darkreignn

The director of "Margin Call," "All Is Lost," "A Most Violent Year," and "Triple Frontier," makes his comeback with 2024's "Kraven: The Hunter." And I, for one, cannot think of any other reason as to why director J. C. Chandor took this job ($$$$$) besides a pure, undiluted passion for the source material. Truly. No other explanation comes to mind.

Now, all joking and cynicism aside, the direction here is the least of this movie's problems - in fact, J. C. actually crafts a visually appealing film here with some truly cinematic shots and sequences. Legitimately, I could sense his passion for - if not the material itself - the aesthetic and atmosphere of the film. The cinematography has a certain slickness to it that's both visually appealing and dark, dour, and downtrodden, making the movie feel slightly more adult and mature than your usual superhero fare. So, credit where it's due - at least "Kraven" looks good.

The action, too, is serviceable - filled with slick, "John Wick"-esque action, "Kraven: The Hunter" has its bursts of violence that add some entertainment value. This is an R-rated film through and through, and if you enjoy R-rated action a la "The Expendables" or "Rambo: Last Blood," you'll find something to like here, for the most part. My only real complaint about the action is that it's edited extremely quickly, emulating the style of "John Wick" (the first one, more specifically" and the Bourne franchise (the latter films, more specifically). There's a fair amount of blood and gore here - thankfully - but the editing never really lingers on the carnage; it's all edited in a such a way that if you blink, you truly may miss a shot of bloody violence. That said, the action isn't incomprehensible or hard to follow - you'll be able to tell what's happening and who it's happening to - it's just fast. But even so, the action is fun to watch; Kraven's animalistic fighting style is brutal and high-octane, and there's a number of exciting sequences that had me grinning from ear to ear.

True to Sony's recent reputation when it comes to these Spider-Man spinoff films, "Kraven" is noticeably cheesy - and this is where the potential negatives come into play. Firstly, I do want to say that if you expected a genuinely good and high quality film, I'm not sure why you went to see a movie titled "Kraven: The Hunter." I mean, you know what you're getting into when seeing this movie, which is some fun action and, well, not much else. "Kraven" has awful, cringy dialogue and mediocre acting, the kind that makes you feel second-hand embarrassment while sitting in the theatre. However, awful dialogue and mediocre acting are status quo for Sony's films, and are even part of the charm at this point - in other words, expect the expected, and you'll walk away (somewhat) satisfied.

Honestly, the more I think about this movie the more I appreciate it. I'm a sucker for cheesy action films, and that's exactly what "Kraven" is. The plot leaves something to be desired, but you're not watching something like this for the plot - you're watching it to see someone murder people in various, increasingly brutal ways. And sure, the titular Kraven is barely a villain here - in fact, in no universe can you imagine this version of Kraven ever going after Spider-Man - but if you put that aside, I think you can watch this and not hate yourself afterward. If you know what you're getting into, "Kraven: The Hunter" can give you two hours of entertainment on a lazy, rainy night.

I knew that "Armor" was going to be a bad film. How could one not? One look at the poster or a single viewing of the trailer reveals all that someone would need to know about this movie, which is better known as something called a "geezer teaser." According to Google, a geezer teaser is a movie that features older, well-known male actors, or "geezers", in prominent roles in promotional material, but is usually released directly to video and distributed through video on demand - additionally, the well-known male actors (in this case, Stallone) will only appear sporadically in the film itself. Now, I knew this going into "Armor;" however, I found myself in the mood to watch a bad, cheesy action film, so I decided to spend $6.99 and rent this movie on Amazon Prime. Big mistake.

Truth be told, for the first 25 minutes or so, I didn't find "Armor" to be all that bad. Yeah, it looked as basic as a film can, what with bare-bones editing and a generic soundtrack, but I found some things to be kind of interesting, like the character of Jason Patric. Patric plays a recovering alcoholic who never actually took the time to recover. The film opens with him waking up at 7 a.m. And immediately retrieving a hidden bottle of vodka from his refrigerator. As one who enjoys drinking and enjoys movies that feature people who drink, I thought this character introduction was unique enough to warrant my interest - you just have to look past the inconsistency, which is that Patric's character lives alone, so why would he feel the need to hide a bottle of alcohol in his own home that only he lives at, and that seemingly no one ever visits? Regardless, I was intrigued.

Patric's character is further revealed to work as an armored truck driver with his son, played by Miller Garfinkel. Their relationship seems slightly strained for one reason or another, but they get along well enough to work together. Alas, one day they find themselves hauling goods of particular value, goods that are wanted by Sylvester Stallone and his merry band of thieves. Enter "Armor's" second act - the heist.

30 minutes go by before a gun is fired in this film - 30 minutes go by before the titular armored truck heist begins. But when it does begin, it's exciting enough, or at least, as exciting as it can be for a film like this. If you push all logical thoughts into the back of your brain, (one of those thoughts being, "Why doesn't Jason Patric just ram the bullet proof, armored truck into Sly's gang and drive away?") you can somewhat enjoy the sequence that features Sly and his criminals cornering Patric and his son on a bridge in order to rob the contents of their truck. Yes, the special effects in this movie are some of the worst I've seen in a 2024 release, but it's always entertaining to watch Stallone fire a gun, and that's no different here.

Besides this initial action sequence, "Armor" has nary anything else to enjoy. As, after this initial action sequence, the rest of the film basically consists of Patric and his son talking to each other while stuck inside of their truck. Now, this could - on paper - be exciting, if Patric and his son were conversating about ways to escape their captors. However, instead of doing that, they decide to take the time to talk about past mistakes and old grudges - perhaps conversations that would be better suited for when people weren't trying to kill them. So, most of "Armor's" runtime consists of Patric and his son reminiscing about the past, and Sly and his gang yelling at each other for one reason or another. It's not exciting, it's not interesting, and it's definitely not anything you'd expect to see in an action film. In short: "Armor" is boring.

One positive I can give this movie is that Stallone was in it for more than I thought he would be. That said, he really doesn't have much to do besides talk to his cronies and boss them around. Also, I found Sly's character to be inconsistent, to say the least - "The plan was, and is, they don't die," Sly says; this is after him and his crew spend five minutes shooting armor piercing rounds at our main characters. Being a killer isn't in his nature, Stallone explains. If that's the case, maybe a more cautious approach would've been appreciated if he really didn't want to kill anyone?

In the end, "Armor" is a terrible film. I thought it might be good for a lazy, late night watch, but it's not. "Armor" is quite literally good for nothing. If you're bored, don't watch this. If you're a fan of Stallone, don't watch this. If you like good action movies, don't watch this. What should you do? Don't watch this.

I had a boring college experience. I went to a small, Christian college where the idea of a "wild party" was ten people crammed in a small dorm, drinking cheap vodka mixed with Gatorade. Now, truth be told, I was too nervous to ever attend these events. After all, my school was a so-called "dry campus" and I didn't want to get into trouble for breaking the rules. Some six years later, I am currently 28 years old and find myself fantasizing over missed opportunities in my college days. What would my life be like if I took more risks, drank more alcohol, and perhaps even joined a fraternity? "The Line" seeks to answer those questions - how can a frat improve, or ruin, one's life? It's an intriguing premise that, unfortunately, devolves into a boring and predictable film.

Listen: I love, love, love (with a capital L) coming of age movies. I love coming of age movies that are light hearted and fun and goofy and romantic (Netflix's "Incoming" stands out as a recent example) and I especially love coming of age movies that turn dark and sinister and have characters undergoing a sort of moral test or dilemma. And from the quick one-sentence synopsis of "The Line," which is, "A university student lives life without fear of consequences," I expected one of two things - either a "Project X" style party romp, or a twisted sort of academic thriller. Unfortunately, "The Line" tries to be both, and does neither thing well.

Where to start with this movie? I guess with the positives? Why not. For one, the acting is good enough here (except for Halle Bailey, who I thought was completely miscast and undersold every single line she spoke - at times, the way she delivered things sounded like she was imitating a toddler in tone of voice, and I was flabbergasted as to what her approach exactly was; was she trying to be a "too cool for school" college student, or was it meant to be some ironic take on a character with an inflated sense of self-importance? Whatever the intention, it just didn't land). Virtually everyone is believable to the point where you can't tell that they're acting, which is really all you can ask from any film. Sure, sometimes the dialogue wasn't exactly the best written, but the way it was delivered made it possible to look past any potential shortcomings. Alex Wolff, Bo Mitchell, and Austin Abrams are the standouts here with performances that steal scenes and keep eyes glued to the screen - and luckily, all three of them have a substantial amount of screen time, meaning that, if you enjoy their acting, you'll find at least something to keep you invested.

And - in terms of positives - that's about it! Besides the performances, this movie is a drag that by no means had to be over 90 minutes long. "The Line" seemingly wants to show the negative effects of "Good Old Boy" fraternities by highlighting their casual racism, excessive indulgence, and complete disregard for the potential consequences of their actions. On paper, that sounds super interesting. In execution, "The Line" falls apart. Let's break it down, starting with the theme of casual racism. There's no question that old-school frats have a history steeped in exclusion and prejudice. "The Line" portrays its fraternity as a group that blatantly rejects people with darker skin. In one uncomfortable scene, the brothers chant "Too dark, too dark!" upon seeing the photo of an Indian candidate up for membership. The irony here is that the main character, Wolff, has an olive complexion himself, making the fraternity's superficial standards feel inconsistent and almost hypocritical, undermining the film's commentary on racial prejudice.

Now, let's talk excessive indulgence. "The Line" shows its frat bros chugging booze and snorting endless lines of a very certain and specific white powder. Both of these activities are risky, to say the least - yet the film doesn't seem interested in portraying them that way. Characters binge drink and overindulge in drugs with reckless abandon, but there's never a hint of any real consequences. No hangovers, no bad trips, no lasting effects. It's as if these self-destructive habits are just part of the scenery, stripped of any weight or danger, which ultimately undermines the film's attempt to critique the fraternity lifestyle.

And finally, let's talk about disregard for consequences. "The Line" is a slow, slow, slow burn - as in, for most of this movie, nothing really happens, and what does happen doesn't matter. During the final 30 minutes, something finally does happen; that said, what happens is incredibly underwhelming and incredibly predictable to the point where I was thinking to myself "There's no way this movie does exactly what I'm thinking it's going to do, right?" And lo and behold, it did indeed do exactly what I thought it was going to do, ending with a completely expected third act that does and says nothing new or interesting. I mean, without spoiling anything, all I'll say is this: Can you imagine a potential negative consequence of violent fraternity hazing? If you can, then you immediately know what happens at the end of this film.

I would like to call "The Line" a swing and a miss, but it doesn't even really swing. I so desperately wanted to watch a tight, taut thriller about the descent into madness one may go through when indulging in the cult-like mentality of fraternities, but instead I got a a bland, boring, faux slice of life and coming of age film that doesn't do anything innovative with its concept of the frat lifestyle. Ultimately, "The Line" feels like a wasted opportunity, squandering its potential to say something meaningful or memorable, instead opting for more of the same old, same old.