 Now it's time for us to dive into the strange and unusual with the latest film from Yorgos Lanthimos, who lives in the bizarre with movies like 'Lobster,' 'The Favorite' and 'The Killing of a Sacred Deer' just to name a few. This title manages to take his vision for adapting the 1992 Alasdair Gray novel of the same name while simultaneously looking at someone like Tim Burton and saying, "Hold my beer and watch this!" If you're looking for something truly bizarre and outlandish while still having a lot to say, you need not look any further than this fever dream of a film.
Taking place in Victorian London, with set designs that lend themselves to a dream world version of it, a young, pregnant lady (Emma Stone) commits suicide by leaping to her fate. She is found by an eccentric surgeon named Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe), who transplants her now-dead adult brain with that of her own infant, thereby creating a sort of Frankenstein monster from her whom he names Bella. With her infantile brain kicking off this new life, we watch as she slowly develops the basics, like speech and motor skills, along with discovering things about herself as she grows, namely in the realm of sexuality. In the meantime, Godwin takes a medical student named Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef) under his wing to assist him with observing Bella and taking notes of her growing behaviour. Max becomes infatuated with Bella and is ultimately respectful enough to see her as more than an experiment. Eventually, he even asks for her hand in marriage, with Godwin's permission; Godwin portrays much more of a father figure to her than anything else. Instead of wanting to settle down with Max, however, Bella craves seeing the outside world, which is where the sleazy lawyer Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo) comes in. Reluctantly, Godwin allows Bella to leave with Duncan to see how things work on the outside, and likewise, Max understands that she doesn't understand how the world works, right down to commitment to one person. Although they marry, Bella doesn't really grasp why people need to be held to one person and, therefore, sees no wrongdoing in her desire to go with Duncan, especially with the simple revelation that sex is fun. But don't worry, this comes back to bite Duncan in hilarious ways as she eventually matures and all the wrong reasons he's into her start fading away. Eventually, the pair get to a cruise ship to show Bella some changes of scenery, and she befriends fellow passengers Martha (Hanna Schygulla) and Harry (Jerrod Carmichael), who opens her mind to philosophy, which Bella uses (along with her sexuality) to develop herself into a strong, independent woman. In the meantime, she sends Godwin postcards about her adventure, along with all of the new stuff she's learning, be it good or bad, and it's pretty fascinating to see a developing brain take these things on for the first time. I think the biggest stand-out here, without question, is Stone's overall performance. I have to commend her on how brave she got with things here between acting like an infant, putting on a fake but good English accent and, of course, baring all for the world to see with the sex she has in this, of which there is plenty. It probably is the best performance she's ever given, considering everything. She owns it here and gives the other actresses of the year a run for their money. I say that with a bit of a bias; after all, Emma Stone is my favourite actress in Hollywood today. But one can't watch this without giving her tremendous respect for going for it and not holding anything back. Apart from that, though, here we have an original idea full of strange, almost fairytale-like whimsy (along with a fair share of fairy tale darkness) with set pieces and cinematography straight out of a true artist's imagination. While Stone heads this movie with her performance, everyone here is still very good with their roles. A lot of it is creepy, a lot of it is funny, and a decent chunk of it is dramatic. Speaking personally, I found it a truly unique project, and I respect Emma Stone far more than I already did... which was a lot! My only real word of warning: be ready to embrace the truly bizarre with this one. It really is a fever dream on the screen. 5/5
0 Comments
 When I went into this, I had only seen 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' once before, a few years ago. However, I had the pleasure of sharing this with someone I know is a big fan of the original film, and I'm happy to say that we both left it satisfied. Right off the bat, one would think it has a few strikes against it, just between being an origin story and having someone new playing Wonka, as Gene Wilder is incredibly hard to top. But while perhaps not perfect, I still got pretty much what I expected from this, and that's a good thing.
I will say right from the get-go that this takes place in a fantasy world as a whole, as opposed to the original, which I found only fantastical while inside Wonka's factory. It's pretty easy to forgive because one has to question where the magic came from in the first place, right down to an entire race of dancing, singing creatures with orange skin and green hair. This tells us a lot of what we may have wanted to know about Willy Wonka, the man, complete with his childhood dreams of running the best chocolate factory in the world and the trouble he runs into along the way. Here, we meet Willy Wonka (Timothée Chalamet) as a magician and inventor who has a special skill with making chocolate by using the most fantastically rare ingredients from the darkest, most exotic parts of the world. He comes to Europe in an attempt to establish a chocolate shop at the Galeries Gourmet, set in a fictional town modeled after a combination of London, Paris and Prague. Upon is arrival, and a pretty solid musical number to introduce himself, Wonka finds himself suddenly broke and setting up camp on a nearby bench. Here, Wonka meets a gruff-looking stranger named Bleacher (Tom Davis) who offers him a place to stay at the boarding house of Mrs. Scrubitt (Olivia Colman). He signs a document, spends the night, and in the morning heads to town to try to sell his chocolate for the first time. Despite intrigue from citizens of the town, however, he is quickly shut down by a trio of chocolate company owners, Slugworth (Paterson Joseph), Prodnose (Matt Lucas) and Fickelgruber (Mathew Baynton) after which he returns to the boarding house to pay for his night with the little bit left for him. Upon trying to pay, however, Wonka is tricked into staying after failing to read the fine print under the document Scrubitt has him sign upon his arrival. He is then forced into the basement to work in laundry along with several others who failed to read the fine print, namely, a girl who goes only by "Noodle" (Calah Lane) whom he eventually befriends along with former accountant Abacus Crunch (Jim Carter), former telephone operator Lottie Bell (Rakhee Thakrar), former failed comedian Larry Chucklesworth (Rich Fulcher) and Piper Benz (Natasha Rothwell), whose former occupation I frankly don't recall. While Mrs. Scrubitt and Bleacher run things like some sort of sweat shop, Wonka and Noodle try to figure out a way to get his more than worthy chocolate to the outside world and hopefully get themselves free. But even if they manage, they'll have the other three professional choclateeers to deal with, trying to stop him every step of the way. And while this remains a prequel, and we basically know how it all works out in the end, it is nevertheless entertaining to get to see how it all went down, right down to our first meeting with an Oompa Loompa (Hugh Grant). Atmospherically, it's somewhere between 'Paddington' as far as its charm and whimsy and 'Fantastic Beasts' as far as the magical aspects of it. To put it very simply, this is a nice, family-friendly movie that's full of great and, I would say, clevely written music and just a fun time, all around. I can't deny that there were actually several laugh out loud moments for me here, and none of them are really low-brow. I can't promise the die-hards will enjoy this, but I have to argue that it does a very good job for what it is, and recommend checking it out if you're on the lookout for something that is bound to leave you with a smile. 4/5  I don't tend to consider myself that hardcore of a 'Godzilla' fan, but I've always appreciated the ideas and material that he has brought to the table. Without Godzilla, the giant nuclear monster who attacks a city for no good reason other than to be a jerk, may very well not have become a thing. It led to movies like 'Cloverfield,' which is still one of the best found-footage movies out there, in my opinion. Sure, it could be argued that Kong did it first, but remember that he was just a little giant monster before Godzilla fought him.
Anyway, 'Godzilla Minus One' covers almost everything you could want from a 'Godzilla' movie and more, including a heavy but well-done human element. I have to appreciate a movie that illustrates how certain things were left after World War II for people who weren't on the winning side. Japan's stories are among the most tragic and include things like 'Grave of the Fireflies,' almost guaranteed to bring on tears. This movie is similar in showing the devastation left behind in parts of Japan and how civilians dealt with these times. It's a little surprising how much drama came from this when I've only seen these as cheesy fun until now. Nearing the end of WWII, a Japanese airbase located on Odo Island is visited by kamikaze pilot Kōichi Shikishima (Ryunosuke Kamiki) coming in to repair some technical issues with his plane. Upon studying the plane, it's soon found out that Kōichi is a disgraced pilot, fleeing from his mission. This was all very interesting to me, and it's a solid way to pull you into the film. It's seeing things from the other side, and while most of the pilots and mechanics there claim him to be a coward and a disgrace for not committing suicide and taking people with him, a select few are humane enough to understand why he fled. Then, thank the Gods because out of nowhere, Godzilla shows up on this island and shows us right away that he is not the tamed Americanized version of Godzilla we've been seeing over the past few years. This guy is back to being a total monster and back to being what he always should have been (another part of the checklist), a monster meant to be a cautionary tale of the dangers of nuclear radiation. The scene is awesome and tells us what we're in for with this version. No outstretched hands to try to pet the misunderstood monster in this one! Upon returning home to a now devastated Tokyo (due to America's air raids), he finds everyone he loves and more missing. He befriends a woman named Noriko (Minami Hamabe), who lost her parents, and a girl she rescued named Akiko (Sae Nagatani). As a result of his guilt, he soon takes up a minesweeper job to support them. As they begin to rebuild, Godzilla gets mutated and powers up because of the Americans testing nukes nearby, and several American ships are destroyed as a result. Soon enough, the news gets back to Kōichi, who assembles his minesweeping team, which includes the brilliant Kenji Noda (Hidetaka Yoshioka) and the lead mechanic meant to fix his plane, Sosaku Tachibana (Munetaka Aoki) as well as several others. Eventually, they devise a plan that could work to destroy Godzilla (as these movies go), and I have to give them credit for how creative the idea was. With all this, Kōichi hopes to redeem himself for his guilt and embarrassment of fleeing his mission. If he can just beat this monster, he can continue rebuilding a happy life with Noriko and Akiko. I really didn't expect it to get there, but I have to say that this is a last-minute entry for my favourite movies of 2023. Aside from the fact that it's authentically Japanese and not Americanized, this movie has a great human element that we care about, especially in knowing that there's a reality behind it all. On top of that, it's just awesome to see Godzilla be a horror movie monster and not the Americanized misunderstood creature - something both the 98 and new versions have done (although I still enjoy the new stuff for what it is). If you're looking for a well-done Kaiju flick, look no further! 5/5  I have to admit, it has been quite some time since I've really thought about action superstar director John Woo. So, it was pretty refreshing to see trailers for this action movie with a Christmas theme. However, I did start to fret that perhaps the almost annual Christmas action movie was starting to become a fad between 2020's 'Fatman,' 2022's 'Violent Night' and now this. That's not to say that I have a problem with this concept, but if I'm honest, 'Violent Night' was the only one that has really stood out for me, including this title.
The film hits the ground running (literally) as we are introduced to our film's hero, Brian Godlock (Joel Kinnaman), and just to get this out of the way real quick, it is my opinion that if the MCU needs a new Wolverine, this guy's a pretty good place to look based on this overall performance. But I digress. He's running to catch up to gang members driving like maniacal cartoon characters, firing at each other from their respective vehicles. Because of this gang war shootout, Brian and his wife, Saya (Catalina Sandino Moreno), end up losing their son, Taylor (Alex Briseño), in the crossfire. Once catching up to one of them, he finds himself at the business end of gangster Playa's (Harold Torres) bullet. He's shot in the throat and rushed to hospital, where he ultimately survives and has to learn how to do a lot of basic skills again as he recuperates. The gunshot wound leaves Brian mute and, therefore, distant as he mourns both the loss of his son and his voice, along with all of the frustration that comes with getting back on his feet. He also takes up drinking quite heavily and broods about as much as one would expect from such a series of events. But eventually, his mind focuses on one thing and one thing only: revenge for the careless and needless murder of his son. He then takes to training himself up over the next year to carry it all out, including bodybuilding, learning defensive techniques, learning how to fire a gun and a few other helpful things to aid him in his upcoming mission. The goal is to "Kill Them All" on Christmas Eve of that year. Throughout this process, he also does a bit of a "Batman" by gathering evidence on Playa's gang and delivering it to Detective Dennis Vassel (Kid Cudi), a detective who has offered to help with Brian's son's case. The action is slightly slow-moving at first despite a pretty grand opening. A solid chunk of this movie is just Brian recuperating and planning revenge. But it's important to realize that this guy is supposed to be an everyday guy. His actual job is that of an electrician. Taking its cues from 'Die Hard' (even though we now know Bruce Willis as an action hero, it wasn't so back then), it solidifies Brian's overall humanity just a little bit more and allows for more empathy. Although I've gotta say, the film does go out of its way to steer you in that direction. Sometimes, one "gets the point" long before a scene ends. What's unique about this movie is that it follows its namesake to a tee, as there is no dialogue throughout. I have to give some solid credit to any film that can use silence to its advantage and still tell a good story just by using things like body language. These films are few and far between, like 'The Artist' (which still uses title cards) or 'Shaun the Sheep' (which still has a touch of talking in the end), but I feel like this is the first time I've seen one with absolutely no talking at all of any sort. So, after all this praise, why doesn't it stick out for me among the new trend of Christmas action movies? I think for as fun as it is, that's essentially all there is to it. This is a neat project for John Woo, and it does a fine job for what it is, but it's a pretty simple story of revenge with titles like 'John Wick' to compete with. On top of that, the idea of Christmas being present is exceptionally vague, aside from Brian's sweater (a bit of ironic fun) and Christmas Eve being the night of his revenge. This is good if you want to sit down and watch a good revenge flick, but it's not something like 'Violent Night' or 'Die Hard,' which I will be eager to return to every holiday season. 3/5  I'll start this one off with the fact that history is far from my strong suit, and I know pretty much nothing about Napoleon Bonaparte and can, therefore, not point out any sort of accuracy or inaccuracy about the execution of this movie. What I can tell you, however, is that I have heard other reviewers mention how what's essentially covered here is "Napoleon's Greatest Hits," as far as battles go. It's not in a great or terrible spot on Rotten Tomatoes, with a current average of 58.5%, and in a word, the film could be described as "okay" at best.
Admittedly, I ended up seeing this for two major reasons: Ridley Scott and his fantastic job on previous films like 'Gladiator,' and Joaquin Phoenix, who I thought might have been able to pull Napoleon off, but after watching, I can't help but feel like he didn't quite nail it. But again, I'm no good with history, especially regarding things like this. I'm not sure we learned anything about the man in school. If we ever did, it didn't stand out, and my biggest impression of who Napoleon was is best portrayed in Looney Tunes. So, I am not the right guy to review this for accuracy. But even with that, I still have my own takeaways. The film opens with an almost glorified execution of Marie Antoinette (Catherine Walker) as Napoleon Bonaparte (Phoenix) watches the guillotine do its thing from the sidelines. I suppose this scene was mostly to tie another big name of the era into things to kick it off because things pick up later that year when Napoleon is approached by Paul Barras (Tahar Rahim), a Revolutionary leader who asks Napoleon to manage the Siege of Toulon. And this is when the viewer quickly realizes that animal lovers need not attend this movie - especially regarding horses because things get graphic! And while things get very gory here, and I hate seeing animals get it (even if they weren't harmed), I still have to give Scott credit for not holding back on some of the bloodier realism of these battle scenes. They keep you on the edge of your seat, you feel their brutality, and they serve as not-so-friendly reminders that war is an ugly thing. But with that said, that's the only real reason to check this movie out, in my opinion. It almost feels like a new setting of the bar for war violence to me, making the opening of 'Saving Private Ryan' look tame. The other side of the story concerns his "romantic" life with aristocratic widow Joséphine de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby). This is mostly centred on their sex life and, despite it being quite vigorous, the inability to bear children and, therefore, give Napoleon an heir. Of course, it also covers Napoleon's abusive tendencies and temper here, which can get uncomfortable. But it can get funny when taking his temper to his military tactics. At one point, he even acts like a kid, telling a British diplomat, "You think you're so great because you've got boats!" But while there are a couple of solid laughs through this, intentional or not, and the bloody war action is top-notch (if that's what you're here for, but keep in mind the horses), I'm not entirely sure I got what I wanted from it, especially from Phoenix's acting. The man is great, don't get me wrong, but I think this role was one of his weaker performances, and I'm not alone on this based on word of mouth and various other articles on the subject. I had to browse because I wondered if it was just me. Ultimately, he just felt miscast. I was ultimately looking forward to this potentially reaching the top of my list of movies this year based on certain things, mostly on seeing Ridley Scott return to this type of historical stuff. And while I thought many aspects of the film were good, some others just dragged, and it ends with what might as well be a random fade to black. So don't be on the lookout for an epic, unforgettable end to this. At the end of the day, my opinion on this as a whole is pretty much where everyone else is. It's good some of the time, lame some of the time, and averages out to be "decent," but it's nothing compared to Scott's earlier work on 'Gladiator.' 3/5  I haven't been paying close attention to the slasher genre lately, and I have more than bloody likely missed out on some gems I have yet to explore (like most horror movies in my life, it's usually about catching up). But I can say that speaking for myself, this is one of the best slasher flicks I've seen in a long time. There's something about it that feels more of the 80s slasher genre I love so much, as it's complete with a sense of humour, has a cheesy edge to it, and has a 'Scream' feel to it; a movie which parodies 80s horror altogether!
Like with most slasher horror out there, plenty of critics will give it some digs, but if there's one thing I know about director Eli Roth, he's not in it much for critical recognition as opposed to making his fans cringe in all the best ways possible. With that in mind, my overall familiarity with the man was the torture porn bar-raiser, 'Hostel,' the film that ultimately made me realize torture horror was not for me. Although I still say the ending of it was kinda badass. Anyway, I kinda thought I would be getting more of that here. But I was pleasantly surprised! It's not without a bit of the torture that makes me so squeamish, but Roth otherwise does a great job with the variety in his kills here. It's definitely one for the gore hounds! In Plymouth, MA, on Thanksgiving, 2022, a crowd gathers outside a "RightMart" department store, positively rabid for a Black Friday sale. The crowd then notices off to the side that film lead Jessica Wright (Nell Verlaque), daughter of store owner Thomas Wright (Rick Hoffman), lets her boyfriend, Bobby (Jalen Thomas Brooks) and friends Evan (Tomaso Sanelli), Gabby (Addison Rae), Scuba (Gabriel Davenport) and Yulia (Jenna Warren) in through a side door. This invokes a riot, chaos happens, and it's a brutal reminder of why shopping online for Black Friday is a much better idea. It may not be as big a problem now, but I still can't be mad at Roth for putting his horrific spin on the concept. One year later, as RightMart prepares for another sale, ignoring what happened the previous year and ignoring protesters, mostly fuelled by Thomas' new wife, Kathleen (Karen Cliche) and her desire to put money above anything else. Meanwhile, a social media post tags Jessica and her friends, showing a Thanksgiving table with place settings with their names on them. It's soon discovered that this poster is a mysterious man dressed as John Carver, who is seemingly getting some kind of revenge on several people involved in the Black Friday sale of the previous year, according to town sheriff Eric Newlon (Patrick Dempsey). I think that perhaps the biggest standout of this movie is the kills themselves. As morbid as it may sound, this brings some originality and "Hollywood Meat" to the forefront and does a great balance between making you cringe and making you say "Oooh! Damn!" This is just a me thing, but I would say that I haven't seen kills this original since probably 'Final Destination 5', which did an amazing job with its fake-out kills. But again, remember that the horror I've missed over the past few years could probably fill half a video store (for those of you who remember them). But on top of a bunch of crazy kills, it should also be noted that there's a pretty solid comedic aspect to this flick as well. One scene in particular, around the middle of the movie, is almost guaranteed to have a laugh to lighten the mood. I won't say what it is, but you'll know when you see it because it stands out that much. But even with the solid kills and sense of humour, Roth still expands on things with a touch of father/daughter drama that takes nothing away from anything and a climactic scene that allows Roth to turn up the intensity levels. Before wrapping this review up, I have a few things for readers to consider. For starters, this feels like a major callback to the era of 80s slasher, where viewers come to see some kills and not take the film seriously. You're not going to have much fun with this if you're going to try taking anything about it seriously. It's pure horror entertainment at its finest, and one can think of it almost as a 'Scream' movie with the gore factor cranked to eleven. This is definitely one for fans of the slasher horror genre who aren't looking for any kind of seriousness attached to it because, after all, this DID come from a 'Grindhouse' trailer in the first place. 4/5  In yet another title that has me searching for the answer as to whether I liked it, 'Freelance' struck me as a moderately enjoyable action/adventure flick that is probably more suited to being a streaming original than getting a big-screen release. It didn't do so hot at the box office, debuting way down the list at #8, and there is definitely some sort of "standard" feeling to it all that suggests why. The best way for me to describe it is that it's just "fine." Nothing in particular stands out as anything special, but nothing really makes it "suck" either.
Mason Pettits (John Cena) introduces himself with a voice-over describing his life as a would-be lawyer and family man and ditching that life for a life of action in the U.S. Army Special Forces. On one particular mission, he and his team are sent to the fictional country of Paldonia to assassinate a dictator named Juan Venegas (Juan Pablo Raba). The mission goes awry, however, and as a result, Mason is injured and medically discharged, made to pursue his lawyer life once again, and seemingly getting the short end of the stick when it comes to clients. One day, a former Special Forces team member, Sebastian Earle (Christian Slater), offers him a chance to get back out there with a high-paying security job, protecting journalist Claire Wellington (Alison Brie) as she heads to Paldonia to interview the very man Mason was after when he was injured in the line of duty. He reluctantly accepts the job, as it pays very well, and he has a family to support, including his wife (who very much disapproves of the danger element involved), Jenny (Alice Eve), and his daughter (the reason Jenny's so disapproving), Casey (Molly McCann). Upon their arrival in Paldonia, Mason and Claire meet Venegas and are shortly thereafter put under fire by a group attempting to assassinate Venegas, who is convinced they are being led by his nephew Jorge (Sebastian Eslava), who has hired a professional by the name of Colonel Jan Koehorst (Marton Csokas) to kill him. Soon, Mason finds himself protecting the same person he was meant to kill in the first place several years before. So, I've used this term a lot in recent reviews, but it's another "escort mission" type of movie. I will credit the film for a few things, such as allowing Mason to maintain his loyalty to his wife during the mission. With anything like this, there tends to be sexual tension between the two characters, and it tends to be kinda old-fashioned. But Claire can certainly hold her own and is closer to Elena Fisher ('Uncharted') than Willie Scott ('Temple of Doom'), but I still wouldn't say she's necessarily a badass through this. She is often very irritating when acting smug and filming things with her phone non-stop. But again, with some credit to the movie, Mason often plays the audience in these situations, which, in my opinion, gives it more leverage. The dialogue regarding Claire's often stupid decisions gets a little humorous. But another thing about this movie is that the laughs that I feel ought to be here with a John Cena/Allison Brie team-up weren't altogether there. Nothing here ends up being very laugh-out-loud funny, and it just brings me back to the film being a mild venture at best. Ultimately, this one's okay if you're looking for something to watch with some action on a pleasant Sunday afternoon on your big-screen TV in the comfort of your living room. Nothing stands out as very good or bad about this to me either way, and it's possibly the most lukewarm I've felt towards a movie all year. So, in the end, it all boils down to a big "shrug" on my part because this is definitely one of those titles I can't recommend one way or the other. If you have time, check it out if you're curious. But I think this floated under the radar, even as a wide release, for a reason. 3/5  This is yet another video game-based movie I know nothing about because I've never actually participated in any of these games. So, once again, I'm watching this objectively and treating it more as a horror movie than a video game adaptation. The bonus there is that I'm not necessarily looking for all of the flaws in the adaptation. But that also doesn't mean they're not there for game fans who rightfully should demand more than just a name slapped onto something to make some cash. 'Five Nights' here strikes me as such a movie.
From what I understand, almost half of this movie actually unfolds reasonably well. The opening sequence is nice and creepy, giving 'Saw' vibes to the viewer, but without showing any real gore. This will definitely be complained about, but I'm generally of the mind that often less is more. No blood is fine as long as your imagination can fill in the blanks with something even more potentially gruesome. That's something this film did well, and upon doing some homework, I've read that the games forego the blood and gore in exchange for atmosphere. You get this treatment throughout the film, so if you're here for the gore, this is not for you. We meet mall security guard Mike Schmidt (Josh Hutcherson), who one day gets fired for beating some kid's father half to death in the middle of the day and out in the open. Needless to say, he's fired. However, he does have to take care of his little sister, Abby (Piper Rubio), whom social services are threatening to hand over to who might as well be her over-the-top Disney-style evil aunt Jane (Mary Stuart Masterson); in it more for the custody monthly payments. As a result, Mike, willing to do anything, takes a security job at the now abandoned "Freddy Fazbears," a "Chuck E. Cheese"-style pizza restaurant that kids still often come around to vandalize. Mike often falls asleep on the job and has bad dreams about his little brother, Garrett (Lucas Grant), who was one day kidnapped when they were young. Without spoiling too much, this has a deeper connection to the overall story. But at one point, Jane sends some goons to rough up "Fazbears," and this, as far as I'm concerned, is the best part of the movie. The animatronic characters start coming to life and protecting their restaurant in some pretty badass and brutal ways. Again, there is no blood, but the effect is creepy, and I wondered quite honestly why so many people came out of this hating it. If the whole movie was gonna be like that, I was in for the ride. Mike meets this cop who seems to do routine checks at the restaurant, Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail), who gives him a tour of the place and its dark history. And I'm just gonna say that one night, Mike brings his little sister there. She befriends these animatronic terrors, and for some reason, the movie almost goes into "fun mode." As soon as it hits that point, you wonder what the hell happened. The film does explain a lot more, but if I'm gonna be perfectly honest, I don't entirely understand why it went the way it went, which was totally cliche. I immediately compared what became the film's central plot with the 'The Shining,' and it just didn't need to go there. With something like this (and please, fans, correct me if I'm wrong), one could have just as easily made these animatronics the vengeful spirits they're supposed to be and made a Jason or Michael Myers-like slasher flick out of this and make it about Mike having to survive the night while these things go amok but aren't necessarily seen by Mike doing it. Victims could be anything from criminals to risk-taking teenagers. While probably still not the best, it could have been a good "body count" horror movie that worked its creepy factor to the max. If the movie was like the scene here with the vandals, I feel that would have been fine. It's my understanding that when it comes to this film, however, it's meant to be a good toe-dip for younger audiences into the horror genre. To this, I can't honestly say I disagree, and it IS about time another one of these came along. However, there's a heavy kidnapping plot to this that probably would have traumatized me as a kid, and it's hard to know if this really knows what it wants to be. The right age for this is basically "puberty," I suppose. But this film couldn't quite pick a lane, and it is the first really big dip I've seen in video game adaptation quality in a while (debatable, yes, but it's just my opinion). 2/5  I'd be pretty hard-pressed to not enjoy a good Scorsese movie, and I'm super happy to see him tackle a subject matter that doesn't necessarily fit in with what we're used to seeing from him. Yes, it's "woke," but it's done so with Scorsese's wonderful writing and direction over some of Hollywood's best actors, who include Scorsese's biggest go-to actors together on screen - Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro. It also tackles a very disturbing subject matter that, until recently, we've all been ignorant of or just hadn't heard of due to others' ignorance.
As the film opens, we're given a little background into the success of the Osage tribe upon finding oil on their Oklahoma reservation. The tribe becomes extremely wealthy, but due to reservation laws, white "guardians" are to manage their money. Said benefactor is a guy named William "King" Hale (De Niro), who acts friendly toward the Osage, bestowing gifts, providing chauffeurs and other services, and speaking their native tongue. However, the audience understands from the get-go that there's something pretty "off" about this guy. Enter Ernest Burkart (DiCaprio), who comes to King, who's his uncle, for some honest work. King starts him off with a chauffeur job and asks for him to take special care of one, Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), which ultimately translates to "get to know her and marry her so we can get some of that money" (just to skip ahead). While things look dirty and underhanded as what seems to be a real love is blossoming between the two, one by one, her family starts getting taken out, which gets the attention of Tom White (Jesse Plemons) of the FBI, who, naturally, come to investigate. I won't go into any more detail about the story here, but one should know that this was all something that really went down. Scorsese does a good job of not glamorizing it with Hollywood style so much as to break our hearts and open our eyes to a long-ignored situation. This is adapted from a book of the same name, but here's a good Wiki article that covers it if you happen to miss out on the movie. But it is definitely worth the three-and-a-half hours of captivating storytelling and acting. That brings me to my next point of the film: the acting from everyone is pretty phenomenal here. If I were to have one slight nitpick about things, it would be that DiCaprio overdoes his exaggerated frown a wee bit throughout the movie. But it's still a great performance alongside the legendary De Niro, who we get to see wear those old-timey driving goggles in this movie, and whether intentional or not, it looks pretty hilarious. But for as great as those two always are, the most impressed I was with her acting in this was Lily Gladstone. It's odd to say, but Gladstone's performance here damn near outshines everyone, including De Niro and DiCaprio. She has quite a range she has to play, from mysterious but intriguing with a sense of humour all the way to physically sick and mournful, and she basically steals the show. But that's not to say that everyone else was bad in comparison by any means; everyone's wonderful in this, and as far as I'm concerned, Scorsese has struck gold again and continues his legacy of being a legendary filmmaker. As mentioned above, in true Scorsese fashion, this is indeed a long one at three-and-a-half hours. It's bound to feel that long to some. But for most, it seems to be that people are coming back from this saying that it didn't, and that's no surprise. Scorsese has a way of bringing you into his movies, where we constantly want to see what happens, along with any pleasant surprises he has in store. This film, though a different kind of Scorsese masterpiece, is still pretty much a masterpiece, and it's great to see that the legendary director hasn't lost his touch in making his audience feel the mass spectrum of emotions. 5/5  Right off the bat, I have to mention that this is one of those movies where, if you don't know that there's a follow-up movie in the works, the way things end (without spoiling anything) is nothing short of brutal. After watching this movie, I had to do some Googling to learn of 'Exorcist: Deceiver,' due out in a couple more years. So, with that, I can be much more forgiving. That said, the film is still getting pretty rough reviews on the whole, but I have to say that I'm in the camp of people who aren't all that mad at this movie.
Having said that, I can't say I hold out much hope for the direction things seem to be going, as this film seems to negate all of the original 'Exorcist' sequels and be directly linked to the original, creating a different universe and timeline altogether. If this sounds familiar, it's because the same directing/writing team-up of David Gordon Green and Danny McBride did this with the 'Halloween' franchise, only to eventually drive it into the ground in a different way (in my humble opinion, anyway). But, for now, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little impressed, and I'm not sure I totally understand the hate... although I do get some of it. Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jr.) and his pregnant wife, Sorenne (Tracey Graves), while on their honeymoon in Haiti, are struck by a massive earthquake that traps Sorenne and leads Victor to have to choose who lives between Sorenne and their unborn child, Angela. Faced with the impossible, Sorenne insists that Angela be born and raised, and so the choice is made. Thirteen years pass, Angela (Lidya Jewett) grows up, and one fateful day at school is given permission from her Dad to hang out with her good friend, Katherine (Olivia O'Neill), after school, but to be home by dinner. Their after-school activity, however, unbeknownst to their parents, is to conduct a séance, attempting to reach Angela's mother. Dinnertime comes and goes, and as the hours wear thin, Victor gets more concerned and contacts Katherine's parents, Tony and Miranda (Norbert Leo Butz and Jennifer Nettles, respectively); soon enough, the three begin a three-day manhunt to look for the girls who are eventually found but have been, shall we say, changed. It starts pretty subtly, where skepticism can still rule out a thing or two, but it's not long before the supernatural stuff starts happening between both Angela and Katherine, who seem to be attached to the same demon who offers the parents the choice of which daughter gets to live, and which has to die. Honestly, the trailer does give away quite a bit. While that's the main story, I think people wonder more about what happens with our legacy character, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn). Well, friends, this is where the real disappointment of the film comes into play. If you've come to see Chris kick some ass in the same way we saw Jamie Lee Curtis do it in the new 'Halloween' movies, you're probably not gonna be happy with the results. Her screen time here is nothing short of a joke, and she's only really brought in for one reason: the very end of the movie, which I can't spoil for anyone here. It's a shame because she was such a big draw for audiences, and they barely use her. Having said that, however, I'm not straying from my mention of not being that mad at this movie. Besides a lack of Ellen Burstyn and a few things the demon seems to be able to do that I'm not completely sure I accept, I do have to hand it to the movie that the two girls they got to act possessed here do a fantastic and terrifying job, and the underlying message of choice feels like it's pretty well done, if perhaps a little heavy-handed, showing that we are faced with life-altering choices that we can either be smart about, or very ignorant about, based on our emotions. This isn't exactly "Horror Movie of the Year," but I do feel like if you can go into this with the understanding of what I've mentioned, including Ellen Burstyn not being used to the film's advantage and the fact that there IS another movie on its way, it's not as bad a movie as people are letting it on to be, if you're looking for something scary to watch on the big screen right now. To me, this felt pretty reminiscent of the original in many ways, and these two girls really sell it with their possession acting skills. It's a film that isn't without its problems. But I think I see it as getting more criticism than it may deserve. 3/5  While perhaps not entirely original, as it remains the classic cautionary tale of what happens once AI gets too big for its britches, it is nice to see a movie take a somewhat different spin. It does so by making the movie a conglomeration of a few different concepts and blending them together, complete with the aforementioned AI, a look at mankind being the potential real monster, loss and learning to trust/love again and, as one can easily pick up from the trailers, this one consists of another "escort mission" of sorts.
The film opens with an old-time-style (even though this is the future) ad about the advancements of Artificial Intelligence and, ultimately, how we've gotten them to the stage of being almost indecipherable from humans. We get the AI out of hand instantly when they detonate a nuclear warhead over Los Angeles, CA, in the year 2055. This ultimately leads Americans (referring to humans of the Western world) to struggle and fight for survival. Still, the AI also has friends with "New Asia" (Japan, Taiwan, Bhutan, Nepal, Southeast Asia and some of India) who continue to see them as something of an equal. Now that the environment is set, we turn our attention to undercover operative Joshua Taylor (John David Washington), who has unwittingly married his target, Maya Fey (Gemma Chan), whom the American government believes to be the daughter of their ultimate target known as "Nirmata," who is supposed to be the "Creator," responsible for the AI advancements that have seemingly taken things over. Long story short, Josh and Maya get themselves separated under devastating circumstances, but throughout the film, Josh continues his search for her under the belief that she is still alive. Five years later, Josh is approached by General Andrews and Colonel Howell to seek out and destroy a sort of ultimate weapon, supposedly capable of taking out their ultimate defence system - a giant ship known as NOMAD (North American Orbital Mobile Aerospace Defense). He reluctantly agrees when he realizes this mission could lead to reuniting with Maya, but then ends up over his head when he realizes that the "weapon" known as "Alpha-O" is just a kid he nicknames "Alphie" (Madeleine Yuna Voyles) who, despite her great abilities to manipulate machinery, just wants robots to be able to live in peace, thus giving Josh his internal struggle unable to complete his mission, but for all the right moral reasons. This one comes to us from writer/director Gareth Edwards, who feels about as upper-middle ground as possible in directing fantasy/sci-fi movies. He was also responsible for 2014's 'Godzilla' (a breath of fresh air after 1998's version) and 'Star Wars: Rogue One' (probably the ultimate stand-out movie of anything that came out after the prequel trilogy). But as much as I enjoyed those movies for myself, they certainly were not without their share of critics, and though they may never be solid gold, they're generally pretty damn good and never actually what I'd call "bad." This is no exception, and it is well worth the price of admission. Strangely, this movie didn't perform better for an audience who constantly gets sick and tired of the same old superhero blockbusters. This may not have stuck out as ultimately brilliant, in as much as it takes from other concepts. But it was nonetheless entertaining with likeable characters, a flare for the dramatic (even with robots), and visuals that remind us that the sci-fi genre isn't entirely tapped out yet. If I were to ultimately compare it to anything in the way it feels, I'd probably go with 'District 9' in that the film drops us into this world of the future that seems like it could be real one day, based on the ignorance of us asshole humans. Unlike 'District 9', however, I don't entirely see this one being up for a whole lot of Oscars (other than maybe some technical ones), even though I do enjoy the idea here. This isn't one of those big-time go-to sci-fi classics we'll be returning to, but I recommend checking it out to see what it's all about. If nothing else, it provides a relatively intense sci-fi adventure for those seeking something like that, though I may not label it as "fun" like I usually would. This is one to throw on when you've got two hours of nothing to do and just wanna relax with a decent story. There may not be much of a "Wow" factor here, but it's still pretty good. 3/5 NOTE: The following review will eventually be moved to a special 'Saw' page.  When it comes to my familiarity with the 'Saw' franchise, it goes a little something like this. I've seen parts 1-3, missed parts 4-7, and seen 'Jigsaw' and 'Spiral.' I quoted the last two as "just another 'Saw' movie" and "Fine if you're into that kind of thing." Speaking personally, I felt it lost its overall quality during the third one, in which *SPOILER ALERT* John Kramer (Tobin Bell) passed away due to his brain cancer. From there, I just kind of wondered why they bothered to keep going other than the obvious "cash-in."
The franchise carries on from there, and to be fair, I didn't really bother with it at all, and a lot of that was because John died - a character who, by the way, I strongly considered the next big thing in horror after Part 2. I figured the rest were pretty much more of the same thing - torturous traps that the victim has to put themselves through to survive with an underlying message of appreciating the life that one is given and not wasting it on whatever crimes or wrongdoings John has you trapped for. I can appreciate the tactic these traps use in which the victim CAN ultimately survive; they just have to sacrifice something big to do so. 'Saw X,' thankfully for yours truly, presses the rewind button and gives us back the somewhat brilliant mind of John Kramer with a story taking place between Parts 2 and 3. This movie is far less about Jigsaw's traps (even though there's plenty here for those who have come to see some new inventions) and more about the man himself. Until now, I always found the first two to be my favourites (out of the five I saw), and the second is high on the list for allowing us to see John Kramer, aka "The Jigsaw Killer," and the way his mind works. This aspect returns in this film but humanizes the man even further. In the film's beginning, Kramer is told that he only has a few months to live. Later, at a cancer support meeting, he meets a man named Henry Kessler (Michael Beach), who is also evidently terminal. A short time later, John and Henry cross paths, and Henry tells him of a miracle cure he had done to him conducted at a research facility so secluded that we find out they basically have to stage a kidnapping just to bring you there. Interested, John calls Dr. Cecelia Pederson (Synnøve Macody Lund) and is scheduled to travel to Mexico City to complete the procedure. Without major spoilers, however, let's just say things don't go as planned. Now, I should probably forewarn the people here who come to see the torture porn that, even though the traps come, it is a bit of a slow burn for the viewer to get there. This is frankly something I admire, but not everyone will be into it, and I totally get that. But I will say that it makes room for some kind of empathy towards John Kramer, someone we know as a really twisted sicko at this point. But we see him engage in casual conversations about hope; he befriends and helps out a child with his bicycle, and we get more of his human, relatable side. And when you really give that some thought, that's scarier than any trap. To expand on that a little bit, this movie drives home the point any true crime podcaster has officially absorbed: the typical psycho killer usually wears a friendly face, and they're not the physical monsters movies make them out to be. Remember, even Ted Bundy had an insane amount of charm. So, for me, the film's true quality shines with the study of John Kramer's character instead of the creativity of some of his traps. While the horror aspect is most definitely still here, I daresay that this might be the only 'Saw' movie that adds a good dramatic edge to it. I might suggest that this isn't exactly your typical 'Saw' movie, and the viewers will have to decide for themselves whether they appreciate the fact that there's depth to this chapter. As far as I'm concerned, these movies have a weird connection with me in that Jigsaw is one of my all-time favourite movie villains, but the 'Saw' franchise is far from my favourite horror franchise. Jigsaw is one of those villains, like Thanos, in that you understand what he's doing. You might disagree with him, but you get why he's doing it. There's a "point" to it all. And this movie reinforced my appreciation for this particular villain for the first time in years! 4/5  I can still remember a time when the idea of gathering a dream team of action heroes from films from my generation's childhood and our parent's adulthood was an amazing concept. And I have to say, the first couple of them back in 2010 and 2012, respectively, are still a hell of a lot of fun. By the third, I wondered if perhaps it was getting out of hand, but in fairness, it was the third of a box office money-making franchise of epic proportions, and it was still released in 2014. At that point, things really should have probably just stopped.
Here we are, almost ten years after 'Expendables 3' for a fourth chapter that, as far as I can tell, not many people were asking for. Now, I'll be the first guy to admit that I enjoy a fun action romp of epic proportions, even if a lot of it is "bad" in its own way. This could have fallen into that category if only I didn't have that very concept and drive it into the ground when it already worked fine for the first three films. When it's all said and done, this is a simple revenge movie with a twist ending that will make you want to rage-throw your popcorn at the screen. No spoilers, just a fair warning. The Expendables team is sent to Libya to intercept a nuclear weapons thief named Suarto Rahmat (Iko Uwais), who is stealing some warheads for a terrorist known only as Ocelot - a name any 'Metal Gear: Solid' fan might cringe at as it feels so very stolen. The mission brings back old favourites Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone), Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), Toll Road (Randy Couture) and Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren). It also introduces us to the noobies Easy Day (50 Cent) and Galan (Jacob Scipio). So, thank God, at least a few of them have made a return. Everything's business as usual, but in the firefight, Rahmat shoots down the Expendables' plane, only to leave one of the team members dead (without throwing too many early spoilers at you). The CIA reveals that the Expendables will go after Rahmat to finish what they started and get revenge without Christmas, as he apparently jeopardized the mission. Insult to injury is added when Christmas is replaced by Gina (Megan Fox), his former lover, who, herself, brings in Lash (Levy Tran), another talented female operative. As the Expendables tackle the mission, Christmas tracks them, knowing he'll be needed more than they think. I really wanted to have more fun than I did with this. It carries a feeling of "too little, too late" with it (especially with the first three being a solid 2 years apart from each other), and the casting kind of throws away what made these movies so good to begin with and I'm afraid this is where I have to get into a bit of controversial territory. But the fact of the matter is, the original 'Expendables' concept was that it was a testosterone-loaded action flick that starred all of our favourite action heroes, and its main target was definitely dudes. This is absolutely not to say that women can't or shouldn't enjoy these or be a part of them. But when Megan Fox takes the lead AND brings on another woman, which feels a bit forced, things get a little too "woke" when they don't need to be for a film that was always initially catered towards men. I'm all for an all-female action movie with a stellar cast that shows the strength of women without forcing things to be perfectly clear. It just felt very out of place here, especially with someone like Megan Fox, who I've never considered an action star. Even if I were to accept all of that and take it with a grain of salt, it wouldn't change the overall poor execution of things. At best, I can say that if you just feel like some high-octane action, it still delivers on that level fairly well. But the writing and dialogue are pretty rough, and, again, it ends on such a "middle finger" note that leaves you sitting there wondering, "Wait, that's it?" For my money, the first two of these are still a great time, and the third is okay, just for fun. But this felt altogether completely unnecessary. 2/5  I must admit that when I first saw the trailer for this movie, I pretty well rolled my eyes at it as yet another haunting movie that would be the same as most others. I tend to view them as a typical novelty haunted house in that you go into it, and you're along for a thrill ride using things like jump scares to fulfill your adrenaline needs. It's typically a fun time instead of a traumatizing one, though, with hints of mystery and intrigue accompanying the ride. I tend to enjoy them in their own ways and prefer them to torture porn.
However, as I watched the trailer, Detective Hercule Poirot popped up, and I was immediately sold. The idea of giving us a detective horror (and I use the term very loosely) film seemed right up my alley. Many don't realize it, but one old Sherlock film I watched and thoroughly enjoyed was 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'. That would be the 1939 version of the story featuring Basil Rathbone as Holmes. It made for one of those great atmospheric classics. And since I enjoyed the last two Poirot films as their own fun "thrill rides", I found something about bringing back this horror detective story idea super intriguing. This chapter opens up in post-war Venice, Italy, which they made look incredibly inviting, as though it had this rustic quality, like some sort of fancy, beautiful antique. The sort of thing that looks a little homely on the outside, even, dare I say, haunted? There dwells a retired Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) and his bodyguard, ex-police officer Vitale Portfoglio (Riccardo Scamarcio). On Halloween, Poirot is approached by novelist Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey) and asked to attend a séance with her to expose a medium named Joyce Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh) as a fraud. Poirot reluctantly agrees to join her to make short work of this. Opera singer Rowena Drake (Kelly Reilly) meets with them at her Palazzo, and it's explained that she has hired Mrs. Reynolds as a means to communicate with her deceased daughter, Alicia (Rowan Robinson), who apparently committed suicide after a romance went south. Also in the séance's attendance are Rowena's housekeeper, Olga Seminoff (Camille Cottin), Drake's family physician, Leslie Ferrier (Jamie Dornan) and his son, Leopold (Jude Hill), and Reynolds' assistants, Desdemona Holland (Emma Laird) and an American guy named Maxime Gerard (Kyle Allen) who happens to be Alicia's Father, but not in the best of places with Rowena. Poirot is ready to leave after the séance, in which admittedly bizarre and spooky stuff happens. But when one of the group is brutally murdered, the séance turns into a crime scene, and Poirot finds himself on the case once again. However, Poirot has to deal with the ins and outs of reality itself this time and may even have to call his own skepticism into question regarding whether there is a ghostly realm beyond. And I'm just going to go ahead and say it: this is, perhaps obviously for those who know my tastes, probably my favourite of the bunch so far (I don't know how many of these Branagh plans to do). While 'Murder on the Orient Express' and 'Death on the Nile' were entertaining in their own rights, there was no sense of "perfection" from either of them. That may not be the right word, but I'm talking about when something seemingly lines up perfectly for the viewer, as long as we count "perfection" as relative. This provided yours truly with a pretty wonderful balance to what I like to call "toe-dip horror", which is usually the concept of horror translated into a PG-rated or PG-13-rated movie. There's actually a decent jump scare or two here, but it's still a mystery first. Add a sprinkle of good humour and some solid acting and it's a good time, especially for the Spooky Season. I think I can safely recommend this to anyone looking for a Halloween watch this year that's more or less family-friendly. It's a murder mystery, a ghost story, a haunted house movie, and the rustic setting of Venice makes for some really creepy but perfectly natural set pieces. Story-wise, it's also fun to wonder along the way from Poirot's point of view - that of a complete and total skeptic. I also have my skeptical side, but let's be honest here - where's the fun in that? It's just kind of fun seeing a skeptic's point of view get tarnished with something they can't explain. But one thing I can explain is that if you enjoyed the last couple of these, you're in for a real treat with this one! 4/5  I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I predict the Video Game genre to be the next big thing after the Superhero genre starts to fizzle out. And here, again, we have further evidence of such a concept. This time, the filmmakers decided to look at an intriguing story surrounding video games instead of just trying to adapt a game to the big screen. In this case, the story surrounds (arguably) the most popular racing simulator of all time - 'Gran Turismo'. All in all, a game I tried once, sucked at, and never really picked up again.
Having admitted to that, the game aside, this is an intriguing true story altogether, and I'm curious to know how it went over my head. But, as usual, it's still important to note that when a film says "Based on a True Story", that usually means the movie has some loose odds and ends for dramatic effect, and it's a term to be taken very lightly. 'Gran Turismo' is no exception to this rule, though, and I'd encourage people to look at the real true stories behind Jann Mardenborough and the GT Academy, which are perhaps less dramatic, but are still interesting! Anyway, that's what this movie is all about, starting right from the beginning with the game's development, created by Kazunori Yamauchi (Takehiro Hira), who wanted to make a racing game that could efficiently mimic real racing. We take this concept and fast-forward to (presumably) 2006, where marketing executive Darren Cox (or here, Danny Moore - Orlando Bloom) pitches a contest for the best 'Gran Turismo' racers in the world to compete for a chance to race on a real race track. Training them all in the ways of real racing is one Jack Salter (David Harbour) who, I believe, is pretty much the only fictional character here. Meanwhile, we are introduced to 'Gran Turismo' mega fan Jann Mardenborough (Archie Madekwe) and his family, father, Steve (Djimon Hounsou), mother, Leslie (Geri Horner, formerly known as Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls) and brother, Coby (Daniel Puig). Jann lives his life playing 'GT' while his parents, namely his father, wish for him to think about college or university and establish some sort of life path - which 'GT' will not help with. That is, of course, until he notices that he qualifies for the aforementioned contest with his excellent racing skills and high score. The rest of the movie follows the "Cinderella Story" formula of an underdog of sorts, proving himself on the track and climbing through the ranks to become one of the greats. Of course, it doesn't come without a detail or two that causes us to question the "true story" portion of it all. But I had a lot of fun with this movie! If you can go in with the understanding that some dramatic effect is added to the plot, it's really a good time, and I have to admit that I was impressed and happy to see that the video game genre is continuing to improve, slowly but surely. Opinions will certainly differ, but I'm sticking to my guns. One might wonder where the actual video game aspect comes into things, if at all. Well, I'm happy to say it's there and used just enough to remind us of the game - excuse me - racing simulator this is all about. And I'm further happy to say that the CG used in this movie is exactly where it needs to be - used for sponsorship tags, recreating famous tracks, and, coolest of all, often making things look like the game only by tagging the racer's rank in the race or showing us some kind of "achievement." The racing and the cars being used further bring the realism that 'Gran Turismo' was all about to the big screen. Although I must admit that the story comes with predictability and some dramatic effect added to the true story, I don't have a hard time forgiving that. This is something that managed to bridge the gap between being a video game movie and being a dramatic racing story that just so happens to involve 'Gran Turismo'. Director Neil Blomkamp does a great job with this (along with everyone involved, including the real Jann Mardenborough doing his own stunt driving) and I feel like this movie should be the beginning of a whole new concept involving things like the video game contest... perhaps 'Swordquest'? 5/5  It's hard for me to gauge exactly how this one made me feel. If you know me well, you'll know that I'm an animal lover, and when it comes to the pets that I've had over the years, they were never pets so much as family members in themselves. Over time with our pets, however, we get to wondering what they might be thinking, and this is a movie that shows all of that in a much less family-friendly fun way, and in a much more adult and probably more realistic way. However, the cleverness of that also gets to be the film's downfall.
Fart jokes and toilet humour, to me, tend to be very low-brow and cheap - the comedy equivalent of a jump scare in a horror movie. These things can be done well, and done cleverly, or be done just for the sake of throwing it in there, and I feel like this had a lot of that "throwing" when it came to the toilet humour as well as the raunchy humour. The problem fighting me on this, however, is that for as much humping, pooping and boasting penis size as there is in this movie... these are dogs. It almost feels like dogs were used as a tool to unleash the writer's humour in a way that made perfect sense. The story involves a Border Terrier named Reggie (Will Farrell) who lives with his horrible owner, Doug (Will Forte), a character any dog lover will despise immediately, who only has Reggie to lord him over his ex. Otherwise, he resents Reggie and tries to get abandon him at every turn. Reggie, being the loyal but gullible little guy he is, keeps coming back home though, so one day, Doug takes him somewhere he feels sure to get rid of him. Now abandoned, he finds himself roaming the town with a new group of furry friends. A Boston Terrier named Bug (Jamie Foxx) takes Reggie under his wing and shows him the ways of living the stray life with an Australian Shepherd named Maggie (Isla Fisher) and a Great Dane named Hunter (Randall Park). The other dogs eventually manage to convince Reggie of the truth, being that Doug abandoned him. This leads Reggie to come up with the ultimate revenge on his previous owner by heading back home and biting off his... well... you get the picture. Essentially what we have here ends up being a raunchy road trip movie involving man's best friend and how they would face the various situations they get into. As the film goes on, the typical things we see in these movies go down. There's an awkward love interest going on between two of the main characters, there's a big drug tripping scene when the dogs find some magic mushrooms, a fight or two happens, and all of the humour is punctuated with raunchiness. I sort of hoped that this was going to be the big-deal raunchy/adult comedy of the year for me, but it just didn't impress me all that much. Perhaps that's a matter of over-hyping myself for it though. In many ways, it felt almost too low-brow during the majority of it. With all that said, however, I do believe that there's some redeeming quality to this if you are a dog lover. For as low-brow raunchy as the film gets, I feel like anyone who has ever had a dog can understand exactly where they were going with this movie, and there's a certain amount of unfiltered honesty going on here. And that unfiltered honesty comes with the fact that dogs, despite how awesome they are, can be quite nasty. Hell, they can be eating, pooping, slobbering, farting, drooling machines, and this movie gets all of that across while still making way for them to be likeable characters. The rest of that unfiltered honesty is actually kind of heartbreaking in that it shows a dog's loyalty to its fault with Reggie. When he does get abandoned, it's a heartbreaking scene, and it gives us that chance to like Reggie and want to see Doug get that "item" of his bitten off. While I can't say I loved this movie, I still had a fun time with it, and I feel like a true dog lover will as well. It's cute, fun, and even has a bit of heart to it. But if you're looking for real quality comedy, I'm not sure this is the right place to look. It's pretty much all poopies and genitalia here. 3/5  There's something I love about going to a movie, not knowing a damn thing about its original source material. This makes way for me to enjoy what the movie has to offer without my brain analyzing it for what they did "wrong" or what they've "changed". It payed off with Marvel for 'Guardians' and 'Ant-Man' (primarily the first one), and DC managed it with 'Shazam!' (again, primarily the first one). 'Blue Beetle' serves as further evidence that sometimes it's the unknowns that make us fall in love with the superhero genre all over again.
For those who were like me going into this, completely clueless, 'Blue Beetle' seems to manage to take everything so stereotypical of superhero movies and manage to twist it in a way that reflects the best of everything. Take Spider-Man's personality and quips, then put a Symbiote on him that comes equipped with Stark-Tech... then make it a DC property, and give it the multiculturalism of giving us, not only a Mexican superhero, but make much of the story surround his family, giving the hero something to fight for, and us something to route for and ultimately care about. It all begins when Victoria Kord (Susan Sarandon) and other members of Kord Industries find an alien artifact known as The Scarab in remote Antarctica. Her intentions, much to her niece, Jenny's (Bruna Marquezine) dismay, is to ultimately use the Scarab's symbiotic alien tech as a weapon, creating an army. So like, the premise of 'Ant-Man', but using Symbiotes. While attempting to stealthily steal the Scarab and sneak it out of the wrong hands, Jenny hands it off to the unassuming Jaime Reyes (Xolo Maridueña) for safe keeping while she hides in plain sight. Jaime just got back to his loving family from graduating from Gotham Law University; among them, father, Alberto (Damián Alcázar), mother, Rocio (Elpidia Carrillo) sister, Milagro (Belissa Escobedo), uncle Rudy (George Lopez), and Nana (Adriana Barraza). Before the aforementioned hand-off happens, Jamie is offered a potential job from Jenny upon meeting her, which is how he was in the right place at the right time when the hand-off occurred; there initially for a job interview. Anyway, the family pressures Jamie to open the secret box he was given despite strict instructions not to, one thing leads to another, and the Scarab chooses Jaime to bond with, thus making him the new Blue Beetle. The family seeks help from Jenny, who supposedly knows what this thing is and how it works, and therefore presumably knows how to get rid of it. This leads the family to work together with Jenny in order to find these answers, but in the meantime, Jaime has some bigger fish to fry with Victoria trying to reclaim the Scarab which is now part of Jaime, no matter what the cost. Tagging along with her is her brute guinea pig, Carapax (Raoul Max Trujillo) who has a few tricks up his own sleeve, as he's an in-development "weapon". When I first saw ads for this, it really did strike me as more of the same, and I suppose in many ways, it really is. But even for as much as I've mentioned things we've seen before and ideas that have been executed before - hell, the guy even looks like a Stark Tech suit, there was something about this one that managed to rope me in. I think it was the family dynamic within. We're so used to seeing superheroes work outside of their family. In this, it's almost more like 'The Incredibles' in which the family's involvement is half the charm. We want to see the Reyes family succeed in everything they do. They're super charming and lovable, especially Nana! This is one of the better superhero films I've seen in a long time. Although it clearly takes from a lot of different things, somehow it blends it into something unique, allowing the superhero genre to keep hanging on by that thread it's slowly slipping down. In my pinion, this is what the genre needs to keep doing. Deliver us unfamiliarity instead of rehashing the same heroes over and over again. Box office success is one thing, but a good movie that floats under the radar is another. Not everything has to end up like 'The Eternals', or countless other failed names in the 90s. Honestly, give this one a shot if you're looking for some superhero rejuvenation. 5/5  I'm not entirely sure where it all started, but when it comes to the whole "bad shark movie" trend (shark-related movies that are made purposefully to be "so bad they're good"), I never really fell into it, with a couple of exceptions here and there. We all have some trend, or several, that we don't fall into along with everyone else. Sharks were always one that applied to me. So when a movie comes along like this, it can be difficult to review, as it's fine for those who are into this kind of stuff. But for me, it's mildly fun at best.
Just to briefly recap the first film, we first met Jonas Taylor (Jason Statham), a pro rescue diver who is hired by Zhang (Winston Chao) and Mac (Cliff Curtis), a couple of oceanographers, studying the deeper levels of the Marianas Trench, to perform a rescue mission for a submersible that was attacked by a giant shark known more as a Megoladon, and the only part anyone really cares about is the fun concept of Jason Statham fighting a massive shark. But one thing was very disappointing about it for yours truly, and that was the surprising lack of shark imagery within the film. It was "okay" at best, and I've gotta say, this one's no different. Picking things up here five years later, Jonas is now helping the underwater research facility that is "Mana One," exploring the Mariana Trench even further and being the muscle behind fighting various environmental crimes. He also takes on the responsibility of looking after Meiying (Shuya Sophia Cai), the daughter of one of the previous film's casualties. Meanwhile Meiying's uncle, Jiuming Zhang (Jing Wu), who has since acquired his father's company, studies a female Meg named Haiqi, whom he found and trained as a pup, and this is where we get the idea that maybe it's "misunderstood" and there's a sort of "Free Willy"-like connection there. To no one's surprise, Jonas feels pretty damn iffy about this supposed "connection," unable to trust the Megoladon for obvious reasons, especially when she starts acting erratically. Jonas and Jiuming take a submersible (with Meiying stowing away) into the trench to see what may be bothering Haiqi, and it's not long before they find themselves trapped down below due to not only Haiqi escaping, but a couple of other Megs, the film then takes a massive turn and the plot switches things up to an environmental policing movie when Jonas and the team find an illegal underwater mining operation being led by one of Jonas' old perpetrators (who he imprisoned earlier), a mercenary named Montes (Sergio Peris-Mencheta) who is there to mine rare underwater minerals to make a fortune. Now, to be fair, while this really does turn into a man vs man story as opposed to the man vs nature story we kind of wanted (speaking for myself, at least), there is plenty of material here that will fulfill the needs of those looking for a cheesy, corny adventure under the sea. This includes not only giant sharks but also never-before-seen critters known as "Snappers" and, eventually, a giant octopus, which is actually kind of hilariously fun once it shows up. That is the kind of fun that is trying to look very serious, but one just can't possibly take it seriously. For those wondering about who else may have returned from the previous film, there's a basic tag team here made up of survivors Mac and DJ (Page Kennedy), who I feel bad for here, as he's meant to be the comedy relief but just about all of his lines feel awkward or forced. He's a touch more annoying than funny. But God bless him. He had what he had to work with, so full blame goes on the writers for trying to make a fast-talking, shall we say, stereotype. Maybe that's an overthought on my part, but that's just how I took it. I suppose that if you're looking for an awful movie this year that you can still enjoy somewhat ironically, 'Meg 2' isn't exactly a bad place to look. I fully understand that this is something made for people looking for that cheese factor in their lives, and I can't really discredit it for delivering that on some level. It really is mildly entertaining in all the wrong ways, especially when it comes to the creatures. But as I said at the top of this review, the shark thing was never really my bag. So while it has a fun factor to it that I can understand for others, this one wasn't necessarily for yours truly and at the end of the day, it's kinda just bad. 2/5  The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have been through incarnation after incarnation over the decades. They've all been pretty hit-or-miss, and people will disagree on what's quality "Turtle Power" and what should have stayed sealed in the sewers. Like many people in my age group (40+), I grew up with the 80s cartoon and the first few movies... okay, the first couple of movies. While the cartoon and 2nd film remain guilty pleasures, that first movie struck this perfect balance that has since never been touched and still hasn't.
But while I can't give 'Mutant Mayhem' the same credit for how much I enjoyed things, I have to hand it to them for being original, sticking to their ideas, and making it their own. But that's also probably the first thing I'll warn the fans of. I like to say this is familiar territory, but not quite what you already know. The perfect parallel would be how 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' gave Spidey a new take. This is the same idea, but with our favourite Renaissance-named brothers in shells, Leonardo (Nicolas Cantu), Michaelangelo (Shamon Brown Jr.), Donatello (Micah Abbey) and Raphael (Brady Noon). In this take, scientist Baxter Stockman (Giancarlo Esposito) has created the "mutagen ooze" with hopes of creating his own mutant animal family due to his overwhelming loneliness. TCRI (Techno Cosmic Research Institute) exec Cynthia Utrom (Maya Rudolph) sends a strike force to retrieve the mutagen, hoping to use it to form a mutant army. A struggle ensues and drops the ooze down the sewers, where, as any fan will guess, it comes into contact with the four turtles and their "Dad", Splinter (Jackie Chan), only to mutate them into more anthropomorphic versions of themselves. Fifteen years pass as Splinter raises the four brothers in martial arts, and I really have to give the film credit for giving them a solid reason to study it (in this world, Splinter thinks humans are terrible and can't be trusted, so it's basically for self-defence). Furthermore, I liked how they showed that all their learning was from martial arts movies. It's a fun idea that, while it may not be able to be taken seriously, I'd ask one to bear in mind that we are talking 'Ninja Turtles' here. The turtles use their skills to do things like "shopping" (stealing) while staying in the shadows. I'm not mad at this either, because how did they get all their stuff in other versions of the Turtles? To Splinter's dismay, however, the Turtles are teenagers who have a certain longing to live a human life. They want to try attending school, maybe taking a girl to prom, etc. Through some pretty heartfelt stuff, you can see how much they long to belong to the outside world, but the universe has dealt them a pretty rough hand as mutant creatures who humankind would never be able to accept. However, eventually, they find their first contact with humanity to go better than expected. High school geek April O'Neil (Ayo Edebiri) gets her scooter stolen, and the Turtles help her with it, thus meeting her face to face. Trying to overcome an embarrassing bout of anxiety she becomes known for at school, April is after a story involving TCRI, stolen goods, and a mastermind known only as "Superfly" (Ice Cube). The turtles help her but find themselves intertwined by the band of fully grown mutants Baxter was initially working on. Aside from Superfly, the film introduces the likes of Bebop (Seth Rogen), Rocksteady (John Cena) Mondo Gecko (Paul Rudd), Wingnut (Natasia Demetriou), Leatherhead (Rose Byrne), Ray Fillet (Post Malone), Genghis Frog (Hannibal Buress). Thrilled at first, the turtles soon learn what Superfly and his gang are really up to, and soon enough, their first real hero mission is at hand. While they change up quite a bit here, I still enjoy it. Aside from its original take, I liked that they made these turtles teenagers who felt like teenagers (they never really have before) and gave them a little more individuality than they've had in the past. The animation and the soundtrack (composed by Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross) are probably the show's biggest stars, however, adding another level of uniqueness to it all. While I'm sure there will be a share of nitpicky old-school fans for this out there, I have to admire that they delivered something here that brought me back to the sheer fun I used to have with these characters and a childhood full of those other mutants who never got any screentime in the past. 4/5  I love when a movie like this comes along in more ways than one. First and foremost, it's a divide in overall criticism. While fans and average movie-goers enjoy it, critics seem to have another thought process. And, as one might expect, when it comes to my own humble opinion, the movie is... okay. But I must admit that I lean more toward the audience on this one because, if nothing else, it could provide us with another decent family-friendly title to watch for the Halloween season. Personally, I tend to have fun with such films.
One may remember the Eddie Murphy vehicle of the same name from 20 years ago. I suppose it's not remembered in the best light when you look at it, so Disney thought a re-do of what could be a really cool concept would be a good move. I would have to say that while there's improvement, things still aren't necessarily perfected. However, what's incredibly refreshing to me was that I thought several scenes in this would work very well for a kid's first toe-dips into the horror genre. My generation had a few Disney movies for "spooky" purposes, which were pretty effective. It's nice to see that come back! We meet Ben Matthias (LaKeith Stanfield), an astrophysicist developing a special camera to detect dark matter. One unfortunate day, he loses his wife, Alyssa (Charity Jordan), in a car accident and takes over her ghost tour of New Orleans. Since losing Alyssa, Ben becomes much more skeptical of the concept of a potential "other side", replacing the idea of her ghost tour with a walking tour of the various historical sights of the city. Meanwhile, single mother Gabbie (Rosario Dawson) and her son, Travis (Chase Dillon), move into Gracey Manor, looking for a fresh start by converting the mansion into a bed & breakfast. They learn how haunted the place is very quickly and run as fast as their legs can carry them. Ben is eventually visited by a priest, Father Kent (Owen Wilson), who hires him to photograph the ghosts using his special camera. Ben visits the mansion, and we notice Gabbie and Travis are back. We eventually learn that if someone visits the mansion and goes home, a supernatural entity will follow them. Kent has also fallen victim to this. It's almost as though the spirits act as sheep herders for anyone who enters Gracey Manor and tries to leave. Soon enough, the four try to get to the bottom of these hauntings by assembling what Kent calls a "Dream Team" for the supernatural - he is a supposed exorcist. This "Dream Team" consists of the four characters above, a well-renowned psychic (or, as she insists, medium) with legitimate abilities, Harriet (Tiffany Haddish), and Professor Bruce Davis (Danny DeVito), a historian for haunted locations who has blueprints to Gracey Manor in his possession. As the group does some digging, they uncover a dark history behind the mansion's previous owner involving a powerful psychic (sorry, medium) named Madame Leota (Jamie Lee Curtis), the mansion's previous owner, William Gracey (J.R. Adduci), and the dark entity he accidentally summoned who messed everything up, the "Hatbox Ghost" (Jared Leto). As mentioned before, it is super refreshing to see something aimed at kids/family with genuine creepiness. It doesn't get hardcore with anything, but the film sets the spooky atmosphere quite well. The film also has a good amount of humour and heart, which act as buffers against the darkness of it all, and it makes for a fun time. I'm particularly impressed with Tiffany Hadish here, as she doesn't play her typical over-the-top loud self. While definitely still meant to be comedy relief, she does things more subtly here, and I enjoyed her performance. This is the kind of movie a family could watch together as a Halloween treat. I'd say it has the fun, family side of 'Casper', but has the dark side of 'The Haunting'. It's creepy to some degree for the younger audience, especially with a kid to relate to. But the film's sense of humour and lightheartedness given to an otherwise terrifying situation makes up for it. The film's likeable cast also spans generations with its talented, familiar names. There's a character here for everyone. Some details, like writing and special effects, could use a makeover here and there, but again, there's nothing that bad about this. Put simply, it's fun. 3/5  I will start this review by stating that I am more or less clueless about the history involving J. Robert Oppenheimer and everything surrounding the Manhattan Project. I went into this with the mindset that I may learn a thing or two, but I have to admit that these things get hard when the film unfolding gets pretty confusing. Perhaps not so much to history buffs who know about this stuff, but for clueless, little old me, I came out of this movie knowing what I already knew, and it certainly wouldn't be among my favourite films from Christopher Nolan.
Having said that, I would probably take this review with a grain of salt, as it seems to be one of the higher-reviewed movies of the year from other sources. I won't rip the movie apart for being "bad". But the simple fact is that this went a little beyond my overall understanding, and the way the film time jumps back and forth with timelines can make it pretty confusing. In some ways, however, this is to be expected with a Nolan film. He does not dumb things down for his audience; if you don't get it, you just don't. But I'll see what I can pull off here, despite several brain farts throughout the film. Beginning things in 1926, J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) studies at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, where he eventually met Niels Bohr (Kenneth Branagh), who recommended that he studied theoretical physics in Germany. After completing his PhD, (and meeting Werner Heisenberg [Matthias Schweighöfer]) Oppenheimer heads back to America to spread the knowledge of quantum physics there. He starts teaching with only one student, meets his future wife Kitty Puening, ex-Communist (Emily Blunt), and shows us his womanizing skills by also having an affair with one Jean Tatlock, Communist (Florence Pugh). Fast-forward to 1942, after much more set-up, Army General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) recruits Oppenheimer to lead the Manhattan Project and develop an Atomic Bomb. With his Jewish background, Oppenheimer is especially fuelled to beat the Nazis in this race, knowing what destruction it would entail if the Nazis managed it first. Oppenheimer's dream team of scientists includes the likes of Edward Teller (Benny Safdie), Isidor Isaac Rabi (David Krumholtz), Enrico Fermi (Danny Deferrari) and David L. Hill (Rami Malek). From there, we know how things go, as history has informed even the simplest of us (mainly speaking for myself). The other end of this story is where I get completely lost because it has everything to do with politics and Communism, and I just plain suck at understanding these things entirely. As far as I can tell, it has to do with the eventual Cold War, where Oppenheimer's desire to cease research on nuclear bombs conflicts with the views of Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.). Many politics enter into it all, especially concerning Oppenheimer's past associations with Communism (hence mentioning it alongside his two love interests earlier). Politics tend to be, however, where movies lose me. I suppose it's easy to say that many others will watch this and get much more than I did out of it. But again, that's not to say this was bad. There was plenty for me to admire here regarding overall performances, the time-transporting set design, and the painting of Oppenheimer as a fallible human being. I'm sure it's easy for many to see him as "the guy who invented the nuke" and instantly put him in the villain category. So to the film's credit, this was a movie about the man and not so much what he accomplished along with the aftermath it caused. When all is said and done, this will end up being one of those titles everyone else will love, but I'll just say it was "okay". As mentioned earlier, it's far from my favourite Nolan film. I'm also not the kind of guy who believes Nolan can do no wrong, as I know some might. I find him to be sort of hit-or-miss, and the misses are primarily because I'm watching the film with a big question mark above my head. Sadly, this was one of those, although it WAS easier to follow than 'Tenet'. This undoubtedly has its audience, and I can't say anything truly negative against it because my only real dislike about it was me not absorbing it, which is very much a "me" problem. So again, take this review with a massive grain of salt. 3/5 NOTE: The following review will eventually be moved to a special 'Mission: Impossible' page.  Here we have the seventh instalment of the long-running 'Mission: Impossible' series, but the first film that ends up being a two-parter. It's unclear at the time of this review whether or not the next chapter will, in fact, be the final chapter of this series that has been running reasonably solidly since 1996. However, it would appear that overall box office performance for this and a dwindling sense of interest from fans make me wonder if maybe it is time for the now 61-year-old stunt fanatic of an adrenaline junkie, Tom Cruise, to hang it up? At least for this series.
With that said, however, I will say that speaking personally, I still give Tom full credit for doing these stunts of his. It's all very entertaining. And believe me, I am into the idea of seeing him do these stunts until the day he dies. But it is getting to a point where I'm starting to wonder how much fuel he still has in his tank at 61. Despite all that, however, we also get the consistent returns of our favourite side characters, a good adventure punctuated with intrigue, bits of comedy scattered throughout, and an overall good big-screen experience just about every time. And this one is no exception. The film's namesake comes from a new, advanced AI whose navigation system uses "dead reckoning," which, according to Wiki, is "the process of calculating the current position of a moving object by using a previously determined position, or fix, and incorporating estimates of speed, heading (or direction or course), and elapsed time." A next-gen Russian sub employs this technology, and the AI manages to trick them into firing a torpedo which the AI then turns back on the sub, sinking it and killing all on board. We learn through a meeting of U.S. Intelligence Community leaders, including CIA Director Eugene Kittridge (Henry Czerny) and the Director of National Intelligence Denlinger (Cary Elwes), that the AI has gone rogue and achieved sentience. As a result, primary defence, intelligence and financial networks worldwide have begun to be infiltrated. World powers soon seek to obtain both halves of a "cruciform key" to "control" the AI, which they have dubbed "The Entity," and protect their national security. This eventually leads IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise) to accept his mission for this movie; intercept both halves of a "cruciform key." With the help of his teammates, Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames), Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) and Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), he can use the power of this cruciform key to destroy the entity, as it poses far too great of a threat to humanity. While obtaining the first half of the key is relatively easygoing, pursuing the second half makes the movie take off. This has Ethan meet the expert thief, Grace (Hayley Atwell), as they seem to unknowingly be after the same thing. The difference is that Grace is on the job, working for a mystery buyer, providing a true-neutral character to the movie. Much like with any movie like this, there is more to it, but I don't wanna just type out the story as plot points unfold. All you really need to take away from that is that Ethan needs to intercept an important key that world powers could use to control an AI to their advantage. The AI has run amock, making this a bit more of a sci-fi version of 'Mission: Impossible' than we're used to. However, fans, rest assured that everything we've come to expect from a 'Mission: Impossible' movie is here; running, stunt work, more running, espionage, and even a bit of running! I think this is just another film that runs with the rest of its predecessors, ie, if you enjoy 'Mission: Impossible' movies, there's really no reason you won't enjoy this one as well. Some people say it's the best they've done yet, but I don't know that I'd agree. It was really just "another 'Mission: Impossible' movie" for me, but I will say that that's not necessarily a bad thing either. These have gotten to a point of theatrical thrills I enjoy returning to time and time again just for fun, and although they aren't top of the list for me, they are always a good time one should check out on a big screen if given the chance. Again, this one's no exception. 4/5  This was a title that didn't really "pop" for me until I saw some of the footage from it that actually had me laughing out loud. I figured that this was gonna end up being your fairly typical, raunchy road trip comedy, and to some degree, it definitely is. However, this brings an all-female, all-Asian group of four to the forefront as the main cast. And while the basic road trip comedy idea may not be so original, the thoughts and ideas put into this reflect the lives of four Asian women; each with their own very unique personalities.
This is a notable directorial debut from Adele Lim, who's perhaps known best for her writing behind such projects as 'Raya and the Last Dragon' and 'Crazy, Rich Asians'. Here, with the help of writers Cherry Chevapravatdumrong and Teresa Hsiao (names attached to 'Family Guy' and 'American Dad') and producers Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg (who need no introduction), Lim delivers a hilarious product that, while I'm not sure I'd call it necessarily "woke", it does open ones eyes as to just how little we've seen something like this before. The closest thing I can think to compare it to some kind of cross between 'Bridesmaids' and 'Roadtrip' with the spirit and overall wit of 'Booksmart', or maybe 'Superbad'. The film's central focus is Audrey Sullivan (Ashley Park); an Asian adoptee with white parents, an overachiever in school, and now working as a lawyer at a reputable firm. She is one day promised a promotion to Partner if she is able to travel to China and close a deal with a businessman named Chao (Ronny Chieng). Tagging along is Audrey's childhood best friend, Lolo (Sherry Cola), who's there to be a translator, as Audrey doesn't speak fluent Chinese. She also thinks part of the venture should be to seek out Audrey's birth mother while there. They also meet Lolo's cousin, Vanessa, who goes by the nickname "Deadeye" (Sabrina Wu) and provides the overall comedy relief for the movie, but honestly, all four of these women are hilarious. The fourth in question is Chinese celebrity, and Audrey's former college roommate, Kat (Stephanie Hsu), who Audrey was originally meant to meet as her translator for her business meeting. The whole thing does eventually become a two-sided story for Audrey, both on closing this deal to get her promotion as well as finding her birth mother, which really does end up being the main focus of things. And with that whole scenario comes a lot of the heart from this movie. I have to say that I was pretty impressed with the way the film gave us a healthy does of dramatic moments sprinkled into the comedy, and none of it feels forced or crowbarred in. One thing I found altogether fascinating about filming the movie was learning that they filmed it primarily in North Vancouver and Maple Ridge, BC. Not that it's at all surprising that a movie was made in those parts, but the production designers do a great job of finding areas that reflect aspects of China, from both an architectural point of view as well as a natural one. Of course, I can't say I'm any sort of expert on these things, but I have to give them credit for using what they had to work with, and having it come across as potentially authentic. All in all, it does seem like a fairly typical road trip movie, but these four actresses, who are altogether new to me (bearing in mind they may have been in things I haven't seen), really had me laughing all the way through it. I'm not gonna go so far as to say that this was a movie that broke new ground completely, but I will say that it's refreshing. We have new faces, it's a chance for Asian culture to show off how hilarious they can be, and a rather shameless show is delivered to levels that frankly surprised me - and I mean in a really good way! Nothing is held back here. So, if you're a fan of raunchy road trip comedies, but need something new that you haven't seen before, 'Joy Ride' is actually a hell of a lot of fun. It comes with its fair share of shock value and pushes the envelope a little bit with its comedy, so be prepared for a bit of low-brow behaviour from these four. But I daresay, embrace it because these ladies do such an awesome job in this film, making me laugh more than I have with something new in a while. I may just have to call this the raunchy comedy of the summer. I loved it, and it's definitely something I'd watch again in the near future. 4/5  Jennifer Lawrence is one of those celebs that has sort of waxed and waned over the years. One second she's Hollywood's sweetheart, the next second she's phoning it in as Mystique in the later 'X-Men' movies, we respect her for furthering her acting career with more serious stuff, but then we miss the fun that she once was, and she doesn't help by saying certain things about female heroes that... I still kinda feel is a foot-in-mouth deal, but let's face it, people were not happy. Well, this may just be a personal thing, but after this, I kinda like her again.
I should probably mention that the film isn't by any means great. It's fairly typical and predictable in its overall execution, but it meets its audience halfway with a bit of realism as things go. It happens to be a pretty funny not-quite-raunchy comedy that won't have anyone laughing to the point of tears, but it deserves a good chuckle here and there for what it's worth. There's a certain chemistry these two main characters have that I couldn't help but appreciate because it looks like such a terrible contrast on the surface. I mean, just look at the accompanying picture. The film does awkward humour pretty well. The central plot involves Uber Driver/Bartender, Maddie Barker (Lawrence) who is looking at bankruptcy after owing property taxes for her inherited home as well as getting her car repossessed. Desperate to make ends meet, she answers a Craigslist ad of two helicopter parents (Matthew Broderick and Laura Benanti) requesting a woman, preferably in her 20s, to date their 19-year-old son, Percy (Andrew Barth Feldman), as he has a terrible time socializing and coming out of his shell. The reward for her succeeding in everything is a Buick Regal, which Maddie can use for her Uber driving, and therefore attempt to make ends meet before she loses the house. This parental need to boost Percy's confidence is because he'll be attending Princeton University in the Fall, and the parents worry that he won't have any sort of a University social life, which, to be fair, is also a reason for attending college or university for most human beings. he has no experience with parties, drinking, drugs (even light ones) or sex, and this is what Maddie is meant to get him through so that he's prepared for the upcoming school season. The big catch? It all has to be done without Percy's knowledge. So basically, this is immediately gonna be one of those situational comedies that seem entirely predictable, and to some degree, a lot of it is. When I look at a comedy like this, I try to find all of its redeeming qualities. Even though it may feel like a plot that we've seen time and time again (it IS roughly the same core plot to movies like 'Happy Gilmore'), there will be aspects about it that I take positively. Here, nothing really shines quite as much as the chemistry between these two. Maddie is a bit of a b-word, for the most part, and she has to deal with this kid who's significantly younger than her, as well as incredibly shy and sort of odd and, I hate to say it, but wimpy. A little too straight and narrow for anyone's taste. But they do end up meeting in the middle with quite a bit of heart and understanding for each other. Feldman does such a good job of being the weird, inexperienced teenager that even Michael Cera would look at him and think his roles were "tough-guy" roles in comparison. Thatès the kind of thing that will irritate some, but I had to give him credit for diving into such an embarrassing role. As for Lawrence, she just plain owns it here. I won't go into detail about it, but I will suggest that any controversy behind her leaked photos is pretty much obsolete now, considering one particular scene that I won't spoil for anyone here, complete, because it's a great comedic bit that will catch audiences a bit off-guard. All in all, it certainly delivered a good chuckle or two. But I do have to admit that this is a film that should be seen as not much more than a fun romp of a comedy for the summer. Rather than comparing its comedy factor to director Gene Stupnitsky's previous work of 'Good Boys', which had me laughing out loud for a lot of it, I'd say it's a bit closer to something like the 'Neighbours' movies. It's fine for what it is, but it's not something I'll be hunting down in the near future because I loved it so much that I need to show my friends. Some may have turned their backs on J-Law since "The Katniss Incident", but I never did. So if there's still a place in your heart for her, give this one a whirl. You might be surprised. 3/5  Let me open this one with the fact that when it comes to DC Comics, I am generally clueless about things. I am, and always have been a Marvel guy, who enjoyed his Spider-Man and X-Men. The only real exception for DC I made was for Batman, who I've enjoyed since the Adam West show was on in syndication in the 80s. And as for the 1989 movie? Well, let's just say I remember the hype. I was there for it, and it was huge. Ever since then, Keaton always has been my favourite as far as someone who can fill both Batman and Bruce Wayne's shoes, equally.
Of course, "Who is the best Batman?" is an argument as old as the 80s themselves, and the correct answer is, of course, Kevin Conroy... But as far as the live-action movies go, let's face it, it's a very split audience. So, I should admit that I have a total bias toward Michael Keaton playing Bruce/Batman going into this, and may be guilty of eating up the fan service he delivered here. I wish the trailers didn't show so much of him, but how else were they gonna get butts in seats?... Which they still actually failed to do, probably thanks to Ezra Miller being kinda frowned upon these days. This actually makes this review a tad awkward, as I try to be one who separates the art from the artist. More on this in a bit. Getting to the plot of this whole thing, we hit the ground running with a quick action sequence involving several members of the now-established Justice League; namely, Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben Affleck), Barry Allen/The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), with assistance from Alfred (Jeremy Irons) back at Wayne Manor. IF I'm being honest, this has very little to do with anything else, but I can't deny that the sequence is pretty exhilarating. It's meant to show us that this is not just a 'Flash' movie, but indeed, a 'Justice League' movie. I might suggest it's DC's answer to 'Captain America: Civil War'. Anyway, in the aftermath, Barry revisits his childhood home, with memories of his parents and a happy life before his Mother, Norah (Maribel Verdú) passed away, and Father, Henry (Ron Livingston) got accused of murdering her. In his frustration, he goes full Sonic the Hedgehog and runs super fast. Unlike Sonic, however, he realizes that he can potentially time travel, and wants to use it as a reason to save his mother's life. Bruce is there to warn us all about what we already know - it's a terrible idea. But of course, we wouldn't have a movie if Barry didn't decide to do it anyway. He succeeds, but on his way back to what could be a happy present, he gets knocked out of the "Speed Force" by someone else with speed abilities. Landing in an alternate 2013, he finds his mother is alive, but he also runs into himself right before he obtained his powers. The pair work to recreate the accident to ensure Present-Barry will still have his powers, but during the process, Present-Barry has his powers zapped from him while Past-Barry gains them. Meanwhile, they happen to be in the time when General Zod (Michael Shannon) comes to invade Earth. The two Barry's then work on assembling the rest of the Justice League, first successfully starting with this universe's Batman (Michael Keaton) and this universe's Supergirl (Sasha Calle). The general story does turn into "Stop Zod" with a side of "Get My Powers Back", and I do have to admit that, as expected, Michael Keaton kind of stole the show. But that brings me back to what I mentioned before about Ezra Miller as well. The truth is, he's really good in this! There's a younger Barry who's the smart-ass, fun and careless one we sort of remember from 'Justice League', while the older Barry has been through some stuff, and realizes that there's a more serious side to this superhero business. I'm not big on Ezra Miller the person, but I can't deny that Ezra Miller the actor can hold his own, either. When it's all over, one does realize that the "Batman Returns Again" and "Zod Invading" plots take things over. However, speaking for myself, I was able to manage to push the importance of these more fan-driven plot points to the background. Batman was there for fan service, Supergirl was there to show more differences in universes. But the depth of the movie is in Barry's story (as it should be), and I'm not ashamed to say that by the end, it did manage to tug on my heartstrings quite a bit. If one can push one's feelings to the side, I might just say that this is one of the better DC movies of the DCEU. 4/5 |
RSS Feed