hope their jokes will make it to air in time.
Every actor in this film was perfectly cast in their role but to single out each one would take too long so I will only speak at length about the ones who left the biggest impressions on me. Gabriel LaBelle does a fine job as Lorne Michaels, an up-and-coming television producer who has his entire reputation resting on the success of this show. Against all odds, you can't help but cheer for Lorne as he battles his way through every physical fight, set accident, script change, creative disagreement, and a general lack of confidence in his ability to do his job properly. It's not every day you see a film with a TV producer as its main character, and LaBelle helps bring out the humanity in someone who would otherwise be viewed as just another faceless, big shot executive man with no personality.
Likewise, I also enjoyed the way John Belushi is characterised here, brought to life by newcomer Matt Wood. As mentioned above, I appreciate the way the film depicts Belushi in his typical brash manner while at the same time respecting the comedic legacy he has left behind for both himself and Saturday Night Live. Wood is highly convincing at recapturing the crude, slovenly nature of Belushi's comedy stylings, often having you wondering whether or not he is for real or if he is just setting up for a humorous punchline. It's easy to see why Belushi is still held in high regard among SNL fans and this film is sure to help keep his memory alive.
Also worth mentioning is Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, who not only bares a striking physical resemblance to the real man, but is also capable of delivering Chase's signature rapid fire witty remarks in a believable and humorous way. Chase is notorious for being difficult to work with, which would make it near impossible to feel any sympathy towards him in most situations. However, in one scene, we see Smith bring out a more vulnerable side to Chase when he meets with legendary comedian Milton Berle (J. K. Simmons). Without giving away too much, this part of the movie helps the audience see things from Chase's point of view, allowing them to understand a possible reason why he struggles to get along with most other people within the industry.
As a story about a five decade old show that has become a staple of nearly every American home, a film like "Saturday Night" feels like the appropriate way to commemorate its lengthy contributions to pop culture and indeed all of comedy itself. Nowadays, it's easy to dismiss the series as being well past its prime, but its hard not to respect a programme that once stood tall as a juggernaut of comedic Americana. Whether you're a long time fan of the series who has been there since the very beginning or just a curious novice wanting to know more about its origins, this movie is bound to leave you with a better understanding of why the show has remained so relevant for such a long time. Besides, at the end of the day, it's all in the name of entertainment.
I rate it 8.5/10.
Venom: The Last Dance (2024)
Concludes the saga of one of Spider-Man's most notorious foes on an unremarkably dull and forgettable note
"Venom: The Last Dance" is the third and final installment in the "Venom" trilogy and the fifth film in Sony's Spider-Man Universe. Once again starring Tom Hardy in the lead role, it concludes the saga of one of Spider-Man's most notorious foes on an unremarkably dull and forgettable note.
Sometime after the events of "Venom: Let There Be Carnage", both Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and Venom are on the run after they are framed for the murder of Patrick Mulligan (Stephen Graham). With every cop in the vicinity searching for them, the pair decide to head east towards New York City, believing that all of their problems can be sorted out on the opposite side of the country. Unbeknownst to the duo, the evil symbiote creator Knull (Andy Serkis) has sent one of his monsters to Earth to hunt down and kill them, adding further complications to their predicament. As both the human and symbiote fight off their respective adversaries, it quickly becomes clear that Eddie and Venom's time together could very well be reaching its end.
If I had to describe Sony's solo "Venom" movies in just one word, it would be "inconsistent". Granted, I have greatly enjoyed the way Sony nailed the character's physical appearance, voice, and personality traits but they just had to ruin it by placing him in two watered down and tonally inept films that left me begging for a more gory R-rated experience that would have suited him much better. However, compared to Sony's other solo Spider-Man villain movies, these definitely rank among the studio's better offerings, although that certainly isn't saying all that much. As its title implies, "Venom: The Last Dance" is in fact the final Venom solo film in the series and after suffering through what it has to offer, not a moment too soon.
Even from the very start, it's quite obvious that the film is going to offer nothing new in terms of entertainment that we haven't already seen two times previously. The story begins with Eddie Brock sitting in bar in Mexico getting drunk and chatting to the bartender about a large purple alien who was responsible for half of the universe disappearing for five years. We then see that Eddie and Venom still have a rather contentious relationship with each other, of which the film plays mostly for laughs. But soon the pair must set aside their petty differences upon seeing on TV that Eddie is a wanted man, setting the stage for what you could probably call a road trip movie. The duo decide to travel to New York City, but since Eddie is low on cash, they must hitch a ride instead... by plane. Although this may be a decent set-up for your typical buddy comedy, this is unfortunately where the film peaks, meaning it's all down hill from here on out.
One of my main complaints about the first movie that was somewhat corrected in the second was the constantly awkward attempts at comedy, with nearly every joke falling flat. It would appear that the filmmakers thought they had something going the first time around, because instead of learning from their mistakes, this third film contains no moments of comic relief that actually work. What we get are the same repetitive jokes involving Eddie wanting to do something with Venom saying no, or vice versa. Since Eddie is the only one who can hear Venom's voice when he is talking to him, he always looks like he is talking to himself out loud with other people looking at him like he is crazy. Jokes like this were mildly amusing in the last two films, but by now the novelty has long worn off and I can't help but assume they only included these gags to pad out the run time as opposed to wanting to make the audience laugh.
Additionally, the film is also overstuffed with so much bland exposition and filler that it greatly affects the pacing. There were several scenes of military personnel trying to explain the origins of the symbiotes on Earth, but it is done so in the most boring and tedious way imaginable. The dialogue scenes between these people are so clunky and poorly written that I find it hard to imagine that anyone actually proofread the script before deciding to film with what they had. As much as I wanted to learn more about Venom and his race, I frequently found myself unintentionally tuning out during these moments, hoping in vain that the next scene would be more exciting to watch, which it rarely ever was. Even the film's climactic finale felt undercooked in its execution, merely meandering from one mediocre CGI fistfight to another.
Worse still, nothing about Knull is ever interesting enough to pay any lasting attention to, especially considering we never really feel like he is much of a threat throughout the story. For instance, in one scene Eddie and Venom are in Las Vegas trying to win big on the slot machines and this alerts one of Knull's creatures to their location. As the creature and Venom do battle, the fight is over in minutes after quickly being broken up by a group of generic military soldiers. Even though I could tell this scene was supposed to be important to the story, I just couldn't bring myself to care about anything that happened due to how anticlimactic it felt. If this were just one scene, I could maybe let it slide, but nearly every moment involving Knull's character, who is supposed to be the true link to Venom's symbiote homeworld, is treated in this manner, making it near impossible to care about any significance he has within the plot.
In terms of visuals, the best way to describe them would be a mixed bag. As mentioned earlier, Venom himself looks great and I did like watching him use his powers of combining his body with something organic. In one of the film's most notable scenes, we see Venom fuse with a horse as a quicker means of transport across the large wilderness. This is the closest the film comes to looking visually appealing as we see Venom use this opportunity to demonstrate his ability to jump from one living creature to another, including other animals like fish and frogs. However, the same cannot be said for everything else, especially in regards to Knull's symbiote creature. It's difficult to feel intimidated by something that doesn't even look properly rendered into the movie, as this thing looks like the product of early 2000s CG.
Although the overall quality of the films have been has spotty at best, one thing I've always enjoyed watching throughout this trilogy is Tom Hardy's performance as both Eddie Brock and Venom himself. This dynamic can be compared to that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, albeit, with a decidedly more comedic undertone. Even with some of the awful lines the characters have said and questionable things they have done, Hardy always looks like he's at least having fun with the duel role, never taking himself too seriously and playing up the ridiculousness for the sake of our entertainment. Without spoiling the ending, I did actually like this one part where Venom is talking with a supporting character for what could be the very last time. It's such a shame we may never get to see a more brutal, gorier take on the character of Venom, as these films have always gone for the safer alternative in having the camera cut away from any moment that could push these films' ratings above a PG-13.
As this inconsistent trilogy of films draws to a close, "Venom: The Last Dance" may not be the absolute worst way for things to end, but it certainly could have been a whole lot better than what we got. These films have been hampered with so many problems involving tone, plotting, pacing, and varying degrees of entertainment value, but I suppose if you set aside these obvious handicaps, there is still some fleeting fun to be had in watching Tom Hardy play the title role. This is much more that can be said for Sony's other stinkers like "Morbius" and "Madame Web", which has me concerned for the direction things will be going for the upcoming "Kraven the Hunter". At this stage, all I can do is wish Sony the best of luck trying to top their three "Venom" films, because they are definitely going to need it.
I rate it 4/10.
Memoir of a Snail (2024)
Another poignant story about human loneliness and finding purpose in this complex world
"Memoir of a Snail" is a stop-motion animated film written and directed by Adam Elliot ("Harvie Krumpet", "Mary & Max"). Featuring the voices of Sarah Snook, Kodi Smit-McPhee, and Jacki Weaver, it is yet another poignant story about human loneliness and finding purpose in this complex world.
In the 1970s, young Grace Pudel (voiced by Sarah Snook) lives with her twin brother Gilbert (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee) and their father Percy (voiced by Dominique Pinion) in Victoria, Australia. Due to her cleft lip and unusual hobby of collecting snails, Grace is frequently bullied by the other kids at school, often necessitating Gilbert to step in and defend her. One day, Percy suddenly dies in his sleep, causing both Grace and Gilbert to be sent off to separate foster homes located several miles across the country. Grace ends up being adopted by a married couple of swingers in Canberra while Gilbert is taken in by a deeply religious family of fundamentalist Christians in Perth. Despite their geographical handicap, the twins remain in close contact by writing each other letters recounting all of their experiences living with their different adoptive families.
It is a tough world out there for many of us, especially for those who fail to fit in with mainstream society, whether because of mental illnesses or just a general inability to connect with others. Speaking from personal experience, I find that having hobbies can help alleviate your loneliness but they can also contribute to a sense of alienation from those likely to dismiss your passions as weird and ridiculous. Adam Elliot, whose claymation movies tend to focus around these related themes, are an ideal representation of the desire for outcasts to be accepted for who they are, faults and all. In Elliot's latest film "Memoir of a Snail", we are shown another touching and sometimes darkly comical look at the lives of individuals whose longing for emotional connectivity is sure to strike a chord with its intended audience.
Don't let the film's cute looking characters and clay animation fool you into thinking it is a children's movie; this is in fact an adult-oriented story that deals with the heavy-handed themes of ostracisation, depression, and a sense of belonging in this harsh and unforgiving world. As the film begins, our lead protagonist Grace sits in a graveyard narrating everything important that has happened throughout her life up until now. We see that as a child, Grace had shared quite a close bond with her twin brother Gilbert, who despite her bizarre qualities, always defended his sister against anyone who made her feel worthless. In one scene, Gilbert even breaks the finger of a bully who repeatedly harasses poor Grace for her choices in fashion, causing them to leave her alone for good.
In addition to this, it is shown that Grace has a particular affinity for snails due to their ability to withdraw from the outside into their shells, something she likens herself to doing whenever she wants to hide away from her problems. Grace's obsession with snails continues well into adulthood, and the film uses many other interesting metaphors and imagery to convey this to the audience. For instance, Grace learns that snails die after laying their eggs, which is where she notes the similarities in her mother dying shortly after giving birth to her and Gilbert. Later, when their father dies, Grace and Gilbert are soon permanently separated off into different foster homes, setting things in motion for how each of their lives are going to play out from this point forward.
Grace soon finds life in Canberra with her foster parents to be quite reasonable, despite their weekly habit of going to swingers parties and leaving her all alone at home to fend for herself. As she is in a city that prides itself on being the safest in all of Australia, you would assume that would put all of her concerns at ease, however, this is far from the truth. It quickly becomes clear that Grace no longer has Gilbert to defend her from any bullies or other problems she cannot handle on her own, causing her mental state to deteriorate even further than before. She struggles to make friends and is eventually so depressed she becomes a recluse with only her snails and pet guinea pigs to keep her company.
Meanwhile, all the way over in Perth, Gilbert has to deal with his family of extremely religious bible-thumpers, who try to shoot down his dream of becoming a fire-breathing street performer in Paris, believing it to be a job of the Devil. Nearly all of Gilbert's attempts at free thought and expression are suppressed by his adoptive mother Ruth (voiced by Magda Szubanski), a strict woman who insists he dedicate his life to constant praying and working on her apple farm. Like his sister, Gilbert is also unable to form a connection with other people, leaving him with little other choice but to acquiesce to the high demands of his adoptive family. The only thing that keeps the two siblings going is reading the letters they manage to send to one another, where they insist they will one day reunite to scatter their father's ashes where he always wanted to be dispersed - the Luna Park Big Dipper rollercoaster.
As she grows older, Grace meets and befriends Pinky (voiced by Jacki Weaver), an eccentric old lady who becomes the caring mother figure she never truly had. It is here we watch Pinky teach Grace how to appreciate the small things in life, like getting a permed-up hairdo or smoking a cigar out in the rain. Much like the snails she holds fondness for, Grace slowly but surely gains more confidence in herself thanks to Pinky's influence. In fact, she even manages to build up the courage to go on a date with a local mechanic she has feelings for, culminating in a long term relationship she has always craved.
At this point, the film begins to shift its focus away from Gilbert and primarily towards Grace, where it becomes clear that the audience is supposed to absorb all of the philosophical traits of the story. In any other case, this would come across as preachy and condescending, however, I always found myself drawn towards everything Grace and Pinky were doing together, no matter how trivial. Similar to the title characters of Adam Elliot's previous feature film "Mary & Max", this one does a great job treating its overarching themes of loneliness and insecurity in a concise, relatable manner, using dry humour and heartfelt character growth to help us empathise with somebody like Grace. As a result, this allows viewer to come to an understanding of why people like Grace and Pinky would be able to form a connection with one another in the first place.
Though his films might not be as clean cut as Aardman Animations or as large scale as Laika, there's still much to appreciate in Adam Elliot's unique stop-motion art style and sense of humour that helps set his ones apart from the others. The locations Elliot creates all have a level of grit to them, as though they actually feel lived in and reflect the era of 1970s Australia. Additionally, we also see Elliot play up the distinctly Australian quirks and eccentricities in his characters. For example, one recurring gag I loved has Pinky loudly shouting obscenities at passing motorists who either almost run her over or mock her for whatever odd activities she is currently indulging in. Also, we see Grace feeding her pet snail Sylvia some Vegemite on toast, something only an Australian would ever do within a serious context. If Aardman can be a definitive representation of British culture and Laika for American culture, then I would say that Adam Elliot's "Clayography" style successfully depicts Australian culture to a tee.
The film's voice acting is solid thanks to the performances of the cast, primarily Sarah Snook as Grace and Kodi Smit-McPhee as Gilbert. Snook, who also narrates the film, is responsible for bringing out a great deal of loveable pathos in Grace, never once leading her down a hole of despair or self pity. You can't help but want Grace to be happy no matter what curveballs life ends up throwing her way, even if that means subjecting her to one heartbreaking moment after another. Likewise, Smit-McPhee plays up the caring brother type in Gilbert, with only his sheer determination and love for his sister preventing him from giving up entirely. These twin siblings share an almost symbiotic connection with each other, as though whenever one is hurting, so is the other.
I also really liked Jacki Weaver as Pinky, Grace's first real friend who isn't a family member or an animal. Some of my favourite scenes of the whole movie involved Pinky teaching Grace her own personal tips on how to enjoy life. This is a woman who has lived through so many major historical events and interacted with all kinds of people, yet still happily finds the time to hang out with a young woman like Grace who only wants somebody to talk to. Without giving away spoilers, Pinky's significance in the story proved to be much more than I had initially expected, paving the way for a rather emotional conclusion.
As the world becomes harder for us to deal with, it is comforting to watch a film like "Memoir of a Snail" to remind us that amongst the complexities of life, there can always be a rainbow at the end of the storms we are battling through each day. Like with "Mary & Max", it teaches us the importance of embracing our flaws and accepting that some things just cannot be changed about ourselves no matter how hard we may try. Regardless of that, we can all still live happy lives with our imperfections in tow, as these fundamental flaws make up what it means to be human. It is not often we get to see a film touch on such deep philosophical themes like this, let alone one made in claymation, so for that reason alone it is well worth your time.
I rate it a solid 9/10.
Speak No Evil (2024)
A rare remake that is able to hold a candle to the original in just about every way
Just saw "Speak No Evil", the American remake of the 2022 Danish-Dutch psychological horror film of the same name. Directed and co-written by James Watkins ("Eden Lake", "The Woman In Black", "Bastille Day") and starring James McAvoy, Mackenzie Davis, Scoot McNairy, and Aisling Franciosi, it is a rare remake that is able to hold a candle to the original in just about every way.
While on holiday in Italy, American couple Ben (Scoot McNairy) and Louise Dalton (Mackenzie Davis) and their 12-year-old daughter Agnes (Alix West Lefler) meet British couple Paddy (James McAvoy) and Ciara (Aisling Franciosi) and their son Ant (Dan Hough). During their time abroad, the two families briefly bond before going their separate ways, with the Daltons returning back to their apartment in London. A short time later, the Dalton family receive a letter from Paddy and Ciara inviting them to stay at their isolated farmhouse in Devon. With their own personal issues mounting, the Daltons decide to accept the invitation and venture out to the house in the remote countryside. Upon arriving, the Dalton family are immediately welcomed by Paddy and Louise, but as time progresses, it becomes clear that the Dalton's new "friends" are hiding a sinister secret that could endanger their very lives.
One unfortunate inevitability of growing older is that it can be a daunting task making new friends as an adult, especially after important life events such as marriage and having children. In some cases, we can become so desperate for friendship that we end up making irrational decisions over who we choose to associate with simply out of fear of being alone. But of course, poor decision-making like this will naturally come back to bite us, as we are often too blindsided by the idea of having a new friend that we fail to notice anything that seems amiss right away. In 2022, the Danish-Dutch film "Speak No Evil" showed us that ignorant compliance with the actions of people who seem nice at first can lead to bad results, especially after you've reached the point of no return. To my surprise, the identically titled 2024 American remake successfully found ways to show us the same moral as the original, except with a considerably improved narrative.
For those who haven't seen the original, both films share the exact same plot with certain changes made to suit the cultural differences between the different countries. As the story begins, we are introduced to the Daltons; Ben and Louise, your normal, run-of-the-mill American couple vacationing with their young daughter Agnes in Italy. One day, the Daltons meet the British family Paddy, Ciara, and their silent son Ant, whose affable, inviting nature win the Daltons over to form a trustworthy but fleeting holiday friendship. When their trips conclude and both families return to their respective homes, Ben and Louise soon receive an invitation from Paddy and Ciara to join them on their remote farm estate located out in the country. Although the Daltons barely know them, they decide to set aside their differences and accept the invite, which turns out to be the first of many red flags in this story.
Once the Daltons arrive, they realise that these people aren't nearly as nice as they made themselves out to be. For instance, despite making herself clear that she is a vegetarian, Louise is guilted into eating a piece of meat by Paddy, only for her to subtly spit it out into her hand later on so as not to hurt his feelings. Additionally, we also see that something is clearly wrong with young Art, whose inability to speak properly leaves him unable to defend himself from his parents' verbal put-downs and physical discipline. It is from this point we start to see elements of the story play out from Agnes's perspective, whose childlike innocence becomes shattered upon noticing the way in which poor Art is being treated. Agnes is shown to have crippling anxiety, which she mitigates by cuddling her plush toy rabbit Hoppy. However, upon noticing the abuse Art is enduring, Agnes decides to set aside her own problems and contemplate a way to rescue him from his cruel parents.
In similar vein to the original film, director James Watkins slowly but surely builds up an uncomfortable atmosphere for each of the Daltons, as all of the disconcerting actions enacted by their hosts have you constantly guessing what off-colour thing they might do next. Each time you think Paddy and Ciara have been exposed as awful people, they will come up with excuses for their actions, usually something along the lines of the American Dalton family not understanding British culture or that what they saw was taken out of context. The original story showed us the subtle but ultimately noticeable differences between the Danish and the Dutch people, leading to frequent disagreements as to how other people are treated morally versus traditionally. In this remake, we see a near-identical approach, albeit, with a more American point of view. As a result, this remake has a different, more extravagant ending that does away with the nuanced commentary of the original. Without spoiling both films, I thought this creative change was definitely for the best.
Surpassing their Dutch counterparts, James McAvoy and Aisling Franciosi are rather unsettling to watch throughout this story. Even from the very beginning, you can tell that the niceties of Paddy and Ciara feel disingenuous, as though there is an ulterior motive to their hospitality. McAvoy, in particular, has previously demonstrated his uncanny ability to switch between a friendly and sinister demeanour in the 2016 movie "Split", something which comes in handy once again in this film. Just watching the way Paddy is able to read the room to lure you in with his good-natured charm is one of the key reasons McAvoy outdoes all of the actors in the original. Likewise, Franciosi is equally ominous as Ciara, whose loyalty to Paddy makes her the ideal accomplice to his hidden agenda. She is able to keep up with McAvoy in most scenes, projecting the image of a wholesome, supportive wife, which by now, you should realise is far from the truth.
Of course, both Scoot McNairy and Mackenzie Davis are also worth mentioning as the Dalton couple, whose disturbed reactions to everything suspicious are completely warranted. It's interesting to see how Ben seems to be the one most trusting of Paddy and Ciara at first, although this can likened to his desire to repair his fractured marriage with Louise. Though he is shown to be a caring husband and father, Ben still appears to be haunted by his insecurity of his wife cheating on him, causing him to make the occasional lapse in judgement. However, Davis shines the most as Louise, who appears to be the one who suspects something is wrong from the very start. She mostly has her daughter Agnes's best interests at heart, more so than her husband, with whom she already has diminishing respect for. I should point out here that Ben and Louise's rocky marriage is only an issue in this film and not in the original, which I suppose makes more sense being told from an American perspective.
Among the many failed to mediocre Americanised remakes, it's nice to see one like "Speak No Evil" actually pull through and rival, if not supersede, the film that preceded it. Though fans of the original may be upset that its underlying commentary has been compromised in this retelling, it feels like a minor change thanks to the film's assured direction, solid performances, and a genuinely creepy atmosphere. Personally, I thought the ending worked better in this remake, as I found the original to be somewhat underwhelming in its execution, at least in the way those events played out. In the end, it's all a matter of cultural perspective regarding which of the two films you would prefer, but in my eyes, this one wins by a narrow margin.
I rate it 7/10.
Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)
An underwhelming continuation of the brilliant original
"Joker: Folie à Deux" is the sequel to the 2019 superhero/supervillain film "Joker". Once again directed and co-written by Todd Phillips ("Road Trip", "Old School", the "Hangover" trilogy) and starring Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga, it is an underwhelming continuation of the brilliant original that doesn't end up delivering what it promises.
Sometime after the events of the first film, Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital awaiting trial for the murders and misdemeanors he caused years earlier. During his stay, Arthur struggles to deal with his duel identity as "Joker", unable to distinguish between his own actions and those of the destructive persona he created. As the media prepares to extensively cover the upcoming legal proceedings, Arthur meets Harleen "Lee" Quinzel (Lady Gaga), a new patient at the Hospital who admires him as the Joker and as his own damaged self. Amidst the ensuing chaos of media scrutiny and public outcry, Arthur and Lee's infatuation with each other begins to grow, culminating in their mutual appreciation for the music inside of them.
I am always hesitant to refer to a movie as a "modern masterpiece", however, I firmly believe that 2019's "Joker" is well worthy of such an honour. This movie works not only as a fantastic contemporary origin story of one of the most famous comic book villains of all time but also as a social commentary on the human condition and the stigma of mental illnesses. As a result, the film managed to transcend the boundaries of your typical "superhero" movie, allowing audiences from all walks of life to take note of everything important it was trying to say. Although the film was clearly intended as a standalone feature, Warner Bros. Later decided to continue the story in the sequel "Joker: Folie à Deux", a decision that does not work in their favour as it fails to recapture nearly everything that made its excellent predecessor so impactful.
In the years since his arrest, we see that Arthur Fleck has now built up quite a notorious reputation throughout his new home at Arkham Asylum. His fellow inmates fear and respect him for the anarchy he was responsible for years ago, and the guards frequently taunt him into telling them a "funny joke" to cause his Joker personality to emerge. Yet in spite of all this acknowledgement he once deeply craved, Arthur remains relatively quiet and mostly keeps to himself. Occasionally, Arthur's signature pained laughing outbursts stemming from his condition may occur from time to time, but he does nothing about it until it eventually subsides. Later, we learn that Arthur is set to stand trial for his crimes, to which his law team try to argue that his actions were actually caused by his Joker persona, meaning he can enter an insanity plea and escape the death penalty. Though all of this seems like a solid way to begin a sequel to the original, what follows is where the film starts to fall apart from the seams.
During a therapy session, Arthur comes into contact with Lee, a seemingly troubled woman who claims to have burned down her parents' apartment building. The two form a connection with one another and come up with a plan to "ditch this joint" and go on the run. The way the film chooses to present this to us is through song, with the pair of them singing and dancing to pre-existing music. Normally, I wouldn't have minded this unorthodox addition to the film if it were handled properly, which unfortunately it isn't. The problem here is that none of the songs are all that memorable and don't really leave a lasting impression, and for a film that sets itself up as a musical, that is a major issue. Because of that, I never really felt as though these two were kindred spirits proclaiming their love for one another as much as a pair of weirdos singing along to music that only they can hear.
Another issue is that the film's screenplay lacks proper cohesion. In the original movie, every pivotal event that took place always flowed flawlessly from one scene to the next, with each character-focused moment communicating all of the necessary information back to the audience. Here, on the other hand, the plot feels so fragmented and inconsistent that it's difficult to fixate your attention on a particular scene without concern as to whether it will matter later on. For instance, in this one scene involving Arthur professing his love for Lee, he is shown doing so during a televised interview, which you'd assume would lead to something important immediately after. However, this is not the case, as it quickly ends and its relevance to the plot is never brought up again. There are several other moments like this which constantly tease the audience that something huge about to happen, only for it to disappear into thin air a short time later. After a while, this makes the film incredibly frustrating to watch.
To give credit where it is due, I really appreciate that the film was able to recreate the original's superb cinematography and visual style. I absolutely loved the dreary, gritty imagery that director Todd Phillips used in the first film, which gave it a very distinct look to help this 1980s version of Gotham City stand out from all of the others. Thankfully, this sequel follows suit in that regard, as there were moments that I thought were visually stunning. Without giving away spoilers, there was this one part that involved Arthur and Lee looking into each other's eyes with fire burning in the background. The blocking of this scene illuminates Arthur while Lee is mostly shown in the dark, symbolising the bright but destructive way she lights up his life. This proves that there was at least some creative thought put into this film from a visual standpoint, so it surprises me that virtually everything else falls flat in comparison.
Reprising one of the greatest roles of his career, Joaquin Phoenix does everything he can to remind us of why his performance in the original film is now ranked alongside Heath Ledger as among the best live action depictions of the Joker. However, in the grand scheme of things, it just simply isn't enough to save this film from the rest of its problems. Because of all the glaring faults in the film's screenplay, direction, and plot inconsistencies, it's near impossible to feel much empathy for Arthur this time around. His character does not do much aside from repeatedly yearn for Lee through song or make weak excuses for his criminal behaviour in the previous film. I missed all that anticipation and unpredictability of what Arthur would do next, as this was one of the key things that made him so interesting last time. Sadly, I never once felt any of that from this movie.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment, for me at least, was the utilisation of Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn (a.k.a. Lee). In the lead up to the film's release, I was actually looking forward to seeing how Gaga would portray the Joker's female sidekick/love interest, as I thought she was a great choice to play this emotionally damaged character. Unfortunately, there's hardly anything memorable worth mentioning about her involvement in the story other than her thinking what Arthur did in the first movie was "bold" and "brave". This could have been the perfect time to provide a commentary on toxic relationships and why many imprisoned murderers have loyal female fans, but the film squanders all these moments away at every given opportunity. What we get instead is a rather two-dimensional story of a mentally ill man and a mentally ill woman who have no other reason to want to be together other than that they are both unstable people. To add insult to injury, Lee is hardly even in the film enough to leave a lasting impression, and considering she's supposed to be one of the main characters, this seems like a very bizarre creative decision.
For a follow-up to one of the greatest films of the 2010s, the only thing that "Joker: Folie à Deux" has done is prove that just because you can make a sequel, doesn't always mean that you should. After five years, I can still remember picking my jaw up from the floor in amazement after watching the first film, whereas with this one I was struggling to recall anything in great detail without the need to look it up online. Nobody is going to be playfully reenacting dance numbers from this movie and nobody is going to be quoting from it anytime soon like they did with its predecessor. In my humble opinion, Warner Bros. Should have left the original as a standalone film, as I think everything concluded perfectly then and there. It makes me think that this unnecessary sequel may just be one big joke at our expense. If it is, then I don't get it.
I rate it 5/10.
Fly Me to the Moon (2024)
A mildly amusing little story set amidst an important era of the 20th century
"Fly Me To the Moon" is a romantic comedy film directed by Greg Berlanti ("Life as We Know It", "Love, Simon"). Starring Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum, it is a mildly amusing little story set amidst an important era of the 20th century.
In 1968, the Space Race is in full swing with the Soviet Union in a clear lead over the United States. In an effort to boost their public image, NASA recruits marketing executive Kelly Jones (Scarlett Johansson) to assist them with this complex task. After relocating to Florida, Kelly starts work at the Kennedy Space Center where she meets launch director Cole Davis (Channing Tatum), whom immediately disagrees with her unorthodox ideas on how to improve NASA's reputation. Wishing to fulfil a proposal initially put forward by the late President John F. Kennedy, NASA quickly moves ahead with their plan to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, tasking both Kelly and Cole to work together to create a fake moon landing in case the real one fails.
One of the 20th century's most intense rivalries was the Space Race, a competition between two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, over who could achieve better results in researching outer space. As a byproduct of the Cold War, the pressure was amounting over the course of the 1960s for who would be the first nation to put a man on the moon. Ultimately, the United States would claim victory when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first human beings to ever set foot on the lunar surface on July 20, 1969. Naturally, there are conspiracy theories surrounding the moon landing that persist even to this day, and these are playfully referenced in the romantic comedy film "Fly Me To the Moon" in a way that intermittently raises a smile.
As the film begins, we see stock news footage showing how the Space Race has the United States at a clear disadvantage, with the Soviets beating them at almost everything. Everything, that is, except a manned mission to the moon. This is when the sassy, liberal-minded Kelly Jones enters the picture, and she has a plan to make everything right. That plan, it turns out, involves treating NASA's planned journey to the moon as though it were some kind of household product to be advertised to the general public. But since this is the 1960s, Kelly is not taken seriously by most of the men at NASA simply because she is a woman. At this point, Kelly finds herself on the receiving end of much backlash from NASA's chief launch director Cole, whose no-nonsense, conservative demeanour is in stark contrast to her open-mindedness. From this point on, it becomes very obvious that these two will set aside their differences and fall head over heels in love with each other, and being a romantic comedy, that's exactly what happens.
The real kicker here is that the film has chosen to use the historical conspiracy of faking the moon landing as the very reason the two leads grow closer to one another, which is quite an odd concept the more I think about it. Granted, this fakery is merely a backup in the event of the actual landing going wrong, though something about it never quite clicked with me. Perhaps it's because of how contrived it feels to have the entire set-up of the movie based around something so ridiculous that I just couldn't really imagine a romance blossoming among these bizarre circumstances. Aside from one scene involving a cat running onto the set of the fake moon landing, there aren't really that many funny moments extracted from this concept. Admittedly, the intertwinement of a major historical event and a romantic subplot is nothing new, as films like "Titanic" have done it before, but here it feels decidedly tacky.
In spite of this strange plot line, I did actually like the way director Greg Berlanti presented this film for us. The fun, swinging sixties atmosphere is always pleasant to look at and the production design of the vintage NASA technology is consistent with that particular era. Also, regarding the faking of the moon landing, I did happen to like the attention paid to how much the set was made to look as though the astronauts (or at least the actors posing as astronauts) would look like walking on the moon's surface. The pacing is decent as well, except about three quarters of the way through when things start to feel padded out. At 132 minutes, the film does overstay its welcome by at least ten minutes, which I suppose isn't too bad all things considered.
A romantic comedy wouldn't be a romantic comedy without two good leads, and thankfully both Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum are just right for a film like this. I enjoyed watching Johansson's enthusiastic approach to playing Kelly, allowing her to stand out as a fun female protagonist for the audience to appreciate. It's fun to watch Kelly try to navigate the working world of the 1960s, a time when women like her were only just starting to be taken a bit more seriously in the workplace, and that some of her ideas might just prove beneficial to everyone in the end. She also shares good chemistry with Channing Tatum as Cole, who is deliberately written as a serious, by-the-books worker who needs convincing that he can't do everything on his own. As cliched as it may have seemed, I did kind of like watching Cole and Kelly growing closer as they worked alongside one another, even if it was for something absurd like faking the moon landing.
If you're in the mood for a safe throwback to an age of space exploration and romance in unlikely places, then "Fly Me To the Moon" is sure to satisfy most tastes. Had it properly balanced out its romantic moments and plausibility of the plot, I would be inclined to recommend it to more people, but as is, I can only do so to fans of the genre. That's not to say it's a bad movie, as I was still moderately entertained, though given its premise I expected a lot more. Regardless, you could always do a whole lot worse.
I rate it 6.5/10.
The Crow (2024)
Not only an easy contender for the worst film of 2024 but also one of the worst reboots of all time
"The Crow" is an action thriller film based on the comic book series of the same name by James O'Barr. Directed by Rupert Sanders ("Snow White and the Huntsman", "Ghost in the Shell") and starring Bill Skarsgård and FKA Twigs, it is not only an easy contender for the worst film of 2024 but also one of the worst reboots of all time.
After escaping from a rehabilitation centre, former addict Eric (Bill Skarsgård) and his musician girlfriend Shelly (FKA Twigs) go on the run after it is discovered that the latter is in possession of an incriminating video that could bring down the powerful crime lord Vincent Roeg (Danny Huston). Eventually, Roeg's men locate the pair and brutally murder them, leading to Eric waking up in a purgatory-like area filled with crows. While there, Eric is informed by his spirit guide Kronos (Sami Bouajila) that he is dead and that in order for him to be reunited with Shelly, he will need to kill Roeg himself. Shortly after, Eric is revived with special abilities that allow him to heal from injuries and goes on the hunt for Roeg throughout his seedy criminal underbelly.
Thirty years ago, a certain superhero film was released that has left a significant impact on the genre. The film in question was "The Crow", a dark, action-packed experience with a distinct visual style and tone that since went on to influence several media projects in the years after it debuted. Unfortunately, the film also has the morbid reputation for being associated with the tragic death of its lead actor Brandon Lee, who was fatally shot by a prop gun during the filming process. Whereas that infamy proved beneficial in solidifying the dignified legacies of both Lee and the film itself, the opposite can be said for this 2024 remake, which will instead be remembered for the terrible quality of the final product.
It's actually incredible how quickly this film fails within its first fifteen minutes. In the very first scene that shows our protagonist Eric as an adult, he is being bullied by a group of inmates at a rehab centre. They shove him, call him names, and exclude him from any important social activities. Even the centre employees join in on tormenting him, drawing attention to the weird vibe he gives off. At no point does Eric make any attempt to fight back or even try to stand up for himself in a constructive way, as if he somehow believes he deserves all of this happening to him. My first thoughts here were "Is this complete wimp really going to be the hero of the story?", which is certainly the impression the film is giving off right from the get go. I'm all for watching a hero's journey towards greatness, but when you establish them as this insufferably weak so early on, it's near impossible for me to want them to succeed at anything and makes me long for them to be put out of their misery.
Things don't fare much better for Eric's love interest Shelly, who likewise has practically nothing interesting established about her character during her introductory phase. We learn that Shelly is a drug addicted prostitute, whose significance to the story is nothing more than a cheap ploy to drive the plot forward for her boyfriend to become the titular hero. She has no likeable qualities and it is never hinted as to why she would even fall in love with a wuss like Eric in the first place, unless she finds his numerous trashy tattoos attractive. It's pretty obvious that Shelly will die at some point in the story, but not once did I ever buy into the notion that anyone, let alone a pansy like Eric, would want to spend the rest of eternity with someone like her. I suppose love can make people do strange things, however, would anybody in their right mind want to cross the boundaries between the living and the dead for a junkie of questionable past? I certainly wouldn't.
Another glaring problem with this film is that it is very poorly directed and edited. The pacing of the story is so mind-bogglingly tedious and repetitive that it was extremely challenging for me not to fall asleep during the clunkily implemented scenes of exposition. Nothing about any of these characters is intriguing enough to pay attention to nor is the world of this generic, crime-ridden city worth exploring in greater detail. Because of this, it's near impossible to care about what happens to anybody or anything for that matter, rending the film a boring slog to sit through for most of its 111 minute runtime.
There's also a complete lack of action happening until the climax, and even then none of it ever elicits any kind of excitement. Though I appreciate that the film didn't tone down the graphic violence and gore for a PG-13 rating, this is not nearly enough to excuse it from everything else wrong with this picture. When you compare this to the original 1994 film, which perfectly balanced its intense action scenes with all the necessary world-building and character development, the difference is night and day. If his previous two directorial efforts have proven anything, it is that Rupert Sanders lacks the talent for this particular profession, and this film only confirmed it for me.
Although Brandon Lee was always going to be a hard act to follow, I'm quite impressed with how much Bill Skarsgård misses the mark following in his footsteps this time around. While Skarsgård is otherwise a fine actor in his own right, he feels woefully miscast as what is supposed to be a dark and brooding superhero. There's just something pathetic about watching an angsty, crybaby loser like this film's version of Eric trying to act like a tough guy when he seems more like the type of person who would struggle to open a jar of pickles. Even when he's fighting his way through several enemies, he never looks like he's deriving any kind of deep satisfaction from this whole ordeal, only carrying out this act because the plot demands it. This is a far cry from Brandon Lee's Eric, who exuded charisma, charm, and sheer determination to avenge those who wronged him, though that was most likely due to Lee's mere screen presence.
Similarly, FKA Twigs adds nothing of substance to her role as Shelly. In the original film, Shelly was intended to represent what remains of Eric's humanity upon his resurrection, with only subtle hints of her personality scattered throughout the story to remind him of why he is on this whole crusade for her love. It was handled well within the context of the story, and it showcased Eric's compassionate side among the wickedness he must forcibly face in her honour. On the other hand, the Shelly in this film serves her purpose as a generic love interest character and little else. Twigs shares no real chemistry with Skarsgård and as mentioned earlier, her character is so blandly written that I never could bring myself to believe that she is somebody worth dying for. Then again, unlike an experienced actor like Skarsgård, this is Twigs's first major acting job so it's not like she had much going for her beforehand.
For a remake of such low expectations, it's amazing how this 2024 version of "The Crow" still found ways to go beyond the usual levels of disappointment and more towards overwhelming dislike. I simply cannot think of a logical reason to convince someone to dedicate their time to watching this one when the 1994 classic is still readily available, unless of course you really hate that person. In another thirty years, it will be original film that people will be reflecting fondly upon, as even today it still holds up remarkably well entertainment-wise. As for this piece of modern excrement, flush it down the toilet back to the sewers where it rightly belongs.
I rate it 2/10.
Harold and the Purple Crayon (2024)
A colourful, fast-paced, yet mind-numbingly bland story that offers little for anyone other than really young kids
Just saw "Harold and the Purple Crayon", a family fantasy film based on the children's book of the same name by Crockett Johnson. Directed by Carlos Saldanha ("Ice Age", "Rio", "Ferdinand") and starring Zachary Levi and Zooey Deschanel, it is a colourful, fast-paced, yet mind-numbingly bland story that offers little for anyone other than really young kids.
Inside his own story book, a young boy named Harold has the ability to create and bring to life anything by drawing it with his own magical purple crayon. As the years go by, Harold (Zachary Levi) eventually grows up and becomes curious about the real world after his story's narrator (Alfred Molina) explains to him about life beyond his own imagination. One day, the narrator suddenly disappears, prompting Harold to draw a door that leads out into the real world in order to search for him. As he ventures forth into the physical, three-dimensional world, Harold soon learns that real life is far different from anything he has ever seen before, and that the far extent of his imaginative side can land him in a great deal of trouble.
First published in 1955, Crockett Johnson's picture book "Harold and the Purple Crayon" has gone on to become a beloved piece of children's literature. Even after almost seven decades, the book and the nine others in the series that followed are still well regarded by parents and teachers for the importance of nurturing a child's imagination and creative side. There have also been a handful of on-screen adaptations of the story, including short films and a 13-part series that have helped keep it relevant for so long. In 2024, we now have live action feature film adaptation of this childhood classic, which may provide fleeting entertainment for today's kids but next to nothing else for other audiences.
Granted, the film does begin relatively well with the way it establishes Harold's own fantasy world. In an animated sequence, we see how since he was a young boy, Harold has been drawing all sorts of wonderful and strange things with his trusty purple crayon, from a sailboat on the ocean to a pair of talking animal friends for him to share his fun with. Flashing forward years later, Harold is now a full grown adult whose creativity has also grown along with him, having drawn up a more artistically defined world complete with cities and forests. Harold later decides to venture into the real world to meet the narrator of his story, and so draws a door to our tangible dimension. From this point forward, the story switches over to live action format.
This is where the film takes a considerable nosedive, because from here on out it becomes another victim of style over substance. You might be wondering how a story about a man who draws things to life with a crayon can lose its creative charm so quickly, but once you keep watching you'll understand why. What follows is a series of repetitive scenes of Harold acting like an irritating manchild, followed by him drawing things to conveniently help him out of a sticky situation. For instance, when Harold mistakes an old man sitting on a bench for the narrator, he excitedly runs over and shouts at him enthusiastically, resulting in the man hitting Harold with his walking stick. Afterwards, Harold uses his purple crayon to draw a bicycle to ride away from the commotion he just caused. Though younger audiences might find this amusing, it just comes across as annoying to an older viewer like myself. The rest of the film is littered with moments like this that are guaranteed to test the patience of anyone over the age of six.
To give credit where it is due, the film's fast pace certainly prevents it from ever being boring, though this can hardly be considered a saving grace. In his live action directorial debut, Carlos Saldanha keeps the plot moving at a brisk speed, likely as a way to ensure any children watching will have something to keep them occupied during their viewing. Unfortunately, this means that the film has almost no real atmosphere or deeply emotional parts for the audience to appreciate, as everything moves so quickly that it's impossible to absorb all of what is happening on screen. Save for one scene near the end, I felt no real attachment to any of the characters or the events taking place around them. It also doesn't help that the film's attempts at comedy always miss the mark, falling into the categories of either predictable slapstick or awkward situations intended to make the viewer cringe.
Visually, the film is a mixed bag at best with its CGI. Although I did like some of the colourful animated segments near the beginning, the effects during the live action parts are mediocre at best. In one scene, we see imaginary monsters drawn to life with Harold's crayon causing chaos and damaging property. These creatures are very poorly rendered and look like they came right out of the early 2000s when computer effects weren't quite convincing enough to be integrated into the real world. In a film that is primarily effects driven, this becomes a huge distraction as it takes people like me out of the movie because I just cannot bring myself to believe what is supposed to be occurring right in front of my eyes. The younger viewers might be able to overlook this, but the older ones will be struggling.
In the title role, I wanted to like Zachary Levi as Harold but he is so uninteresting and annoying that I wanted to see more of the other characters instead. As mentioned previously, the adult Harold behaves like an ignorant manchild for most of the movie, recklessly causing more problems than he fixes with his magic crayon. This made it hard for me to feel any sympathy for Harold whenever something bad happens to him since it was more than likely something he brought entirely upon himself. In the end, it all felt like a contrived way for Harold to undergo a character arc for no other reason than to preach to children that behaving carelessly is a bad thing, as if their parents couldn't simply tell them this verbally. Personally, I wanted to see more of Zooey Deschanel as Terri, a widowed mother, Jemaine Clement as Gary, an eccentric librarian, as well as Lil Rel Howery and Tanya Reynolds as Moose and Porcupine, respectively, but the film doesn't feature any of them nearly as much as it should.
Though not a complete failure, "Harold and the Purple Crayon" has little going for it that ranks it above a mere curiosity viewing. Its bright colours and energetic pace should entertain young kids for a while but adults won't find much else to enjoy about it otherwise. There's just so much more that could have been done with a film like this given the near limitless potential of a crayon that can create virtually anything, however, things never end up reaching beyond the basic concept stage. With that said, the film's novelty will certainly fade from memory in due time and eventually back into obscurity where it belongs.
I rate it 5/10.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)
A fun legacy sequel that caters to fans of the original film and Burton's signature style
"Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" is the sequel to the 1988 comedy horror film "Beetlejuice". Once again directed by Tim Burton and starring Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, Catherine O'Hara, as well as Jenna Ortega, Monica Bellucci, and Willem Dafoe, it works as a fun legacy sequel that caters to fans of the original film and Burton's signature style.
Thirty-six years after the events of the first film, Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder) has since become the host of her own TV show where she uses her uncanny ability to see ghosts to entertain viewers. Still haunted by visions of the supernatural mischief maker "Betelgeuse" (Michael Keaton), Lydia is soon informed by her stepmother Delia (Catherine O'Hara) that her father has suddenly died, forcing Lydia and her estranged teenage daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega) to attend his funeral at the Deetz family home in Winter River, Connecticut. Shortly upon arriving, Astrid discovers a small scale model of the town located inside the attic of the house where she inadvertently opens up a portal into the Afterlife. With the bridge between two realms now completely unprotected, all it will take is three utterances of his name and Betelgeuse will be unleashed into the real world to wreak havoc yet again.
Though he made his feature film debut with 1985's "Pee-wee's Big Adventure", it wasn't until three years later that Tim Burton gained worldwide attention with the release of his cult classic movie "Beetlejuice". This film, which combined elements of macabre fantasy with quirky comedy and horror, cemented Burton as a unique talent whose work stands out significantly among many other filmmakers in the industry, even to this very day. In the wake of the film's success, Burton and various studios have made numerous attempts to green-light a sequel for well over three decades with little progress, even being indefinitely shelved by Warner Bros. At one point. Now in 2024, we finally have that belated sequel with "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice", which manages to recapture most of what made the original such an appealing film for generations of audiences.
In true Tim Burton fashion, the film opens with an appropriately dark panning shot over the model town of Winter River, with Danny Elfman's whimsical score setting the mood for what's to come. We then see a now middle-aged Lydia Deetz recounting to us a terrifying tale of the supernatural kind from the comfort of her chair. It is quickly revealed that this actually just part of her show "Ghost House with Lydia Deetz", which is shown to have a large audience of adoring fans from all over the country. Soon enough, it is made clear that Lydia's association with the paranormal is not merely for entertainment value, as she is exhibiting PTSD and hallucinations of the demonic entity that traumatised her decades ago - Betelgeuse (pronounced "Beetlejuice").
From this point forward, the film chooses to focus mainly on Lydia and the complex relationships she has with all of those around her. This includes her rebellious daughter Astrid, her overly emotional stepmother Delia, and of course the titular malicious "Ghost with the Most" Betelgeuse. Also, there are other noteworthy facets of Lydia's life that the film briefly looks at, like her manipulative TV producer boyfriend Rory (Justin Theroux) and the fame she has accumulated from the resulting success of the show he runs on her behalf. It's interesting to see how the film examines almost everyone Lydia has come into contact with over the past 36 years, and how even after all this time she still hasn't fully recovered from the events that transpired from when she was a teenager.
Longtime fans of Tim Burton's work will be pleased to see that virtually all of what makes his films so fun watch are here on full display. For instance, the film's spooky atmosphere is perfectly complimented by Danny Elfman's wacky orchestral score, something that has become a trademark of most of Burton's films since the very beginning. If you listen carefully, you'll notice that Elfman even reuses some of the same musical cues from the original film, which I consider to be some of the composer's best work. There is also some nice use of licensed music, like "Tragedy" by the Bee Gees during one scene. Anyone who remembers that iconic dinner table scene from the original is sure to enjoy the use of one particular song that plays at the climax of this film.
Additionally, almost all of the production design and visual effects are done in a practical manner, relying on real sets, pyrotechnics, actors in costumes, stop-motion animation, marionette puppetry, and scaled down miniatures. This is refreshing change from most other modern movies that liberally use CGI to the point where everything looks so sterile and clean. Here, it seems like whenever CG effects were actually used, it was done so as a necessary creative tool rather than as a complete means to an end. As a result, this film has the appropriate amount of depth and grittiness to help you believe that a place like the Afterlife could really occupied with ghostly figures fed up with taking numbers to wait in long queues.
Where the film does notably stumble is in its excessive overlapping plot lines. In total, I counted four primary stories all happening at the same time; Lydia trying to prevent Betelgeuse from emerging to cause chaos, Astrid's romantic relationship with a boy who admires her mother, Betelgeuse being on the run from his evil ex-wife (Monica Bellucci), and an undead action movie star (Willem Dafoe) hunting down Betelgeuse to make him pay for his previous crimes. Because of this, the film becomes rather cluttered trying juggle each of these intertwining plot points, making it difficult to focus on whose story is the one we should be paying the most attention to in the long run. In spite of this, without spoiling the ending, the eventual convergence of all these stories is peak Tim Burton.
Anyone who enjoyed Winona Ryder's performance as Lydia in the original film will be happy to realise she can still pull off the whole oddball goth girl persona pretty well even after several decades. Though no longer a teenager, Ryder can still make you believe Lydia is just as conflicted about life and death as she was back in 1988, perhaps even more so given the amount of problems that have accumulated for her since then. To effectively balance things out for Ryder, Jenna Ortega proves herself a nice new addition to the cast as she is able to fill that void of the young outcast whose deadpan reactions make her an ideal straight woman to the events transpiring in front of both her and her mother. Ryder and Ortega are often in good sync with each other, and watching the two of them work together during certain key moments are among the film's highlights.
Of course, a sequel to "Beetlejuice" just wouldn't be the same without Michael Keaton reprising his role as the title character, and thankfully, that's exactly what we have right here. From his zany, over-the-top mannerisms to his crude, borderline offensive interactions with the other cast members, Keaton is having a blast revelling in the opportunity to once again play one of his most popular characters. In terms of personality, it is clear that Betelgeuse has not changed at all since the events of the original film, which I would say makes him all the more amusing to watch as he deals with how much different the world has become over the past thirty plus years. It's worth noting that, unlike the original film, Betelgeuse actually has more screen time here, as opposed to the roughly 17 minutes he had previously. This makes sense considering his role in the story is much larger this time around, which allows for more humorous moments for the audience to appreciate.
Although it has done little to rise above the typical legacy sequel tropes, "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" is nonetheless an enjoyable follow-up that has evidently been made for fans of both the original film and Tim Burton's work as a whole. There's plenty to admire in a film that disregards the usual cost effective approach to its visual style in favour of more practical methods in the vein of its predecessor, which is certainly something lacking in many of today's motion pictures. With that said, if you liked the 1988 film so much that you have eagerly awaited a cinematic continuation, then it stands to reason you should leave this film pretty satisfied. Personally, I was fine either way if the original story ended there, but after watching this sequel, I'm quite pleased that it didn't.
I rate it 7/10.
Alien: Romulus (2024)
Sure to please newcomers and fans of the first two films
"Alien: Romulus" is the seventh film in the "Alien" sci-fi action horror franchise (or ninth if you count both "Alien Vs. Predator" films). Directed and co-written by Fede Álvarez ("Evil Dead", "Don't Breathe") and starring Cailee Spaeny in the lead role, it worthily stands as a solid entry in the long running sci-fi series that is sure to please newcomers and fans of the first two films.
Sometime between the events of "Alien" and "Aliens", a group of space colonists led by Rain Carradine (Cailee Spaeny) are tasked with scavenging the long abandoned Weyland-Yutani space station "Renaissance". Upon arriving, the colonists discover that the Renaissance is in an increasingly dilapidated state, giving them only 36 hours until it eventually collides with the rings of a nearby planet. Salvaging what they can within the limited timeframe, the crew's mission is further hampered by the infestation of a large nest of Xenomorph eggs that quickly hatch to find any appropriate hosts. Realising the danger these lifeforms pose, Rain and the rest of her team decide to withdraw from their mission and try to escape the space station before it is too late.
After its debut in 1979, the "Alien" franchise has gone on to become one of the most successful sci-fi franchises in history. Thanks in part to its clever blending of science fiction with elements of both horror and action, the series remains a favourite among many aficionados of each of these genres. Over the course of various feature films, books, and video games, the franchise has also carved out a rather intricately structured universe that has helped it endure on for this long, primarily due to the menacing presence of its antagonistic extraterrestrials known as Xenomorphs. The story continues in "Alien: Romulus", a standalone interquel film that successfully harkens back to its horror roots without requiring too much prior knowledge of either previous or later installments.
Mirroring the film that started it all, this one uses the limited confines of its main location to establish the frightening events that are set to follow. After the crew of young colonists first board the destitute Renaissance, they are greeted by the unsettling sight of destroyed equipment, large holes burned through the metal floors, and important machinery that has been mysteriously switched off. To make matters worse, the team soon learn that they are not alone on this space station as previously thought when they discover the hallways are littered with large eggs containing numerous facehugger Xenomorphs. Once these eggs hatch, the crew now have to contend with the prospect of becoming incubators for these terrifying creatures, which is made even more difficult for them due to the narrow interior of this space station. Although this may sound like the film is simply rehashing the basic premise of the original, there are plenty of other new elements to appreciate that help it stand out on its own.
As a way to give his film a more distinct look, director Fede Álvarez uses the appropriate shades of colour to set the mood of a particular scene, with red being the most prominently shown. Though the most obvious reason here could be to signify blood, red can also be used to represent the sheer strength of the Xenomorphs versus the otherwise weak fleshly humans. This crew is clearly outmatched and outnumbered, with grave danger awaiting anyone unlucky enough to cross paths with even just one of these perfect killing machines. The audience needs to be reminded of what the Xenomorphs are capable of, and the simple use of a colour like red effectively does the job without them even realising it.
In keeping with the style of the earlier films, we see that the technology used onboard is in the same vein of the retro 70s future aesthetic shown previously, complete with CRT analogue computer monitors and LCD number displays. Because of this, it's easy to become immersed in the eerie atmosphere of the once thriving space station, especially when there are no safe methods for anyone to escape. Álvarez conveys the feeling of danger early on as Rain's team explores the inner workings of the Renaissance, slowly but surely learning the fate of the space station's original crew. Each location always seemed like it could be hiding a sinister secret, whether related to why the Renaissance was even there to begin with or how the Xenomorph eggs found their way on board in the first place.
However, one area where this film falters the most is in its exposition-heavy first act. Without giving away spoilers, the film spends way too much time setting up certain characters' backstories when in the end it felt kind of redundant considering what happens to them at the conclusion. Most of the information here could have been provided to us through a five minute conversation as opposed to padded out dialogue that takes up almost the entirety of the film's introduction. Although I understand the need to establish the crew's motivations for wanting to plunder in a deserted space station, there wasn't any real need to have it drag on longer than it did. Despite that, the film's superb second and third acts thankfully make up for this unfortunate shortcoming.
Although she doesn't quite come close to the level of Sigourney Weaver, I did enjoy Cailee Spaeny's performance as Rain, whose role in the film is equally as admirable. At first, Rain seems reluctant and even terrified to take on this job of joining a team to raid an abandoned space station, but over the course of the story she really comes into her own. Rain can be viewed as something of a maternal figure for the group, especially in regards to her relationship with the Synthetic Android Andy (David Jonsson). It was interesting to watch how Rain treats Andy almost like he were her son or even her younger brother, despite him not actually being a real human capable of feeling emotions. There were also a few surprisingly believable scenes of her trying to defend the whole crew from the Xenomorph threat, which is, as anyone familiar with the franchise should know, a task easier said than done.
For anyone who has been left underwhelmed by the franchise's recent offerings, "Alien: Romulus" will no doubt win back anyone hoping to see the series return to form. It recaptures as much of its horror origins as possible while also adding in some nice new touches to help remind us of why the series has remained so relevant after all these decades. Best of all, being a standalone movie, you don't even need to have seen any other film in the franchise to understand what is happening, although it is better if you have as there are a handful of Easter eggs and hidden references for the long term fans to point out. Though it is currently unclear which direction things will go from here, I nonetheless anticipate the next entry with a decidedly optimistic outlook.
I rate it 8/10.
Borderlands (2024)
Joins the ranks among the many failed film adaptations of popular video games
"Borderlands" is a sci-fi action comedy film based on the video game series of the same name. Directed and co-written by Eli Roth ("Cabin Fever", "Hostel") and starring Cate Blanchett, Kevin Hart, Ariana Greenblatt, and Jamie Lee Curtis, it joins the ranks among the many failed film adaptations of popular video games.
After the daughter of a powerful figure is kidnapped, the infamous bounty hunter Lilith (Cate Blanchett) is tasked with seeking out her whereabouts and ensuring her safe return. Lilith's search soon leads her to the planet Pandora, her old home world with which she still holds bitter resentment towards due to her past actions. While there, Lilith reluctantly aligns herself with a ragtag crew of misfits to aid in her mission. This crew includes the jovial robot Claptrap (voiced by Jack Black), former mercenary Roland (Kevin Hart), scientist Dr. Tannis (Jamie Lee Curtis), teenage demolitions expert Tiny Tina (Ariana Greenblatt), and Krieg (Florian Munteanu), Tina's large, brawny protector. As they fight their way through numerous aliens and other dangerous foes, the group soon learn that in order to properly survive this hostile environment, they must each set aside their differences and work together as a team.
Since the release of the first game back in 2009, the "Borderlands" series has gone on to become one of the best-selling video game franchises in history. Although I only possess a surface level knowledge of the series, I am fully aware of the popularity these games have accumulated over the past fifteen years. Taking place within a sci-fi western setting, the "Borderlands" games are held in high regard by players due to their distinctive art-style, first-person shooter mechanics, co-operative gameplay, and quirky sense of humour. In this 2024 film adaptation, titled simply "Borderlands", you will find next to nothing that makes this series so beloved by many, as it fails to provide anything remotely interesting worth watching for neither longtime fans nor newcomers.
Even within the first ten minutes, it's pretty clear that this film is not going to show us what we haven't seen before. As we are introduced to our main heroine Lilith via her inner monologue, we learn of all the cliched things we need to know about her; she's quick with a gun, she has a hard time taking orders from others, and she has a troubled past she hasn't yet come to terms with. Shortly after, we then see Lilith return to her home planet of Pandora, a generic desert wasteland filled with hazards we've all seen in better forms of media, ranging from sketchy junk dealers to large, hostile alien creatures. After navigating these run-of-the-mill obstacles, Lilith finds herself building up her own team of similar-minded oddballs, which naturally leads to the usual disagreements and arguments one would expect. If this whole set-up sounds familiar, then that's because it's nothing more than the film showcasing its complete lack of imagination, doing nothing to distinguish itself from every other action comedy team-up story released within the past few decades.
In addition to this, the film's action scenes are as routine as they come. Moments that should elicit excitement in the viewer are instead reduced to just one generic collection of shoot-outs after another. Even as I write this, I'm still struggling to remember even the most notable action set piece that roused any kind of positive reaction out of me. The only somewhat enjoyable part that comes to mind is this scene involving a car chase throughout the desert of Pandora. Here, we see the crew try to outrun a large army of enemies while also dodging being eaten alive by the native creatures. Although I must give some begrudging credit to Eli Roth for his fast pacing of this scene, it ultimately does little to provide anything more than a minor distraction from the rest of the film's flaws. Since we already do not care all that much about what happens to the characters involved in this scene, it's near impossible to feel any real investment in what is occurring at this point in the film, let alone the rest of the story.
To add insult to injury, the film is practically devoid of any kind of likeable humour or quirkiness, which is one of the trademarks of the games it is based upon. This is particularly noticeable in the character of Claptrap, whose only real purpose here is to spout wacky one-liners for the sake of comic relief. Although I wouldn't have minded having him occasionally drop the odd funny line every now and then, there wasn't a single thing Claptrap said or did in this film that raised the slightest smile out of me at any point. In fact, I would go so far as to say Claptrap ruins several moments of the film with his poorly timed attempts at making the audience laugh.
For instance, in one scene where the human characters are admiring a beautiful plant growing out of the cracks in a sewer, Claptrap suddenly jumps down and crushes the plant to death for no apparent reason. What could have been a nice opportunity to show the team bonding over something they each agree on is instead used as a cheap excuse to shoehorn in comedy where it isn't required. It is obvious that the film wants us to laugh at Claptrap's expense, but it only makes people like me resent him the same way many audiences resented Jar Jar Binks in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. When you can't even extract the most basic, endearing humour out of a character voiced by Jack Black, you know that something is amiss.
There's also isn't anything worthwhile to mention about the cast, aside from the fact that they each fulfil their purpose to the story and nothing more. Cate Blanchett tries her best to be as tough and mysterious as possible as Lilith, but she's so thinly written that you'd be hard-pressed finding anything relatable about her character. Most of the time Lilith needs the other members of her crew to help her out whenever she is in a pinch, and even then she can't bring herself to thank them. Because of this, I just did not care at all about what happened to Lilith in the long run.
Kevin Hart was also decidedly underused as Roland, who spends most of the film faking out the audience over whether or not he survived the latest scuffle. Likewise, Ariana Greenblatt as Tiny Tina does little more than throw explosives at her enemies while Florian Munteanu as Krieg protects her from any threat that could be considered too large for her to handle. To top it all off, Jamie Lee Curtis as Dr. Tannis adds nothing of note to the film other than to provide the obligatory scientific exposition. With such a large cast of talented actors at the helm, it's amazing that this film couldn't even give us at least one memorable performance out of any of them, which is saying quite a lot.
Whether you're a fan of the franchise or a mere novice, this 2024 film adaptation of "Borderlands" is sure to disappoint you no matter how much you may know about the series. It fails to find ways to set itself apart from every other PG-13 action comedy and it makes no effort to immerse the audience in its otherwise interesting universe. Since I have never properly played any of the games, I am unable to determine firsthand how accurate the film is to the original source material, but judging by some of the online backlash I have read leading up to its release, things don't look too good. As far as I am concerned, that should be all the proof you need to take your business elsewhere.
I rate it 3.5/10.
Trap (2024)
One of Shyamalan's best films in many years
"Trap" is a psychological thriller film written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan ("The Sixth Sense", "Unbreakable", "Signs"). Starring Josh Hartnett in the lead role, it subverts the usual expectations of the divisive filmmaker to become one of his best films in many years.
As a reward for achieving high marks in school, firefighter Cooper (Josh Hartnett) takes his teenage daughter Riley (Ariel Donoghue) to a pop concert for her favourite singer Lady Raven (Saleka Shyamalan). During the show, Cooper notices the large presence of police officers at the venue, and sneaks out to deduce what is happening. Cooper soon learns that the police have been tipped off that a local serial killer "The Butcher" is currently in attendance at this concert, causing all conventional methods of leaving the stadium to be put into place to prevent his escape. Realising he could now be caught, the serial killer Cooper begins to plot his getaway without raising the suspicions of his daughter, the police, and all of the other 30,000 concert attendees.
Due to his tendency to rely heavily on twist endings, M. Night Shyamalan has gained quite a polarising reputation for himself over the years. Sometimes his twists end up working to the film's advantage, like "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable", while others are so hilariously lame and mediocre that they border on insulting to the audience's intelligence, like "The Happening" and "Old". There's no denying Shyamalan has talent where it counts, but when you constantly use the same tired technique over and over in most of your movies, you are likely to be viewed as something of a one trick pony by viewers and critics alike. In Shyamalan's latest movie "Trap", it would seem that the veteran filmmaker has put aside his typical penchant for huge twists to instead deliver a highly involving, well-made thriller that builds to an appropriate conclusion without trying too hard.
In true Shyamalan fashion, the story hooks you in pretty much straight away with its intriguing set-up and concept. We see Cooper, a seemingly good-natured, family-oriented man, happily drive his young daughter Riley to a concert for a famous pop singer she holds in high regard. As the concert begins, Cooper finds himself distracted by the police blocking off all of the exits, later learning that they are all there to catch a notorious serial killer who happens to be in the building at that very moment. It is then revealed to us that Cooper is in fact the killer they are after, as he sadistically watches live footage of his latest victim scream for help on his phone. In most other cases, this would be the huge twist that Shyamalan would save for the end but this time it is actually an early key plot point that sets the rest of the story in motion. From here on out, the film becomes a game of cat and mouse between Cooper and all of those trying to find who the real killer is amidst the thousands of concert goers.
Something else that Shyamalan does well here is maintain the audience's attention even during scenes that could have gone nowhere. Although some plot elements seem a bit too convenient at times, they don't hinder the overall flow of the story where it matters. There are several instances where it seems like Cooper could be caught at any time thanks to one minor slip up but he will somehow find a way to cover his tracks and outsmart anyone suspicious of his actions. To my surprise, almost all of these close calls were credible within the context of the scenes they were featured, effectively convincing us that Cooper is truly a criminal mastermind. Naturally, it is inevitable that something will go wrong for him at some point, and it is the anticipation of how things will play out that keeps the audience guessing the fate of not only Cooper, but also anyone unfortunate enough to figure out his sinister secret.
The film is also excels both visually and atmospherically. A concert arena filled with screaming teenage girls is probably one of the last places you would expect for a setting to a serial killer movie, but Shyamalan actually does a solid job making it work within this unusual location. In one scene, Cooper wanders around the venue in search of an escape route, sizing up any openings he could fit into and any security personnel he will need to avoid. As the camera follows his creepy gaze, we see Cooper grow increasingly confident of his current position, believing he will soon find the perfect way to leave the venue undetected. Upon returning to his seat, Cooper points out to Riley the areas they should explore later, unbeknownst to her that he is using this as an excuse to sneak out with her. It is interesting to see how this large venue with all of the exits covered still has plenty of weak spots that have been overlooked, and watching Cooper assess all of his options of eluding capture is equally as involving as the rest of the story itself.
In what should be regarded as a major comeback for him, Josh Hartnett is appropriately affable yet menacing in the role of Cooper. It's easy to assume at first that someone like Cooper couldn't possibly be a murderer, but as we should all be aware of by now, psychopathic serial killers are often the people you'd least suspect. Hartnett is fantastic at projecting the image of Cooper being a wholesome family man on the surface but hiding a monstrous, bloodcurdling secret from others, including his own family. I often found myself unable to look away from every move he made throughout the film, from his fatherly banter with Riley to him trying to suppress his murderous desires from emerging at the most inopportune time. This is easily one of Hartnett's best roles, and it's nice to see him showcase his talents in a film like this, especially after dropping off the acting radar for such a long time.
Worth mentioning as well is Saleka Shyamalan as Lady Raven, whose contribution to the story went beyond a mere plot gimmick. It is clear that Lady Raven is based on real-world pop singers like Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande, which is something the film utilises in its favour. Although I cannot reveal too much about what happens without giving away spoilers, I was impressed at how Saleka was able to handle her scenes whenever she was on screen. At first, I was concerned Saleka was only cast in the film due to her being the daughter of the film's writer and director, but she quickly overcomes the nepo baby stereotype to prove herself a rather talented singer and actress in her own right.
After so many years of mediocre to terrible projects, it is refreshing to see M. Night Shyamalan return to form in "Trap", a film that worthily stands among his best work. Though this film's conclusion may not blow your mind the same way some of his earlier ones did, it nonetheless makes up for it with its great performances, creepy atmosphere, and consistent pacing to help keep you guessing until the very end. Personally, I would much prefer Shyamalan make movies in this style rather than ones that seem like contrived set-ups for an obligatory big twist at the end, and this film gives me hope that he could very well be heading in that direction. Whether or not he actually follows through on this is currently uncertain, but for now, this film definitely shows promise.
I rate it 8/10.
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
Welcomes both the "Merc with a Mouth" and his clawed counterpart into the MCU with open arms
"Deadpool & Wolverine" is the sequel to both 2016's "Deadpool" and 2018's "Deadpool 2", and the 34th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Directed by Shawn Levy ("Night at the Museum" trilogy, "Cheaper by the Dozen") and starring Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman in the lead roles, it alleviates any doubt that Disney would ruin the iconic "Merc with a Mouth" in a film that welcomes both him and his clawed counterpart into the MCU with open arms.
Sometime after the events of "Deadpool 2", Wade Wilson/Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) is now working as a car salesman after his application to join the Avengers was declined. One night, Wade is enjoying a surprise birthday party with his friends when he is suddenly visited by the Time Variance Authority (TVA), who forcibly take him to their headquarters to meet their high ranking agent Mr. Paradox (Matthew Macfadyen). While there, Mr. Paradox informs Wade that due to his previous escapades through the multiverse, he has inadvertently caused his own universe to unravel, giving him just 72 hours until everyone and everything he loves disappears forever. To prevent this from happening, Mr. Paradox tasks Wade with searching through numerous universes to find a suitable variant of Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to assist him on his mission. During his journey, Wade eventually stumbles upon a disgraced, alcoholic variant of Wolverine and after some initial hostility, the two pair up to stop further damage from spreading throughout the entire multiverse.
In recent years, the MCU has found itself stuck in something of a creative rut, churning out lukewarm to terrible content that is causing the interest of general audiences and longtime fans to dissipate. Though it is indeed a tall order to top the two recent "Avengers" films, it has since become clear that the best days of the once adored superhero franchise are now well and truly in the past. When Disney acquired 20th Century Fox in 2017, this allowed for some previously unavailable Marvel heroes to join the MCU, keeping fans hopeful that there could be some exciting new additions in the future. After some lengthy creative negotiations, we now have the first MCU film to focus entirely on heroes once owned by Fox in "Deadpool & Wolverine", which makes great use of both character dynamics without ever forgetting their trademark appeal.
Something practically everyone knows and loves about Deadpool's character is his crude, unapologetically violent approach to getting the job done, a trait many would assume has no place within the otherwise PG-13 rated MCU. However, it is soon shown to us that this is definitely not the case this time around, as we are quickly treated to all of his signature blood, gore, swearing, and sexual innuendo that many feared would be absent after the Disney buyout. As our red-suited anti-hero playfully hums along to the opening logos, he then breaks the fourth wall in his usual fashion by directly informing the audience that a lot has happened since his previous adventure. We see him make sly references to his IP being under new ownership, the spotty legacy of the 20th Century Fox era of superhero movies, and even some self-referential jabs at the current decline in quality of the MCU itself. This is then followed up with an impressively shot, yet brutally violent action scene set to a song made famous by a popular early 2000s boyband. It was at this point I knew that Deadpool is in good hands with people who actually understand his character, at least for the time being.
Similarly, Wolverine's return to the spotlight is handled rather well too. At first, I was apprehensive about revisiting the character out of fear it would diminish the perfect ending to 2017's "Logan", but to my relief we soon learn that this is an entirely different variation from another multiverse altogether. This variant is viewed as a complete failure in his universe, reduced to drinking his problems away hoping in vain he will eventually succumb to alcohol poisoning and die, which is impossible considering his genetic makeup. After this Wolverine and Deadpool form an uneasy alliance, we soon see their comedic dynamic come into play. Deadpool is of course the loud-mouthed, wisecracking comic relief making humorous observations to help move the plot along, and Wolverine is the disheveled straight man whose reactions to certain situations allow for him to learn from his previous mistakes. Each of the two characters are given equal amounts of screen time throughout the story, and watching them grow in their own respective ways leads to a very satisfying conclusion on both fronts.
In addition to this, the action sequences never stop being fun. Director Shawn Levy frames each of these scenes with all of the same visual style as the previous two "Deadpool" films, littering them with graphic violence, sexual references, and the occasional funny allusion to the real-world actors playing the characters involved in the skirmish. Nothing is ever compromised for the sake of appeasing a family-friendly audience, with this film proudly wearing its R rating as a badge of honour. Best of all, there wasn't a single action scene that felt out of place or one where it was hard to tell who was fighting who. Many times I found myself genuinely invested in everything that was happening during a fight, as the outcome could seriously affect how the rest of the story was going to play out. This is something that has been missing from recent MCU films, where most of the action sequences feel pretty much the same the whole way through.
Without giving away too much, it is worth mentioning that this film has a number of hidden surprises and cameos that aren't strictly limited to just the MCU. In one scene, both Deadpool and Wolverine team up with other heroes who have been absent for a very long time, which is sure to excite people in a similar manner to that portals scene in "Spider-Man: No Way Home". These characters were used well within the context of the story, and some of them I had almost forgotten about had this film not reminded me of their existence. Of course, I am not going to reveal who they all are due to spoilers, so all I will say is that it has me curious to see what could happen in future MCU projects if Disney ever decides to use them again.
I have said it twice before and I will say it again; Ryan Reynolds was born to play the role of Wade Wilson/Deadpool. From his quick-witted observations at whatever predicament he has found himself in to his assured skills in weaponry and hand-to-hand combat, there is simply no other actor out there capable of imitating Reynolds's trademark charisma. What's also interesting here is watching how much Wade has changed in between the previous film and this one. It is established that Wade desperately longs to become one of the Avengers, naturally feeling devastated upon finding out he has been turned down by those he admires most. This has clearly affected his self-esteem, and watching Wade try to regain his signature confidence over the course of the story is a nice way to help him develop into the worthy hero he wishes to become.
Likewise, it is great to see Hugh Jackman return to the role that made him into an international star. As mentioned earlier, this Wolverine is at rock bottom, having failed to meet all of the expectations required of him in his respective universe. He fully realises he has messed things up, and it is going to take somebody as determined as Deadpool to drag him out of this hole. Jackman maintains that same amount of surliness and feeling of inadequacy as all of his previous versions of Wolverine, only this time it is used to play off his comedic partner in Deadpool. Though he clearly can't stand him at first, Wolverine soon realises that Deadpool is an important catalyst towards his potential redemption, and so begrudgingly tolerates his antics throughout the film. It is here we see that Reynolds and Jackman have great chemistry with each other, with their interactions contributing many humorous and heartfelt moments that feel right at home with the MCU.
For anyone still uncertain over the future of both IPs, "Deadpool & Wolverine" is sure to put most people at ease with its seamless integration into the rest of the MCU. It treats the characters with the same level of respect as their fans and it never lets up with everything that made each of them so iconic in the first place. Although I think it's a bit early to tell if the MCU has now been "saved" from its downward spiral, I can at least say that this film provides a highly entertaining experience regardless of which direction things end up going. At this point in time, that reason alone is something commendable.
I rate it a solid 9/10.
IF (2024)
Fails to take advantage of its interesting premise by squandering virtually all of its potential
"IF" is a fantasy family film written and directed by John Krasinski ("A Quiet Place" Parts I and II). Starring Cailey Fleming and Ryan Reynolds, it fails to take advantage of its interesting premise by squandering virtually all of its potential.
In New York City, 12-year-old Bea (Cailey Fleming) moves into an apartment occupied by her grandmother Margaret (Fiona Shaw) while she waits for her father (John Krasinski) to undergo heart surgery. One day, Bea notices a strange creature being accompanied by a man and decides to follow them both to a nearby house. While there, Bea witnesses the man and the creature retrieve a large purple monster named Blue (voiced by Steve Carell) and is soon spotted by the trio, causing her to faint in shock. Upon awakening, Bea finds herself in the man's apartment, who introduces himself to her as Cal (Ryan Reynolds) and informs her that he works with other people's abandoned imaginary friends ("IF" for short) to help them find new homes. After some convincing by Cal, Bea eventually decides to assist him on his mission to rescue as many discarded IFs as possible.
Throughout pop culture, the concept of having imaginary friends has been explored numerous times. Some of the more prominent examples of this include Bing Bong, the childhood imagery friend of "Inside Out" protagonist Riley Andersen, and the Cartoon Network series "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends", which is set in an orphanage dedicated to housing the titular creatures. Part of the reason this idea works so well in fiction is due to the fact that people of all ages at one point have imagined having that perfect friend to spend their time with, whether it's another person or some odd creature dreamed up on the spot. The 2024 film "IF" attempts to use this intriguing concept to remind its audience of the importance of retaining our youthful innocence where necessary but falters at nearly every opportunity.
Among the film's many problems, I would have to say that its bizarre narrative structure is what stands out the most. As the story begins, we are introduced to Bea, a young girl who learns she now has the ability to see other people's imaginary friends (IFs). No explanation is ever given as to why she suddenly has this power after twelve years and the film never bothers to explore the idea of why she wasn't able to do so beforehand. Immediately after, Bea decides to work with Cal, a strange man whom she recently saw sneaking into another child's bedroom at night, in order to help him find new owners for neglected imaginary friends. From here on out, the rest of the film consists of scenes featuring Bea and Cal interacting with other IFs who long to be re-homed or Bea hoping that her sick father will recover from his illness. The film's repetitive, non-sensical plot elements coupled with equally strange character motivations make it hard to become fully invested into what can be loosely referred to as a story. As a result, I simply did not care at all about any major event that happened in this movie.
Though he has proven himself capable in the past with the "A Quiet Place" series, John Krasinski's direction here is painfully lacklustre. His handling of the film's world building leaves so much to be desired that it feels like he himself didn't understand what type of film he was trying to make. In one scene, we are shown that all of the IFs reside within a large ride at Coney Island that contains a hidden trap door leading to each of their living quarters. Instead of coming alive as a living, breathing fantasy world, the interior of this ride is nothing more than an excuse to show off the film's decent special effects, with practically no sense of atmosphere or immersion. Krasinski makes no effort to draw distinctions between any of the different IFs, aside from the fact they are all voiced by random celebrities who are only there for the pay check. When you can't even get the fantasy elements right in a fantasy movie, you know it's not going to work out.
Something else worth mentioning is the film's unnecessarily bleak tone. What appears to have been advertised as a light-hearted story about a young girl helping imaginary friends find new homes is actually a disheartening experience that is constantly reminding the audience about death, losing friends, forgetting the things you love, and never attaining true happiness. What's strange is that while the film tries to address each of these depressing themes, it only ever manages to offer the typical empty promises that things will improve eventually. Which is not what happens out in the real world. If you're going to make a family film that touches on downbeat topics like this, then you should at least show constructive methods for how to overcome these obstacles, something that we never get to see at any point in this movie.
In addition to this, the film's pacing is so slow that it's hard to remain invested in anything long term. Practically nothing exciting happens that is worth mentioning, and other than one brief scene near the end, most of the film has so little occurring throughout the story that I struggled to remember any other genuine moments that stood out to me. Because of this, I found myself bored out of my mind for almost the entirety of the film's 104 minute run time, which also includes ten minutes worth of credits. In most other cases, I can forgive a film for being inaccessible to older viewers if the children at least enjoy it, but I cannot imagine any kids staying focused for very long while sitting through this one. If anything, this is the type of film you would put on to help your children fall asleep, because I was often at the point of dozing off at any given time.
As far as child actors go, Cailey Fleming tries her hardest with the mediocre material she has to work with, though this ultimately proves to be a futile effort. Bea is so underwritten and generic that there is nothing Fleming can really do help her stand out beyond your typical "child with powers" character. Her struggles are all surface level and don't offer any real insight as to why she is even the right person to be helping the IFs in the first place. For most of the movie, Bea either looks bored or confused as to what is happening around her, and aside from some of the interactions she has with Cal and her father, she doesn't feel like she is growing all that much over the course of the story. It is possible Bea was written this weakly on purpose to serve as an avatar character for children to imagine themselves in her role, but this is still no excuse for how poorly utilised she is within the film's plot.
Another disappointment would be Ryan Reynolds in the role of Cal, a character so far removed from what he would normally play. Anyone familiar with Reynolds would know that he is at his best playing likeable, wisecracking characters (which is why he is so perfect as Deadpool), yet Cal is so unbelievably dull and reserved that I had to keep reminding myself that it was him in the role. For most of the movie, Cal remains pessimistic towards his goal, only occasionally having his spirits lifted by either Bea or one of the other IFs. At no point does Reynolds ever contribute anything humorous or noteworthy to the story to help him leave any real impression on the viewer.
On the other hand, John Krasinski's character of Bea's father is far closer to somebody you would expect Ryan Reynolds to be playing. He is eccentric, fun-loving, and isn't afraid to embrace his inner child whenever he plays with his daughter. Unfortunately, he is mostly confined to a hospital room for the duration of the film, only ever showing up when he needs to provide any expositional dialogue. In my opinion, Krasinski and Reynolds should have swapped roles, as this could have helped the movie somewhat, although not by a whole lot.
In the voice role as Blue, the only IF with some substantial character development, Steve Carell's performance is decidedly underwhelming. Every comedic moment Blue tries to add to the story falls flat, with Carell's signature delivery coming across as desperate to make the audience laugh. Aside from Blue, the rest of the IFs feel more like forgettable throwaway gags. Sure, some of their voices are provided by celebrities like George Clooney, Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Bradley Cooper, and Bill Hader, but aside from that, they all feel indistinguishable from one another. It's quite an achievement for a film about imaginary talking creatures to be this boring, but by some miracle it found a way.
Despite having so much going for it, "IF" is a failure on a large scale that makes poor use of every one of its otherwise engaging attributes. The characters are underdeveloped, the story is uninteresting, the pacing is sluggish, and its depressing tone certainly brings the mood down. I honestly wanted to like this movie but I just cannot recommend it to anyone, as both children and adults would be hard-pressed finding anything worth appreciating from either point of view. If you ask me, you're much better off imagining a better movie to watch than this one, because even that provides a better use of your time.
I rate it 4/10.
Twisters (2024)
An exciting adventure film that works perfectly fine on its own without any prior knowledge of what came before it
"Twisters" is a standalone sequel to the 1996 disaster film "Twister", Directed by Lee Isaac Chung ("Minari") and starring Daisy Edgar-Jones, Glen Powell, and Anthony Ramos, it exceeds its loosely related predecessor as an exciting adventure film that works perfectly fine on its own without any prior knowledge of what came before it.
Five years after losing most of her friends in a devastating tornado, former storm chaser Kate Cooper (Daisy Edgar-Jones) has since retired and pursued a career as a meteorologist in New York City. One day, Kate is approached by her friend Javi (Anthony Ramos), who informs her that tornado season is intensifying in Oklahoma and wants her to assist him in testing out some new weather tracking technology he has developed. After some convincing, Kate reluctantly comes out of retirement to accompany Javi into the dangerous, wind-stricken state in hopes that this new device can prevent future casualties of this natural phenomenon. Upon arriving, Kate and Javi find themselves crossing paths with Tyler Owens (Glen Powell), a social media influencer who has gained fame by posting all of his storm chasing adventures online for his millions of followers. With the storm season worsening, Kate, Javi, and Tyler work together to further study the patterns of these deadly winds while also trying to survive being blown away in the process.
Thanks to advancements in technology, disaster movies experienced quite a resurgence back in the 90s, with films like "Independence Day", "Armageddon", and "Volcano" dominating the box office throughout the course of this decade. One of the more notable examples of this genre would be "Twister", a film about a group of tornado chasers determined to research these destructive winds even if it means placing their lives in danger. Although the film was flawed in many places, it nonetheless managed to win audiences over with its great special effects and sound for that particular era. On that note, it's worth mentioning that "Twister" was also one of the very first films to be released on DVD, likely as an ideal way to demonstrate the sound capabilities of home theatre systems. Almost 30 years later, we now have a standalone follow-up in the pluralised "Twisters", which still provides many of the thrills of its similarly themed relative with plenty of technical updates and even some narrative improvements that were previously lacking.
It's pretty obvious that most people only watched the original film for the special effects, choosing to disregard the poor characterisation and paper-thin plot as irrelevant to the enjoyment factor. However, this time around, it seems like actual effort has gone into developing the characters beyond one-dimensional people placed in the path of danger simply for the sake of an action scene. As we are introduced to our protagonist Kate, we see that she is still suffering from PTSD as a result of watching her friends literally blown away right in front of her by a huge tornado. With her confidence in her abilities now in doubt, Kate decides to work in the less dangerous field of meteorology behind the safety of an office desk. When her friend Javi convinces her to help him with his research, Kate musters up the courage to return to what she knows best; chasing tornadoes right up close and personal. Most of the film focuses on Kate putting her extensive tornado knowledge to great use, and it's nice to see her work hard to conquer her trauma over the course of the story.
As the film progresses, we then meet the bombastic but charming Tyler Owens, whose high-octane methods of chasing tornados have gained him a large following online. Donning a stetson and cranking the rodeo music up loud, Tyler and his crew are shown speeding their way directly inside the whirling vortexes and recording their antics for the entire world to see, earning him the nickname "The Cowboy Meteorologist". He treats tornadoes almost like wild broncos, wrangling his way through the extreme winds to "tame" them using the technological features attached to his customised pick-up truck. What I found interesting about Tyler's character is that despite his rowdy demeanour, he is quite knowledgable about meteorology and is passionate about what he does for a living. He is genuinely fascinated by the unpredictability of these dangerous wind anomalies, using his adventurous nature to encourage his fans to learn more about the world's weather, so long as they don't try to imitate what he does at home, of course.
Also improving upon the original is the film's visual effects and pacing. Director Lee Isaac Chung's quick editing and atmospheric cinematography skilfully places his audience right into the thick of the intense winds, making it easy to understand their destructive capabilities. We see objects consumed by the tornadoes like a monstrous creature devouring everything in its path, playing into the notion that this extreme weather is truly a force to behold. The CGI effects are all highly convincing here, and the very idea that a large object like a truck or even a barn could drop out of the sky amidst the chaos at any moment helps keep viewers in suspense. Additionally, unlike the 1996 film, which was borderline comical in how convenient the tornadoes would appear randomly whenever the plot desired it, each time one was featured here it was because the characters were actively searching for it. As a result, it really felt as though these storms were being chased by the chasers rather than the storms chasing them instead.
In the lead role, Daisy Edgar-Jones is likeable enough as Kate, although it does take her a bit of time to gain some personality throughout the film. At first, her character is understandably still coming to terms with the trauma she is enduring over what happened five years earlier, so she does little else but react stoically to things for the first half of the movie. I suppose you could interpret this as a commentary on how people handle PTSD differently from others, but it doesn't help Kate stand out among the more interesting cast members who are doing far more exciting things in the mean time. Eventually, Kate does come into her own as she regains her confidence over time, and in doing so she becomes a believable heroine whose actions make you want to cheer for her to succeed.
I was somewhat disappointed by how underused Anthony Ramos was as Javi, whose role in the film is nothing more than a basic sidekick for Kate. Though his interactions with her did provide some reasonable insight at first, he is later demoted to being a typical expositional character, only really showing up to inform Kate about a tornado that might be forming. Since Javi is the one who built the technology that could teach others more about how tornadoes function, it seems like a waste not to have featured him in the story as much as he should have been. Aside from one scene near the end, Javi's overall presence in the film is mostly forgettable.
However, Glen Powell is definitely a major highlight as Tyler, whose character steals the show in nearly every one of his scenes without even trying. Powell's performance is reminiscent of a young Matthew McConaughey, always wearing his Texan roots on his sleeve and exhibiting a level confidence that always has him in control of the situation, no matter how bad things might get. Tyler's unique methods of chasing tornadoes are so much fun to watch that if he were a real, I'd be more than happy to subscribe to his YouTube channel. Tyler's interactions with Kate also add some much needed emotional warmth to the film, as it is comforting to watch the two bond over their mutual interest in tornados. This is certainly a refreshing change from the 1996 film, which consisted primarily of Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt bickering at each other until another tornado decides to strike out of the blue.
Regardless of whether you've seen the original or not, "Twisters" is sure to provide all of the necessary thrills one would expect from a film about people chasing tornadoes. It only wishes to please its audience with laidback popcorn entertainment and never becomes too bogged down with deep themes or complicated exposition. With that said, I would be willing to call this one of the best movies to feature tornadoes as its main plot device. Then again, apart from the 1996 film, the "Sharknado" series, and "The Wizard of Oz", it's not like it has much competition on its hands.
I rate it 8/10.
Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F (2024)
Successfully recaptures most of what made the series so fun in the first place by making great use of its setting and characters
"Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F" is the sequel to the action comedy film "Beverly Hills Cop III" and the fourth film in the "Beverly Hills Cop" franchise. Directed by Mark Molloy and starring Eddie Murphy, Taylour Paige, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Judge Reinhold, John Ashton, and Kevin Bacon, it successfully recaptures most of what made the series so fun in the first place by making great use of its setting and characters.
Thirty years after the events of "Beverly Hills Cop III", detective Axel Foley (Eddie Murphy) still patrols the streets of his home city of Detroit, becoming something of a minor celebrity among the local citizens. One day, Axel learns that his estranged attorney daughter Jane (Taylour Paige) is now in danger due to her client's criminal background, and decides to venture back to Beverly Hills to investigate further. Upon arriving, Axel reunites with his old friends John Taggart (John Ashton) and Billy Rosewood (Judge Reinhold), who inform him that Jane's client has links to a conspiracy involving a large criminal enterprise encompassing the entire state of California. After Rosewood is suddenly abducted, Axel teams up with a reluctant Jane and her ex-boyfriend detective Sam Abbott (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to bring down this illegal operation and save Rosewood's life in the process.
If there were ever a character who truly encompasses the full extent of Eddie Murphy's talents, look no further than Axel Foley, the protagonist of the popular "Beverly Hills Cop" franchise. Since making his debut four decades ago, Axel Foley has endured on as one of the most memorable comedic characters of 1980s cinema, and is in my humble opinion, Eddie Murphy's very best role. With his street-smart attitude and a catchy background theme to boot, it's hard not to be charmed by Axel's presence whenever he is on screen thanks to that signature Eddie Murphy energy we all know and love. After 30 years of multiple attempts at a franchise revival, the future of Axel Foley appeared in doubt, especially since the third film in the series fell so short of many people's expectations. Now after all this time, we finally have a fourth entry in "Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F", a solidly entertaining return to form for both Eddie Murphy and the series as a whole.
In a similar vein to the mutually belated sequel "Top Gun: Maverick" (interestingly, both films were produced by Jerry Bruckheimer), the film begins by showing our lead character still at the top of his game, with age hardly slowing him down at all. We see Axel Foley attending an ice hockey game with a younger white cop who idolises him to the point where the latter nervously tries to avoid saying anything that could be misconstrued as racist. As to be expected, Axel chooses to string his underling along only to later admit he's just playing him for laughs. It is soon revealed that Axel is only at this event to catch a group of criminals operating within the locker rooms, leading to a fast-paced chase sequence that results in a great deal of collateral damage and comedic banter along the way. This opening does a very good job of establishing how Axel has been able to remain so relevant for such a long time, as his classic unorthodox approach to tackling a situation is still serving him well even to this day, despite some of the usual setbacks.
However, unlike "Maverick", which kept its 80s roots to a minimum, this film happily plays into every bit of 80s nostalgia it can find, but in a way that actually works to its advantage. For instance, Lorne Balfe's musical score brims with an intense, upbeat 80s-style synthesiser, giving the old "Axel F" theme a more slick and impactful effect on a scene when necessary. Additionally, director Mark Molloy pays homage to the cinematography of the original film, in an updated sequence showing how much different Beverly Hills is from Axel's home city of Detroit. Even the chase scenes and shoot-outs have a decidedly 80s flavour to them, with quick-cut editing and humorous situations involving the characters. In most other films that capitalise on the tropes of the past, these types of references would come across as a desperate attempt to appeal to older audiences, but here they are done in such an affectionate and fun way that they end up enhancing its entertainment value. After all, you've got admire a film that can make a chase scene with a comical three-wheeled parking officer's vehicle look intense.
It may have been 30 years since he last played the role, but Eddie Murphy proves any doubters wrong that he no longer has it in him to reprise one of his most iconic characters for the audiences of today. Though he is now well into his 60s, Murphy nonetheless demonstrates a surprising amount of manic energy that has been sorely missed over the past several years, and he never once misses a beat. As mentioned earlier, Axel Foley remains as quick-witted, motor-mouthed, and profane as he was decades ago, refusing to let time wear him down too much. Something I've always loved about Axel's character is that in addition to providing comic relief, he's also a highly efficient detective, using his own unique street-smarts to solve a crime in a style that no other cops would ever be able to replicate. As a result, we have the perfect balance between a character whose jokes we can laugh at and one we can take seriously if the situation calls for it. Very few actors would be able to play such a role in this manner, but Eddie Murphy once again pulls it off with flying colours.
The supporting cast, both old and new, also compliment the film rather nicely here as well. As Axel's daughter Jane, Taylour Paige manages to stand out alongside Eddie Murphy, without ever once trying to upstage him. Although I was annoyed at first with how she starts out as the typical "I hate my father" estranged daughter character, over the course of the film Jane does grow to appreciate him as an important asset to her investigation. You can tell that while Jane still resents her father because of his questionable decision-making in the past, there's a part of her that wants to forgive him and invite him back into her life. There are even moments where you tell she is definitely Axel Foley's daughter, with her determined attitude being one of her most obvious character traits.
I also liked the addition of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Kevin Bacon to the cast, whose combined presence in the film fits seamlessly into the story. It is clear that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Bobby is intended to represent the modern day cops who have become more lax in their investigative strategies, as opposed to Axel's more raw, unabashed approach. Watching Bobby learn from Axel throughout the story leads to some humorous and interesting character dynamics that help bridge the gap between the policing of the past and present. On the other hand, Kevin Bacon looks like he's enjoying himself in the antagonistic role of Captain Grant. Without giving away too much, Captain Grant is a nice throwback to the corrupt police officers of classic cop thrillers, using his connections to the criminal underworld to try and skim some off the side for himself.
For fans of the original three films, John Ashton and Judge Reinhold both return as Taggart and Rosewood, whose roles in the previous entries were the ideal straight men for Axel to play off comedically and dramatically. Though they each aren't in this film as often as I had hoped they would be, they at least contributed significantly to the plot and aren't simply cameos for nostalgia's sake. Taggart was always a by-the-books cop who never relented on police protocol and now that he's in the position of police chief, he is able to grant Axel otherwise top secret information regarding the case he is investigating. Likewise, Rosewood has had many years to step up in the world of law enforcement, adopting some of the useful strategies taught to him by Axel so long ago. It's great to see these two working alongside Axel again, although there are the occasional times where their advanced ages are quite obvious.
As we continue to receive more belated sequels to classic IPs, we should take some comfort that "Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F" avoids most of the mistakes that many others like it have made in the past. It keeps its main character front and centre, never allowing him to be upstaged by the younger, more energetic cast members, and it never relents on the exciting action sequences in favour of playing it safe. For those who were disappointed by the third film in the series, I can say that this one is a big improvement in nearly every regard. Reportedly, Eddie Murphy has confirmed that a fifth film is in development, which has me both concerned and curious as to where things will go from here. So long as Murphy can once again keep up the pace, I have faith that it will be another success.
I rate it 8/10.
A Quiet Place: Day One (2024)
A worthwhile origin story/spin-off that establishes the beginning of a world turned silent
"A Quiet Place: Day One" is a prequel to the 2018 suspense horror film "A Quiet Place" that serves as the third installment in the series. Co-written and directed by Michael Sarnoski ("Pig") and starring Lupita Nyong'o and Joseph Quinn, it is a worthwhile origin story/spin-off that establishes the beginning of a world turned silent.
In New York City, Sam (Lupita Nyong'o) lives alone amongst the hustle and bustle of her urban environment, preferring to keep to herself rather than interact with others. While Sam is out and about one day, the city is suddenly invaded by blind, lightning fast extraterrestrials that hunt their prey based entirely on sound. To contain the problem, the US government immediately orders all bridges leading out of Manhattan to be destroyed, trapping Sam and several other people with the monstrous alien creatures. As she narrowly avoids attracting the creatures' attention, Sam soon crosses paths with Eric (Joseph Quinn), a young law student desperate to escape the city along with her. Using only their wits and quick thinking, Sam and Eric work together to navigate the confined island in an effort to cross the water and reach the safety of the mainland.
To my surprise, the success of the 2018 film "A Quiet Place" has now resulted in the emergence of a media franchise, with its first continuation released three years later. Although I still think the original works just fine as a standalone film, "Part II" nonetheless managed to expand upon what was previously established by introducing some important elements that allowed for more world building within this silent society. As a result, the groundwork had now been laid out for further additions to this story, including learning about the strengths and weaknesses of the alien monsters terrorising the Earth. In the spin-off/prequel film "A Quiet Place: Day One", we see the very beginning of this extraterrestrial invasion from the perspective of two people who are forced to remain quiet at the risk of losing their lives.
The exact timeframe of the film is unclear, although judging by the fact that Sam is seen listening to an iPod Classic, it can be assumed that it takes place sometime in the 2010s before the events of the first movie. As opposed to the rural setting of the previous two films, this one takes place in the concrete jungle of New York City, a location where loud noises and other cacophonies are an everyday occurrence. On that note, at the very start of the film, we are even informed that a typical day on the streets of New York will expose a person to 90 decibels of sound, equivalent to someone repeatedly screaming in your face at top volume. Our protagonist Sam, who is desensitised to this constant noise she hears on a daily basis, soon realises that the city is now under attack by an alien threat, but like everyone else she is too caught up in the chaos to figure out how to elude their advances. Sam is later informed by a small group of survivors that these creatures have ultra-sensitive hearing, which alert them to anything they can attack at an extreme speed. To make matters worse, Sam and the city's other remaining inhabitants discover they are trapped on the island due to all the bridges being destroyed, leaving them as prisoners along with creatures who can kill them instantly upon making the slightest audible sound.
After it is discovered that the monsters cannot swim, those trapped on the island all mutually agree that the best solution would be for them all to walk as quietly as possible towards the water to board any available ship heading to the other side. Although things seem to go well at first, this is soon ruined by someone accidentally brushing past a parked car that sets off the alarm, alerting the monsters to their location and mass panic erupting. Amidst the chaos of people being devoured and collateral damage to nearby buildings, Sam tries her hardest to seek shelter through the smoke but while doing so she becomes covered in ash and soot from all of the destruction occurring all around her. Since the film is set in New York City, it appears quite obvious that this imagery is meant to allude to the 9/11 attacks, as there is clearly no other comparison that can be drawn here. At first glance, this might seem disrespectful to the victims of the real-world event but I interpret its inclusion as a way of showcasing the resilience of the citizens of New York who survived a near-death experience despite the pandemonium occurring all around them.
Like its predecessors, the film makes great use of its sound design to frighten the audience through the combined efforts of building suspense and setting up situations that could easily go wrong for the characters involved. For instance, in the scene mentioned above, we see several hundred people walking in unison with their feet quietly treading in sync with each other to avoid detection from the creatures. Along their way, we see the various hazards on the ground they could encounter, including accidentally splashing in a puddle to kicking a small rock of gravel by mistake. Every step these people take, every object they pass by, and every surface they walk upon holds many risks that put them all in danger of being ripped to shreds by the monsters at any given time. As a result, it's hard not to feel a sense of anxiety watching our two lead characters navigate the sprawling metropolis of New York City while simultaneously trying to make as little noise as possible.
Though this series of films has never really had any deeply written characters, I've always liked how we still care enough about them to hope they make it to the very end. With that said, I think Lupita Nyong'o does a fine job in the lead role as Sam, whose determination to outsmart these monstrous creatures is a perfectly valid reason for us to hope she survives. It's interesting to watch as Sam sets aside her personal aversion to others in order to figure out how she is going to make it through such a large scale apocalyptic event. This makes her interactions with Eric so much more engaging as we see the two of them work in collaboration to come up with a plan to reach the mainland unharmed.
Joseph Quinn is also nice enough in the supporting role of Eric, a British expatriate law student in the wrong place at the wrong time. Due to his limited understanding of this foreign city, Eric requires a local like Sam to guide him through the unfamiliar environment of New York City, which is now hampered by the fact that it is overrun with sound sensitive monsters. Since verbal dialogue is limited and nobody uses sign language like in the previous films, we see the two communicate mostly through hand signals or by writing things down on a piece of paper. Despite having practically nothing in common with Sam at first, it's nice to see the pair grow closer over the course of the story, making their otherwise unlikely relationship so much more endearing to watch.
If you enjoyed the anxiety-ridden suspense of the first two films, then "A Quiet Place: Day One" once again delivers the goods on every front. It keeps the audience on its toes as the tension continues to mount over time while it also contributes some necessary world building elements to enhance its entertainment value. Like with the other two, this film absolutely needs to be experienced on the big screen with surround sound for maximum effect, as I can't imagine it achieving the same impact when watched on a small TV or a smartphone. According to some research, a fourth entry is in development that is set to serve as the conclusion to the entire series. So long as it finds a way to end this whole saga on a high note, then we have nothing to worry about.
I rate it 8/10.
Challengers (2024)
A creatively uneven but mostly interesting love triangle that benefits greatly from the performances of its three leads
"Challengers" is a sports drama film directed by Luca Guadagnino ("Call Me by Your Name", "Bones and All"). Starring Zendaya, Josh O'Connor, and Mike Faist, it is a creatively uneven but mostly interesting love triangle that benefits greatly from the performances of its three leads.
In 2006, tennis playing best friends Patrick Zweig (Josh O'Connor) and Art Donaldson (Mike Faist) win the junior boys' doubles title at the US Open. Afterwards, the pair develop an attraction to up-and-coming tennis star Tashi Duncan (Zendaya), who later invites the two friends up to her hotel room. Although they don't end up sleeping with each other, Tashi promises to give her phone number to whoever wins in a match against each other, with Patrick later emerging as the victor. Over time, the two friends drift apart as each of them pursue different professional tennis-related paths, culminating in Patrick and Tashi's relationship deteriorating and Art stepping in to take his place. Thirteen years later, Tashi and Art have since married with her acting as her husband's coach while Patrick is struggling to get by financially. With Art on a losing streak and Patrick wishing to regain the spotlight, the two former friends soon find themselves playing against one another at the New Rochelle Challenger event, causing Tashi to question where her loyalty truly lies.
Throughout most works of romantic fiction, the "love triangle" trope has played an important role in many stories, ranging from classic literature to modern cinema. The basic appeal of this storytelling technique can be found in the way it addresses the audience's anticipation over which suitor the object of affection will end up choosing at the expense of the loser's humiliation. In addition to this, many people in the real world have found themselves involved in such a predicament, which makes this scenario all the more relatable to the general public. The film "Challengers" features a love triangle rivalry between a former tennis player and two tennis playing friends in a film that shows us the competitive nature of this relationship both on and off the courts.
Told in a non-linear format, the film begins by introducing us to Art and Tashi, a tennis power couple whose long-lasting celebrity status is beginning to wane. Thanks to the coaching advice given to him by Tashi, she and Art have become recognisable faces around the world, but the couple's legacy is now in jeopardy due to Art's advancing age and the recent injuries he has sustained. It is made clear to the audience that the once unbeatable Art has failed to win a single match in years, with his reputation now riding on this new "Challenger" event. We are then shown that Art's first opponent will be his former best friend Patrick, whose poor decision making has led to him sleeping in his car and getting by on winning tennis matches at minor circuits. What makes this matchup so interesting isn't just the fact that these two were once the best of friends, but that they each shared a mutual infatuation with Tashi.
Flashing back thirteen years earlier, we see how close the pair were during their youth, with their bond soon tested by their shared interest in pursuing a relationship with Tashi. As a result, a fierce competitive urge arises within both friends, leading to an eventual falling out over who will end up with Tashi. Three years later, the film shows how both Art and Patrick are dealing with the pressure of making it big in the world of tennis while also coping with the idea that only one of them will win Tashi's affections. Although she chooses to be with Art, Tashi still finds herself having a one night stand with Patrick while he is in town, something that Art discovers later to his great displeasure. I enjoyed watching the way the film shows the erosion of Art and Patrick friendship over the course of their respective careers while Tashi's dilemma of longing for both of them proves equally distracting. In doing so, it gives off the impression that Tashi's huge influence over the pair's inability to make rational decisions is the true catalyst towards placing them at a perfect stalemate for their final showdown.
Like in many of his previous films, director Luca Guadagnino inserts a number of homoerotic overtones into the friendship between the two male characters. For instance, during the scene where Art and Patrick are fooling around with Tashi, she tricks the pair into making out without her involvement. Upon discovering this, rather than stop right away, the two continue passionately kissing for a bit longer before pulling away begrudgingly. Also, during one scene with the two friends watching a tennis game, Patrick peels a banana and eats it suggestively while staring into Art's eyes. I'm not sure if this is Guadagnino's way of showing how close these two really are or if it's just his attempt at being artistic for the sake of it, but it doesn't really add much to the story beyond something unintentionally comedic. Then again, I suppose it does make their vying for Tashi's attention slightly more intriguing.
As mentioned earlier, the film's storytelling structure is non-linear, which yields mixed results in the narrative department. In keeping with the tennis theme, the film often cuts back and forth between different time periods, almost like a tennis ball being repeatedly hit over a net by two players. At first, I actually liked this creative decision, as the fast pacing meant the film always had something happening on screen to prevent a scene from dragging on too long, but over time the concept became rather annoying. This is due to the fact that the film shows us four different years (2006, 2009, 2011, 2019) throughout the whole story, and the constant cutting from one year to another made it tricky to keep up with what event was taking place at what particular time. If the film had just two years instead of four, this editing technique may have worked better, because trying to stay invested with all the frequent jumping between multiple time periods is just as exhausting as playing a tennis match itself.
For a character like Tashi, it's interesting to see how Zendaya shows how conflicted she is at choosing between her two potential suitors. At first, Tashi seems to lust over them just as much as they do for her, but as the film progresses she becomes more focused on long term prospects. Though she does end up choosing Art based solely on him being at the right place at the right time, it is clear she still has lingering feelings for Patrick, especially when he suddenly reappears after such a long time. No matter how hard she tries to fight it, Tashi would obviously choose to be with both if there were a practical way of making this happen.
Additionally, there is definitely solid chemistry between Josh O'Connor and Mike Faist as Patrick and Art, respectively. You really get the sense that these two skilled tennis players have known each other since childhood, and despite their heated rivalry in winning over Tashi, they still retain a notable level of respect among themselves. I personally found Patrick the most interesting out of the two due to how much harder he has to work to make something of himself, as opposed to Art, who owes a great deal of his success to good timing. Regardless, I was never bored watching how each of their lives unfolded upon meeting Tashi for the first time.
Although some of its odd creative decisions may prove off-putting to some, "Challengers" is nonetheless an entertaining love triangle that works thanks to its believable cast and quick pacing. It's hard not to be at least a tiny bit curious as to how this saga of in-fighting, betrayal, and desire to be the best can take its toll on our three main characters, especially over the course of more than a decade. Best of all, you don't even need to be a fan of tennis to understand and appreciate how the film cleverly implements its numerous related metaphors and symbolism intended to parallel the situations of this trio of players. Coming from someone who doesn't watch tennis at all, that alone is quite admirable in my eyes.
I rate it 7.5/10.
Inside Out 2 (2024)
A worthy follow-up that might just be the best Pixar sequel that is not related to the "Toy Story" series
"Inside Out 2" is the sequel to Pixar's 2015 film "Inside Out". Directed and co-written by Kelsey Mann and featuring the voices of Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Lewis Black, Tony Hale, Liza Lapira, and Maya Hawke, it is a worthy follow-up that might just be the best Pixar sequel that is not related to the "Toy Story" series.
One year after the events of the first film, Riley Andersen (voiced by Kensington Tallman) has just turned 13 and is ready to start high school. Once again guiding Riley on her journey are her emotions Joy (voiced by Amy Poehler), Sadness (voiced by Phyllis Smith), Anger (voiced by Lewis Black), Fear (voiced by Tony Hale), and Disgust (voiced by Liza Lapira). When Riley ventures off to ice hockey camp with her best friends, her five emotions try to work together to ensure she is able to make a good first impression by removing her negative memories and sending them to the back of her mind. To her shock, Riley soon learns that her friends will be attending different high schools and her emotions are unable to help her react to this in the usual clear manner. Complicating matters further, Riley also gains four new emotions in the process - Anxiety (voiced by Maya Hawke), Envy (voiced by Ayo Edebiri), Embarrassment (voiced by Paul Walter Hauser), and Ennui (voiced by Adele Exarchopoulos).
Back in 2015, Pixar released what myself and many others consider to be one of their very best films - "Inside Out". This landmark movie, which focuses on the personified emotions of a young girl named Riley, successfully appealed to viewers from all walks of life thanks to the clever way it tackles deep and important themes that virtually anyone can relate to regardless of their age. As a result, the film has deservedly cemented itself among not only Pixar's crowning achievements but also as quite possibly one of the greatest animated films of all time. Unlike many other Pixar films, I've always thought that this one had the most amount of sequel potential due to the character of Riley growing older and her emotions needing to assist her with even more of life's problems. Nine years later, we now have "Inside Out 2", a follow-up that covers the complexity of early adolescence and the obstacles we are all bound to face along the way.
As to be expected, this film does away with Riley's naive, child-like view of the world in favour of her adopting a more mature outlook as a teenager. We see how her five emotions, led by the perpetually optimistic Joy, have learned to work in harmony with each other to ensure that Riley has the most enjoyable experience possible in this new period of her life. While things seem to be fine for everyone at first, certain situations start to arise that cause many issues for the five emotions, such as how the quintet are unable to decipher the sarcastic facial expressions of Riley's friends. In an effort to correct issues like this, Joy has all negative memories like this launched into the back of Riley's mind as a form of suppression, which seems to work until one night. This is when the emotions notice a large alarm labelled "Puberty" flashing brightly, and despite their best efforts to rid themselves of this warning signal, they soon realise that things can only worse from here on out.
We are then introduced to four brand new emotions who suddenly show up out of the blue. Anxiety, who nervously tries to control any situation, Envy, who covets everyone's best features, Embarrassment, who regularly makes a fool of himself, and Ennui, an apathetic emotion who would rather stare at her phone than interact with others. Though these new additions to Riley's emotional state are welcomed by the other five, it becomes clear that this place has little room for so many emotions working at the same time. Believing the original five are now no longer needed, Anxiety has them placed inside a glass bottle and stored away to allow her to take control of Riley's new teenage mindset. With this new power at her fingertips, Anxiety starts to create negative memories out of nothing, which causes havoc on Riley's self esteem. What we see here is the emergence of something most teenagers can relate to - a paranoid, distorted world view that changes the way they see themselves. In poor Riley's case, she starts viewing herself as an outcast loser.
The film does a solid job showing all of the resulting awkwardness that Riley faces with her new emotions at the helm. She constantly assumes the worst in everything, she craves becoming a great hockey player like her heroes, she clumsily tries to look cool in front of others, and she cannot find the motivation to overcome her problems in a constructive manner. Without her original five emotions around to help her, Riley loses sight of who she truly is, becoming an insecure shell of her former self. For the majority of the story, we watch as Joy and the other four original emotions journey back to headquarters to stop their successors from corrupting Riley further, finding creative ways to sneak their influence in to fix any damage they have caused. Like the previous film, this one cleverly uses Riley's emotional state to show us how we all must find the right methods to cope with the obstacles we face in life to grow into a better person.
In addition to this, the film also looks as fantastic as ever, something that should go without saying in a Pixar movie. In one scene, we see a dark and mysterious location known as the "Sense of Self", where all of Riley's core memories are stored through string-like strands that play quotes that resonate through Riley's mind to remind her of the type of person she is at heart. When Anxiety takes over, she corrupts some of these memories in the form of a small tree, which grows larger as Riley makes more mistakes over time. It's interesting to see how each of these places change once the new emotions have seized control, and the film gives us glimpses of what they were once like with the original five in charge.
All of these new emotions means more characters than before, which is unfortunately one of the film's most obvious weaknesses. With a total of nine emotions now inside Riley's head, it feels like the film is struggling to juggle so many different characters within the story at the same time but only managing to pull it off sparingly. The only new emotion that is given the most spotlight is Anxiety, and although this makes sense within the context of the story, it does not allow for the other three to be featured nearly as enough. I was hoping to see more of the dynamic between Anxiety and her other three compadres, yet this only really happens at about two crucial moments in the film. Still, there was one scene near the end that utilises everyone reasonably well, even if it did take a long time to reach that point in the story.
The film's voice acting is a strong as ever, with Amy Poehler injecting that much needed positive relief into Joy. Like Riley, Joy appears to have grown considerably since the previous film, changing from a blind optimist to a sensible pragmatist. She now understands the value of teamwork, often seeking advice from her fellow emotions whenever she can't figure out how to make Riley react in certain situations. As a result, this film feels more like a team effort rather than a solo adventure, with Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust contributing significantly to both Joy and Riley's growth as characters. I really liked watching the way Poehler portrays Joy's collaborative personality throughout the film, and her respective chemistry with Phyllis Smith, Lewis Black, Tony Hale, and Liza Lapira really gives the impression that these emotions are a tight-knit group.
As mentioned earlier, it is Anxiety that the film chooses to focus on the most out of the four new emotions. Maya Hawke is great at showing the character's intense neuroticism coupled with her desire to maintain her own twisted sense of control over Riley's life. She can be considered the antithesis to Joy's level-headed, confident nature, projecting all of her insecurities into Riley's personality. I just wish Anxiety interacted more with Envy, Embarrassment, and Ennui, whose voice talents in Ayo Edebiri, Paul Walter Hauser, and Adele Exarchopoulos felt somewhat wasted by the time the film had finished.
For a sequel to a highly regarded original, "Inside Out 2" may not quite live up to the level of its predecessor, but it is nonetheless a satisfying continuation of a story about someone's emotional journey through life. Without revealing spoilers, its end moral is equally as impactful as the original and is sure to strike a chord with just as many adults as it will with children. It seems the next logical step that a third film should cover Riley and her emotions during her late teens to early adult years, although this may prove challenging to remain family friendly. Regardless, I'm still curious to see what happens from here.
I rate it 8/10.
Late Night with the Devil (2023)
An effectively creepy experience that frightens the audience through atmosphere and characterisation
"Late Night with the Devil" is a horror film written and directed by Colin and Cameron Cairnes. Starring David Dastmalchian in the lead role, it is an effectively creepy experience that frightens the audience through atmosphere and characterisation.
After retiring from the spotlight for sometime, late night talk show host Jack Delroy (David Dastmalchian) decides to return for a specially-themed episode of his show "Night Owls with Jack Delroy" to be broadcast on Halloween, 1977. For years, Jack's show had struggled in the ratings behind "The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson", and he hopes to use this reappearance as an opportunity to stage a much-needed comeback. Jack's guests on this episode include psychic Christou (Fayassal Bazzi), former magician turned skeptic Carmichael Haig (Ian Bliss), parapsychologist June Ross-Mitchell (Laura Gordon), and Lilly D'Abo (Ingrid Torelli), a young survivor of a mass cult suicide and June's latest subject. As the show continues throughout the night, various unexplainable and terrifying incidents start to occur that cause Jack to question whether his attempt to regain popularity is worth all this trouble.
Part of the large appeal of live television is the unpredictable nature of certain events that could take place at any given time. From a certain wardrobe malfunction in 2004 to an overreaction to a joke told at the 2022 Academy Awards, many of these unscripted moments have found themselves burnt into the memories of many TV viewers all over the world. One popular form of live TV where anything could happen is of course talk shows, where the nature of the featured guests can result in many mishaps at the expense of the host and the audience themselves. "Late Night with the Devil" is a film that works with a concept like this to create a successful horror movie that strings the viewer along until the very conclusion.
Setting itself up as a found footage documentary feature, the film transports its audience back to the 1970s, a decade rife with violence, economic instability, and a fear of occultism gripping America at that time. As a necessary form of distraction, television viewers turned their attention to various forms of light entertainment, in this case, late night talk shows. We are then shown that Jack Delroy, the charismatic, affable host of his programme "Night Owls with Jack Delroy", is one of the leading figures that viewers choose to watch for their fix of escapism, but he is constantly kept out of the top spot by the more popular Johnny Carson. Despite the odd spike in viewership, the final straw for Jack is the death of his wife Madeleine from cancer, which causes him to withdraw from public life. However, one day Jack suddenly decides to return to hosting his show for an occult-themed episode on Halloween, seemingly as his final ditch attempt to triumph in the ratings. It is then revealed that what we will be watching is in fact the previously lost master tape of this special, presented to us complete with behind the scenes footage detailing everything that went wrong on this fateful night.
As the broadcast begins, things seem normal enough for a Halloween-themed show, with Jack showing off his audience dressed in their monster costumes and his guests fulfilling the typical "spooky" quota of psychics and magicians. Where things become particularly interesting is when the spiritual medium Christou starts to react violently upon receiving a sinister premonition. This is then followed up with the introduction of the skeptic Carmichael Haig, who dismisses every apparent supernatural occurrence as nothing more than just part of the act. It is through Carmichael's constant attempts to disprove everything that the film has an efficient anchor in reality, which makes all of this bizarre otherworldliness much scarier than usual. You can chalk this up to Carmichael's increasing unease as even more evil events start to occur over time, which prove challenging to a veteran debunker like himself. Like how every good comedy act needs a straight man as a foil, every good horror story needs an unbeliever who requires convincing.
Making the most of the premise and setting, the Cairnes brothers are not only great at holding the audience's attention, but also at eliciting real scares whenever the situation calls for it. I often found myself intrigued at what was going to happen during a scene involving each of the guests interacting with one other. Without giving too much away, this led to several genuinely frightening moments that felt earned because the film had spent time building up to them. For instance, in one scene Jack plays news footage showing how June rescued Lilly from a Satanic cult, which then leads the audience to believe that the cult's influences still have control over Lilly. Naturally, Carmichael is not receptive towards the two female guests, regarding Lilly's claims of demonic possession as simply PTSD from being held captive for so long. At this point, it is clear that the Cairnes brothers want us to dislike Carmichael for his lack of empathy, but at the same time want him to keep provoking the pair further out of sheer curiosity. To my surprise, this strategy actually works in the film's favour, as when the audience becomes more curious, the following scary scenes are more fear-inducing as a result.
In addition to its appropriate pacing, the film also uses its 1970s aesthetic quite well too. I really enjoyed the way the film is presented to us as through it came from an old grainy VHS or Betamax tape you might find in a TV station camera, which helps immerse the viewer in that era of television. Even the film's colour scheme, comprised primarily of beige, red, yellow, and shades of orange, are crucial at establishing this particular decade as a pivotal time for television viewing across the country. To distinguish between what is being broadcast live and what isn't, the behind the scenes footage is shown to us in black-and-white, which is an important way of reminding the audience of what is actually a product of on-air sensationalism versus the real emotional moments taking place backstage. It's easy to feel invested in this stylised old footage from several decades ago, something that contributes significantly to the film's entertainment value.
As the lead character, David Dastmalchian is highly convincing as talk show host Jack Delroy, whose desperation to stay relevant has him resorting to more extreme measures than what is usually expected of him. It's fascinating to watch how Dastmalchian is able to efficiently mimic the way any talk show host would react in live and unscripted situations, especially while trying to remain an entertaining presence for his viewers at home. At his core, Jack is just a man who wants to keep his audience invested in him at all times, acting like he is in control despite the obvious chaos happening right before his eyes. In spite of this, as more information about his past is exposed, you can't help but feel as though he brought some of these problems on himself.
Ian Bliss is also worth mentioning as Carmichael Haig, whose skepticism proves catalytic towards the film's most notable scares. This is a man whose previous venture as a magician has allowed him to see hoaxes for their deceptive effect on other people, giving him the ability to expose frauds and become famous in the process. As mentioned earlier, Carmichael is an important character to this story, as without him the film would lack any rationality and become an incoherent mess of one supernatural event happening after another. Unfortunately I can't mention any more about Fayassal Bazzi as Christou, Laura Gordon as June, or Ingrid Torelli as Lilly without giving away spoilers so all I will say is that they are equally as important to the story as both Jack and Carmichael put together.
Rising above the usual supernatural possession horror flick, "Late Night with the Devil" may just be one of most effective films of its genre to be released in years. It finds ways to frighten people not through cheap jump scares but by building up tension through its unsettling atmosphere and unique character traits. My only real issue is that the ending seems somewhat underwhelming in comparison to everything else, but considering the excellent handling of the first and second acts, it doesn't bother me as much as it should. Regardless of that, I'm willing to admit this film was successful at scaring me where it counts.
I rate it 8/10.
Civil War (2024)
An unfulfilled, superficial take on a rather deep, contentious topic
"Civil War" is a dystopian thriller film written and directed by Alex Garland ("Ex Machina", "Annihilation"). Starring Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny, it is an unfulfilled, superficial take on a rather deep, contentious topic.
In the midst of a second American Civil War, renowned war photographer Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) meets up with her team of journalists consisting of Joel (Wagner Moura) and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson). After surviving a suicide attack in New York City, the group decide to travel to Washington D. C. in hopes of interviewing the President (Nick Offerman) before he is overthrown. As the group prepare to venture off, Joel allows aspiring young photojournalist Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) to accompany them on their lengthy journey, with whom Lee reluctantly decides to take under her wing. While the team drive through the war-torn states, Jessie soon learns from Lee that in order to become a credible photographer, she must overcome her fears in covering the carnage taking place right before her eyes.
Regardless of your personal beliefs, there's no denying that we are currently living in one of the most politically divisive times in the history of Western civilisation. Not since the 19th century has there been so much hostility that one would assume if things continue to escalate, the American superpower could very well break out into another civil war. Considering how much technology has advanced over the past hundred years, things could certainly take a turn for the worse with the possibility of neither side emerging as the victor. The 2024 film "Civil War" deals with this hypothetical scenario from the perspective of the risk-taking photojournalists in a lacklustre manner that fails to do justice to its intriguing concept.
In the first scene, we see the President of the United States practicing a speech he will be delivering as his State of the Union address to the entire divided nation. We watch as the President nervously stumbles his way through the words he will be using to assure the country that this conflict is under control, almost as though he does not believe everything he is about to say. It is then revealed that the President's words are nothing more than lies, as his adversaries are fast approaching Washington D. C. with the intention of taking the nation's capital for themselves. What was once the safe and dignified capital city of America is now shown to be a violent war zone, complete with gunfire, military vehicles patrolling the streets, and various bodies littering the landscape.
Though this opening does begin the film on a promising note, it finds itself unable to maintain this level of curiosity for the duration of its runtime. Simply put, not enough is revealed about the President to make the audience believe that such a man could credibly stay in power among this huge war taking place. To the film's credit, there are some hints dropped throughout the story regarding what he has done, like how he apparently abolished term limits (he is now in his third term in power) and disbanded the FBI. Yet is it never properly explained how he is now in danger of being deposed from his position after so long. How did he suddenly lose this much support? Which political party does he belong to and which one wants him out? Why is he fighting this war with only a small amount of his staff to protect him? The movie never tells us.
Soon after, we are introduced to veteran photographer Lee, whose graphic pictures taken directly on the field of battle have gained her worldwide notoriety. This attracts an admirer in the young Jessie, who aspires to work alongside her idol as the war rages on. While on their journey towards the nation's capital, Jessie becomes increasingly exposed to the very worst that the war has to offer, something Lee informs her is a necessary part of the job. It is clear the film is intending to show us just how much war can affect the on-site journalists as much as those actually fighting on the frontline, yet it never quite utilises this idea properly.
For instance, the relationship between Lee and Jessie is decidedly two-dimensional. At no point did it ever feel like Lee really cared about Jessie beyond her being a mere work colleague. There is only one scene where it felt like Jessie was learning something from Lee about human brutality but it is quickly glanced over and never mentioned again. All the potential was there to have shown these two growing closer as student and teacher, yet the film squanders nearly every opportunity available. It's hard to become attached to these characters when the situations they are placed in add practically no emotional weight to the overall story, and in a film that is supposed to examine the impact of war on people, this is a major problem.
In spite of these deeper issues, the film at least manages to get its wartime atmosphere right. Director Alex Garland places the audience right in the middle of the conflict, with the possibility of danger lurking around just about any corner. I especially enjoyed the way he shows Washington D. C. as a warzone, resembling early 2000s Baghdad rather than a safe capital city within modern Western civilisation. Soldiers patrol the streets, major monuments like the Lincoln Memorial are constantly under threat of destruction, and the President is reduced to hiding in the White House with limited protection from his staff. This is far from the clean cut image America has held onto for so long, having now descended far into chaos and disunity.
Unfortunately, Garland falters in the world building aspect of this superpower gripped in a civil war, as there is little effort put into why certain locations adhere to one political belief over the other. In one scene, the group of journalists stop by a seemingly normal town that has chosen to remain neutral to this war, with its citizens going about their daily business like nothing is happening. Instead of exploring this interesting concept, the main characters merely use this town as a brief pitstop and quickly move on somewhere else. This raises many questions, like why did this town choose to stay out of the war? How have they avoided being attacked from outsiders for so long? How are they not suspicious of this random group of people suddenly appearing in their town? Yet more important plot holes that are glanced over and never properly addressed.
Although their characters are woefully underwritten, both Kirsten Dunst and Cailee Spaeny try to make the most with the weak material given to them. Out of the two of them, Dunst is the biggest standout as Lee, whose frequent trips into the war torn locations of America have clearly taken their toll on her mental health. Here, it is shown that Lee has become almost completely desensitised to the bloodshed happening right in front of her, even barely flinching whenever a gun is fired in her presence. Dunst does a nice enough job portraying Lee's nuanced reactions to all this butchery, as this is nothing more than another day at the office for her.
On the other hand, Jessie's young, naive attitude towards her future career prospect is something that ends up defining her character throughout the whole film. At first, she is so shocked by what she is witnessing that it causes her to vomit and miss the chance to take a great photograph. Like Lee, Jessie also becomes desensitised to everything she sees, and in the process her photography skills improve drastically. Spaeny shows Jessie's emotional state becoming less and less of a issue, trading general compassion for on-location experience. As mentioned earlier, I just wish the film had explored Lee and Jessie's relationship better, as it would have made things more interesting to see their dynamic expanded upon throughout the story.
Given the current state of the world right now, it is a huge shame that a film like "Civil War" is unable to provide more than simply a curious look at how things could be. It has a lot on its mind about the future of America but it never expresses it in a manner that can leave a lasting impression. In my opinion, this concept would have worked much better as a miniseries rather than a condensed feature film, as this would allow for the necessary fleshing out of the characters and world building. Hopefully someone will run with that idea one day, because I would definitely watch that over this any day.
I rate it 5.5/10.