Mona Lisa & The Blood Moon - Review

 

After virtually redefining the vampire film with her film debut “A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night,” writer/director Ana Lily Amirpour (“The Bad Batch”) returns to her twisted, low-budget, fantasy roots with “Mona Lisa & The Blood Moon,” a hazy nightlife fantasy adventure set in the heart of New Orleans with a very specific point of view.

The film follows a young woman referred to as “Mona Lisa,” played by Jeon Jong-seo (“Burning,” “Money Heist: Korea – Joint Economic Area”) who escapes from the mental hospital she’s been at all her life into downtown New Orleans. There she meets an eclectic bunch of characters, like a drug dealer named Fuzz, played by Ed Skrein (“Deadpool,” “Alita: Battle Angel”) and stripper Bonnie Hunt, played by Kate Hudson (“Almost Famous,” “Glass Onion”), all while being chased by police officer Harold, played by Craig Robinson (“This is the End,” “Morris from America”).

Amirpour injects a fantastic flavor to this neon-soaked nighttime adventure. Even for its small budget, the overall style to the tale and how its shot helps to overcome a lot of the inherent low budget limitations. It doesn’t completely escape them, as a handful of scenes feel rushed and thrown together, but that doesn’t mean they’re lacking in the film’s distinct perspective.

Jong-seo is fantastic as Mona Lisa, thoroughly unsettling when the film needs her to be, but also easy to sympathize with and engaging. She’s a delight the entire way through, as is without a doubt the biggest reasons to see the film. Robinson is good but falls back into the same kind of “determined cop” persona we’ve seen countless times. Skrein is similar, as Fuzz can’t help but feel like the same kind of quirky drug dealer character seen time and time again in movies like this.

Winslet, meanwhile, plays Bonnie with a really interesting and engaging edge. Her attitude and general apathy towards the world are interesting to see transform after meeting Mona Lisa. She isn’t a necessarily redeemable character, but she’s one of the film’s most interesting. Her son Charlie, played by Evan Whitten (“NEXT,” “Words on Bathroom Walls”), is another interesting character. It’s fascinating to watch his dynamic shift with his mother versus Mona Lisa; Charlie is clearly a boy who’s had to grow up fast and watching him transform over the course of the film in really interesting.

Unfortunately, the film’s fantasy nature and it’s generally loose plotting does result in something that feels longer than it is. It’s not that the film drags or has poor pacing necessarily, but that it’s the kind of movie that is so dependent on atmosphere that it can just feel incredibly slow. It’s deliberate for sure, but its other strengths aren’t able to overcome that. The musical score, from composer Daniele Luppi (“Magic City,” “Feriado”), is a definite highlight though.

“Mona Lisa & The Blood Moon” isn’t going to set the genre on fire like Amirpour’s last horror adjacent fantasy film did back in 2014, but its still chocked full of characters that are well acted and fantastic to watch. It’s certainly more atmospheric and loose in its overall plot than most will like, but if for nothing else, Mona Lisa and her devilish smile are reason enough alone to watch. 3.5/5

Bros - Review

 

Even a routine, bland rom-com can be revolutionary when it comes to what kind of love is portrayed. While there have been plenty of queer romance stories in the past, “Bros” represents a major step forward for queer cinema, as it is the first major studio rom-com to not only star two gay men, but be written by one as well. There are plenty of little asterisks that could be drawn all over that statement, but at the very least, “Bros” represents a major step for queer representation. But is the movie any good?

Billy Eichner (“Billy on the Street,” “Difficult People”), who also co-wrote the film with director Nicholas Stoller (“Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” “Neighbors”), stars as Bobby Leiber, an opinionated podcaster living his best single life in New York City. His life is thrown into disarray after he begins to see Aaron Shepard, played by Luke Macfarlane (“Brothers and Sister,” “Killjoys”), a man far more casual about his queerness than Bobby. As the two clash over their perceptions of relationships and their own queerness, Bobby also faces stresses at work as he attempts to find funding to open the first National LGBTQ+ History Museum in Manhattan.

On a base level, the film’s romance is wonderful. Eichner and Macfarlane have phenomenal chemistry, making it not only easy to root for their relationship, but care about them as individual characters as well. Eichner’s arc throughout the film also seems like a reaction to the complaints people have had about him over the years, and the close resemblance to his real-life personality helps to strengthen it. The support cast is all great without ever really standing out. Each character is lovable and funny, with plenty of cameos and joke roles sprinkled throughout.

Stoller’s previous experience within the rom-com genre is used to great effect here. Sure, it follows a pretty strict set of cliches and routines, but they’re executed well. This is an example of a director who knows the formula and visual stylings of this genre so perfectly that he can effortlessly navigate them. It’s all shot cleanly and wonderfully, with plenty of colorful streets and hazy evening strolls. Nothing here is revolutionary in terms of the filmmaking craft, but its all executed nearly perfectly.

It wouldn’t be a Judd Apatow produced R-rated comedy without a healthy dose of raunchy humor, and while the sex jokes and foul language is certainly here, the best parts of the film are the weirder bits of humor. The very specifics jabs at various aspects of queer and straight culture are pointed, but there are also consistent jokes at the expense of the Hallmark channel and most other queer films that have been released over the last two decades, as well as a truly surreal and hysterically odd “Night at the Museum” sequence towards the film’s end. It’s easy to label a comedy as laugh out loud funny, but “Bros” might just legitimately be the funniest movie billed as a comedy to hit theatres in a long time.

If there’s one aspect of the film that will draw plenty of debates, it’s the political content of it. Not the fact that it merely features queer people, but Eichner’s character is constantly bringing up his lifestyle and aspects of it in the context of the gay movement. There are certainly points made about queer people living outside of their own spaces, masculinity and the idea of how you present versus who you really are, and the idea of feeling like you have to fight for change just because you’re in a marginalized group, but it can feel overwhelming at times. Sometimes it’s a well-made point that fits into the scenario, and others it feels like a moment where it just didn’t belong and like it just takes time away from the film’s central romance.

“Bros” is a funny, lighthearted romp of a romance, with just enough of Eichner’s trademark salty sense of humor mixed in to give it a bite and flavor of uniqueness. He and Macfarlane have great chemistry, and the overall film just feels like a big warm blanket of romance and sweet guffaws. Some scenes can feel like medicine with Eichner’s commentary, but it never drags the overall experience down. It’s just a really, really funny movie, tinged with romance and sweetness. You might even say it’s a big gay movie. 4.5/5

Don't Worry Darling - Review

 

In this age of social media, influencers, and constant feeds of information, sometimes it’s good to get some old-fashioned Hollywood drama from time to time. That’s absolutely what audiences have gotten with the increasingly bizarre and chaotic behind-the-scenes stories from the production of Olivia Wilde’s (“Booksmart”) second directorial film, “Don’t Worry Darling.” But can the film itself escape from the gossip and rumors to be, of all things, a good film?

Lead by Florence Pugh (“Little Women,” “Midsommar”), the film follows Alice, a housewife living in perfect harmony with her husband Jack, played by Harry Styles, in the town of Victory, California. Jack and the rest of the husbands in their cul-de-sac all leave each morning to go work on the Victory Project, a job completely unknown to their wives, lead by the enigmatic Frank, played by Chris Pine (“Hell or High Water,” “Wonder Woman”). But there’s trouble in paradise after Alice witnesses an accident involving one of her neighbors Margaret, played by KiKi Layne (“If Beale Street Could Talk,” “The Old Guard”), with disturbing visions soon following that lead her to question the nature of the town and the Victory Project.

Let it be known, for her second directorial feature, Wilde absolutely takes some big swings here. Not only is it a completely different genre than her first, but its also a considerably more complex film in multiple aspects. It’s a shame then that the biggest aspect of the film, the basic concept and script, fall apart so drastically. Written by Katie Silberman (“Booksmart,” “Set It Up”) and based on a story from Shane Van Dyke (“Chernobyl Diaries,” “The Silence”) and Carey Van Dyke (“Chernobyl Diaries,” “The Silence”), there are plenty of teases and bits of tension that builds throughout the entire film.

It is remarkably effective in that way. Quite a few moments go unexplained for a good chunk of the runtime, leading to a sense of perpetually building anxiety as even the calm moments feel like they could be invaded at any time with bizarre visions and happenings. However, once things are explained, it feels like they’ve only become more complicated. Suffice it to say, the film’s big twist doesn’t work because it not only introduces far more plot holes than already existed, but it also doesn’t really land at all. There’s no big emotional reveal, instead leaving the viewer with a feeling of deflated realization, as if they simply picked it out of a hat amongst five other possibilities.

The dialogue is fine, mostly, but again gets lost chasing its own tail towards the end. It’s as if the filmmakers believe that the more they repeat things, the more obvious it will become. Instead, it just serves to dwindle the little goodwill that had existed up until that point. Not only that, but there are more than just plot holes; it feels as though there are at least five or six plot threads that are introduced or teased and just never resolved, ever. And that’s not even counting the other threads that are introduced moments before the film ends. When credits roll, it simply lacks the satisfaction that a good thriller should leave you with, regardless of the outcome being good or bad for the characters.

Even with the weak script, Pugh is clearly acting her ass off. She’s doing the best she can with what she’s been given, and she manages to make Alice at the very least interesting. She works some kind of magic during the film’s most dramatic sequences, turning otherwise rote and poor scripting into gold. The same goes for the criminally under-utilized Pine, who’s a delight every moment he’s on screen, which isn’t nearly enough given both his standing in the plot and the quality of his performance. Meanwhile the supporting cast varies from under-used to forgettable. Wilde herself is cast as Alice’s next door neighbor Bunny and she’s as bland as they come. Nick Kroll (“Sausage Party,” “The League”), feels like he’s putting all his energy into his handful of scenes and it shows, and Layne is doing a lot despite the disappointing lack of expansion on her character.

The same can absolutely not be said for Styles. With his only other major screen credit being his almost completely silent role in “Dunkirk”, he gives a performance here that suggests that silent films might be his best shot at being a movie star. He’s remarkably wooden and charmless, a surprising feat given the fact that he’s a world adored pop star. He gives off a dull, sanded down energy, as if his character could just be replaced with anyone else and nothing would change. Surrounded by the other husbands in the film like Pine, blink-and-you’ll-miss-him Kroll, Asif Ali (“WandaVision,” “The Mandalorian”), and Timothy Simons (“Veep,” “Looking for Alaska”), he feels like a black hole that sucks all the charm from the film; stunt casting meant to put more butts in seats that goes from being slightly annoying in the first half to actively harming the film’s quality in the second.

Like a film set in this era should, everything at least looks quite pretty. Shot by Matthew Libatique (“Black Swan,” “A Star is Born (2018)”), his camera work frames this eerily clean-cut neighborhood with some wonderful and artful angles that help to bring it all to life. The production design is also top notch, looking both effectively of the era while also maintain the sense that its all too clean and too perfect, helping to build the unease. Also helping is the score from John Powell (“How to Train Your Dragon,” “Solo: A Star Wars Story”), effectively creepy in ways that some will likely love and others will hate, but that nevertheless feels like nails on a chalkboard in the best way possible.

Many should likely be very worried, darling. Olivia Wilde’s much publicized second film has a lot to like and a lot that makes it crumble to pieces. As good as Pugh and Pine are, they can’t make up for the bomb of a performance that is Styles, as well as the script that almost sucks any enjoyment and intrigue from the picture. It might all look and sound pretty, but its never a good sign when your big twist makes your viewer stop thinking about the movie and instead think about the myriad of plot holes that have now arisen as a result. It might be bad, but it certainly isn’t boring. 2/5

The Woman King - Review

 

There might not be an actor currently working as legendary as Viola Davis (“Doubt,” “How to Get Away with Murder”). Even other actresses of her caliber like Meryl Streep have fallen off somewhat in recent years or have just disappeared from regular acting roles. But Davis is still putting her entire being into each new role, and she can now add badass action warrior to her list of accolades.

“The Woman King” stars Davis as General Nanisca, the leader of a group known as the Agojie, an all-female unit of warriors who protected the King Ghezo, played by John Boyega (“Attack the Block,” “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”), of the West African kingdom of Dahomey during the 17th to 19th century. It follows Nanisca dealing with both the training of a new batch of warriors, including Nawi, played by Thuso Mbedu (“The Underground Railroad (2021),” “Generations: The Legacy”), as well as fending off the encroaching Oyo empire and their European trade partners with her warriors including Izogie, played by Lashana Lynch (“Captain Marvel,” “No Time to Die”) and Amenza, played by Sheila Atim (“The Underground Railroad (2021),” “Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness”).

From an emotional standpoint, its easy to see a film like this get swept up in the strength and action of its plot, disregarding its characters in the process. However, that absolutely doesn’t happen here as director Gina Prince-Bythewood (“Love & Basketball,” “The Old Guard”) and writers Dana Stevens (“For the Love of the Game,” “Safe Haven”) and Maria Bello have made sure that the emotion and dramatic moments of the film compliment the action sequences and vice versa.

Davis is just incredible, taking what could easily have been a hardened role with little emotion and emoting and crafting Nanisca into a truly fascinating and rich portrait of a general determined to protect her people and her warriors. Mbedu, in her film debut, absolutely holds her own against the Oscar winner and delivers a rich and badass performance as Nawi. Really, everyone is excellent; Atim is a hardened badass who still manages to be Nanisca’s emotional confidant and Boyega plays King Ghezo with a trusting but still commanding presence. Lynch though, might be giving an even better performance than Davis, truly bringing Izogie to life in a way that inspires admiration for this exceptionally deadly and charming warrior.

The action choreography is exceptional. There’s not a lot of flair or fantastical camerawork here, instead implementing a fairly straightforward look to everything. It allows cinematographer Polly Morgan (“Legion (2017),” “A Quiet Place Part II”) to capture the raw skill on display with ease and makes sure that, no matter who’s onscreen, the strength and talent of these warriors is always communicated clearly. Each action sequence feels like an elaborate diorama of precision, with just enough blood and violence to intimidate without overwhelming, infused with a thumping and epic score from Terence Blanchard (“Malcom X,” “BlacKkKlansman”).

It’s a very deliberately paced film, taking as much time as it needs to clearly establish each element so that they can all come together in a flurry of blows and satisfying moments in the end. This is not the kind of action film where every other moment involves a trading of blows, but its also not the kind of drama that tricks its audience by promising action and not delivering it. It, like the Agojie, bides its time so that the perfect moment to strike is, indeed, perfect.

While just about everything here works and works exceptionally well, the film’s romantic subplot involving Nawi and Malik, played by Jordan Bolger (“Peaky Blinders,” “The Book of Boba Fett”), a half-Dahomey, half-Portuguese trader from Europe, feels out of place considering the rest of the film. It’s not bad, and it eventually concludes in a way that emboldens the rest of the film’s themes and allows it to fit into place, but for basically eighty percent of the subplot it feels out of place.

But that’s a minor problem at best, a nitpick at worst, as this is a film that truly provides the best of multiple worlds. A strong dramatic story, an exciting action film, and a showcase for multiple excellent performances from many extremely talented actors, “The Woman King” is just good old-fashioned movie making at its finest. Like the myriad of women in its story, it, quite simply, kicks ass. 4.5/5

See How They Run - Review

 

Whodunnits are having a bit of a resurgence recently. There are plenty of factors as to why, plays like “The Play That Goes Wrong” and films like Kenneth Branagh’s new Poirot films, “Enola Holmes,” Adam Sandler’s “Murder Mystery,” and, of course, “Knives Out.” It’s kind of hard to ignore a film whose success is so monumental that a sequel induces a bidding war that tops the original film’s total box office receipts. And if any of those films is the best comparison for “See How They Run,” it would be “Knives Out.” But make no mistake, while the existence of “Run” might be because of Johnson’s whodunnit, it certainly isn’t a carbon copy.

The film follows Inspector Stoppard, played by Sam Rockwell (“Moon,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”), who, accompanied by the eager young Constable Stalker, played by Saoirse Ronan (“Little Women,” “Lady Bird”), must find the killer of Leo Köpernick, played by Adrien Brody (“The Pianist,” “The Darjeeling Limited”), an American film director in town to adapt a film out of The Moustrap, a famous play by Agatha Christie, and to celebrate its 100^th performance.

Rounding out the star-studded cast is Ruth Wilson (“The Affair,” “His Dark Materials”) as Petula Spencer, the owner of the theatre The Moustrap performs in, Reece Shearsmith (“The League of Gentlemen,” “Psychoville”) as John Woolf, the producer making the film adaptation, Harris Dickinson (“Trust,” “The King’s Man”) as Richard Attenborough, the real life actor who stars as the lead in the play, David Oyelowo (“Selma,” “Queen of Katwe”) as Mervyn Cocker-Norris, the playwriter writing the screenplay for the film adaptation, and Charlie Cooper (“This Country”) as Dennis, the awkward usher of The Mousetrap’s theatre.

The cast is stacked, the stage is set, and the humor is very unmistakably British, and there’s even a dash of the stilted camera angles of one Wes Anderson. It’s a lot to balance, and director Tom George (“This Country,” “Defending the Guilty”) and writer Mark Chappell (“Flaked,” “The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret”) manage to keep it all light and breezy for the film’s duration. Jokes fly fast, with little gags and puns sprinkled at a breakneck pace. It’s the kind of film that makes jokes out of characters’ names, like that of Ronan’s obsessive note taking young constable determined to find the killer whose name is Stalker.

Suffice it to say that the film’s tongue is planted firmly in its cheek and never removed. Thankfully, the same can be said for the actors, as everyone is clearly operating on precisely the right wavelength to make this material work. As one would expect, the stars of the show are, of course, the two leads, Rockwell and Ronan. Rockwell maintains a delicate balance between that of a drunken oaf and an Inspector who’s clearly still good at his job despite his perpetual drunkenness and lackadaisical attitude.

He’s contrasted fabulously by Ronan, who absolutely steals the entire picture. Her earnest attitude is an initial delight to watch and further becomes an engrossing character arc as you watch her grapple with the various clues and whether to go against her own instincts or the advice of Inspector Stoppard. The Oscar nominee puts just as much effort into this, a much sillier role than she’s played before, as her award-winning dramatic roles and it pays off wonderfully.

Where things really excel is in that previously mentioned sense of humor. Not only does it play with traditional filmmaking whodunnit cliches, but also just the general idea of a mystery film like this. Flashbacks hop around making fun of themselves, the screen literally divides itself at multiple moments, and characters wander around going in and out of doorways without any discernable direction; it doesn’t so much poke fun at the conventions as much as it prods with a stick the size of a tree trunk. Yet it somehow never gets annoying or grating, maintaining a delightful air of ease until the credits role. If “Knives Out” was the whodunnit being reinvented for modern sensibilities, this is a classic whodunnit with a winking eye, made for people who love these kinds of stories, warts and all.

If you love the creakiness of the old stories of Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers, or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and feel adrenaline come rushing into your brain when the detective steps up to explain the entire plot in the third act, then not only will you likely love “See How They Run,” but you’re exactly the kind of person this film was made for. As a love letter to the mystery genre on both stage and screen, it’s a wonderfully cheeky tale. For those less inclined by the whodunnit genre through, your mileage may vary. 4/5

Pearl - Review

It takes a lot to be a star, and nowhere does that seem more evident than in Ti West’s (“In a Valley of Violence,” “The House of the Devil”) latest horror flick, “Pearl”, a prequel to “X” from earlier this year. Following the titular Pearl, the antagonist from “X” in her younger years, it shows her truly fall off the deep end and transform from unassuming, if a bit obsessive, farm girl to a murderous psychopath. That’s show biz for you.

Pearl is once again played by Mia Goth (“A Cure for Wellness,” “Emma (2020)”) who, once again, absolutely excels here. There’s a kind of twisted emotion to Pearl that makes her easy to pity. Sure, killing a bunch of people isn’t the way to get what you want, but its not a movie that ever demonizes her. Rather, it spends an ample amount of time focusing on her fractured psyche, making it easy to see why she turned out the way she did. Goth, who also co-wrote this film with West, is the lynchpin of it all and it would crumble without her very specific kind of crazed performance.

The rest of the cast is great, but none hold a candle to Goth and a result they actually become somewhat forgettable thanks to the commanding nature of her performance. Tandi Wright (“Black Sheep,” “Love and Monsters”) and Ruth, Pearl’s mother, is a controlling force of nastiness, and David Corenswet (“The Politician,” “We Own This City”) does a great job playing with the All-American Boy and Bohemian lifestyle stereotypes. If anyone stands out amongst the supporting cast, is Emma Jenkins-Purro (“One of Us is Lying”) as Mitsy, as her opinion of Pearl is hard to navigate, making for an intriguing dynamic between the two.

Like “X” though, the film does feel unbalanced. “Pearl” is at its most interesting after its main character cracks, sending her spiraling down her rampage. Goth leads us that way, and it becomes a fascinating journey as we wait to see just how long it will take. The pacing of it all is excellent, and its definitely an unexpected journey to say the least. However, the first half of the film is just less interesting. It is chocked full of hints, details, and suggestions for Pearl’s eventual spiraling, but it also feels like the same kind of routine “angry mom, rebellious daughter” plot that’s been done to death.

One of the strongest aspects besides Goth, the film’s production design and “Old Hollywood” vibes, also don’t fully hit until the latter half. They’re still present throughout the film, but the highlights such as Pearl dancing like she’s in a USO show don’t hit until she’s gone cuckoo. The saturated colors and tributes to classic cinema are all fantastically woven into the film, and it creates an atmosphere that’s unlike pretty much any other horror film in recent memory, even “X.” The ending title card alone, set against Tyler Bates (“Sucker Punch,” “John Wick”) and Tim Williams’s (“We Summon the Darkness,” “Creepshow (2019)”) haunting score, is the stuff nightmares are made of.

Really though, the entire film is wrapped around Goth’s and Pearl’s finger, and therefore it’s a bit of a make-or-break experience. With “X”, there was a larger cast of characters to attach to, but if you don’t like Pearl the character, you simply won’t like “Pearl” the movie. Those that do will find a legitimately creative and technicolor twist on the spiral into madness movie, with a lead performance and last half that truly goes for broke. It hasn’t been this good to go mad in a long time 3.5/5

Clerks III - Review

 

It’s such a strange thing to now have a trilogy of “Clerks” films. Love it or hate it, the first film has its place in cinema history; and Kevin Smith’s (“Mallrats,” “Chasing Amy”) career, and life, beyond the Quick Stop has been a tumultuous one to say the least. So, in theory, returning to Dante and Randal’s lives makes total sense, and what results from that is a surprisingly emotional third, and possibly final, chapter in this inconvenient trilogy.

After a heart attack scare sets him on edge, Randal, played again by Jeff Anderson (“Zack and Miri Make a Porno,” “Now You Know”), thinks he’s let life pass him by for too long and decides to write and direct a movie about his life working at the Quick Stop. With Dante, played again by Brian O’Halloran (“Vulgar,” “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back”), supporting him, the pair attempt to make a movie, with general shenanigans involved throughout, including old friends and of course the annoyances of Jay and Silent Bob, played again by Jason Mewes (“Pauly Shore is Dead,” “Method in the Madness”) and Smith, respectively.

There’s a lot of emotions at play this time around, and its clear how Smith’s own heart attack influenced the story for the film. It actually works quite well, as Smith seems to finally recognize that the friendship between Dante and Randal was always the driving force of the first two films to begin with. So having a film not only entirely focus on it, but also allows Smith to reflect on the origins of his career, makes for an emotionally cathartic experience.

Here's the thing though, these movies have never been famous for their acting talent, and while there are some weak spots, for the most part its pretty well done. O’Halloran and Anderson continue to have great chemistry all these years later, and Anderson is the continuing standout. Mewes and Smith steal every scene as they always have, and its fun seeing characters from all across the View Askewniverse reappear with nary and explanation other than to celebrate the place that started it all.

Yes, the film is just as messy as Smith’s works have always been. At it’s worst, it can feel painfully self-indulgent, with a thick layer of Smith’s typical crude humor drizzled on top. But those worst parts are actually few here, and at its best the film doesn’t so much wear its heart on its sleeve as it does run naked through the street with it tattooed directly on its chest.

There are plenty of pop culture references that will likely age as poorly as one would expect, such as the film’s repeated NFT jokes and a running gag about Satanism that isn’t unfunny so much as it just feels toothless. But it feels like one big party, with a bunch of Smith’s friends all coming together to celebrate and have a blast.

“Clerks III” isn’t likely to win over any new fans. If you hate Smith’s sense of humor or think the “Clerks” films are his weakest efforts, then you probably won’t have your mind changed here. However, what’s here is a legitimately engaging and emotional tale, one that’s still pretty funny in its own sort of way, and one that knows exactly what its fans want and how to deliver it well. If nothing else, it proves that Smith’s secret weapon isn’t his humor or banter, but it’s always been his heart. 4/5

Barbarian - Review

 

What is “Barbarian”? After a fairly cryptic trailer and a marketing campaign that’s relied more on word of mouth than most would expect, the low budget horror film has had the definition of sleeper hit success and has spread like wildfire throughout the internet and horror movie fan communities. But is it any good?

Directed and written by Zach Cregger (“The Whitest Kids U Know,” “Miss March”), the film follows Tess, played by Georgina Campbell (“Krypton,” “Black Mirror”), who travels to Detroit for a job interview and finds that the Airbnb she’s staying at has been accidentally double booked by Keith, played by Bill Skarsgård (“It (2017,” “Hemlock Grove”), whom she finds staying there when she arrives. The story also comes to involved AJ, played by Justin Long (“Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story,” “Tusk”) a sitcom actor who finds himself in Detroit.

A huge selling point of “Barbarian” is that it has become one of those “go in knowing nothing” kind of horror movies, so potential spoiler warning going forward as even slight elements of the plot might be too spoilery for some.

The film’s general tension is excellently crafted, making you feel uneasy even in moments where things should be perfectly safe and calm. It also ties into the clear themes of the film, that of Tess and the red flags set off by everything she encounters as a woman on her own in a new town. Both the tension and these themes loop in on each other wonderfully, crafting a kind of symbiotic horror relationship that strengthens the films scares by getting you invested first.

Campbell is excellent, fully crafting a performance that should catapult her into beloved “scream queen” territory. She’s wonderfully charming but also holds her own in the film’s most dramatic and horrific moments. Its easy to get endeared to her, thanks to the performance and the script, and again, it strengthens the overall film because that connection is directly tied to the horror. Long is great, playing his charming clean persona against itself like Bo Burnham did in “Promising Young Woman” to great effect and he’s responsible for some of the film’s most amusing moments. Skarsgård is also great, playing a kind of charmingly awkward, puppy dog kind of guy that seems against his typical strengths to great effect.

The film’s production design is truly great. “Barbarian” is the kind of movie that, if done right, can turn a location into a character all its own, and the work here absolutely does that. The Airbnb house starts to feel like a member of the cast as things continue, and it results in a place that should feel forgettable becoming one of the film’s most memorable aspects. The same goes for the cinematography, from Zach Kuperstein (“The Eyes of My Mother,” “The Vigil”), which emphasizes the contrasting calm and claustrophobic moments wonderfully.

But is it scary? Well, partially. For the first half of the movie, things are so incredibly tense both due to the filmmaking and the unknown factor of everything that it becomes a kind of teeth grinding affair. However, after about halfway through the film, it stops being scary and turns into kind of a dark comedy. There are still plenty of tense moments, horrific elements, and emotional climaxes, but once the true nature is revealed, it never reaches that peak of tension again.

“Barbarian” is an effectively tense horror flick lead by a phenomenal sense of space and cast of performances. It’s greatly effective in mixing its themes and horror, and it really is the kind of scary movie that’s fun to watch and jump at, even if it becomes less scary in its latter half. There’s not much else to say about it; “Barbarian” is easily worth a stay. 4/5

Honk For Jesus, Save Your Soul - Review

 

The mockumentary is a fascinating genre for multiple reasons, but arguably the most creatively fascinating is the way in which it can shove the harsh truths of reality in our faces under the guise of comedy. Sure, the best in the genre are ones like “Waiting for Guffman” or “This is Spinal Tap,” but even the funniest of those have an air of sadness and drama beneath the goofiness.

“Honk for Jesus. Save Your Soul” takes the idea that films in this genre don’t have to be inherently comedic and runs with it. Based on writer/director Adamma Ebo’s short film, the movie follows megachurch pastor Lee-Curtis Childs, played with grinning absurdity by Sterling K. Brown (“This is Us,” “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story”), and his wife Trinitie Childs, played with an exhaustedly optimistic smile by Regina Hall (“Girls Trip,” “Love & Basketball”), as they attempt to reopen their once incredibly successful megachurch, Wander to Greater Paths, after a scandal.

To say that Brown and Hall have great chemistry is an understatement. The pair bounce off one another flawlessly, building the kind of rapport that only exists after years of marriage to really bring this couple to life. It’s not that their characters are lovable, rather, Brown, Hall, and Ebo effectively exploit that unrequited optimism to craft two characters who are deeply, deeply insecure and exploitative, all while seemingly convinced they couldn’t possibly be.

The supporting cast, while minor, are also great. They may pale in comparison with screentime, but Nicole Beharie (“Miss Juneteenth,” “Sleepy Hollow (2013)”) and Conphidance (“Complications,” “American Gods”) as Shakura and Keon Sumpter, respectively, another megachurch pastor couple, are excellent in their limited time. Making especially good use of some brief moments is Austin Crute (“They/Them,” “Daybreak”) as Khalil, a young man who used to be involved with the Childs’s church.

Mockumentaries are hard to review from a normal perspective because, often times, there isn’t really a lot to talk about in terms of production design, cinematography, musical score, etc. given that the appeal rests in it emulating the realistic, unobtrusive style of documentary filmmaking. But for a chunk of its runtime, “Honk” switches to a different groove. There are times where the 4:3-esque aspect ratio and flat color schemes disappeared, switching to a 2.39:1, cinematic scope to dial in on the most harrowing moments of both the film’s plot and character developments.

It effectively catches you off guard the first time it happens and then becomes a symbol of intensity. Whenever it switches, it invokes an almost instinctual desire to lean forward and pay attention as whatever is about to happen will clearly be important. It’s certainly not a happy film by any means, and the sadness slowly gets more and more profound as things progress. It’s a shame then that it can’t help but feel uneven throughout.

It never shakes the feeling that it wants to be funnier than it is, and while no jokes fail to hit, it suffers from a bizarre identity crisis at times. When it’s being super dramatic, it can often feel like it’s trying to be jokey, and when it’s being jokey, it can often feel like it’s trying to be super dramatic. It’s possible that is the point, and it doesn’t mean that the jokey or dramatic parts are bad by any means, but it does mean that a sense of unevenness permeates throughout.

Again, it’s Brown and Hall that anchor it all, but Hall ends up being the star of the show by the end. In a similar-ish way to something like “Kevin Can Fuck Himself,” this is a film masquerading as one type of entertainment visually that uses those breaks to show how poor of a grip this woman has left on her life, her marriage, and potentially her sanity. And Hall brings it all together, holding the film tightly in her grasp.

“Honk For Jesus. Save Your Soul” is a film that, while not groundbreaking, contains a remarkably harrowing story lead by two committed and commanding lead performances. It plays with the genre its uses to tell its story in effective ways and ends up being a film that, while uneven, maintains a clear path for its storytelling and evokes a kind of melancholy that only the best pieces of cringe comedy or committed actress can achieve. 3.5/5