The Last Duel - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halloween Kills - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Time to Die - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muppets Haunted Mansion - Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Titane - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Addams Family 2 - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venom: Let There Be Carnage - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Evan Hansen - Review

Everything you’ve heard is, unfortunately, true. “Dear Evan Hansen,” the film adaptation of the Grammy and six-time Tony award winning musical that took the world by storm when it premiered not that long ago in 2016, is quite terrible. Baffling so, in fact. It’s a bewildering film, one with what seemed like such an excellent cast and director at the helm and such ripe source material.

That right there is the perfect place to start. “Dear Evan Hansen,” as a concept, has always been fraught with controversy and criticism. For those unaware, the short version of the plot is that it follows Evan Hansen, an awkward teen struggling with mental illness, who’s letter to himself, an assignment from his therapist, is taken by a kid at his school who then takes his own life. His parents find Evan’s letter on his person and believe Evan and him to have been best friends and Evan lies to them, saying that they were best friends.

It is a lot to take in, and under lesser hands the emotional weight of the film would cause it to buckle almost immediately. You would think then, that director Stephen Chbosky (“The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” “Wonder”) who previously directed two films wrought with difficult emotional subject material and even wrote the original “Perks” novel would be the perfect choice to helm a film dealing with these topics.

Instead, he seems to botch the execution at nearly every turn. The resulting film has a bizarre tone that somehow plays its emotions far too big and yet also goes for such a toned down realism that it makes the inherent fantastical nature of the musical genre seem to painfully awkward. Despite its many flaws, 2019’s “Cats” had songs that played over grand sets and across multiple locations in a span of minutes. “Dear Evan Hansen” is a showcase of the exact opposite; a second act emotional moment has Evan awkwardly singing and crying while standing in a dining room, not moving for almost 4 minutes.

Casting is a place where the film seems to neither succeed nor inherently fail. Ben Platt (“Pitch Perfect,” The Politician”) has received more than his fair share of criticism for appearing far to old to play the film version of the character her originated on Broadway, and while he can still sing, he never tones his emotions down for the screen. Broadway doesn’t have the ability to close in on someone’s face like film can, so an actor naturally has to act bigger to communicate to the entire theater. Platt knows how to do that, yet never tones his performance down to compensate for when the camera is 3 inches from his face instead of yards away.

Amy Adams (“Enchanted,” “Arrival”) and Julianna Moore (“Boogie Nights,” “Still Alice”) deserve sainthood for their performances as they are clearly trying to do the best they can with the terrible screenplay they’ve been given. Adams acts the crap out of a role that has her doing little more than sitting around and looking sad about her dead son, and Moore’s character is almost borderline absent from both the film and her son, Evan’s, life. Its baffling that she says “I didn’t know you were hurting” in the third act to a son she reminded earlier in the film to go to his therapist appointments and take his medication.

The rest of the cast is servicable at best and forgettable at worst. Kaitlyn Dever (“Booksmart,” “Unbelievable”), Nik Dodani (“Escape Room,” “Atypical”), and Danny Pino (“Mayans M.C.,” “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit”) are all perfectly fine, nothing bad but nothing that stands out or makes the best of the bad material. Amandla Stenberg (“The Hate U Give,” “The Hunger Games”) meanwhile feels grossly miscast as Alana Beck, student leader who seeks Evan’s help to establish a charity in Connor’s name after his death. While the character is meant to be a leader who’s also soft spoken, Stenberg plays her with such a closed off and hushed whisper of a voice, its like watching an actor being held hostage.

Without a doubt, the film’s biggest and most glaring flaw is its overall script. Yes, the moment to moment dialogue can be painfully eye-roll inducing, but the overall plot has a massive and fundamental change compared to the original musical that effectively kneecaps the film from the very start. Steven Levenson (“Masters of Sex,” “Fosse/Verdon”), who also wrote the book for the musical, has cut out four songs from the latter half of the film. This sort of decision wouldn’t normally be an issue, these sorts of things happen all the time with adaptation, however its the songs in question that are the issue.

Its hard to say who’s decision exactly this was, but the four songs cut are ones that make a definitive statement on Evan and his decision. They show his best friend arguing with him and forming a definitive stance on how what he’s done is horrible, there’s a similar song with his mother as well, and they basically serve as the thesis statement for the material, showing that yes, despite being the main character and growing from this experience, you should not think Evan is a “good person” at all. The confrontational scene and song wherein Evan’s best friend chews him out and effectively ends their friendship over his selfish decision is gone. In its place, Evan’s friend looks at a social media post Evan made on his phone and stares into the middle distance, sighing a sad sigh.

The fact that the film has cut these moments make it feel wildly awkward and inappropriate. Frankly, it reduces the story to one wherein a teenager lies about knowing a dead kid, lies to his family, tells the truth, tries to get to know the kid on a surface level, and the sits back and says “well, I sure learned my lesson” and smiles at the blue sky. It’s, frankly, disgusting.

This hasn’t even touched on the myriad of small technical issues. The cinematography is far too zoomed in most of the time, the film’s pacing is absolutely glacial, lacking any kind of lightness the musical genre should inherently have, and the entire film is shot with such a bizarrely gray color palette that it borders on just being black and white.

“Dear Evan Hansen” is a perfect storm of terrible film making. So often we get films that are bad from a storytelling perspective and fine from a technical one and vice versa. This is both at once, colliding with such violent apathy that it becomes baffling. If you’re not familiar with the material, you’re jaw will likely constantly hit the floor as the plot continues to become more inane and bizarre. If you are familiar with the material, the only reason you should see this film is to watch the unknowings’ jaws hit the floor. Its as if the kid who still thinks Romeo and Juliet is a love story made a Romeo and Juliet movie. Watching is only advisable with copious alcohol and friends to riff back and forth with. “Dear Evan Hansen” is the rare career low for literally everyone involved, a cacophonous of boring directorial decisions and poor adaptation decisions, a film fueled by nepotism and bad ideas. 1/5

The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021) - Review

 

Given the odd trajectory of her life, someone like Michael Showalter (“Wet Hot American Summer,” “The Big Sick”) would seem like the absolute perfect choice to direct a film about Tammy Faye. Not only is she a bit of an oddball in her overall personality, but the televangelist went from being one of the biggest television personalities ever to being nearly penniless, to eventually being reborn as a beacon of kindness and LGBTQA+ icon.

Not exactly the kind of life you’d expect from someone who got their start doing puppetry in a Midwestern town, and the film does maintain a bit of the stranger than fiction air her life eventually took on. Yet, unfortunately, Showalter doesn’t embrace these qualities as much as one might expect from him, leading to a far more pedestrian film than one might expect from either the source material or the people involved.

Let there be no debate though, Jessica Chastain (“Zero Dark Thirty,” “Molly’s Game”) is an absolute knockout, delivering what might be one of the best performances of her career. The entire film basically traces the path of Tammy’s loss of innocence to a kind of rebirth of it. Chastain manages to keep the tricky balance of it all in check; Tammy’s has a certain air of innocence about her, bordering on naveté, but she isn’t stupid, and Chastain nor Showalter or writer Abe Sylvia (“Dead to Me,” “Nurse Jackie”) stoop to making her some kind of idiot savant.

Opposite her is Andrew Garfield (“The Social Network,” “Hacksaw Ridge”) also delivering an exceptional performance as her borderline abusive husband Jim Bakker. He has an air of sinister-ness about him, especially opposite the innocence of Tammy’s good will. He’s the devil to her angel, clearly playing the people watching their shows for all their worth. He’s manipulative and gaslights Tammy at every corner, and Garfield plays it to a T creating a deliciously malevolent counterpart to her sweetness, making it a performance you love to hate.

The rest of the cast do their jobs well enough, but none stand out like Garfield and Chastain. Cherry Jones (“24,” “Transparent”) plays Tammy’s mother with the same level of sweetness as Chastain, but still acknowledging the idiocy of Tammy’s blind faith in Jim. Vincent D’Onofrio (“Full Metal Jacket,” “Men in Black”) plays Jerry Falwell, the closest thing the film has to an antagonist besides Jim. While he’s mostly fine, he lacks the magnetic malevolence that Garfield has, instead going to a more downplayed antagonistic force.

No one else apart from them really stands out, and it speaks to a much larger issue with the film overall. It presents various events, characters, and moments from Tammy’s life, not so much structured like a film but like a memoir. The material doesn’t have a three-act structure, but the film seems to be trying to force it into one.

It’s also remarkably downplayed at times. Yes, there are moments of pomp and circumstance and they not only play marvelously well, but they’re the best parts of the film, showcasing Showalter’s strengths with the ridiculous and putting Chastain and Garfield’s performances on full display. It's almost an achievement then that a large majority of the film is just kind of boring. It moves through so many plot points that they all start to blend together. It's a textbook case of showing us a real person’s life without saying anything about them or the events.

Like a delicious candy bar, the film’s best bits are right at the center. The film’s first act feels like it can’t wait to get started and therefore feels pretty rushed. Meanwhile its third act, post bankruptcy, feels very meandering, like it's just waiting for things to end. When Tammy and Jim are surrounded by the glitz and glamour and money and betrayal of their television empire, that’s clearly where Showalter is most comfortable and it results in the best part of the film being those moments.

“The Eyes of Tammy Faye” is a somewhat boring, by the numbers biopic with moments of glory overshadowed by some rough pacing and tonal work. It's the kind of project that clearly doesn’t know what it wants to be. Is it an extravagant truth-is-stranger-than-fiction story or is it a down to earth realistic portrayal of this woman’s life? Neither, resulting in a somewhat dull film with a fantastic middle, that is at least propped up by two stellar lead performances throughout. 3.5/5

@Zola - Review

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, “@Zola” is based off of an insanely viral series of tweets from way back in 2015 and the subsequent Rolling Stone article written about a month later. The tweets took over the internet for a brief period, becoming one of the few universally viral things that truly everyone had heard about in some capacity.

It's worth mentioning this not only for those unaware, but also because “@Zola” the film has a lot in common with those original tweets. Most importantly, it retains the fierce and controlled perspective that one gets from someone’s personal twitter feed and remains an uncompromised vision of one hell of a road trip.

Taylour Page (“Boogie,” “White Boy Rick”) is Zola, a part-time waitress/dancer who meets Stefani, played by Riley Keough, who, after knowing her for just one day, invites her on a trip down to Florida with her, her boyfriend, and her roommate. What is pitched as a weekend “hoe trip” to dance at a high-end strip club for some quick high volume cash quickly goes off the rails thanks to Stefani and those around her never telling Zola the whole, if any, truth.

Zola is an assured, confident protagonist. Page lends her a commanding charisma without robbing her of the confused vulnerability one would have in a situation this bizarre. She is the way we, the audience, see this tale, and Page and co-writer/director Janicza Bravo (“Forever,” “Lemon”) make sure the entire film is her story via methods like voice overs, freeze frames, and texts all over the screen.

Page’s performance is excellent, but not brashedly so. The performance that assuredly is, and the one most will likely walk away from the film talking about, is Riley Keough (“Under the Silver Lake,” “American Honey”) as Stefani, the somewhat antagonist, obliviously narcissistic dancer who ropes Zola into this entire journey. Her performance is one of bafflement; clearly there can’t be someone in the world who’s this ignorant to the way they treat other people. Keough’s mannerisms and way of speaking are clearly meant to be a portrait of an ignorant white girl with a blaccent, appropriating a culture she may have grown up around and may consider herself a part of, but can only tangentially be and this creates a palpable air of uncomfortability.

It's a purposeful uncomfortability though, not one that would arise if, say, a film with this kind of character wasn’t written and directed by a black woman. Keough and Bravo play with this idea, is she this antagonistic narcissist or is she actually aware of her actions? Some of her final moments in the film are haunting because of the toying nature of the reveal of whether she is this person or if it's just another mask she wears. Her boyfriend Derrek, played by Nicholas Braun (), is more one note but is still an interesting character as we watch him twist and turn through this bizarre journey, perhaps falling back a bit too much on the apathetic personality Braun has become known for from works like “Succession.”

Meanwhile, Colman Domingo (“Candyman (2021),” “euphoria”) is positively electrifying unsettling as X, Stefani’s roommate. Revealing exactly what he gets up to in the film would spoil too much, but he’s played with unhinged joy by Domingo. Taking note of the scenes when he’s smiling like a gleeful child and contrasting those with what’s actually going on in those moments can be truly haunting. Yet, he has this sort of controlling charisma about him that makes it at least easy to understand why Stefani still hangs around him so much. If nothing else, he proves to be a fascinating foil for Zola as the pair are clearly the two smartest people on this trip and butt heads constantly.

Throughout, Bravo and co-writer Jeremy O. Harris (“Slave Play,” “Black Exhibition”) frame the film with numerous moments of social media framings and graphics that border on elegant. It's a great way of bridging the gap between the social media origins of the story and the realistic nature of the film lens. One extended sequence swipes through a variety of men as if one is swiping through a series of photos, and big moments are punctuated by the sound the Twitter app makes when you send a tweet, implying that these are when Zola sent one tweet and began the next. The simplest and also arguably the coolest is the usage of the Apple iOS font and clock at the top middle of the screen to punctuate act breaks, making the entire film look as if it’s being watched through an iPhone or iPad.

Bravo and Harris even get meta at multiple moments, having characters talk directly to the camera to communicate certain perspectives and punctuate important moments. One big moment about halfway through the film even switches to a completely different perspective brought in from Reddit, further communicating the different experiences social media can portray about the same events, and how blatantly shallow and false some of those perspectives can be.

As fascinating and engrossing as “@Zola” is to watch, it does have one big issue: the film, by all accounts, doesn’t fit into any typical storytelling structure. There isn’t really an act structure to speak of, nor are there typical character arcs or “lessons learned.” Not that a movie needs to have these things to be enjoyable, but it doesn’t always feel purposeful. Some moments do, the ending is particularly masterful in this regard; it abruptly ends, fading away without explaining anything, much like 90% of someone’s life would be unanswered for if you saw it through the lens of social media. Yet, not all of its storytelling oddities feel this purposeful.

It’s hard to be upset though when everything that’s happening is this bizarre and engaging. Bravo and cinematographer Ari Wegner (“Lady Macbeth,” “In Fabric”) have crafted a film of a certain kind of beauty, using the same slow shots and lights that dazzle that one might associate with an old Hollywood production shot on soundstages. It lends everything a very artificial and almost fairytale aesthetic, leaning even further into the glamorized facade of this social media inspired tale.

“@Zola” is a truly unique film. It puts itself out there to be seen, plain and simple, and it doesn’t give a single shit about how you feel about it, structural anomalies be damned. This unflinching perspective, combined with some truly intoxicating performances and a heavy, smart use of social media elements means that, like the tweets, this isn’t a story likely to be forgotten anytime soon. 4.5/5