Wonder Woman 1984 - Review

Leave it to DC of all companies to deliver one of the oddest and most exuberant superhero films in years in one of the oddest years in years. Patty Jenkins (“Monster,” “Wonder Woman (2017)”) is here with the follow up to her 2017 hit, and “Wonder Woman 1984” is a bigger, bolder, brasher, and more experimental film, for better and worse.

Gal Gadot (“Wonder Woman (2017),” “Ralph Breaks the Internet”) and Chris Pine (“Star Trek (2009, “Hell or High Water”) are the sole returning cast members here, and they both continue in the excellence they established in the previous film. Gadot is still a wonderfully calm and powerful heroine, but she’s more intelligent and less innocent in her second outing. Likewise, Pine plays with a bit more wide-eyed optimism (thanks to plot circumstances I won’t spoil here) than the strong jawed soldier seen before.

The two other leads are Pedro Pascal (“Narcos,” “The Mandalorian”) as the slimy TV personality Maxwell Lord and Kristen Wiig (“Bridesmaids,” “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”) as Barbara Minerva. Wiig sells her first action film role with confidence and bravado that slowly evolves as the film continues, allowing her character to remain believable and sympathetic without losing the gradual change needed to sell her arc.

Pascal, meanwhile, is a complete force of nature. His character of Maxwell Lord is an interesting one from the start, but as the film progresses, he becomes more devious and maligned in increasingly interesting ways. His arc definitely isn’t what it would appear to be at the start, and by the time things end, Pascal has given what might be one of his strongest performances yet.

While Pascal’s arc may be unconventional, that goes for the movie as a whole. After a not bad, but just out of place, prologue we leap back into the world of Diana Prince and the year 1984. From there the story takes several twists and turns, delivering much less action than one would expect and a lot more talking, character development, and exposition.

When the punches do fly, the action is choreographed excellently and with gusto. Gadot sails through these sequences, flying through the air and toppling enemies of all sizes with skill and perfected grace. The CGI work is also impressive, and even the clearly worst bit of it thankfully takes place at night, making it easy to hide.

This is also an expansively colorful film, with bright reds, greens, blues, yellows, and much more popping in every frame. Maybe it’s the 80s sheen, but even the scenes in darkened environments still pop with vibrancy and color. This further extends to the music, which imbues the first film’s trumpets and guitars with synths and 80s beats.

It’s difficult to talk about what makes this film truly interesting without going into spoilers. While the action, dialogue, acting, music, etc. is all great, that alone wouldn’t make for a film worth talking about, only a movie that passes the bar. Where “1984” goes above and beyond is creating a plot that is intrinsically tied to its characters.

Jenkins and her co-writers Geoff Johns (“Smallville,” “Aquaman”) and David Callaham (“Ant-Man,” “Zombieland: Double Tap”) have created a story that all comes back to choices and consequences and puts some truly tempting decisions in front of every character, good and bad alike. It makes for a film that takes some interesting turns and prevents a feeling of sameness and predictability. Whether or not you think it all works or if it’s all too cheesy for its own good, that’s up for debate. But Jenkins and her writers took a big swing on a less straight forward and more bizarre narrative and it largely succeeds.

This even comes down to the ending, which thankfully avoids DC’s particularly bad habit of turning interesting plots into big grey CGI monster fights. It is a superhero film that somehow maintains a high level of general enjoyability and fun without losing its seriousness. It keeps its sense of hope without cheapening the danger and stakes, which is no small feat.

Instead of sticking to tried and true tropes, “1984” instead chooses a larger, more escapist route to provide a colorful and hopeful experience. This is a film that plays fast and loose with magic, wishes, hopes, and dreams without cheapening the journeys its characters go on. It’s all a kind of extravagant window dressing to continue to address Diana as a growing and evolving hero and the world she wants to protect. It even ends in a profoundly hopeful and un-blockbuster-like way and it’s one of the film’s absolute best moments.

This is a long film, an extravagant one, and a colorful one. Those who loved the grittiness or the realism of the first film will likely have already been lost by the rainbow drenched posters, but those who decide to stay will be treated to a thoroughly satisfying escapist fantasy adventure, with one of the most varied and interesting plots in a blockbuster in quite some time. It isn’t perfect but it sure is wonderful. 4/5

Soul - Review

 

How to describe “Soul”? It’s not an easy thing to do, for either a plot or emotional stance. There’s a lot going on under the surface, visually, and emotionally in Pete Docter (“Inside Out,” “Up”) and Kemp Powers’s (“One Night in Miami,” “Star Trek: Discovery”) animated music adventure. One thing’s certain though; it’s an adventure unlike anything Pixar’s done before.

Jamie Foxx (“Collateral,” “Django Unchained”) plays Joe Gardner, an aspiring musician who dies only moments after getting an opportunity to potentially launch his musical career. What happens after that is an extremely complicated and emotionally intelligent adventure that still finds a way to pack in the trademark Pixar lighthearted wit with boatloads of introspective discussions and potentially traumatizing imagery.

Foxx delivers a performance that rivals his absolute best roles, vocal or physical. He comits to this character in such a genuine and complete way, lending him the kind of small vocal touches that only the very best voice actors can do. Tina Fey (“30 Rock,” “Mean Girls”) as 22 is also excellent, and the pair have a delightful, if initially apprehensive, chemistry.

The rest of the supporting voices are also great. Pixar has a great track record of having standout characters who may only appear for a handful of minutes due to their excellent vocal performances and the same is true here. The likes of Graham Norton (“Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie,” “The Graham Norton Show”), Rachel House (“Thor: Ragnarok,” “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”), Alice Braga (“Elysium,” “Queen of the South”), Richard Ayoade (“The IT Crowd,” “Submarine”), and Questlove are all great, though even amongst the supporting cast there are standouts.

A confrontation between Joe and his mother, voiced perfectly by Phylicia Rashad (“The Cosby Show,” “Creed”) showcases her uniquely warm and stern voice in excellent capacity. Donnell Rawlings (“The Wire,” “Chappelle Show”) appears for mere minutes as Joe’s barber Dez, but the comforting teddy bear nature of his voice and character leave a lasting impression. And the wise, soulful nature of Angela Bassett’s (“Boyz N The Hood,” “What’s Love Got To Do With It?”) Dorothea Williams, one of Joe’s jazz idols, easily places her in the upper echelon of Pixar’s many mentor figures.

There is a lot going on in this tale, and Doctor, Powers, and writer Mike Jones all manage to keep it just light enough to still be considered family fair. However, they also avoid spelling things out for the audience, which not only shows that they clearly respect their viewers intelligence to piece a story like this together, but also allows different viewers to take away different things from this tale.

It’s a potentially catastrophic way to tell a story; to leave it so open for interpretation that anyone can get something different from it. However, Docter’s decades of experience as one of Pixar’s best directors and Powers’s experience as an award-winning playwright both coalesce here in just the right ways to keep everything precariously balanced.

Musically, Pixar films have always been great but occasionally blend together. This is not even remotely the case with “Soul,” which features a great mixture of original Jazz compositions from Jon Batiste and an ethereal and melodic original score from Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross (“The Social Network,” “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)”).

It is virtually impossible to talk about “Soul” without mentioning the way it looks. Pixar has always been at the bleeding edge of visual fidelity for their films, but “Soul” feels different. Not only are many of the environments and concepts far more abstract than even in “Inside Out,” but the usage of contracting colors, 2D animation, and pure white space is both gorgeous and sometimes utterly haunting. It’s also impressively and faultlessly lit, giving some environments a legitimate photorealistic look.

Skin and cloth textures are also a highlight, as is the wide variety of people on display. There are varying body types and ages of all kinds, and it’s hard to describe why this is worth mentioning until you see it. Something about watching Joe talk with his mother and seeing the creases on her face as she squints and talks to him are breathtaking. It also helps that Pixar consulted with cinematographer Bradford Young (“Arrival,” “A Most Violent Year”) to make sure that their lighting worked with the various tones of black skin present in the film.

“Soul” feels like a remarkably calm film given how much it talks about death, life, purpose, and meaningless-ness. It feels like sitting down and pouring your heart out to an old friend, someone who will sit with you, joke with, but never invalidate the worries you’re mentioning. Its difficult to describe how incredible it is to just watch it. From a technical level, its flawless. From an emotional level, it seems chemically combined to allow each viewer to get something different out of it.

As someone who wants to create and who worries about what they’ll leave for this world one day, it’s an earth-shattering revelatory masterpiece. Pixar-Nay, Pete Doctor and Kemp Powers have created the next great masterpiece of animated storytelling, and what will surely be remembered as one of the best films of this new decade. 5/5

Promising Young Woman - Review

 

Where to begin? From Emerald Fennell, most well-known for show running Killing Eve in its second season, “Promising Young Woman” is an acid soaked take on the revenge thriller, bolstered by phenomenal performances, a tightly wound script, and an absolutely career defining lead performance.

It’s been thrown around quite a bit in the pre-release advertising but make no mistake, this is a film for exactly the moment in which we live. There’s an anger and spitefulness behind this entire story that feels like it could only have been made right now.

Carey Mulligan (“The Great Gatsby,” “Inside Llewyn Davis”) plays Cassie with such real boiling anger. Her performance is nothing short of breathtaking as she teeters between a character so ahead of everyone else, so in her element, and yet so impulsive and at times idiotic that it becomes impossible to tell what direction she or the film will take next. Bo Burnham (“Eighth Grade,” “Zach Stone is Gonna Be Famous”) is also equally good, though his performance is more one-note that Mulligan’s. It doesn’t change the talent on display and the true impressive way in which he pulls off this roll that is completely different than anything he’s done before.

Everyone in this film is expertly crafted and performed, even if they’re only on screen for mere moments. Alfred Molina (“Spider-Man 2,” “An Education”), for example, is onscreen for maybe 5 minutes and yet his short time here won’t be forgotten. The same goes for the rest of the supporting cast including Laverne Cox (“Orange is the New Black,” “Doubt”), Alison Brie (“Community,” “GLOW”), Connie Britton (“Friday Night Light,” “American Horror Story”), Max Greenfield (“New Girl,” “A Futile and Stupid Gesture”), and Chris Lowell (“Private Practice,” “Graves”).

Now, there’s a lot to unpack with a movie like this. From the trailer alone it’s clear that “Promising Young Woman” deals with sexual assault, survivor’s guilt, believing victims, victim blaming, and a whole lot more. Describing the overall film as a pulpy revenge thriller feels like doing it a disservice but there’s no other way to describe it.

Colors pop from every frame, from sky blues to bubblegum pinks. Neon is everywhere and the framing of background elements over Cassie as she glides through these sequences like a fallen angel are clearly hallmarks of a director who is taking advantage of having full control over her work. Fennell and cinematographer Benjamin Kračun (“The Third Day”) take full advantage of the staged, almost storybook styled sets to create a mouse trap of a film that creeps in more and more as thing progress and the bright blues and pinks become less and less comforting.

The slow churning score, featuring numerous string cues and reworkings of classic female centric songs, like the cover of Toxic heavily utilized in the film’s marketing, set the stage for a film rife with tonal shifts like skateboard ramps. Anthony Willis’s (“Fortnite”) score is an absolute perfect fit for Fennell’s twisted tale, as if you ground up the bright atmosphere and acidic dialogue and pressed it into a record. It’s a great compliment to the wild tonal shifts that Fennell handles so wonderfully gracefully, and it all comes back to how deathly seriously the film takes itself.

Even as moments flip and flop back and forth from musical montage to virtually silent feats of tension, the events taking place are always treated with the same level of intensity by the actors, crew, and Fennell herself. Directing from her own script, the dialogue feels punchy and alive. Some might find it hokey, the way each line feeds to the next, but it’s the same kind of flow that Tarantino has been using for years. Think Tarantino and Sorkin with an acid-soaked sense of humor.

It’s not a film that asks you to identify or even agree with its protagonist and what she’s doing, merely experience this tale with her. So many moments seem cherry picked to create discussions, from the way that scenes and characters are framed to the specific pieces of dialogue used in certain moments.

Everything comes to a head in the third act though, as plot and style come crashing together in a thundering cacophony of color and dread. It’s when Fennell’s film is at its more somber and also most delirious, as it fully commits to the grim nature of its tale and the pulpy thrills therein. The ending, to not mince words, will be remembered and discussed for years to come.

This is not only a daring and audacious first feature from Fennell, but an absolutely thrilling, grounded adventure that will be remembered for a long time. It’s a singular vision of a film, laser focused to communicate one feeling and one message as effectively and expertly as possible. Whether it’s the superb performances, the sense of production design, costuming, narrative style, music, or any of the other numerous elements; “Promising Young Woman” is, without a doubt, one of the best films of the year. 5/5

One Night in Miami... - Review

 

No one really knows what happened the night of February 25^th, 1964 in a small hotel room in Miami, Florida. All we really know is that four men; Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali (then known as Cassius Clay), Jim Brown, and Sam Cooke met to celebrate Ali’s title win against Sonny Liston. While we don’t know what really happened, playwright and screenwriter Kemp Powers (“Soul,” “Star Trek: Discovery”) created a stage play of a fictional account of that night and now Amazon and Regina King (“Watchmen (2020),” “If Beale Street Could Talk”) have adapted the play into a film, with Powers writing the screenplay and King directing for the first time.

The play itself is an ambitious idea, trying to recreate what some of the biggest civil rights leaders in American history might have said to each other and discussed on a crossroads night for all of them, but thankfully the film nails arguably the most important aspect: respect. Even as these figures are being portrayed not as moral pariahs, but as real humans with flaws and internal issues, there’s the utmost level of respect on display from the actors and the crew.

Kingsley Ben-Adir (“The OA,” “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”) keeps a firm tone and levelheadness as Malcolm X but isn’t afraid to show the conflicted nature of some of his actions. There’s a lot of imitation to his speech patterns and vocal inflections, but nothing ever turns into parody or impersonations, keeping a high level of realism and respect.

The same goes for Eli Goree (“Ballers,” “Riverdale”) as Ali. While his voice has been impersonated thousands of times, Goree keeps everything balanced. He’s a big teddy bear, but that’s not where his character begins and ends. He may not be the most intelligent guy in the room, but he’s got his own kind of smarts and keeps his wits about him the entire time.

Aldis Hodge (“Leverage,” “Straight Outta Compton”) and Leslie Odom Jr. (“Smash,” “Hamilton”) may have roles smaller in scale, but they still stand toe to toe with Goree and Ben-Adir in terms of the skill and focus brought to the film. Hodge’s Jim Brown is the most mellow and soft-spoken of the group, maintaining an almost audience surrogate perspective as he mostly sits back and interjects when the other three are almost at each other’s throats.

Meanwhile Odom Jr.’s Sam Cooke is an energetic and fiercely opinionated man who seems to be Malcolm’s exact opposite. The two’s exchange towards the middle of the film about civil rights and the duties of a public and celebrity figure are without a doubt some of the most interesting material the film has to offer, and Odom Jr. knocks his role out of the park entirely.

Thanks to the pure electricity of the performances and the chemistry each actor has with the rest of the foursome, “One Night in Miami…” never feel stagnate. It bucks the typical slow burn trope that most serious dramas have and manages to make the one room it mostly takes place in feels lively and expansive.

There are also legitimate moral quandaries at play here, not the typical civil rights discussions that most studio dramas regurgitate year after year. There’s discussion of what someone owes the world based on their status and their success, if its better to succeed publicly or from behind the scenes, and even the examinations of religion and what kind of people organized religion can turn us into. Powers’s material isn’t a light affair by any means, but the crackling dialogue and actors keep it from ever feeling overbearing.

Simply put, “One Night in Miami…” is a gorgeous period piece with some terrific acting and writing. It’s all one could want from an adaptation like this; it delivers the material, moral questions, and superb acting all wrapped up in a gorgeous and well shot 60s era. If this is an indicator of things to come, Regina King may even surpass her high acting skills with her directing ones. 5/5

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom - Review

 

August Wilson is likely one of, if not the most, respected and well-known playwright of the last century. If you don’t know his name, you surely know his masterpiece, “Fences,” or any of his other numerous plays. But three years before that play premiered, a very different work of his debuted; “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom.”

Based on the life of the “mother of the Blues,” the play takes a behind the scenes look at the recording of one of Ma’s albums and the tensions that flare up between her, some of her band members, her manager, and the white recording executives. It’s classic Wilson genius, filled with explosive dialogue and heightened personalities.

For the most part, this film adaptation from director George C. Wolfe (“Nights in Rodanthe,” “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”) and writer Ruben Santiago-Hudson (“Lackawanna Blues,” “Their Eyes Were Watching God”) is a faithful recreation of the play. However, there are some changes that dampen the experience slightly, making this a good, but not great, version of an incredible play.

For something so dialogue heavy, it’s imperative that one gets actors who can carry this dialogue and, thankfully, Wolfe and Hudson have a cast of extremely talented people here to carry this work. Each cast member delivers their lines with pure conviction, regardless of their role in the story, and it results in even the smallest of characters standing out.

Colman Domingo (“Selma,” “If Beale Street Could Talk”) is one of those standouts as he plays Cutler, Ma’s guitarist. He’s a gentle but firm soul, clearly the one who’s been with Ma the longest, and he serves as a mitigate between her and everyone else in the film. Jeremy Shamos (“Bad Education,” “The Big Sick”) as Ma’s eager to please everyone manager Irvin is also great. He’s so anxious and tries so hard to make everyone happy without resorting to ridiculous leaps and rarely does he succeed.

Yet, as good as this supporting cast and these standout supporting roles are, nothing compares to the work that Viola Davis (“How to Get Away With Murder,” “Widows”), as Ma, and Chadwick Boseman (“Black Panther,” “Marshall”), as Levee, are doing. They are positively electric, Davis delivering a feisty and nasty role here, teetering between being a talented artist who wants what she deserves and a vengeful diva with expert control. It’s a meaty role that Davis has completely and entirely committed herself to with astounding results.

Boseman is also just as electrifying. In this his unfortunate final role, he’s ended his career with an exclamation point. Levee is the perfect kind of August Wilson character; someone who so clearly deserves the world and yet is shortchanged at nearly every turn, both because of their own ambitions and the cruelty of the world. Its an astonishingly good performance and the perfect way to end a career for such a talented artist.

The few shortcomings that “Black Bottom” has are the unfortunate products of moving a stage play to film and trying to update it without straying too far from the original work. There are times where some of the characters discuss racial injustices that feel too far removed from the era in which the play is set, as if they’re clairvoyant and it brings the reality of the film down as a result. These moments wouldn’t be so glaring if it wasn’t for the fact that this only happens about half the time. You can clearly see the difference between the words written by Wilson and by Hudson. Hudson’s work here isn’t bad, its only when he tries to emulate Wilson’s poignant writing style instead of adapting it do things start to crumble. Luckily, this only happens in a fraction of the film, as glaring as it is.

It also suffers as a film small in scope. Like other play to film adaptations, “Black Bottom” only really takes place in a couple of rooms, and while there is a lot of excellent work done here with costuming and production design, it still feels like it takes place in just two different rooms. However, that production design, costuming, and overall feel of the period is immaculate. Faded paint and the hot Chicago sun create a bubbly and steamy atmosphere that is a treat to watch.

“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” is a wonderfully constructed film with towering performances shortchanged just a bit by some of its writing and scope. This is an incredibly enjoyable film, not a masterpiece but a really great time. It wouldn’t be as great without Davis and Boseman, but their absences would still leave a very enjoyable film to watch. With them here though, it is a wonderous, if not perfect, tribute to artistry and getting what you deserve. 4/5

Wolfwalkers - Review

Despite never achieving the household name status as the likes of Pixar or Ghibli, Kilkenny-based animation studio Cartoon Saloon has continuously churned out delightful hand drawn fairy tales every few years, never afraid to touch either obscure high fantasy (“Song of the Sea,” “Secret of Kells”) or the harsh realities of life (“The Breadwinner”). Yet its with “Wolfwalkers” that the studio has not only created a bridge between these two types of films, but created their greatest work yet.

The story is that of a fairy tale, not unlike the kind that Disney would pull from in their earliest era. A young girl Robyn, voiced by Honor Kneafsey (“A Christmas Prince,” “Benidorm”), encounters a wolfwalker named Mebh, voiced by Eva Whittaker, in the woods shortly after she and her father, Goodfellowe, voiced by Sean Bean (“The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,” “Patriot Games”), move to an Irish town ruled by The Lord Protector, voiced by Simon McBurney (“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” “The Manchurian Candidate”).

The story may be that of a fairy tale, but like any good creators, writer/director Tomm Moore (“The Secret of Kells,” “Song of the Sea”) and writer/director Ross Stewart (“The Secret of Kells,” “ParaNorman”) and writer Will Collins (“My Brothers,” “Song of the Sea”) inject it with a fair amount of real-world parallels. When the Lord Protector speaks of taming the savage lands he rules over, you can’t quite tell if he means the wolves or the people he rules over. There are plenty of events and themes that touch on subjects like prejudice and the history of England ruling over Ireland and all are pulled off beautifully.

It’s the people behind these voices that help to pull it all off. Kneafsey is absolutely excellent as Robyn, delivering a performance that grows as she does throughout the film. Sean Bean, meanwhile, delivers what might be the strongest and emotionally complex role of his career. None are more impressive as Whittaker though, given that this is her first film credit. She balances her inner wildness from both being a wolfwalker and also a young girl with the trauma that she’d forced to endure as the story progresses.

Maria Doyle Kennedy (“Orphan Black,” “Byzantium”) is also great as the soft-spoken mother of Mebh, Moll, despite having a limited amount of speaking time compared to the other actors. The same goes for McBurney as the Lord Protector who manages to stand tall alongside the best animated villains thanks to a manipulative and stern vocal performance.

As with every previous Cartoon Saloon film, the way its animated is one of the highlights and reason enough to see the film. The two distinct visual styles mesh beautifully to accompany the story both visually and emotionally. From the blocky, Mc-Escher designs of the inside of the town, to the painterly, sketched out look of the forest and wolf world, it’s a film that is easy to connect with because the visuals do such an incredible job of selling the entire world.

Its not just pretty, as when things move toward the brutal and horrific, the painted strokes of this world still sell the look just as assuredly. It’s as close to a moving painting as one can get in an animated film (not counting “Loving Vincent”) and its all the better for it. Even moments where the rough sketches from animator’s shine through are deliberate choices to better communicate this world and the character’s emotions and it becomes a thrilling experience to watch.

The musical score from Bruno Coulais (“Coraline,” “The Secret of Kells”) is haunting and wonderous, invading your ears like a kind of hypnotic melody. It’s beautiful and devastating and it matches the songs from singer Kíla perfectly.

There is nary a thing wrong with “Wolfwalkers” on any level. There might be a few moments where a joke doesn’t fit tonally, but these are mere seconds within an entire work that stirs the soul and fills eyes with tears and wonder. It’s a masterpiece, plain and simple, and should be viewed by all audiences of any age. 5/5

Minari - Review

 

For an abstract concept that’s existed for decades, there are a lot of films about the American Dream. It has a lot of interpretations and ideas about what exactly it means, and you could go on for days discussing them all. Yet, you probably won’t find one as expertly crafted and wonderful as “Minari.”

Written and directed by Lee Isaac Chung (“Munyurangabo,” “Abigail Harm”) the film is a semi-autobiographical tale loosely based on Chung’s childhood. It follows the Yi family as they move to a farm in Arkansas the father, Jacob, has purchased. Jacob, played by Steven Yeun (“Sorry to Bother You,” “The Walking Dead”), is a headstrong patriarch, who clearly wants to provide for his family and also show them that he can be a success and provide an “American” life for them. Yeun performance is one of both love and anger. As much as frustration flows through him, you empathize with each and every moment. The same goes for his wife, Monica, played by Han Ye-ri (“Worst Woman,” “A Quiet Dream”). You equally empathize with the unfortunate situation she’s been placed in. She wants to stay and live with her husband, but she also wants to move their children to a better home away from the countryside and somewhere more stable.

Eventually Monica’s mother comes to live with them, Soon-ja, played by Youn Yuh-jung (“The Housemaid,” “The Bacchus Lady”). She’s yet another in a line of sassy Korean grandmothers that have popped up in recent years, and she’s just as charming as any of them. She provides most of the film’s comedic relief, and yet also maintains a strong maternal figure for the kids when the parents are working, keeping a tight balance between silliness and sternness.

This maternal instinct is also shown in Anne, the daughter, played by Noel Kate Cho in her film debut. She isn’t in the film much but has the exact level of comfort and frustration you’d expect from an older sibling. There’s also Will Patton (“Halloween (2018),” “Falling Skies”) as Paul, a farmhand who comes to work for and help Jacob, and while he might come off as a little annoying, he grows on the viewer as he grows on the Yis.

Despite a talented ensemble cast, the film belongs to newcomer 7-year-old Alan Kim. In his film debut, he makes a huge impression as David, the youngest member of the Yi family. His childlike attitude and whimsy make for some amusing moments where you roll your eyes and scold him for his actions, but he also exhibits a large amount of maturity given the events of the film. He’s an absolute delight, tossing out any and all stereotypes about child actors and delivering what might be one of the year’s best performances.

Its easy to feel apprehensive about Minari. From the trailer and studio, A24, its easy to imagine this is yet another independent film that crawls by with little plot, string music, and a slow pace. Yet, that’s quite the opposite and its thanks to Chung’s script and the overall atmosphere of the film.

The dialogue and family atmosphere feel extremely natural and its easy to see elements of every person’s family within the Yi’s. It because of this easy to see and understand family nature that the film never feels too slow or bogged down. It all comes back to this feeling of familial warmth that exists at the center of it all. Everyone clearly wants what’s best for each other and the family as a whole, even as it might get in the way of their own desires. This easy-to-understand central idea makes the film far more digestible for viewers, bucking the trend of indie films being more overly dramatic and slowly paced.

It truly does just exude a kind of warmth that’s hard to match. So often even the quietest or simplest of moments wrap you up like a thick comforter and let you just live in the moment with these characters. It turns the entire film into a genuine crowd-pleasing tearjerker.

“Minari” is an easy to recommend family drama based on the strength of its cast alone. Yet, it’s the relationship of the family, the American Dream at its center, and the warmth it exudes that takes it above being just an easy recommendation. This is a delightful and wonderful film that virtually anyone can watch, enjoy, and walk away with something learned. 5/5

Let Them All Talk - Review

 

Meryl Streep (“Sophie’s Choice,” “Big Little Lies”), a cruise ship, an Oscar winning director and actors, and a script from a literal professor of literature. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the thing is, nothing really is wrong with this new HBO Max original film “Let Them All Talk.” The end result just ends up being less than the sum of its parts.

Streep plays Pulitzer prize winning author Alice who invites her two oldest friends and her nephew on a cruise across the Atlantic. It seems as though this is a gesture of goodwill to her old pals and an effort to reconnect with them, but it quickly becomes apparent that more sinister motivations might be afoot.

At least, that’s how things seem at the beginning. Within the first 15 minutes there’s an elaborate set of scenes featuring all the various characters who will be going on the cruise discussing with others why they’re going; Alice’s nephew Tyler, her two friends Roberta and Susan, and her literary agent Karen. Each seem to have something boiling under the surface that makes them want to travel with her, and it seems to be the elements for a ripe and catty dramedy.

It is, at first. With the first half of the film, each puzzle piece and character motivation is slowly being revealed. There are family dramas, money issues, potential love interests, and professional rivalries. It seems that things might be building to a series of big dramatic climaxes. It feels like director Steven Soderbergh’s (“sex, lies, and videotape,” “Ocean’s Eleven”) heist films, where at first you see them planning everything before they finally execute it all.

Yet, those revelations and executions never come. Some plots are resolved, though in less than satisfying ways. As the films continues and it becomes more and more apparent that things aren’t going to end with a flourish and more so with a slump, it becomes a far less engaging piece of filmmaking.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the goal of the film was to just be a light and breezy affair where you just get to watch talented actors acting off of each other, but again, the first half is constructed almost like the first half of a mystery, but the payoffs simply don’t come. It’s as if Soderbergh changed his mind on what kind of film he was making halfway through editing it.

The script, or plot outline, by Deborah Eisenberg is entertaining for the most part. Soderbergh reportedly took just her outline and let a large majority of the dialogue be improvised. While this means it does feel very conversational and, in the moment, a large number of big events are referred to in hushed tones. It’s hard to tell if they’re meant to be overly ambiguous or if something is simply just not connecting as a viewer.

However, all is not lost. The film is gorgeous to look at, with Soderbergh himself serving as cinematographer. It’s almost like a love letter to the kind of small form films he used to make, with all natural lighting and a refined simplicity that makes everything a joy to look at.

The acting as well is superb. Even as the plot and some dialogue crumbles around them, these characters remain interesting thanks to the actors themselves. Streep is as excellent as she always is, delivering a wonderfully catty and undermining performance in Alice. Her nephew, played by Lucas Hedges (“Boy Erased,” “Lady Bird”), is also a great joy. It’s easy to root for him and watch him fall prey to his aunt’s traits and manipulative nature as she continues to rub off on him in the worst way. Alice’s literary agent is also very charming, played by Gemma Chan (“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” “Crazy Rich Asians”). Like the other characters, it’s a delight to watch her riff off of Hedges, and, unlike the occasional dud delivered by the others, she simply doesn’t have a bad line in her entire performance.

Candice Bergen (“Murphy Brown,” “Miss Congeniality”) and Dianne Wiest (“Parenthood,” “Hannah and Her Sisters”) as also in top form as Alice’s two friends Roberta and Susan. While Susan feels a bit like a placebo, sitting around and not really doing much, she’s still a joy to spend time with thanks to Wiest. Roberts seems as though she has the most meat on her story. Bergen’s performance is top notch, and her character’s plot is the most fully formed of the entire film.

It’s a shame, given the largely great improvisation, terrific performances, and stunning visual style, that “Let Them All Talk” just feels thin and undercooked. There simply is too much talking and not enough actual plot. It might be fun for a spell, and the first half is terrific, but as things continue to unfold, it quickly becomes apparent that this story is only going to end with a sputtering whimper instead of the explosion it seems to be leading to. 2.5/5

Mank - Review

Heed this warning now, casual moviegoers: this is not the same David Fincher who brought you the stylized violence of “Fight Club” or “Zodiac,” nor is this the slow but energetic direction of “The Social Network” or “The Game.” This is the kind of Fincher who brough us “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” but if it were clearly a love letter to the old style of cinema and his father.

“Mank” is the story of Herman Mankiewicz, a screenwriter and playwright most famous for writing “Citizen Kane.” It follows his life, flipping back and forth between Mank writing “Kane” in 1940 and his life in the decade prior. This is a densely packed and deliberately paced period piece chocked full of great performances and technical merits.

Gary Oldman (“Sid and Nancy,” “Darkest Hour”) plays Mank with a drunken suaveness that’s easily likeable. Yes, he’s a drunken reprobate who loves his booze and cigarettes, but even as he’s acclaimed as one of the best writers working, there’s not a shred of pompousness to him. He might spout out literary quotes, but there’s a genuine everyman quality to him.

He’s the kind of person who looks after the little guy and seems to care about everyone around him. Oldman truly embodies this aspect and brings it to the forefront. Even as he’s making demands or asks questions that cause things to unravel around him, he never raises his voice or loses that wide-eyed creative spirit.

While there is a revolving door of people and cast members throughout the film, they all are acted well enough, even if they don’t make a particular impact because of their performance. Mank’s wife Sara, played by Tuppence Middleton (“The Imitation Game,” “Downton Abbey (2019)”), is a beacon of joy and lightness in his life and on the screen, as is Mank’s secretary and moral confidant Rita Alexander, played by Lily Collins (“Emily in Paris,” “Okja”). Tom Burke (“Strike,” “Only God Forgives”) is absolutely uncanny as Orson Welles, and Charles Dance (“Game of Thrones,” “Gosford Park”) is just as delightfully slimy as possible as William Randolph Hearst, as is Arliss Howard (“Full Metal Jacket,” “To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar”) as Louis B. Mayer.

The only other actor who makes as much of an impact, performance wise, as Oldman does is Amanda Seyfriend (“Mean Girls,” “Mamma Mia!”) as Marion Davies. She nails the Brooklyn accent and sensibilities of this early Hollywood starlet. She exists as a sort of idealized version of the Hollywood actress, separate from the schmoozing and greed of the era like a perfectly polished angel in both her costuming and Seyfried’s performance.

Each inch of the production of “Mank” is immaculate. The black and white film crackles and pops like an old popcorn cooker, and the music is also appropriately timely, a surprise given the composers are Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (“The Social Network,” “Soul”). It’s has a fuzzy and old timey disposition to the entire affair that makes it feel dreamlike. Even the way objects movie towards the screen, and how closeups and driving sequences are shot returns to the sensibilities of a bygone era.

Cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt (“Mindhunter,” “Raised By Wolves”) has shot a film that would be gorgeous by itself, but the techniques of old Hollywood that he uses to further enhance the experience are delightful. The way shadows loom, wipe fades cruise across the screen, circle wipes take over everything in their path, even the pure whiteness of sunlight lends the entire experience an otherworldly feel. It’s modern only in its pure resolution, and a gem of old technique in every other aspect.

The script is also an absolute gem. Perfectly blending the speaking pattern of the era and the kind of Sorkin-esque dialogue of modern cinema, Jack Fincher () has delivered a script that crackles with nearly every line. It demands your attention as names, quotes, and events are spouted off regularly. It’s not a script for casual filmgoers; the more you know about cinema history, the better it becomes.

David Fincher has long been a filmmaker’s filmmaker, taking subjects most would think unfilmable and turning them into gems. Here he’s created possibly his best work from a technical standpoint, but the spirit of the piece might be too dense for some. “Will “Mank” be enjoyable to you” can likely be traced back to one simple question: how much do you love the movies? It’s an undeniably gorgeous and spirited dream of a film, that’s for sure. For film lovers, it’s a must see. For casual viewers who only know Fincher from “Fight Club” and “the Facebook movie”, your mileage may vary. 4.5/5

The Trial of the Chicago 7 - Review

 

Handing Aaron Sorkin (“The West Wing,” “The Social Network”) the task of writing a film set almost entirely within a courtroom is one of the easiest bets in all of Hollywood. His unique writing style and penchant for satisfying, almost rhythmic dialogue can make even the most dire situations fun to watch, as it allows any scenario to boil down to the basic concept of watching great actors deliver great dialogue.

After his directorial debut with 2017’s “Molly’s Game”, Sorkin is yet again directing his own script for the long in development “Trial of the Chicago 7”, which is, surprise, a film about the trial of the Chicago 7. For those unaware, the night of the democratic national convention in 1968 a riot broke out involving the Chicago police and a group of anti-Vietnam war protestors. The trial involved 8 high profile protestors and leaders charged with inciting the riots.

Sorkin takes a handful of lesser known actors, Alex Sharp (“How to Talk to Girls at Parties,” “The Hustle”), Noah Robbins (“The Assistant”), Daniel Flaherty (“November Criminals,” “The Meyerowitz Stories”), and throws them in with some true dramatic heavyweights like John Carroll Lynch (“The Founder,” “Zodiac”), Jeremy Strong (“The Big Short,” “Selma”), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (“Aquaman,” “Watchmen (2019)”), and Frank Langella (“Frost/Nixon,” “Good Night, and Good Luck”) and ends up creating a powder keg of an ensemble that feels as close to a filmed play as one can get without actually becoming a filmed play. To say each and every actor is excellent seems like oversimplifying things, but it says a lot about their talent and Sorkin’s direction that even amongst the across the board excellent cast, there are standouts.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“Inception,” “50/50”) as federal prosecutor Richard Schultz is certainly the most morally grey character in the film, serving somewhat as an audience surrogate and leveraging Levitt’s everyman charms with his extreme talent. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies,” “Ready Player One”) is making an easy case for his second academy award as defense attorney William Kunstler. His fatherly charms that have been so expertly utilized by filmmakers like Spielberg are on full display, but not discounting the aged, exhausted nature of being an older peace fighter, forced to watch the younger generation butt heads with his generation and fail. Even a brief appearance by Michael Keaton (“Birdman,” “Spotlight”) is plenty of time to remind audiences why he’s still one of the best actors working today.

Yet the film absolutely belongs to Sacha Baron Cohen (“Borat,” “Les Misérables”) and Eddie Redmayne (“Les Misérables,” “The Theory of Everything”). These two will likely compete for awards as much as they are at each other’s throats in the film. Cohen’s more comedic and lighthearted character clashes with Redmayne’s more straight-laced one, and the sheer talent on display when they’re acting off each other is incredible.

Though their confrontations aren’t just a great example of two actors, it’s the thesis statement for the entire film. On one hand, Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman is clearly a stoner and a hippie, a “free love” kind of protestor, cracking jokes and giving a “fuck you” to authority at any moment. Redmayne’s Tom Hayden, on the other hand, is calmer and more put together, understanding that bureaucracy is a part of protesting and the negatives to completely off-putting authority figures.

Sorkin gives each of them, and by extension the two perspectives on how to start revolution, the time necessary to breath and show the positives and negatives inherent in both sides. This, coupled with the blatant displays of corruption on the side of the judiciary system and from Langella’s Judge Julius Hoffman, might remind viewers of the films made in the 80’s and 90’s about the U.S. saving other countries from their corrupt governments.

It gets blunt by the end of things, but Sorkin uses this bluntness intelligently. The third act is full of some very on the nose lines and even an event so metaphorical that it borders on cheesy. However, the film’s serious treatment of the events never falters, and given the severity and timely nature of these events compared to modern day, a bit of bluntness is not just appreciated, but welcomed and earned.

While Sorkin doesn’t stick to exact historical specifics, like his previous works, he makes changes to ensure the most effective dramatic portrayal of the events possible. It’s worth noting this because there are easy things to nitpick in terms of the treatment of certain characters and the amount of screen time they get in the overall story. They get exactly what’s necessary for Sorkin to effectively make their story a bullet point in his retelling and makes sure to give them their due diligence.

This is easily his best film since The Social Network because it finally feels like he’s making a film with something to say again. While his past few works, “Steve Jobs,” “Molly’s Game,” “The Newsroom,” “Moneyball,” haven’t been bad, they’ve felt as though Sorkin was focused on characters instead of making a statement as he so often did earlier in his career. It also helps that this film is better paced and edited overall than his directorial debut, “Molly’s Game,” toning down some of the more hyperactive editing and focusing the story on the events rather than one sole person.

It’s a perfect balance, setting some fantastic performances and characterizations, against a film that clearly has something to say and is going to say it come hell or high water. The film feels sharp and timely, but it doesn’t cheapen any of the dramatic work being done. It never feels like a film that was made because of current events, rather just history repeating itself and Sorkin capitalizing on it in subtle ways.

“Trial of the Chicago 7” may be too blunt for some, might mix historical facts too much for others, and it might just be too spiteful for the rest. But it can’t be denied that this is a powerhouse of a film on nearly every level. The acting, editing, script, direction, each piece of it comes together to form a whole that has something to say and knows exactly how its going to say it. 5/5

The Croods: A New Age - Review

 

A sequel to the timidly received 2013 film “The Croods” has arrived and it has far more in common with the original film than one might think. Not in terms of plot or characters, but in terms of quality.

The sequel picks up somewhere after the first film and follows the Croods, a family of barbaric cave people, and Guy, a smart loner who joined their pack in the first film, finding a walled in oasis home run by the Betterman, a family of far more evolved and intelligent people.

It isn’t worth recapping the plot for numerous reasons. For starters, things get so completely ridiculous by the end of the film that it becomes impossible to guess what’s coming next. It’s an odd strength that the film gains in its latter half; the writers have thrown everything at the wall and just go with what sticks. It results in an erratic and bizarre second half, and while its hard to tell if its necessarily good, it definitely isn’t boring.

This leaves the first half as the weaker part of the film mainly because it retreads so much ground from other films of its ilk. If you’ve seen any other film, animated or not, with an “outsider tries to be accepted by normal people” plot, you’ve seen this film, the first half at least. Director Joel Crawford (“Trolls,” “The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part”) and the film’s six; Dan Hageman (“The LEGO Movie,” “Trollhunters: Tales of Arcadia”), Kevin Hageman (“The LEGO Movie,” “Trollhunters: Tales of Arcadia”), Paul Fisher (“The LEGO Ninjago Movie,” “Abominable”), Bob Logan (“The LEGO Ninjago Movie”), Kirk DeMicco (“Space Chimps,” “The Croods”), Chris Sanders (“Lilo & Stitch,” “How to Train Your Dragon”), credited writers try to inject so freshness into the events but fail to excite in a meaningful way.

So, if the first half of the film is just passable and the second half is bonkers and maybe better, what’s the draw for anyone about the age of six? Well, like the first film, the voice cast does an excellent job at bringing these characters and the world to life.

Nicolas Cage (“National Treasure,” “Face/Off”) gives a full-throated vocal performance here and its just excellent, as do Catherine Keener (“Being John Malkovich,” “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”), Emma Stone (“La La Land,” “Zombieland”), and Ryan Reynolds (“Crazy Stupid Love,” “Deadpool”). It’s worth pointing out that, more so than other animated films, the vocal performances go beyond just celebrities barely acting to collect a paycheck. Like the previous film, there’s a real effort put into these guttural roles and it lends them a texture that would’ve been sorely missed had it not been there.

However, these are the actors who were already great in the previous film. How do the new additions fair? Well, of the three new ones Leslie Mann (“This is 40,” “Blockers”) is the closest to phoning it in. She does get her moment to shine, but it doesn’t come until much later in the film. Kelly Marie Train (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” “Sorry for Your Loss”) gets more to work with and delivers some excellent rebellious teenager moments as the film progresses. Yet, the one actor who shines above nearly all others here is Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”). His character of Phil Betterman is a slimy guy for sure, but Dinklage relishes in each and every line like its his last meal, becoming possibly the first example of a scenery chewing performance in an animated film.

Like the first film and nearly every other multi-million-dollar animated feature, the world of the Croods is extremely gorgeous to behold. Bright colors and bizarre creature design leap from every fold of the world and look absolutely stunning. This is a film that is plainly and simply gorgeous and will surely become a showpiece for home theatres and 4K HDR for some time.

“A New Age” has one big asset and that’s its over the top weirdness. While it might not be much to write home about in its basic plot, the things that come up are extremely weird in the best way possible. Some of the highlights include a heavy metal-infused big hair female warrior group, portable windows, an abundance of bananas, “Banana Bros,” and some Stepford Wives style gas-lighting. It also continues to thrive thanks to a delightful sense of slapstick roughness that, like in the first film, lends the entire film a delightful classic Hanna Barbara kind of wackiness.

This is a weird film to be sure, and whether or not its any good, its definitely not boring. Bolstered by a great voice cast, incredibly colorful visuals, and an overabundance of weirdness, “The Croods: A New Age” is a pleasant adventure that manages to distract for just long enough to be enjoyable. A tighter and more well balance plot could’ve definitely made things go smoother, but as it stands, it’s an alright adventure. Good? That’s up for debate, but enjoyable? Definitely. 3/5

Happiest Season - Review

 

Some might argue that the topic of coming out might be too sour, or even traumatic, to be shoved into a holiday themed romantic comedy, but it could also be argued that shoving such a dramatic topic into an otherwise sweet and sugary rom-com speaks to just how mainstream queer rom-coms have become. Regardless, “Happiest Season” is here from Sony Pictures and Hulu, and it is without a doubt a jolly holiday.

A film like this entirely depends on its cast. The script is important too, but there’s no visual effects, makeup, outlandish sets, or otherworldly scenarios in the rom-com genre. It’s all about the cast, and that is without a doubt the film’s strongest suit. Kristen Stewart (“Twilight,” “Personal Shopper”) and Mackenzie Davis (“Halt and Catch Fire,” “Terminator: Dark Fate”) both lead the film as Abby and Harper, respectively, and their charms and chemistry are effortless. It’s that kind of rare romance where none of it feels Hollywood fake, as if you’re really just watching two people who’re in love and struggling.

They also both show their excellent comedic timing as well as dramatic chops. Given her recent reputation playing stoic or cool characters, its delightful to see Stewart have so many scenes where she plays the awkward third wheel, and the same goes for Davis. Her recent turns in action films like “Terminator: Dark Fate” mean her toned down, sweet yet still attention starved demeanor plays even better than it already would.

The supporting cast is filled with scene-stealers throughout the film, whether it’s Jane, played by Mary Holland (“Blunt Talk,” “The Package”), Harper’s elder sister who’s been starved of attention, Sloane, played by Alison Brie (“Community,” “GLOW”), Harper’s eldest sister who’s had a bit too much attention, or Riley, played by Aubrey Plaza (“Parks & Recreation,” “The Little Hours”), Harper’s ex, and Ted, played by Victor Garber (“Argo,” “Alias”), Harper’s father

The absolute top dollar scene stealers comes in the form of the ever excellent and hilarious Mary Steenburgen (“Step Brothers,” “Melvin and Howard”) as Tipper, Harper’s mother, and Dan Levy (“Schitt’s Creek,” “Coastal Elites”) as John, the gay best friend of Abby. Anyone who’s seen her work on “The Last Man on Earth” or any of her various comedic roles from the last decade knows exactly what kind of manic comedy will come out when she comes on screen. The same goes for Levy, as while his schtick may be familiar to viewer’s of Schitt’s Creek, it doesn’t make it any less charming, heartfelt, or hilarious.

What works so well about “Happiest” comes down to those actors working from such a rich script. It isn’t anything groundbreaking, but there’s a healthy bit of wry humor at play in the proceedings that help prevent things from ever getting too heavy. It’s a testament to the abilities of writer/director Clea DuVall (“But I’m a Cheerleader,” “Girl, Interrupted”) and writer Mary Holland that the film never wallows in its own seriousness.

Don’t misunderstand, this doesn’t cheat these dramatic moments of their weight. In fact quite the opposite; by allowing the humor to feel more natural, as if its invading every facet of the characters lives, it allows the film to feel more real, allows the characters to becomes more three dimensional, and, by extension, makes the dramatic moments land much harder than they otherwise would.

It’s almost a satire at times given how specifically and incisively it zeros in on the heteronormative rich white suburban family culture and the expectations therein. Again though, because of that humor and the effort put into endearing and developing these characters, it means that this isn’t a film that will alienate anyone. It truly feels like a family holiday, both due to the chaos and the love at the center of it all.

There are likely going to be a flood of think pieces that follow the film’s release that dissect how cliched and samey it feels to other previous holiday rom-coms. While that might be true, DuVall and Holland are clearly less interested in the trappings of the plot compared to the people within that plot. When you become this invested in these characters, it means that the surrounding plot contrivances and similarities melt away like snow come springtime.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that, while not a crucial component to character-driven comedies, the camerawork from cinematographer John Guleserian (“Like Crazy,” “Love, Simon”) is excellent. It goes far beyond the typical sitcom style seen in most low/mid budget studio comedies and actually takes the time to frame the holiday glitz and glamour and drama with a careful, if not particularly revelatory, eye.

“Happiest Season” is as cheesy as it needs to be, and a delightful surprise all around thanks to a terrific cast and attention to the characters they’re playing. The plot itself might be well worn, but this film is like that old gift bag your mom keeps year after year. You might be used to how it looks on the outside, but that doesn’t mean it can’t hold something truly special and heartwarming inside. 4.5/5

Freaky - Review

 

After a few successful short films, writing some of the worst “Paranormal Activity” movies (any but the first one), directing the last “Paranormal Activity” film, and writing and directing the easy contender for worst film of 2015 “Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse,” writer/director Christopher Landon finally seemed to hit his stride with 2017’s “Happy Death Day” and its sequel “Happy Death Day 2U.” Those films blended a sly sense of humor with horror thrills that managed to be engaging, if falling prey to the cheap PG-13 horror film squeamishness. However, his latest film “Freaky” manages to be his strongest and best yet, going for the jugular and the weird laugh.

Like the “Death Day” films, “Freaky” is a horror twist on a classic cinema trope, this time focused on the body swap movie. Unpopular teen Millie, played by Kathryn Newton (“Halt and Catch Fire,” “Big Little Lies”), swaps bodies with the Blissfield Butcher, played by Vince Vaughn (“Wedding Crashers,” “Swingers”), after he attempts to kill her with a sacrificial dagger during a full moon.

Typical body swap movie hijinks ensue, with the pair stumbling through their first moments in differing bodies, and its in this first act where the film is its weakest. While they become charming, the introductions to these characters, like Millie’s two friends Nyla, played by Celest O’Connor (“Selah and the Spades”), and Josh, played by Misha Osherovich (“NOS4A2,” “The Goldfinch”), are painfully cliched. The sassy bordering on toxic gay friend and the overly concerned longtime female best friend, the mean teacher, crush who’s out of her league, all of these tropes are brought out to trot themselves around for the teen movie familiars.

It isn’t until about 35 minutes into the film that things really start to get interesting. Coincidentally, this is when the blood starts flowing with reckless abandon. Newton’s performance clearly shows an actress ready to embrace her killer side, putting her well beyond the rolls she’s done in the past in works like “Blockers” and “Detective Pikachu.”

Likewise, it’s here in this teen horror comedy that Vince Vaughn might have his big comeback moment. He is hysterical here as the fish out of water (or out of body), as Millie tries to adjust to her new body. Comparisons could be made to Jack Black’s role as a teenage girl in a middle-aged man’s body from 2018’s “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” but the film naturally gives Vaughn more to work with as Millie is dealing with a lot more than a case of mistaken identity.

The supporting cast is all mostly fine, Millie’s two best friends get the most time outside of herself and the Butcher to craft an identity, but Millie’s mother and sister feel far more one note, wasting what could otherwise have been interesting wrinkles in the body swap formula.

While most of its “kills” feel a bit out of place in what could otherwise easily be marketed as a bizarre teen comedy, its in that bizarreness where “Freaky” becomes its most interesting and engaging self. Not only do some of the jokes get really bizarre, but there’s also an underlying sense of queerness to the entire film. At one point, someone asks what pronouns they should refer to Millie as in the Butcher’s body.

What could have easily been a crass joke is an odd moment of respect as the characters use this to reflect on the weirdness of the situation. Likely due to it being written by two openly gay men, Landon and Michael Kennedy (“Bordertown”), there’s a surprising lack of punching down humor here, instead going for more character and physical gag that bring a sense of warmth to this slasher movie.

While it might feature some great performance and moments of go for broke humor and is refreshingly violent as it flaunts its R rating, “Freaky” is slightly kneecapped by its otherwise cliché ridden plot. As enjoyable as it all is, there’s nothing really new here. It’s a good time sure, and you aren’t laughing at it by any means. It just feels like a small scale cliched romp, anchored by some blow-out performances. It doesn’t really need to be anything more though, and like Millie by the end of the film, its comfortable in its own skin. 3.5/5