The Green Knight - Review

 

Dripping in Arthurian legend and with every line spoken in some sort of hushed whisper, David Lowery’s “The Green Knight” demonstrates a continued understanding of the power of storytelling and myth, and a further refinement of the director’s ability to balance fantasy and coming of age elements previously displayed in works like “A Ghost Story” and “Pete’s Dragon (2016).”

Dev Patel (“Slumdog Millionaire,” “The Personal History of David Copperfield”) stars as Gawain, the nephew of King Arthur who’s tasked with fulfilling an agreement with a mysterious Green Knight, played by Ralph Ineson (“Chernobyl,” “The VVitch”). This is the most basic of plot descriptions, not because of spoilers but because the film is a perfect example of experiential cinema.

What exactly does that mean? Well, Lowery has clearly put the most effort into making the audience not just identify with, but feel as though they’re going on this journey alongside Gawain. Multiple sequences play out with little to no dialogue or explanation, instead stretching the boundaries between fantasy and reality. It's hard to say what actually happens and what’s just in Gaiwan’s head, but that distinction isn’t necessary for the film to be effective.

Patel’s performance is grounded, gritty, and immature. His Gawain is a fresh faced, eager to please young knight and it further justifies categorizing this film as a coming of age story. Each character he encounters is just that, not an actor playing a role, but disappearing into a fantastical kind of character meant to further motivate him and reinforce this bizarre medieval world.

Joel Edgerton (“Loving,” “Boy Erased”) appears as the Lord of a manor Gawain encounters and maintains an authoritative presence in his brief screen time. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina,” “The Danish Girl”) plays dual roles with dual purposes and she manages to switch between the two effortlessly, leaving unattentive viewers none the wiser. Ineson is a commanding presence in his brief time as The Green Knight and Erin Kellyman (“Solo: A Star Wars Story,” “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier”) continues her streak of playing brief and unsettling characters that are massive standouts.

Yet, make no mistake, as fantastical as this world is, this is still an A24 picture and Lowery’s penchant for slow and methodical shots is still fully present. “A Knight’s Tale” this is not, and anyone going in expecting an adventurous medieval romp or even a twisted fantasy should know that “Green Knight” is a very deliberately paced film, content with letting shots linger for minutes and letting some scenes go by without a word spoken.

It's a stylistic choice to be sure, and it absolutely will not land with every viewer, but those who do throw their hands up and succumb to Lowery’s reinterpretation with (arguably) the first hero’s journey. It’s impeccably shot by cinematographer Andrew Droz Palermo (“You’re Next,” “A Ghost Story”) with plenty of shots that transcend what could be called gimickiness and instead end up searing themselves into your brain. They are accompanied by some truly ethereal music by Daniel Hart (“Pete’s Dragon (2016),” “The Old Man and the Gun”) to create an atmosphere of true otherworldly fantasy.

Any English major worth their salt will tell you that one of the reasons the Green Knight is green is plain and simple: he’s otherworldly. Lowery has achieved such a feat with his entire film for sure; “Green Knight” is full of sumptuous shots and excellent production design, but the actors so committed to this unsettling fantasy world and the music that underscores it all helps to create a film that’s atmosphere is likely to stay with you long after you’ve viewed it. 4.5/5

Jungle Cruise - Review

A multi-million-dollar summer blockbuster adventure film starring some pretty bankable actors based on a Walt Disney theme park ride. Sound familiar? Yes, “Jungle Cruise” will receive endless comparisons to “Pirates of the Caribbean,” but judging it as its own thing, it’s easy to recommend “Cruise” as a fun, lightweight popcorn flick: nothing more, nothing less.

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (“The Shallows,” “The Commuter”) and written by Michael Green (“Logan,” “Blade Runner 2049”), Glenn Ficarra (“I Love You Phillip Morris,” “Crazy, Stupid, Love”), and John Requa (“I Love You Phillip Morris,” “Crazy, Stupid, Love”),  from a story by Ficarra, Requa, John Norville (“Tin Cup”), and Josh Goldstein (“Sweet Valley High,” “American Dreams”), “Jungle Cruise” sees Dwayne Johnson (“Fast Five,” “The Scorpion King”) leading Emily Blunt (“Mary Poppins Returns,” “Edge of Tomorrow”) and Jack Whitehall (“Bad Education,” “Fresh Meat”) down a jungle river in the Amazon in search of a mystical healing tree.

Take that plot, throw in some action sequences, a mystical McGuffin, some cheesy villains, and a boatload (pun entirely intended) of CGI, and you’ve got what very well might be one of the most unoriginal adventure films in a very long time. Its not bad, by any means, but its so clear that the film doesn’t have a single original bone or story beat in its body. Have you ever seen “Romancing the Stone”? “Raiders of the Lost Ark”? “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”? Any film that involved Ray Harryhausen? Then you’ll know, virtually beat for beat, how this entire adventure will go.

That’s not to say its unenjoyable, and the reason it does end up being such a charming blast is because of those actors captaining this ship. Johnson continues his streak of being nearly effortlessly likable. A big teddy bear of a man with arms as big as tree trunks, his skipper Frank is a cynical, shrewd con artist of a captain who’s not above a bad pun or a clever moneymaking scheme.

Blunt’s Lily might be a bit too naïve for her own good, but she’s still a wonderfully headstrong and smart scientist who can hold her own alongside the adventurous escapades and big personalities being thrown her way. Most surprisingly, Whitehall keeps what could’ve easily been a one note joke character consistently likable and even gives him an arc in his own way.

Meanwhile Jesse Plemmons (“Game Night,” “Fargo (2015)”) and Paul Giamatti (“Sideways,” “Billions”) are making absolute meals of the scenery, CGI or not. Plemmons plays Prince Joachim, a German aristocrat determined to find the mystical tree and Giamatti plays what can only be described as a cross between an Italian mob boss and Colonel Sanders as Nilo Nemolato, a competitor and loan shark to Frank. Both are having the times of their lives, and, despite Giamatti only being on screen for a limited time, both are a highlight.

Visually, the film is shot fairly typically. Nothing is going to blow your socks off in terms of visuals or shots, but its all serviceable. Some of the more fantastical antagonists, such as one infested with bees and with snakes wrapping around their skeleton like muscles represent a surprising level of visual ingenuity. Its one of the few places where Collet-Serra’s background in horror films shines through, as these antagonists are truly unsettling and wonderfully designed.

However, these excellent designs make the lackluster greenscreen work stand out even more. For about half the film, everything looks fine and average. Yet there are a handful of scenes that really look bad, far worse than a film with this budget should allow. Nothing here has to be perfect, but the shoddy execution of some of these scenes, one of which is meant to be a big emotional moment, really weakens the entire affair.

Like most of these big budget popcorn flicks, what ends up really saving the film is not just the charming actors, but the little surprises. Frank’s cons show up throughout in very amusing ways that serve to spice up the adventure, and Veronica Falcón (“Queen of the South”, “Perry Mason”) appears for a short while in the middle of the film as Trader Sam and is an instant comedic highlight, bleeding charisma to rival Johnson. Even the jabs at the misogynistic nature of early 1900s English society and the overt way Lily tries to combat them come of as lighthearted instead of meanspirited.

“Jungle Cruise” is lightweight popcorn fare, plain and simple. It’s commanded by some wonderfully charming performances, some fun surprises, and great antagonistic designs. It might not have an original beat in its plot and have some shoddy green screen, but as a simple, fun adventure movie, it’s easy to recommend as a fun, meandering trip down the river. 3/5

Space Jam: A New Legacy - Review

 

The original “Space Jam” is one of the most bizarre films to ever come out of the 90s. Not only was it born out of a series of Nike commercials, but its status as a “beloved cult movie” seems to almost be in spite of itself. Kids nowadays don’t really know it, and ask anyone who’s actually old enough to have seen it as a kid and their reactions will range from “it was bad” to “it was alright.”

Yet, somehow, Warner Bros. has manifested “Space Jam: A New Legacy” into theatres, born out of the sheer desire for money and to show off its unending catalog of intellectual property, sans intellect.

“A New Legacy” stars LeBron James as himself, as he enters a computerized world known as “The Warner Bros ServerVerse” to rescue his son, played by Cedric Joe (), from an algorithm named Al-G Rhythm, played with scenery chewing delight by Don Cheadle. To do this, he teams up with the Looney Tunes to defeat Al-G in a basketball game.

Thankfully, James is more than capable alongside the Tunes. His acting isn’t anything amazing, but he can clearly deliver jokes and emotional lines well enough to get through the script’s lightweight material. Honestly, his best moments come when he’s fully animated and delivers a pretty good vocal performance. The rest of the cast is base level passable. Nobody is given good material here, and basically any moment outside of the “ServerVerse” borders on excruciating, as if the time inside it wasn’t bad enough.

The clear winner in this film, acting wise, is Don Cheadle. The man is not only clearly having the time of his life hamming it up against his greenscreen backdrops but sells every villainous line with the mannerisms of a Saturday morning cartoon villain. He’s, clearly, the only actor who understands what kind of movie he’s in.

It’s worth noting Cheadle is the winner acting wise because the true winner of this film is Warner Bros. themselves. Each and every frame is drenched in product placements for their various franchises, and it becomes headache inducing for even the most optimistic of film fans. Remember the gag in “The LEGO Batman Movie” where Joker found the worst villains in the world, and they were all villains from other WB properties? The reason the concept worked there was because it was small scale, it put the silliness of the concept first, and it never let the idea overshadow the rest of the film.

None of that nuance is present in “Legacy.” Its genuinely startling how much the property placement overshadows the film as it really only takes up the about 30 minutes of the movie. Watching Road Runner dash alongside the cars of “Mad Max Fury Road” or seeing Granny replacing Trinity in the opening scene from “The Matrix” isn’t funny or novel in today’s day and age. Not only because YouTube videos and DeviantArt accounts have been doing this for years, but because there’s fundamentally no point to it. It feels like a time capsule, but not to the 90s nostalgia it so desperately desires, but to that weird time on the internet in the mid-2000s when people wrote fan fiction along the lines of “then Winnie the Pooh and Dracula picked up their guns and went to face Steve Harvey and end the fight they started with Jimmy Neutron.”

Bugs’s entire plot is centered around his desire to get his friends back after Al-G enticed them to leave their home because they were washed up, but why? Yosemite Sam ends up replacing Dooley Wilson’s role in “Casablanca” but there’s no joke to it other than “look at this cartoon in this non-cartoon movie.” Not only is it the laziest form of comedy, but there’s no reason given as to why any of the Tunes have picked their particular worlds to runaway to.

Is it stupid to overanalyze the plot of a “Space Jam” sequel this much? Maybe, but if director Malcolm D. Lee (“Girls Trip,” “Night School”) and the whopping six credited writers, Juel Taylor (“Creed II”), Tony Rettenmaier (“Cabarete”), Keenan Coogler, Terance Nance (“Random Acts of Flyness,” “Omniboat: A Fast Boat Fantasia”), Jesse Gordon (“Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”), and Celeste Ballard (“Wrecked,” “Sweet/Vicious”), wanted to make this such a huge component of Bugs’s plot, they need to have thought it through.

It’s a perfect example of everything that’s wrong with the film; its just lazy. Repeatedly throughout the movie, it spouts the message of “be yourself” and the Tunes encourage James to “be more Looney” and yet the film can’t even begin to be bothered to summon more than the bare minimum of the anarchy these characters are known for.

The final basketball game is ripe with sports movie cliches and what might just be the most insulting bait and switch ending in the last two decades of cinema for how transparent it is. That’s the biggest disappointment about this new film. Warner Bros. has made films in the past that utilize their properties as a part of the plot without letting them overtake the plot; “Ready Player One,” “Looney Tunes: Back in Action,” “The LEGO Batman Movie,” hell, even the original “Space Jam.”

Yet the film’s story about an algorithm that crafts all of Warner Bros. ideas, trying to get an actor to star in a movie he clearly doesn’t want to be in, and filling a big basketball game with every character it can get just to get eyeballs watching feels painfully shallow and even more painfully transparent. Its hard to believe a film like this got made with nary a shred of irony in its bones. One can only imagine what a film like this would’ve looked like if, oh, it had been directed by someone who knew how to do surrealist, satirical material really well and wasn’t kicked off the project as a director by Warner Bros. *cough-cough-Terence Nance-cough-cough*

Genuinely, this isn’t the worst thing to come out of cinema this year, nor will it be fondly remembered come December. It has a decently good performance from James and a deliciously cheesy one from Cheadle, and the effects are good, even as they border on headache inducing. Yet when the Tunes are turned to CGI and seem to be in pain when it happens, that’s when you lose me; it’s both one of the laziest films in recent memory and also one of the most overwritten, desperate to justify its existence in any way possible. 1.5/5

Black Widow - Review

 

It’s been almost two years since the last Marvel film hit screens, and while Feige and his band of merry heroes have mostly tided audiences over with the new Disney+ shows, “Black Widow” is here to jumpstart the summer (and the box office) in a way that only Marvel can.

Taking place in between “Captain America: Civil War” and “Avengers: Infinity War,” “Black Widow” probably should’ve come out at that time as well. Its not really the case of “too little, too late,” but more the fact that the film is such a beautiful sendoff for Scarlett Johansson (“Under the Skin,” “Marriage Story”) and the character of Natasha Romanoff that getting this adventure as a post-mortem feels disingenuous to the character.

But we’ve got it now, so let’s judge the film we’ve got, not the film we could’ve got. Thankfully, what Marvel and director Cate Shortland (“Berlin Syndrome,” “Somersault”) have delivered is a thrilling adventure, packed with some incredible action and a story that easily ranks with Marvel’s most thought-out and character focused pieces.

Natasha Romanoff, played by Johansson, is laying low in Europe following the events of “Captain America: Civil War” when she’s attacked by the very people she used to work for before becoming an Avenger. Now she teams up with her former faux family in the hopes of taking down Dreykov, the leader of the brainwashing Black Widow program and of the Red Room.

Johansson has more material to work with here than arguably any point in her history with Marvel. Romanoff has been through a lot even before she joined S.H.I.E.L.D. and Shortland and writers Jac Schaeffer (“TiMER,” “WandaVision”), Ned Benson (“The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby”), and Eric Pearson (“Thor: Ragnarok,” “Godzilla vs. Kong”) don’t shy away from that. Rather, they embrace her checkered past and use it to develop Romanoff as a character so desperate to break free of what she had to do to be free.

Her faux family that must be reassembled consists of Floence Pugh (“Midsommar,” “Little Women (2019)”) as Yelena Belova, David Harbour (“Stranger Things,” “Hellboy (2019)”) as Alexei Shostakov aka the Red Guardian, and Rachel Weisz (“The Mummy,” “The Favourite”) as Melina Vostokoff. Their chemistry and family dynamic are nearly flawless, with Pugh absolutely stealing the show right out from Johansson. Its one of the few cases where you can really feel and believe the familial roots that exist between a group of characters, even with all the action going on.

And action there is indeed, as “Widow” contains some of Marvel’s best and smallest scale action in a while. Don’t be mistaken, there are still massive explosions and debris tumbling every which way, but there are also numerous moments of excellently choreographed hand to hand combat that remain thrilling throughout.

Yet, it’s the quiet moments throughout “Black Widow” that really shine the brightest and make the film feel like a step in a new direction for Marvel. While there have been Marvel films with quiet, introspective moments before, the reason “Widow” stands out so much is Shortland and the writer’s decision to let these moments breath and marinate. Not only does it allow these familial discussions or reflections on one’s past land with greater impact; it results in one of the most excellently paced Marvel films in some time. Even the villain is layered with real world allegories, and while nothing here approaches the deep levels of something philosophical, it nevertheless is a great blend of serious, character driven plot with fantastic popcorn thrills.

Its not a perfect movie, and there are definitely things to criticize. As entertaining as it all is, the first two acts play out in a fairly predictable fashion, down to how certain characters and pieces of information are found. The third act, meanwhile, is a tense and fantastic action and plot packed rollercoaster ride, and that’s not to say the first two acts are bad. They have just as much juicy material as the third, they just present it in a more predictable way.

“Black Widow” is a character focused popcorn action flick with the gumption to let its small, somber moments have as much importance as its explosions and action. Johansson, Harbour, and Weisz are all great, and Pugh delivers a standout performance, resulting in a potential new direction for Marvel Studios post Endgame. 4/5

The Boss Baby: Family Business - Review

 

Sometimes all a movie has to do is fill time. It’s a cynical viewpoint of the world’s biggest entertainment industry, but even the most artful of films will only be made if there’s a potential to make some cash. That’s not to say “The Boss Baby: Family Business” or the first film are anywhere close to art house pieces. They’re Dreamworks’s biggest and most blatantly obvious cash cows, and this sequel does little to change that perception.

The sequel finds the two brothers from the first film, Tim, voiced by James Marsden (“X-Men,” “Sonic the Hedgehog”), and Ted Jr., voiced by Alec Baldwin (“Beetlejuice,” “30 Rock”), turned from grownups back into children to sneak into a private school to discover what sinister plot it holds, lead by Tim’s daughter and secret new Boss Baby Tina, voiced by Amy Sedaris (“BoJack Horseman,” “Strangers with Candy”). The plot is basically an excuse to recreate the basic premise from the first film and in that respect it works.

It also shovels numerous new characters into this weird looking world and they all feel like textbook time-wasting material. There’s a kid who bullies Tim’s older daughter, a random creepy girl who keeps popping up throughout, a miniature Pony that hates Tim, and it all feels like blatant padding. The few new characters that do add something to the mix are Tim’s older daughter Tabitha, voiced by Ariana Greenblatt (“Love and Monsters,” “The One and Only Ivan”), the villain Dr. Armstrong, voiced with apathetic glee by Jeff Goldblum (“Jurassic Park,” “Thor: Ragnarok”), and Sedaris as the new Boss Baby, Tina.

Baldwin does a serviceable job, with nothing really changing from the first film and Marsden does good work as well. Neither stand out, but they’re perfectly fine. Greenblatt also delivers a good vocal performance, but again, nothing that will set the film apart from the pack. Meanwhile Sedaris and Goldblum are doing some really energetic and silly work. Sedaris struts her stuff, showcasing why she’s been doing voices for years, delivering some of the absurd material with gusto.

Goldblum, somehow, is delivering a performance that is both over and under-exaggerated. It's entertaining for sure, but it's hard to tell if he’s making fun of the movie by putting in no energy or if he loves the work and is therefore putting in a ton of energy in the process. It’s hard to really describe without having seen it yourself.

The exact same thing can be said for the plot. Director/co-writer Tom McGrath (“Madagascar,” “Megamind”) and co-writer Michael McCullers (“Baby Mama,” “Austin Powers in Goldmember”) have written a plot that really just exists as a sequence of loosely connected events to get from gag to gag, set piece to set piece. There’s an evil plan that doesn’t make any sense and a subplot about Tabitha and a Christmas pageant, but none of it has any sense of memorability, just going one ear and out the other accompanied by colorful visuals and energetic music.

That’s one thing the film still has in its favor; like the first, the color palette is wonderfully colorful and expressive, mixing modern aspects with a pseudo-retro-futuristic 60s kind of style. It's all bent angles, unsymmetrical squares, and shiny bright lights. It certainly gives the film a unique look, even as the events that use that look are as spastic and unmemorable as ever.

“Family Business” has an almost absurdly high sense of energy. It ratchets everything up to eleven with an almost headache inducing speed. A sequence early on that begins with a missed bus results in a destructive chase through town involving a giant snowball with the mayor and multiple cops in it and a giant flaming Christmas tree. It's one thing to bring the looney tunes sense of energy into CGI animation, but this is ridiculous.

It's a triumph in a way that despite that kind of energy the film maintains its weirdly unexciting and unmemorable pace. It definitely has its moments, but it also has its fair share of uncomfortable scenarios: it's hard to laugh at a “naked baby” joke when one of the people present in the scene is canonically the naked ones daughter/niece and while the intentions are good, a father-daughter bonding subplot is a bit too… weirdly romantic given the de-aging of the dad, Tim.

“The Boss Baby: Family Business” certainly is a sequel to the 2017 film “The Boss Baby.” It keeps up the series' high levels of anarchistic energy and unmemorability with a couple of poorly thought out bits of weird uncomfortability sprinkled in for good measure. It’s technically a better film than the first one, but that’s not a high bar to reach and can only be said because it isn’t as blatantly annoying as the 2017 film was. Is it good? Not really, but it's certainly passable and competently made. You could do far far worse. 2.5/5

No Sudden Move - Review

 

“No Sudden Move” represents what one can only hope for every time a film comes out: a director working in their favorite genre, place, etc. Steven Soderbergh (“Ocean’s Eleven,” “Logan Lucky”) loves a motley crew and loves the idea of a “gentleman” thief just as much, if not more. While his career has run the gamut, his sweet spot tends to be that of thieves, aiming high and scoring even higher.

Thus his latest film, “No Sudden Move,” which fits very snuggly into that wheelhouse. It’s got crime, quippy dialogue, lots of money changing hands, and a cast that’s almost insanely star studded. Yet, it's also got something Soderbergh hasn’t had in a while: a meandering pace.

You see, the key to a mystery-adjacent film like this is to constantly keep the audience on their toes. Soderbergh is a great director, but he’s an even better writer, and as good as Ed Solomon’s (“Men in Black,” “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure”) script is, it's not as good as some of those Soderbergh has written himself. More every quip that falls flat, about three land solidly. It's also hard to say there’s a lot of mystery going on. Solomon’s script doesn’t so much traffic in a secretive mysterious plan as it does just not tell the audience what’s going on. There’s little intrigue as even some of the characters struggle to follow what’s going on.

That’s fine and good, there are plenty of movies that have been made where the main characters have no idea what's going on. But whereas most of those kinds of movies have a big “AHA” moment when everything is revealed, “Move” only musters an “Oh, cool” by the time everything is done. It’s as if you’re watching an elaborate, expertly crafted rube Goldberg machine that results in a piece of toast. It’s not that it's bad, just anticlimactic.

However, thankfully the entire cast is so committed you likely won’t mind. Don Cheadle’s (“House of Lies,” “Iron Man 2”) Curt Goynes leads with a gruff voice and a gruffer attitude. It’s a stark contrast to the actor's otherwise more likable persona and he develops a great rapport with Benicio del Toro’s (“Sicario,” “Traffic”) Ronald Russo. The pair have an entertaining back and forth and develop a believable pseudo friendship over the course of the film’s runtime. They’re effortlessly charming and most will likely want to watch the film just to watch the two of them act opposite each other.

The rest of the cast is almost unfortunately stacked. David Harbour (“Stranger Things,” “Black Widow”), Jon Hamm (“Mad Men,” “Baby Driver”), Amy Seimetz (“The Killing,” “Alien: Covenant”), Brendan Fraser (“The Mummy,” “Doom Patrol”), Kieran Culkin (“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” “Succession”), Julia Fox (“Uncut Gems”), Ray Liotta (“Something Wild,” “Narc”), and Bill Duke (“Black Lightning,” “A Rage in Harlem”) all show up at some point and it's quite a thrill getting to guess who’ll pop up next and why. None of them make as much of an impression as Cheadle and del Toro do, apart from Fox or Duke, but they’re all still fun. Culkin is digging further into his douchebag persona established on his recent projects, Liotta is basically playing himself at this point, and Fraser is absolutely trying to convince us that he, one of the nicest guy’s in Hollywood, can play a bad guy and does a damn good job at it.

Really, there’s one big unfortunate thing hanging over “No Sudden Move” like a cloud. The entire movie is just… good. It's not great, there’s nothing exceptional about it. Cheadle's performance borders on greatness and is the most entertaining part of the movie, but there’s nothing about the film that stands out before or after watching. This isn’t a bad thing at all, not every movie needs to light the world on fire. But it does mean that when credits roll, nothing really sticks with the viewer nor is there an intense need to want to rewatch it.

The film does have a unique look courtesy of cinematographer Peter Andrews (Soderbergh under an alias) and reflects Soderbergh’s fascination with new shooting techniques. Everything looks as if it was shot in a fishbowl or on a cinemascope wide lens and smushed into a 2.39:1 aspect ratio. It's definitely a cool look, although it takes some getting used to and could easily leave some viewers with a headache.

“No Sudden Move” is a fun crime movie distraction. It’s nothing exceptionally entertaining or funny, but thanks to a fun cast and solid premise and carried by Cheadle and del Toro, it manages to be a fun time for those already enamored with crime films or Soderbergh films or films that twist so much they might as well be a pretzel. 3.5/5