Blackberry (2023) - Review: Don't Take Yourself Too Seriously

 

There’s a fascinating subgenre of film all based around “how the thing you love was made.” It’s different from your typical biopic, where the focus is someone’s life, or a “based on a true story” film where the subject is a particular stretch of time. Rather, movies like “Air,” “Tetris,” “The Social Network” tend to contain elements of both previously mentioned genres, with an added layer of capitalistic excitement: “I can’t wait to pay to see how the thing I paid for was made and how the people who made it got rich off people like me who bought it.”

In a sense “BlackBerry” is a weird kind of film, because while on the surface it seems exactly like another one of those movies, underneath there’s a cheeky sense to it all. It’s not a full-blown comedy or satire like “Walk Hard,” but it isn’t not being just a tad bit silly and a tad bit self-aware.

Directed by Matt Johnson (“The Dirties,” “Operation: Avalanche”) and written by Johnson and Matthew Miller (“The Dirties,” “Nirvanna The Band The Show”), “BlackBerry” is about the creation of the titular phone and the sharp decline in both its popularity and its company, Research in Motion. It stars Jay Baruchel (“How to Train Your Dragon,” “This is the End”) as Mike Lazaridis, the co-CEO and co-founder of RIM and the creator of the original phone, Johnson as Douglas Fregin, Mike’s best friend and co-founder of RIM, and Glenn Howerton (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” “A.P. Bio”) as Jim Balsillie, the businessman whom they pitch the phone to who eventually joins RIM as co-CEO in an attempt to become rich and famous off of the phone.

The film rides a very thin line between seriousness and silliness between its entire runtime and somehow doesn’t manage to tumble into either entirely. While based on a true story, Johnson and Miller have clearly embellished plenty of elements to play them up to their logical extremes. Balsillie was a bit disagreeable in the workplace? Then crank him up to 11 degrees of asshole-ish-ness and have him be played by one of the best assholes in the business. The film is so wildly entertaining because of its committed cast that its hard to see anyone complaining about the historical inaccuracies because its all just so much fun.

Johnson himself has mentioned that the film’s opening “based on real events” disclaimed came from a request from lawyers more than a creative desires, but it works to explain the film overall. This is a very Canadian, very sly satire of this genre, while still managing to be a flat-out entertaining movie even if you don’t piece that together. Howerton is absolutely stealing the entire show here, channeling his insane levels of self-centeredness from “Sunny” without seeming too overblown for the reality of the film. Baruchel balances the same kind of thing with his nerdy inventor persona, and Johnson as Douglas manages to be a beacon of normalcy in this storm of big egos and big drama.

Even with the undercurrent of sly wit here, Johnson and Miller still find time to actually recount the events they advertise. We see the explosion of popularity for the BlackBerry, the rise and fall of RIM, how the iPhone affected them, and so on. It’s not only an accurate tale of the industry, but its shot wonderfully. While the handheld camera technique could have gotten annoying after a while, the way Johnson keeps everything either stationary at afar but tight and wobbly on character closeups helps to balance the tension and big personalities. The score by Jay McCarrol (“The Kid Detective,” “Operation Avalanche”) also manages to be just evocative enough of other electronic dramatic scores to work, but is used smartly and calmly throughout so as to not overwhelm.

While nothing that will upend the genre due to its satire or its dramatic content, “BlackBerry” proves that when you have a good cast and a good script, you can still make a great film even as the genre its in seems destined for self-parody. Johnson’s film is smart, its fun, its well-acted, and it manages to be just a really good time, plain and simple. 4/5

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 - Review: The Best Marvel Has Been In Almost a Decade

 

While James Gunn (“The Suicide Squad,” “Super”) is not the first director in the MCU to handle his own entire trilogy, both Peyton Reed and Jon Watts got to do that first, he certainly is the first person to deliver a thoroughly satisfying and emotionally sound throughline for his characters. Because more than any others in the MCU, these are characters that really feel like they belong to Gunn. He's built our love of them up over the previous two films and now we get to send them off on a farewell tour that ends up being a fantastic swan-song. It's the best of the three films, due in no small part to Gunn's evolving emotional honesty, killer technical ability, and gorgeous visual style.

Like the previous two films, this one follows the Guardians, now consisting of Peter Quill/Starlord, played by Chris Pratt (“Parks and Recreation,” “The LEGO Movie”), Nebula, played by Karen Gillan (“Doctor Who,” “Dual”), Drax, played by Dave Bautista (“Knock at the Cabin,” “Glass Onion”), Rocket, played by Bradley Cooper (“The Hangover,” “A Star is Born (2018)”), Mantis, played by Pom Klementieff (“Oldboy (2013),” “Ingrid Goes West”), Kraglin, played by Sean Gunn (“Gilmore Girls,” “The Suicide Squad”), and Groot, played by Vin Diesel (“Fast Five,” “The Iron Giant”), as they team up with an alternate universe Gamora, played by Zoe Saldaña (“Avatar,” “Star Trek (2009)”), to face the High Evolutionary, played by Chukwudi Iwuji (“Peacemaker,” “The Split”), a scientist seeking to make a perfect species.

There is one major thing to make note of before going into this: Vol. 3 is the darkest MCU film by a large margin. If you’re overly sensitive to animal testing and mutations, you should probably wait until the home release for this one. But that darkness isn’t there just for set-dressing, its integral to the arcs present in this adventure. Without it, the threats on our heroes don’t feel as real or impactful, and likewise it doesn’t land as darkly as it does if we don’t already care about this crew.

Because that’s what Gunn does best in his films: he knows that if he puts his group through hell, it doesn’t land if we don’t care about what’s happening to them and we won’t care about what’s happening to them if we don’t care about them. So therefore, everything needs to be in service of building those characters through the story instead of to serve it. And that’s where Gunn excels, as this ends up being an extremely emotional two-and-a-half-hour-long adventure because he excels in building that.

It isn't perfect, with that length there’s certainly some elements that aren’t pulled off flawlessly. Adam Warlock, played by Will Poulter (“Midsommar,” “Dopesick”), for example, isn’t utilized as much as some might have expected, but he’s still excellent when he does appear and it certainly doesn’t feel like Gunn forgot about him while writing the film. The same goes for Cosmo the Space Dog, voiced by Maria Bakalova (“Bodies Bodies Bodies,” “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm”) and her adventures with Kraglin.

Each cast member is expectedly excellent, but the true star of the show this time around is Rocket, and Cooper is delivering some of his finest work here. Despite only providing his voice, Cooper clearly loves this character and is able to provide him with a sense of soul that few other vocal performances can. Gillan also turns in her best work of the trilogy, and everyone just seems to be firing on all cylinders to deliver the kind of third act emotions that typically come out of a “last ride” like this one. Pratt is also unexpectedly good, tapping into a compelling desperation that we haven’t seen Quill go through yet. Gunn and the Guardians’ trademark humor hasn’t been forgotten either, and it’s not overshadowed by the grimness either. Rather, both complement each other without ever overwhelming the other, because of course these people would crack jokes in moments of terror.

Gunn continues to craft one of the most beautiful films, not just in the MCU, but of any movie out today. Not only are the visual effects nearly flawless, with nary a green screen wiggle in sight, but the use of color and the cinematography from Henry Braham (“Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2,” “The Suicide Squad”) are nearly flawless. It’s the sort of movie that makes you lean back and say ‘wow’ at what’s happening onscreen. It’s not just how things look through the camera either, as the creativity of this corner of the galaxy is exceptional. For example, one location that could have easily been a metallic space station or factory ends up being an environment made almost entirely of flesh, a stylistic decision that not only influences the costumes and technology within the location, but also makes it far more memorable and beautiful than it otherwise would have been. There’s no plot reason for it to be like this, it’s a complete stylistic decision that pays off in droves.

The action also deserves praise, and despite this being a far more emotionally driven film, there are still plenty of whiz-bang moments of action. It’s choreographed beautifully, and there are sequences with brightly lit backgrounds and white environments that almost feel like Gunn consciously chose them to showcase the expert chorography and effects instead of hiding behind dark shadows and dimly lit arenas.

Even the film’s length isn’t entirely an issue, as it takes full advantage of it, making this an adventure that doesn’t feel overstuffed or meandering, but just as long as it needs to be given what’s going on. It earns the length, and while it doesn’t feel shorter than it is, it would be a shame to have this last adventure with this gang of misfits be any less than it wants to be.

While there have been bright spots in the MCU since the release of “Endgame”, “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” is the first time in a long time that it’s succeeded on virtually every front. This is an emotionally charged, dark as hell, gorgeous rollercoaster of an adventure, that fully cements the reasons we love this group and why Gunn is one of the best to ever take on a superhero film. It’s easily one of the best in the series and a thrilling swan-song for this bunch of A-holes. 5/5

Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret - Review: Mom of the Year

 

There have been many book-to-film adaptations over the years, all running the gamut of various levels of quality. But there are a handful of books that seem perfect for film adaptations yet just aren’t for various reasons. “Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret” is one such book, given how protective author Judy Blume has been over her crowning achievement for decades. However, producer James L. Brooks (“Broadcast News,” “As Good as It Gets”) and writer/director Kelly Fremon Craig (“The Edge of Seventeen,” “Post Grad”) proved to be the perfect match for her on paper, and, thankfully, in practice as well.

Sixth grader Margaret, played by Abby Ryder Fortson (“Ant-Man and the Wasp,” “Togetherness”), is dealing with her family’s sudden move from downtown New York City to the suburbs of New Jersey. Not only that, she’s having to deal with her parents’ mixed religions, her changing body, and a new school environment. Her mother Barbara, played by Rachel McAdams (“The Notebook,” “Spotlight”), and father Herb, played by Benny Safdie (“Uncut Gems,” “Good Time”), are dealing with their own struggles, as is her grandmother Sylvia, played by Kathy Bates (“Misery,” “American Horror Story”).

It would be easy to describe this as a kind of “plotless” movie, but doing so would discredit the emotional journey that Craig and Fortson take the audience on. It’s extremely easy to fall in love with Margaret, as her journey to find herself in multiple different avenues of life is easily relatable to anyone who’s been 12 years old and a bit awkward (which is probably everyone). Fortson is an absolute powerhouse, making Margaret come alive with genuine humor and love and emotion throughout the film. It’s one of those performances that just feels so honest and real, it doesn’t feel like acting. She just is Margaret, plain and simple.

Likewise, McAdams is as charming and delightful as she’s always been. She has this effect of feeling like the “every-mom” that works wonders here and helps blossom Fortson’s emotional journey by extension, and vice versa. It’s an example of a pair of performances that are already great on their own, and are only made better by strengthening each other. Safdie is also great, managing to be better than the typical “goofy lovable dad” stereotype, and really bringing the emotion when he needs to. Bates is also great, with her character mostly occupying the comedic relief part, but coming in with fierce support and emotion when it counts.

The overall production design and music feel perfect here, nothing too over the top so as to draw attention away from the actors but not too discounted as to feel like an afterthought. Hans Zimmer’s (“The Lion King (1994),” “Dune (2021)”) score helps to accentuate Margaret’s journey across this 70s tale of womanhood and childhood. But it never overplays the moments, and that speaks to possibly the best aspect of the entire picture. Craig’s film is always respectful of Margaret, her mother, and everyone else’s journeys, but it never lets that respect get in the way of honesty. Things are messy and complicated and not always nice, and by showing those moments honestly, it helps to embolden the film’s portrayal of growing up and woman hood in the most respectful way possible.

It seems silly to say, given the supposed plainness of this film. There’s no big dramatic climax, no globe-spanning journey, no arch-nemesis or societal injustice to fight off. The central internal conflict Margaret deals with doesn’t even necessarily have a point-blank conclusion. But Craig, Blume, and Fortson don’t need any of that to deliver what is one of the best films of 2023. This incredibly respectful and honest emotional journey is one that is simply a delight, equal parts tear-jerking and hilarious. But never without a twinge of honesty and genuine heart that captures the genuine feeling of relating; we’ve all been here, even if we haven’t. 5/5

Evil Dead Rise - Review: Squeamish Need Not Apply

 

For many, Freddy is dead, Jason ain’t it, son, Michael is merely meh, Jigsaw should see himself out, and The Purge should be purged. For many horror fans, there is only one true form of evil: the dead kind. The “Evil Dead” series has had quite the tumultuous existence ever sense it first shambled onto screens way back in 1981. After sequels, a reboot, a television series, and even a few video games, the series is back and has risen to heights not seen in a very long time.

“Evil Dead Rise” follows Beth, played by Lily Sullivan (“Jungle,” “Picnic at Hanging Rock”), who travels to Los Angeles to visit her estranged sister Ellie, played by Alyssa Sutherland (“Vikings,” “Blood Vessel”), and her three kids, Danny, played by Morgan Davies (“Storm Boy,” “The End”), Bridget, played by Gabrielle Echols (“Remembrance”), and Kassie, played by Nell Fisher in her film debut. Shortly after the reunion though, the Book of the Dead comes into play, cutting their apartment building off from the outside world and unleashing hell onto this family.

What is there to even say about an “Evil Dead” film besides is it bloody and is it absurd? Well, “Rise” is gleefully both. Writer/Director Lee Cronin (“The Hole in the Ground”) douses his set and actors with copious amounts of blood and twisted machinations of terror at virtually every turn. But there’s also a great deal of restraint on display as well. The film’s first act might be a slow burn, but its not without purpose. Cronin is setting up emotional and physical dominos so that when hell is unleashed, it hits that much harder and is that much more satisfying. It’s a lot more fun to see someone use a pair of scissors on a deadite when you saw that pair of scissors left in just the right place before everything went crazy.

But the familial dynamic also results in a more emotionally rich film. Is that necessarily what an “Evil Dead” movie needs? Not really, but Cronin milks this dynamic wonderfully. By the very nature of it being a mother versus her children and sister, things are tinged with sadness in a way, and it lends itself to a meatier, more emotional hellscape as a result. We aren’t talking rich family drama the likes of “Marriage Story”, but even just a dash of it here makes things a hell of a lot more gruesome.

Those who disliked the self-serious tone of the 2013 reboot will be glad to hear that, while this is by no means “Army of Darkness” levels of jokey, the sly absurdity that helped to define the series is back in spades. “Rise” conjures up two kinds of chuckles: there’s the chuckling at an actually humorous moment or joke, and then there’s the chuckling through the absurdity. The smiling in the face of the “oh-my-god-what-the-hell-are-they-doing-this-is-messed-up” feeling that is regularly felt through the 107 minutes of this absolutely relentless blood fest.

Sullivan is an absolute powerhouse, easily earning her spot alongside Ash Williams himself and the myriad of other final girls from the history of horror. She’s incredibly charming and easy to root for, but also not a genius. She stumbles along the adventure, but not without merit, grit, or determination. Davies, Echols, and Fisher are all fantastic and have great sibling chemistry, a bright spot in an otherwise grim as hell experience which ends up inadvertently making the experience grimmer by the end. Meanwhile, Sutherland is an absolute force. She’s beaten up, doused in fire and blood, and turned into an absolute monster and is clearly having a blast throughout the entire thing. It’s hard to find an actor committing so much to a character, physically and emotionally, and having so much fun doing it.

So, let’s go over the checklist. Absurdist tone? Check. Horror laced with black comedy humor? Check. Buckets of blood? Check. A cast committed to the horrors on display? Check. A chainsaw? Absolutely check. “Evil Dead Rise” is absolutely everything an “Evil Dead” fan could ever want, returning to the roots of the series in the best ways possible and having an absolute blast doing it. For those who aren’t indoctrinated into the cult of the Deadite, this is also a great place to start. Oh, and for those who don’t like even the tamer horror movies out there, stay far far away. This is a nasty movie, gleefully so, and fans wouldn’t want it any other way. 4.5/5

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