Rye Lane - Review: A Fish-Eyed Look at the Modern Rom-Com

 

It’s hard to imagine a genre more in need of the occasional shake-up than the rom-com. While there are certainly a plethora of original, groundbreaking examples, there’s also a major tendency to copy what’s worked before and go from there. Which makes it so refreshing when a new voice smashes into the genre. Such is the case for “Rye Lane,” the directorial debut for Raine Allen-Miller, which manages to not only wear the genre’s touchstones as a badge of honor but inject a new lifeblood into the work. 

The film follows Dom and Yas, played by David Jonsson (“Industry,” “Deep State”) and Vivian Oparah (“Class,” “The Rebel”) respectively, as two freshly single 20-somethings living in London who decide to spend the day together after meeting at an art exhibit run by a friend of Dom’s. Yas is far more headstrong and confident, while Dom is more apathetic, and the two bond by spending the day exploring London and the titular Rye Lane market and learning about each other. 

With a script by Nathan Bryon (“Bloods”) and Tom Melia (“Hollyoaks”) and a pair of leads as infectious as Jonsson and Oparah, “Lane” gets off to a fairly electric start. It’s a refreshing looking and feeling film, one that doesn’t feel the need to downplay its more grown-up elements in favor of making an “appealing” setting. For example, Dom’s artist friend Nathan, played by Simon Manyonda (“The Bay (2019),” “The Current War”), has a tendency to put on art shows based around human orifices, to put it mildly. None of this humor ever feels in your face or over the top, which helps sell the film’s larger-than-life attitude. 

Thanks to its fish-eye lens perspective (literally), it’s the kind of film that encourages different points of view. It helps majorly that Allen-Miller stages a lot of the early bits as stage plays or purposefully outlandish displays, like you’re crawling into Dom or Yas’s minds to see how they see things. One of the few critiques one could have for the film then is that, as strong as these elements are at the start, they eventually just stop. The humor, cinematography, and vibes all remain intact, but those unique bits of interior vision vanish. 

It's somewhat hard to notice though, as Dom and Yas are so infinitely charming and have near perfect chemistry. Jonsson nails the thin line between apathetic and pathetic, allowing Dom to feel like a puppy dog but not to be without his own moments of strength and genuinely jerkiness. Likewise, Oparah plays Yas like a glass cannon, a giant balloon filled with confidence ready to burst at any moment. The pair are great at playing their characters’ strengths without ever completely covering up their vulnerabilities. The rest of the cast mostly just play things up as much as they can, with Manyonda or the likes of Karene Peter (“The Sparticle Mystery,” “Emmerdale Farm”), Benjamin Sarpong-Bron, and Malcolm Atobrah all manage to move between playing things up to insane degrees and also drilling into the serious moments that are required to make Dom and Yas’s arcs work like they need to. 

Like most New York set rom coms, “Rye Lane” uses the city of London and the Rye Lane marker specifically as a character in itself. As Dom and Yas move through their day, its used to infectious delight to bolster the vibrance of their time together. Cinematographer Olan Collardy uses the fish-eye perspective to shoot this as if it's an adventure through the streets, and while that can lead it to feeling more like a slice of life rather than a strictly archetypical “film”, so much is based on the perfect vibes of the adventure that it’s hard to care much.  

“Rye Lane” is a rye (pun entirely intended) trip through the rom-com genre with two fantastic leads and a sense of humor and perspective that’s wholly original. While some of its earlier creativity gets lost after the first half, this is still a thoroughly entertaining and brilliantly written romantic adventure through the streets of London and the complicated feelings of your late-20s. You’d be hard pressed to not at least want to stick it out to spend time with Dom and Yas on their quest for romantic fulfillment. 4/5

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves - Review: A Critical Hit

 

Way way back in the long-ago time of the year 2000, Dungeons and Dragons made its way to the big screen in a film adaptation that has, to put it lightly, been soundly rejected by virtually every facet of nerd culture and casual audiences. It’s hard to imagine a film adaptation coming out before the game’s resurgence over the past decade or so. Not only has it been featured prominently in shows like “Stranger Things”, but the rise of live-streamed “actual play” games, wherein players simply film their sessions and release them online, has helped to catapult the game to new heights.

The popularity of “Critical Roll”, which now has its own animated series on Amazon Prime, “Dimension 20”, which is currently in its seventh main campaign, and “The Adventure Zone”, which has released a series of best-selling graphic novels and has an animated series in development from Peacock, means the public identity of DnD is a far cry from where it was back when the 2000s stinker was released. For many, “Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” will serve as the first true adaptation of the tabletop role playing game beloved the world over, and for good reason.

“Honor Among Thieves” follows Edgin Darvis, played by Chris Pine (“Hell or High Water,” “Star Trek (2009)”), and Holga Kilgore, played by Michelle Rodriguez (“Avatar,” “F9: The Fast Saga”), as they attempt to assemble a crew, including sorcerer Simon Aumar, played by Justice Smith (     “Pokémon Detective Pikachu,” “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom”), paladin Xenk Yendar, played by Regé-Jean Page (“Bridgerton,” “The Gray Man”), and druid Doric, played by Sophia Lillis (“IT (2017),” “        I Am Not Okay with This”), to rescue Edgin’s daughter Kira, played by Chloe Coleman (“Big Little Lies,” “Marry Me”), from their former crew-member Forge Fitzwilliam, played by Hugh Grant (   “Bridget Jones's Diary,” “About a Boy”).

Immediately, the film sets up a tone of fun without disrespect, of lightness without unseriousness. In a world where so many adventure films seem to take themselves so seriously it ends up being to their detriment (I’m look at you “Thor: Love & Thunder”), directors/co-writers Jonathan Goldstein (“Game Night,” “Vacation”) and John Francis Daley (“Game Night,” “Vacation”) and their co-writers Michael Gilio and Chris McKay (“The LEGO Batman Movie,” “Renfield”) have given us a world where the humor comes from the characters and the world around them. There’s no winking at the audience or bits about how silly or dumb DnD is. It all comes from a place of love and fun, and by extension it invites the audience to have fun as well.

While it's hard to do a direct adaptation of Dungeons and Dragons as the freedom of story is the main appeal, the film manages to build a world peppered with references and fun nods to various pieces of lore. It's never overbearing though, meaning general audiences don’t get left behind in the adventure. Hearing the name Neverember, recognizing Themberchaud, or seeing a displacer beast are all fun, but their existence is also justified outside of being easter eggs.

The worldbuilding is bolstered by a fantastic blending of practical and digital effects. In our modern blockbuster age, it's expected to see CGI and blue-screen at virtually every turn. So to have a physical set and practical puppeteering be enhanced by the digital effects rather than to only have digital effects feels like a rarity. And the film is all the better for it, as it helps to embellish the various lands and locations the rag-tag bunch has to travel through.

Speaking of that rag-tag group, the film’s cast is also exceedingly charming. Pine is channeling all of his goofy charisma without letting it overpower the drama needed for some moments. Rodriguez is a great and brutal as the group's resident barbarian, but not without her own moments of softness and silliness. Smith is perfectly awkward and fun, and Lillis plays fantastically off the entire group, bringing the moody, world-weary Tiefling to life. Grant and Page are great although a bit underutilized by the end, and Coleman is also an adorable bundle of charm for Pine to play off.

While it may be a bit too long and might take a bit to get underway, the biggest advantage “Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves” has at its disposal is its heart. This is a film that cares for its world, characters, source material, and adventure and treats them all seriously. It's reverent without tumbling into feeling exclusionary for those who don’t know the material and fun without feeling like it's mean or hates itself. If it isn’t a perfect adventure, it's absolutely a charming success. 4/5

John Wick: Chapter 4 - Review: Blisteringly Fast and Blisteringly Bloody

How many modern franchises can truly get better with each subsequent installment? Not only that, how many can not only get better but make more money with each new film? The “John Wick” franchise isn’t just a critical darling that keeps getting more experimental with each iteration, but its truly taken the world by storm, and the latest chapter in the saga of this battered assassin, “John Wick: Chapter 4,” is its most grandiose yet.

After the events of “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum”, the titular Baba Yaga himself, played again by Keanu Reeves (“The Matrix,” “Speed”), finds himself on the run yet again from the High Table, this time lead by the Marquis Vincent Bisset de Gramont, played by Bill Skarsgård (“IT (2017),” “Barbarian”), who has hired Caine, played by Donnie Yen (“Ip Man,” “Rogue One”), a blind assassin and old friend of John’s to hunt him down. Meanwhile, John seeks refuge with his few remaining friends in an attempt to find a loophole out of the High Table’s employ.

There are many, many things about the “Wick” series that make them exceptional, especially amongst other action movies, and the two greatest elements are back in full force. The movie’s lore and mythology is as expansive as ever, with large ballrooms and fantastical arenas showing up for mere minutes of screen time before disappearing from the film. But it doesn’t feel like its been forgotten; rather, this is a world so grand that even the people who work for the people at the top can spend five minutes lecturing someone about honor whilst eating grapes in a ballroom.

More than most, these films really earn their budgets, not only trotting the globe to see the most beautiful locations and hotels, but also wild looking original sets as well. The nightclub run by Russian gangster Killa Harkan, played by Scott Adkins (“The Brothers Grimsby,” “Ip Man 4: The Finale”), is a particular highlight. It’s a feat of design, with sharp concrete walkways and staircases surrounding a booming nightclub full of lights and dancers further draped in man-made waterfalls. And that’s just one of the locations the film spends, at most, fifteen minutes in. It’s not just that these films are set in gorgeous locations, but they’re all lit like works of art. Whether its streaming strobe shooting through waterfalls or various shades of pink, red, and green lighting up a darkened hotel, to a nighttime fight in a roundabout lit by the headlights of cars driving by, it’s not just gorgeous locations, its gorgeous lighting for those gorgeous locations shot gorgeously by cinematographer Dan Laustsen (“Crimson Peak,” “The Shape of Water”).

Speaking of dancers, though, it truly does feel like Wick and his counterparts aren’t fighting, they’re dancing. A moment in Killa’s nightclub features Wick rolling and ducking and dodging an assailant with a knife as none of the dancers pay them any mind. It feels like they can ignore them because the choreography is so dancerly. It’s not an action film, it’s a brutality ballet. And it’s not just in the fighting itself, as Wick gets to play with so many varied types of weaponry and inventive techniques throughout. Caine’s way of fighting despite his lack of sight is a particularly genius take that is a highlight of the film.

Reeves continues to play Wick with his trademark level of bewildered calmness. He excels as an action star because we believe in his normalcy. Wick might be a killer, but he isn’t superhuman. He’s skilled sure, but its because he’s trained for this kind of stuff, not because he has any kind of powers, and Reeves continues to blend that into every moment of the film, from his line delivery to his looks of bewilderment.

Beyond the dancer and ballet influences, there’s also a layer of Charlie Chaplin-esque inventiveness on display that delivers some truly hysterical moments of black comedy. One moment late into the film is one of true hilarity that feels like something bordering on a Three Stooges bit, yet it feels right at home in the world Reeves and returning director Chad Stahelski (“John Wick,” “Day Shift”) have built over the last decade.

Despite the choreography, the comedic moments, the deep mythology, and the compelling performance from Reeves, the most impressive thing about “Chapter 4” is its length and pacing. At two-hours-and-forty-nine-minutes, it’s the longest film in the series by a wide margin, and yet it absolutely flies by, convincing you by the end it’s been barely ninety minutes. It’s a hat trick of a feat, and one that Stehelski and writers Shay Hatten (“John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum,” “”) and Michael Finch (“Predators,” “Hitman: Agent 47”) have absolutely nailed. For a film filled with so much action and so much deep plot and lore details, it’s a wonder the film doesn’t feel like a slog. And yet not only does it not drag, it’s lively, with an energy movies half its length would kill for.

Somehow, four movies in, the “John Wick” franchise not only hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down, but has continued to get better and better, more inventive, and more successful with each entry. For those who bemoan the films as being nothing more than “just more action,” at this point, there’s no convincing you otherwise. Because if you’re able to watch “John Wick: Chapter 4,” a nearly three-hour-long orgiastic display of deep mythology, the best action in cinema today, and a completely beloved lead performance, and see anything other than a masterpiece, there’s simply no helping you. 5/5

Shazam: Fury of the Gods - Review: A Child-ish Superhero Adventure

 

One of the inarguable bright spots in the much-maligned DC Extended Universe was 2019’s “Shazam!”, directed by David F. Sandberg (“Lights Out,” “Anabelle: Creation”). After a few years to grow (pun intended) and try to find a place within the rest of the DC world, Sandberg is back in the director’s chair, with this sequel being written by Chris Morgan (“Furious 7,” “Wanted (2008)”) and returning writer Henry Gayden (“Earth to Echo,” “There's Someone Inside Your House”). Can a bigger and more dangerous sequel to a film praised for its small scale truly succeed in this market, or is this just kid stuff?

Set a few years after the events of the first film, “Shazam: Fury of the Gods” sees Billy Batson, played by Asher Angel (“Andi Mack,” “Darby and the Dead”), still trying to protect Philadelphia as the titular Shazam, played by Zachary Levi (“Tangled,” “Chuck”). He’s now joined by his foster family who’ve now been imbued with superpowers following the events of the first movie, and they must now face off against the Daughters of Atlas: Hespera, played by Helen Mirren (“Gosford Park,” “Trumbo”), Kalypso, played by Lucy Liu (“Charlie’s Angels (2000),” “Elementary”), and Anthea, played by Rachel Zegler (“West Side Story (2021)”).

It makes sense to return to Shazam as a character, not just in terms of creating a sequel, but also as a breath of fresh air. The character and the 2019 film felt like a reprieve from the grand scale of other superhero films, as well as a movie about kids that didn’t feel dumbed down or sanitized. So, with a modest box office success and a rare critical hit for DC, its easy to see the path forward: bring in other villains, keep the simplistic kid sensibilities, and keep with what worked before.

But that’s simply not what happens here. Instead, the story is bigger, the villains are meaner, and the film itself is far more complicated. There’s way more CGI centric fight sequences and way more time spent in a weird dimensional realm that feels out of place with the mythology set up in the first film. At times, despite featuring characters and plot elements ripped straight from his own comics, it feels like Shazam was plopped into a story not originally written for him. It’s not bad, but it fails to capitalize on what made the character fun in the first film and ends up feeling painfully routine as a result.

Levi is still fun as the titular hero, with a big goofy grin on his face for most of the adventure. Asher is also fun when he’s allowed to step out of the grown hero shell, because he’s definitely underutilized by the film. The rest of his foster family all get their little individual moments, but none of it feels natural. It instead ends up being a movie where the third act is full of “this is where this member of the group gets their five minutes to shine” moments. Even Freddy, played by Jack Dylan Grazer (“IT (2017),” “Luca”), gets a fraction of his screentime compared to the first film, despite being involved in a love story subplot with Anthea.

Everything here just feels far blander than in the first film. The antagonists, despite the best efforts of Liu, Mirren, and Zegler, are less interesting than even the already somewhat bland Dr. Sivana. Shazam’s arc feels cheap and not nearly as effective as it could’ve been thanks to some weird decisions; whoever decided that the emotional mother/son talk should occur while Billy is in Shazam form needs to be fired.

It all makes for a movie that, while it resembles the first on the surface and retains plenty of its elements, ends up feeling far blander than before. It says a lot that this film ends up feeling much longer than the first despite technically being two minutes shorter. Even without the comparisons to the first movie though, this is a totally serviceable but unremarkable movie. In a day and age with so many superhero films and shows around every corner, you can find a lot worse than “Fury of the Gods” but you can also find ones far better and far more memorable. 3/5

Scream VI - Review: Who's Afraid of the Big Apple?

 

For over two decades, the “Scream” franchise has been poking fun and poking knives at various horror movie conventions and tropes, eventually turning itself inside out into the sort of the thing it once set out to parody. This series that once felt so razor sharp has itself devolved into expected cliches and plot beats that, while a bit excusable with 2022’s film due to the nature of its “requel” status, have become far more egregious in this year’s “Scream VI.”

The film follows Sam Carpenter, played by Melissa Barrera (“In The Heights,” “Vida”), in New York City with her sister Tara, played by Jenna Ortega (“Wednesday,” “X”), and their friends Chad and Mindy Meeks-Martin, played by Mason Gooding (“Love, Victor,” “Booksmart”) and Jasmin Savoy Brown (“The Leftovers,” “Yellowjackets”) respectively, when a new Ghostface appears, wreaking havoc and threatening to come the four of them just one year after the events of “Scream (2023).”

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the setup or plot of “Scream VI” and in a way, the basic premise seems to pay tribute to other New York set horror films, such as “Jason Takes Manhattan” or “Rosemary’s Baby.” There’s also effectively nothing wrong with any of the performances either. The main “Core Four” are all still fine, with good chemistry and banter all around and the other new and returning supporting cast members, like Courteney Cox (“Friends,” “Cougar Town”) as Gale Weathers, Hayden Panettiere (“Heroes,” “Nashville”) as Kirby Reed, Dermot Mulroney (“Shameless,” “J. Edgar”) as Detective Wayne Bailey, and Josh Segarra (“The Other Two,” “She-Hulk: Attorney at Law”) as Danny Brackett, are also all fine.

Gore wise, fans will likely also be happy, as this film continues the trend of 2022’s film and Matt Bettinelli-Olpin (“Ready or Not,” “Devil’s Due”) and Tyler Gillett’s (“Ready or Not,” “Devil’s Due”) other directorial works, and ups the blood, gore, and seriousness of this film. Its well-produced and effective in its scares, maintaining a delicate balance between being scary and entertaining that it succeeds with. There are a handful of moments that feel overly mean, but given the heritage of the franchise, it doesn’t feel so out of place compared to other horror films with unexpected mean streaks.

Here’s the big issue: for decades, the “Scream” franchise has been a staple not just for its scares or Ghostface, but because of its skewering of horror movie tropes and cliches. Part of the whole appeal is that Ghostface is a real person and he/she/they ask about scary movies, with the films themselves addressing the “rules” to surviving a horror film. And while those elements were still tengentially in the 2022 film by nature of it being a “requel” (reboot/sequel), “Scream VI” lacks any sort of central identity or satirical elements.

The film’s opening is sharp and excellent, but the ideas established there that seem to be the film’s central thesis quickly fade away and aren’t replaced with anything. Sure, there’s still the “here are the rules/suspects/etc.” speeches and the film is heavily steeped in references to previous films in the franchise, but the edge and bite to poke at both itself and the horror genre at large is gone. What stands in its place is a rather routine entry in a franchise that’s been too reliant on references and self-congratulation for the past two entries now.

A sharper script is what it all comes back to, as a movie can only coast on references to other horror movies and Letterbox’d accounts for so long, and frankly writers James Vanderbilt (“Zodiac,” “The Amazing Spider-Man”) and Guy Busick (“Ready or Not,” “Stan Against Evil”) just don’t give the film the bite it needs. It feels closer to “Ghostbusters Afterlife” in its weird reverence to previous events than a series that at one point was a critique of the entire genre. Even the identity of Ghostface is one of the least interesting in the series, more so because the reveal elicits more of a confused reaction than one of shock or surprise.

While “Scream VI” is objectively fine, if forgettable, it represents a crossroads for this franchise. If it wants to continue with any life or purpose, then the creative team behind the next one (because of course there’s going to be a next one) needs to go back to the drawing board with a goal of either providing a film that’s surprising enough to distract from the lack of satirical edge or cuts sharply and deeply across the entire genre. It’s a genre that’s long needed a new course correction in this age of “requels” and legacy characters coming back, but this “Scream” is not the one to do it; it’s just a decent imitation wearing the same face as the previous, better films. 3/5

Creed III - Review: Bigger Scale, Bigger Emotions, Bigger Punches

 

Way back in 1976, Sylvester Stallone blew up the world with a little movie called “Rocky.” Now, 47 years later, we have the third film in the spinoff series with “Creed III,” the first to be absent Stallone and Balboa. With Michael B. Jordan (“Fruitvale Station,” “Black Panther”) also taking over behind the camera, its clear that this is a new dawn for this series that was once the kid-sister to the original champ.

Following his retirement after the birth of his daughter, Adonis Creed, played by Jordan, is running the Delphi Boxing Academy alongside “Little Duke” Evers, played by Wood Harris (“Remember the Titans,” “The Wire”), and raising his daughter Amara, played by Mila Davis-Kent, with his wife Bianca, played by Tessa Thompson (“Dear White People,” “Westworld (2016)”). However, after his childhood friend Damian, played by Jonathan Majors (“The Harder They Fall,” “Devotion”), is released from prison and asks for a shot to be a boxer, Adonis agrees to train and sponsor him. This forces Adonis to re-examine his relationships and his love of the sport after Damian’s brutal techniques and personality rocket him to fame.

Written by Keenan Coogler (“Space Jam: A New Legacy”) and Zach Baylin (“King Richard”), from a story written by them and Ryan Coogler (“Creed,” “Black Panther”), it’s clear that emotion is at the forefront for Adonis in this third installment. If there is no other “Creed” film made after this, which does seem unlikely, then as it stands this is a fantastic trilogy of films. However, even just taking this film on its own, its clear that this is the first film in this trilogy to fully step out of the shadows of its father franchise to become its own thing.

Not only is this clear due to the absence of Rocky, but its clear from a technical standpoint as well. Jordan uses IMAX cameras for the fights and an overall grandiose sense of scale to emphasize the brutality of these two men and their physical and emotional boughts against each other. It seems silly to say, but Jordan’s love of anime is a clear influence here, from the confrontations and larger than life personalities to the incredible looking fights. The third act alone has a moment that might just be the best fight in the entire franchise, “Rocky” or “Creed.”

Jordan continues to be excellent as Adonis, balancing the strength and emotion hidden within this character he’s nurtured for almost a decade now. Thompson continues to be an emotional rock, without ever becoming “the wife who watches from the sidelines” as is so predictable in this genre. Her spirit takes hold of the entire film, fueling her relationship with Adonis and his trial. Davis-Kent is adorable and wonderful every time she appears, proving to not only be a bright spot for the potential future of the series, but also in this film itself. Majors is a menace, working a bizarre combination of intensity and violence with natural charisma that makes it impossible to look away from him, no matter how much you grow to hate him.

As this series continues to evolve, Jordan and his team keep weaving in small elements that make it not only stand apart from the “Rocky” films but fully come into its own. For example, Amara is deaf, and therefore throughout the film, Adonis and Bianca as shown signing with her in their everyday lives. It’s not only a fun detail that helps to further build the lives of these characters, and serve as some great representation, but it also works really well in a boxing film, given the noise and loss of hearing that can occurring during a fight.

These sorts of smart additions go a long way towards making this film in particular stand out. The first “Creed” will likely remain the best, but this one feels the most complex. Not just in terms of its emotional arcs, but in terms of the relationships and journeys of each character. Drago, again played by Florian Munteanu (“Creed II,” “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings”), is here again as one of the fighters Adonis works with as well as has a friendship with, and seeing Adonis not only fight but run the gym and train others is not only fun and fresh, but feels like a natural extension of his character and the journey he’s been on for three films.

While there’s still some of the predictability inherent to the genre, Jordan takes his anime influences to heart and really dresses it all up. This is a big movie that plays with scale and egos to great effect, and not just during the fights. Shot by Kramer Morgenthau (“Fahrenheit 451 (2018),” “The Many Saints of Newark”), every punch, dodge, and movement lands with brutality and grandiose energy, making it a thrilling film to just sit back and watch. It has an energy unlike any other.

“Creed III” is fighting hard for the title of the best film not only in its trilogy, but in the post- “Rocky 1” state. Jordan is fantastic as Adonis but also directs the film fabulously, with the energy of it all coming together to provide a thrilling tale of brotherhood and love, shot with a skill and scale that leaves you pumped. 4.5/5