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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cocaine Bear - Review: Crossing the Lines

 

Sometimes, a concept is all you need, and director Elizabeth Banks (“Pitch Perfect 2,” “Charlie’s Angels (2019)”) and writer Jimmy Warden (“The Babysitter: Killer Queen”) have one hell of a concept here. Inspired by the story of a real-life bear that ingested 75 lbs. of cocaine in 1985, the aptly titled “Cocaine Bear” is a drugged up, B-movie rampage that guarantees to provide one thing: a rampaging bear on cocaine.

The ensemble film stars Keri Russell (“The Americans,” “The Diplomat”) as Seri, a mother looking for her daughter Dee Dee, played by Brooklynn Prince (“The Florida Project,” “Home Before Dark”), who’s run away to the woods with her best friend Henry, played by Christian Convery (“Sweet Tooth,” “Playing with Fire”). Meanwhile, a pair of drug runners named Eddie and Daveed, played by Alden Ehrenreich (“Solo: A Star Wars Story,” “Hail Ceasar!”) and O’Shea Jackson Jr. (“Straight Outta Compton,” “Ingrid Goes West”) respectively, are told by their boss Syd, played by Ray Liotta (“Goodfellas,” “Field of Dreams”), to head to the Georgia wilderness to retrieve a shipment of cocaine dumped in the woods. And still there’s Margo Martindale (“Justified,” “The Americans”) as Ranger Liz, and a further ensemble cast rounded out by Isiah Whitlock Jr. (“The Wire,” “BlacKkKlansman”), Jesse Tyler Ferguson (“Modern Family,” “8”), Kristofer Hivju (“The Fate of the Furious,” “Game of Thrones”), and even a brief appearance by Matthew Rhys (“The Post,” “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”).

For a film with a runtime of only 95 minutes, that’s quite a lot of characters. Thankfully, Banks knows why audiences are here, to see a violent, raging bear hopped up on cocaine. She delivers that virtually from the start, and there’s plenty of wild happenings to justify the price of admission. The actual bear is completely CGI and it looks like it for the most part. Yes, this is clearly a B-movie not meant to be taken seriously, but there are moments where you do wish the bear just looked a little bit better.

The huge emphasis on practical gore and sets does wonders when things do really get going, and that helps to sell the animal’s rampage for sure. Like most creature features though, there is likely too much time spent on the human counterparts. Some of it is fine, like Daveed and Eddie’s journey, which have the silly, tongue in cheek nature of a film poking fun at these kinds of B-movies. But the film also commits the cardinal sin of getting us too invested in some of the characters, meaning the ones that die feel more sour than silly. Yes, it’s a movie about a cocaine fueled bear that goes on a killing rampage, but when you put effort into endearing us to your handful of characters, its gonna sting a bit more when some of them are inevitably offed.

For their part, the actors do a fine job with what they’re given. Liotta feels like he’s just reacting to what’s going on, as if he wasn’t given a script and is hearing it all for the first time in real time. Russell and Martindale fully commit to the gonzo nature of it all, but its Ehrenreich and Jackson who really steal the show. Ehrenreich in particular makes a strong case for a career in over-the-top comedies of this style, as opposed to the action films he used to be starring in.

Here's the big problem with the film though: it’s a movie about a bear on cocaine. That’s it. While there’s certainly fun to be had here, there is zero reason to see this film if you aren’t in on the concept. It isn’t good enough to win over any naysayers, and it isn’t gonzo enough to have a long life on home media like movies like “Malignant” or “Barbarian.” There are a few moments where Banks let’s her origins show, with bits of humor that are so left field they definitely remind you she got her start with the likes of “Wet Hot American Summer.”

But that’s where things begin and end. Not into a movie about a bear on cocaine? Well, this isn’t the movie for you. It’s fun enough, but painfully one note by the time things are over. Yes, you can shout from the heavens “what were you expecting?” And that is a valid thing to ask. But when your movie about a bear hopped up on cocaine is only 95 minutes long and still starts to feel stretched thin, you have a problem.

“Cocaine Bear” is silly, hammily acted, and one-note. It makes for a fun enough evening, and its definitely the right length for something like this. But there’s nothing about it that stands out or is good enough to recommend to anyone who wasn’t already going to see it based on the title alone. 3/5

Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania - Review: Great Things Don't Always Come In Small Packages

 

Bigger is not always better, and neither it seems is smaller. The MCU’s smallest hero, Ant-Man, has quickly become a fan favorite thanks to the scale of his adventures. Neither the first film nor its sequel “Ant-Man and the Wasp” are dealing with the kind of global or galactic threats that Captain America or Thor might be dealing with, and therefore can be a nice reprieve from the heavier side of this cinematic universe.

But all that gets thrown out the window for this third adventure which finds Ant-Man/Scott Lang, played by Paul Rudd (“Clueless,” “I Love You, Man”), The Wasp/Hope van Dyne, played by Evangeline Lily (“Lost,” “The Hurt Locker”), Cassie Lang, played by Kathryn Newton (“Blockers,” “Freaky”), Hank Pym, played by Michael Douglas (“Wall Street,” “The Game”), and Janet van Dyne, played by Michelle Pfeiffer (“Batman Returns,” “Dangerous Minds”), shrunk down and trapped in the Quantum Realm. While trying to find a way to escape, they end up drawing the wrath of Kang the Conqueror, played by Jonathan Majors (“Devotion,” “The Harder They Fall”) and M.O.D.O.K., played by Corey Stoll (“House of Cards (2013),” “First Man”).

You could charitably say that the MCU is in a bit of a rough spot right now. Certainly, there are some bright spots, with the likes of “Wakanda Forever,” “WandaVision,” and “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.” But it feels like every new project has some kind of caveat to it; some feeling of “it’s good if you ignore this,” or “its fine after it finally gets going.” And while a flawed film can still be enjoyed, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” is something else entirely.

Returning director Peyton Reed (“Bring It On,” “Down with Love”), and first-time screenwriter Jeff Loveness (“Rick and Morty”) frankly do not have the skill to handle an adventure of this size. More than that though, it feels as though they’ve both fundamentally misunderstood the appeal of Ant-Man, not only in the MCU but in the larger scope of superhero films. The everyman charm Rudd is so good at exuding is tamped down here, forcing him to be the straight man in a much more serious story. Rudd is doing his best, but the material simply doesn’t give him much to work with, trapping him in a world of confusing dimensional lingo and sapping his natural charisma.

The rest of the cast doesn’t fare much better. Lily, Douglas, and Pfeiffer are all going through the motions, trying to get through this contractually obligated sci-fi adventure, looking bewildered at most of it and acting much the same. Newton fairs a bit better, mostly just because of her chemistry with Rudd. Majors is the only one really pulling any of their weight, and he proves to be a menacing and memorable villain, building on the threads teased during his first appearance in “Loki.”

Loveness’s script simply makes it hard to care about anything that’s happening. It’s so layered in dimensional mumbo-jumbo that it starts to feel like obligatory weirdness just for the sake of it. The Quantum Realm doesn’t feel like a natural place, simply one that exists as a series of segmented locations that all just exist near each other. There’s no flow to the logic of it all either, instead filling out the background with purple and orange geography and CGI creatures and humans seemingly at random.

The tone of it all doesn’t work either. It feels like this script was written simply so any hero could be slapped into it and still work. Nothing here feels tied to the characters, with everything simply happening around them or to them. Lang doesn’t feel like he has any say over what’s happening, just that he’s dragged from place to place so he can be where the story is. There are some scenes that really nail the appeal of Lang, including a major one that plays with Rudd’s charisma in an interesting and visually fun way, and the ending also seems to be going in a really interesting direction, until it just doesn’t. There is something to the idea of an average Joe like Scott having to go through an adventure so far out of his league like this, and that basic idea could make for a great film. Rudd absolutely makes the film as good as it possibly could be by nailing that kind of dynamic. It’s just a shame that dynamic ends up being a byproduct of the character being here rather than anything intentionally written or explored.

Visually, this is without a doubt the worst a Marvel film has looked in quite some time. The goopy nature of everything manages to look bad on two crucial fronts: its unconvincing and just ugly. Characters float in front of the backgrounds and while there isn’t any green screen haze around them, the lack of anything real in most scenes means there isn’t anything to ground the actors or the viewers eyes. Sure, there have been complaints in the past that modern blockbusters have turned into entirely green-screened affairs, but this one actually might just come the closest.

But even if the effects looked realistic and like the actors were actually there, it all still looks ugly. The dark orange and purple mixtures of the Quantum Realm just do not look pleasing in any way, and the buildings and background characters look like leftovers from other sci-fi Marvel projects, as if they just scrapped together the rejects from “Guardians of the Galaxy” or “Thor Ragnarok” and called it a day. It’s just a profoundly ugly film that doesn’t even manage to look convincing while looking bad.

Somehow, Marvel has managed to deliver one of its worst films in arguably a decade. “Quantumania” is maniac all right, as it’s an ugly film that fails to understand the basic appeals of its central character and why people would show up for a film with “Ant-Man” in the title. But more than that, its script is painfully rote, with tonal misfires at every turn that turn a bland and boring adventure into a frustrating one. This was advertised as “the beginning of a new dynasty,” telling audiences that this would be an essential piece of viewing for the future of the MCU, specifically due to Kang. Hell, the next Avengers film is called “The Kang Dynasty” so that shows how much stake Marvel is putting into this film as a full introduction to the villain.

Yet, while Kang is undoubtedly the best part of the film, nearly everything else suffers around him. It feels as though for everything that ends up subpar, there’s an easy way to see how it could’ve been better, how things could have been tweaked or toned down to become a more coherent, better constructed film. Sure, you can easily turn off your brain and get a passing level of enjoyment for this third adventure with Scott Lang and his friends. But is “turning off your brain” really the best result for a film that costs $200 million? 2/5

Magic Mike's Last Dance - Review: Leave It All On the Stage

 

Trilogies are a funny thing, and nowadays it rarely seems as though they’re conceived as such to begin with, let alone retain the same creative teams through all three installments. Luckily, director Steven Soderbergh (“Logan Lucky,” “Oceans 11 (2001)”) and writer Reid Carolin (“Dog (2022),” “Magic Mike”) have worked on the entire “Mike” trilogy in some capacity, with Soderbergh directing the first and third installments and working as cinematographer on the second and Carolin writing all three. So, if anyone was up to the task of creating a trilogy-capping sendoff for Channing Tatum’s shirtless dancing fool, it would be them.

After losing his furniture business due to the pandemic, former stripper Mike Lane, played by Channing Tatum (“21 Jump Street (2012),” “Logan Lucky”), finds himself with an opportunity to get back on stage due to the financial backing of Maxandra Mendoza, played by Salma Hayek (“Frida,” “Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard”), who wants to invigorate the London theatre she owns by putting on a classy dance/strip show with Mike directing.

Originally developed for HBO Max before being moved to a full theatrical release, “Magic Mike’s Last Dance” does have an atmosphere of slightness to it. Despite being a globe-trotting adventure, with Mike packing up and moving to London to put on the show, it feels much smaller than the previous two films. This isn’t an issue, save for the fact that you can get the sense that Soderbergh and Carolin are trying to build things up to be a sort of artistic finale for Mike’s character.

Tatum continues to do well here, exuding the same intelligent charm he’s always had, this time digging a little bit deeper into Mike’s artistic desire and fulfillments. Hayek is also great, although Max feels far more thinly written than Mike does. The supporting cast is rounded out by a handful of actors doing their best with some fairly clichéd material: the cool, wise butler Victor, played by Ayub Khan Din (“Coronation Street,” “London Bridge”), the precocious teen daughter Zadie, played by newcomer Jemelia George, and the estranged jerk ex-husband Roger, played by Alan Cox (“Young Sherlock Holmes,” “A Voyage Round My Father,”).

Most of the characters, while being well acted, don’t amount to much more than a handful of clichéd adjectives to described their formulaic archetypes. A stand-out performance though comes from Juliette Motamed (“We Are Lady Parts”) who simply lights up the screen as Hannah, one of the lead performers in Mike’s new show. Her role is all too brief in the entire runtime, but she makes an impact as a distinct personality who loads the film with smiles and laughs.

There’s nothing wrong with “Last Dance” per se. It’s shot well, and it has the loose vibe of other Soderbergh “hang out” movies like “Oceans 12” and “No Sudden Move”, wherein it often feels like the actors are given an outline and told to simply cut loose. It’s a method Soderbergh has used before to great effect, and while we don’t know if it specifically was used here, it has a similar momentum. The third act is the best of it all, with Mike’s show taking center stage. Its so full of energy and well-choreographed it practically screams for it to be basically the entire film.

What populates the rest of the movie is an amalgamation of “lets put on a show” comradery and Mike’s internal struggles as an artist. Both of these aspects are fine as they exist here, but it’s not hard to see them fleshed out more or even just being the focus of the entire film. Tatum’s charisma is enough to carry the character of Mike, but after the first two films had such different tones from each other, to see this one sort of settle into a calm malaise is disappointing.

This is a well-shot, well-choreographed, loose-goose of a movie, with a plot that meanders with a self-improvised nature, some charming characters held back by clichés and a third act that demands an extended cut just for itself. “Magic Mike’s Last Dance” isn’t going out on a high note, but its at least departing on a jumbled, interesting one. 3/5

Knock at the Cabin - Review: The End of the World is a Family Affair

 

M. Night Shyamalan (“The Sixth Sense,” “Split”) is a director who may not deserve the amount of hate he’s gotten, but certainly does deserve some. His films have gone from great to bad to great again to bad again. Yes, the same could be said for virtually any director in the history of film, but Shyamalan almost seems aware of how bad some of his films have been and embraced it. Luckily, his latest movie goes back to the smaller scale and is all the better for it. 

“Knock at the Cabin” follows married couple Eric and Andrew, played by Jonathan Groff (“Mindhunter,” “The Matrix Resurrections”) and Ben Aldridge (“Pennyworth,” “Spoiler Alert”) respectively, as they travel with their daughter Wen, played by Kristen Cui, to a cabin in the woods for a vacation. Shortly after arriving, they are held captive by four individuals, Leonard, played by Dave Bautista (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Glass Onion”), Sabrina, played by Nikki Amuka-Bird (“Old,” “The Personal History of David Copperfield”), Redmond, played by Rupert Grint (“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” “Servant”), and Adriane, played by Abby Quinn (“Landline,” “Little Women (2019)”), who believe that the apocalypse will soon arrive and the only way they can stop it is by sacrificing either Eric or Andrew and that their family must make the choice themselves. 

Shyamalan is a director who clearly seems to work best with smaller scale productions and that is abundantly clear here. Not only is he able to squeeze a ton out of a relatively short runtime at exactly 100 minutes, but his actors are able to give tremendous performances with little to work off of. Aldridge and Groff are fantastic and magnetic, with not just excellent chemistry but the dramatic chops to make the script’s hokier elements work. Amuka-Bird, Grint, and Quinn are all great, delivering different interpretations of people faced with this kind of end of the world philosophy to interesting results. However, Bautista truly steals the show and may just deliver the finest performance of his career. He is utterly fantastic, with a magnetic personality and the kind of mannerisms and ticks that provide a truly otherworldly kind of role. 

There isn’t much to speak of in terms of production design, but that works in this film’s favor. The small scale of the cabin and surrounding forest create a captivating and claustrophobic environment and adds to the continually building sense of dread throughout the film. That cabin itself also proves to be a character as the film goes on, being hacked at, attacked, and brutalized as things go on. Shyamalan does a great job of slowly showcasing the environment, developing it to the point where the viewer can almost see the layout in their head as things go on. The score from Herdís Stefánsdóttir (“Y: The Last Man,” “The Sun is also a Star”) sells this even further, slowly chewing away at your nerves as things pan and move around the cabin. 

For as great as the production design and individual performances are, there are two aspects that hold the film back. In the script from Shyamalan and co-writers Steve Desmond and Michael Sherman there’s an overreliance on flashbacks to communicate a few aspects that, frankly, don’t even need any flashbacks to come across, let alone as many as they give them. The editing also feels weird in a handful of spots, breaking the tension and pulling you out of the experience. These elements weaken the otherwise strong atmosphere of the movie and while they don’t take too much away from the film itself, it's worth noting. 

Apart from that, this is a really solid and well executed thriller, with some great performances propping up the story. It lacks any particular elements, besides Bautista’s performance, that elevate it to classic territory, but that doesn’t sour what’s already here. Shyamalan is turning in some of his best work in years, effectively cranking up the tension with a sharp tale that just relies a bit too much on showing versus telling in some elements, while excelling in that aspect in others. It’s nevertheless an engrossing, if a bit frustrating, thrilling effort from Shyamalan and his crew and should represent a second (third) renaissance for the director, provided he sticks to the smaller scale stuff. 4/5

The Reel Life's Year in Film: Best of 2022

Join me in celebrating this year in film as I count down my top 10 films of 2022, as well as highlighting my most disappointing, most surprising, best actor, and best actress.

Babylon - Review

 

In this age of sequels, reboots, remakes, adaptations, and franchises, the phrase “go big or go home” becomes more and more understandable with each wunderkind director getting to make their big-budget original film. Damien Chazelle (“Whiplash,” “La La Land”) isn’t exactly a subtle filmmaker, but even by his standards, “Babylon” certainly is the biggest (and the most) movie he’s made yet.

Set in the late 1920s, specifically during the transition from silent films to talkies, the film follows an ensemble cast of Margot Robbie (“I, Tonya,” “Birds of Prey”) as Nellie LaRoy, an aspiring film actress, Diego Calva (“Narcos: Mexico,” “I Promise You Anarchy”), as Manny Torres, an assistant who dreams of a larger role in the film industry, Brad Pitt (“Bullet Train,” “Ocean’s Eleven (2001)”) as Jack Conrad, an aging silent film star, Li Jun Li (“Quantico,” “Wu Assassins”) as Lady Fay Zhu, a burlesque singer and title card artist, Jovan Adepo (“Overlord,” “When They See Us”) as Sidney Palmer, a trumpet player for various Hollywood parties, and Jean Smart (“Hacks,” “Designing Women”) as Elinor St. John, a sensationalist journalist for various Hollywood magazines.

At three hours long and featuring a moment involving an elephant and some feces that would make the Jackass guys blush in the first ten minutes, “Babylon” makes a very specific statement right at the start: this ain’t gonna be a movie for everyone. It’s extravagant nature and large-scale story might seem like the kind of tale that could be enjoyed by all, but as Damien himself put it “this is a love letter to cinema and a hate letter to Hollywood.” It sticks to its guns the entire way though, never faltering from this very specific viewpoint and tone. If nothing else, it’s consistent and committed to its vision.

Robbie is absolutely incredible. This is easily the performance of her career, a character of impeccable excess and emotional distress, constantly battling with herself and her dream job, with her dreams and the studio forcing her into a box to attempt to achieve those dreams. She’s powerful in virtually every scene, consistently hilarious, and an enigmatic beauty that seems destined to live in the minds of her film’s audiences forever. Diego is also excellent, and while more nuanced of a performance than Robbie’s, he nevertheless proves to be an equally compelling character as he delves through various moral dilemmas in his quest for recognition in the industry he loves.

Pitt is also great, although his character has various shades of other films in his storyline making him just a bit less compelling compared to the others. Adepo is an absolute heartbreaking delight, as he’s clearly one of the smartest people in the room most of the time with no one to actually take him seriously. As Sidney’s takes off, the tale turns sour in ways unexpected but always grounded thanks to Adepo’s performance. The same goes for the absolute scene-stealer that is Jun Li, completely running away with the film despite being in a fraction of it. She, like Robbie, perfectly balances the emotional core of her arc with the film’s extravagant excess to fantastic results.

“Babylon” is also the kind of movie wherein every performance shines through. It’s a true ensemble piece in that way. Olivia Hamilton (“First Man,” “Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot”) might only be onscreen for fifteen minutes as LaRoy’s longtime director Ruth Adler, but she nevertheless feels like a featured player thanks to the fantastic script from Chazelle and the blood, sweat, and tears each actor pours into their performances.

Chazelle’s script, like the film’s graphic content, definitely isn’t for everyone. It’s proudly unsubtle, but not in a dumb way. Alternatively, it feels like he felt as though, given the excess of Hollywood, subtly has no place in a story like this. Therefore, plenty of moments, including the heartbreaking climax of Sidney Palmer’s arc, are presented with hardly any subtlety or pomp and circumstance. It’s in those very specific moments where Chazelle allows the music, the glitz and glamour to fade away and leave just his actors and their material to make a statement. Even in the end, after the much-discussed final montage, the last thing you see isn’t the montage, it’s Manny’s face staring off into the distance, telling us everything we need to know.

Regardless of your thoughts on the film’s content, the technical aspects are ridiculously excellent. This is yet another movie from Chazelle score by Justin Hurwitz (“La La Land,” “Whiplash”) and his thumping music not only serves to frame the film’s flamboyant moments well, but also provide a great score for the softer moments. With a slow organ grinder sound, it feels like a cool glass of water in the midst of the hot sweaty events of the rest of the film.

Shot by Linus Sandgren (“No Time to Die,” “La La Land”), the film’s cinematography has a similar effect, going for plenty of quick and crazy movements where appropriate, and dialing into a more intimate, claustrophobic style when needed. It frames the film’s incredible sets and costumes with a gold-colored glasses and feels like a window into a bygone era in the best way.

That window gets progressively more cracked as things go on, and it becomes very clear what kind of movie Chazelle is making here. A tale about love, so often it puts its characters on display dealing with rejection and their intense love of their art in various ways. Some will stumble and fall and succeed, but it never doesn’t feel genuine.

There’s just something intoxicating about a film like this, and if you’re in its target demographic, it can feel like a borderline hypnotic experience. To editorialize for a moment, at one point about two-thirds in, a character walks into a tunnel and my screening glitched for a moment. However, I don’t actually know if that was a glitch or if that was an intentional moment from Chazelle to punctuate the transition into the world within this tunnel. But the fact that I even for a moment thought that was a possibility speaks to the kind of film he’s crafted.

“Babylon” is a divisive film with an incredibly specific vision and an impossibly intoxicating vibe. It’s hard to say if Chazelle’s entire career has been building to this moment, but this feels like a response to someone watching “La La Land” and saying to him “Now tell me how you really feel.” Robbie is giving the best performance of her career, and the entire rest of the cast headlines a movie with incredible technical merits and storytelling flare. If nothing else, this is an uncompromised film from a director who’s earned it in such a short time. Whether or not it’s for you, only you can say. But there isn’t a film like it this year and hasn’t been in quite some time. 5/5