The Fire Inside - Review: A Spitfire In and Out of the Ring

 

After years of working with other directors as a cinematographer and directing various television projects, Rachel Morrison (“Fruitvale Station,” “Black Panther”) is making her film directorial debut by telling the true story of Claressa “T-Rex” Shields, along with her coach Jason Crutchfield. It’s easy to see the film as just another inspirational sports movie, but what Morrison and writer Barry Jenkins (“Moonlight,” “If Beale Street Could Talk”) do with the material is a lot like Shields herself: something that seems like it could be ordinary, but far from it. 

The film follows Claressa “T-Rex” Shields, played by Ryan Destiny (“Star,” “Oracle (2023)”), as she trains with her coach Jason Crutchfield, played by Brian Tyree Henry (“Atlanta,” “Widows”), to compete for the Olympic gold medal in Women’s Middleweight boxing at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Despite her historic win, Sheilds returns home with no sponsorships and little money, resulting in her challenging the perception of female athletes and their compensation, especially in sports as male dominated as boxing. 

Where Morrison and Jenkins smartly work to push the film and Sheilds’s story beyond that of a typical “inspirational” sports biopic is by zeroing in on her life back home before and after the 2012 Olympics. As a result, it's far less of a film about her achieving her first Gold Medal and instead about the indifference the sports industry has towards her. In the last act of the film, she very bluntly says “money is recognition,” laying the film’s central thesis bare in front of the audience. It’s not hard to see another version of this film that stops at the 2012 Olympics or glosses over these financial hardships in favor of skipping to her 2016 Olympic win. 

That decision not to skip that material is not only what makes the film feel different from other films of its ilk, but it's also what gives Destiny such meaty material to dive into. She balances Shields’s fiery spirit without letting it get out of control, crafting a heroine who’s easy to root for. She and Jenkins never tamp down her teenaged life though, as the film is quick to reiterate that, for all her accomplishments, she is still just a kid. It makes for an engaging dramatic balancing act that’s further bolstered by Henry’s excellent mentor role. He’s quickly becoming a chameleon of an actor, going from playing menacing roles to mentoring one, and here is no exception. Their banter and relationship is the heart of the entire film, and it's often just as thrilling to watch them together as it is to watch Shields in the ring. 

Morrison’s background as a cinematographer helps to elevate much of the material here, as it’s all framed with a more careful eye than you’d expect. She works with cinematographer Rina Yang (“Nanny,” “Sitting in Limbo”) to frame the action in the ring with high energy without losing track of their subjects. Tamar-kali’s (“Mudbound,” “Shirley (2020)”) musical score keeps this tense as well, flowing between more grounded dramatic music for the film’s more serious moments and higher energy tunes for the fights. It keeps the pacing quick as well, making sure everything moves along smoothly as Morrison and Jenkins tell this tale. 

“The Fire Inside” works well within its genre constraints and works best when it stretches beyond them. By choosing to not stop with Sheild’s Olympic wins and instead focus arguably more on her struggle to bolster future female athletes, Morrison gives the film a unique voice and story that sets it apart from other boxing and sports films of its ilk. Jenkins’s script keeps things emotional and true, and Destiny’s performance alongside Henry is the heart of the entire movie. It’s a fantastic crowd-pleaser that will draw cheers and tears in equal measure, while also teaching the genre a bit about when to stop telling the story and when to keep going. 4.5/5 

Wallace & Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl - Review: Attack of the Gnomes

Way back in 1989, Nick Park’s (“Chicken Run,” “Creature Comforts”) dynamic plasticine duo set the world on fire with some delightful antics in a search for cheese that took them all the way to the moon. Now, over thirty-five years and pounds of cheese later, crazed inventor Wallace and his silent and daring dog Gromit continue with their simple, extremely English adventures in their latest tale, their second feature-length film, and first direct sequel with a returning villainous force who’s seeking “Vengeance Most Fowl!” 

The film follows Wallace, voiced by Ben Whitehead taking over from Peter Sallis after his death in 2017, and Gromit dealing with Wallace’s latest invention: an AI-powered robotic “smart gnome” device known as Norbot, voiced by Reece Shearsmith (“The League of Gentlemen,” “Psychoville”). As perturbed as Gromit is by the new robotic companion, things seem innocent enough, until Feathers McGraw, whom Wallace and Gromit previously foiled in 1993’s “The Wrong Trousers,” returns with the intention to use Norbot for revenge against the pair. Meanwhile, Police Chief Inspector Albert Mackintosh, voiced by Peter Kay (“24 Hour Party People,” “Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit”), and the overly eager Police Constable Mukherjee, voiced by Lauren Patel (“Everybody's Talking About Jamie (2021)”), find themselves targeting Wallace and Gromit after a series of robberies seem to point to the elderly inventor as the culprit. 

Directed by Park and Merlin Crossingham (“Morph”) and written by Park and Mark Burton (“Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit,” “Shaun the Sheep: The Movie”), “Vengeance Most Fowl” absolutely recaptures the spirit and soul that has existed within this series for decades now. Despite only having a new adventure every so often, Wallace and Gromit feel like old friends. The warmth to Wallace’s voice, rendered expertly here by Whitehead, and house make it feel as though you’re not watching a film, but visiting an elderly relative: things are slightly kooky, but you still feel right at home. Gromit and Feathers are silent movie delights, with more emotion in their clay faces than most blockbuster actors today. Aardman really has nailed the look and feel of this kind of barely moving silent character, with Feathers in particular still managing to be a hilarious menace throughout, despite not even having eyebrows to emote with. 

Given the Aardman has spent virtually their entire history crafting literal hand-made films, it's no surprise to see Wallace’s inventions, particularly the AI-powered Norbot, take a slightly different bend in our age of AI powered creative tools. Park and Burton don’t turn things into a full “Westworld” style experience, but more than ever before, they zero in on the harms this technology can cause. An early scene in Gromit’s garden is an exceptionally funny bit of visual humor but also works as an effective thesis statement for the film itself. Having all this communicated via characters molded from clay, with visible thumbprints on their heads, just reinforces the material far better than any digital techniques ever could. 

The ever-so-slightly heavier material never distracts from the film's buckets of charm and humor though. The duo is as funny as ever, with gags ranging from slight blink-and-you'll-miss-it moments to extended bits of visual humor. The musical score from Lorne Balfe () and Julian Nott () keeps things lively and classic as well, and it all can feel like a tribute to the entire series. It not only draws things most centrally in on Wallace’s inventing but also contains characters from “Curse of the Were-Rabbit,” the aforementioned villain from “The Wrong Trousers,” and references to the other shorts as well. It feels like a swansong for the pair of besties in the best way possible. 

The film is not without a few troubled spots though. For as effortless as the hand-molded animation and characters feel, it does mean that the handful of all digital elements, such as green-screened backgrounds and water, have an uncanny aspect to them. It’s as if, in this world of imperfect skin textures and details, they look too clean. While Mukherjee and Mackintosh are great additions, voiced wonderfully as well, they never capture the exact same charm or feeling as Wallace or Gromit do, leading their sections to feel like they’re the B team. Most uncannily though, despite the feature-length runtime, the grander scale, and return of Feathers, the film itself feels remarkably small in its scale. 

It leaves things feeling a bit watered down, which is a shame as this does feel in many aspects like a last hurrah for the titular duo. Of course, as long as there are misadventures to be had, Wallace and Gromit could go on until the end of time. But if they don’t, despite a handful of small hiccups, “Vengeance Most Fowl” does feel like a swansong for the duo. It keeps all of the classic British humor and visual gags, while also bringing back their arguably most iconic foe, and wrapping it in a tale more relevant than anything they’ve done before, without losing an ounce of its charm. 4.5/5 

A Complete Unknown - Review: A Routine Tale of an Enigmatic Man

 

Even with a genre as well-worn as the music biopic, there is still something interesting about each one as it comes along. Sometimes it’s a morbid fascination, when the material seems to be the worst kind of fit. And other times it's a legitimate fascination with a director or writer returning to a genre they helped to popularize. “A Complete Unknown” is the latter, as co-writer/director James Mangold (“Ford v. Ferrari,” “Logan (2017)”) previously directed one of the best examples of the genre before its oversaturation with “Walk the Line.” 

Set in 1961, the film follows Bob Dylan, played by Timothée Chalamet (“Dune: Part One,” “Little Women (2019)”), as he slowly begins to establish a life and career for himself in New York after meeting Pete Seeger, played by Edward Norton (“Fight Club,” “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery”), and a hospitalized Woody Guthrie, played by Scoot McNairy (“Argo (2012),” “Halt & Catch Fire”). While living there, he meets and begins to date Sylvie Russo, played by Elle Fanning (“The Great,” “Super 8”), and begins to work with and have an affair with Joan Baez, played by Monica Barbaro (“Top Gun: Maverick,” “FUBAR”). His career continues to grow, and the film chronicles his arrival in New York through his 1965 Newport Folk Festival electric performance. 

Despite not originating many of the cliches of the music biopic genre, it’s easy to imagine Mangold might be hesitant to return to the genre given how mercilessly it has been mocked since “Walk the Line” was released. Hell, one year later the genre satire “Walk Hard” was released, taking title, visual, and structural inspiration from “Walk the Line.” So, it’s refreshing to see that, on some level, Mangold and co-writer Jay Cocks (“Strange Days,” “Gangs of New York”) seem to have made a film structured like a typical music biopic with a lead character completely uninterested in being in such a film. Because of this, it allows Chalamet and them to examine just how little Dylan fit into a typical musician persona. 

Speaking of, Chalamet’s performance is nothing sort of stellar. What could have bene a simple impression instead feels like a full-bodied inhabiting of Dylan’s personality and ideals. The casting for the entire film is far closer to getting personalities right than it is about getting looks right, and it benefits the film greatly. It allows the emotion and energy to come through the performances and to let it all really sing, pun entirely intended. Norton and Fanning are great, although Fanning does get saddled with a bit of the typical “doe eyed girlfriend” trope, but she works well within those constraints.  

McNairy gets off slightly worse just given a lesser amount of screentime, and some of the character actors rounding out the cast simply fill in archetypes typical of this kind of movie (the financially anxious agent, the recording manager who exists just to say “who wrote that song”, the concert manager angry at the new kid’s new sound, etc.). Barbaro absolutely excels. Her fierce musical talent and singing voice mixes with a calm perspective that she uses to confront Dylan’s attitude. She stands out in virtually every scene, and the ones between herself and Chalamet are the best in the entire film. They grab hold of your attention and never let go. 

What “A Complete Unknown” is is a film that sets up various genre cliches and staples, before slowly showing that one of the greatest musicians of all time simply doesn’t fit into those boxes. Dylan doesn’t want to go electric for sales, he wants to just because he wants to. He doesn’t want to not play the hits because he’s told to play them, he just doesn’t want to. Chalamet’s performance builds this enigmatic persona within these constraints to create a film that’s almost screaming to break out of its pre-described restrictions. However, as much as it's clear the film and character want to break out of them, they never actually do. It’s certainly better than the average and most cliched music biopics, and the absolute best we’ve gotten this year, but it still checks plenty of typical boxes, even as it does avoid most of them. 

On a technical front, Mangold’s crew brings this time period to life with staggering beautiful camera work and costuming. Cinematographer Phedon Papamichael (“Nebraska,” “The Trial of the Chicago 7”) lets the time period crackle with a thin layer of grain and a heavy use of shadows. The film’s lighting is perfection and draws attention to itself without ever overshadowing the actors or other material on screen. Of particular interest is the costuming as well, with department head Arianne Phillips (“Walk the Line,” “Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood”) filling out each performer with costumes that not only look the part but effortlessly blend in with their character’s personas. Speaking of those characters, the film’s musical performances are exceptional. Each one is not just a showcase of the timeless songs, but of the performers who made them special and the actors now bringing them to life. There’s a reverence in these moments that makes them feel almost like a sermon, a moment of deep respect for these figures, and it’s not hard to imagine the film being a half-hour or more longer just to add more musical moments. 

“A Complete Unknown” is a fantastic showcase for its lead actor, its central subject, and the closest a mainstream music biopic has gotten to breaking out of the mold in recent memory. Chalamet and Barbaro lead a film packed full of great performances, cinematography, and musical moments that keeps an exceptional reverence without ever sanitizing the time or central subject. It hasn’t broken out of the genre box that Mangold himself helped to popularize over fifteen years ago, but you can see so many moments where it’s pushing at the edges. 4.5/5 

Babygirl - Review: Unsexy and Unsatisfying

 

In a post “Fifty Shades of Gray” world, it is so easy to see film and television studios jump into the “sexy” entertainment canon with wild abandon. From series with “sexposition” like “Game of Thrones” to films that use sex as the focus instead of an additional factor hitting the mainstream such as “365 Days,” “Deep Water,” the “X” trilogy, “Miller’s Girl,” “Benedetta,” and “Knock Knock,” sex is Hollywood's new fling, pun entirely intended. It also means that we’re starting to get films that seem to be marketed or made based purely on that aspect, which is where something like “Babygirl” comes into play. 

The film follows tech CEO Romy Mathis, played by Nicole Kidman (“Big Little Lies,” “The Northman”), as she begins an affair with Samuel, played by Harris Dickinson (“The Iron Claw,” “Trust”), a young new intern at her company. As their affair continues and begins to delve into a more submissive and dominant relationship, it begins to affect her work environment, like that with her assistant Esme, played by Sophie Wilde (“Talk to Me,” “You Don’t Know Me”), and her home life with her husband Jacob, played by Antonion Banderas (“The Mask of Zorro,” “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish”, and two children Isabel and Nora, played by Esther McGregor (“High School (2022)”) and Vaughan Reilly (“The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes,” “Tunes of Rockoons”), respectively. 

Written and directed by Halina Reijn (“Instinct,” “Bodies Bodies Bodies”), the film represents a sharp turn away from her previous works. While her debut “Instinct” contained highly sexual elements contrasted against violence, “Babygirl” is a purely sexual affair. Therin is one of the biggest issues with the film: Reijn’s eye looks at the events in a far more clinical and cold way than one might expect. Which is fine on paper, as it could build to an interesting comment on the events of the film, but those sexual sequences don’t feel sexy either. While tastes obviously vary, it all feels like its being kept at a low boil, like the film wants to be provocative and sexy, but also make sure it can still air on AMC in their 11pm timeslot. It results in sex scenes that either feel far too routine for how the film is presenting them or feel like borderline parodies of what prudish people think kink is. 

Kidman is turning in some great work here, even if the script isn’t doing her a ton of favors. She’s smoldering and yet far more engaging in the moments outside of the affair’s hottest scenes. Wilde also tries her best, but for an actress of her talent, the film just allows her to fade into the background until one pivotal scene, making that scene feel out of place as a result. Banderas is doing as much emotional work as he can with a fairly reductive part, and he does get some of the best scenes in the entire film. Even Reilly and McGregor are engaging, with the latter proving to be a standout thanks to multiple fleeting but impactful scenes with Kidman. 

But one actor has yet to be mentioned. Despite how much of the film revolves around him, Dickinson feels woefully miscast here. Beyond that, he’s just not good in this role. Even if the role requires an actor who remains dejected or uninterested for the majority of the film, Dickinson never seems engaged with the material. It isn’t an actor giving a performance of a disinterested person, it’s just an actor who seems disinterested. It drags the film down and makes it arguably laughable at times, as you’re watching an actor as engaged with the material as Kidman act against someone who seems like he’s irritated to be at work that day. 

Reijn’s script never goes further into the material than one might expect either. Given how specific and invasive “Bodies Bodies Bodies” was, it feels like a complete heel turn to see her write a film that almost refuses to dive into anything true with the subject matter. The film also overcomplicates things later on, introducing even more high concepts to add to the affair and its nature; it’s a slowly growing pile of surface level ideas that never get any more interesting than their starting points.  

Which is why the last thirty minutes feel so exceptionally bizarre. After a confrontation with Banderas’s character, the film ratchets up its intrigues, intensity, and effort. It finally feels as though things are evolving, as if Reijn was asleep at the wheel and script and only just then woke up. It still isn’t anything mind-blowing, but it’s far better than the material that had come previously, meaning the film at least ends on a high note.  

What is exceptional throughout the entire film, though, is the musical score from Cristobal Tapia de Veer (“Smile (2022),” “The White Lotus”), which is so good it almost draws you out of the film and makes you wonder why it's so much better than the film it’s in. The cinematography from Jasper Wolf (“Bodies Bodies Bodies,” “Instinct”) is the same way, far better than the events its framing. The whole film has a very blue heavy tone to the color, which means it all comes across as frigid and cold. It never subverts this aspect either, making this “white hot sexy” movie just feel cold as a result. 

“Babygirl” is a fascinating oddity. The entire cast, led by Kidman, turn in some pretty good work despite a script that seems determined to never go deeper than surface level while still piling more ideas on top of themself. Dickinson meanwhile is just bad and feels as though he simply does not want to be there, and there’s a deeply engaging musical score under the surface. It never feels bad, merely bizarre, like an imitation of the kind of film it clearly wants to be but can never actually become. 2.5/5  

Nosferatu (2024) - Review: What We Do in the Shadows

 

Vampires are in quite a different spot from where they were all the way back in 1922. That’s the year the original “Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror” was released and unbeknownst to most, that film wasn’t even official. While clearly modeled after Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” novel, the film itself was an unauthorized knockoff, changing names, locations, and events (slightly). The result was a film and character that has endured for so long as to appear in everything from parody films to an episode of “SpongeBob SquarePants.” Now, the second remake after the 1979 film has arrived from writer/director Robert Eggers (“The Lighthouse,” “The Northman”) simply titled after the central creep himself: “Nosferatu.” 

Set in 1830s Germany, the film follows Ellen Hutter, played by Lily Rose Depp (“The King (2019),” “The Idol”), and Thomas Hutter, played by Nicholas Hoult (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “The Menu”), a newlywed couple struggling with Ellen’s increasing nightmares of a shadowy figure. To gain extra money and a promotion, Thomas is sent to sell a mansion to Count Orlok, also known as Nosferatu, played by Bill Skarsgård (“IT (2017),” “Barbarian”). Thomas soon finds himself under Nosferatu’s spell and as Ellen’s nightmares of Nosferatu desire for her increase, their friends Friedrich, played by Aaron Taylor Johnson (“Kick-Ass,” “Bullet Train”) and Anna Harding, played by Emma Corrin (“The Crown,” “Deadpool & Wolverine”), enlist in the help of Dr. Wilhelm Sievers, played by Ralph Ineson (“The Witch,” “The Green Knight”), and Prof. Albin Eberhart Von Franz, played by Willem Dafoe (“Spider-Man (2002),” “Poor Things”), to defeat Nosferatu and save Thomas and Ellen. 

Just like the rest of Eggers’s work, the film’s look and feel is completely overwhelming and absolutely astonishing. Numerous scenes drip with inky blacks, ghostly whites, and murky grays, and it's only when light or fire burst through does color appear, like a tear in the film. Eggers’s longtime cinematographer Jarin Blaschke (“The Northman,” “The Lighthouse”) frames it all with a smoothness that borders on ghostly. At multiple moments, the camera uncannily glides around, as if floating above the ground and it further entrenches the film in an otherworldly kind of grim air. 

Eggers’s cast is absolutely fantastic, though the supporting members often find themselves overshadowed by the leads. Johnson and Corrin are good but are ever so slightly too understated for the heightened material Eggers is delivering here. Ineson meanwhile hits the perfect medium for the work, almost playing a straight man against Dafoe’s over-the-top mad scientist approach to Von Franz’s character. Hoult and Depp meanwhile are absolute magnetic. Hoult continues to delve into a career built by weird little freaky guys, and his performance here still has plenty of those touches, while also bringing in plenty of genuine emotion and pity for the journey and strife Thomas is being put through. 

Depp is an absolute force, thrashing and writhing about the set with reckless abandon. There are almost two different performances happening at once here: Depp as the vocal actress, doing a fine job with the melancholy material being served to her without ever truly excelling, and then Depp the physical actress. Her uncanny movements and physicality cinch up Ellen as a character into a complete whole, giving her a genuinely fascinating bend to the archetype she could otherwise fall into. Skarsgård completely loses himself in the performance of Orlok, hiding himself within a shadowy and mystifying performance that feels so deeply unsettling, even against Skarsgård’s other monstrous roles. It’s a role aided by plenty of costume and prosthetic devices, and it may be less energetic than others, but it’s nevertheless terrifying and hypnotic. 

Each chord of Robin Carolan’s () musical score plucks along with a deep sadness and melancholy, rather than the typical horror movie strings, and it works as a great example of Eggers’s work on this film as well. In every aspect of the physical production, the film is far more brooding, grim, and atmospheric than it is actively scary. It floods the screen with dread at almost every moment and never overloads the audience with bits of violence or blood. Eggers wants to drag you through this material as slowly and dimly as possible. 

Slowly is the name of the game though, and for a film that’s already over two hours long, it's quite deliberately paced. While the slowness of the material is clearly Eggers’s goal, he doesn’t manage to escape from the worst feelings from that pacing. Likewise, while it's very clear that Eggers has a love and reverence for the original film, it becomes a bit of an issue with the actual written material. Given his somewhat radical previous films, it's surprising that he never breaks out of the material.  

That’s not to say that nothing has changed, as Eggers and Depp both work together to very smartly flesh out Ellen’s character. It turns someone who was virtually a damsel in the original film into a real flesh and blood part of this new take. It ironically makes how little the story as its being told has changed stand out more. There’s been plenty of fleshing out of characters and their backstories to make them each more individually complex and interesting, but Eggers doesn’t take that further with the bones of the tale itself. His love of the 1922 film just becomes restrictive, resulting in a very routine tale that’s lavishly told. 

“Nosferatu” is worth seeing for the extravagant visual stylings alone, but the cast really sells it all. Depp, Skarsgård, and Hoult center everything and elevate material that’s unfortunately more similar to the original film than one might expect. Eggers’s style and directorial touches are fully intact here, it's just unfortunate that his reverence for the original material becomes more constrictive than it might seem. This isn’t some radical reinvention of the material, rather a new take that reanimates it for a modern audience. 4/5

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 - Review: The Blue Blur's Best and Darkest Outing Yet

There’s never been better proof of the bizarre timeline we live in than the fact that, despite continuously being critically and commercially pummeled in the video game world by Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog has somehow not only managed to churn out a full trilogy of films, but have each one improve upon the last. Now with this third film, returning director Jeff Fowler (“Sonic the Hedgehog (2020),” “Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022)”) and returning writers Pat Casey (“Golan the Insatiable,” “Violent Night”), Josh Miller (“Golan the Insatiable,” “Violent Night”), and John Whittington (“The LEGO Batman Movie,” “DC League of Super-Pets”) are tackling one of the game series’ most beloved characters and one of its darkest stories. 

The film follows the further adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, voiced by Ben Schwartz (“Space Force,” “The Afterparty”), Tails the Fox, voiced by Colleen O'Shaughnessey (“Digimon,” “Danny Phantom”), and Knuckles the Echidna, voiced by Idris Elba (“The Suicide Squad,” “The Wire”), as they encounter a new and more dangerous hedgehog: the brooding Shadow, voiced by Keanu Reeves (“The Matrix,” “John Wick”). This new counterpart forces them to team up with Dr. Ivo Robotnik, played by Jim Carrey (“The Mask,” “The Truman Show”), and his henchman/assistant Agent Stone, played by Lee Majdoub (“Assassin's Creed Mirage,” “Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency”), as they face off against Shadow and his creator, the scientist Professor Gerald Robotnik, also played by Carrey. 

If you’ve seen the previous two films, you might notice that the above synopsis is missing a handful of characters. While the likes of Tom and Maddie, played by James Marsden (“Hairspray,” “Enchanted”) and Tika Sumpter (“Southside with You,” “Ride Along”) respectively, are still here and are still a large part of the story, the writers have smartly reduced the amount of awkwardly shoehorned-in human subplots. This means that rarely do things divulge from team Sonic, resulting in a film that has a more distinct identity than other “human and CGI character” family films. It also means those humans and characters feel like they’re more naturally part of the tale, as tom and Maddie are here to assist Sonic rather than steal the spotlight. 

The entire cast continues to excel, blending in perfectly with their characters and selling this world and these colorful characters effortlessly. Schwartz is still a fantastic voice for the blue blur, almost surpassing some of the game’s own voice actors. O’Shaughnessey is great, just as she has been for years in the other games and shows. Elba cements himself as a top-tier voice actor given his clear love for Knuckles as a character. Reeves is a great choice for Shadow and he does a great job threading the needle between the silly world of these anthropomorphic creatures and also the genuine seriousness of Shadow’s tale. 

Carrey is the highlight of the human characters, with Majdoub’s perfect chemistry continuing to be a highlight. Carey’s double roles not only evoke the comedy films of the 90s, but it also allows him to take on two differing interpretations of a similar character type. Not only that, but like Shadow, there are moments of legitimate emotional gravitas from both Gerald and Ivo that results in an oddly sweet and impactful sendoff for Carrey as an actor. Marsden and Sumpter, despite being utilized less, are just as good and sweet as before, with the only odd spot being Krysten Ritter (“Breaking Bad,” “Jessica Jones”) as Director Rockwell, the head of the G.U.N. organization, who feels vastly underutilized given her comedic skills. 

Fowler’s experience as a visual effects artist continues to make these some of the best-looking blockbuster films out there. Not only is the action expertly framed by cinematographer Brandon Trost (“This is the End,” “The Night Before”), but the characters and effects pop with color and life. Tom Holkenborg’s (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “Deadpool”) score blends the best bits of the game’s music with a lively electronic score that kicks all the action up a notch. 

The action itself, framed by Trost, is a significant step up from the previous films' work. It's evident that Fowler got his start in the visual effect industry, as the action is staged expertly within the digital and physical worlds. It’s boisterous and grand in scale, without devolving into something soupy or difficult to follow. The quality of those effects is also a significant step up from recent blockbuster works, imbuing the entire world with bright and bold colors that pop regardless of what they are. It’s the kind of film that has its fair share of dimly lit scenes, but nothing is ever hard to see because of the skill of the effects teams bringing it all to life. 

Some could easily draw issue with the wide tonal swings the film takes. It is jarring when it jumps between overly comedic moments of the Robotnik’s to the more serious tale of Shadow and Sonic. However, each of those individual elements work so well that it’s hard to find fault with the film’s handling of them. At its core, Fowler and the film’s deep sense of earnestness and sincerity take it over the top. Despite being the third film in a series entirely based around a pre-existing video-game franchise, there isn't a shred of cynicism here. It truly does feel like a film that could only exist and be made by people who have genuine love for the material and characters in their heart. 

“Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is, on the surface, the epitome of modern blockbuster filmmaking: it’s the second sequel to a film based on a pre-existing video game IP packed full of recognizable “movie star” names. Yet each subsequent film has been better than the last, resulting in a third film that is legitimately one of the best video game adaptations ever made. It’s a thrilling action-packed adventure that’s funny and also exceptionally heartfelt when it’s required. It isn’t perfect by any means, but whereas the first two films came recommended with some caveats, “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is an unequivocal good time for all ages, no matter your level of experience with the blue blur. 4.5/5 

Carry-On - Review: Let's Fly, Let's Fly Away

 

Disclosure: I worked on this film as an Office Production Assistant. You can even see my name in the credits! Yay!

It’s the holiday season, and it’s just not the holidays in the entertainment world unless someone is getting stabbed, threatened, or shot at on Christmas. Luckily, the first film in a new partnership between Netflix, Amblin Entertainment, and DreamWorks Pictures is here and it's primed to deliver a good dose of Christmas thrills and tension, set in everyone’s favorite place to be during the holidays: an airport. 

“Carry On” follows Ethan Kopek, played by Taron Egerton (“Rocketman (2019),” “Kingsman: The Secret Service”), a TSA agent with a flagging career and a newly pregnant girlfriend Nora, played by Sofia Carson (“Descendants,” “Purple Hearts”), who also works at the airport. After getting to work on a busy Christmas Eve, Ethan finds himself being targeted by a mysterious man known only as the Traveler, played by Jason Bateman (“Arrested Development,” “Ozark”), who wants him to allow one bag through his TSA gate in exchange for Nora’s life. Meanwhile, Elena, an LAPD detective played by Danielle Deadwyler (“The Harder They Fall,” “Till”), finds herself on the trail of the Traveler and Ethan. 

This is a well-oiled machine kind of a movie, plain and simple. Director Jaume Collet-Serra (“Orphan (2009),” “Black Adam”) and writer T.J. Fixman (“Ratchet and Clank (2016)”) craft a thriller with just enough flair to keep things from feeling too routine. None of the characters expand outside of their archetypes, but each actor performs their roles well and they fit into the story smoothly. Where Fixman spices things up within the formula is by injecting both Traveler and Kopek with a healthy amount of distrust and Jersey details. Some of the film’s best moments come from the pair of them simply bantering back and forth, with Bateman dishing out sassy remarks while Egerton holds his own and attempts to dish it back. The pair also prove to be a fair match when it comes to the film’s numerous action sequences as well. While what’s here is light work for Egerton given his experience with the “Kingsman” franchise, Bateman’s menacing vocal work and threatening persona end up turning him into a remarkably effective villain. 

The rest of the characters stand out far less, and just like the film as a whole, they find themselves slipping into very neat and tidy cliches that have been seen countless times before in this genre. Deadwyler stands out a bit as the non-nonsense, determined LAPD detective, but there isn’t much beyond that. Dean Norris (“Breaking Bad,” “Claws”) does get some fairly good moments as Ethan’s snarky and sympathetic boss Phil, but there still isn’t much to the role we haven’t seen before. 

As a technical work, Serra’s film is exceptionally well crafted. The camera work from cinematographer Lyle Vincent (“A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night,” “Thoroughbreds”) emphasizes long sweeping movements, and there’s clearly an emphasis on smaller scale drone work. It also makes effective and interesting use of phone and tablets screens, representing them on screen in a fun way. Each moment ticks by with just enough flair and solid technical merits to keep things light-hearted and engaging. As light-hearted as a movie about a terrorist smuggling something into an airport can be, at least. 

What’s possibly the most impressive aspect of the film is its pacing. Even for as many cliches and silly moments as “Carry On” has, it never drags. Things pick up and keep going, layering complications and small developments throughout, eventually building to a conclusion that legitimately keeps you guessing. It’s all just an extremely well-crafted thriller that feels straight out of the 90s or early 2000s. If it was a meal, it would be a standard ham & cheese sandwich, but a really good one at that. 

“Carry On” fills the void of Christmas-tinted action thriller and fills it well. It also fills out plenty of the checklist for this kind of film. It never breaks out of the mold it places itself in, but it's there willingly and manages to be a fantastic example of exactly the kind of genre it's chasing, with excellent technical merits to boot. When you have a film this cliched that manages to have great pacing, a pair of great leads, and peppered with just enough tiny details and diversions to keep the main character and the viewer on their toes, you have a recipe for something that’s just a silly thrilling good time. 4/5 

The Lord of the Rings: War of the Rohirrim - Review: Ripped from the Appendices

 

It's unfortunately not uncommon for a film studio to push out an adaptation or franchise film as an arbitrary excuse to keep their hands on a license. That’s what Fox did for years with the “Fantastic Four” movies, its why “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance” and “Punisher: War Zone” exist, and its unfortunately why “Hellraiser: Revelations” exists. Despite the pedigree of those involved, it's also why “The Lord of the Rings: War of the Rohirrim” was ushered into the world, but thankfully this film doesn’t suffer quite as horrific a fate as those prime examples. 

Set 183 years before the events of Peter Jackon’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, the film follows the King of Rohan Helm Hammerhand, voiced by Brian Cox (“Succession,” “Deadwood”), and his sons Hama, voiced by Yazdan Qafouri, and Haleth, voiced by Benjamin Wainwright (“Belgravia: The Next Chapter,” “The Conductor”), and daughter Héra, voiced by Gaia Wise, alongside Héra’s shieldmaiden Olwyn, voiced by Lorraine Ashbourne (“Bridgerton,” “Jericho”), and Héra’s page Lief, voiced by Bilal Hasna (“Extraordinary (2023),” “Dead Hot”). After the death of his father, Lord Freca, Wulf, voiced by Luke Pasqualino (“The Musketeers,” “Rivals”), swears vengeance on the Hammerhand family and the people of Rohan, leading to a war between them and his army of Dunlendings. 

Given the fact that, at times, Tolkein’s original writings can almost feel like history books, going back to the “Lord of the Rings” to tell other stories before and after the original trilogy seems like a no brainer. Screenwriters Jeffrey Addiss (“The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance,” “Life in a Year”), Will Matthews (“The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance,” “Life in a Year”), Phoebe Gittins, Arty Papageorgiou, and co-writer Philippa Boyens (“The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King,” “The Lovely Bones”) have done their best to stretch out what was originally a page or so of text into a three-act epic film, and for the most part they succeed. What excells is the smaller moments when we can see the clan Hammerhand overseeing their people and fighting back against Wulf and his army. The broader strokes don’t have anything spectacular to say though, and it ends up being a film with characters that are fun and exciting to watch within a story that’s built from the bones of a thousand other fantasy epic stories. 

Regardless of the nature of the story itself, the vocal performances are the film’s absolute best aspect. Cox is an impeding and larger-than-life force as King Hammerhand, while also being able to bring a soft gravitas to the most emotional moments. Wainwright and Qafouri both balance a brotherly back and forth with the strength of hardened soldiers. However, Wise absolutely steals the entire film from everyone else. Not only is her vocal performance so excellent as to make the character of Héra more interesting and endearing as a result. Pasqualino also strengthens Wulf’s material as well, resulting in a pairing of protagonist and antagonist that work fantastically together and against each other. And while not strengthening their characters in the same was Wise and Pasqualino do, Hasna and Asbourne both manage to be charming and lovable additions to the Hammerhand crew, with Asbourne a particular standout of badass female mentorship. 

For as detailed and gorgeous as the worlds of Middle Earth crafted by Jackson and his team are, the realm of animation invites even more beautiful possibilities. It's unfortunate then that the film’s animation style is one of its weaker elements. While director Kenji Kamiyama (“Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex,” “Napping Princess”) clearly has the talent to bring this world to life, the film’s limited budget means that some scenes just don’t get the attention that others do. Pretty much all of the third act is exceptional, and the film’s biggest moments are absolutely nailed. But that does mean that the smaller, character driven moments that the script and vocal performances otherwise nail are failed by the lackluster animation. 

It is majorly worth noting that the film’s third act does almost save the entire picture. It wraps things up exceptionally well and it looks gorgeous, almost making up for the film’s overall animation weaknesses and lackluster plotting. This is also when the musical score kicks into high gear, which accidentally reveals a surface level issue that may affect some more than others: much of the film’s visual identity, regardless of the anime stylings, comes from Jackson’s films. The musical score does the same, for as much work as composer Stephen Gallagher (“Mystic,” “Inside (2020)”) does to differentiate his work, it pulls heavily from Howard Shore’s original compositions. Again, this may not be an issue, as some audience members may be coming for more of this, but it is worth noting regardless. 

“The Lord of the Rings: War of the Rohirrim” certainly has moments of fun and fantasy. For those willing to overlook a more routine plot and some weaker animation, there’s plenty of good old-fashioned fantasy tale to be told here. The excellent vocal performances and smaller character moments do a lot to enliven the film and make it all a fun adventure. There is quite a large, trilogy-shaped shadow lingering over this film, but even distancing it from Jackson’s fantastic three works, there’s a lot of good here that falls short of greatness. 3.5/5 

Nightbitch - Review: Sit, Stay, Play Mother

 

Like most things in life, motherhood can be exceptionally thankless. We all have mothers and we all owe so much to our mothers, but so rarely do they actually get the appreciation that they truly deserve. In the past few years, this feeling has come to a boiling point in cinema, resulting in films about motherhood and the female experience both as dramatic works (“Gone Girl”), broad comedies (“Barbie (2023)”), and even intense body horror (“The Substance”). Now writer/director Marielle Heller (“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”) has adapted Rachel Yoder’s novel of female and motherly rage and dissent for the big screen with none other than Amy Adams (“Enchanted,” Arrival”) in the leading role. Together they tell the tale of “Nightbitch.” 

The film follows an unnamed woman referred to as Mother, played by Adams, who, after years of being an artist, left her job to become a stay-at-home mother for her newborn Son. While her Husband, played by Scoot McNairy (“Killing Them Softly,” “Halt & Catch Fire”), spends his weeks away working, she becomes increasingly frustrated with her new life, and eventually begins to notice changes to her body and physicality that lead her to believe she is transforming into a dog at night. 

It’s quite the wild concept for a director who’s stuck to low stakes work up until now. Even for the handful of more bizarre moments in “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood,” it was still a very grounded, realistic film. That’s not the case for “Nightbitch,” nor should it be. However, Heller seems to be trying to reign the story in far more than one would expect. The material begs for a larger-than-life outlandishness, and while Adams’s performance gets there plenty of times, the film as a whole feels like it’s holding back its wilder aspects. There could be any number of reasons why, but it makes the film itself seem far more toothless than it could be. What it results in is a feature-length “Twilight Zone” episode rather than a fully featured take on this modern marvel of a novel. 

Adams is, again, totally fantastic. She throws herself into this performance and it results in her straddling the line between being endearingly outlandish and meek. It’s a lot of fun to watch, even though it does feel like she could sleepwalk through material like this given her immense talent. McNairy is good but finds himself shackled to a more routine portrait of a dimwitted husband. His evolution as the film progresses is interesting and earned, but he does get far less to work with than Adams does. The supporting cast of mothers of Jen, Miriam, and Liza, played by Zoë Chao (“The Afterparty,” “Where’d You Go Bernadette?”), Mary Holland (“Happiest Season,” “The Big Door Prize”), and Archana Rajan (“Fairfield”) respectively, adds some great banter to the film, but their few scenes with Adams are so good, they feel underutilized.  

Likewise, a borderline cameo from Jessica Harper (“Phantom of the Paradise,” “Suspiria (1977)”) as Norma feels like it could be the emotional crux of the film, but Heller just doesn’t do anything with her, leaving a potentially interesting angle unused. On a similiar note, the film features flashbacks to Mother’s own mother when she was a young girl. It’s clear that there is a throughline here with her own transformations and emotional journey, but it feels like it’s missing something. It’s as if the film was originally two-hours and when it was cut to 100 minutes, those remaining scenes were the ones that went. 

Heller’s approach to the material might be a bit too pedestrian, but there’s still plenty of snark and commentary within it all. The film has constant asides by Adams that don’t so much break the fourth wall as they exist outside of her own mind. She plays these moments well, effectively splicing up the “real” version of herself and her internal monologue. These breaks in reality also help to reinforce the weirdness and grossness that is throughout. Without spoiling anything, there are moments of body horror that, while they’re not necessarily extreme, do break the viewer out of the routine world Heller and Adams have built. It also reinforces the themes of motherhood and power, given how normal Mother views some of these events. 

“Nightbitch” is certainly an interesting idea, and Heller and Adams work to craft as interesting of a version of this film as they can. Unfortunately, it's a film that feels as though it wants to have its steak and eat it too. Too weird for an average housewife viewing audience and not weird enough to be devoured by genre fans, “Nightbitch” is certainly a film with a lot on its mind that wants to commit. It ends up stumbling and becoming a far more pedestrian version of this kind of tale, led by a fantastic Amy Adams who unfortunately can’t save it as a whole. 3/5 

Y2K (2024) - Review: Death by Dial-Up

 

Despite its fairly plain title, “Y2K” is in fact not a documentary about the 1999-2000 millennia computer bug, nor is it a serious drama about the people behind the issue or those who fixed it. Instead, this is a low-budget horror comedy film directed by Kyle Mooney (“Brigsby Bear,” “Saturday Morning All Star Hits!”) in his directorial debut and written by Mooney and Evan Winter about a robot and technological uprising brought about by the bug on New Year’s Eve of 1999. Which, given Mooney’s typical work on “SNL,” isn’t a difficult concept to see him executing. 

Set on New Year’s Eve in 1999 and follows Eli, played by Jaeden Martell (“Midnight Special,” “IT (2017)”), and Danny, played by Julian Dennison (“Hunt for the Wilderpeople,” “Deadpool 2”), two best outcast best friends who spend their days playing Nintendo 64 games and renting VHS tapes from stoner video store employee Garrett, played by Mooney. However, the two decide to spend their New Year’s Eve going to a party where Eli’s crush Laura, played by Rachel Zegler (“West Side Story (2021),” “The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes”), will be alongside fellow outcasts such as Farkas, played by Eduardo Franco (“Stranger Things,” “American Vandal”), and Ash, played by Lachlan Watson (“Chucky (2021),” “Chilling Adventures of Sabrina”). However, everything turns to chaos at midnight when anything electronic begins to revolt, killing any humans nearby and forcing out motley crew to run for their lives. 

Mooney and Winter’s script is certainly loaded with various 90s references and pop culture touchstones. Everything from AIM to Mystery Men to even the act of waiting for a porn image to load via dialup gets its little moment to shine, but much of that window dressing is exactly that: window dressing. Remove the specific references and the film could be set in any time period, which ends up being a major disappointment given the clear love Mooney and Winter have for this time period. The script is also a wild minefield of tonal disparities; one moment will be extremely serious with the death of a character, played completely straight, that’s either punctuated with a bizarrely off-color joke or immediately followed by a moment that completely deflates any emotion or tension. 

It would be one thing if the entire film was clearly meant to be a joke, but Mooney’s direction and handling of that tone never feels jokey. His skits and digital shorts from SNL manage to keep a very brisk tone, but everything is so earnest and self-serious here, it feels remarkably dissonant from the film’s sense of humor. It isn’t a drag by any means, and it's still an enjoyable experience, but it is absolutely the work of someone’s first directorial effort. When the film focuses on young Eli’s journey and his romance with Laura, it’s at its best. Their banter is cute and feels authentic to their ages and the type of borderline puppy love on display. 

The young cast all turn in some pretty entertaining work given the material. Martell plays the archetypal nerdy hero well, Dennison embodies the loudmouthed best friend, Zegler is better than her “hot-girl-who's-also-smart" role has any right to be, and Watson steals plenty of scenes as an honest and earnest wannabe videographer burnout kid. Even Mooney himself manages to delight in a minor but still very amusing role as the video store employee Garrett. They all do fine jobs with the material, but none of the characters or performances ever manage to break out of their cliches. It’s a film where the cast is clearly capable of better and there’s a version of this film that manages to be more emotionally fulfilling, and instead it takes the easy way out. 

There’s nothing wrong with a film like this deciding to just be a simple, b-grade horror comedy. It executes those aspects well, with some gory kills, a great soundtrack, and an exceptionally good usage of practical and creature effects. The third act is a smorgasbord of great editing and practical effects usage, and it's the closest to the weird sense of humor and scale that Mooney has showcased in his “SNL” works. But for as much love as Mooney clearly has for the time period, it is disappointing that he’s settled for a film that wears it like a costume instead of fully embracing it. 

A few moments throughout “Y2K” are shown briefly shot with Ash’s handheld video camcorder and it isn’t hard to see a version of this film shot entirely with that perspective. It would give the film more personality than it currently has, because despite the great practical effects work, the love for the time period, a game cast, and a great third act, Kyle Mooney’s directorial debut feels mostly like a standard B-movie horror comedy wearing the skin of a 90s flick. Given the energy and obvious love that’s clearly here, it’s not hard to imagine a version of this that tries a little bit harder and works just a little bit better. 3/5

Moana 2 - Review: Barely Kept Afloat

 

Despite grossing less overall than Disney box-office titans like “Zootopia” or “Frozen” and with less of a presence in the Disney Parks than the likes of “Big Hero 6” or “Tangled,” “Moana” has slowly emerged as arguably the crown jewel of Disney’s 2010s second-wave renaissance. Not only has it shown huge and broad appeal, it was also the second most streamed movie in all of 2021, lagging only behind “Luca,” itself a 2021 release. So it's unsurprising that Disney would eventually greenlight a sequel, but the path to the big screen is far jankier than one might expect from the Mouse House. Because “Moana 2” wasn’t always a movie; “Moana 2” was originally intended as a Disney+ show, before being retooled into a feature film sequel. And, unfortunately, it shows. 

“Moana 2” follows the titular Polynesian wayfinder, voiced again by Auliʻi Cravalho (“Crush,” “The Power”), setting out on a new adventure to find the mysterious cursed island of Motufetu. For the journey, she garners a crew consisting of Moni, a strong Maui superfan voiced by Hualālai Chung, Loto, a brilliant but scatterbrained inventor voiced by Rose Matafeo (“Starstruck,” “Baby Done”), and Kele, an elderly grumpy farmer voiced by David Fane (“Eagle vs. Shark,” “Next Goal Wins”). They also reunite with the demigod Maui, voiced by Dwayne Johnson (“Jungle Cruise,” “Furious 7”), and encounter the sinister Matangi, voiced by Awhimai Fraser (“Ahikaroa,” “Shortland Street”). 

By far the biggest strength of the film as a whole is the return of Cravalho and Johnson. The pair inhabit their roles perfectly, and their easy chemistry is consistently a highlight. Put simply, the film is at its best when it's focused on either of them, apart or together, and as just an excuse to go on another adventure with them, it's a success. Chung, Matafeo, and Fane are all fun, filling in their archetypal roles well. Fraser makes a great, in short, appearance as the antagonistic Matangi, and her segment and song are one of the highlights of the film. 

Segment is an apt way to describe it because the film as a whole feels extremely segmented. It feels as though you’re watching a film airing on a cable network, where commercial breaks might be, but with the commercials cut out. It leads to an extremely jarring pace, and while the adventure feels like a logical extension of the first film’s journey, it also lacks any development for Moana as a character. She does accomplish a lot, but there’s no character growth for herself, Maui, or any other characters by the end, leaving it feeling less like a theatrical event, and more like “just another day in the life.” 

Instead of expanding the plot or world from the first film, “Moana 2” simply retreads most of the plot beats and events from the first. From an encounter with the Kakamora to the sinister antagonist-but-not-main-villain with a song, many of the same plot beats are hit with minor variations. It feels like first-time directors David Derrick Jr., Jason Hand, and Dana Ledoux Miller and screenwriters Miller, Jared Bush (“Zootopia,” “Encanto”), and Bek Smith (Maleficent: Mistress of Evil”) got cold feet and simply decided to stick to what worked before instead of trying to explore new territory. By the time the film does start to get into newer, different territory, the film ends. 

The film does manage to keep the same gorgeous visuals from the first with some minor improvements, but it feels less like a new showcase of the world and more like a retread of the same kinds of locations we’ve seen before. Musically, it's definitely a downgrade from the first, with new songs from Abigail Barlow, Emily Bear, Mark Mancina (“Tarzan (1999),” “Brother Bear”), and Opetaia Foaʻi. Only Mancina and Foa’i return from the first film, and it's a noticeable downgrade. The songs either sound like retreads of the first film’s, like “Beyond”, or feel far too simple lyrically, like “What Could Be Better Than This?”. Only two really stand out, Matangi’s “Get Lost” and Maui’s “Can I Get a Chee Hoo?”, mostly due to the vocal performances of their performers. 

It’s hard to describe “Moana 2” as anything other than a letdown. While the pure charm of Cravalho and Johnson’s performances and the supporting cast do a lot to keep things upright and it still proves to be a gorgeous film, it’s an adventure that feels like it's all going through the motions. That would be wonky enough, but the pacing and songs don’t help either. It all results in an adventure that absolutely feels like it came from the B team as opposed to those that made the first film such a classic. It’s doing a lot of the same things as before, but it all feels like something special at the core of it is missing. 3/5 

Wicked - Review: Casting a Spell

 

Few works in the entire world of entertainment have taken the world by storm like “Wicked” did in its original Broadway run and the years since. Not only has the music become iconic, but the show has also wormed its way into pop culture, parodied and tributed in various works across the entertainment medium. When a (relatively) new show manages to make the kind of impact it has (it is the second highest grossing stage musical of all time), a film adaptation is inevitable. Thus, we have John M. Chu’s (“In the Heights,” “Crazy Rich Asians”) two-hour-and-forty-one-minute first part of this epic film adaptation of “Wicked.” 

The film stars Cynthia Erivo (“Harriet,” “Bad Times at the El Royale”) as Elphaba Thropp and Ariana Grande-Butera (“Victorious,” “Don’t Look Up”) as Galinda Upland, and follows the pair’s unlikely friendship at Shiz University, years before they would eventually become known throughout the land of Oz as the Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good Witch, respectively. The film also stars Michelle Yeoh (“Everything Everywhere All At Once,” “Crazy Rich Asians”) as the head of Shiz, Madame Morrible, Jonathan Bailey (“Bridgerton,” “Broadchurch”) as the troublesome Fiyero, Marissa Bode, in her feature film debut, as Elphaba’s sister Nessarose, Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) as Dr. Dillamond, a goat professor at Shiz, and Jeff Goldblum (“Jurassic Park,” “The Fly (1986)”) as the Wizard of Oz. 

Given virtually monumental expectations of a project like this, it’s a good thing that Chu and his team have almost perfectly stuck the landing in bringing this monumental story to the big screen. From the sets to the costumes to the effects and choreography, it’s a musical adaptation that’s completely unafraid to be a musical. Not only that, but it’s also a film that revels in all the gorgeous details that the cinematic landscape can afford it. It’s an example of the best of both entertainment worlds, straddling the line between a thrilling example of the filmmaking medium when it’s firing on all cylinders, without losing the showmanship at its heart. 

Because let’s face it, one of the biggest potential pitfalls of an adaptation like this is letting the craft outshine the character, and Erivo and Grande-Butera absolutely shine as bright as can be. The pair get to show off their singing skills while also excelling in the smaller character moments. One scene in particular towards the middle of the film has the pair wordlessly exchanging a moment of emotion, and it’s one of the film’s best moments because of the talent of their emotional expression. Erivo might get the bigger moments and Grande-Butera might have a bit more of a comedic bend to her role, but they never let those elements define their performances, crafting multifaceted portraits of these iconic characters that stand alongside their originators on Broadway. 

As the film goes from the hallways of Shiz to the grander scale of the land of Oz, the true craftsmanship on display becomes clear and beautiful to behold. The film's crew has a heavy emphasis on experienced theatrical talent; from costumes by “Hamilton” costume designer Paul Tazewell (“Harriet,” “West Side Story (2021)”) to cinematography by Alice Brooks (“In the Heights,” “tick, tick... BOOM!”), the film’s technical aspects are exceptional. There’s a large amount of practically crafted sets and environments on display, and it works wonders as a hugely immersive work of staging. Nathan Crowley’s (“Tenet,” “Interstellar”) excellent and towering production design works, whether it’s the small-scale stature of Shiz or the towering green buildings of the Emerald City, it all comes alive and serves as excellent spaces for its performers to shine. 

Given its massive length, another magic trick that “Wicked” manages to pull is its brisk pacing. Whether it’s because of the film’s spliced narrative (more on the in a bit) or just it’s absorbing musical numbers and characters, the entirety of the film moves along at a brisk pace, reaching its conclusion in what feels like a mere hour, let along over two-and-a-half. Chu and his team deserve ample praise for that, especially given the recent trend of films that are basically half the length of this feeling far longer. 

Now, about that spliced narrative. As the film itself proudly declares merely ten minutes in, this is Part 1 of a two-part adaptation in an effort to not shrink or cut too much from the stage show. It’s an admirable goal, especially given the scope of the story and the nature of other musical adaptations cutting material and characters across the board. While there isn’t much, if any, of that here, it does create problems with the supporting cast. 

Yeoh and Goldblum are great here, playing their roles with a larger-than-life attitude, with Goldblum in particular proving himself to be a perfect choice to play the shifty-eyed conman of a wizard. Dinklage makes a great impact as Dillamond, Bode is absolutely fantastic, Bailey is a swoon worthy heartthrob with a heart of gold, and Ethan Slater (“The SpongeBob Musical: Live on Stage!”) pops up as the munchkin student Boq with awkward if underutilized charm. Even for as great as each of them are, they’re fundamentally underserved by the nature of the two-part format. As the film ends, while Elphaba and Galinda feel like they get a significantly thrilling chunk of their story told, the rest feel like background characters, superfluous and unimportant. 

Which is a frustrating conclusion to come to as they clearly are not, but their arcs just aren’t finished yet. They are characters that will clearly come into their own more in part two, but as it stands for this first film, they’re two-dimensional background characters behind Galinda and Elphaba’s larger story. Take it like this: if you were unfamiliar with the stage musical or these characters at all, you’d likely walk out of the movie wondering why so much time was spent with these characters that served very minor storytelling purposes. 

That’s largely a nitpick though, as most will likely watch this first part and then immediately roll into the second in the coming years after its release, much like the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. Which is fitting, as this is a thrilling, fantastically acted, gorgeous spectacle of a musical. It makes great use of both its cinematic and musical format, creating a truly breathtaking kind of big-screen experience that crescendos just as the curtains fall on its first act. It can easily stand as one of the best musicals of the 21st century. And if they can nail the second act, possibly in all of film. 4.5/5 

Red One - Review: One of the Most Formulaic Lumps of Coal You've Ever Seen

 

The bells of Christmas are beginning to ring again, and with that comes another Christmas movie hitting theatres across the globe. This year’s offering isn’t an animated musical, a Dr. Seuss retelling, or a childlike piece of nostalgia. Jake Kasdan (“Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story”) has instead brought us this year’s Christmas adventure in the form of a big, corporatized, buff Santa Claus, a highly skilled protection group called E.L.F., hacking, kidnapping, Christmas witches, Krampuses, and giant murderous snow men. This is “Red One.” 

The film follows Jack O’Malley, played by Chris Evans (“Knives Out,” “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”), a skilled dark web hacker who is forced to help M.O.R.A. (Mythological Oversight and Restoration Authority) director Zoe Harlow, played by Lucy Liu (“Charlie’s Angels (2000),” “Kung Fu Panda”), after Santa Claus, played by J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash,” “Juno”), is kidnapped from the North Pole. He’s then forced to team up with Callum Drift, played by Dwayne Johnson (“Black Adam,” “Moana”), to track down and save Santa from the Christmas witch Grýla, played by Kiernan Shipka (“Mad Men,” “The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina”). 

To the credit of Kasdan and writers Chris Morgan (“Wanted,” “Furious 7”) and Hiram Garcia, there’s clearly a lot of effort that’s gone into crafting this new interpretation of Santa Claus and various other holiday fables. Having them all exist at the same time, in the same world, sequestered from each other is a novel idea, and the film is at its best when it's blending those ideas together. Unfortunately, the plot they’re blended within is a pretty generic action movie that fails to inspire the slightest bit of wonder. 

Johnson feels woefully miscast here, but not for the reasons you’d assume. Yes, he does fit this version of the character fine enough, but the film itself feels as though it needs a different version of this character. He plays everything so seriously, when a film about the kidnapping of Santa Claus just feels sapped of any fun when you play it this straight. Evans is hamming it up, playing a more backseat role to the action lead of Johnson, and his quips and comments feel fine enough half the time and lazy the rest. Simmons is sleepwalking through a role like this, coasting off his charms and then literally just disappearing for 85% of the film. Liu and Shipka aren’t terrible, but they fail to make any kind of impact whatsoever. 

Despite a massive 250-million-dollar budget, so many of the film’s numerous effects heavy sequences come across as unfinished. Some green screen bits look downright amateurish, and an early chase sequence in the North Pole just looks like Johnson was overlayed into a video game cutscene. There are moments that shine, a sequence in Krampus’s house, full of practically crafted creature suits and faces inside of a practically built and lit castle looks absolutely fantastic and is by far the best part of the film. It also makes the later moments, like when that practically designed Krampus faces off against a completely digital creature look even worse than they already do. 

It would be one thing if the film didn’t look the best or had some superfluous characters. But for a film that’s aiming to be about Christmas, the spirit of the season, and the sense of childlike whimsy inspired by Santa to come across this soullessly is a massive problem. There are multiple times where things happen that border on absolute absurdity, and yet the film takes it all with a completely straight face. It begs for some lightness, to stop taking itself so seriously. Watching Johnson turn a rubber chicken alive, talk to it directly, and toss it out to some fierce-some hounds with a deadpan look and not a single joke cracked about it, just feels so disconnected from reality. It’s the sort of film that does inspire laughter, but laughing at it, not with it. 

“Red One” is certainly packed with plenty of fluff and stuff for the holidays, but it fails to inspire anything other than fleeting amusement, often times at its own self-serious expense rather than because of any genuine entertainment. Yes, it is technically an original film, but it's clearly made as a franchise kickoff first, and genuine piece of singular entertainment second. Evans is fine, Johnson is fine, the effects are mostly fine, and the tale is inoffensive if not memorable in the slightest. It has all the candy-colored coating of a freshly wrapped Christmas gift, it looks like something fun, and yet unwrapping it just reveals a hollow cardboard box. Plain, uninspired, and lacking in the most important thing for an adventure like this: fun and whimsy. 2/5

Heretic - Review: The Talking Man's Horror Movie

 

There’s nothing scarier than someone aware of themselves. Writer/director duo Bryan Woods (“A Quiet Place,” “65”) and Scott Beck (“A Quiet Place,” “65”) know this, clearly, which is why a film like “Heretic” exists. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to be menacing in this kind of way without being absolutely in control of everything going on, and it takes a skilled and smart person to even attempt to craft a puzzle box as devious as this one. Let’s just hope the solution to said puzzle box is actually a satisfying one. 

The film follows Sister Barnes and Sister Paxton, played by Sophie Thatcher (“Yellowjackets,” “The Boogeyman”) and Chloe East (“The Fablemans,” “Genera+ion”) respectively, two Mormon missionaries who travel to the house of Mr. Reed, played by Hugh Grant (“Love Actually,” “Paddington 2”), after he requests more information about their faith. Shortly after being invited inside, they learn that he’s been lying to them about things like the presence of his wife, a pie baking, and his lack of knowledge about religion. He instead has trapped them inside in order to test his own theories on religion and faith, using them as test subjects. 

It cannot be stated enough that, in a world full of overly violent and gory slashers, the fact that Beck and Woods are so committed to slowing the pace of this terrifying tale is a testament ot their vision. It really does work too, successfully crafting a thick sense of dread the permeates through the entire film. Doubly so when it becomes apparent just how much of the film is just dialogue; just Sister Barnes and Paxton talking and listening to Reed’s somewhat demented ramblings. 

Grant’s performance makes the film what it is, as he is essentially the central and most interesting character. His is a role that’s constantly changing and unfolding, a puzzle box of a person just as much as his scheme is. There’s a fascination that bleeds through, he’s less of a horror villain and much closer to just being an antagonist, and it further deepens the film’s ideas. Thatcher and East are perfect together, selling a sisterly bond that cements the film’s emotional throughline.  

Reed’s house is a feat of production design as well, built and filled out like a magnificent kind of mystery abode. There are subsequently too many details and yet not enough, working as a place that seems borderline cartoonish in its construction and yet also terrifyingly real. It’s all shot with plenty of gruesome closeups and details by cinematographer Chung Chung-hoon (“Oldboy (2003),” “IT (2017)”). Yet there are just as many deliberately paced long sweeping shots that create a sense of dread even as they’re clearly meant to just showcase the environment.  

However, as fascinating as “Heretic” is, there’s a stark change in the third act that finds the film drifting. It goes from being an interesting debate on religion and horror in general to a far more standard modern horror affair. It deflates much of the previously established tension and ends up ending in a far more generic way that the first 75% of the film would lead you to believe. It doesn’t even necessarily feel intentional either, almost as if Beck and Woods simply ran out of material or couldn’t think of a way to end things to line up with their previously established themes. 

“Heretic” is still a lot of fun, even if it falters in its last act. That last act still keeps the same fantastic production design, camera work, and performances from its central trio. It just ends up deflating the movie’s themes in favor of a more standardized horror film third act conclusion. It’s disappointing but doesn’t ruin the film as a whole. It just leaves you wanting more given how fantastic of a start it gets off to. 3.5/5 

A Real Pain - Review: A Family-iar Pain

 

Grief is a wild thing. It can impact so many people in such a variety of differing ways, and even those from the same family, reacting to the same source of grief at the same time, can twist that reaction in wildly different ways. Jesse Eisenberg (“The Social Network,” “Adventureland”) co-stars in a film he has written, directed about that very concept of grief to thunderously emotional, wryly funny, and sweetly effective results. It’s “A Real Pain.” 

The film stars Eisenberg as David Kaplan, a mid-30s Jewish man who goes on a Holocaust tour through Poland with his cousin Benji, played by Kieran Culkin (“Succession,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World”), after the death of their grandmother. Throughout the tour, the pair are forced to confront their relationship and emotional availability, as Benji’s loud, brash, overly honest and emotional nature clashes with David’s more reserved, contemplative, pragmatic life. 

Eisenberg and Culkin play wonderfully off each other, each delivering some of their best work in years. Eisenberg manages to perfectly balance his typical characteristics with a slightly bolder and outspoken nature when pushed by his cousin. Culkin meanwhile, is turning in career-best work, turning some difficult work balancing Benji’s legitimately enviable traits with his more outspoken, almost rude, behavior. Their relationship is the basis for the entire film and it's a consistently engrossing and engaging pair of performances. 

Eisenberg and cinematographer Michał Dymek (“EO,” “Wolf”) smartly avoid the more flamboyant look of travel films like this by not only zeroing everything back in on Benji and David, but by utilizing the cities and natural landscapes themselves. At parts, it almost feels like a documentary, or a film quite literally just made by two people. There’s an intimate nature required for these kinds of emotional discussions and revelations that is often attempted, but rarely does it succeed this much. 

Eisenberg’s script is full of awkward pauses and dialogue that sells the realistic nature of this tale from the very first moment. It has the kind of patter that creates a realistic environment and believable banter without feeling unprofessional or unpolished. Its realism filtered through a layer of professionalism to cut out the fat. Regardless though, the small cast all fling barbs and words back and forth with excellent form. Eisenberg and Culkin may be the biggest stars, but the rest of the small cast, consisting of the likes of Will Sharpe (“The White Lotus,” “Casuality”), Jennifer Grey (“Dirty Dancing,” “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”), among others, is fantastic and nails the “average” vibe of those characters flawlessly. 

Most surprisingly, given this kind of uncomfortable familial love, the film maintains a constant search for answers without spelling things out by the end. Some might even find the ending disappointing, as it refuses to give a definitive statement on the events given and the “answers” one might be seeking through this journey of grief. It’s a remarkably strong note to end on, even given the uncertain nature of it all, and it makes a bigger and more substantial impact than a neat and nice resolution would. It makes a definitive statement by not making a definitive statement. 

“A Real Pain” has a title that serves two purposes and a tale that tries to explain that, with grief, there is no explanation. Eisenberg’s second directorial effort is a fantastically strong portrait of simple filmmaking techniques and fantastic performances. It's a wonderfully funny and quaint little tale, one that invites you in with these characters to experience some true pain. 5/5

Conclave - Review: A Flock of Cardinals

 

Political dramas don’t necessarily have to take place in traditionally political settings. All it takes is a group of people with large egos getting together to vote on something and an interesting tale will come out of it. The death of a pope and subsequent voting in of the new pope was the subject for Robert Harris’s 2016 novel “Conclave,” which has now been adapted for the silver screen, featuring a who’s who of talented dramatic actors all donning tiny red cardinal caps to fill the Vatican City with dramatic intrigue. 

The film takes place shortly after the death of a pope and centers on Cardinal-Dean Thomas Lawrence, played by Ralph Fiennes (“The Grand Budapest Hotel,” “The Menu”), who will be leading the papal conclave to vote in a new pope. One of the candidates is his friend and fellow cardinal Bellini, played by Stanley Tucci (“The Devil Wears Prada,” “Spotlight”), who does not wish for the more conservative cardinals, such as Tedesco, played by Sergio Castellitto (“Paris, je t'aime,” “The Bad Poet”), or Adeyemi, played by Lucian Msamati (See How They Run (2022),” “Gangs of London”), to win the papacy. Meanwhile, Lawrence hears of potential scandals from other candidates, such as Tremblay, played by John Lithgow (“3rd Rock from the Sun,” “Footloose”), and must deal with the sudden appearance of Benitez, played by Carlos Diehz in his film debut, a previously unknown cardinal appointed in secrecy by the previous pope. 

Much of “Conclave” features its talented cast speaking together in hushed tones in the hallways of the Vatican City, gorgeously draped with smoothly carved marble and elegant statues. It’s an exceptionally gorgeous film, both in its textural details and its camerawork. Cinematographer Stéphane Fontaine’s (“Jackie,” “Rust and Bone”) shots float through this secretive city, juxtaposing wide distant shots with intimate moments of borderline claustrophobic closeness. Volker Bertelmann’s (“Hotel Mumbai,” “All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)”) score could be seen as overbearing or too bombastic at times, but it thunders through these hallways, arguably forming itself as another actor alongside its illustrious cast. It’s also just fantastically paced; it feels as though it’s over just as it’s begun, but never feels rushed by any means, giving the material exactly the time it needs to breathe. 

Fiennes is absolutely phenomenal. This is genuinely one of the finest performances of his career, a staggering complex role of a man given a job he admittedly does not even want. It’s a role of the smallest nuances, packed with little details and unexpected turns that becomes as much of a thrill to watch as the film itself. Tucci meanwhile sticks to his strengths, delivering fantastic dialogue in his very specific cadence. It’s not anything particularly groundbreaking in his body of work, but it's still excellent. Lithgow, Msamati, and Castellitto are all the same, fantastic performances bolstered by the equally great actors surrounding them, even is Castellitto’s is a bit overblown. The true standout besides Fiennes is Diehz, giving an understated and borderline mysterious performance that makes a major impact despite his limited screen time. 

“Conclave” has plenty of layers and mystery working under the surface, and director Edward Berger (“All My Loving,” “All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)”) and screenwriter Peter Straughan (“The Men Who Stare at Goats,” “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”) play with that mystery throughout the entire film. It’s a tale about secrets and the infallibility of man, and there’s increasingly complex details that invite further discussion after the credits role. Thankfully, even beyond those aspects, the moment-to-moment dialogue is wonderfully dense and provides a lot of great lines and moments of verbal sparring for its talented cast during this papal political event. 

The theme of secrecy doesn’t stop at the script though, as the film’s very setting and the mysterious details surrounding it help to bolster the film’s dramatic weight. It’s one thing to set a movie like this in a courtroom, it's quite another to set it in a location so shrouded in mystery. Purposefully cut off from the outside world, this isolation fuels the arguments and discussion between the cardinals, but also creates a kind of otherworldly feeling. Yes, there’s obviously offices and bedrooms and cafeterias within the Vatican City, but it's another thing to see it all rendered in such excellent production design. It might seem like a silly comparison, but when the lights are dimmed and there’s just one or two people in a room, it's a similar feeling to the internet sensation known as “The Backrooms.” 

“Conclave” is a fantastic piece of political and religious drama, weaving its tales throughout its talented cast and making excellent use of its setting and material. Fiennes gives a career best performance here, and the entire cast is absolutely fantastic. This is the kind of film that doesn’t just work on the screen but has plenty to say that is easy to continue dissecting and discussing long after its brisk two-hour runtime is up. 5/5