 I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to call this one something of a "hidden gem" this summer (at least, not a lot of people are saying anything about it on my end), but I will say that if you're looking for something a bit different for a thriller, this is a pretty good place to look. It's a fine example of a current man vs nature story, Idris Elba is the headliner, and there's plenty of good intensity throughout the film to keep you on the edge of your seat. For me, there was only one thing really holding it back, but I'll get to that soon.
Dr. Nate Samuels (Elba) heads on a safari vacation to the Mopani Reserve in South Africa to reconnect with his old friend, a biologist by the name of Martin Battles (Sharlto Copley). Along with Nate are his two daughters, Meredith (Iyana Halley) and Norah (Leah Jeffries), and the point of the trip is for Nate to reconnect with his daughters, following the tragic passing of his wife/their mother. We find out that she grew up in the area, and that Martin had introduced the pair, initially. Things go pretty well until Nate, Martin and Nate's daughters happen across an entire small village of people who have seemingly been attacked by something vicious and huge or, more specifically, a lion who has gone totally nuts. As for the rest of the film, I might say the best way to think about it is a very 'Jurassic Park'-like situation, but with one terrifying, big lion as opposed to say, a T-Rex, or a velociraptor. Now, some of that 'JP' comparison includes, as I previously mentioned, the one thing really holding the film back. Remember in the original 'JP' when the T-Rex got out, and Lex grabs a flashlight from the back of the jeep, shining it all over the place, practically signalling the Rex to attack said jeep? That type of stupidity is constant with the daughters here. I can't count how many times I shook my head, facepalmed or at least rolled my eyes. Nothing against these two young actresses, but the writers made these characters almost extra stupid, and it didn't help the movie to make them damsels in distress. But what we're really here to see, obviously, is Idris Elba fighting a lion with his bare hands like some kind of badass warrior. Well, no worries, because there's plenty of facing off against this creature. But I have to admit that there are many times you must throw reality out the window because the way this lion plays with its prey isn't entirely believable (as in how uninjured the prey is after being toyed with). With that said, I don't pretend to know a whole bunch about lions and how they work. I just can't imagine being able to pick yourself up and dust yourself off after some of the attacks that take place throughout the film. Although I will say that the attacks in question ARE quite unnerving. A lot of it takes me back to 'The Edge' with the bear attack, or 'Frozen' with the wolf attack (that's the non-Disney version). All in all, other than the two daughters driving me batshit crazy for a lot of it, this is a pretty solid title as far as it being suspenseful and even kinda scary a lot of the time. However, if you're someone who really hates seeing stupidity unfold during a movie - you know, "don't go in there, you just saw the killer go in there!" then I'd honestly recommend avoiding it. It's not JUST these two girls doing it, either. I may be being a little harsh, as I'm sure the director was going for "panic" and "not thinking straight" here, but that can only go so far until it gets tiresome. I don't see the film doing incredibly well this year, but between this, 'Thor', 'Sonic 2' and 'Three Thousand Years of Longing', Elba will definitely be fine. 3/5
0 Comments
 Here we have one of those titles that, for me, was far more of a mere curiosity than something I was dying to see. You see, I have a bit of a thing for bottle movies like this, where there's not much going on, but the filmmakers can tell a solid story with what little they have to work with. Granted, they're not for everyone, but I love to see how much they can deliver with as little as they can - so far, I might say the record-holder is 'Buried', which I used as a Screening Suggestion for a phobia-themed month quite some time ago.
Having said that, I finally managed to watch this, but do have one simple regret, and that's that I didn't see it on as big of a screen as I could. You see, I'm a bit weak when it comes to things like heights (and various other things), so my adrenaline fix tends to come from edge-of-your-seat thrillers. I'm safe and secure in my theater seat, but can still feel that certain tingle in my stomach. Sure, it's no roller-coaster as most people can handle, but... it IS why "thriller" is a genre, to begin with. Anyway, this one, in case you couldn't tell, is ALL about playing on the audience's fears of unsafe heights; this was made for someone like me. Plot-wise, this mainly centers on a couple of thrill-seeking climbers; Becky (Grace Caroline Currey) who has recently lost her husband, Dan (Mason Gooding) in a climbing accident, and has since become terrified of her hobby, and her close friend Hunter (Virginia Gardner), who is determined to get Becky over her fears so she can live her life again. The goal Hunter sets for Becky is to, together, climb to the very top of a 2,000 foot radio tower. For reference, that is about a couple hundred feet higher than Toronto's CN Tower. As these movies go, however, once they make it to the top (in an array of dizzying scenes, tracking their climb), the main ladder falls off, stranding them. Now, Becky and Hunter (who is also a social media icon of sorts, and filming this whole climb) have to rely on what little they have to survive, try to get some kind of SOS message out, and battle the dry, arid desert air along with circling vultures, just waiting for the two to give up. Even having seen this on my smaller screen, there was enough here to make my stomach churn just a little bit, meaning that quite honestly, the film did exactly what it should have done. In many ways, this worked out to be the bottle thriller that I wanted, and it even takes a few really dark and somewhat unexpected turns, which I quite enjoyed. A lot of the idea of a movie like this is to portray sheer hopelessness, and I have to say that this covered that well. Make no mistake, however. For as much as I praise the film, it's not without bits and pieces that may not be entirely realistic, and like any bottle movie like this, there's not a whole lot going on. We get to know our characters a little bit in order to route for their survival, but keep in mind that this is a couple of girls on top of a tower for about an hour and forty minutes. So it's definitely one of those acquired taste deals, and if you have no use for bottle movies like this then I can't say I recommend it super highly. However, if you're like me and like to see how creative a film can be by using very little, and/or are a thrill-seeker of film, then it's a decent title altogether. To close, there's a bonus to the film, as well as a pretty genuine complaint. The good news is that I haven't mentioned the name of Jeffery Dean Morgan yet, who plays Becky's father. He's not a big part of the film, but he's a solid name to have on it, and one of those guys everyone seems to collectively enjoy. The complaint though, and this IS kind of a big deal, is that it ends very abruptly. I even ended up rewinding it to see what I happened to miss, and it wasn't much. So if you plan on checking this out, just keep that in mind. Otherwise, this is a solid title for those who can appreciate this type of movie, and can just sort of go on a thrill ride with it. 3/5  While at this point in time, I might consider 'Maverick' to be my favourite of 2022, I have to admit that 'Bullet Train' gives it some very stiff competition. I may have to do them both back to back by the end of the year just to establish which one I thought was better. Truth be told, on this side of the comparison, 'Bullet Train' was much more an, as I so often put it, "Up My Alley" type of film, made with plenty of style, and substance, and meant for a good time as opposed to something to be taken too seriously.
The comparison I have given this is if Guy Ritchie directed a 'Deadpool' movie, as so much of the style of the film is very Guy Ritchie, and could easily be compared to his films 'Lock, Stock' and 'Snatch'. The 'Deadpool' comparison comes more from its director, David Leitch, who also did 'Deadpool 2', and therefore a LOT of the dialogue is reminiscent of it. Hell, Brad Pitt, himself here is almost a Deadpool-like character with his comedic delivery. Having said all of that, this has also been accused of being a Guy Ritchie ripoff, and it's kind of easy to see why... but the thing is, that style is what I loved so much about it, so it's very hard to be upset about it, personally. In fact, I'd love to see the two collaborate one day. Former assassin, codename "Ladybug" (Pitt), is assigned to a Kyoto-bound bullet train in order to retrieve a briefcase. Also aboard the train are a variety of characters who add all of the charm to the film; A grieving father named Yuichi Kimura (Andrew Koji), who seeks revenge after his son was pushed off a roof; a young lady calling herself the "Prince" (Joey King); two assassin brothers codenamed "Lemon" and "Tangerine" (Brian Tyree Henry and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, respectively) who are the briefcase keepers, so to speak; a mystery man type known as The Elder (Hiroyuki Sanada) another assassin called the "Wolf" (Bad Bunny) and several others that will probably make this paragraph too damn long. It ends up being one of those "everyone is connected to the situation" type of stories, mainly centring on the death of Kimura's son, and the whole briefcase situation. Otherwise, the film is loaded with hilarious moments, great action, and a cast of characters and cameos who keep popping up all throughout that goes further than anyone I've already mentioned - too many of them are pleasant surprises I don't want to spoil. Above anything else, though, is the fact that this is probably the most fun I've had in the theater this year with a movie. It's almost like it's a tide-over for 'Deadpool 3', as you get all of that proper comedic delivery all of us 'Deadpool' fans are craving so much here. Once again, it should be said that I do have a particular bias towards movies that are this stylistic and fun. That's all I wanted to experience with this, and I got all of that and then some. For me, it was such a good time, and it makes me want to explore more of David Leitch's material - as well as writer Zak Olkewicz, to whom I must also give credit. He doesn't have much under his belt aside from 'Fear Street Part Two' (which, incidentally, was probably my favourite of the three), but I hope he keeps going. He's got some potential! Anyway, if you want to just have a lot of fun with a movie this year, I feel like I can recommend this one pretty highly. 5/5  When it comes to DC's material, I tend to find that their animated stuff tends to far outweigh their live-action stuff. The thing is, when we think of DC animation, we probably think of material that's dark, edgy, and a little more adult. In this film's case, it's a DC animated film that leans much more towards a family-friendly and even cutesy story, looking a lot more like 'The Secret Life of Pets' than your typical DC superhero movie. For me, it's actually kind of refreshing, but I'll get to that in a bit.
We open with the well-known destruction of Krypton in a sort of "What If" scenario where, when Kal-El (eventually Clark Kent/Superman) is sent to Earth by his parents to live on, his puppy, Krypto, is sent with him. They grow up together over the years until they are found present day, living in Metropolis, and famous for their respective heroism. Currently, Clark/Superman (John Krasinski) is dating Lois Lane (Olivia Wilde), which in turn makes Krypto (Dwayne Johnson) a little jealous. As a result, Clark visits an animal shelter to find Krypto a friend so he won't be lonely, but to no avail. Superman and Krypto soon have bigger fish to fry when their nemesis, Lex Luthor (Marc Maron) is seen pulling an orange kryptonite meteor towards Earth that will apparently give him the superpowers he needs to fend off the Justice League; here consisting of Superman, Batman (Keanu Reeves), Wonder Woman (Jameela Jamil), Green Lantern (Dascha Polanco), Cyborg (Daveed Diggs), The Flash (John Early) and Aquaman (Jemaine Clement). He's easily thwarted, but back at the aforementioned animal shelter, a guinea pig named Lulu (Kate McKinnon) has her own diabolical plans. Having a tractor beam of her very own, Lulu hauls in a small chunk of the orange kryptonite that we soon find out only works on animals. Lulu breaks free with newly gained powers of telekinesis and flight, but the kryptonite also gives the other pets powers of their own. A dog named Ace (Kevin Hart) gains super strength and indestructibility; A potbellied pig named PB (Vanessa Bayer) can now shrink and grow like Ant-Man; a nearsighted turtle named Merton (Natasha Lyonne) gets super speed (of course), and a squirrel named Chip (Diego Luna) can now shoot electricity from his hands like some kind of Sith squirrel. When Lulu uses a bit of green kryptonite to capture Superman and the rest of the Justice League, however, it's up to the league of Super-Pets to save the day. I have to give the film credit for being able to be a solid DC movie with a mostly family-friendly comedic format. The type of comedy within the film is very reminiscent of something like the 'Lego' Movies, and with good reason, as this is written and directed (mainly) by Jared Stern who wrote for both 'Lego Batman' and 'Lego Ninjago'. So this isn't without a few great unexpected comedic sequences; my personal favourite is the turtle giving out a few solid swear words that have been bleeped out but nevertheless catch you off guard. I further give credit to the film breathing new life into the superhero genre. Even if it is another superhero movie, the formatting of it is what I find refreshing. This is by far a comedy first, so it's all of the favourite DC superheroes done to one extreme or the other. It also pokes fun at itself and DC quite a bit. But there's also a little bit of good drama spliced into the story here, and it actually manages to pull at the heartstrings a little bit here and there. Dog lovers, or indeed, anyone who has ever owned a pet (especially a dog) will understand why, and I find it evident in more than one scene. As far as animated films go this year, I have to say that this is by far one of the best. It's full of laughs, it's got just the right about of seriousness, and to top it all off, there's some relatability to it. This one comes recommended highly as a Super solid family feature this year. 4/5  As far as I've been reading so far, this is one of those titles I love reviewing so much because audiences are seemingly split right down the middle on it. A split opinion on a movie like this will always make me look deeper into it for some reason. I have to get where both sides are coming from. I haven't exactly deep-dived on it here, but it's enough to see articles with titles like "Jordan Peele's Worst Movie?" and a healthy Rotten Tomato average of 75.5%. For the record, 'Us' averages at 76.5% and 'Get Out' at 92%.
So... it could still be considered his weakest, but it's still a good movie. In the end, it still works out to have a strong underlying social message to it. Also, it's always important to keep in mind that this is the third in an unofficial trilogy. We'll call it the "Peele Horror Trilogy" (bearing in mind there could be more on the way). I say this because, odds are, by a third movie, no matter what you're making, the magic of that original movie has officially worn a bit thin. There are very few examples of third movies that are the best of a trilogy. They exist, but I'll bet you can only think of a few examples. But the bottom line is, I still really think Peele's fans should give this a shot. Getting to the point now, we open the movie with a very confusing scene involving a chimpanzee attack on the set of an old American sitcom. As with good storytelling, this does come into play later in the film, but I'm also not gonna sit here and spoil what Peele came up with in the end. Then we cut to a ranch where owner Otis Haywood Sr. (Keith David) trains horses for movies. He runs the ranch along with his dedicated son, Otis Jr; better known as "OJ" (Daniel Kaluuya) and not quite as dedicated daughter, Emerald; better known as "Em" (Keke Palmer), who would rather seek fame and fortune in Hollywood. All is well until, inexplicably, debris starts falling from the sky, which really kicks the movie off. Before the Haywoods know it, they discover a UFO in their area that seems to be causing mayhem wherever it goes, sucking up farm animals and messing up all sorts of electricity. It's not long until OJ and Em get themselves a security system to try to track the UFO. But, while they receive the help of techie Angel Torres (Brandon Perea) and the older, more experienced "Antlers" Holst (Michael Wincott) they find out that their UFO hunt is a lot more than they bargained for. I won't say anything specific about the big reveal, but I have to give it up to Jordan Peele for his original concept! But when all said and done, you're probably wondering what the actual underlying social theme of the movie is. For a very brief and simple refresher, 'Get Out' looked at the horrors of slavery, using the "Mad Scientist" storyline ('Human Centipede', 'Tusk'). 'Us' was basically a look at our own human nature and the duality within ourselves, essentially told as a "Home Invasion" story ('The Purge', 'The Strangers'). This one is largely about (as far as I can tell) mankind's obsession with not only technology as it advances - and not necessarily the best parts of it. As far as the type of horror, this is a little looser as it's pretty simply a UFO horror of which there are many examples. But I do find it interesting that the chimp attack scene takes place in 1998; right around the peak of the 90s alien/UFO/'X-Files' obsession. I'm probably overthinking the idea, but it's neat to think that Peele may have made this as a sort of throwback as well. Back to the movie's theme about technology though, without spoiling anything, a lot of the danger throughout the film comes from simply looking at it. That leads me to think that the obvious message here is about how we rely on these advancing technologies so much that they're slowly sucking our lives away. It makes me think of the humans in 'WALL-E' who basically live in floating chairs that can do anything for them. There's also a lot to be said about the respect of living creatures here, which further makes me think that it's not only about our technological obsessions but about respecting said technology as well. Anyway, all that has been my own takeaway from the film, but I'm curious to see if others take quite as much away. For me, it worked really well as straight-up horror as well. I've always had a bit of a thing about UFOs, aliens and the like after watching 'Fire in the Sky' when I was maybe 11 or 12. And while I give Peele major kudos for what he came up with here, a lot of that kudos has to do with the fact that some scenes here made me genuinely squirm. He manages to push you to the edge of your seat here a few times, and as far as I'm concerned, I might personally put this one above 'Us'. Although 'Get Out' definitely still holds that top position, I have been entertained by all three of Jordan Peele's directorial works, and I sincerely hope I get to see more! 4/5  I'll start this one by saying that this wasn't entirely what I thought it would be, judging by what little I had seen of it. I knew that altogether it wasn't exactly on the top of my list of movies to check out, but I hoped for a pleasant surprise for my review. Unfortunately, this is a title that finds itself on that long list of titles I just plain don't care about. I don't want that to take away from anyone's enjoyment of it if you happened to like it. But for some reason, I expected things to be a little more "riveting" than they were.
As per usual, my general disinterest is probably going to make for a somewhat short review. That's not even to say that the film is that bad, but I do admit to succumbing to boredom a few times while watching it. In short - just not for me. Above all that, there is now a whole bunch of controversy that follows this movie involving the original book's author, and her supposed ties to real-life murder, apparently with eerie similarities to plot points within the film. Having said that, I really don't know what's what about all of that, and how much of what I'm reading is true, so I'm not going to dwell. But when controversy follows a movie like that, it makes you wonder about what kind of lifespan the film will even have. Just a quick plot summary - the film involves a young girl named Kya (Daisy Edgar-Jones) who, through a series of events, is abandoned by her whole family to live on her own, raising herself in the harsh marshlands of North Carolina. She does quite well for herself, living off of her gardening, and trading fish and mussels for gas to a couple, Jumpin' (Sterling Macer Jr.) and his wife, Mabel (Michael Hyatt). However, to the rest of the community, she gets that "hermit" status, and is referred to as the "Marsh Girl", which in turn, isolates her - that is until two young men enter her life and we start the whole love triangle thing (by the way, have I ever mentioned I'm not the biggest fan of "love triangle" plots?). The formulaic two men in question are first, Tate Walker (Taylor John Smith); the sweet guy she meets in her childhood who helps her with what she needs and eventually forms a romantic relationship with her until he has to leave for some reason - in this case, college. Second, after turning 19, she meets the quarterback of the football team, Chase Andrews (Harris Dickinson) who is the more sleazy type, trying to make advances on her and other things asshole-type men do. Eventually, one of these guys is found dead, making Kya an immediate suspect and it kind of goes from there to about what you might expect. So for me, the whole love triangle plotline and overall predictability as to where things were going through the film, I'm not the biggest fan. However, at best, I might suggest that this could work all right as a half-decent romantic murder mystery one can watch from the comfort of their own couch on a Sunday afternoon. As far as comparison to the book, I really can't say anything, but I'm willing to bet that the book is probably better. However all this controversy goes back to that author, so I don't know what to think about this one altogether. But in short, it's almost sure to be (at least for me) one of the big "forgettable" titles this year. 2/5  Now, this is an interesting combination of subgenres! I don't know for sure that this will end up on my list of 2022's favourites. But I have to give the filmmakers full credit for this original take on an otherwise, fairly typical kidnapping/hostage movie. There are also supernatural elements to this, and even a bit of coming-of-age, as largely, this is about a young man coming into his own. However, I will say this - the journey is pretty damn brutal.
This could be compared to certain titles in which I compare the brutality of the first two acts of the movie to the vengeance factor of the third act. 'The Hills Have Eyes' and 'The Last House on the Left' are probably the heaviest examples of such a scenario. So fair trigger warning for this one, it does consist of such things as physical abuse towards a young girl and consistent bullying. However, when it comes to the performances of young Mason Thames as Finney and Madeleine McGraw as his sister, Gwen, I'm once again happy to announce that these are two young actors I'm convinced will make a name for themselves - if not for this, then something soon enough down the line. The story here takes place in 1978, where the streets of a Denver suburb are being terrorized by a child abductor who has been dubbed "The Grabber" (Ethan Hawke). In the meantime, we follow Finney and Gwen Blake - the children of an alcoholic, abusive father, Terrence (Jeremy Davies). Finney is constantly bullied at school but does have a friendship with a boy named Robin (Miguel Cazarez Mora), who is there to fend off Finney's bullies. Gwen, like her late mother, experiences psychic dreams in which she can see who the Grabber abducts next, and one of these times happens to be her big brother. Finney awakens in a soundproofed basement, faced with his kidnapper who promises not to harm him and even feeds him. However, on the wall is a black rotary phone, which the Grabber insists doesn't work. Yet when the Grabber is out of the room, Finney gets constant calls from it, from previous victims of the Grabber's kidnappings - from beyond the grave. All who have suffered one way or another before Finney, try to advise him through this black phone as to how the hell to get out of there in one piece. Meanwhile, Gwen tries to use her dreams to help the police catch the Grabber once and for all, as well as locate her brother, hopefully still alive, in the process. I have to give it to the film for having its good share of imagination to give what is, again, an otherwise fairly typical plot scenario. I really liked the supernatural elements of this - especially when you get to see just who Finney is talking to over this phone. Performances were great, all around, and kudos to the movie for managing to keep me on the edge of my seat the whole time. It's one of those titles that I appreciate more and more, the more I give it any thought, and it certainly has the potential to grow on me over time. It may not quite make a Top 10 list by the end of 2022 - but more than likely a Top 20. 4/5  Some of my friends can vouch for this, but my cinematic experience with said friends was bad enough that we each got free movie passes from it. We were constantly distracted by children running around and going "BA-BA-BA" and such, and yeah, it was irritatingly distracting. I therefore didn't quite get the experience I should have, but luckily for me, my hopes weren't exactly high anyway.
In case any of my readers don't remember, I wasn't too nice about 'JW: Fallen Kingdom', and so much of it had to do with the way it ended. Now, just because I sort of have to spoil the ending of that in order to get into this, I'm gonna say that if you care at all, you may as well back out now, because this is big spoiler territory from everything else, as it's a culmination of the 'Jurassic' generations. Once again, Hollywood says "this is the last one", to which I say "yeah right". If there's one thing I've learned about sequels, it's that the "end" is never the "end" if there's box office money to be had. Anyway, 'Fallen Kingdom' ends with young Maisie Lockwood (Isabella Sermon); a clone (a whole other story) releasing a whole whack of imprisoned dinosaurs into the world because "they're alive". One of the dumbest movie endings in my humble opinion. But (and I even say this in my review), I knew pretty quickly that the road was paved for a new title soon enough. The resulting film is 'JW: Dominion', and I have to admit that I may have liked it a touch better than 'Fallen Kingdom'... a bit! This is mostly because my expectations were low, even if Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) make a comeback to feed my fandom. I mean, that's what got me into my seat, so call me a "sucker". This one takes place about four years after the last one, and as we all know at this point, dinosaurs are living among the human race. As one probably expects, it's not exactly 'The Flintstones', but certain creative (if far-fetched, but hey, this is a 'Jurassic' film) ideas are put into place, but it's mentioned really quickly that the human race isn't exactly surviving. So once again, way to go Maisie. In the meantime, Biosyn Genetics has been granted permission to create a dino sanctuary in Italy's Dolomite Mountains. There, they continue a bunch of their complicated research. Biosyn also wants to get their hands on Maisie for research purposes. In the meantime, Maisie lives with Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), who still works with the Dinosaur Protection Group, and Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), who now works as a dinosaur wrangler, relocating stray dinosaurs. Long story short, Maisie is eventually located and kidnapped, along with the asexually produced Beta - baby to everyone's favourite raptor, Blue. As the trailer shows, Owen promises to get her back for Blue. As for Sattler and Grant, well, Sattler researches swarms of gigantic locusts who are eating crops that Biosyn isn't planting and Grant is there to help. And Malcolm? Well, he works for Biosyn, but soon finds out some hard truths about their experiments, causing him to want to expose CEO, Dr. Lewis Dodgson (Campbell Scott) - the guy from the first film who gets Dennis Nedry to collect the samples. For yours truly, there was enough fun to this that included some of our old favourite dinosaurs. The T-Rex comes along for another wrestling match against a something and a whatsit, we have Blue to fulfill the raptor aspect, and even one of my old favourites, the Dilophosaurus makes a comeback in a very fitting way. My praise for the film lies in bringing back certain aspects and characters, but my biggest criticism is, not even in the story-telling, but wondering what the hell all these dinosaurs are supposed to be. I haven't heard of more than probably half of the dinos in this, so not every scene was exciting so much as me going "huh?" Like Macolm says in the trailer "why do they always need to go bigger?" (seriously, every 'Jurassic' movie is guilty of it, except maybe 'Lost World', where the T-rex is still the big baddie). I think this is fine for those who are into the whole 'Jurassic' thing. These have pretty well become another 'Fast' franchise that has audiences going in for a fun time rather than some kind of Oscar-seeker of a flick. I can't say I blame them. Every one of these films, for me, has something fun going on in it. But half the fun of these is pointing out how ridiculous things can get. I mean (in the trailer), why is that one guy casually riding a scooter when a T-Rex just snatches him off of it? We have to take these with a grain of salt, and I think my acceptance of that allowed me to enjoy this just a touch more than the last one. BUT... it's still pretty bad. 2/5  When it comes to animated adaptations of adult cartoon shows, we have a good amount of winners. 'The Simpsons Movie' pulled it off somehow after 18 seasons, and even the crappy animation of 'South Park' outdid itself with their movie back in '99. I have to admit that while I love me some 'Bob's Burgers', the film actually left me kind of disappointed. That's not to say I didn't have fun with it, but it quite honestly felt like there needed to be more to it.
I think, first and foremost, one should probably be a bit of a fan before wandering into this. At the very least, take the time to get to know these characters a little, or I think some of the comedy that comes through with character charms can get lost on someone. Imagine seeing the 'Simpsons Movie' without knowing Homer first - it'd still be funny, but it's much funnier knowing the kind of clod that Homer is already. I feel like the same is true here of the Belcher Family; Bob (H. Jon Benjamin), Linda (John Roberts), Tina (Dan Mintz), Gene (Eugene Mirman) and Louise (Kristen Schaal) The film kicks off at the beginning of Summer when Bob and Linda find themselves in financial trouble. They are rejected on a business loan, given a week to make payment, and to make matters much worse, an underground water main breaks right in front of the Bob's Burgers restaurant (which Bob and Linda own and live above, for those of you who are new here). It turns out, however, that the hole in front of the restaurant is actually the scene of a crime, which gives Bob and Linda a sort of hopelessness in their whole situation. So the main Bob and Linda story is about them trying to save their restaurant and not be kicked out of their house, home and business. Now, for as much as we love Bob and Linda, the kids are almost an even bigger part of the show. The thing is, none of their stories are necessarily interesting or very different from what the show has to offer. Tina's nervous about asking Jimmy Jr. to be her "summertime boyfriend" and has to overcome that, Gene is experimenting with a new musical instrument he created, and Louise (whose story is probably most intriguing) tries to show up a school bully to prove she's not a "baby" because of her bunny ears that she has such an attachment to. Louise, Bob and Linda are very much the carriers of this movie. With that said, I will give the film credit that for once we see these kids in their respective situations begin to doubt themselves. What if Tina's crush on "J-Ju" is all it will ever be with no positive results? What if Gene's new instrument is just an annoyance? What if the bully is actually right about Louise's attachment to her bunny ears? It gets somewhat interesting, but I have to say that at the end of the day, it really just feels like a long episode of the show. This could have been a made-for-TV special presentation, and I feel it lacks the quantity that 'Simpsons' and 'South Park' did with their movies. One thing for sure is that if you're looking for your favourite side characters here, don't get your hopes up too high. There are plenty of very brief, minor appearances, and Linda's annoyingly hilarious sister Gale isn't in it at all (which, admittedly, some might be happy about). Keep in mind that this is very much a movie focused on the family as opposed to anything going on, on the side. Perhaps the biggest star here, however, is the bumped-up quality of animation. Things are cleaner and smoother, and we see the characters move in ways we haven't seen before (like in 'South Park' when we first saw them moving in three dimensions). I think if you plan on checking this out in theaters right now (as I write this, it's still about as fresh as Bob's Burger of the Day) do it soon because it's completely failing to follow 'Top Gun' and its massive box office success, AND 'Jurassic World' is coming. That said, please note that this is not at all a must-see in theaters, and is probably just as worth it to wait until you can rent it or it comes onto a streaming service. I enjoyed it but compared to movies like 'South Park' and 'Simpsons' adapting things into what feels like a movie as opposed to their regular show, it falls pretty short in comparison. BUT, it does have a Rotten Tomato average of 88.5%, so maybe I'm not the one to be listening to, and there was something I just didn't quite get. So, if curiosity hits you as a fan of the show, go nuts! I hope you like it more than I did (not that I hated it or anything). 3/5  Regardless of how you feel about Tom Cruise, you've got to give it up for his dedication to his craft. Between the 'Mission: Impossible' franchise and movies like this, he keeps learning new things and pushing the envelope. I further learned that aside from Cruise doing his own flying stunts in this, he also got his fellow cast members trained in flying, and 100% of the flying in this movie is real! Incredible stuff, considering some of the maneuvers you see these pilots pull off. And all of this on an IMAX screen? *chef's kiss*.
Now, concerning the plot of this one, you might not want to continue reading if you care about spoilers for the original film. A lot of this film's plot hinges on spoiler territory, but seeing as the original IS about 36 years old, I'd imagine most people interested already know about these spoilers as though I might as well be trying to cover Darth Vader being Luke's father. Anyway, we begin over 30 years after the events of 'Top Gun', and we see Captain Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Cruise) has gotten into being a test pilot for the US Navy. His current project is to get the hypersonic "Darkstar" scramjet to Mach 10. Rear Admiral Chester "Hammer" Cain (Ed Harris), however, plans on shutting the project down to redirect funds to drone programs. Of course, Maverick goes ahead and makes the attempt anyway, which gets him into a spot of trouble. Luckily, for Maverick, he still has Tom "Iceman" Kazansky (Val Kilmer) in his corner, as he has since become Commander of the US Pacific Fleet and can pull some strings rather than see him grounded. This results in Maverick being sent back to Top Gun to teach a whole new crew of the best of the best to fly some F-18s into a dangerous mission to bomb a uranium enrichment facility that the Pentagon deems a threat to the US. Among the crew of top pilots are the cocky Jake 'Hangman' Seresin (Glen Powell), token female pilot, Natasha 'Phoenix' Trace (Monica Barbaro), Javy 'Coyote' Machado (Greg Tarzan Davis), the somewhat geeky Robert 'Bob' Floyd (Lewis Pullman), Reuben 'Payback' Fitch (Jay Ellis), Mickey 'Fanboy' Garcia (Danny Ramirez) and last but not least, Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw (Miles Teller), who happens to be the son of Maverick's former best friend and RIO, Nick "Goose" Bradshaw. Here's where the major spoiler comes into play, as Goose dies in the original while flying with Maverick. This, and more that one might not expect, causes Rooster and Maverick to have a very rocky relationship. In the meantime, Maverick also reunites with the famous Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly); an Admiral's daughter who Maverick and Goose once did a high-speed pass over, as mentioned a couple of times in the original film. But while this is going on, this doesn't place any sort of love story front and center as the original pretty much did. Yes, I know it's about more than that, but one can't really deny that a good chunk of that movie IS a love story. For the most part, in this chapter, we see a LOT more of what we came to see - a lot of jet-flying action. Even if it's about 90% training for the mission, it's all not only a fun thrill ride we take with these pilots, but it's even somewhat educational. Sound boring? Well, trust me, it's far from it. If I have any sot of criticism about this one, it's that we see a whole lot of similarities between this and the original within the storyline. There's even the equivalent of the famous shirts-off volleyball scene - but this time, it's a football, and it has the purpose of team building behind it. Little tweaks like that make me appreciate it so much more. It's a very bold statement, but I think I can quite honestly stand by it; I liked this MORE than I liked the original. It also appears that I'm not exactly alone on that. But if you really wanna have a good time in the theater right now - not just a movie, but an experience - then definitely go check this out in whatever maximized format you can. I had a GREAT time with this one! 5/5  To kick this one off, I should probably mention that my knowledge of Stephen King is still pretty green. Most of my exposure has been from films; many of which are apparently "bad" adaptations of his books. As far as his books go, I'm still just a noob, having polished off a grand total of two. 'Firestarter', however, is one King property that I haven't looked into in any way. Never read the book, and never saw the '84 Drew Barrymore movie. So you'll be getting a pretty honest review for this from yours truly as a big first-timer!
I enjoy the idea of this. It's that often overlooked concept of taking something like superpowers and giving it a horrific twist. The thing is, even if we look at his books, 'Carrie' predates this, and even King himself has admitted to wondering if 'Firestarter' was too much like 'Carrie'. Speaking for myself, I definitely see the similarities, and would personally claim 'Carrie' to be the better all-around horror story. But the differences between the two stories are enough that I think it's a "pick your poison" situation. 'Carrie' is a great tale of revenge and might make for better horror, but this is something much more along the lines of 'New Mutants' where it has more to do with how scary and dangerous it is to even have such power. It all starts with a flashback to baby Charlene "Charlie" McGee spontaneously setting her bedroom on fire, essentially illustrating what we're dealing with here. Through the opening credits, we learn that Charlie's parents, Andy McGee (Zac Efron) and Vicky Tomlinson (Sydney Lemmon) were a part of an experiment in which they were injected with a drug known as Lot-6. This results in Andy gaining telepathy and Vicky gaining telekinesis. Of course, this, in turn, explains right away what baby Charlie is all about. We then come to the present day where we meet Charlie as an 11-year-old girl (Ryan Kiera Armstrong) who is struggling in school. As Charlie is getting bullied at school, she finds keeping her abilities hidden to be a constant struggle. Eventually, an incident at school does get the ball rolling, however, and we find ourselves in a very similar plot to 'Stranger Things' (and yes, it's confirmed the Duffer Bros. took inspiration from this story). In other words, this is generally about a bunch of bad people trying to get their hands on Charlie for their own personal weapon-making gain. Meanwhile, Andy and Vicky struggle to try to hide her from these people. So, perhaps my recent 'Stranger Things' binge also took a little something away from this. It also sort of suggests that this was a cash-in attempt on the studio's part, dropped right before Season 4 of 'Stranger Things' kicked off. It's a hard task for me to review this one as any sort of comparison, as this has literally been my introduction to this story. However, just speaking objectively, I might suggest this to be mildly entertaining, but still kind of pointless. Of all of the Stephen King titles to relaunch at this point, I wouldn't have thought 'Firestarter' would be on the list of priorities. But being that I'm still a noob, I guess I really don't know what King fans are truly asking for out there. As it stands, it does still feel ill-timed - especially when we kind of know people will be clamouring for 'Stranger Things' a little harder. Hopefully the next attempt at a Stephen King redo will come out a little more thrilling. 3/5  As with a bunch of Liam Neeson's films at this point, I'm finding myself slowly tapping out of it all with Neeson fatigue. But at the very least, I can give this film the fact that he's not chasing after his kidnapped whoever. So it's not entirely typical. But for some reason, at least for me, there's a part of me that just doesn't feel like any more of it - at least to give the man a break. I've seen him plenty of times before this, acting perfectly well, and know he has more to offer than just being an action hero.
Needless to say, this probably won't be a very long review. I just don't have anything to really say about it. His action flicks feel kind of just "there" now, and it feels like a waste of his skills. Anyway, here, Neeson plays Alex Lewis; a contract killer suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's. Taking his orders from Davana Sealman (Monica Bellucci), he eventually finds himself tasked to kill off an innocent barely teenage girl named Beatriz (Mia Sanchez); a task he refuses to carry through. In the meantime, Beatriz has been cared for by Special Agent Vincent Serra (Guy Pearce) of the FBI's Child Exploitation Task Force, having rescued her from a sex trafficking job her father forced her into. Sadly, the story gets going when the hit is actually carried out by a heartless hitman named Mauricio (Lee Boardman), sent by Sealman, who will be the subject of Liam Neeson's revenge, today. From there, it's basically Neeson taking the wheel of action while Guy Pearce takes the wheel of detective, trying to piece together everything leading up to Beatriz's death... and yes, odds are I could quite well be a little "off" in my description because, cards on the table, I wasn't paying very close attention to this whole thing. It's not that it's a terrible movie, but it's not exactly riveting. It just feels very standard and belongs on a long list of movies that might have done better in the early 90s. I may not be tired and worn out by Marvel flicks like a lot of people are nowadays, but Neeson action movies are just wearing thin on me. And I have absolutely nothing against him as an actor because, again, I know he can do very well. I think I've said similar things on my last couple of reviews of his films, but sometimes it's just unfortunately what there is to watch that week. I must apologize for delivering something so half-assed, but from the look of it, no one else really gave it much attention either. But while it remains such a standard and basic Neeson action flick, one thing remains - what about the whole Alzheimer's thing? It IS somewhat intriguing to watch Liam Neeson play the same basic action man he has for some time now and finally see something where HE is fallible. However, the execution of it all didn't exactly pull me in with intrigue so much as feel like the Alzheimer's situation is just trying to be a more serious and humanistic version of the memory loss situation we've seen in other famous action flicks - the 'Bourne' movies probably being the stand-out title (although granted, a very different take). Anyway, unfortunately, this is one review I just have very little to say about. What can I say? It's a Liam Neeson action movie, you know how it's all gonna go down, and it's only entertaining on a lazy Sunday afternoon with nothing better to do. 2/5  I love a movie like this because, in recommending it, the target audience is easy to figure out; fans of the featured actor. While my personal favourite is still probably 'My Name is Bruce' (featuring Bruce Campbell as himself), I have to say that this is a very close second. This one is for any one of us who has thrived on Nicolas Cage's extreme over-acting abilities over the years. It may not quite be Cage at his "Cage-iest", but it definitely satisfies the Cage-craving one will be looking for.
Nicolas Cage (as himself) is living a close-to-has-been life in Hollywood, being passed over for several roles, and constantly arguing with his alter-ego "Nicky" (who is the version of Cage we really wanna see). Nicky is essentially the younger side of him that gave him success, and torments him about being washed up. If that's not enough, his family life is also suffering due to years of emotional neglect, being constantly away from his now ex-wife Olivia (Sharon Horgan) and, more importantly, daughter Addy (Lily Mo Sheen). This all leads to Cage planning on retirement, once and for all, in order to get his life together. Cage's agent, Richard Fink (Neil Patrick Harris) offers him a deal of $1 million to head to Majorca in the Balearic Islands near Spain to be the guest of honour a billionaire Javi Gutierrez's (Pedro Pascal) birthday. The two eventually bond, especially over a shared love of movies, but soon Cage learns that he may be in over his head when CIA agents Vivian (Tiffany Haddish) and Martin (Ike Barinholtz) enter the scene, claiming that Javi is a wanted arms dealer, and responsible for the kidnapping of an anti-crime politician's daughter, Maria (Katrin Vankova). Reluctantly, Cage decides to help the CIA despite his newfound friendship. In the meantime, however, he can't help but take Javi's ideas for a collaborative movie script into consideration. So it ends up being a bit of a rock-and-a-hard-place situation for Mr. Cage. As one would expect, it delivers just fine on Nick Cage being the Nick Cage we've come to love, and it's really cool to see him able to make fun of himself in various aspects of his life - like the idea of him being a film buff trying to share obscure movies like 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' with his teenage daughter. It's a fantastic feat of cinematic production for its time, but it's very clear that not everyone is gonna appreciate something like it these days. There's really not much more to say about it. I'd break it down simply to recommending it to fans of Nicolas Cage, because that's the clear target audience. The film takes place in a "real-life" scenario, but it doesn't shy away from the over-the-top comedic action that we've come to love Nick Cage for these days. Again, there's plenty of his eccentricity to satisfy the sweet-tooth, and as a loose fan (I don't necessarily like him in everything I've seen him in, but love his extreme acting) I can honestly say that I had a lot of fun with it. I might further highly recommend seeing it with people who will appreciate the "Caginess" of it all. 4/5  When it comes to the Wizarding World franchise, I'd consider the 'Harry Potter' story to be where my interests lie, and I've never really felt the need for much more. That said, it didn't stop my curiosity in watching all three of the 'Fantastic Beasts' films that followed, as secondary as they are. While I enjoyed the first, I was disappointed in the second, and ended up meeting this one a little bit in the middle.
Before getting into it, however, it should be noted that I might as well have gone into this blind. While I did see the first two of these, I don't really remember any of it since my last time seeing them both was on the big screen, upon their respective releases. So there may have been some stuff that was a bit confusing throughout, but I was able to get the gist of things here, and I think it felt like it had more substance this time around as well. It's not quite the first 'Fantastic Beasts', which felt very 'Harry Potter', but it's better than 'Crimes of Grindelwald' which officially seemed to make the whole wizarding thing a bit "old" (at least for me). In the grand scheme of a timeline, this one takes place about ten years after 'Crimes of Grindelwald', where Gellert Grindelwald (Mads Mikkelsen - Johnny Depp in the last movie) is moving to take control of the Wizarding World. For quite personal reasons, the great wizard Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) cannot face him alone. He then recruits our series hero, Newt Scamander to head a collective of wizards and witches, along with our favourite new Muggle, Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) to try to stop him from going full Voldemort (before Voldemort is a thing). There's more to it, but I wanted to keep this one a bit simple. To give credit to the rest of the team, however, Newt's brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) joins along with charming Charms teacher, Lally Hicks (Jessica Williams), French wizard Yusuf Kama (William Nadylam) who works as a spy, and Newt's assistant, Bunty Broadacre (Victoria Yeates). Together, the collective tries to stop Grindelwald before things get out of hand, but also have to face Grindelwald's acolytes, led by Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), who was understood in the last film to be the only one who could actually kill Dumbledore... and I don't really remember why. Although I'm not sure that's altogether important here. I'm not entirely sure what all else to say about this one. Truth be told, there's a bit of me that's bored with the Wizarding World because it all seems to be about "world take-over" now, and while there's still a bit of "magic" left here, it is dwindling. The 'Harry Potter' series introduced us to so many cool concepts that go beyond cool new creatures, and there's a ton of solid character development within those pages - especially for Neville Longbottom. Here, things feel like more of the same and, I daresay, "adult" and even "political" as opposed to the original material. One could say this is the "prequel trilogy" (quite literally) of the 'Wizarding World' franchise (comparing it to 'Star Wars'). For me, the 'Harry Potter' series was just that bit more magical, charming and adventurous with great imagination packed behind every book/movie. The 'Fantastic Beasts' films feel, to me, largely like a big desperate attempt to keep the Wizarding World going for fans. But don't let me take that away from any fans either - I know this has its audience. I just so happen not to be someone these were really made for. I think I'll stick to my 'Potter'. Although one day I may give these three a marathon viewing to get the full effect that I'm probably missing at this point. 3/5  Just to add a whole bunch more confusion as to where things in Marvel are taking place, Sony brings in 'Morbius' while a future 'Blade' movie is slated for the MCU at some point in the near future. We don't particularly know what will happen with Sony's Spider-Man movies either, as Andrew Garfield has quite a lot of fans backing him up for another Sony movie. Time will tell, but before it all comes together, here's the next chapter in Marvel's Multiverse Movie Multitude.
We meet young Michael Morbius (Charlie Shotwell) at the age of 10, where he bonds with his surrogate brother, Lucien (Joseph Esson). The pair share a blood disease in common and reside at a hospital in Greece. After an incident involving Lucien and his medical equipment, it's discovered that Michael is highly intelligent - a regular MacGyver if you will. As a result, Michael and Milo's (by the way, Michael calls Lucien "Milo" in this) adoptive father and hospital director, Nicholas (Jared Harris), makes arrangements for Michael to attend medical school in New York City. After 25 years, Michael (Jared Leto) is up for a Nobel Prize for his work on synthetic blood, which he publicly declines. In the hopes of splicing bat genes with his own, he hopes to cure his blood disease, and has therefore captured a collection of bats to experiment on, as discovered by his colleague, Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona). His experimentation, however, is illegal, but after confessing his plans to both Nicholas and Milo (Matt Smith), he receives funding to carry out his experiment on international waters. The experiment, as we can all tell by trailers and common sense, transforms Michael into a vampire with seemingly uncontrollable bloodlust. Once his hunger is satisfied, he pretty much goes back to normal. The conclusion is that the cure works, and even enhances his abilities, gaining him things like echolocation, super strength and agility, and even being treated as a fellow bat by his bat buddies. The unfortunate drawback, however, is this thirst problem. His synthetic blood can only feed him for so long. But when Milo is refused help due to the cures unfortunate side effects, Milo takes matters into his own hands, giving us another Marvel non-MCU anti-hero in the form of Morbius, the living vampire. This one clearly didn't do so hot with the critics, and a lot of that has to do with some of this origin story stuff being played out - especially when it's hard to figure out just who was asking for a 'Morbius' movie, as opposed to just having him come in as a villain somewhere in a future 'Spidey' or 'Blade' movie. Nevertheless, perhaps the most intriguing aspects of this movie, to no one's surprise, are the mid-credit sequences which, without saying too much, tie in with the events of the MCU's 'No Way Home'. It paves the way for some future stuff, but it's hard to say exactly what. All in all, I came out of this with similar feelings that I had with the two 'Venom' movies. These films are by no means spectacular, but I'll be damned if I don't have fun with them. I wasn't on the lookout for this, but I can't deny it grabbed my attention, being somewhat familiar with the Marvel villain. I'm glad that I saw it, and didn't come out of it regretting a thing. There are a few rough spots here and there, and I can see where critics are coming from. But if you can view this with the proper lens, I think you can enjoy it for what it is. One thing's for sure - Leto was much better here than he ever was as the Joker (and I stand by that). 3/5  This one seems to have floated a little under the radar, as the titles surrounding its release date have seemingly had more pull. 'Everything Everywhere All at Once' was released the same week, and it's difficult to stand out when the following weeks would release 'Morbius' and 'Sonic 2'. But I digress. I'm actually kind of happy to say that I found this to be a bit of a hidden gem. Nowhere near perfect, but really quite fun, nonetheless.
A reclusive romance novelist named Loretta Sage (Sandra Bullock) writes her stories based on adventure, and they feature a recurring character named Dash McMahon whose basis is cover model Alan Caprison (Channing Tatum). During a book tour, we see the relationship between the two as people seem far more interested in the sexy model than the struggling author. Though off to a rough start, Sage is soon met by Abigail Fairfax (Daniel Radcliffe), who, despite not enjoying her books, realizes that Loretta has done real, historical research in her writing. As a result, Fairfax believes that he's stumbled on a lost city in the Atlantic in which a priceless relic called the "Crown of Fire" might be. But when Loretta disagrees to help Fairfax find this crown, she ends up kidnapped and hauled off to the island. When Alan witnesses this, he enlists the help of a former Navy SEAL named Jack Trainer (Brad Pitt). Without spoiling too much, things don't go all too well on this rescue mission, and soon the inexperienced Alan and Loretta find themselves on the run in the jungles of some unknown island. A fun side to the movie includes Loretta's publisher, Beth Hatten (Da'Vine Joy Randolph), who goes on her own rescue mission, all the while having a back-and-forth with Oscar (Oscar Nuñez); a sort of random comic relief character who takes her to the island. It's a good chunk that doesn't really need to be there, but it's sort of parallel to Matthew McConaughey popping up to deliver a TIVO in 'Tropic Thunder'. It's there for a good, solid chuckle, and it's effective, but it's not really necessary. I admit to always being a fan of stuff like that, provided they have fun with it, which they did. But when all said and done, the final question is whether or not the film is worth it. After all, there's quite honestly plenty here that we've seen done before, the ending is highly predictable, and not much comes as a surprise while you're watching it. The fun factor, however, is what drives this film. Bullock and Tatum actually play quite well off each other, but Tatum still delivers that humour the dudes can love just as much as the women, and he's thankfully not there to just be eye candy (as the film otherwise seems to suggest in its plot). On top of that, there's really no performance here that was disappointing. Radcliffe owned his role as a sort of loser of a villain when we know him so well as Harry Potter; Bullock gives a good range in her performance; Pitt seems to really be accepting of his late roles of a "lesser" character (like Vanisher in 'Deadpool 2' for about 2 seconds), and they all provide the aforementioned "fun factor" to the film. It's another case of an old idea with a freshly visualized execution. It's not something one must-see in theaters, but I do still recommend checking it out whenever you get the chance. 3/5  This will undoubtedly be a pretty short review because quite honestly, there isn't a hell of a lot to say about this title. If you go into this expecting something very basic as far as haunting/possession movies go, you pretty much get just that. Nothing about this is surprising, there's no crazy twist ending that comes out of nowhere, and at the end of the day, it's gonna be forgotten and swept under the rug like so many of its kind before it.
Korean immigrants Amanda (Sandra Oh) and her daughter, Chris (Fivel Stewart) live a farm life of raising bees and chickens. They rely on much older technologies due to a trauma Amanda experienced at a young age involving electricity. I imagine this was also done because a lantern looks creepier than a flashlight. Anyway, one day Amanda is visited by her uncle (Tom Yi) who leaves her with the remains of her estranged mother. Amanda is warned not to open the briefcase that contains these remains, but of course, if she didn't, we wouldn't really have a movie. In the meantime, Chris makes a new friend in a girl named River (Odeya Rush) and from that, she becomes a bit more distant from her mother. And since Amanda's mother was so strict, a big part of this is the play on Amanda fearing becoming her mother. Then it plays with the whole spiritual possession thing, and it just kind of coasts along without any really unexpected twists or turns. All in all, it struck me as the kind of under-the-radar title you might find near the bottom of a long list of suggestions Netflix would have to offer based on "ghost movies". You know, at that point in the list you scroll down to where you haven't heard of most of them. I suppose if I was to really give the movie anything it would probably be Sandra Oh's performance. I'm not talking about Oscar-worthy material or anything, but one has to appreciate that she did a good job with what she had to work with. With that said, this is a pretty limited release all the same, so it doesn't seem to be taking itself as any sort of big deal either. So once again, we have a movie that's just kind of "there". The real draw for me was the fact that Sam Raimi's name was attached to it as producer, but it ended up being a good example of why "producer" is a credit to take with a grain of salt. I have no doubt that this will end up on some sort of streaming platform soon enough, so even if you have the means to "big-screen" this experience, I strongly recommend holding off. And even then, I dunno how highly I'd recommend it to anyone. There are worse titles out there, to be sure, but this did feel about as basic as a haunting/possession movie can be, and any symbolism behind it is painfully obvious... but perhaps it's supposed to be since "Umma" translates to "Mother" which, even as a title feels somewhat unoriginal at this point. How many "mom-related" horror/thriller titles are there out there? 2/5  Putting my cards on the table right away, DC has completely proved me wrong, and not for the first time. When the trailer first came out for this, my thoughts generally leaned towards it being another eventual failure because it felt too soon after "Batfleck" - especially with the release of the Snyder Cut just last year. It looked like "just another Batman movie", and I figured people weren't gonna care as much as they did with the 'Dark Knight' series.
On top of everything else, things in the DC Extended Universe feel ultimately confusing at this point. But with all that aside, this does act as a VERY good 'Batman' movie. I'm altogether kind of blown away with how thoroughly good this was in as much as it connected with various dark Bat Titles - not the least of which is an old favourite - 'The Long Halloween' (which I really should read through again). It also draws from further familiars like 'Year One' and 'Ego', and finally plays with Batman's detective side rather than his superhero/action side. Some prefer that action side, sure, but even with that in mind, this is something long overdue! The film opens on Halloween night in Gotham City, where mayor Don Mitchell Jr. (Rupert Penry-Jones) is killed by a mystery man who calls himself "The Riddler" (???) in various messages (both video and written) left for Gotham's detectives and The Batman (Robert Pattinson), himself. Batman has been a vigilante at this point for about two years, working alongside Lt. James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright). Up until this point, it has mostly been on petty thug crimes, and there's a wonderful opening to this where we see how it all works; how Batman uses fear as a tool against the lawbreakers of the crime-ridden city. As Batman continues his detective work with some help from his understandably concerned butler, Alfred (Andy Serkis), it sets him on a path in which he meets the likes of the Penguin (an unrecognizable Colin Farrell), Selina Kyle - better known as Catwoman (Zoë Kravitz) and at the top of everything, notorious mob boss, Carmine Falcone (John Turturro). The whole situation ends up being perhaps the most taxing event of his career so far, but little does he know that this Riddler character isn't exactly the only recent threat to the city of Gotham. Now, when it comes to DC movies and my particular tastes, it can get a bit confusing. The DCEU is pretty dark, there's no question. But, much like with Marvel, I think some of it should be dark, but some of it light. But Batman has this limit for me. Personally speaking, I'm one of those guys who doesn't think Batman should be killing people (at least that we see on screen), and I don't think "Dark Batman" means "He should get away with killing". To some, it works, but for me, I just always knew there was a good way to do it without it needing to be on certain levels. I've always said they should look to the 'Arkham' games and stuff like that, and well... here we basically are! One caption on a poster for this says "the Batman movie we've been waiting for!", and I think for a lot of fans like myself, that rings absolutely true. This really does remind me a lot of the 'Arkham' games when it comes to things like the film's atmosphere, and even Batman himself. Pattinson as Batman was something I was always convinced could work, but I have to admit that to some degree, he actually impressed. He will undoubtedly fall into the age-old debate of "who is the best Batman?" (Kevin Conroy). He takes a different, more intensely quiet and mysterious approach to the role, and it works quite well. The guy moves slowly at all times like a Jason Voorhees, but when he fights, he fights with the reflexes of a cat... bat.... well, you get the picture. This one comes from Matt Reeves as well, which is almost immediately a good sign that the film is in good hands. This is the guy who gave us the last two titles of the new 'Planet of the Apes' trilogy, and 'Cloverfield', which may not be for everyone, but it's still one of the best concepts for a found footage film I've ever seen. According to sources, there are two sequels planned for this as well, and I really look forward to seeing where it can go. Just thinking of things like new takes on various villains in this universe - especially Scarecrow for yours truly has me super excited. So if you have the means to do so at this point in time, I highly recommend this as a big-screen venture. But get comfy, 'cause it's like, 3 hours long. 5/5  As far as 2022 titles are going so far, I can pretty much guarantee that this is one I'll forget that I even saw by the end of the year. I'm not saying it's god awful or anything, but it's... a Liam Neeson movie. Ever since 'Taken', they all sort of seem to blend together (at least in my head). The man has become his own cliche so much that people joke about "going full Liam Neeson" if anyone bothered their daughter.
Taking that lightly, however, I went into this expecting exactly what I got (more or less). It's just a formula, and it's bothersome to know how incredibly good an actor Neeson is when he's so typecast like this. His best role in the last decade, for myself, was probably his cameo in 'Ted 2' just because of it. Anyway, while I'm beating this into the ground, it would appear quite clear that Neeson fans are pretty hardcore when it comes down to it. The 'Rotten Tomato' average for this (currently) is about 45%. And the only reason that's so "high" is that the audience was generous enough to give it a solid 81%. So what's Liam up to this time? Well, his name is Travis Block. He's a war vet, and he works for the FBI under director, Gabriel Robinson (Aidan Quinn). His role is to bring in agents who have found themselves in sticky situations, and he's really quite good at it. However, he really wishes to retire in order to spend more time with his family; namely his daughter, Amanda (Claire van der Boom) and granddaughter, Natalie (Gabriella Sengos). Robinson sends him on one last mission; to collect Dusty Crane (Taylor John Smith). However, Crane has some really revealing information about what the Feds are doing behind everyone's back. Caught up in the middle of everything is journalist, Mira Jones (Emmy Raver-Lampman), who is covering a story on the death of female activist, Sofia Flores (Mel Jarnson). She is first contacted about the murder by Crane, who claims he has information about it. It's not long before Mira and Block both find themselves in a sort of rabbit hole in which the feds are running a project that may or may not involve the killing of a whole whack of innocent civilians, and it may be up to them to put a stop to it. It's... interesting to say the least. Really and truly, there isn't much to this movie. It's a whole bunch of action-thriller cliches rolled into a quick buck of a movie. It's the perfect example of what I like to call a "paycheck movie". Typically, this entails a great actor going with a not-so-great script because, hell, this is their job. Pretty much any actor you can think of has a few of these, and Liam Neeson is no exception. In fairness, it seems like he's pretty happy where he is with everything, and enjoys living out this repetitive role. Going back to his cameo in 'Ted 2', not taking himself too seriously is pretty evident. As far as the film goes, it's just forgettable for yours truly. I really would like to see Liam flex his acting muscles more than he does with these roles because I know he can do well. Otherwise, he just keeps giving us the same thing over and over again, and nothing is ever a surprise anymore. That said, maybe I'm just not there with his adoring fans who can't get enough of this. This is one I lean more on with the critics and would suggest that it's just not that great - even as a mindless action movie. This one's more for the hardcore Neeson fans than anyone else, because it's just more of the same. And in case you were wondering at all, yes, spoiler alert, his family does find themselves in danger... are you at all surprised? 2/5  For those keeping track, 'Death on the Nile' is the sequel to 2017's 'Murder on the Orient Express'. This is an updated version of Agatha Christie's book, and it certainly looks as though we've got a pretty solid series in the making here. It's a remake of an old story, yes, but I daresay that a good murder mystery goes a long way these days (with True Crime being so incredibly popular). And why not bring back some classic material for today's generation? Poirot, no doubt, can show 'em how it's done.
The film opens with a bit of great detective Hercule Poirot's (Kenneth Branagh) history, in which we discover why he's got such an awesome mustache. It doesn't feel like it makes a whole lot of sense, but we also get a chance to see his innovation in the trenches and meet his lost love, Katherine (Susannah Fielding), which is admittedly interesting. Fast-forward to 1937, where the real story takes place, we catch up with the now mustachioed Poirot at a nightclub in London. There, Salome Otterbourne (Sophie Okonedo) performs while, very quickly, heiress Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) steals the handsome Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer) away from socialite Jacqueline "Jackie" de Bellefort (Emma Mackey). Now that we have a good set-up, we eventually get to them all (somewhat coincidentally) on a cruise along the Nile River, six weeks later. Linnet and Simon are there on a honeymoon but appear to have been followed by a jealous Jackie. And while the main case seems incredibly plain, there's a boat full of all sorts of colourful characters who could be behind one particular murder. As one would imagine, it's all a big puzzle to solve, probably doesn't quite turn out as expected in the end, and the real charm of the movie is behind Poirot's character as opposed to the murder mystery aspect. Now, truth be told, I'm terrible with murder mysteries like this, and tend to confuse fairly easily. I'm the kind of guy who blinks once and misses the entire plot to something like this, but I'm also not unable to find entertainment value in it. As mentioned before, I do find Poirot to be a rather charming character, the film has a mild sense of humour, but it's not altogether silly, and the cast of colourful characters is pretty solid. Among just some of the names included are Annette Bening, Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French (who may be a little more obvious to us fans of British Humour), Russell Brand, Rose Leslie, and that's just naming a few. I think it's safe to say that this will certainly be up other peoples' alleys more so than my own. But I say that very lightly because I was still entertained by this. There's really nothing I would point out as specifically bad about it, and I probably wouldn't mind checking it out again, it only to get a little more out of the story. I'll just say that if you're a fan of the classic murder mystery, this is well worth a watch - especially if you happened to be a fan of 'Murder on the Orient Express'. Poirot may not be any Sherlock Holmes, but I do have to admit that he's up there as one of the all-time great fictional detectives. 3/5  Over the years, Roland Emmerich has often been seen by many to be a sort of "other Michael Bay". In order to enjoy his works, you have to take them with a grain of salt, throw reality out the window, and whatever you do, don't question a damn thing. It's pure fantasy with the box office in mind, and you're there for a theatrical thrill ride. So (a lot like with Bay), I will often come out of an Emmerich movie saying something like "that was stupid, but it was fun".
Somehow or another though, I left this with the idea that I had just been drastically insulted, but not sure if I was supposed to feel that way. I won't spoil anything but the "big reveal" to this movie is... REALLY out there - so much so that I couldn't even call it fun. The film honestly almost felt like a message to take conspiracy theorists seriously, and in this day and age, that's not a great message to try to convey. But again, I'm not sure if this was supposed to happen. What if Emmerich was secretly saying "see how dumb this is?" But then, if he was, he just made some money rather underhandedly. The film opens during a Space Shuttle mission to repair a satellite. Bantering back and forth are astronauts Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) and Jocinda Fowler (Halle Berry), and they are interrupted by a weird, black, swarming mass that ends up killing one of their crewmates. After a long investigation, Harper is ultimately fired with his unbelievable explanation, and NASA blames the fate of the crewmember on human error. As for Fowler, she was incapacitated during the swarm attack, so doesn't have much of a frame of reference for anything. Ten years later, we meet our conspiracy theorist, K.C. Houseman (John Bradley). His theories kind of have to be seen to be believed, so I won't reveal them here. But his theories ultimately lead him to stealing an opportunity to use a research telescope that isn't well guarded at all. Here, he notices that the Moon's orbit is off course, and it seems to be heading towards Earth. Eventually, he goes public with it, after a down-on-his-luck Harper refuses to listen to his ramblings. But then, NASA discovers this abnormality on their own, and it all leads to "let's send a crew up to the Moon to stop it from crashing into Earth as well as find out what this weird swarm is all about". There's not a whole hell of a lot more to it without spoilers, but once things really get going, the film just gets weirder, and weirder, and weirder. It's another one that's trying to combine a bunch of different movies, but to no real avail. In fact, it's been dubbed by a few to be the most recent "so bad, it's good" movie because it's just THAT crazy. There's so much in here that feels like it was written by a teenager, and though my plot description may seem weak, that really IS basically all there is to it. Even though there's plenty of stuff that looks pretty cool here, it's not nearly enough to save anything. I would highly recommend saving the theatrical viewing and just waiting for home release on this one, even if you happen to be an Emmerich fan. For yours truly, this is probably his weakest movie. I didn't leave this one saying it was "dumb fun", it was just plain "dumb", and it's hard for me to give it the benefit of the doubt. This goes beyond his average disaster flick, and gets almost too bizarre, even for him. This is one I might suggest watching with a room full of friends though, as you rip on everything wrong with it - especially if you have some friends who know a thing or two about the Moon! 1/5  This one comes to us from atmospheric extraordinaire, Guillermo del Toro, and is adapted from the William Lindsay Gresham novel of the same name. There was also a 1947 adaptation, which did really well. And, unlike many updated versions of stories, so did this. It's a film with a pretty stellar cast, fantastically creepy atmosphere, and the "old-timey" cinematography adds a fine dash of artwork to the whole project.
Taking place in 1939, we open things with our lead, Stanton Carlisle (Bradley Cooper) dragging a dead body into (presumably) his house and burning it to the ground. Packing lightly, he heads out, and eventually stumbles on some work as a carny, hired by Clem Hoatley (Willem Dafoe), the carnival-owner. Here, we eventually learn that Clem has a dark side to him, which seems to give Stan some second thoughts on working for him. In the meantime, Stan works with "Madame Zeena" (Toni Collette) and her husband, Pete (David Strathairn). They teach Stan some of their tricks, but warn him not to make a "spook show" out of it (in other words, leading people on about communication with dead loved ones). Soon, Stan falls for a performer named Molly Cahill (Rooney Mara), whose act includes seemingly dangerous uses of electricity. Of course, no love story like this is complete without a jealous, brutish man named Bruno (Ron Perlman), but all of this isn't even the main part of the story, as most of it begins when (spoiler alert) Stan and Molly run off together after a fatal incident involving the consumption of wood alcohol. Talk about a tricky thing to try to review without spoilers. Anyway, the main story takes place about two years later, where Stan has reinvented himself, using the tricks of the trade, and having Molly as his partner. But how long before his "talents" end up hurting people - both audience, and loved ones? I won't go into much more detail than that, but a lot of it seems to be a story of morals, and how far a "magician" will take their "trickery". It's certainly a cautionary tale as well, as the way it ends is actually somewhat disturbing. All in all, this isn't something I would call a horror film, but it's definitely very dark and will make certain people cringe about things here and there. It's not a "hard-R", but it's "R" for good reasons. And hey, for all you ladies who may have a bit of a thing for Bradley Cooper, I'm gonna do you all a favour and admit to catching *ahem* a bit of a peekaboo (you're welcome). I did mention a pretty stellar cast, but I've only mentioned a few, as some others come into the picture as the story unfolds. But aside from those I have mentioned, we also get the likes of Cate Blanchett, Richard Jenkins and Peter MacNeill , to name a few. Blanchett ends up being the big one though, and I probably should have included her in the overall review. Having said that, however, she doesn't really enter into things until after Stan and Molly leave the carnival, and that's about a good hour into the movie. But don't worry, I honestly didn't spoil all that much, leaving one BIG plot point out of the review, completely. Unprofessional? Perhaps, but if you watch the film, you'll get why I did it. I think this is a totally solid title to check out for any real fan of del Toro. It provides the viewer with one of his few projects that isn't actually some sort of "creature feature". So if you're looking for monsters, you won't really find them here - at least not in the form as some sort of creature. This one effects the psychological side of the viewer, and really lends itself to the old-time carnival atmosphere, between the traveling "freak show" and being in the big city with it. Although it may not reach my Top 10 of 2021 (even though it's 2022 at this point - stupid Covid), I still found it incredibly enjoyable, and hope to see del Toro dabble in this sort of thing more in the future. 4/5  At this point, after yet another Covid lockdown, it appears that theaters are reopening again. So (knock on wood) I'll have access to movies we actually give a damn about, instead of reviewing titles like these, that probably have whoever is reading this asking "what in the hell is this?" There isn't even a summary of the film on its Wiki page (which I often use for help, lest I forget certain details)... I'll uh, do my best.
The film opens with the crash-landing of a military cargo plane, during World War II. The crash happens behind enemy lines, within the Black Forest of Germany. The plane carried top secret material, and a team of skilled soldiers are sent by a Maj. Johnson (Mickey Rourke) to retrieve it. Led by Sergeant Brewer (Robert Knepper) and Walsh (Jackson Rathbone), the team search the forest until they discover the bodies of hanged Nazi soldiers among others, all bearing strange markings that turn out to be ancient magical symbols. Before the team knows it, all sorts of strange things start happening to them. Their compasses fail, and they get to questioning their own sanity, as they seem trapped by some kind of strong, supernatural entity. Knowing that Nazis are into the supernatural for uses of power, the team must dig deep, and discover the twisted truth that lies behind whatever it is that seems to be attacking them. So, a lot of this is another horror flick based on Nazi experimentation, of which there are FAR better titles to choose from. But, although it takes a weird direction, i can at least give it credit for a touch of originality. A lot of this dark magic turns out to be witchcraft, and I personally find it to be an original take on the World War II horror genre - which is around, but there's not a whole whack of them. There is something about soldiers facing off against the supernatural that speaks to the haunted mindset some real-world WWII soldiers probably had. A lot of it can be taken metaphorically, be it the soldiers "battling their inner demons", the soldiers "venturing into the very frightening unknown" or hey, sometimes the soldier has to just "fight a monster", either representative of the entire Nazi regime, or Hitler, himself. Having said all that, it's sort of difficult to place this in any of those particular categories. Sometimes a movie is just... being a B movie. So, it's a pretty good example of a movie made for fun, and there's nothing wrong with that. This parallels things like 'Piranha 3D' or 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter'. Its not too bad if you're just looking for a cheap thrill. But I will suggest to look elsewhere if you're looking for real substance. It's kinda fun, but it's not what I'd call "worthy of big-screen attention". 3/5  When it comes to the 'Matrix' series, I must confess to be one of the many audience members who fell into a state of confusion by the end of it all. This is a series I didn't get as attached to as my peers, other than the first film, released in 1999, which still stands alone as a GREAT film. I also enjoyed 'The Animatrix' for its overall style and imagination, but otherwise, there have been several other fantasy/sci-fi series I hold far above this one.
Having said that, going into this, I was indifferent. My overall opinion upon seeing the trailer was that of feeling, yet again, "too little too late", but mixed with "altogether unnecessary". And I should probably be clear that I'm altogether unclear on a lot of what happened throughout the film, although I think I have the general idea. The thing is, I haven't watched ANY of the 'Matrix' movies in well over a decade, so there's a lot that I've forgotten. One of these days, I may revisit all of this with some sort of special, but for now, I have to go by my thoughts as a born-again-noob. Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) has created a series of three 'Matrix' video games that he bases on things like visions and dreams; leftovers from when he was Neo. Part of this includes a woman he runs into at a local coffee shop named Tiffany (Carrie-Anne Moss), whom he bases his game character of Trinity on. He sees a therapist (Neil Patrick Harris) who prescribes him blue pills, but eventually stops taking them, making these visions start to get a bit out of hand. Meanwhile, the confusion starts when a girl named Bugs (Jessica Henwick) discovers a "modal" (pronounced "mode-all") that's running an old code in a loops, reenacting the time Trinity found Neo in the first movie. A modal, by the way, is a "programming sandbox" created to develop characters; one of these is a new Morpheus (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) and, I guess in some ways, long story short, the original story is played out again with a few alterations. Forgive me for how undetailed the description of the film is, but once again, I'm not entirely sure I got it. For me, this was just another 'Matrix' addition that doesn't really need to be there, as the first 'Matrix' is still a great stand-alone film, and I stand by that. That's not to say that the others are just trash, in my opinion. I think it's just another case of them not really being for me... or I'm just too damn slow to pick up on what they're putting down, but that's fine. This is one I know for a fact I'm not alone on. With all that said, however, I can still see 'Matrix' fans really liking this. I will give it credit for sticking with style, and it's definitely another case of the film's eye candy overshadowing... basically everything else. I still might consider this the weakest of the bunch, however. It's honestly a coin-flip between this a 'Revolutions', but the biggest things about this include the film coming into an era where I feel like we're kind of over 'The Matrix'. Keanu is John Wick now, not so much Neo, and his performance (which I might blame on the direction) here is kind of brutal. It's almost more like he embraced his stereotype of being his classic character Ted, but stiffer. Nothing against the man. It's just that I'd much sooner see him do a 'John Wick 4' than a 'Matrix 4'. But that's just me and my opinion. I think others could still like this more than I do; but I will suggest one should go in with low expectations. Hopefully it plays on your nostalgia more than it did mine. 3/5  Theaters are once again closed near me, which means I'm resorting to searching online for new VOD releases. This one's available for rent right now for nice and cheap, and it makes for a pretty decent home invasion movie, if that's the kind of thing you're into. While there's really nothing about it that particularly stands out, it's really not bad for a simple, evening venture if you want a little thrill.
While competing for the Olympics, downhill skier, Sophie Scott (Skyler Davenport) is diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease that causes blindness, thus bringing her Olympic dreams to a screeching halt. She becomes pretty bitter about her situation, and gives up altogether, even though her friend, Cam (Keaton Kaplan), seems to really want to help her train for the Paralympics. I have to admit, one thing that brings the movie down for me is Sophie's character. She's blind, yes, but it's hard to feel sympathetic when she ends up being such a jerk. Anyway, Sophie gets by, cat sitting for the wealthy and stealing things like priceless bottles of wine, to resell on the black market. She answers an ad, and just about goes about her regular criminal routine, but soon locks herself out of the house. After doing this, she contacts a service through an app called "See For Me", which allows the blind to connect with a seeing helper through video chat. In reality, there is something called "Be My Eyes" that works on a similar level. Soon, she's connected to Kelly (Jessica Parker Kennedy), and she manages to get back in. But little does she know, she's in for an interesting night. Sophie is awoken by a break-in, calls 9-1-1, and is told that due to her remote location, response might take a while. Being stuck without sight, she contacts Kelly again. Kelly soon sees the predicament she's in before being disconnected, and as the film continues, she does everything she can to try to help Sophie from behind her computer. Meanwhile, the motivation for the break-in is nothing at all surprising - it's about money. Even the criminals themselves are clichés - Otis (George Tchortov), Ernie (Pascal Langdale) and Dave (Joe Pingue). I forget who's who, honestly, but basically, your leader, your tough guy, and your sensitive guy. They're also lead by a man named Rico (Kim Coates) who isn't there. So, as one might imagine from a home invasion movie, a lot of it becomes Sophie trying to survive the night in this strange house, while blind, and being guided by someone (when they can connect) on the other end of a phone. This is a movie that's better reviewed than how I really feel about it though, so let's just get into some good. There are some intense moments, the concept is somewhat original (I'm sorry, but 'Silence of the Lambs' did something very similar with night vision goggles), and I do have to say that Kelly is a very likable character. But for me, the bad sort of outweighs the good here. Now, when I say "bad", I don't actually mean it in the strongest sense of the word. But the film's problems for me include it being a seemingly very standard set-up, the criminals are incredibly bland, the hero isn't very likable, and I feel like it's full of clichéd moments. However, it's that same basicness that makes it what I mentioned in the beginning - "really not bad for a simple, evening venture if you want a little thrill". I get the feeling that others would like this just fine, and perhaps I've just seen too much of the same sort of thing - like your average demonic possession movie these days, home invasion stuff gets pretty predictable. But hey, that's just me. It's a nice and cheap rental right now, if you wanna check it out for yourself. 3/5 |
RSS Feed