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 NOTE: The following review will eventually be moved to an updated 'Arcade' page. 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 |