Ghostlight - Review: All of Life's A Stage

 

Sometimes the best kinds of closure can come from the most unexpected of places. Nowhere can that be more apparent than on stage, in the theatre. There have been plays about a variety of subjects, from the crude to the cute, over hundreds of hundreds of years, and they can all affect us in differing ways. That’s the healing power of the theatre, after all. “Ghostlight” is a film that seeks to not only embrace that idea, but to zero in on why and how that can come to pass for even the most curmudgeonly of subjects. 

The film follows Dan Mueller, played by Keith Kupferer (“Our Father,” “Monuments”), a father struggling with his rebelling teenaged daughter Daisy, played by Katherine Mallen Kupferer (“Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret.”), an incoming wrongful death lawsuit, and a fading relationship with his wife Sharon, played by Tara Mallen. After an incident at work puts him in the view of Rita, played by Dolly de Leon (“Triangle of Sadness,” “Between the Temples”), she asks Dan to join her amateur theatre group in a production of “Romeo and Juliet,” despite his lack of acting experience. The rehearsals and play prove to be an effective emotional outlet for Dan, even as the play begins to reflect his own real-life experiences. 

Co-directed by Kelly O'Sullivan (“Saint Frances,” “Sirens”) and Alex Thompson (“Saint Frances,” “Our Father”) and written by O’Sullivan, “Ghostlight” keeps things almost exceptionally low-key and simple to the point of feeling like you’re listening to a story told by a neighbor or family member. This is absolutely to the film’s benefit, as it works in communicating the emotions of the tale in a raw and digestible way. Kupferer’s performance feels deeply authentic, like he himself just stumbled on to the set of the film one day, and it’s one that remains powerful and incredibly emotional the entire way through. 

Both Mallen and Katherine are just as excellent, with Katherine specifically lighting up the screen and stealing every scene she’s in. She delivers a spitfire of a performance that will surely be a highlight of the film for many, while Mallen’s role goes for a more subdued, but still nuanced and evolving motherly role. It also works on another level given that Keith and Sharon are married in real life, and Katherine is Keith’s actual daughter. de Leon’s performance has less of an evolution compared to the main trio, and while she’s still fantastic, it is clear that her role isn’t the one O’Sullivan and Thompson are most intrigued by. 

This is a very small film by its nature, with only a handful of locations at play and a budget than amounts to less than a million dollars. Yet this seems to be where O’Sullivan and Thompson are most comfortable, because within those cheaper constraints is an exceptionally deep film. This is a picture that doesn’t purport to have all the answers or even know all of the right questions to ask. Instead, it prides itself on dragging the roller coaster of feelings out and dealing with each in turn. It might be Dan’s story at its core, but Sharon and Daisy get plenty of room to grow and shine. A scene halfway through the film has Dan reciting lines to Sharon, and it's a fantastic example of O’Sullivan and Thompson’s abilities to make sure both characters have their moments of personality, growth, and impact, even if one gets more screentime than the other. 

“Ghostlight” is a quaint little indie film that’s big on charm, performances, and emotion. It’s the kind of film that is easy to invest in and provides an almost cathartic kind of emotional release by the time it's over. The central three performances are really excellent, with Katherine Mallen Kupferer stealing the show, and a controlled and nuanced direction from Kelly O'Sullivan and Alex Thompson. It all goes back to that idea of catharsis, and the film’s ability to navigate that feeling without ever becoming overbearing is an achievement that shines brighter than the titular light ever could. 5/5 

Inside Out 2 – Review: All I Want Is to Have My Peace of Mind

 

There’s a world of emotions inside of every person, which means there’s plenty of room for a sequel to Pixar’s 2015 modern classic “Inside Out,” a film showcasing the world inside the mind of a pre-teen girl. And appropriately, the aptly titled “Inside Out 2” showcases that same girl’s mind, now at the frightening cusp of puberty and filled with anxieties. 

Picking up a few years after the end of the first film, Riley, voiced by Kensington Tallman, has now turned 13 and her emotions Joy, voiced by Amy Poehler (“Parks and Recreation,” “Mean Girls”), Sadness, voiced by Phyllis Smith (“The Office,” “The OA”), Anger, voiced by Lewis Black (“Accepted,” “The Daily Show”), Fear, voiced by Tony Hale (“Arrested Development,” “Veep”), and Disgust, voiced by Liza Lapria (“The Equalizer,” “Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23”), must now confront a new group of emotions who’ve taken hold of Riley’s mind: Embarrassment, voiced by Paul Walter Hauser (“Black Bird,” “Richard Jewel”), Envy, voiced by Ayo Edeberi (“Bottoms,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem”), Ennui, voiced by Adèle Exarchopoulos (“Blue Is The Warmest Color,” “Passage”), and their defacto leader Anxiety, voiced by Maya Hawke (“Stranger Things,” “Do Revenge”). 

There’s clearly a lot to dig into with a concept like this. Introducing just Anxiety herself could provide for a boatload of new storytelling material, but the new emotions all balance out well without overloading each other or the story. The returning cast is all excellent, with Black in particular adding some more depth to his Anger through a softer vocal performance and Hale and Lapria doing a good job filling in for their role's original voices. Hawke meanwhile is an absolute powerhouse. Her Anxiety is a delight, running rampant with fantastic delivery and pained self-idolizations. Much like Poehler in the first film, she turns what should be a predictable one-note character into one that’s easy to feel for. 

Not much has changed in the visual style from the first film, but that’s not at all a bad thing. Instead, Pixar and its animation wizards have continued to flesh out the existing world within Riley’s mind. The textures and colors continue to pop will vibrance and glee, and there are now different styles of animation, such as hand-drawn 2D and early PlayStation-style graphics, for minor characters and elements that make for great bits of variance. 

The musical score also maintains the greatness of Giacchino’s score from the first film, even if it doesn’t retain Giacchino. Andrea Datzman fills in his shoes competently, crafting new and great musical motifs when needed and blending them with the original film’s themes when appropriate. However, in actuality, there isn’t a whole lot different between the first film’s score and this one, and that actually leads to the only real issue with the film. 

Given the nature of the film and the world that Pixar has created with these tales, there’s only so much co-writer/director Kelsey Mann and writers Meg LeFauve (“Inside Out,” “The Good Dinosaur”) and Dave Holstein (“Kidding,” “Weeds”) can do to differentiate things. It can therefore feel like the story itself is simply repeating what came before but with some variances. It’s within those variances though that Mann, LeFauve, and Holstein mine for unique scenarios and emotional humor.

That humor has a bit more of a cheeky, almost Simpsons-esque sense of silliness to it all, mining individual moments for visual and script gags. More than any Pixar film previously, there's a squash and stretch to everything, mimicking the kind of playful exaggeration in the likes of old school Looney Tunes cartoons. Anxiety chugs 5 energy drinks at once whilst Envy's eyes grow to be the size of her head, creating not only an amusing visual palette, but a stark different between the human world and the emotion world. It not only helps separate these worlds but draws a distinction between these humorous moments and the ones that are deeply serious and deliberate.

Even if it feels routine, it's still a deeply emotional journey to go on with these characters, and Pixar once again refuses to take the easy way out. The third act is remarkably complex and complicated, arguably more so than the first film’s, to a degree that feels almost unnecessarily ambitious. It refuses to take a simpler, easy way out, instead tackling the changes associated with growing up and puberty head on. So many films focus on the awkwardness of those physical, external changes, but it feels refreshing to see one directly tackling the internal. 

“Inside Out 2” has plenty of similarities to the first film, but these lay the groundwork for more expansions on its initial concept and the characters, internal and otherwise, therein. The vocal cast is still exceptional, with Hawke and Poehler turning in some truly fantastic performances, and it’s still an exceptional visual treat. There’s some déjà vu, but it doesn’t harm what’s still a fun, funny, and emotionally charged adventure that refuses to take the easy way out. It may be a sequel to a beloved original film, but make no mistake, nobody would’ve made this like Pixar has. 4.5/5

Am I OK? - Review: Sometimes, That's All You Need to Be

 

Most coming-of-age films tend to take place during their character’s teenaged years for good reason. It’s one of the more awkward times in one's life, as you’re attempting to figure yourself out and determine what kind of person you might want to be as you grow older. Which is why the act of coming out can make you feel as though you’re going through a second set of teenage years, making a film like “Am I Ok?” feel like a coming-of-age movie for the mid-30s crowd. 

The film follows Lucy, played by Dakota Johnson (“Fifty Shades of Grey,” “Madame Web”), a mid-30s woman living in Los Angeles working as a receptionist at a spa who mostly spends time drinking with her best friend Jane, played by Sonoya Mizuno (“House of the Dragon,” “Devs”), and Jane’s boyfriend Danny, played by Jermaine Fowler (“Superior Donuts,” “Coming 2 America”). After many failed attempts at dating men and spurred by the thoughts of flirtatious new masseuse Brittany, played by Kiersey Clemons (“Dope,” “Hearts Beat Loud”), Lucy realizes that she is a lesbian and begins to step into her new experiences, struggling with her late-bloomer revelation and new world. 

Especially after years of playing more unflattering roles in films like the “Fifty Shades” trilogy, Johnson has emerged in recent times much like Kristen Stewart did in her post-”Twilight” career: she’s flourished in a realm of fresher, deeper, more emotionally complicated role. “Ok” is no different, and she somehow turns a quieter role into one of real vulnerability and honest humor. Her chemistry with Mizuno is fantastic, and their friendship really feels believable and works as the anchor for the entire film. Likewise, Mizuno is also great, and the pair of them develop a friendship that feels messy and complicated and real, unlike most other fake feeling movie friends. 

The rest of the cast are all good, serving their roles well, but aren’t majorly memorable. Fowler does a great job as the doting, humorus, self-effacing boyfriend role, and Clemons plays the stereotypical “early-20s, overly flirtatious girl” role well. But neither the script from writer Lauren Pomerantz (“Strange Planet,” “Saturday Night Live”) nor their performances do much to break out of these kinds of archetypes. Likewise, even for a fairly simplistic movie, co-directors Tig Notaro (“One Mississippi,” “Star Trek: Discovery”) and Stephanie Allynne (“Dream Corp LLC,” “The L Word: Generation Q”) struggle to do more than point and shoot for much of the film’s runtime. 

It’s a well-directed film in terms of getting lots of good dialogue-based scenes and moments of honest humor, but there isn’t any real sense of dramatic flair or flashiness. Not that it needs it, but eventually it stops feeling like a movie and more just like a filmed play because of this. There’s a good but not particularly memorable score from Craig Wedren (“School of Rock,” “Velvet Goldmine”) and Annie Clark (aka St. Vincent) as well, and it ends up feeding into the film’s main issue. It’s a fine story that's well-acted and clearly has a lot of emotion put into it. But it fails to make any real impact from a craft perspective. 

Unfortunately, despite Johnson’s great performance, the queer elements of the story don’t really feel explored beyond a base level. It's fun to see her go on dates and discover herself, and plenty of great scenes come from this. A particularly excellent one sees Lucy and Jane lying in bed for a sleepover with Lucy slowly realizing her female attractions and working through it by talking to Jane. But it feels as though it stops short of really allowing Lucy to explore herself onscreen. Yes, the film is clearly moreso about their friendship, but given how much of it is central to Lucy’s coming out and self-exploration, it’s disappointing we don’t see more of it. 

“Am I Ok?” is a well-acted and sweet tale that buoys itself around excellent chemistry between Johnson and Mizuno. But it never really feels like it gets deeper into any of the subjects it brings up, resulting in an emotionally charged, important, but ultimately rather surface level exploration of the middle-age coming out experience. It’s worth watching certainly, but it fails to make a major impression like one might hope given the material and those involved. 3/5

The Garfield Movie - Review: A Big Fat Hairy Deal

 

Somehow, the rotund orange tabby cat with a love of lasagna and a hatred of Mondays by the name of Garfield has managed to keep a stranglehold on the Sunday comics market for the better part of the last 45 years. After metric tons of merchandise, television specials, and two live-action films, the character finally has his first feature-length animated film released in theatres, the creatively titled “The Garfield Movie.” 

The film stars Chris Pratt (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Parks and Recreation”) as Garfield, the titular lazy fat cat, who gets cat-napped alongside his dimwitted dog pal Odie, voiced by Harvey Guillén (“What We Do In The Shadows (2019),” “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish”). They’re dragged out of the house by the villainous cat Jinx, voiced by Hannah Waddingham (“Ted Lasso,” “Sex Education”), who seeks revenge against Garfield’s father Vic, voiced by Samuel L. Jackson (“Pulp Fiction,” “Django Unchained”). She forces the trio on a heist, which quickly goes awry, leading Garfield and his father to butt heads and cause chaos, all while Garfield’s owner Jon, voiced by Nicholas Hoult (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “The Menu”), awaits their return. 

It’s quite an adventurous tale for such a lethargic cat, and the script, written by Paul A. Kaplan (“Spin City,” “Raising Hope”), Mark Torgove (“Spin City,” “Raising Hope”), and David Reynolds (“The Emperor’s New Groove,” “Finding Nemo”), goes to great lengths to get the tabby out of the house. Unfortunately, the adventure itself ends up as a mostly bland tale that recycles much of the same plotting and character beats seen in numerous other animated family films. The film’s sense of humor and the gags throughout are still amusing and maintain the wry, broad sense of silliness that the comic strip is known for, but the overall plot feels stitched together from other, better, family films. 

The vocal performances are a complete mixed bag. While none are really doing any difficult work, mostly residing in the realm of “celebrities doing their own voices”, some fit the characters far worse than others. The big stickler is Pratt, and his performance is fine enough but at no point ever gives the impression that it’s Garfield you’re listening to. Meanwhile Jackson is fine enough, with Hoult stealing the show in his minor appearances. Waddingham is also just fine, and Guillén does a lot of very amusing yipping and barking as Garfield’s technically mute canine companion. 

Visually, it's a somewhat bland film. It looks technically nice, with lots of painted looking backgrounds and warm autumnal colors to showcase a generalized picture of midwestern US landscapes. But it's a very serviceable look, with nothing standing out stylistically or visually. The film’s visual identity, or lack thereof, actually ends up speaking to the larger issues with the movie as a whole. 

Despite having an experienced director at the helm in Mark Dindal (“The Little Mermaid,” “Aladdin”), the film lacks anything memorable about it, existing more as an animated babysitter for the kids and a contractual obligation. You simply need more than a recognizable face or an experienced director to make something memorable, as those elements can get butts in seats, but do not guarantee a good or enjoyable product. Luckily, the film itself does manage to be amusing and silly enough to be a fun waste of 90 minutes, but it lacks any legitimate reason to exist. It’s made even worse given the numerous amounts of product placement in the film, which eventually borders on inane. Family films like this will always have some kind of tie-in or product placement, but there the small moments of real brands and restaurants being shown and then some that feel like short ads meant to be airing on TV that accidentally got spliced into the final film.

“The Garfield Movie” continues the orange tabby’s tradition of starring in serviceable but lackluster family films, and it's at least better than the previous live action works. It’s pretty to look at but bland overall, in both story and overall visual style. Its voice cast is mostly good, and the sense of humor is fun, but it’s hard to imagine anyone remembering anything about this film a year from now, beyond the bizarre casting of its title role. 2.5/5

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga - Review: A Fantastic and Furious Femme Fatale Fable

 

After thirty years since the release of “Beyond Thunderdome,” George Miller (“Three Thousand Years of Longing,” “Babe”), the original creator of the “Mad Max” franchise returned with the acclaimed and lauded “Mad Max: Fury Road,” which not only introduced a new Max and new style to the series, but also a new lead in Imperator Furiosa, a badass war-rig driver with a buzz cut and a metal arm played by Charlize Theron. Miller now returns to the character to tell the story of her life up to the events of “Fury Road” with a film simply titled “Furiosa.”

Played now by Anya Taylor-Joy (“The Menu,” “The Queen’s Gambit”) in her teen years and beyond and by Alyla Browne (“Three Thousand Years of Longing”) as a young child, the film is a sprawling, borderline Shakespearean tale of Furiosa’s life after she was taken from her paradisal home known as The Green Place by Dr. Dementus, played by Chris Hemsworth (“Thor,” “The Cabin in the Woods”), and his biker gang. She seeks revenge on him for stealing her away and killing her mother, while rising through the ranks of the War Boys and warriors of Immortan Joe, played by Lachy Hulme (“The Matrix Reloaded,” “Offspring”), working alongside his own Praetorian Jack, played by Tom Burke (“Mank,” “Strike”).

More than ever before, thanks to the length of the film’s scope and its runtime, Miller dives headfirst into the wasteland with more detail and lore than ever before. With his co-writer Nico Lathouris (“Mad Max: Fury Road”), the pair further expand the wasteland to show locations only heard about before and also new aspects of their culture. The film’s unreliable narrator is someone referred to as a History Man, played by George Shevtsov (“Three Thousand Years of Longing,” “Stormworld”), a man literally tattooed with numerous words, turns of phrase, and definitions, literally called upon at some points to define complicated words or give synonyms for what Dementus is saying.

As Miller continues to mine the depths of his world, so does he connect himself with actors ready to throw themselves to the floor for these characters. Taylor-Joy is a genuine revelation, giving what is borderline the best performance of her career. So much of the film is based on her body language, movements, and intense gaze. Even when going long stretches without speaking, she commands the attention of the camera and world itself to tell this story.

Hemsworth, meanwhile, goes for broke to an almost comedic degree. His Dementus is a fascinating villain, maintaining a level of charisma and apathy that makes it a wonder to watch his downfall. As he continues to spiral downwards, it becomes a marvelous display of hubris as Dementus falls from grace despite his continued best efforts. The supporting cast is also packed full of great performances straddling the line between insanity and seriousness. Angus Sampson (“Heartbreak High (2022),” “Insidious”) as Dementus’s Organic Mechanic, John Howard (“The Girl from Tomorrow,” “All Saints”) as Joe’s advisor known as The People Eater, and Charlee Fraser (“Anyone But You”) in an impactfully small chunk of time as Furiosa’s mother, Mary.

The fact that Miller takes these smaller roles so seriously despite their insane names, physicalities, and demeanors is a testament to his approach with this film and what makes it so different from “Fury Road” before it. Whereas “Fury Road” was a shot of adrenaline that never lets up, with harsh searing colors and camerawork, “Furiosa” spends a shocking amount of time going slower, with a focus on building up the titular heroine’s characterizations. The previous Shakespearean comparison is no accident; it's an extremely apt comparison rather. As the

History Man narrates, we realize we’re being told a story, and given that no one ever really thinks they’re insane in their own story, we get a tale of a wasteland that’s still crazy, but in a more reserved way. Imagine having someone explain one of the most bizarre experiences they’ve ever had to you in the calmest manner possible, and you’ve got a good idea of the level “Furiosa” is operating on.

Even if it isn’t flying by at two-hundred-mph or shot with the bright yellow haze that sears your eyeballs, what’s here is still a massive technical and visual achievement. From numerous sequences involving complicated stunt works or massive vehicular destruction to the way various locations are dressed and designed, Miller’s wasteland continues to be a feast for the senses, shot with glee by cinematographer Simon Duggan (“Warcraft,” “The Great Gatsby (2013)”), and even if there are fewer of them, the action sequences that do exist are still thrilling to behold, thumping along to a chunky electric score from Tom Holkenborg (“Deadpool,” “Mad Max: Fury Road”).

Slightly disappointing though, for all the fantastic stunt work and practical production designs, there are a few glaring moments of visual weirdness that seem out of place given the budget and level of care given to the rest of the film. For example, while there’s some really impressive work with meshing Taylor-Joy and Browne’s faces for young Furiosa and creating the Bullet Farm leader’s face entirely out of CGI, there are also moments of glaring obviousness. Shots of the War Boys standing atop a Rig with clearly green screened backgrounds behind them, as well as various CGI vehicles and crashes that look less than convincing. It wouldn’t be such a discredit if not for the impressive practical work on every front, leading to a jarring clash when these less than stellar elements do appear.

The end result of the film’s various disparate elements is something quite bizarre and unique. It’s a serious film filled with insanity, that never fails to take everything to heart. It’s a work located mostly in deserts and dilapidated locals, but that often looks beautiful in its technical and production design aspects, and it’s lead by two career best performances from two actors who’ve already given plenty of fantastic performances in the past. It lacks that immediate, genre defining momentum that “Fury Road” delivered, not surprising given that film’s lighting in a bottle nature. It’s a fascinatingly different take on a world Miller has had the reins on for his entire career, and it’s worth a watch for that aspect alone. 4.5/5

IF (2024) - Review: A Messy, Uneven, Big Hearted Family Flick

 

It takes a lot for a studio to bankroll an original family film with zero ties to any kind of book, game, television series, or other merchandisable immediacy, especially for a budget of $110 million. But when you have the goodwill of the public and have made said studio over $600 million with two films who’s combined budget was a little under $80 million, you can snag yourself a blank check feature, much like John Krasinski (“A Quiet Place,” “The Office”) has with his latest film, “IF.”

Starting a few years after the loss of her mother, the film follows twelve-year-old Bea, played by Cailey Fleming (“The Walking Dead”), back in New York staying with her grandmother Margaret, played by Fiona Shaw (“Enola Holmes,” “Killing Eve”), whilst her father, played by Krasinski, is in the hospital. While there, she finds her upstairs neighbor Cal, played by Ryan Reynolds (“Deadpool,” “Free Guy”), with an apartment full of imaginary friends, known as IFs, such as Blossom, voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (“Fleabag,” “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny”), and Blue, voiced by Steve Carell (“The Office,” “Despicable Me”). Since she can see them, they enlist in her help to pair them with new kids since their old ones have grown up and forgotten them.

There’s definitely whimsy to behold here, and a lot of that comes down to the titular IFs themselves. Packed to the gills with varying styles and aesthetics, each one makes a visual impact, brought to life with a colorful and charming voice from a celebrity cast that could alone fill an entire theatre. Krasinski does smartly play them down though, letting the voices just be voices and not winks for the parents. Louis Gossett Jr. (“An Officer and a Gentleman,” “Roots”) voices Louis, an elderly teddy bear who runs the IFs retirement home, and his voice lends a lot of warmth to the proceedings, becoming a calming bright spot for the film overall.

Waller-Bridge and Carell do a good job with their IFs, but they mostly plod along with the same kind of candor you’d expect from most celebrity voiced animated characters. The voices do fit the parts, but they never excel in a particular way. Reynolds, meanwhile, plays mostly against type for the first time in a while. Calvin is more subdued and downplayed than pretty much every other character he’s played for the last decade, and it's a welcome strength. Fleming is okay, doing the best with a script that’s mostly asking her to stand around, look wide-eyed at the IFs, and ask questions so the film can explain its premise(s).

The elephant, or IF, in the room for the film is that script and the wild tonal shifts it takes throughout. Shortly after meeting the IFs, Bea is reduced to asking a lot of questions and looking astonished. It stifles her character and gives the movie a stalling pace. It’s as if Krasinski won’t let us continue without really really making sure we understand what’s going on. The film also swings wildly between being full of whimsy and remarkably sad and melancholy. This isn’t a problem since it does commit to these differing tones, but it is an interesting choice, nonetheless.

Visually, there is a lot to like here, and cinematographer Janusz Kamiński’s (“Saving Private Ryan,” “West Side Story (2021)”) work pairs beautifully with a score from Michael Giacchino (“Up,” “Inside Out”). The visual effects and practical sets blend together seamlessly, and the IFs themselves really do look fantastic. Kamiński’s camerawork maintains a level of professionalism and playfulness, making sure we get the best possible views of this adventure without feeling stale or stiff.

“IF” is a very odd and conflicting film. It’s a family movie aimed at kids that might be too mature for them. It’s a movie that wants to make you feel the whimsy but is better at conjuring it when it's not trying to conjure it. It’s also funny and fun, but remarkably sad as well. In some ways, it's a head scratcher; will this be a movie kids pick to watch on a car ride or sleepover over other picks like “Toy Story” or “Despicable Me”? It isn’t that it's too complex for younger audiences or that it isn’t actually a movie for them. It just ends up being a lot for a young mind to handle.

Krasinski clearly has a lot of ambition here, and it works on most levels, especially visually. Yet the script kneecaps its protagonist once its most interesting element comes into play, and it struggles with wanting to spark joy and magic versus when it actually does. Reynolds is a surprisingly subdued highlight, and it’ll definitely make most smile and tear up. But those going in expecting a lighthearted family romp should be warned: this one is gonna get a bit heavy and messy. 3.5/5

I Saw The TV Glow - Review: Trip The Television Light Fantastic

As a follow up to their directorial feature, the viral creepypasta inspired “We’re All Going to the World’s Fair,” writer/director Jane Schoenbrun has delivered a pink neon tinted vision of a nostalgic 90s time, draped in dreary imagery and a dayglo sort of soundtrack to craft a film unlike anything out this year or in many years before. An exploration of identity and repression that can only come from a singular, uncompromised voice, this is “I Saw the TV Glow.” This is a film that should be experienced with as few details as possible.

Set in 1998 and the years that follow, the film follows teenager Owen, played by Justice Smith (“Pokémon Detective Pikachu,” “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves”) and Ian Foreman as a younger version, as he befriends older teen Maddy, played by Jack Haven (“Atypical,” “Bill and Ted Face the Music”), and the pair bond over their shared obsession with a young adult “monster of the week” mystery show called “The Pink Opaque.” However, as life gets drearier and they get older, the pair begin to question if it was actually a fictional show after all. 

Despite the clear and distinct style and voice, this is the sort of smaller scale drama tale that entirely revolves around the strength of its actors. Luckily, not only do Haven and Smith have phenomenal chemistry together, but their individual performances are stellar as well. Smith maintains a delicate balance between meek and pathetic, making us feel for his character without becoming a punching bag and still maintaining credibility as our narrator. Meanwhile Haven completely runs away with the film. Maddy herself is not just a constantly engrossing and fascinating character, but Haven's layered performance elevates her to an obsessive degree. It’s a haunting display of loneliness and fear, but not without a deep caring for Owen and fearlessness rooted at her center. 

Owen and Maddy’s adventure is draped with a color palette that manages to feature some of the darkest blues, pinks, and whites you’ve ever seen. Each scene feels like a living diorama of the 90s and early 2000s, dipped into a vat of viscous vaporwave vibes. There’s something so painfully and deeply real about their adventure, and yet at times it feels like everyone around them is a mannequin, purposefully set up to adhere to their story. This isn’t a bug though, rather a feature of the overarching narrative. 

Set to a fantastic score from Alex G (“We’re All Going to the World’s Fair”) and an eclectic soundtrack featuring Phoebe Bridgers, Sloppy Jane, and King Woman, “TV Glow” features not just a visual vibe all its own, but also an auditory and editing vibe that matches perfectly. Some moments that initially come across as mistakes or glitches quickly reveal themselves to be further enhancements to the dreamlike aesthetics of this tale, and they’re staged and layered overtop of Eric K. Yue’s (“The Giant (209),” “A Thousand and One”) cinematography to great effect. 

What takes this tale to the next level is its intense levels of subtextual storytelling and layering. As things become more complicated and mysterious for Maddy and Owen, the visual motifs and hints begin to crop up more and more. Are these just coincidences? Subtle hints at a potential reality shift? Red herrings put in for us, the audience, to purposefully read further into? These details feed further into a tale of self-repression and inner self, crafting an exquisite portrait of a pair of protagonists taking two remarkably different approaches to the same emotion. 

This is the sort of film where every single aspect of the filmmaking process is working together to evoke the same emotion and create the same tone. For example, while its visual effects budget is not nearly the same as a blockbuster or similar film, it uses that lower budgeted look to evoke a sinister, unsettling feeling with its effects moments. It all collides together into a singular work that unsettles but still manages to evoke a possible moment of hope, communicated perfectly by a single image of chalk writing on a street, “There is still time.” 

It says a lot that, even amongst other specific and unique works, “I Saw the TV Glow” works on a different level of even those due to the deeply emotional subtext working underneath a perfect micro chasm of 90s vaporwave feelings and visuals, commanded by two exceptional lead performances.  Schoenbrun has crafted a singular vision that will be discussed and dissected and beloved for years and years to come to degrees possibly as obsessive as its two main characters. 5/5

Unfrosted - Review: Seinfeld's Cereal Satire is Stale and Soggy

 

Jerry Seinfeld ruled the world at one time. Whether you know him from his stand-up career, his work on the eponymous sitcom named after himself, or his 2000s millennial cult animated film “Bee Movie,” at some point in your life you’ve likely heard his name. And yet, despite his career, he’s never been more than a cameo in a live-action film before, nor has he directed a film before. Which is why “Unfrosted” is such a big deal: it’s Seinfeld’s directorial debut, a film he’s also starring in, produced, and written alongside Spike Feresten (“Bee Movie,” “Seinfeld”), Andy Robin (“Bee Movie,” “Seinfeld”), and Barry Marder (“Bee Movie,” “Night Stand”). And it absolutely stinks. 

The film follows an absolutely massive comedic ensemble centered around the idea of satirizing the 1960s race between Post and Kellogg’s to create the first “breakfast pastry” product that would eventually become the Pop-Tart. Seinfeld stars as Bob Cabana, one of the Kellogg’s employees who created the treat, alongside Melissa McCarthy (“Gilmore Girls,” “Bridesmaids”) as Donna Stankowski, a NASA scientist and member of the team, Jim Gaffigan (“Troop Zero,” “Peter Pan & Wendy”) as Edsel Kellogg III, the head of Kellogg’s, Amy Schumer (“Trainwreck,” “Life & Beth”) as Marjorie Post, the head of Post, Max Greenfield (“New Girl,” “The Neighborhood”) as Rick Ludwin, her underling and right hand man, and Hugh Grant (“About a Boy," "Paddington 2") as Thurl Ravenscroft, the actor who originated the mascot role of Tony the Tiger. The rest of the ensemble consists of the likes of Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones,” “Death at a Funeral”), Christian Slater (“Heathers,” “Mr. Robot”), Bill Burr (“F is for Family,” “The King of Staten Island”), James Marsden (“Jury Duty,” “Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)”), Jack McBrayer (“Wreck-It Ralph,” “30 Rock”), Thomas Lennon (“Reno 911,” “Santa Clarita Diet”), Bobby Moynihan (“Ducktales (2017),” “We Bare Bears”), and Andy Daly (“Review,” “Eastbound and Down”). 

Despite being written by four career comedy writers and starring a cast full of very funny people, “Unfrosted” very quickly saps all of the comedy out of the film, like a dry cereal sucking up all the milk in a bowl. Each joke in the film seems to be either a reference to some food/toy/concept from the 60s. At one point, Walter Cronkite is seen playing with a Wheel-O. That’s the whole joke of that scene; “look, a famous old person is playing with a kid's toy that’s now old.” That’s most of the film’s comedy. It boils down to referencing an old thing and a kid’s thing in one sentence; at one point, Moynihan, who’s literally playing Chef Boyardee says “Uh oh” and then pauses for a few moments before saying “SpaghettiOs.” That’s the level of comedy at play. 

Which makes it even more bizarre when the film leans more into its high concept elements. From a “cereal funeral” complete with pouring cereal and milk into a grave as the coffin absorbs the milk, to Jon Hamm and John Slattery reprising their “Mad Men” roles in all but name, it rides a truly bizarre line that both feels lazy and overly complicated. There’s a literal “breakfast cereal mascot” recreation of the January 6th raid on the capital, right down to donning Tony the Tiger with giant horns. It’s an incredibly high concept idea executed as plainly as possible. 

Heck, the basic premise envisions this corporate rivalry and race to create the treat as if it's the space race, with high tech equipment and scientists working on a kid’s breakfast pastry. It’s clearly trying to be a more satirical take on the “corporate” biopic we’ve recently seen with the likes of “Air,” “Tetris,” and “Blackberry”, but it fetishizes the products instead of poking any fun at them. And yes, the revelry Seinfeld has on display for the likes of Frosted Flakes and Corn Pops does indeed rise to fetishistic levels. Seeing Seinfeld walk with Superman in a commercial or feature his love of certain cartoons on his sitcom can be silly or charming. Seeing him devote a 90-minute film to the creation of, as his character Cabana puts it “happy childhoods for millions of American kids” through the creation of the Pop-Tart can feel borderline weird and creepy. 

Most of the film’s problems really come back to Seinfeld. His determinate vision for this production is clear but is where most of its worst humor lies. Likewise, he’s filled the film with plenty of funny actors who can do a good amount with a lackluster script. But his background in stand-up means that he is the worst performer there. He can’t deliver this kind of material in a reliable way, leading to some weird line deliveries and feeling as if he’s got a gun to his head for the entire film. Not a good sign when you’re using that to describe your lead creative mind behind the project. 

Its technical merits at least feel fine. The film is shot by Bill Pope (“The Matrix,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World”) and his career worth of skills help bring the film to life with some above average camerawork, even helping to flesh out the retro-futuristic production design. It can’t save it from still feeling flat, overly clean, and cheap, but it at least prevents every aspect of the film from feeling boring. Even with all of the weirdness on display, it all just feels too flat, too cold, too boring to make any kind of impact, even as a bad film. 

“Unfrosted” is a soggy mess, and despite the material it fails to even register as an interesting mess. Seinfeld gives a bad performance, with the rest of the cast acting circles around him even with the lackluster script. It’s just not a funny movie, eliciting more confused looks and eyebrow raises than even light giggles, and its reverence for the 60s and breakfast food just feels off. Even with some good technical elements, it’s hard to imagine anyone other than Seinfeld himself feeling more than confused and nonplussed for this satirical cereal bowl of nothing. 1.5/5

The Fall Guy - Review: An Explosion of Charm and Stunt-tastic Action

 

If ever there was a profession tailored made for the Hollywood cliche of brushing yourself off and getting back up, it is that of the stunt man, the profession made of people willing to throw themselves into/at hell to make a much more famous person look that much cooler. Lifelong stunt-man-turned-director David Leitch (“John Wick,” “Atomic Blonde”) has crafted what could easily be called the greatest tribute to the profession one could ever make with the bonkers and breezy “The Fall Guy.”

Starring Ryan Gosling (“The Nice Guy,” “La La Land”) as retired stunt man Colt Seavers who’s called back into the fray to work on the directorial debut of his ex-girlfriend Jody Moreno, played by Emily Blunt (“A Quiet Place,” “Edge of Tomorrow”). However, there’s more sinister things afoot, as he’s recruited by the film’s producer Gail Meyer, played by Hannah Waddingham (“Ted Lasso,” “Krypton”), to track down its missing lead, action star Tom Ryder, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass,” “Bullet Train”), with Winston Duke (“Black Panther,” “Us”), Stephanie Hsu (“Everything Everywhere All at Once,” “Joy Ride”), and Teresa Palmer (“Hacksaw Ridge,” “A Discovery of Witches”) rounding out the cast.

It’s a very silly and breezy flick, with the film constantly breaking the fourth wall without becoming obnoxious. The moments range from larger ones, such as messing with repeated takes and split screens, to smaller ones simply commenting on the nature of the film at large. They’re all executed fantastically, with a zip and whimsy that’s been missing in virtually any blockbuster action movie for the last five or so years.

Part of that is due to the script from Drew Pearce (“Iron Man 3,” “Hotel Artemis”), which is just complicated enough to be interesting, without becoming a parody of itself, and the rest is due to the phenomenal comedic abilities of Gosling as well as his chemistry with Blunt. The pair light the screen up and they have such natural banter that falling for their story isn’t a question of if, rather it’s a question of when.

The film’s supporting cast also excels, with everyone committing to the wavelength of the film’s somewhat silly, somewhat serious tone. Duke and Gosling are instant best friends, and a fight scene featuring the two of them about two-thirds of the way through the film is a bolt of pure charisma. Waddingham and Johnson make for a perfectly hammy pair at every turn, but Hsu and Palmer, while still a lot of fun, feel underutilized considering how they easily match the rest of the cast’s charms.

Throughout “The Fall Guy” there are so many fingerprints of 90s and early 2000s blockbusters that make the film feel like something of a throwback to a bygone era. In this age of overly franchised CGI heavy shlock (ironic since this film is a reboot/remake of an 80s television series), it’s refreshing to see a film so action heavy and still features real people, stunts, locations, and effects. It’s obviously a film made to pay tribute to those stunt workers, but it manages to do so and still provide a metric ton of fun and entertainment.

Leitch and Pearce are never afraid to let their actors be their charismatic selves either. There are so many moments of charming banter the helps to flesh out and sell this cast as a group of real people easy to fall for. At times it is so charismatic, even at its slightly over two hours runtime, its easy to see a world where the film itself is longer with no issues.

Even without the impressive stunts and action, charismatic cast, and witty script, the biggest thing working in the film’s favor is its genuine love of the “below the line” workers on a film set. While there are jokes about getting coffee and other menial tasks, it's also a movie about the people who don’t get top billing and celebrating them. While it might be focused on stunt performers, it's easy to see a love of every single person who bands together to help get a movie made.

“The Fall Guy” may not be a masterpiece, but it’s a fantastic work of action blockbuster filmmaking packed with plenty of great stunts and sequences. Beyond that though, it has a big beating heart at its center, carried by Gosling, Blunt, and the rest of the cast across the finish line with swagger, charm, and a big goofy grin. It’s the kind of movie that makes you love the movies because it also loves the movies. 4/5

Challengers - Review: Game, Set, Matchmaker

 

There have been plenty of sports films before, but there’s never been a sports film quite like a Luca Guadagnino (“Call Me By Your Name,” “Bones and All”) sports film. The director has brought his penchant for sex, skin, bodies, and sweat to Tennis, a sport most commonly associated with repetition and, along with writer Justin Kuritzkes, delivered a combative, competitive love triangle film that exhilarates and excites and titillates from the jump.

“Challengers” follows the thirteen-year-long love triangle between Tashi Duncan, played by Zendaya (“Dune (2021),” “euphoria”), a former tennis played turned coach forced to retire due to an injury, her husband Art Donaldson, a tennis champion played by Mike Faist (“West Side Story (2021),” “Pinball: The Man Who Saved the Game”), and Patrick Zweig, Art’s former best friend and low circuit tennis player played by Josh O’Connor (“God’s Own Country,” “The Crown”). It traces their meeting in college up until the events of a wild card challenger event in New Rochelle, NY, 13 years later.

Before we can get into anything else at all, know this: Zendaya is spectacular. Every member of the main trio is, but there’s just something so particularly magnetic about her performance. Yes, the entire film is essentially based around Art and Patrick’s desire of her and her manipulation of that desire to get what she wants, but the fact that Guadagnino has almost crafted the film to put the audience in Art and Patrick’s position as well is nothing short of genius.

Faist and Zweig are no slouches either. The scenes with the two of them paired up, showcasing the evolution and crumbling of their friendship due to Tashi’s meddling are just as thrilling as the tennis matches themselves. It’s the kind of film where you can never truly tell what someone is going to do, how they’ll react, or if they’ll end up regretting it later.

For a film mostly about tennis, Guadagnino has managed to work with cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom (“Call Me By Your Name,” “Suspiria (2018)”) to shoot it in the most fascinatingly interesting ways possible. Not only are the standard dialogue scenes well shot, but the tennis matches are pure adrenaline, shot in specific ways that boggle the mind. Couple that with an invigorating score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (“The Social Network,” “Soul”), and you have a recipe for a film that is tailor made to get blood pumping in more ways than one.

There’s a lot of sweat throughout the entire film, and not all of it is related to tennis. Kuritzkes and Guadagnino craft a tale full of metaphor and symbolism, where the back and forth of a tennis match can easily be about more than lobbing a ball back and forth.

On paper, it could be easy to call this a simple relationship drama and leave it at that, but it's not just that. It’s the specific combination of each individual element. Yes, the dialogue, music, cinematography, acting, etc. would all still be compelling in different separate films. But combined in this specific way, it creates a movie that is more than the sum of its already excellent parts.

“Challengers” is a giddy, thrilling drama equal parts sexy, funny, and invigorating. It’s the best Zendaya has ever been and represents a cross section between Guadagnino’s auteurist styles and broader audience appeal. The result is a concoction that is a delight to sit back and stew in, until it pumps you up so much you can't help but stand up and scream. 5/5