Last Night in Soho - Review

 

For his seventh feature film (counting the 2021 documentary “The Sparks Brothers”) Edgar Wright (“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” “Baby Driver”) goes back in time in a way and back to the genre that kicked off his career: horror. While decidedly less silly than “Shaun of the Dead” was way back when, “Last Night in Soho” represents a confident potential new direction for the UK filmmaker that charts new ground without leaving old fans out to dry.

Thomasin McKenzie (“Leave No Trace,” “Jojo Rabbit”) plays Ellie, a young fashion student who moves to a new apartment in Soho and begins to have visions of the same part of town in the 1960s and of a young woman, played by Anya Taylor Joy (“The Queen’s Gambit,” “The VVitch”) and her boyfriend, played by Matt Smith (“Doctor Who,” “The Crown”), as well as dealing with an elderly man in modern times, played by Terence Stamp (“Superman (1978),” “The Limey”). That little amount of information is the ideal way to experience “Soho” as much of the film’s strengths lay in experiencing it for the first time.

Wright is no stranger to constructing stories that rely heavily on stylized visuals, and while “Soho” skews closer to something like “Baby Driver” as opposed to the elaborate effects of “Scott Pilgrim,” it's nevertheless a gorgeous film to behold. Shot by Chung-hoon Chung (“The Handmaiden,” “IT (2017)”) the film practically glides through numerous segments punctuated by their stark contrast to Ellie’s day life. The neon blue and reds of her 60s visions contrast against the drab grays of her school life and create an emotional dissonance that feels palpable throughout.

This is a film that lives or dies off its aesthetic and thankfully Wright and his team have crafted a near perfect experience from a visual standpoint. As Ellie floats through these visions, the visuals accompanying them practically pour out of the screen and into the theatre. Velvet ropes and rooms covered in mirrors, night club stages and fog lifting from manhole covers, “Soho” is Wright’s most visually experiential film yet, even as it sees him tone down some of his more elaborate touches.

Gone are the extreme close-ups with accommodatingly jarring sound effects, the quick edits, the foreshadowing of events in the openings. The same director is clearly behind the camera, but it's a more mature voice. The tale is told with a more calm, less sporadic perspective, and while some fans might be upset with this calming of one of cinema’s more eclectic and recognizable voices, it's not entirely gone, just matured and refined. It’s also by far Wright’s creepiest and most unsettling film yet, with some upsetting moments and visuals coupled with a rocking and haunting score from Steven Price (“Gravity,” “Baby Driver”).

McKenzie does an excellent job portraying Ellie’s young, nervous nature as she’s presented with some bizarre situations throughout her jaunts back and forth to 60s London. It’s a fantastic performance that sells her good-hearted nature without leaning too much into it and creating a character who’s saccharine sweet. Taylor Joy also delights as the young singer she follows, portraying a mysterious, airy, almost angelic force. Her character is both gorgeous and yet also incredibly rich, that further cements Taylor Joy as a movie star in the making, if she already isn’t one. Smith meanwhile bucks most of his “Doctor Who” goody guy persona to play a devilish role that borders on being evil, allowing for a great back and forth as the audience tries to figure out what he’s up to.

“Soho” is, without question, at its best as you glide through each dream-like sequence and watch Ellie experience the era she so adores up close, warts and all. She’s a fabulously engaging heroine, and the film is made all the better by following her so closely. This is truly an experiential film, as most of the fun of it all comes down to experiencing it all alongside her. Some people describe superhero movies as “roller-coaster rides” but that term could also be applied to this as it really is a film where the joy comes from the experience, from the vibe, and less from the strict story it tells.

Because, while it isn’t bad, the script for “Soho” is likely the weakest of any of Wright’s previous films. Co-written by himself and Krysty Wilson-Cairns (“1917”), there’s a lot of subtext and actual text to chew through. Despite its midnight movie aesthetics, there’s some heavy material going on under the hood, and it's at its best when you’re following Ellie as she herself is learning what exactly is going on.

When the film tries to explain it all, that’s when things fall apart. Wright’s previous three films that delve a bit more into the “unexplainable,” aka his Cornetto trilogy, all have moments where their central ideas are explained in such a way to make them “make sense.” This moment also comes in “Soho” but it doesn’t feel as tight as in times past. It almost feels as though things would’ve been better off if the explanations had never come, but alas they’re here and the more the film talks about it, the weaker it is. Not bad, just weak.

“Last Night in Soho” is not a slam dunk unfortunately, but where it is lacking it's actually made up in other areas. While the strictly speaking “Plot” might be lacking in the ways it's explained, when it isn’t explained and instead is just experienced by the characters and audience, it's quite exceptional. A further refinement on Wright’s unique visual stylings and bizarre types of stories, coupled with some fantastic performances of some fascinating and endearing characters, “Last Night in Soho” is an unnerving and exciting film that easily slot’s into his well established repertoire. 4.5/5

The Harder They Fall - Review

 

It seems like every other week there’s some new kind of western “revival” type film coming out. Whether it's actually set in western times or a modern blockbuster with the trappings of one, the genre is still as popular as ever today as it tries to grow and evolve with the times. And then you have a film like “The Harder They Fall,” a film so effortlessly stylish and entertaining it appears effortless.

In broad strokes, the film follows outlaw Nat Love, played by Jonathan Majors (“Lovecraft Country,” “Da 5 Bloods”), as he assembles his gang consisting of Stagecoach Mary, played by Zazie Beetz (“Atlanta,” “Deadpool 2”), Jim Beckwourth, played by RJ Cyler (“Me and Earl and the Dying Girl,” “Power Rangers (2017)”), Cuffee, played by Danielle Deadwyler (“The Haves and Have Nots”), Bill Pickett, played by Edi Gathegi (“Proof,” “The Blacklist: Redemption”), and Bass Reeves, played by Delroy Lindo (“Da 5 Bloods,” “The Good Fight”), as they track down Rufus Buck, played by Idris Elba (“The Wire,” “Molly’s Game”), and his gang consisting of Trudy Smith, played by Regina King (“If Beale Street Could Talk,” “Southland”), and Cherokee Bill, played by Lakeith Stanfield (“Short Term 12,” “Sorry to Bother You”).

Yes, the cast is absolutely stacked to the sky, and each actor takes full advantage of the larger than life stakes and stylings of the film. Majors is a fantastic leader, constantly showing himself struggling with keeping a low profile while also making sure he gets what he wants. Elba is the film’s ace-in-the-hole, being dispersed on few occasions, but making the maximum impact when he is. King delivers a performance not seen by her before, maintaining a cold and ruthless persona that smiles in the face of her victims.

Beetz is just as fiery as some of her previous characters, and gets plenty of moments to shine against King in the film’s second half. Cyler’s wisecracking smart ass sensibilities come shining through and play wonderfully off of the more serious nature of Gathegi as the pair play close friends. Stanfield and Lindo continue to show why they’re some of the best actors working today by imbuing their characters with a very particular sense of morality that is purely fascinating to watch as events play out.

Yet, if ever there was a scenestealer, it's Deadwyler as Cuffee. Cuffee is, plain and simple, the heart of the movie, with an incredibly badass attitude, but also a humble, down to earth nature. She’s the film’s big emotional core, as her outsider nature allows her to question Love’s motives and decisions in a way that challenges the gang, and her charisma and fast friendships means that when bullets are flying in the third act, tension is always present.

When bullets fly, they definitely fly. Explosions and stylized violence cascade across the screen as shit hits the fan, and yet, even for all the camera tricks and fights, writer/director Jeymes Samuel and writer Boaz Yakin (“Remember the Titans,” “Now You See Me”) never lose the feeling of dread. They’re ruthless with who survives and who doesn’t throughout the entire film, leading to a palpable sense that at any moment, anyone could drop dead. It makes the action extremely satisfying to watch on a visual and emotional level, but it also backs up the film's emotional moments, allowing them to flourish. The big third act climax might have the least action, but it has the biggest emotional stakes and Samuel nails it and gives those moments the biggest impact.

Which is good because, despite being packed with great characters, dialogue, and action, the overall plot of “The Harder They Fall” is pretty typical western fare. Anyone who’s seen their fair share won’t be surprised by the events as they unfold, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t easy to get invested in. It once again goes back to the characters and how, if the writing and acting sells them, the story can come second.

“The Harder They Fall” is a fantastic feature directorial debut for Samuel and represents a clear understanding of the genre and how to deliver a flashy, emotionally charged film that also doesn’t skimp on its action. Its plot might be familiar to some, but Samuel smartly fills it with as many talented actors and whip smart dialogue as possible to make sure that, regardless of how many westerns you’ve seen, you’ll have a damn good time. 4/5

The French Dispatch - Review

 

If he’s anything, Wes Anderson (“The Grand Budapest Hotel,” “Fantastic Mr. Fox”) is a director who needs no introduction. For years he’s been entertaining audiences with his unique brand of off-kilter characters and humor, never losing sight of the heart integral to all of it. Yet, not every film in a director’s repertoire can be a masterpiece, and while his latest work “The French Dispatch” is a showcase for everything the director has learned since he broke onto the scene with 1996’s “Bottle Rocket,” it's also nowhere near a masterpiece.

Set in the fictional French town of Ennui-sur-Blasé, the film follows the Liberty, Kansas Evening Sun newspaper as the writers mourn the loss of their editor, played by Bill Murray (“Ghostbusters,” “Lost in Translation”), by creating a final issue and recapping three articles, as well as smaller vignettes, from their three main writers, J.K.L. Berensen, played by Tilda Swinton (“Michael Clayton,” “Vanilla Sky”), Lucinda Kementz, played by Frances McDormand (“Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” “Fargo”), and Roebuck Wright, played by Jeffrey Wright (“Westworld (2016),” “Casino Royale”).

Anderson’s iconic style is absolutely intact throughout the entirety of the film and on a bigger and bolder display than ever. “Dispatch” is a classic example of a filmmaker using every skill they’ve learned over their career and then some. Stop motion, green screen, changing aspect ratios, subtitles, color changes, it’s all being used to great effect. Anderson also employs a new “real time freeze frame” technique that immediately feels right at home in his style and for the first time in his career, he also employs some two-dimensional animation, and it’ll easily leave fans begging for a full 2D animated film from him. Most shocking of all, for the briefest moment, Anderson abandons his trademark smooth angles and precise turns for a sequence involving handheld cameras that leaves quite the artistic and emotional impact.

The cast is absolutely stacked, even for an Anderson picture. Beyond those previously mentioned, there’s also small roles from Owen Wilson (“The Royal Tenenbaums,” “Wedding Crashers”), Benicio del Toro (“21 Grams,” “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”), Adrien Brody (“The Pianist,” “The Darjeeling Limited”), Léa Seydoux (“No Time to Die,” “Belle Épine”), Timothée Chalamet (“Little Women (2019),” “Lady Bird”), Lyna Khoudri (“Papicha,” “Gagarine”), Mathieu Amalric (“Munich,” “Quantum of Solace”), Stephen Park (“A Serious Man,” “Fargo”), Liev Schreiber (“Ray Donovan,” “Spotlight”), Edward Norton (“Fight Club,” “American History X”), Williem Dafoe (“Spider-Man (2002),” “The Lighthouse”), Saoirse Ronan (“Little Women (2019),” “Lady Bird”), Elisabeth Moss (“The Invisible Man (2020),” “The Handmaid’s Tale”), and Jason Schwartzman (“Rushmore,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”), capping off with narration from Angelica Huston (“The Royal Tenenbaums,” “The Addams Family (1991)”) from time to time. Some of the actors stick around for large chunks of the film, while others are there for mere moments, yet everyone still maintains the trademark Anderson atmosphere and commitment to this surrealist world and style that’s been solidified and has captivated for the last two decades.

Seydoux and del Toro are immediate standouts; their story oozes romance and lust from every pore and the pair make for a wonderful duo, exuding a weird detached love for each other that feels like the most honest thing the film has. Chalamet, Khoudri, and McDormand are all far more comedic than the other stories, and McDormand’s character is the one who goes through the most of an “arc” throughout the film, and they’re a simple delight to behold. Wright, Schreiber, Park, and Amalric are also standouts in the film’s final story that has all the makings of a “Police Squad!” episode that decided to take itself very seriously that week, and that’s not a criticism.

Each story is told wonderfully by its writer, with Swinton absolutely stealing the show as she narrates her own tale, and each has their own style, really giving an insight into the types of work that each of them write and why they write it. In this, Anderson has nailed a clear tribute to writers and journalists, both who do “important” reporting and the little, human interest stories that keep news feeds rolling along. The film is also, broadly, clearly a tale of love, as each of the three main stories features some kind of love at its center, and the frame narrative is about how to properly tribute someone you love. Most interestingly in that regard, Anderson and his co-story-writers Roman Coppola (“Moonrise Kingdom,” “Mozart in the Jungle”), Hugo Guinness (“The Grand Budapest Hotel”), and Schwartzman has delivered a film about how to pay tribute to a great artist not by showcasing their own art, by by showcasing the kind of artists that were allowed to flourish under their wing.

For all the great things “Dispatch” has going for it, and it has a lot, it's missing one crucial element Anderson has typically excelled at and it's easy to see why. The film lacks a true emotional throughline for the entire film. Sure, there are emotional arcs in each of the stories, but the lack of one going throughout the entire film feels everything feeling far more segmented than it could have been. It’s an issue that typically crops up with anthology films, and while it's not impossible to avoid, it's one that isn’t really all that surprising.

“The French Dispatch” may not be his best film, but it's still a wonderfully quirky set of stories from Anderson and his crew. It’s packed with fantastically silly performances with every technical skill Anderson has learned on full display. It doesn’t have the start-to-finish emotional core that Anderson's other projects do, instead providing some delightfully fantastical stories with an equally fantastic frame narrative. It’s a good time, immediately recommended for Anderson die-hards, but for those who have yet to dip into his filmography and have only heard of his greatness, this latest issue from his cinematic zine comes up a bit short. 3.5/5

Ron's Gone Wrong - Review

 

Animation can be one of the trickiest tightropes to walk in the film industry. While there are many masterpieces that rank as some of the greatest movies ever made, there are just as many poorly made cash grabs that exist less for artistic integrity and more to be a ninety-minute commercial for an upcoming Nickelodeon series. So when a new studio breaks through the ether, it's always worth watching to see how they stake their claim in one of cinema's most potentially lucrative mediums.

Locksmith Animation, founded in 2014 by Sarah Smith (“Arthur Christmas,” “The Pirates! Band of Misfits”) and Julie Lockhart (“Shaun the Sheep Movie,” “The Pirates! Band of Misfits”), has broken through said ether with its first film, “Ron’s Gone Wrong,” directed by Smith, Jean-Philippe Vine (“Shaun the Sheep”), co-directed by Octavio E. Rodriguez (“The Epic Adventures of Captain Underpants,” “Coco”), and written by Smith and Peter Baynham (“Borat,” “Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa”). While there might not be a lot to write home about in terms of originality, the debut film for Smith and crew’s new studio is a silly, delightful romp.

Jack Dylan Grazer (“Luca,” “Shazam!”) and Zach Galifanakis (“The Hangover,” “The LEGO Batman Movie”) star opposite each other as Barney, an awkward middle-school kid and his new ‘B-bot,’ Ron, respectively. The film centers around their budding friendship and the chaos that ensues due to Ron having a variety of malfunctions, such as lacking any safety features other B-bots have and only having the A part of his internal database downloaded.

These glitches lead to various hi-jinks which are the best parts of the film. The animation, while not as complex as that of a studio like Pixar, is still clean and crisp with its own distinct style. There’s also a more colorful look and physicality to everything compared to other Hollywood animation studios. This leads to a distinct look for the film’s locations and a great sense of physical comedy throughout.

It’s the chemistry between Galifanakis and Grazer that makes the film soar. The pair play off each other expertly and their budding friendship proves to be a nice anchor for the film’s shenanigans. It feels innocent, but not without its own issues, and since a large majority of the film is dedicated to the two of them, when the emotional cliches, like the angry breakup, occur, they’re at least emotionally effective.

Like Grazer and Galifanakis, the supporting cast does a pretty good job with the material they’re given. Ed Helms (“The Hangover,” “Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie”) voices Barney’s dad with a high level of enthusiasm and a high level of audience apathy. Olivia Colman (“The Favourite,” “The Father”) voices Barney’s grandmother with a thick Russian adjacent accent and plenty of silly pronunciation gags and “weird grandma” moments.

Barney’s friends don’t really leave much of an impact though, or at least not as much as his family does. Kylie Cantrall (“Raven’s Home,” “Gabby Duran and the Unsittables”), Ricardo Hurtado (“School of Rock (2016),” “Glitch Techs”), Cullen McCarthy (“Mission Force One”), and Ava Morse (“Surprise Me!”) all do decent jobs with their material, but most aren’t given much to do and end up in the film for maybe ten minutes max. Meanwhile, Justice Smith (“The Get Down,” “Pokémon Detective Pikachu”) and Rob Delaney (“Deadpool 2,” “Catastrophe”) voice an idealistic young CEO and creator of the B-bots and his partner and COO, respectively. The pair play off each other well, Delaney in particular delivering a constantly amusing antagonistic voice, and prove to be a fun addition without stealing the spotlight.

Thanks to his experience working on projects like “Borat” and “Alan Partridge,” Baynham ends up injecting a lot of oddball humor into the film. There are plenty of slapstick moments that lean into the film’s cartoony style and Galifanakis proves to be an expert at sincerely delivering some truly oddball statements. It's a movie filled with deadpan delivery and honest, silly humor that’s endlessly charming because of the sincerity of it all. When Barney’s dad talks about how much he worries about his son or when one of Barney’s friends talk about how their social media has ruined their life now, it doesn't feel hollow because it's all so achingly sincere.

That’s what “Ron’s Gone Wrong” has up its sleeve compared to every other big budget animated film out now. Somehow, this is a film that is almost completely devoid of cynicism, precociousness, and any kind of sarcasm. It really just wants to have a good time and sprinkles some surface level tech messages in for good measure. Everyone involved, the cast, the crew, the writers, seem committed to just delivering a light hearted good time, devoid of any self-imposed self-importance.

This means it's an easy movie to just kick back and have fun with. Its messages about tech may be the most surface level takes possible (“tech can help but also be bad”) and releasing in the same year as something as nuanced as “The Mitchells vs. The Machines” certainly doesn’t help, but the messages about friendship at the center of it all prove to be so well-intentioned it forgives their sappiness.

Friendship is a two way street, it's about more than just liking the same things, and the fact that friendship can blossom out of nowhere are all prevalent themes throughout the film. This, combined with its genuine sincerity and the silliness of it all means that it might be the most “good” movie out right now.

“Ron’s Gone Wrong” turns a premise that’s been well-worn for years and manages to inject it with a sense of good old fashioned sincerity and silliness. It’s a hard thing to do, making an animated film devoid of sarcasm in this day and age, and yet, somehow, Smith and her new studio have delivered a fun, charming, well-voiced, well-animated, and funny movie that practically dares you not to smile. It’s not the most creative bot in the box, but it's certainly the most eager to please. 4/5

Dune: Part One - Review

 

“Dune” is finally here. Well, that’s to say that “Dune” is half here. For anyone not paying attention, Denis Villeneuve’s sweeping sci-fi epic is a glorious sight to behold, and unquestionably one of the most game-changing science fiction films since the original “Star Wars.” But all that praise should be issued with an asterisk: it is, after all, merely part one.

For the uninitiated, “Dune” follows the House Atreides as they take control over the desert planet Arrakis from the House Harkonnen. There’s plenty of backstabbing, political intrigue, and worldbuilding that goes on from almost the immediate start of the film, but “Dune” is yet another showcase of Viilleneuve’s incredible ability to disclose large amounts of information in a brisk, interesting way. At no point does it feel like too much, like you’re being bombarded with over or under-explained science-fiction mumbo jumbo.

A large part of that success is due to a tight script from Villeneuve, Jon Spaihts (“Doctor Strange,” “Prometheus”), and Eric Roth (“Forrest Gump,” “Munich”). Villeneuve and Spaihts bring their knowledge of science-fiction scopes and Roth brings his experience with down-to-earth, human stories to create a tale that, despite the scale of everything, never loses sight of the fact that these are people dealing with both political and economic challenges, but also emotional struggles.

The cast also deserves heaps of praise for managing to wrangle characters of immense personality with names like Duncan Idaho into people you truly care about, regardless of the amount of time they’re on screen. Lead by Timothée Chalamet (“Lady Bird,” “Little Women”) as Paul Atreides and Rebecca Ferguson (“The Greatest Showman,” “Doctor Sleep”) as Lady Jessica, the entire cast excels at delivering the right mixture of commitment to the seriousness of this sci-fi opera drama and also embracing the camp of it all. Oscar Isaac (“Inside Llewyn Davis,” “”Star Wars: The Last Jedi””) shines as Duke Leto Atreides, Paul’s father, and the supporting cast consisting of Josh Brolin (“The Goonies,” “No Country for Old Men”), Stellan Skarsgård (“The Hunt for the Red October,” “Mamma Mia!”), Dave Bautista (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Blade Runner 2049”), Stephen McKinley Henderson (“Lady Bird,” “LIncoln”), Zendaya (“euphoria,” “Spider-Man: Far From Home”), David Dastmalchian (“Ant-Man,” “The Suicide Squad”), Chang Chen (“Brotherhood of Blades,” “Love and Destiny”), Sharon Duncan-Brewster (“Bad Girls,” “EastEnders”), Charlotte Rampling (“The Damned,” “Georgy Girl”), Jason Momoa (“See,” “Aquaman”), and Javier Bardem (“No Country for Old Men,” “Skyfall”).

It's worth listing virtually the entire cast because, even down to the smallest roles, everyone here is bringing their A-game no matter their screen time. It feels like a group of people who all sat down and decided that, to make this movie and world as good as it can be, everyone has to work together and be as good as possible, billing order be damned. And that’s what they’ve done. While there are certainly standouts, it's an across the board excellent ensemble that makes this world and conflict feel truly believable from beginning to end.

Chalamet is excellent, with his extreme likability meshing perfectly with the rich outsider archetype Paul falls into. He never feels entitled, instead coming off as a scared kid being thrust into a world he’s not prepared to take charge of. Ferguson, meanwhile, absolutely steals the entire film. Her portrayal of Lady Jessica is a taught and memorable one, fluctuating between a comforting motherly figure and also a teacher and mystical trainer for Paul and showcasing the internal conflict involved with such differing roles. Isaac is also just so good as Duke Leto, showcasing his inherent charisma and ability to be a stern leader without losing his smirk and warmth.

Some supporting cast members do stand out more than others. McKinley Henderson continues to exude his unique kind of warm grandfatherly energy from every one of his roles thus far, Momoa is just as weird and has just as much wide-eyed charismatic star power as you’ve heard, Chen is remarkably understated and emotional in his brief screen time, Duncan-Brewster also makes a marked impact with less screen time than others, and Skarsgård is just having a ball coated in layers of prosthetic makeup and dipping himself in all manner of steam and goo. If you need any further proof of the overall excellence of this entire cast, look no further than the fact that the “standouts” make up about half of them.

Visually, “Dune” is absolutely stunning. While its marriage of practical and digital effects is nearly perfect, what’s more impressive is the commitment to the realism of this world. Like the cast, the crew seems to be determined to make Arrakis seem as real as humanly possible and, despite being mostly sand, there’s a remarkable amount of personality in each of the locations and landmarks featured throughout the film. Much has also been made of this film’s version of the iconic sand worms, and it's just yet another example of how far this crew is willing to go to make sure this is as honestly weird as possible, without tipping into parody.

Greig Fraser (“The Mandalorian,” “Zero Dark Thirty”) has shot this film with an eye for the large and small. Shots that cover sweeping vistas and encompass hundreds of people in just one frame are juxtaposed against ones that are mere inches away from one single character. It’s an eye for both detail, but also balance, as Fraser employs a variety of techniques to show contrast between the various parties at play, as well as the opulence of their homes and other locations and the barrenness of the desert planet itself.

Hans Zimmer’s (“The Lion King,” “The Dark Knight”) score is also an absolute knockout, delivering pulse pounding themes when the action requires, but also not content to reside in the background otherwise. There are chilling vocalizations and thumping beats that combine to send a shiver down your spine. Zimmer has arguably created a score that feels as alive as the planet itself.

Villeneuve’s first chapter in the tale of Frank Herbert’s Dune is massive for sure. Clocking in at two-and-a-half-hours, it's no small feat. However, nothing ever feels like it needs to be cut or sped up. At no point do you feel bored, thanks to the cast committing so hard to the overall vibe of the project. It doesn’t feel short by any means, but it also doesn’t feel as though it drags or is longer than it is. It’s one of the few films that feels exactly as long as it is and uses that time to great effect. Even if your movie is this long, it won’t feel it if you use that time wisely.

It might seem like hyperbole, but given the scale of everything and the excellent cast and world building, “Dune: Part One” has broken into the mainstream consciousness in a way arguably not seen since 1977 when Lucas first unleashed a galaxy far far away on us. It’s an almost perfect science fiction adventure, packed to the brim with an engaging world and plot, populated by charming characters you so easily fall in love with. If there’s anything to criticize, it's that this is merely half of a masterpiece as we’ll have to wait until October 2023 for “Part Two.” That being said, for a film with source material that was clearly cut in half, “Part One” ends in a surprisingly good way, establishing an arc for Paul for at least this first leg of their adventure.

“Dune: Part One” is a staggering film, very nearly a masterpiece or at the very least half of one. It’s cast and crew seem to have been hyper focused on creating one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made and they’ve absolutely succeeded. Packed with information and yet never feeling too dull or overblown, and lead by some truly charming and memorable characters and performances, you’ve never quite seen something like “Dune.” 5/5

The Last Duel - Review

 

The last duel officially sanctioned by the kingdom of France took place in 1386 between knight Jean de Carrouges and his former best friend and squire Jacques Le Gris after Le Gris broke into their home and raped de Carrouges’s wife, Lady Marguerite de Carrouges. There are multiple reasons as to why no other duels were sanctioned by the French royalty after this point, but Ridley Scott’s (“Alien,” “Gladiator”) film isn’t interested in any of that. Instead it's interested in why this duel took place, and the woman at the center of it all.

Unquestionably, the most important thing to mention is that this film twice shows the rape taking place. It shows it from two different points of view, but nevertheless it is unflinchingly realistic in its portrayal both times. Undoubtedly, this film will likely trigger people who are sensitive to sexual assault or who have been through it themselves, and this fact is, unfortunately, not something easy to gloss over. It doesn’t diminish the film’s quality, as it, and it being portrayed twice, is an important piece of the story, but it's a fact that needs to be mentioned nevertheless.

One of the reasons it feels so visceral and brutal both times is due to the absolutely jaw droppingly good performance at the center of it all. If she wasn’t a bonafide star already, Jodie Comer’s (“Killing Eve,” “Free Guy”) performance here as Lady Marguerite is nothing short of legendary. Given the film’s structure, she’s required to do a lot with the material, and it's a showpiece for how little movements and attention to details in a performance can change how each moment plays out. It's a bleak performance, often without hope, but Comer never lets it sink to the levels of pity or tragedy. She’s fierce, in every definition of the word.

Matt Damon (“Good Will Hunting,” “The Martian”) and Adam Driver (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi,” “Marriage Story”) also deliver excellent performances as Jean de Carrouges and Jacques Le Gris, respectively, and just like Comer, the repeated nature of the film means that they’re allowed to showcase nuances between each performance of each interpretation. It’s a stark contrast between how each views the other, but what’s honestly more shocking is how little difference there can be between the natural cruelty from them in Marguerite’s story and their own.

As previously mentioned, the film’s basic structure lends itself to delivering different interpretations of the events from different perspectives. Act one showcases the film’s plot from the perspective of Damon’s character, de Carrouges, written by Damon. Act two showcases the film’s plot from the perspective of Driver’s character, Le Gris, written by Ben Affleck (“Good Will Hunting,” “Argo”), and act three showcases the film’s plot from the perspective of Comer’s character, Lady Marguerite, written by Nicole Holofcener (“Enough Said,” “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”).

The first two acts have stark contrasts to the third, no surprise given the film’s overall perspective, but it's how frankly these elements are dealt with that proves to be the most startling aspect. Much of the movie is just watching these events play out in a fairly detached manner. There’s still some great cinematography from Dariusz Wolski (“Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” “The Martian”) and music from Harry Gregson-Williams (“Shrek,” “Gone Baby Gone”), but one of the stronger aspects is that Scott doesn’t attempt to put sparkles or flair over any of what happens, good or bad. It leaves the audience with a strong feeling of truth and lies, what someone is saying happened versus what actually did.

“The Last Duel” is a medieval epic in every sense of the word, with a grand scale and spanning many years, but without a doubt the most important thing that it understands is that at the center of it all are people. It's not sympathetic by any means to Jean or Jacques but it provides enough information over the course of their lives to show who they are. It doesn’t apologize for them, rather just airing them out for the world to see.

Marguerite, the closest thing the film has to a protagonist, is unquestionably its hero. Despite not taking part in the titular duel, she fights the most and loses the most. Marguerite, and by extension Comer, is the center of the entire film’s narrative, even when she’s not the one telling it. It's an impactful, powerful story that pulls no punches and never talks down to its audience.

It could be argued that some of the dialogue around the accusations and the ways the character react to it are a bit on the nose, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t believable or immediately comparable to modern day #MeToo moments. In fact, some of the film’s most powerful emotional moments come from just how startlingly little has changed in both how the world at large and Marguerite’s loved ones react to the rape itself.

Scott and his crew smartly show the film’s most intense moments with no fanfare, instead just letting the hypocrisy and dread show itself through the action. When Marguerite is asked multiple times if she swears what she’s saying is true, Scott doesn’t need to point out that they aren’t asking Le Gris the same question, because we already know they aren’t and won’t.

“The Last Duel” is not just Ridley Scott’s best film in years, but it's a commanding, intense historical epic with a story that feels unfortunately modern. Comer commands an already impressive trio of lead performances, and coupled with a tense script and a unique way to approach this story, Scott and co. have easily delivered one of the best and most important movies of the year. 5/5

Halloween Kills - Review

 

Way back when his first entry in the series, “Halloween (2018),” was released, it was revealed that writer/director David Gordon Green (“Pineapple Express,” “Prince Avalanche”) had initially conceived of the film as a two parter, filming the entire thing at once and releasing part one a year before part two. This idea was eventually abandoned, as they didn’t want to make a film people hated and then had to wait a year to see more of what they hated, instead making one standalone film to show they could make a good “Halloween” story.

That worked, as the 2018 film is a fantastic return to the series roots, maintaining a chilling tone with plenty of intrigue and speculation over who Michael is, what makes him tick, and why he’s going after Laurie, as well as what Laurie has grown up like after the killing spree when she was a teenager. The reason it's helpful to reference back to Green’s comments is because “Halloween Kills” is very clearly part one of a two part film, with part two hitting theatres next year in the form of “Halloween Ends.”

Many of the ideas that “Kills” brings to the table are cool, but they’re cool on paper. In execution, “Halloween Kills” is a massive step backwards for the series, acting as a mostly flat middle entry that exists to get from the end of “Halloween (2018)” to the beginning of “Halloween Ends.” 

While there are many issues at play, the biggest one is the fact that this film was clearly conceived as a middle chapter to a trilogy. Not much really happens, there aren’t any character arcs, and much of what each character does feels like filler. It’s about 30-40 minutes of plot stretched into 105 minutes. Maybe the film was a victim of marketing that built it up to be the next big chapter, but regardless, the film feels limp, hollow, and like a series of extra ideas left on the cutting room floor from 2018.

Jamie Lee Curtis (“A Fish Called Wanda,” “Knives Out”) has some cracks showing in her performance, which is relegated to standing in a hospital room monologuing about how Michael “transcends” the more he kills. It dives further into the hokey “supernatural” elements that the 2018 film seemed to be happy to discard, and you can tell from the look on Curtis’s face that she’s not buying it as much as the audience isn’t.

Andi Matichak (“Assimilate,” “Miles”) continues to be a potential shining new face to follow in the footsteps of horror legends like Curtis, even as she is also handed some kneecapped material. She spends most of the film tracing Michael’s path and isn’t given any form of arc or any dramatic material to deal with. It’s a testament to her abilities that she, like Curtis, manages to lift the film up simply by being on screen.

Then there’s Judy Greer (“Arrested Development,” “Ant-Man”). The beloved comedic actress was a bright spot in the 2018 film, playing a counterpoint to Curtis’s Strode. She offset her mother’s paranoid, revenge fueled tendencies, until she didn’t and it was a highlight of the film for many. In “Kills” though, her character has been brutally neutered. It’s as if someone took her well meaning but idiotic character Cheryl from “Archer” and put her in this film. She makes some of the most boneheaded decisions in the series' history, and it's the kind of writing where, it doesn’t matter how good the performance is, it just brings everything down.

In one of the film’s best ideas though, writers Green, Danny McBride (“Pineapple Express,” “This Is The End”), and Scott Teems (“The Quarry,” “Rectify”) have brought back more of the kids who’s sitters were killed by Michael in the original film. Anthony Michael Hall (“The Breakfast Club,” “The Dead Zone”) plays Tommy Doyle, a man bent on exacting revenge from Michael in a performance that seems to have been given the proper time and care to make it work dramatically. Kyle Richards (“Down to Earth,” “The Watcher in the Woods”) reprises her role from the original film as Lindsey Wallace, as does Nancy Stephens (“Bright Promise,” “Escape From New York”) as Marion Chambers. 

The reintroduction of these characters proves to be a smart way to both reference the original film and also to show how the town in the years since has dealt with the killings. However, like the rest of the film’s plot, it's a good idea on paper only. Tommy ends up getting the rest of the town together to find Michael in what feels like an incredibly ham-fisted attempt to say something about mob mentality. It falls painfully flat because the film doesn’t seem to have any concept of self-awareness. It feels like it's pointing at the audience and saying “isn’t it horrible how much they all want violence and death and revenge?” as the audience sits and watches a movie about violence, death, and revenge. 

Worst of all, while horror films have to have people make stupid decisions for the bloodshed to flow, it feels particularly stupid here, especially following a movie where people seemed to have wised up. Even as he’s trying to organize large groups to hunt Michael, these groups then split up into fairly small bunches that then split up even further. Characters who even live in Michael’s house and lecture kids about how horrific he is proceed to leave doors open all around their house and split up whilst investigating strange noises.

It's also hard to take the film seriously as it attempts to show people grappling with the grief caused by Michael’s violence given that it's the most violent “Halloween” film yet. As you watch Michael bash a young boy’s head in a few minutes after watching the mother of one of the 2018 film’s victims crying as she sees her dead son’s body in the hospital, it starts to feel a bit malicious, and not in a fun way. It feels cold, cruel, and uncaring. It seems like a weird complaint to make, that a horror film about a masked killer feels cruel, but it just does.

“Halloween Kills” is the perfect example of a film that excels in its technical merits and fails in nearly every other way. The poor script and lack of any real momentum kneecaps the performances, and while its shot well and contains another excellent score from John Carpenter (“Halloween (1978),” “Escape From New York”), Cody Carpenter (“Halloween (2018), “Ghosts of Mars”), and Daniel Davies (“Halloween (2018)”), its music and shots set to some cruel and uncaring moments. Its “message” rings hollow and the film seems to just be doubling back, repeating numerous mistakes the series supposedly had fixed with the 2018 film. When “Halloween Ends” is released on home video and this trilogy is inevitably fan-edited into one massive three-and-a-half hour long movie, “Kills” will be remembered for being slotted right in the middle, edited down to twenty minutes of plot, and nothing else. 2/5

No Time to Die - Review

 

Daniel Craig’s (“Knives Out,” “Layer Cake”) run as James Bond has finally come to an end. After much delay, both by production and by COVID-19, “No Time to Die” has finally reached audiences and it is, unquestionably, Craig’s most emotionally wrought turn as Bond yet.

Following the events of “Spectre,” Bond finds himself back in the game to find and take down a shadowy villain who has ties to his past. While this might seem like the same story that the past three Craig Bond films have been trying to tell, “No Time to Die” tells it differently because it zeros in specifically on Bond the man and the emotion behind him.

Screenwriters Neal Purvis (“Casino Royale (2006),” “Skyfall”), Robert Wade (“Casino Royale (2006),” “Skyfall”), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (“Killing Eve,” “Fleabag”), and co-screenwriter/director Cary Joji Fukunaga (“True Detective,” “Beasts of No Nation”) spend a remarkable amount of time focusing on Bond as he’s dealing with new threats that are coming after him both physically and emotionally. It still has the same wit and tautness of Craig’s other Bond films, but it also feels remarkably fresh for a number of reasons.

Likely a result of Waller-Bridge’s involvement, the female characters are the most fleshed out they’ve ever been in a Bond film. Not only are the performances standouts, but their presence in the film is not that of eye candy as they’ve been in previous films. They’re either emotionally connected to Bond in a way that’s narratively satisfying or they’re his equals, grabbing weapons and helping him take down those who would seek to harm the world. It’s also quite refreshing how many times Bond screws up throughout this adventure.

While his expertise in combat is never a question, multiple scenes put Bond at a nervous disadvantage, showcasing another layer to the character and giving Craig more material to work with. It's quite exhilarating seeing the world’s greatest spy struggle and clearly be nervous. It's not the first time we’ve seen Bond care for people or be put through emotional trauma, but the fact that Fukunaga and writers position it as the focal point of the film, rather than a side effect of his job, gives it so much more weight. Craig also seems to be giving it his all, wanting to make a definitive impact with his last film, and this only strengthens the already strong emotional core, resulting in a film that tugs at the heart strings as much as it pumps adrenaline.

The rest of the cast all do great jobs with the varying screen time that they’re given. Léa Seydoux (“Blue is the Warmest Color,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) continues to be an enigmatic force in Bond’s life and she has excellent chemistry with Craig. The love the two have is palpable and is the central emotional core of the entire film. Ralph Fiennes (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) continues to be overshadowed by Judi Dench, but his version of M is still a wonderfully commanding presence, butting heads with Bond more than ever before and showing the cracks of a man losing control of his agency.

Unfortunately, while the supporting cast is excellent, their excellence is negated a bit by their varying amounts of screen time. Ana de Armas (“Knives Out,” “Blade Runner 2049”) and Jeffrey Wright (“Boardwalk Empire,” “Westworld (2016)”) are standouts, delivering characters that are almost a kind of stop gap between the modern, serious Craig Bond world and the goofier, cheerier world of the pre-90s Bonds. Both are excellent and, unfortunately, both are severely underutilized. Christoph Waltz (“Django Unchained,” “Big Eyes”) reprises his role as Blofeld from “Spectre” in what amounts to almost a cameo. Billy Magnussen (“Game Night,” “Aladdin (2019)”) is also a new supporting character from the CIA and as charmingly idiotic as he can be, he’s a welcome sense of comic relief who’s, once again, severely underutilized.

Thankfully, the Bond mainstays avoid the fates of these newer characters. Naomie Harris (“Moonlight,” “28 Days Later”) and Ben Whishaw (“Paddington,” “Mary Poppins Returns”) return as Moneypenny and Q, respectively, and both are so incredibly endearing. They’re the closest thing Bond has to friends and the charm and care they have for him is evident in every scene they share together, whether at work or on their own time. Joining the MI6 crew is Lashana Lynch (“Captain Marvel,” “Still Star-Crossed”) as Nomi, a new 00 agent. She’s an immediately welcome presence, not just for the new female 00 perspective, but as someone for Bond to learn to work with. The two have a subtle and evolving relationship throughout the film and it's one of the stronger emotional relationships Bond has ever had.

That’s a lot of characters, new and old, and that does mean that the film is long. Clocking in at two-hours-and-forty-three-minutes, it may be the longest Bond film and it definitely feels like it. While it is still paced remarkably well and manages to avoid feeling stretched out, “No Time to Die” still cycles through what feels like two film’s worth of plot.

It's a testament to the writing team and to Fukunaga that it is so expertly paced, but one major thing does suffer because of the length: Rami Malek (“Mr. Robot,” “Bohemian Rhapsody”) as the villain, Lyutsifer Safin. Malek, like de Armas and Wright, plays the character with an edge of silliness, though far less than they do. His cold nature is still effective in the film’s more intense sequences and he manages to be a memorable presence despite not really being featured outside of the film’s last third.

As enjoyably dramatic as Sam Mendes’s Bond films were, their action always felt like a bit of an afterthought. It wasn’t terrible, just serviceable alongside the greater dramatic moments. Fukunaga and cinematographer Linus Sandgren (“La La Land,” “First Man”) have shot “No Time to Die” with such a fabulous sense of whimsy and elegance that the action feels brand new again. There isn’t a major shift to how things are choreographed, this isn’t “John Wick.” Rather, there’s more attention given to hand to hand combat and longer shots, instead of the rapid fire editing style of most modern action films. It’s also just shot gorgeously. Wide open vistas, varied locations, gorgeous people and gadgets, all are par for the course in a Bond film, and Sandgren puts them all in focus in such attentive and gorgeous shots, playing with color and lighting throughout.

There is a lot to love about “No Time To Die.” Craig’s final film as Bond is a truly emotional journey, putting the character in positions and scenarios he hasn’t found himself in before to fantastic results. It’s unfortunate then that the length and use of its promising supporting cast prevents it from sailing as high as some previous Bond films. Yet, the film does manage to do one thing better than all the rest. Some critics say that if a film can really grab hold of you emotionally, then all the other nitpicks and issues fall by the wayside.

If a movie makes you cry as credits roll, then those other problems you had couldn’t really have been that big of issues at all. That’s where “No Time to Die” sits, not just in the Bond canon, but this year in film. There will be more adventures, more Aston Martins, and more martinis (shaken, not stirred) in the future. But for right now, “No Time to Die” is a big, grand adventure, pulling all the toys out of the box and going for absolute broke with its emotional storytelling all in favor of giving a send-off to this generation’s Bond. 4/5

Muppets Haunted Mansion - Review

The Muppets have been in a bit of a rough spot recently. After having one killer comeback with 2011’s “The Muppets,” the Jason Segel lead vehicle that catapulted the handheld stars back into the spotlight, that brief magic has proven hard to recapture. “Muppets Most Wanted” was a misfire, even despite maintaining much of the 2011 film’s creative team, ABC’s “The Muppets” had moments of whimsy drowned out in a “Modern Family” style formula, and don’t even talk about the lead balloon of laughter that was Disney+'s “Muppets Now.”

Yet, somehow, out of all of that comes “Muppets Haunted Mansion,” the group’s first Halloween special and yet another Disney+ original project for the Muppets. It's easy to be cynical about a project that seems to have been birthed out of “what Disney property can the Muppets wreak havoc in?” but in reality it's a bastion of the kind of sweet, bizarre, teetering into non-kid-friendliness stuff that the Muppets made their name in.

The special follows Gonzo and Pepe as they venture to a haunted mansion where Gonzo’s hero, a magician known as The Great MacGuffin, disappeared years ago. They decide to accept the local challenge of trying to stay in the mansion for one whole night, and are quickly met with all manner of spooky happenings and ghostly guests.

First and foremost, this special understands the delicate balance the Muppets play with their human co-stars. An actor can play themselves on “The Muppet Show” because it's a variety show, half of the fun is watching them act like they’re working on an actual variety show. Yet, in a film or project with a narrative, seeing actors just playing themselves feels a bit cheaper. Luckily, director Kirk Thatcher (“It’s a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie,” “Muppets Tonight”) and writers Bill Barretta (“The Happytime Murders,” “Muppets Now”), Kelly Younger (“Muppets Now”), Jim Lewis (“Muppets Tonight,” “Kermit’s Swamp Years”), and Thatcher know and play this to their advantage.

Only one actor plays themselves, a very short cameo by John Stamos, and everyone else gets in on the spooky fun, hamming it up alongside our felt-covered friends. There’s Will Arnett (“Arrested Development,” “Bojack Horseman”) as the “Ghost Host” who leads Gonzo and Pepe through the mansion, Darren Criss (“Glee,” “The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story”) as the grave caretaker, Taraji P. Henson (“Hustle & Flow,” “Empire”) as Haunted Mansion legend Constance Hatchaway,  and many many more in various forms. They’re getting in on the fun, constantly playing to the camera and embracing the silly, goofy vibe that the Muppets are known for and that is especially alive and well in this special.

Most impressively, the writers have found a way to blend a “family message” with the sillies and the scares in a way that doesn’t feel intrusive or heavy handed. Because this crew has worked with the Muppets for so long, they have a clear understanding that this material only works when you take them seriously. Therefore, the moments meant to scare do (as much as they can in a Muppets Halloween special), the moments meant to make you laugh do, and the moments meant to impart a message do.

Arguably more impressive than the strengths of the special’s writing is its technical achievements. It's not a leap to say that the Muppets likely aren’t a big cash cow for Disney currently, so the fact that they are able to accomplish some pretty impressive visuals on such a small budget is an accomplishment.

There are moments of practical effects work, CGI monsters, blending and transforming between different creatures and shapes, and entire digital and green screen sets that somehow never feel cheap. It all adds to the silly whimsy of it all, and there are some shockingly great moments, such as a third act action moment for Gonzo and a moment in the John Stamos cameo, that are made all the more impressive given the relatively low-fi origins of these puppeteered pals.

Surprisingly, and one aspect not communicated in the special’s marketing, this “Haunted Mansion” adventure is also a musical. While it doesn’t feature as many songs as in Muppet projects of the past, and they reuse some Haunted Mansion music elements sometimes, these handful of new works are all excellent. Criss and P. Henson get some great musical work done, but nothing can hold a candle to the wonderfully weird work being done in “Life Hereafter,” arguably the special’s biggest song. It even features a cover of “Dancing in the Moonlight” for the credits that is a toe-tapping good time.

“Muppets Haunted Mansion” is a short, sweet, and delightful Halloween treat that serves as not only a fun romp but a reminder of how great the Muppets can be for all ages when they’re done right. Delivering just the right amount of scares and silliness, combined with a shockingly impressive amount of technical wizardry, it's a great sign that Disney may finally know how to get the Muppets back on track. 4.5/5

Titane - Review

 

You are not prepared for “Titane.” Even if you’ve seen writer/director Julia Ducournau’s (“Mange”) previous film “Raw,” nothing can prepare you for the sheer bizarreness and absolute triumph of a film like this. It's shocking, yes, but there’s also a remarkably human story underneath it all, told with scorching visuals and performances that will live forever alongside the film’s gonzo legacy.

On a very basic level, the film is about a young woman, Alexia, living her life after being injured in a car accident as a young child and having a metal plate put in her head as a result. The story takes several intense twists from that point forward, some of which are deliberately uncomfortable and unbelievable, but, somehow, thanks to Ducournau’s assured and complete vision, it all feels real.

Agathe Rousselle plays Alexia and absolutely shatters all expectations. In her film debut role, Rousselle manages to maintain a complex balance between utter chaos and childlike innocence. Often going large swaths of the film without speaking, the pure physicality of performance means that, even if she isn’t literally speaking, you’re always aware of who she is, what she’s thinking, and how she’s feeling.

Vincent Lindon (“A Few Hours of Spring,” “The Measure of a Man”) plays opposite Rousselle as Vincent, a caring, massive man who switches between being a giant teddy bear of a man and also a creature of menace. The film plays deliberately with how Alexia perceives him and his performance matches that expertly. His entire story plays in tandem with Alexia’s, and the pair end up delivering one of the oddest, grossest, and yet most heartwarming tales of familial love in over a decade.

Yet, for as big as the heart at the center of “Titane” is, this is not a film for those with a faint heart of their own. Oftentimes bordering on disgusting, Ducournau’s film oozes with blood and oil, crackles with flame, and picks at your brain with a deliciously cruel sound design. It’s the kind of movie that you can feel just by watching it, with the sound effects and Jim Williams’s (“Raw,” “Possessor”) score almost overpowering the viewer at times. The sense of atmosphere and world are second to none, and every frame seems as though it's secreting some sort of viscera, leaking off the screen and threatening to swallow the audience whole.

It cannot be overstated how much this sense of atmosphere clashes with the familial heart at the center of the film, and it's because of that clash that “Titane” ends up being one of the most fascinating films of the decade. Describe these events, which border on body horror, to literally anyone and all but the most assured film fans would likely be turned off by the prospect. Yet, the skill with which they’re displayed makes everything hypnotizing to watch. You can’t look away, not just because you want to know what happens next, but because you’re so thoroughly bought into Alexia and Vincent’s tale thanks to the perfected atmosphere.

Visually, “Titane” is absolutely stunning from start to finish. Bold colors, specifically purples, awash the entire film, draping the some horrific elements in a cool, colorful style that makes the events seem almost pure and naughty by equal measures. Cinematographer Ruben Impens (“Beautiful Boy,” “The Broken Circle Breakdown”) has multiple dance sequences lit so minimally and yet exude such intoxicating senses. It can’t be overstated, from an auditory, visual, atmospherical standpoint, “Titane” is virtually flawless.

What we have is a film that could only be created by one, complete vision. It asks no favors, inviting you to either get on board or get the hell off. Ducournau’s masterpiece deserves your full attention and for you to go in with as little information as humanly possible to experience a borderline transcendent piece of lovely body horror, blending genre conventions with a special type of tale of family love that hasn’t been seen in a very long time. 5/5

The Addams Family 2 - Review

 

In what is easily one of the shortest gaps of time between two animated films, “The Addams Family 2” hits theatres and digital rental storefronts a mere week shy of the first film’s second birthday. It's easy to see how the quick turnaround was possible; there have been minimal, if any, improvements made to the animation or art style. The big question then is does this sequel manage to improve upon the first film’s abysmal plot?

In a way, yes, but not for the reasons one would think. Retaining none of the writers from the first film, “Addams 2” sees the family going on a cross country family road trip to grow closer together. Along the way, a side plot involving Wednesday potentially not being the child of Morticia and Gomez crops up, as well as Wednesday getting to meet one of her scientist idols.

Its a woefully overblown plot for a film that somehow manages to feel extremely light on happenings. The idea of watching the Addams’s running around at various US landmarks and wreaking havoc is a fun one, and those moments are the best part of the film. You could argue that if you just cut out everything else and just served those up, you’d have a pretty fun family film. Yet, that takes up only half of the already brief runtime.

Half of the film consists of scenes filled with scattershot gags and moments of odd Addams humor. It works for the most part, despite still being peppered with some truly groan inducing lines. Its everything surrounding that half of the film that becomes almost nauseatingly boring.

Despite being overall mediocre, the first film’s subplot involving the town of Assimilation and their quest to get rid of the Addams was oddly terrible to the point that it at least made for an eventful viewing. Here, the chase subplots and questions of Wednesday's parentage are just delivered with lackluster enthusiasm. It has all the energy of a birthday clown who’s all but given up. Clearly the four credited writers, Dan Hernandez (“Pokémon Detective Pikachu,” “One Day At A Time (2017)”), Benji Samit (“Pokémon Detective Pikachu,” “One Day At A Time (2017)”), Ben Queen (“Powerless,” “Cars 3”), and Susanna Fogel (“Booksmart,” “The Spy Who Dumped Me”), either don’t understand the kind of energy required for an Addams adventure or they just found it satisfactory to turn in a simple, phoned-in script.

Directors Conrad Vernon (“Shrek 2,” “Sausage Party”) and Greg Tiernan (“The Addams Family (2019),” “Sausage Party”) return from the first film and they’ve delivered a film that exhibits no other emotion but apathy. It's the kind of project so lacking in vision and enthusiasm that you can’t help but feel bad for the voice actors clearly giving it their all. Charlize Theron (“Long Shot,” “Atomic Blonde”) and Oscar Isaac (“Ex Machina,” “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”) continue to be excellent choices for Morticia and Gomez, Nick Kroll (“Kroll Show,” “Big Mouth”)is a demented delight as Uncle Fester and even Snoop Dogg’s (“The Wash,” “Soul Plane”) odd performance as Cousin Itt has some novelty.

Yet, despite returning from the first film, Chloë Grace Moretz (“Kick-Ass,” “The Miseducation of Cameron Post”) is operating entirely on autopilot here. Granted Wednesday is supposed to speak each line with a flat, droll delivery, but even with that, it's a phoned-in performance. Meanwhile, Javon Walton (“euphoria,” “Utopia (2020)”) voices Pugsly, replacing Finn Wolfhard from the first film, and it's hard to tell if the character is just the least interesting of the film or if his performance is indistinguishable from Wolfhard’s.

By the time the third act of the movie turns into a giant monster fight, it's hard to elicit anything other than a shrug for the road trip with the creepiest and kookiest family. The premise is solid, and much like the first film it has some great vocal talent and the moments where the Addams are just being themselves are excellent. Yet, the writer’s seem to have shoved them into a completely different film for half of the runtime, repurposing a plot that, on paper, could work for the family. Mutating monsters and a knock-off Dr. Moreau plot seems like perfect Addams fare and yet it crashes before it's even off of the runway.

In some ways, one could argue that this sequel is an improvement over the first. The designs of everyone outside of the Addams’s are thankfully far more palatable, and the groan worthy subplot of the first film is replaced with one that works on paper for the family. Yet, it's still a film operating for the lowest common denominator for characters that deserve far better. Sure, it's a product to make money at the end of the day, but so were the 90’s films and they understood what those characters are far better. By the time the Addams’s disguise themselves as cowboys in the second act, anyone who harbors any love of these characters will hopefully have turned and run far far away. 1.5/5

Venom: Let There Be Carnage - Review

 

There are two kinds of sequels in the filmmaking industry: sequels that give audiences basically the same experience as before (same amount of action, laughs, heart, etc.) and sequels that look at the previous film and try to shake things up. Usually, in the superhero genre, examples of the latter often involve making things more serious. Look at “Captain America: The First Avenger” in comparison to “Captain America: The Winter Soldier.”

“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” doesn’t do that. It definitely makes some changes from the first film, all of them welcome, but it doesn’t get more serious. In fact, it takes an approach rarely seen in this kind of blockbuster filmmaking. Its relationship with the first film is most comparable to “Batman” and “Batman Forever.” That is to say, “Let There Be Carnage” is absolutely buck wild.

Tom Hardy (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “Band of Brothers”) returns as both Eddie Brock and the voice of Venom, continuing to deliver more of the exhausted, hyper exaggerated performance from the first film. Like before, this is an incredibly physical performance, and it allows Hardy to really throw himself into a role like this. It continues to show his strengths as one of the few actors who can convincingly play against a CGI character, which is to say, nothing.

Michelle Williams (“Brokeback Mountain,” “The Greatest Showman”) also returns as Eddie’s ex Anne, as does Reid Scott (“Veep,” “My Boys”) as Dan, her fiancé. The pair are fine, acting more as straight man styled foibles against the insanity that Hardy brings. Scott does get in on a bit more of the action this time around, which is fun. Naomie Harris (“Moonlight,” “28 Days Later”) is here as Frances Barrison, aka Shriek. This classic Spider-Man villain is a fan favorite, and Harris is clearly having a blast hamming it up and playing to the cheesy, borderline parody tone the film has established.

And then there’s Woody. Cletus Kasady and Carnage are both performed, in the same way as Venom is, by Woody Harrelson (“Zombieland,” “True Detective”). How to describe his performance… well, it certainly won’t be called subdued. Harrelson’s acting is a perfect example of the bizarreness going on in this entire film. In any other superhero movie, hell, any other movie, Harrelson’s performance would be lambasted as over the top and ridiculous. Yet, because of the very specific tone cultivated in this sequel, it just works impossibly well.

That’s where director Andy Serkis (“The Lord of the Rings,” “Breathe (2017)”) and writer Kelly Marcel (“Saving Mr. Banks,” “Fifty Shades of Grey”) have succeeded where so many others, arguably including the first “Venom”, have failed. The pair establish a firm and concrete tone from the beginning and stick to it. This is a film that is absurd, plain and simple. It’s a roller coaster that invites you to either put up or shut up and never offering any respite for those who might be on the fence.

Its big and loud, exhibiting some gorgeous moments of CGI symbiotic gooiness when required, but it also spends a shocking amount of time exploring who Venom and Eddie are and why they need each other, emotionally as well as physically. Remember when the first film was released, and the internet exploded with pieces of fan art of Venom and Eddie just going about life, Eddie teasing Venom for not liking vegetables or Venom trying to compliment Eddie in his own weird way? That’s basically the entire film, and you’d be hard pressed to find a better cinematic definition of the word “unapologetic.”

Little moments like Venom extending a tendril to fix Eddie’s hair before he sees Anne again or the pair having breakfast together sell this relationship and because its at the center of the film, it sells the movie. It also helps that the entire thing is mercifully short for a superhero film. Whereas works like “Shang-Chi,” “Black Widow,” or “The Suicide Squad” are all over two hours long, “Let There Be Carnage” gets audiences in, right to the good stuff, and out in a breezy 90 minutes.

There might not be a lot of substance to “Let There Be Carnage” but it does a remarkably good job of making an impression. In an age where even the best action films can sometimes blur together, Serkis and Marcel commit to a very particular identity. This is a movie about an alien inside a guy’s body and it presents that concept like a bickering married couple. It should not work. Maybe it doesn’t, but during the brief time it takes to get through this sequel, you’ll be hard pressed to care if it does.

“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” is the rare studio film that goes for broke. Taking the thinly spread elements that the stood out in the first film and going absolutely balls to the wall. It cranks everything to eleven, doubling down on the relationship between Eddie and Venom as well as the idiosyncrasies of the messes they make. It’s a pulpy, big budget b-movie combined with a work of AO3 fanfiction where Venom gets to say, and I quote, “I have come out of the Eddie closet!” It might just be the most inspired piece of lunatic-tastic cinema this year. 4/5