Renfield - Review: Does this Dracula Suck?

 

There have been plenty of partnerships over the course of the cinematic landscape. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Thelma and Louise, Bill and Ted, Bonnie and Clyde. But Renfield is likely an unknown name to a large number of moviegoers despite being the sidekick to one of the most famous horror creations of all time. If Count Dracula is spending all of his time sitting in his castle, someone has to go fetch the hapless humans to have their blood sucked, right?

That’s the premise of “Renfield”, the new horror-comedy from director Chris McKay (“The LEGO Batman Movie,” “The Tomorrow War”) and writers Robert Kirkman (“The Walking Dead,” “Invincible”) and Ryan Ridley (“Community,” “Rick & Morty”). Renfield, played by Nicholas Hoult (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “The Favourite”), wants to break free of the controlling grasp of his boss and master Dracula, played here with pure glee by Nicolas Cage (“The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent,” “Face/Off”). He befriends police officer Rebecca, played by Awkwafina (“The Farewell,” “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings”), who’s trying to chase down mob boss Ella, played by Shohreh Aghdashloo (“The Expanse,” “House of Sand and Fog”), and her annoying mobster son Teddy Lobo, played by Ben Schwartz (“Sonic the Hedgehog (2020),” “The Afterparty”).

If you read a premise like that and are a bit confused as to why a film named after Dracula’s assistant also features a subplot involving the mob, you’re not wrong to feel that way. As fun as the film can be when it's all working, there are also plenty of times where the subplots feel disconnected from the tone of the rest of the project. It does all fit together in the end, but multiple times it can feel similar to the human-based subplots in a Godzilla film: they’re there for a reason and they don’t not work, but they’re definitely not the reason everyone is at the theater.

Hoult is absolutely fantastic. Given the basic premise, it's easy to root for Renfield, but he really goes the extra mile to make him as lovable and borderline adorable as possible. Cage is also fantastic but headed in the opposite direction. He plays Dracula with a kind of glee and energy that simply cannot be described. It’s as if his entire career has led to this one role, and he’s diving head first into playing the blood sucking prince of darkness. 

The rest of the cast, meanwhile, are merely fine. No one is doing a poor job, but they simply don’t have the energy of Hoult or Cage. Awkwafina is perfectly serviceable, and in the scenes featuring just her and Hoult or Cage, their energy seems to infect her and bring out the best in her performance. Schwartz is definitely doing a lot, and how much of that annoys you or delights you will vary. Aghdashloo is also fine, delivering a routine mob boss performance as best as the script will allow her to.

McKay definitely makes great use of New Orleans as a location. The self-described “most haunted city in America” is a great modern backdrop for a vampire story like this, and the decrepit parts of the city make for a great playground for the film’s action sequences. At the same time, its brighter spots and locations help to emphasize Renfield’s journey of self-discovery and self-esteem.

That journey is definitely where the film’s heart lies. Hoult brings a lot to the character, but the absurdity of showcasing a story of abuse and self-respect against a horror-comedy tale like this helps it all come across a lot better. There’s a big gooey heart at the center of the film and a surprising amount of respect shown to the subject. There aren’t any cheap jokes or shots at others going through the same things at Renfield’s support group. It’s a comedy about abuse that doesn’t find the subject funny in the slightest and it's refreshing.

Such a tale does take a back seat during the moments when Renfield needs to kick ass, and kick ass he does. The film’s action sequences definitely are stylish, if a bit out of place. John Wick style slow motion fights with bug-sourced superpowers are likely not what first come to mind with a premise like this. But when the literal fire hoses of blood are spurting and the comedy-laced action is happening, it's hard to complain. It isn’t the most graceful or inventive action in the world, but there’s still fun to be had watching someone rip a goon's arms off and then impale another goon to a wall with said ripped-off arms.

“Renfield” is an odd duck of a movie, much like its protagonist. There are plenty of various elements all colliding together here (the horror-comedy, the themes of abuse, the gleeful violence, the mobster subplots) and they don’t all connect gracefully. Also, despite being a little over 90-minutes, there are times where it can feel both rushed and slowly paced, so this is clearly a movie where your mileage may vary. But at its core, this is a sweet and silly movie that takes itself just seriously enough to make you fall in love with Renfield and enjoy his journey of self-discovery and silliness. 3/5

Beau is Afraid - Review: And So Should Audience Members

 

Every director, at some point in their career, will direct a movie completely free of any sort of outside input, whether that be the studio, an additional editor, writer, or anyone else. It’s happened to plenty of filmmakers over the years, and the opportunity can arise for any number of reasons: their previous films have made a lot of money, their vision already fits with what the studio wants to do, they can do it for a low budget, etc. But no matter what, while a filmmaker getting to make their uncompromised vision in this age of cinema is certainly a reason to celebrate, the end product might not be one.

Starring Joaquin Phoenix (“Joker,” “Walk the Line”) as the titular Beau Wasserman, Ari Aster’s (“Hereditary,” “Midsommar”) “Beau is Afraid” follows this anxious and neurotic man on a journey to try and visit his mother, Mona Wasserman, played by Patti LuPone (“Company,” “Life Goes On”), with an ensemble rounded out by Nathan Lane (“The Birdcage,” “The Lion King (1994)”), Amy Ryan (“Only Murders in the Building,” “Gone Baby Gone”), Kylie Rogers (“The Whispers,” “Miracles from Heaven”), Parker Posey (“Lost in Space (2018),” “Dazed and Confused”), Stephen McKinley Henderson (“Lady Bird,” “Dune (2021)”), and Richard Kind (“Inside Out,” “A Serious Man”). How one would even begin to describe this movie beyond that is a different story, because this is one of those films where both very little and a lot happens all at once.

Aster is no stranger to metaphors, and there’s something to be said for a film that traffics almost exclusively in them. There is, after all, no better way to find your way inside a character’s head than to see the world how they do, rather than how it may actually be. But at a minute under three hours, “Beau” takes some willpower to get through as each of its three acts feel as though they could be entire films. That’s both due to the incredibly dense layers of metaphor but also because the film’s pacing is horrible. It crawls along, and while there are times where it absolutely works, it quite simply becomes virtually unbearable by the film’s end.

It's use of metaphor also proves to be a double-edged sword. For every insightful use of symbolism or fantasy, there’s another that seems as though a fourth grader could have come up with it. It’s both some of the best and some of the dumbest allegorical storytelling in a long time, and that’s driven home by the ending. The film’s last ten minutes are easily its most frustrating, as it seems as though Aster is trying to have his cake and eat it too, while also baking a whole new cake.

At the risk of lightly spoiling some of the film’s events, the film’s biggest issue simply comes down to its delivery of the fantastical versus the real. There is no established baseline for the film’s reality, which makes some of its more fantastical elements harder to comprehend. The city Beau lives in during the film’s first third is a post-apocalyptic hellscape, but its hard to tell if he’s simply imagining this, if this is a product of his neurosis and anxiety, or if this is actually the world as it exists. Because that baseline is never established, later sequences that seem to delve into more explicit fantasy become more difficult to parse as its not clear what is Beau’s mind and what is actually the world as it exists. And maybe that’s the point, that the world is so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for Beau, and by extension the audience, to distinguish between reality and fantasy. But if that’s the case, then it also draws into question his reactions to this world?

It's a muddled mess of metaphors that becomes more difficult to deal with because of how excellent the cast is. Phoenix is superb, really drawing us into the neurosis of this troubled mama’s boy in a way that becomes extremely easy to pity and sympathize with. The rest of the cast, while they are great, feel more as though they’re playing overblown caricatures. Maybe that’s the point, that everyone is meant to feel larger than life and heightened due to Beau. But again, because there’s never a baseline, we don’t know if this is actually him or just the world at large.

It’s disappointing because, for thirty minutes, there’s a stretch of film in the middle that showcases some truly wonderful use of animation, production design, and fantasy. This is the best part of the film by far, as it manages to juxtapose Beau’s real life with his fantasies simply and effectively and gets far more across than the rest of the film has in the hour and a half that preceded it.

Regardless of what’s real and what’s not, the thing that makes “Beau is Afraid” so frustrating is the fact that, even if you understand what’s going on, by the time credits roll, it feels like you’ve just been dragged through the mud with Beau with no point in sight. Yes, there is certainly a reason these events happened, that’s not up for debate, but to sit in this stew of neurosis for three hours and simply be handed a basic example of “mommy issues, amiright?” feels borderline disrespectful.

To explain why almost turns the discussion into an ouroboros: the metaphors don’t have a point to them, which makes the experience feel worthless. But the experience doesn’t inherently have to have “worth” to be good, it can just be a movie. But the film builds these metaphors up to such a degree that it feels like there must be a meaning, otherwise why would they build it all up to such a degree? And if they don’t have a meaning or a point, then the whole experience feels worthless, and the circle begins again.

What is undeniable though is the technical merits of the film. The production design is simply astonishing in each various chunk, and its clear that no cent was spared in this, A24’s most expensive production yet. It’s a feat of creativity and technical wonder. It’s also an incredibly funny film too, with some of the bleakest bits of deadpan laughter and comedy delivery in quite a while. Phoenix really can do deadpan better than most give him credit for, and the entire film is a fantastic showcase for that.

“Beau is Afraid” is a confounding film, mostly because the issues with its fantastical nature and metaphors don’t really come into effect until the last forty-five minutes or so. Prior to that, it has a thrilling feeling of mystery to it all, that we the audience are going on this technically impressive and well-acted journey will Beau and we’ll get to piece it all together together! Its only once things start getting pieced together that you realize how shallow it all is, poisoning the preceding events by association. It’s not hard to admire a film of such clear singular vision that’s so impressive on a technical level. Just don’t expect much more below the surface. 3/5

Air (2023) - Review: A Shoe-In True Story Tale

 

There’s an eye-rolling quality to the premise of “Air.” A movie about the guys who made the Air Jordan? Really? What could that possibly even be? Well, there’s a gung-ho spirit to the film, thanks to Affleck’s direction and the strengths of his cast, that make this feel like some good old-fashioned cinema.

The film follows Sonny Vaccaro, played by Matt Damon (“Good Will Hunting,” “The Bourne Identity”), a talent scout working for Nike’s ailing sports division in 1984. One day, he gets an idea: to build a shoe line entirely around one athlete, instead of inviting multiple athletes to be the face of the division. He and his team, consisting of Nike CEO Phil Knight, played by Ben Affleck (“Good Will Hunting,” “Argo”), Marketing VP Rob Strasser, played by Jason Bateman (“Arrested Development,” “Ozark”), and shoe designer Peter Moore, played by Matthew Maher (“Our Flag Means Death,” “Hello Tomorrow!”), then build a pitch to Michael Jordan, his mother Deloris, played by Viola Davis (“The Woman King,” “Widows”), and father James, played by Julius Tennon (“The Woman King”).

Yeah, its honestly not much of a premise, and on paper its easy to see it not lasting more than an hour on some CNN “History of the Decade” style documentary. But Affleck and writer Alex Convery make it work because of the heavy emphasis on Sonny and his team. By building it as a story not just about a legendary partnership, but also the underdogs who put it together and why they believed in it, it makes the film far more emotionally satisfying than it otherwise could have been.

Damon is great, channeling his talent for playing gung-ho underdogs well, delivering crackling dialogue against his supporting cast. Affleck is fairly low-key, channeling a borderline bohemian attitude to play Phil. Davis brings the same kind of gravitas that she always does, turning the dialogue into gold, and the scenes between her and Damon are the best parts of the film. The rest of the cast are all great, building up this slick 80s underdog tale well without ever overplaying the schmaltz.

Affleck’s direction is incredibly solid and harkens back to a lot of the old-school office/board room movies of the 80s and 90s. There’s not a lot of technical wizardry on display when watching two characters sit in a dimly-lit office at night, talking about a deal or life story. But, its not a lack of flair, rather a showcase of restraint. Affleck knows this story doesn’t need to be showy, and his decision to let the script and performances carry the film forward is incredibly smart.

It doesn’t mean there isn’t any flair, as his penchant for needle drops is as evident as ever, but those moments are well used, spicing up the film when necessary instead of overwhelming it. Sure, there are still moments that tumble into silliness or melodrama (“What if we call it… Air Jordan?”) but these moments are honestly rare and given the grounded nature of the overall product, its easy to roll your eyes and smile, then go right back to enjoying the tale.

“Air” is an example of some good old-fashioned movie making, low stakes and grounded, letting the performances carry the film. It’s a fantastic addition to the “dad cinema” subgenre occupied by other films like “Jerry Maguire,” “Moneyball,” and “Argo.” It’s just a really solid, entertaining, charming underdog story that’s fine being nothing more than just a really good adult-aimed drama. 4.5/5

The Super Mario Bros. Movie - Review: A Saturday Morning Cartoon... for Better and Worse

 

Besides Mickey Mouse, Nintendo’s Mario is likely the most well-known fictional person in the world. Even people who don’t know what a Nintendo Switch is or who Yoshi is likely have at least seen a picture of Mario at some point in their lives. He’s everywhere, officially or otherwise. Which is why the 90s live-action Mario film starring Bob Hoskins was such a massive failure: it was so disliked, it made Nintendo avoid another Mario movie for almost three decades.

That’s why, in 2023, after over thirty-five years of the Super Mario brothers, we have our first animated film courtesy of a partnership between Illumination and Nintendo. And partnership is absolutely the right word, as Nintendo has clearly been as heavily involved with the making of this film as Illumination, leading any film-savvy audience member to believe that this is Nintendo’s true vision of how they want to see their plumbing icon brought to the big screen.

The result of that true vision and partnership? Well, it’s certainly not a super star, that’s for certain. The film follows Mario and Luigi, voiced by Chris Pratt (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Parks and Recreation”) and Charlie Day (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” “The LEGO Movie”), as they’re sucked into the Mushroom Kingdom and separated. Mario teams up with Princess Peach, voiced by Anya Taylor-Joy (“The Queen’s Gambit,” “The Menu”), and the adventurous Toad, voiced by Kegan Michael-Key (“Keanu,” “Schmigadoon!”), to find Luigi and rescue him from the evil Bowser, voiced by Jack Black (“School of Rock,” “Kung Fu Panda”), with their quest also involving Donkey Kong, voiced by Seth Rogen (“Pineapple Express,” “Kung Fu Panda”).

From the first moments of the film, it’s clear that a lot of love and attention went into representing the Mushroom Kingdom and the Mario world on the big screen. Illumination, a studio known for cranking out lower budget and quickly made animated films, have pulled out all the stops on this, their highest budgeted film. Each different land crackles with personality and bright colors. Flowers give off a neon glow, and each power-up is a delightful display of animated frenzy. It’s possibly the most gorgeous animated movie made in years, and absolutely deserves to be a crown visual jewel in Illumination’s crown.

On the flipside though, it also contains what might be one of the most generic plots in any animated film in recent years, even for Illumination. Writer Matthew Fogel (“The LEGO Movie: The Second Part,” “Minions: The Rise of Gru”) surely had a lot of notes and restrictions from Nintendo, but at the same time, what’s here is a plot that feels like nothing really happens. There’s no momentum, just a bunch of scenes put next to each other. At no point does it feel like Mario and his friends are going on an actual journey, just that they’re going from point a to b because the plot dictates it so. Bowser certainly gets the most to work with, but that’s more so because his goals and characterization are the least generic in the film.

That’s not to say the film isn’t enjoyable. It manages to hit the right amount of nostalgia and easter eggs to avoid feeling completely overblown. Most of the best gags are smartly hidden in the background, as opposed to jumping out with big neon arrows pointing at them. It means that they’re there for people who know to look, and if you don’t know, you won’t be left behind for not recognizing them. Musically, the film also achieves the same balance, as Brian Tyler’s () score is predictably chocked full of classic Mario tunes from Koji Kondo (), blending them all together in a delightful musical smoothie. It helps that Kondo’s music is already legendarily good, but the film’s bizarre and overutilized licensed tracks help the Mario music seem that much better as they stick out like multiple, head-scratching sore thumbs.

The film’s humor, meanwhile, runs the gamut from crowd-pleasing to bizarrely cynical. It’s certainly an odd mix, but it’s got enough that works to chuckle at for ninety minutes without complaint. Oddly enough, that runtime is one of the film’s weakest aspects, mostly because it means things rocket along at a blistering pace. Virtually none of the scenes are allowed to linger or breathe, simply moving from one moment to the next. It’s not hard to imagine a world where this movie is maybe ten minutes longer and is all the better for it.

Despite much hoopla surrounding the casting, the voice acting is across the board pretty fine. Pratt isn’t exactly the most natural voice for Mario, but he’s fine and gets the job done. Taylor-Joy doesn’t sound anything like Peach in the games but keeps her energy up and it helps her deliver a fun performance. Day is underutilized but fits Luigi as a character perfectly, and anytime he’s onscreen the film is made better. Michael-Key is also fine, but the film is predictably carried by Black’s Bowser. As someone with years of voice-acting experience, he brings the energy and skills required to make his portrayal of the Koopa King really shine, and he’s the highlight of the entire film. Rogen, while not as good as Black, also takes advantage of his years of voice-acting, giving his DK a lot of energy to help bolster his performance.

It's easy to see someone writing an 800-plus-word review for “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” and roll your eyes. “Really?” you ask me. “It’s a Mario movie. What did you expect?” Well, to compare it to another light-hearted, overly silly movie, a few years back the directors of the movie, Aaron Horvath (“Teen Titans GO! To the Movies,” “Elf: Buddy's Musical Christmas”) and Michael Jelenic (“Teen Titans GO! To the Movies,” “Elf: Buddy's Musical Christmas”) made a movie called “Teen Titans GO! To the Movies” that managed to be extremely silly, lighthearted, and also legitimately good.

For a more outrageous example that also uses a decades old classic merchandising icon, a few years back an animated movie was released that seemed like it would be hot garbage that someone managed to not only be visually gorgeous, but emotionally engaging and extremely funny. But even beyond that, it got to the core of what the property it was based on means, not just to the fans, but at the very core of its being. That movie was “The LEGO Movie” and while it might be unfair to compare the two, its hard to argue that their origins were far more similar than one might want to initially admit. So why couldn’t this have been the case for this?

So, were expectations too high for the first animated version of the world’s favorite plumber? Who’s to say? As it stands, for all of its faults, the film excels in one specific aspect: it rekindles the age of the Saturday morning cartoon. It captures that spirit of sitting and staring up at a screen, with colors flashing across laughing to yourself at the silly jokes and turning your brain off for ninety-minutes. It’s certainly not great, but it’s a fun distraction that should entertain and put a smile on many, many viewers faces. And maybe that’s all it needed to do. 3.5/5

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite the choreography, the comedic moments, the deep mythology, and the compelling performance from Reeves, the most impressive thing about “Chapter 4” is its length and pacing. At two-hours-and-forty-nine-minutes, it’s the longest film in the series by a wide margin, and yet it absolutely flies by, convincing you by the end it’s been barely ninety minutes. It’s a hat trick of a feat, and one that Stehelski and writers Shay Hatten (“John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum,” “Day Shift”) 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