The Power of the Dog - Review

After taking over a decade of time off from directing feature films, writer/director Jane Campion (“Bright Star,” “In the Cut”) has returned with an adaptation of Thomas Savage’s most acclaimed book, “The Power of the Dog.” Don’t be fooled by the cowboy hats and wide vistas, this is not a western in the vein of “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” or either “True Grit.” It’s a taut, deliberately paced drama that rewards those with the patience to see it through with an incredible viewing experience.

While a simplistic plot on the surface, things quickly pick up and gain more intrigue as the film progresses. On a basic level, it follows Rose Gordon, played by Kirsten Dunst (“Spider-Man (2002),” “The Beguiled (2017)”), and her son Peter, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (“ParaNorman,” “X-Men: Apocalypse”), as they move to the home of her new husband, rancher George Burbank, played by Jesse Plemons (“Game Night,” “Breaking Bad”), and are slowly psychologically tormented by his brother Phil, played by Benedict Cumberbatch (“Doctor Strange,” “The Imitation Game”), who believes Rose to be a gold digger.

There are plenty of moments of gorgeous wide open scenery and silence throughout the film, as its very deliberate pace allows for these moments to not feel out of place. The beginning is actually front loaded with quite a bit of dialogue; Campion makes the smart decision to place the slower, quieter moments after audiences are likely already invested in the tale, meaning they’re willing to deal with the slower pace of the film’s events.

Cumberbatch is exceptional in his role. Phil is clearly a tormented man hiding secrets, as opposed to someone who seeks to just be evil for the sake of it. He plays the role delicately, weaving just enough nuance and despicable-ness in to prevent him from becoming completely sympathetic but also not robbing him of any humanity. Plemons meanwhile makes for a good foil; he’s clearly the kinder of the two brothers, more soft spoken and able to speak and listen more determinedly, and the pair are electric when they’re together.

Dunst is good, but feels a bit more unhinged than the others. Maybe it's the elements of alcohol in the story, but it feels a bit like she’s playing up to 6 or 7 while everyone else is sitting comfortably at a 5. It’s not a bad performance by any means, just feels a tad bit carried away compared to the very specific vibe of the rest of the ensemble. McPhee is a true talent here. There’s a quiet menace to his character that’s hard to nail down through the entire picture. He’s the sort of character that, like Phil, never gets a clear and specific answer. It’s a truly meaty role that McPhee dives headfirst into, creating a portrait of awkwardness that never doubles for a lack of control or confidence.

“The Power of the Dog” is going to be an interesting film to see perform over the next few months. It's the sort of project that seems like the exact opposite of the kinds of films Netflix usually pushes, so it’s commercial performance is going to be extremely intriguing. It’s not just the pacing, the film also ends in a way that is obvious but isn’t spelled out at all. Campion never spoon feeds anything, anything, to the audience, and it results in a film that asks you to come to it on its own terms.

Even if you aren’t on board for the eerie tale being spun, it’s hard to deny that it's a gorgeous film to look at and listen to. Johnny Greenwood (“There Will Be Blood,” “Phantom Thread”) composes his second stunner of a score of the year following “Spencer,” and leans heavily into the banjo and piano motifs throughout the film, quietly plucking away at nerves with the pluck of each string.

Meanwhile cinematographer Ari Wegner (“Zola,” “True History of the Kelly Gang”) shoots the landscapes with an eye for, well, landscapes. Each shot seems to contain some element of scale, whether its the smaller things within the house or the grand locations outside of it. There’s a very specific use of larger and smaller people, items, locations, etc. that create a feeling of a chess board being played with. As if someone is moving all the pieces around as they please, or trying to, for their own ends.

“The Power of the Dog” is an eerie picture that sees Cumberbatch playing against his typically likable persona with a stable of actors all delivering excellent performances. It’s a gorgeous film to just live in for two hours, but it makes no concessions for its material. Either you approach it on its own terms, slow pace and all, or you just get off the horse. Those who commit will find themselves thoroughly rewarded with a fantastically taut dramatic tale that's suspenseful as it is beautiful. 4.5/5

A Quiet Place Part II - Review

 

How hard is it to recapture lightning in a bottle? Well, as it turns out, not that hard at all. As his next directorial effort following 2018’s “A Quiet Place,” writer/director John Krasinski (“The Office,” “Promised Land”) has successfully managed to duplicate the first film’s tension and action, while also expanding on the world and characters. It might not feel as unique as the first go around, but it's nevertheless engaging.

In a world where monstrous aliens that can only navigate via sound have crash landed on Earth, humans attempt to survive by maintaining as quiet of an existence as possible. “A Quiet Place Part II” picks up almost exactly where the first film ended and, after some brief flashbacks to before the monsters arrived, follows Evelyn, played by Emily Blunt (“Edge of Tomorrow,” “Sicario”), and her two kids Regan, played by Millicent Simmonds (“Wonderstruck,” “A Quiet Place”), and Marcus, played by Noah Jupe (“Ford v. Ferrari,” “Honey Boy”), as the leave their farm and attempt to survive with the help of an old friend from before the monsters, Emmett, played by Cillian Murphy (“Inception,” “Peaky Blinders”).

Even without Krasinski’s presence, the film still has a big heart at its core. So much of the tension comes from the discussions of safety versus risk, how to balance needing to leave safety to either gather supplies or try to better their lives versus the risk of encountering the creatures. Blunt is an absolute powerhouse, showcasing her broad range by, like the rest of the cast, delivering so much with virtually no words.

Jupe and Murphy are also excellent. Jupe perfectly showcases the panicky teenage reactions to the horrors that are happening around him, trying to both protect his family and also trying to survive himself. Murphy is a bit more cynical than the rest of the family, and pairing him with their most optimistic member allows for some great back and forth and testing of his morals that help Murphy to deliver a stronger performance. Yet, just like the first film, it's Simmonds who absolutely steals the show. Whereas before she was the sweet, big hearted, emotional center of the film, “Part II” shows her using her hearing aid and smarts to practically become an action star. Her furrowed brow and determined nature are without a doubt the film’s biggest hook, and it's a delight to watch her steal the show in every scene she’s in.

Just like before, the effects, creature designs, practical sets, they’re all incredible. Its a fantastic showpiece for intimate practical sets, and Krasinski, despite us having seen the creatures from the first film, still hides them as much as possible, using them sparingly instead of throwing tens of them at the screen at once. For those expecting another horror escape though, the film overall feels less like a horror film than the first.

It’s not that it isn’t tense or scary, it just feels far more like an action film this time around. It’s hard to pin-point exactly why this is, but the more varying locations and larger cast probably has something to do with it, as it eliminates the isolated, helpless feeling from the first film’s singular location. The film is nearly flawless in its pacing though, effectively doling out just enough information as it flips back and forth between both plots without ever giving the audience a moment to breathe. Just as you think everything is fine, everything gets far, far worse.

Given the inherently silent nature of everything, it makes sense that the sound mixing and audio design are once again a highlight. It’s an incredibly audio heavy film that makes great use of an expansive auditory range, and that works in tandem with the writing. It's one thing if the film is silent, but if it keeps things so tense that it results in almost forcing you to be silent as well, that’s another thing entirely.

Krasinski does also shake things up with the overall world of the film by introducing a number of new elements that help to flesh things out and make this feel like a true second part to the first film, rather than just a sequel to a successful film. The radio frequencies, the presence of water and fire, and even other people are delivered not just in interesting ways, but piecemeal throughout the film to keep tensions high and audiences on their toes.

This helps greatly in offsetting the fact that the film, as excellent as it is, doesn’t quite have the same specialness that the first one did. Like it or not, once a film becomes a franchise there’s just something about it that feels less different, and the same thing happens here. Krasinski may not be able to recapture the same exact terrifying lightning in a bottle feeling, but he gets about as damn close as possible.

“A Quiet Place Part II” is exactly what its title says it is. As a continuation of the first film, it works wonders in fleshing everything out; the characters, the world, the monsters, the technical film-making skill, to craft a film that is easily worthy of sitting alongside the first. Some may be disappointed that it's less of a horror film this time around, but that’s a small complaint towards what is still a thrilling, tense adventure. 4/5

Tick, Tick... Boom! - Review

 

Jonathan Larson is, while not a household name, a person who’s likely far more well known than people realize. While he’s an obvious figure for people in the entertainment world, the name will likely elicit puzzled looks from everyone else. That is, until you accompany it with, “you know, the guy who created Rent.” But that’s not what we’re talking about here. What we’re talking about is a far more specific project of his.

A bit of backstory: Larson died of an aortic dissection in the early morning of January 25th, 1996, the day of Rent’s first off-Broadway performance. The tragedy is, of course, that he never got to see the massive success that came for his show that was inspired by the people he loved and the place he lived. After his death, playwright David Auburn took Larson’s long-gestating semi-autobiographical one-man show “tick, tick… BOOM!” and turned it into a three man musical piece which went on to incredible success and acclaim.

Thus, here we have a film adaptation, directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda (“Hamilton,” “In the Heights”) in his film directorial debut, written by Steven Levenson (“Dear Evan Hansen,” “Masters of Sex”), and starring Andrew Garfield (“The Social Network,” “The Amazing Spider-Man”) as Jonathan himself. Garfield is where we’re going to start because, while there’s a lot to dig into with this film, Garfield is an absolute force of nature. He nails the awkward late-20s, early 30s nature of Larson and his starving artist struggles, without ever over or underplaying his more toxic elements. Yes, he’s dealing with a lot, but Miranda and Garfield never let him escape from the fact that it still doesn’t excuse how he sometimes acts.

With the nature of how the film is constructed, flipping back and forth between the “stage” version and a fully played out version allows for an interesting mixture of film and theatre acting that creates an odd concoction of different styles that works wonders for the kind of larger than life story being told. While Garfield is the only major actor to play the same role in the staged and filmed versions present here, the fact that Miranda has chosen to do it this way helps to showcase one of the most important things about Larson; how he saw the people around him.

It’s the kind of story where you learn about someone by seeing the people around him and how he treats them and thinks of them, instead of just giving long speeches about who they are as a person. Those are here too, but they feel emboldened thanks to the film’s allowance of those small, intimate, slow moments. Some are punctuated by music for emotional or dramatic effect, and some are just allowed to be soft and quiet.

But let’s not forget about the stellar supporting cast. While all are excellent, the two who will absolutely steal your heart are Alexandra Shipp (“Love, Simon,” “Straight Outta Compton”) as Susan, Jonathan’s girlfriend, and Robin de Jesus (“The Boys in the Band”) as Michael, Jonathan’s best friend. Shipp is positively delightful and is the kind of character who’s easy to love for numerous reasons, no matter the state she’s in, both due to the script and Shipp’s undeniable charm. Meanwhile Jesus is an absolute force to be reckoned with. He has a heartbreakingly honest friendship with Jonathan and the love the two have for each other is pure and evident in every moment.

Likely the smartest thing Miranda and Levenson have done in this adaptation is making sure that the theatrical spirit shines throughout. Not just in the semi-frame narrative that swaps back and forth between the staged and filmed story, but in the semi-fantastical nature of it all. Musical numbers have some unrealistic fantasy to them because they're musical numbers. While it isn’t a grand spectacle of colors and lights, it finds a wonderful middle ground between having fun with itself and still being grounded in reality without going into Tom Hooper levels of grounded-ness.

The source of that mixture of fantastical and realism likely comes from the fact that, for theatre people everywhere and for Miranda and Levenson, Larson was a remarkable figure. He was the kind of person you’d want to be, working on his dream projects with his friends and somehow keeping all the plates spinning. Regardless of whether you love or hate it, one of the most pure and evident things throughout this entire film is that everyone, but especially Miranda and Levenson, love and admire Larson and want to showcase his talent with as many people as possible. It’s a special thing when someone gets to direct a project about someone they love and the adoration spills out of every pore.

Essentially, “tick, tick… BOOM!” is a wonderful tribute to a man gone far too soon, but more than that, it represents a fantastic debut from Lin-Manuel Miranda as a film director and showcases the absolute best way to do a musical adaptation. It bleeds with emotion and fantastic performances, has some incredible musical numbers, but most importantly, lets itself have just enough fun to be enjoyed by all without sacrificing any emotion or getting bogged down in seriousness. It's a fantastic film that will absolutely tug at audiences' heart strings for years and years to come. 5/5

Belfast - Review

 

They say you can never go home again, and while the saying is nice, what it actually means is far less cute. The saying is meant to describe the feeling of being an adult and returning to where you grew up, seeing so many things without the sparkle of wide-eyed childhood innocence. Writer/director Kenneth Branagh (“Henry V (1989),” “Murder on the Orient Express (2017)”) seems to be trying to recapture that feeling of childhood whimsy with his film “Belfast,” and it absolutely does not go off without any, pun-intended, troubles.

Starring newcomer Jude Hill as Buddy, the film focuses on Buddy’s family trying to navigate the uncomfortable new reality of living in Ireland in the midst of The Troubles, a complicated ethno-centric conflict that mostly saw Protestants attacking Catholics. That’s a massive simplification of the events, and we’ll get into this simplification later on.

The film also stars Jamie Dornan (“Once Upon a Time,” “Fifty Shades of Grey”) as Buddy’s father, Caitríona Balfe as Buddy’s mother (“Outlander,” “Ford v. Ferrari”), Judi Dench (“Philomena,” “Skyfall”) as Buddy’s grandmother, and Ciarán Hinds (“Zack Snyder’s Justice League,” “The Eclipse”) as Buddy’s grandfather. The supporting cast is great, they deliver these performances with nuance and heart. Balfe is a particular standout, balancing the dual qualities of loving mother and firm parent expertly, Dornan as well proves to be great, although he simply just has less screen time to work with.

Dench is good, but she seems to be more coasting off of being Judi Dench than anything. Hinds meanwhile is a revelation, a perfect portrait of the warm grandfatherly figure seen in so many of these types of films, but rarely done with such excellence and kindness. Hill, meanwhile, is fine. He’s fine. There’s nothing objectively wrong with his performance, but it's not the kind that leaves a lot of an impression either. In reality, he just feels like a kid, for better or worse, with nothing to make him stand out from the crowd.

What does leave a massive impression in “Belfast” is its extremely scattershot nature. It’s almost as if Branagh loaded a buckshot gun with story ideas and went for quantity over quality. They aren’t bad, but none of them get the time to grow that’s really needed. There is a through-line to it all, being the aforementioned Troubles, but even that feels forgotten most of the time, despite the physical environment around Buddy changing because of it.

It leads to a lack of any sort of true emotional arc, despite the film featuring so many moments where emotional things happen. It’s a perfect way to distinguish between the two; just because you feature a standoff where someone has a gun pointed at them doesn’t mean tension is automatically created. It can still fall flat. In just ninety minutes, we go from Buddy crushing on a girl, to Buddy joining his cousin's gang, to the family struggling with whether or not to leave Belfast, to Buddy’s grandfather’s health troubles, and more.

It’s a lot to pack into just an hour-and-a-half, and it unfortunately feels like there are times where some things just fall through the cracks. There are also massive tonal changes that don’t work most of the time. Yes, this is a movie about childhood, but as a filmmaker, Branagh fails to bridge the gaps between the dire and the joyful, resulting in tonal whiplash when we go from scenes featuring Christmas presents and playing in the street to deaths and people being held at gunpoint. It’s a whole lot of moments that tell us how characters are feeling, without ever actually showing us what made them feel this way, even when they bring up specific moments that would make for great scenes that’d be easy to slot into the middle of the film.

It is gorgeously presented though. The black and white cinematography is no slouch, and it manages to provide a very particular kind of look to this story. It does end up being a double edged sword though, as the moments of color that spring up don’t end up eliciting the sense of wonder they’re hoping for. Instead it results in a kind of weird moment where you become more aware of the film-making process and, instead of being lost in the wonder like Buddy, you just think “how did they do that?” It does sound great as well, thanks to a score by Belfast legend Van Morrison that keeps things lively and memorable through his music.

“Belfast” is a tricky and messy film. To make the inevitable and obvious comparison, this is technically Branagh’s “Roma.” However, separate from any comparisons to that film, “Belfast” is the odd film that’s too short to provide a satisfying narrative, yet feels too long thanks to the scattershot nature of the plot that it has. It’s gorgeous to look at and the actors nail what they’re given, but it's hard to get invested when the events are so jarring and fail to really elicit any genuine emotional investment. It’s a pretty film and nice for a spell, but it doesn’t make any compelling argument to visit “Belfast” more than once. 3/5

Clifford the Big Red Dog (2021) - Review

It’s easy to be cynical about family films. There are obviously standouts, but not every movie can be “Paddington” and more often than not, studios are happy to cram beloved characters into formulaic plots just to sell toys and DVDs for car trips. And Paramount decided that, to bring “Clifford the Big Red Dog” to life in live action, they would go with Walt Becker, the director of “Van Wilder” and “Wild Hogs.” The results speak for themselves.

The film follows Emily-Elizabeth Howard, played by Darby Camp (“Big Little Lies,” “The Christmas Chronicles”), as she finds a tiny red puppy she names Clifford who, overnight, grows to be a gigantic dog, resulting in Emily and her uncle Casey, played by Jack Whitehall (“Jungle Cruise,” “Bad Education”), having to hide Clifford from a genetics company rune by Zack Tieran, played by Tony Hale (“Veep,” “Arrested Development”), who wants to take Clifford to find out what makes him so large.

This is, if it wasn’t already obvious, an incredibly generic and lifeless plot to shove a character like Clifford into. The fact that the books, PBS animated show, and animated film never even came close to a plot like this despite existing for years says a lot about the pure laziness on display throughout the entire film.

Despite Camp’s best efforts, Emily is just a bland and uninteresting protagonist, burdened by being “different” despite never showing us what it is that makes her different. She’s smart, sure, but she also goes to a fancy private New York school, implying that everyone else around her who makes fun of her for being “different” is also smart. Yet, the film and her character hinges on the idea that she’s lambasted for this the entire time she’s at school.

Whitehall is doing some absolutely pathetic work as Casey, but it's not entirely his fault. His woefully miscast, a handsome, slim, British lad being cast to play a lazy New Yorker uncle who eats candy for breakfast and doesn’t care about school. Clearly Jack Black was unavailable. Yet, despite this, Whitehall isn’t helping by clearly phoning the entire job in, regurgitating the rote plot when needed and otherwise hamming it up for the camera.

Hale also isn’t doing good work by any means, but his is at least kind of excusable given that everything based around the evil tech organization known as Lyfegro is terrible. It's just a boring antagonistic force that doesn’t even really make all that much sense in the grand scheme of the film.

That’s the biggest through-line with everything in this film: it's all just so boring. It’s hard to believe any kid would be entertained by this film. It's too slow to keep anyone’s attention under the age of 12 and it's too boring and simple to keep anyone’s attention over the age of 12. It alternates between extremely cloying jokes and sequences of forced, manipulative emotions.

At its core, the reason behind all of these issues is clear. This is a film that doesn’t respect its target demographic. This is the kind of film that gets made with the attitude of “it’s for kids, we don’t have to try” and gives a bad look to an industry still churning out gems like “Paddington” and “The Mitchells vs. The Machines.” It's lazy and just feels bad to see a family film in this day and age care so little about being anything more than being a future “3pm Movie of the Day” on Nickelodeon.

If you want a perfect example of how lazy this film is, in the beginning before Clifford has grown, the CGI model used for his tiny size is the same exact model as his large one. Nothing was adjusted for size or stature or anything, simply sized up in the post-production process because why bother? Even the CGI for Clifford in general is poor. It looks hazy and unfinished, as if he’s floating above all the other characters and sets instead of being a real part of the environment. A chase sequence later in the film features a CGI Emily-Elizabeth riding Clifford with, spoiler alert, some of the absolute worst CGI used for her in any big studio movie in recent memory.

There’s really nothing good to say about this 2021 live-action film of  “Clifford the Big Red Dog.’ The acting is hammy and poor, the CGI is bad, and it has so little respect for its target audience. It’s a film that clearly isn’t even trying to provide anyone with a decent experience, and yet it's so boring that it's hard to even get worked up enough to write a scathing review for it. It’s just lazy, not worth the time to think about, not bad enough to be funny and not good enough to be enjoyable. 1.5/5

Spencer - Review

 

There are a huge variety of ways to approach doing a “true life” tale, let alone a biopic specifically. The most common is, of course, showing as many real life scenes as possible all building up to a climactic moment in the subject's life. That’s all well and good, but there’s another, arguably better option. Instead of trying to recreate someone’s life, the filmmakers try to recreate their head space, way of thinking, and overall personality more than recreate their life’s events.

That’s the way director Pablo Larraín (“Jackie,” “No (2012)”) and writer Steven Knight (“Locke,” “Dirty Pretty Things”) have chosen to make “Spencer.” Instead of recreating large swaths of Princess Diana’s life, they’ve chosen to focus on one three day Christmas holiday chunk of time, the events of which aren’t even known to the public.

Kristen Stewarts’s (“Twilight,” “Personal Shopper”) performance is exactly as good as you’ve heard. She practically loses herself in Diana, bringing to life a woman who is clearly struggling and suffocating under the royal lifestyle and yet still finds the strength to make things as good as possible for her sons and those she loves in the Royal household. It’s a performance of quiet empathy and resilience; you get the sense that you’re watching someone at a turning point in their life, as if witnessing the moment Diana realized what was going on, who she would become, and what she needed to do to change it.

While her husband is in the film, his performance from Jack Farthing (“Poldark,” “The Riot Club”) is one of minimalism, both in terms of screen time and nuance. Timothy Spall (“Secrets & Lies,” “Mr. Turner”) on the other hand absolutely steals the show whenever he’s on screen. He manages to be both extremely kind and also ruthlessly rigid in the traditions Diana is attempting to buck, meaning the two butt heads in the calmest of ways. Sean Harris (“24 Hour Party People,” “Southcliffe”) also makes a large impression with a more minor role. As the Royal Head Chef and friend of Diana, he brings out some of the most vulnerable moments in the film, with his distinct accent and kind smile setting him apart.

But none of them have anything on Sally Hawkins (“Paddington 2,” “The Shape of Water”). Her scenes with Stewart are divine, displaying a warm friendship that is ruthlessly juxtaposed against the coldness of the rest of the royal family’s interactions with Diana. Their interactions are the heart and lifeblood of the entire film, and their friendship is used in cunning and chilling ways throughout the entire runtime.

It can’t be understated how genius the film’s use of Diana’s sense of reality is. Numerous moments play out with a thin air of mystery to them, leaving the audience and Diana questioning what’s actually happening around them. The through-lines of a book about Anne Boleyn and Diana’s pearl necklace are perfectly woven into each scene, and even the ones where it feels like nothing much has happened are re-framed by the time credits roll.

This does mean that, despite the high level of quality on display, one caveat must be mentioned. For those expecting or wanting a film that details who Diana was, what she did throughout her life, or the events leading up to her death, this is not the film for you. Yet, for those who know what they’re getting themselves into, prepare to be entranced.

Cinematographer Claire Mathon (“Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” “Strange by the Lake”) helps the film feel as otherworldly and unreliable as Diana’s sense of mind is. It seems as though events closely tied to Diana are shot with an airy flow to them, whereas the Royal family is shot in a rigid, structured way. The method pairs wonderfully with Jonny Greenwood’s (“There Will Be Blood,” “The Master”) score. The cool trumpets give an almost noir feeling to the events, further portraying Diana as someone struggling with trusting those around her.

“Spencer” is a thrilling example of how forgetting facts in favor of communicating the truth to who someone is. Kristen Stewart is practically daring awards voters not to nominate her, and the entire supporting cast deserves accolades as well. It's a truly wondrous piece of cinema, cool and crisp, yet brimming with life and love for one woman gone too soon. 5/5

Red Notice - Review

 

Despite what it seems like Hollywood is trying to convince audiences nearly constantly, charm alone does not a movie make. In our more quippy, self-referential movie making landscape of the 21st century, every film seems willing to wink its way out of mediocrity, when in reality it often ends up doing the opposite. This is a long way of saying that throwing some A-list actors and quips at a globe trotting quest doesn’t immediately make for an entertaining film, and “Red Notice” is the perfect example of that.

The film follows FBI agent John Hartley, played by Dwayne Johnson (“Fast Five,” “Jungle Cruise”) as he teams up with art thief Nolan Booth, played by Ryan Reynolds (“Deadpool,” “Pokémon: Detective Pikachu”), to steal Cleopatra’s bejeweled eggs before The Bishop, played by Gal Gadot (“Wonder Woman,” “Keeping Up with the Jonses”), can steal them herself, so that Hartley can clear his name and that Booth can be the world’s number one art thief once again, all the while being chased by Hartley’s former associate, Interpol agent Urvashi Das, played by Ritu Arya (“The Umbrella Academy,” “Humans”).

Even for $200-million-plus action films, the plot is woefully underdeveloped and just plain doesn’t make sense half the time. It’s constantly contradicting itself with every twist, turn, and action sequence. It introduces far too many plot threads and ways for the characters to go about their goals for one film and it becomes headache-inducing to try and keep up with it all. It honestly has enough material in its barely two-hour runtime to make for two, maybe even three movies.

None of it is interesting either. Writer/director Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence,” “DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story”) got his start with comedy films, and yet his only successful action movie since has been the one that most embraced his comedic strengths. There are quips in “Red Notice” but no humor. It’s all just jabs and lines that characters spout from their mouths like fire hoses. None of it lands with any impact and it has all the storytelling nuance of the films put on display in Best Buy to show off the 4K TVs.

Worst of all, the numerous twists that Thurber tries to throw out all land with a thud. They either feel far too lazy, like the “I knew you were lying” cliché, or they betray everything else the film set up. What makes for a good twist is when you can see it coming, when, after watching the film and learning about it, you can rewatch the film again and see where all the clues were placed. “Red Notice” doesn’t have that intelligence or attention to detail, leaving it feeling like its big third-act twist was thrown in at the last minute just to have one.

This hasn’t even touched on any of the acting yet, which is something, to say the least. Johnson is clearly doing the best with an undercooked script, but even his raw hulking charisma isn’t enough to save some of the most laughable and grown-worthy lines of the year. Seriously, half of these feel cut from an SNL parody of these kinds of action movies. Reynolds doesn’t fare much better, but he is the most likable character in the entire film. He at least has a goal that’s consistent throughout the entire film, and while he’s mostly just being his typical self, he does also get the closest thing to an emotional arc that the film has.

And then there’s Gadot. Love or hate her, she clearly has star power given how quickly she’s risen up the ranks of the Hollywood ladder. However, she is woefully miscast here. The Bishop has a “sit back in the chair and do my bidding” quality to her that Gadot just can’t deliver. She’s not a bad actress, but this just isn’t a character she plays convincingly. She feels like the decoy that the real person would send out as a face, so they don’t reveal their true identity until they absolutely want to.

If anyone is at least trying to save the film, it's Arya. She’s just such a genuinely charming underused tool in the film’s back pocket and she’s a joy whenever she does get to be used. It’s a shame that, as the film goes on, she becomes little more than “police/law enforcement stand-in” rather than seeming like her own character from the film’s start. Oh, and the Ed Sheeran cameo that provides more happiness and joy in thirty seconds than the entire film provides over two hours.

It's kind of baffling just how boring “Red Notice” ends up being. For a film that trots the entire globe and goes from priceless eggs that belonged to Cleopatra to a bunker full of Nazi memorabilia, its remarkably underwhelming and just kind of boring. It throws logic out the window very quickly, and yet also seems committed to reminding you about the better films that exist in its genre. When Reynolds’s character whistles the Indiana Jones theme while walking into an abandoned bunker, it isn’t a fun reference, it just ends up being a reminder of other movies you could be watching.

If only it was edited like those other films. “Red Notice” has a horrific case of hyper editing, cutting back and forth jarringly fast for moments that would be perfectly fine if they just played out on their own. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the film features a large number of overhead, sweeping drone shots that, mixed with the editing, create a bizarre lack of any consistent fluid motion.

“Red Notice” is boring, frustratingly plotted, with an undercooked script and actors that are either just fine or are greatly miscast. This is an incredibly generic adventure that doesn’t seem to want to stand out in any way, instead just perfectly fine with being another cookie-cutter action film with no greater ambitions than being left on in the background during a TV dinner. 1.5/5

Finch - Review

 

Formula can be a dirty word in the film industry, being thrown around all over the place whenever any project comes out that has even the slightest bit of a repeated plot. Yet, even for films that are truly following a formula, if the people behind and in front of the camera are bringing their A game, it doesn’t matter how formulaic a film is, it can still be a blast.

Such is the case with “Finch,” a post-apocalyptic drama film starring Tom Hanks (“Forrest Gump,” “Captain Phillips”) as robotics engineer Finch Weinberg who builds a humanoid robot named Jeff, motion captured and voiced by Caleby Landry Jones (“Get Out,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”), to take care of his dog in the post-apocalyptic world after he passes away. With a small cast and very pointed emotional moments, “Finch” is treading some well worn ground before with an incredibly focused perspective. This is not a film about the fate of humanity or trying to save the world, rather it is firmly about Finch and Jeff and their relationship as it evolves throughout the film.

Hanks continues to prove why he’s one of the best actors the industry has ever seen. Even with material as well worn as this, he’s giving it his all, delivering some tough emotions and genuine hurt and care throughout this road trip adventure. There are numerous moments that seem tailor made to make you cry, and Hanks nails all of them, bringing an honesty to the film that helps ground it all. Landry Jones is also pulling some impressive vocal work here as well, embracing the oddball nature that marked so many of his in-person roles. His motion capture work brings an unmistakable physicality to Jeff that helps to sell his realism. It helps that the effects on Jeff are jaw-droppingly impressive, blurring the line between the puppeteered moments and the digitally created ones.

For a film based almost entirely around a humanoid robot, those effects are crucial to sell everything, especially if they’re meant to be as emotionally wrought as they are here. It’s impossible to tell what’s digitally created and what isn’t, or if there even was any physical puppetry at all in the film. It’s so ridiculously impressive, watching Jeff interact with the world and seeing how lifelike and realistic the closeups on his fingers and face are. It’s the kind of effect that makes you sit back and go “wow” and easily the most impressive looking digital creature since Gollum from “The Lord of the Rings” or Ceaser from the prequel “Planet of the Apes” trilogy.

Director Miguel Sapochnik (“Repo Men,” “Game of Thrones”) and writers Craig Luck and Ivor Powell (“Blade Runner,” “Alien”) have crafted a small, quiet movie that smartly focuses on the relationship between Finch and Jeff. It's not a bold statement to say that there’s a father and son quality to their relationship, and watching Finch reveal more about himself and the world to Jeff, who embraces everything with a wide-eyed (or wide-lensed) glee is genuinely heartwarming.

It’s playing with some tried and true stuff, but there’s a reason it’s tried and true. When executed well, which it is here, it creates some moments of genuine heartbreak and emotion. A lot of time is spent establishing who Finch and Jeff are by allowing the pair to bounce off of each other. It’s a fabulous dynamic with some amazing chemistry between Hanks and Landry Jones. It’s the kind of movie that just makes you sit back and smile because, no matter the plot, you feel like you got to know two characters by the end of it.

And that’s all there really is to say, honestly. “Finch” is a quiet, emotional movie tampered with some excellent performances and effects. The direction is unobtrusive, the script is serviceable, and the events are nothing new. But it’s all just a showpiece for two remarkably charming characters that you want to spend more and more time with as the film progresses. Can you really ask for more than that? 4/5

Eternals - Review

 

The MCU has amassed quite the collection of directors of the past few years. For every new Marvel movie, it seems like they’ve plucked an up and coming director to helm their latest big-budget hero blockbuster. So it wasn’t a huge surprise when it was announced that Chloé Zhao (“The Rider,” “Nomadland”) was announced to direct “Eternals,” Marvel’s latest epic and it has her grand style and scale mixed with the MCU’s formula on full display, for better and for worse.

Following a group of immortal alien protectors known as Eternals, the film shows them living their lives on Earth over thousands of years as they protect humans from creatures known as Deviants. The film takes many twists and turns beyond this initial introduction and suffice it to say that it's not nearly as simple as that basic concept would make it seem.

The ensemble cast consists of Gemma Chan (“Human,” “Crazy Rich Asians”), Richard Madden (“Game of Thrones,” “Rocketman”), Kumail Nanjiani (“Silicon Valley,” “The Big Sick”), Lia McHugh (“Into the Dark,” “The Lodge”), Brian Tyree Henry (“Atlanta,” “Widows”), Lauren Ridloff (“The Walking Dead,” “Sound of Metal”), Barry Keoghan (“The Killing of a Sacred Deer,” “American Animals”), Don Lee (“Norigae,” “Train to Busan”), Salma Hayek (“Frida,” “Beatriz at Dinner”), and Angelina Jolie (“Girl, Interrupted,” “Maleficent”), with Harish Patel (“Mr. India,” “Jadoo”) and Kit Harington (“Game of Thrones,” “7 Days in Hell”) in supporting roles.

A cast that large, larger even than the first Avengers film, means that there is a lot going on in the film, virtually from the start. There’s a lot to take in, and while the film is overall paced pretty well, the script can’t keep up with the lofty ambitions of the story. Zhao co-wrote the film with Patrick Burleigh (“Peter Rabbit 2: The Runaway”), Ryan Firpo, and Kaz Firpo (“Refuge”) and, as much crap as people give previous MCU films about all sounding the same, there’s something to be said for reliable writers.

“Eternals” goes from dizzying highs that explore the humanity and morality of these characters and their decisions to some of the shoddiest humor and dialogue in a Marvel film yet within moments of each other. It’s a film that works ridiculously well when these actors are emoting and working physically and yet when they open their mouths it's a fifty-fifty shot whether what they say is introspective and thoughtful or hammy and forced.

Which is a shame because the actors behind each role are clearly doing their best to deliver some lovable characters. Chan is the heart and soul of the film, beaming with hope and pure charisma. The same can be said for Henry, Najiani, Hayek, and Jolie; all are excellent thanks to their commitment to characters that are clearly incredibly optimistic and hope that they can do the right thing. Madden is also great but proves to be a bit more stoic and wooden, pulling the emotion when needed, and McHugh also struggles in some moments, delivering one of the most interesting characters with some of the worst lines in the entire film.

Patel and Ridloff provide more of the film’s comic relief, with the latter becoming an instant breakout hit. It’s always a great moment to see grand inclusivity, even more so when that character is ridiculously charming and lovable in their own right. Harrington and Lee are also great but prove to be far too underutilized. Meanwhile, Keoghan isn’t bad, really he just seems either miscast or that the film doesn’t really know what to do with his character, making him extremely important in one moment and then whisking him away the next.

Zhao has clearly worked hard with cinematographer Ben Davis (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) to make “Eternals” feel as grand as inhumanly possible, and it's a film that towers over you with its scope and scale. It’s an appropriately long, globe-trotting adventure, but Zhao smartly frames some of its larger moments in perspective to the characters. It creates a raw sense of awe that helps to show just how grand it all is and helps set it apart from other MCU films based in cities or similar locations. It’s also just absolutely gorgeous, thanks to fabulous usage of colorful and varied environments and some well-executed camera techniques. It’s without a doubt the MCU’s most gorgeously shot film yet.

With a score from Ramin Djawadi (“Iron Man,” “Pacific Rim”) pumping underneath every action sequence, Zhao crafts a kind of character driven action that smartly works to showcase each Eternal’s powers and personality throughout every fight. It makes for some unique and thrillingly engaging moments, coupled with the film’s stylized golden-weaved visuals to create a certainly distinct look compared to the heavily gray and militarized films of the Marvel past.

There is a lot to like about “Eternals” and it does clearly represent a bold new direction for the MCU going forward. However, the scope and scale proves to be too much for one film with this many characters. It's the kind of movie that crumbles under its own ambition. It doesn’t feel overly long, but it is still two-hours-and-thirty-seven minutes long and a lot of that time is spent discussing what’s going on and how the characters feel about it. It wears its heart fully on its sleeve, making no qualms with the fact that this is a tale of larger than life characters dealing with difficult emotions and situations.

Most of the time, this is great, as it puts a sharp new focus on the characters in a way Marvel hasn’t done in the past. It’s the most evident in these moments that this is a film helmed by someone with experience in character driven indie films as, for as cool as the action looks, this is where the film shines. These are three dimensional characters who are all struggling in some way, and thanks to the actors, it's enjoyable to just be with them as they try to figure all this out. It’s certainly more talking and less action than most might be used to for a film bearing the Marvel name, but it's not a bad thing. It’s an evolution that doesn’t get it 100% right the first time, but an evolution that clearly needs to happen for these films to continue.

This is a difficult movie to review, much less discuss, as there will certainly be details and moments left out that factor into the conclusion. It’s the kind of film that at one moment is working gloriously well and the next has blemishes all over the place. Yet, there isn’t strictly one “problem” with the film: the script has flaws, but it also is wonderfully dense. The performances are sometimes wooden but also a large majority are thrillingly strong. It’s a film that can inspire awe and eye-rolling in equal measure, yet is nevertheless fascinating to watch due to everything it's attempting to pull off with wide-eyed genuine sincerity.

“Eternals” will likely go down as one of, if not the most, divisive movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Some will adore the gorgeous visuals, performances, and amount of time spent exploring the morality and character growth of a team as old and flawed as this. Others will bemoan the amount of talking, runtime, and lack of the trademark wit or sense of action from previous installments. It’s a messy, flawed movie with a lot of ideas that don’t all come to the same fruitful conclusions. There’s a lot to love, and also a lot to criticize, and rarely do the two not overlap in some way. Zhao has crafted a film that’s Marvel’s most unique and emotionally charged, with some of its most endearing and interesting characters as well, but not without challenges and flaws. 3.5/5

Last Night in Soho - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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