 It's probably plain to most people after my 'Lion King' ('19) review that the original '94 film, for yours truly, cannot be touched as far as quality goes, even if the new animation is admittedly breathtakingly beautiful. So, when I saw the trailer for this film, I was indifferent. On the one hand, it's digging up known and beloved characters for what seems to be an easy money grab. On the other hand, despite said beloved characters and familiarity, this IS an original story. While everyone else was wondering, "Who's asking for this?" I was in the minority saying, "Me?"
The film opens with a dedication to the memory of the late great James Earl Jones, who famously lent his voice to Mufasa in both the '94 and '19 versions of 'The Lion King. With that in mind, it moves on to some pretty familiar territory, as the animals of the African savanna all gather around Pride Rock, as Simba (Donald Glover) has an announcement to make; he and Nala (Beyoncé) are about to have their second cub, which means Simba has to take off to meet Nala at the birthing ground. This event leaves their first cub, Kiara (Blue Ivy Carter), whom some may remember from 'Simba's Pride,' in the babysitting hands of Timon (Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), who are sadly irritating in this film whenever they're on screen. There's a laugh or two, but most of that is after Rafiki (John Kani) comes in to join them to tell the story, reacting to their stupidity. But hey, what can you do? Some of this annoyance is bound to happen, being a film aimed at kids. Moving on, Rafiki tells Kiara the story of her grandfather, Mufasa, and how he came to be King. Mufasa (Braelyn Rankins /Aaron Pierre) and his parents, Masego (Keith David) and Afia (Anika Noni Rose) live in a pretty barren African savanna in the middle of a drought. Mufasa's parents tell him of a lush land called Milele and that they will find it one day. Think of the Great Valley from 'The Land Before Time.' One day, a disastrous flood strikes at the watering hole, whisking Mufasa away from his parents, home, and everything he knows. Lost and floating down a river, he eventually meets up with another cub named Taka (Theo Somolu/Kelvin Harrison Jr.). As Mufasa and Taka grow up together, they become brothers, but Mufasa gets shunned by their King, Obasi (Lennie James), who sends Simba off with the females, where, guess what? He learns many valuable techniques from Queen Eshe (Thandiwe Newton) about tracking, hunting, etc. Meanwhile, Taka wants to join them, but Obasi tells him it's a waste, as one day he'll be King, and all he'll have to do is laze around all day. This negative attitude continues until, one day, the pride is met with some white lions, forcing Mufasa and Taka into exile. From here, the story turns into Mufasa and Taka searching for Milele (which translates to "forever"), eventually stumbling on the familiar characters of Sarabi (Tiffany Boone) and Zazu (Preston Nyman - voiced by John Oliver last time, which I failed to mention). Ultimately, a love triangle occurs between the three lions, leading Taka to become Scar (not a spoiler, as evident from the get-go). Not much about the story ends up surprising, as Sarabi choosing Mufasa over Scar is mentioned in the 2019 'Lion King,' in one of the very few additional bits to the film. With so much "copy + paste" technique given to Disney's live-action remakes, I found this movie kinda refreshing. It reminds me of how I felt about 'Last Jedi' when it came out. It may not have been the best movie, but I have to give the filmmakers credit for attempting to step outside that comfort zone and try out some unfamiliarity for once. That said, I met this one with about the same reception I did the 2019 remake - it's beautiful to look at, but the effects aren't enough to make it great. I'll still stick to the 1994 classic, but kudos to this film for the attempt. 3/5
2 Comments
 I'm gonna go ahead and begin this review by saying that if you're a reader who's unfamiliar with, or disinterested completely by any 'Lord of the Rings' books and/or films, nothing about this movie is gonna mean anything much to you. Despite the fact that it takes place 183 years before the events of 'Lord of the Rings,' and about 123 before 'The Hobbit,' the story here is a sidestep away from anything to really do with the One Ring, and delves into a story of events that once happened in Rohan; Rohan being most prominently remembered from 'Two Towers.'
So while there are no real direct ties to either trilogy, it's a bit of Middle Earth history between a couple of human races that the average 'LOTR' newcomer will probably be altogether unfamiliar with. Nevertheless, it's a pretty good, if simple story that still captures the spirit of Peter Jackson's cinematic creativity, ties in nicely, and makes me kinda hope there are more of these animated "side quests" some time in our future. I love this world, and I'm always down to see more of it! Our narrator here is Éowyn (Miranda Otto) of the Rohirrim, whom fans will remember fondly as the undercover woman who rode out to battle a vast army of Orcs, and took down the Witch King of Angmar in 'Return of the King.' Coinciding with her badassery, she begins the tale of Héra (Gaia Wise), the daughter of King Helm (Brian Cox) of Rohan. Héra is a sort of "lone wolf" character, a great fighter, lover of nature, potential shieldmaiden, and has been arranged to marry a lord of Gondor, which would bring their powerful kingdoms together. One day, a Dunlending (a race of humans who live in the wild) lord, Freca (Shaun Dooley) shows up with his son, and childhood friend of Héra's, Wulf (Luca Pasqualino). Freca suggests Héra change her mind, and marry Wulf instead, but Helm sees right through his, and knows he intends to steal the throne. This soon results in Helm and Freca "taking it outside," where Helm gives Freca one good, swift punch to the face, killing him instantly, and earning himself the nickname "Helm Hammerhand" (which is admittedly pretty badass). Afterward, Wulf swears revenge on Rohan for murdering his father, and isn't heard from for several years. To cut it a bit short, this is basically what eventually leads to the titular War of the Rohirrim. As one can imagine, Héra is basically the unlikely hero here, almost fitting right into Éowyn's shoes. So, in many ways, one could see this as a sort of "girl power" film, but I have to say that it does things very organically, nothing is forced, and it really is just a cool and interesting side story in Middle Earth's history. I would encourage fans of 'LOTR' to check this film out for themselves and try to ignore some of the more critical reviews out there. The fact of the matter was that this was rushed out in order for New Line to keep the rights to Tolkein's books, and between that and 2D animation taking over six live-action epics, it might be easy for a critic to brush this one aside. It didn't do well at the Box Office, either, being surrounded by titles like 'Moana 2,' 'Mufasa,' 'Sonic 3,' and 'Wicked.' But honestly, if you get a chance, check this out! Even if its streaming by the time you get to it. I might credit this one as one of the most underrated movies of the year, all considered. For yours truly, even though the live-action wasn't there, and it may not have sucked me in as much as the average 'LOTR' flick, I was happy to see more untold tales of this world that I personally love to escape into from time to time. For some of my friends and I, to see a 'LOTR' movie in the beginning of winter is a bit of a tradition, and it's kinda nice to keep that tradition alive. So, if you like this world, definitely check this out. It's no 'Return of the King,' but stylistically, and story-wise, it certainly holds its own. 4/5  If you were born some time before the year 2000, then chances are (unless you were still a baby), you might remember the whole big stink about the Y2K virus. To keep it real simple, it was the concept that computers, worldwide, would cease to operate properly, because old dating code, using two digits, could only go up to "99." So, when "00" flipped back over, it might be mistaken for 1900, and thus, potentially, things might crash, in more ways than one. It was a big deal that most rational people overlooked, but caused panic in others.
However, when midnight hit here in Southern Ontario, Canada, nothing happened, and it was easy to know nothing would happen, if it didn't happen in Australia several hours earlier. It was one of time's biggest pranks on humanity, and pretty silly to look back on and think about. But 'Y2K' here tries to answer the "what-if" question, had the Y2K virus been real. It does so in a comedic fashion that doesn't take itself seriously, which is great and all, but the overall execution here was honestly pretty brutal. As the film gets going, it plays out a bit more like your average teen comedy of the era, all too complete with call-backs to things from the late 90s that may be off by a year or two. We're introduced to teen best friends, Eli (Jaeden Martell) and Danny (Julian Dennison) who discuss what they wanna do for New Years Eve. At a store, the pair watch as Eli's crush, Laura (Rachel Zegler), and her friends swipe some alcohol for a party they're going to at Laura's boyfriend, "Soccer" Chris' (The Kid Laroi) house. Deciding to crash said party, Eli and Danny go, in the hopes that not only Eli might get his chance to kiss Laura at midnight, and that Danny can gain some popularity, which he somehow manages by dancing and signing along to Sisquo's 'Thong Song,' and it's pretty damn cringey. But just as things are looking up (for Danny, at least), midnight hits, the power goes out, and things go off the rails - not in a cool, badass, horror way, but in a stupid, juvenile, high school project way. Somehow, basically immediately, computers around Chris' house start getting super intelligent and running around killing the party people, panic ensues, and the viewer is left with the question of "how is that supposed to happen?" The film suggests computerized objects latching onto potentially more dangerous objects and assimilating. Think of wires coming out of some place on your PC and grabbing a lighter and a can of hairspray - it's gonna use it as a weapon (and this happens). But I guess one must remember that this is a comedy, too. The problem with this being a comedy is that it kinda just... isn't one. It seems that every time the movie tries to be funny, with the exception of maybe a faint snicker because things get so ridiculous, things just fall flat. The teen comedy side of it is just too typical (It's essentially 'Superbad' in the beginning), the horror isn't at all freaky, and the special effects here feel so much more from the late 80s, they look that cheesy. Oh, and I forgot the best part - Fred Durst shows up to play himself as if to desperately ask us "I still matter, right?" I generally like a good horror comedy, but this just didn't hit at all for me. It may end up being a bit more fun for anyone watching who was born after the turn of the century, but even that's a stretch. It came and went from theatres in the blink of an eye, and it's very easy to see why. This one isn't even really "throw-your-brain-out-the-window" fun, and there's wasted potential here. There are a few competitors for this title, but this might be the worst movie I saw in 2024. 1/5  Although I can admit that this was a title that didn't entirely live up to its predecessor, I do think that as a sequel, it's perfectly fine. This is another one I feel gets a bit worse of a rap that it truly deserves, but it's not without its faults, either. The original 'Moana,' much like with 'Frozen 2' and its predecessor, is a lot to live up to, so one has to try to give it a bit of slack. That said, much like it is with many other Disney fans, I would really like to see some more new, new material from the studio, and not just another live-action remake, or sequel.
The timing here is kinda brutal too, as this is also followed closely by the Disney prequel that is 'Mufasa: The Lion King.' In both cases, new ideas, sure, but still a part of something that already exists. And I'm mostly looking at Disney here, about this gripe, not so much Pixar, who released 'Inside Out 2' earlier this year, which I felt actually outdid the original. But I digress; the bottom line is that even though this was fine, it was something I felt didn't need to exist, because 'Moana' was such an instant classic as a stand-alone. The story here picks up three years after the events of the first film. Moana (Auli'i Cravalho) has since put her lessons about way-finding from Maui (Dwayne Johnson) to work, setting sail with animal companions Heihei (Alan Tudyk) and Pua, the adorable little piggy. She travels in search of other civilizations, connected to the ocean. One day, she manages to find a broken piece of pottery with a symbol of a couple of mountains on it, proving that somewhere out there, other civilizations exist. Her ancestor, Tautai Vasa (Gerald Faitala Ramsey) comes to her one day in a vision, during a brutal lightning storm, revealing why there's a lack of connection to other people of the ocean. This time, it's the fault of a storm God named Nalo, who sunk an island called Motufetu in an attempt to gain power over the mortals. Motufetu, itself, was once an island that connected the people of the ocean, and their islands, and since its sinking things have been stressful for those living the seaside life. If Moana can't travel to Motufetu's location and raise it, life on her home island of Motunui will slowly die out. Evidently, the whole first movie was just Moana's first step towards greatness. To accomplish this, she'll need a crew, consisting of a smart, if pretty annoying craftswoman named Loto (Rose Matafeo), a historian named Moni (Hualalai Chung), who's also obsessed with Maui, and a grouchy farmer and elder named Kele (David Fane). And yeah, as one can easily predict, Maui eventually joins the crew as well, because... how else are they gonna raise the island? Along the way, the encounter several obstacles, including another, rather different experience with the Kakamora tribe (a tribe of anthropomorphic coconuts), a vampire bat type being named Matangi (Awhimai Fraser), and a whole realm that takes place within a giant clam, where Gramma Tala (Rachel House) can't use the ocean to help Moana anymore. All in all, once the crew reaches the giant clam and has their encounter with the Kakamora, things get a little bit confusing, or perhaps even convenient for the crew to keep moving. My one real gripe with it is just that. It seemed that whenever the chips were down here, some kind of miraculous moment would happen that spares them. It all just feels too damn easy. After a while, there's no sense of dread or potential failure from this like you had with the first. It's still bright, flashy, beautifully animated, and the songs are mostly kinda catchy. But if you go into this thinking its gonna be the same, or better quality than the first, it's not. This one could have done the "straight-to-D+" thing, really. But still, it's decent for what it is, and I do think the youthful fans of the original will enjoy it just fine. 3/5  A full twenty-four years after the release of the grand-scale epic that was 'Gladiator,' its sequel has finally come along (if you were ever really wanting one). To be fair, a sequel has been in a sort of development Hell for quite some time now - as early as 2001. But, like so many movies that make call-backs to older films, I wasn't sure how to take this. Was this just chasing a paycheck with a popular title, or was this going to be just as awesome as the first one, trying new and different things? Upon viewing it, let's just say I have mixed emotions.
Director, Ridley Scott makes a return, resurrecting one of his biggest successes. He was always one of those directors who was kind of hit or miss, but when he hit, he hit hard. So there was no reason for me to believe he wouldn't take good care of his "baby". But, while it wasn't really a bad movie, it lacks so much of the heart and soul that was put into the first, and it just doesn't compare. So before I get into it, just know that it's my humble opinion that 'Gladiator' is still a perfectly fine stand-alone movie, and at the end of the day, this just wasn't really necessary. Sixteen years after the events of the first film, Rome is ruled by Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger); a couple of twin emperors who might remind one of a couple of little toned down Joffrey Baratheons. Their Roman army, led by General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) one day invades the North African kingdom of Numidia, where a refugee named Hanno (Paul Mescal) resides. The Romans overtake them, and Hanno, along with several other survivors, are enslaved and taken to Ostia to undergo a gladiatorial challenge in an arena against a bunch of frankly demonic-looking baboons. During the fight, Hanno taps into his feral side and kills one baboon, impressing stable master Macrinus (Denzel Washington). Taking Hanno under his wing, Macrinus promises him a chance to kill Acacius through winning a number of fights in Rome. Throughout the film, secrets are revealed about Hanno's past that may complicate things for the viewer a bit, if they haven't seen the first film. Having said that, a lot of the big reveals aren't necessarily shocking either. It's a fine film, but all in all, we've kinda been here and done this. I think if I'm to look at this critically, I can find many more flaws in it than I could the first one, which has aged incredibly well. Part of that aging includes things like practical effects with dabs of CG, 'Jurassic Park' style (also holds up). Here, we get things like these baboons, which look cool, but not real. More like something from a horror movie. Also, sharks, which the person I saw it with pointed out as ridiculous because... how? They filled the Coliseum with water to stage naval battles known as "Naumachiae" sometimes, but that's about it. The film has its good share of positives though, and they're not to be overlooked. Performances were great by everyone involved, be they classic perfection like Denzel, or newcomers like Mescal (new to me, anyway). But my favorutie character here was an ex-gladiator named Ravi (Alexander Karim) who basically helps Hanno with his injuries, and words of wisdom - a truly likeable character. It's also just a pretty good story, despite, at times, taking its cues from what worked with the original film. If I were to make some sort of a comparison to another movie and its sequel, its something like 'Night of the Living Dead'/'Dawn of the Dead' - the first is a classic in its own right, and possibly one of the best films ever made, and the sequel, while pretty strong, just isn't the classic, which can easily stand alone. I think it's safe to say that this is a good time on the big screen if you're looking for something epic that doesn't involve superheroes. But the first 'Gladiator' is just too damn good for any sequel to compare. 3/5  I'm always game for a good Christmas movie that uses childlike imagination to its advantage. Such releases like 'Elf,' 'Arthur Christmas,' and even darker movies like 'Violent Night' have all accomplished this, and I'd be willing to admit that 'Red One' can go on that list as well. It may be on the lower part of the list, but I'd still strongly consider it. It's family friendly fun, and even though it uses some big names to put butts in seats, I'd say as a Christmas movie, it doesn't necessarily need the names for the story to work - which is a good thing.
I will say, however, that even though this movie manages to capture a bit of Christmas magic for the 2024 season, there are bits and pieces about it that may have made me give an eye-roll or shake my head for either being too silly, or too dramatic for the film's own good. But once again, this may just be me being nitpicky about an otherwise fun film, and it'll probably end up being one of those movies where the more I watch it, the more it grows on me, and might find a better spot on that aforementioned "Christmas Magic" list of greats. We meet Santa, a.k.a. Nick, a.k.a. Red (J.K. Simmons) as he visits kids at a shopping mall, along with his muscle, Callum "Cal" Drift (Dwayne Johnson), head commander of the E.L.F. (Enforcement Logistics and Fortification) whose job is to keep Santa protected. During their visit, Cal begins to get disillusioned with how bad the world has become, especially the teenagers and adults. He even uses the ever-growing Naughty List to prove his point, and he means to retire, but not after one final ride. On the night of Christmas Eve, a group of professionals infiltrates the North Pole and kidnaps Santa, on account of mercenary hacker, Jack O'Malley (Chris Evans) accidentally hacks something that just so happens to interfere with the North Pole's hidden location, leading some sort of operation straight to Santa. One day, as Jack comes home, he's apprehended by members of M.O.R.A. (Mythological Oversight and Restoration Authority), led by Zoe Harlow (Lucy Liu), and brought in for questioning. Being that they have the wrong guy, and Jack claims to be able to find anything or anyone, he reluctantly agrees to work with Cal (or perhaps more dragged by the ear) to find and rescue Santa Claus from his kidnapper, and hopefully save Christmas in time. This brings me back to my point about melodrama. When the threat of "no Christmas" pops its head up in this movie, the doom and gloom tone that follows this makes it feel like a nuke is about to be dropped nearby. Being that it's for kids, I can let it slide, but watching as an adult, it's a pretty silly moment. In the meantime, there's a B story going on in which Jack plays the role of deadbeat Dad to his son, Dylan (Wesley Kimmel) and the whole song and dance about how he needs to learn how much his son needs him etc. We've seen it many times before. But luckily, it doesn't take centre stage here, and the real focus is on the unlikely duo that is The Rock and Human Torch (I'd say Cap, but he's not that pure), which delivers its fair share of giggles and good times, but nothing necessarily laugh-out-loud either. I appreciated the film using things to its advantage like a non-horror version of Krampus (Kristofer Hivju) and the Christmas Witch, Grýla (Kiernan Shipka) from Icelandic folklore (given a much more child-friendly makeover). The ninja snowmen from the trailer are also pretty great, and I daresay original. I think where the film finds itself lacking, however, is the all-around heart that's usually put into these movies. There are moments, but predictable ones, and you don't necessarily leave with the "warm fuzzies." But still, the movie is fun, harmless, and something the whole family can appreciate for Christmas, 2024. 3/5  I don't know for sure that I see this in the big, bright, shiny light that others seem to be seeing it in. But I do have to give kudos to this film for trying out a bit of a different angle to the horror genre. As an all-around Agnostic, myself, I don't believe this was entirely meant for someone like me. I respect peoples' varying religious beliefs, because that's up to them, and as long as no one is getting hurt, c'est la vie. In watching this film, largely about religious beliefs and the choices we have, I wasn't exactly affected by it in any way.
Having said that, I do believe that it works well as a psychological horror movie for those who have some sort of religious tie to their lives. In a nutshell, the film IS the awkward and uncomfortable conversation we all have about religion at some point in our lives, but with the fear of the unknown lurking around every corner the whole time. As a bonus, while the film goes for the questioning of Mormonism, according to some sources, its peek into the Mormon lifestyle is actually pretty well done (although I can't be 100% sure on that), especially now that most of us our used to Trey Parker's version of things ('Book of Mormon'). We actually open things up with a couple of Mormon sisters, Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Paxton (Chloe East) having a casual, friendly chat. Surprisingly enough, it's actually about pornography, suggesting that these girls aren't just a couple of overly-innocent prudes as they may often be portrayed. The pair are doing their rounds of door-to-door, and eventually happen on the home of the reclusive, but seemingly very interested, Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant). Once the girls are invited in to discuss the Church of Latter Day Saints, Heavenly Father and the like, that's when things start getting a bit creepy. Everything starts out seemingly innocent, but soon Reed starts asking the girls some uncomfortable questions about their faith. While Paxton is put off by these questions and immediately ready to leave, Barnes does her best to try to see his perspective, having only recently joined the church with some leftover questions about religion in her own head. In a matter of time, the Sisters find themselves trapped in the house, and subjected to Mr. Reed's mind games, all centred on faith, religion, belief, etc. While there are certainly elements of the type of horror in which someone's trapped somewhere for sadistic experimentation, I have to appreciate that this wasn't, yet again, the same tired formula, possibly made most famous by 'Human Centipede.' Victim enters house, victim is knocked out, victim wakes up in sheer terror after having been experimented on in some way, shape or form. Here, Reed isn't so much a puppeteer as a curious onlooker. He has these girls there against their will, yes, be he allows them some "freedom" of choice. I think the big question on everyone's mind concerning this movie, however, has very little to do with anything religious. The big question here is, how is Hugh Grant as a villain? After all, we mostly know him as a charming ladies man from several romantic comedies of the 90s, or otherwise pretty innocent, even if he is playing a villain ('Paddington 2'). I'm glad to say that as a more serious villain, the man does a great job! He's not at all over the top, somewhat unsuspecting (even if you know his role here), and he's very convincing as a sort of "every-man," which truly adds to the real-life horror of some strangers out there. As a horror fan, I can definitely appreciate the change of pace and direction this movie went, putting the aspect of horror into the questioning of one's faith. It acts far more psychologically than physically, but it also does a good job at keeping things suspenseful all the way through. That said, and also as a horror fan, this isn't scary for someone like me. It comes across as more of a philosophical conversation about faith with consequences. So, I can appreciate it for what it is, but it doesn't end up at the top of any lists for me, either. 3/5  Here we have a movie that didn't do well at all in the box office, to some surprise considering the triple team-up of Tom Hanks, Robin Wright and Robert Zemeckis. This was the trio who brought us the wonderful 'Forest Gump,' which has gone down in cinematic history as one of the "greats" of the 90s. So when I read almost nothing but bad about it, my curiosity got the better of me, and I had to see what the big problem was. After watching it, I think the biggest problems with it are... hard to narrow down because there's so many.
To begin with, get ready for some confusion, as this movie consists of a bunch of stories through the course of time, piled together, consisting of several different people and families. So right away I was sort of thrown off, thinking characters Richard (Hanks) and Margaret (Wright) were going to be the only focus, not just the main focus. And as these stories are told completely out of order, one kinda has to pay close attention to the setting within the house to figure out when they are in the timeline. If the timeline isn't convoluted enough, two or three separate times might show themselves in a single scene. These scenes transition, fading in and out by using bits and pieces of the screen at a time. For example while a scene is changing, one square on the screen may focus on a lamp that completely changes while the rest stays the same, then again with a chair, again with the wallpaper, and it keeps going like that. Eventually it will all dissolve into the next scene. With that, I'd almost say luckily, it's all shot from one, steady perspective. The film is essentially an art project in which the filmmakers set up a single camera, and see how time in that particular spot changes over time. It even starts in the age of the dinosaurs, and carries through to the Lenni-Lenape people, and eventually part of the estate of William Franklin (Daniel Betts), son to Benjamin Franklin (Keith Bartlett). This bit of info, along with eventual tenants, Lee (David Fynn) and Stella Beekman (Ophelia Lovibond) do feel like a bit of a shark-jump, being that Lee Beekman eventually invents the La-Z-Boy recliner as well (credit to Edwin Shoemaker and Edward Knabusch for that one) We also get a story taking place in what is presumably around World War I, when the house's first tenants, John (Gwilym Lee) and Pauline Harter (Michelle Dockery) move in. We follow these families as they face their lives together, whether they lead to positive outcomes or not. But the main focus here is the Young family, which is where Richard and Margaret come into the picture, and much of it is about watching Richard grow up, and eventually age, all within the same spot. To be very simple about the film, it's the movie adaptation of the phrase "if these walls could talk." I can admit that I do like this concept quite a bit. It's done artfully, and it's actually kind of interesting to think about how much a single spot can experience over time. This one's for those who love to walk into a room, and then talk about all the memories had within that room. However, even though the film is done with a lot of heart, it's hard not to see how forced a lot of the emotion is here. Tragedy befalls every family, I know, but there really does seem to be a certain focus on it here, and I wouldn't suggest there's just as many happy moments either. There's a lot of vary purposeful tugs on the heartstrings here. Having said that, I can at least give the film credit for trying something new and different. But it does give me 'Tree of Life' vibes, in that while the cinematography is beautifully done (if a little confusing at times), things get convoluted, and in some ways, I might personally consider it almost too artsy for my taste. There's definitely a certain beauty to this movie that some people will find and enjoy, but if you're looking for a Zemeckis movie comparable to 'Forest Gump,' unfortunately, you won't find it here. 2/5  As far as this Sony-verse goes, it's no secret at this point that the only movies in the handful of life-action superhero/supervillain adaptations worth a damn are the 'Venom' movies. While perhaps not necessarily THE story of Venom we all know and love, they did okay with what they had to work with, made it their own concept, and the character of Eddie Brock/Venom is a hell of a lot closer than he was in 'Spidey 3.' So, surely, noted as being the final 'Venom' movie, this should be going out with a bang, right?
I think there's a lot to this that fans will appreciate, but I also think that of the three, this was probably the weakest, when it should have been the strongest. It picks up from the stinger of 'Spider-Man: No Way Home,' in which Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) finds himself in the MCU, chatting with a bartender, only to be sent back to the Sony-verse, leaving behind a trace of Symbiote material (which is in the MCU's hands now). Back home, the pair are on the run after the events of the previous film, which killed off Det. Patrick Mulligan (Stephen Graham), leaves them the primary suspect. In an attempt to start a new life, however, Eddie and Venom decide to head to New York City. On the way, however, the pair are attacked by an alien creature known as a Xenophage, sent by Symbiote creator, Knull (Andy Serkis). Long ago, his Symbiotes overthrew him, and trapped him in a prison to prevent him from taking over the universe with his power. In order to get free of said prison, Knull sends these Xenophages to Earth to retrieve a Codex, which will be able to free him, and allow him to carry out his plans. The Codex is formed is a Symbiote's host dies, and the Symbiote is able to resurrect him, which we saw happen in the first film. As long as Venom is in full form over Eddie, the Codex acts like a beacon for the Xenophages, so throughout the film, Venom does a lot of hiding away. So now, they're not only on the run from a deadly alien creature, but the law as well. It gets even better, when Rex Strickland (Chiwetel Ejiofor) enters the picture, overseeing an operation called "Imperium", at (where else?) Area 51, in which the Symbiotes who have fallen to Earth get studied. While Strickland is very much of the mind that these Symbiotes have landed for some sort of alien invasion, researchers Dr. Teddy Payne (Juno Temple) and Sadie "Christmas" (Clark Backo) have different opinions, and resort to a whole "don't judge a book by its cover" side-plot when it comes to the Symbiotes. And I'm gonna go ahead and suggest that the B story here sort of takes a front seat to things. Everything going on in this lab is far more fascinating than Eddie/Venom just... running and hiding for the most part. Eddie/Venom still delivers when we see them together, although at times it gets a bit too silly. I mean, for the first time since 2007, I feel like we have a Symbiote who literally dances himself into humiliation, and it's pretty cringe-worthy. That said, there are a few just as solid scenes to this, like the Symbiote horse, and the pair finally saying "we are Venom!" before devouring a bunch of thugs like the "Lethal Protector" we all know and love. But it really does feel like they're on the run from a non-threat. While the Xenophages provide some stiff competition, Knull, himself, is one of the laziest-written villains I've eve seen in my life. If you've come to see Knull in all his glory, I'm afraid you're SOL, because he's barely here, and when he is, he's just sitting there with his head down, looking gothic. So just to be clear, first threat, Riot, second threat, Carnage, third threat (though admittedly tough), Xenophage, NOT Knull. Anyway, it's fine for a third film, but I'd say easily the weakest of the three, trying to do too much, and amounting to too little. And what's super curious about this being a supposed "finale" - there's a stinger! 2/5  I'm gonna start this review off by saying you shouldn't continue reading anything beyond this first paragraph if you haven't seen the first 'Smile' yet. This picks up six days after the events of its predecessor, and really hits the ground running, assuming that the viewer has seen the first movie, and knows exactly what's going on. I will keep things relatively spoiler-free, but I'm gonna have to spoil a lot of the first film in order to explain this one. Also, 'Smile' ends in such an awesome and unexpected way, so I still highly recommend checking it out first.
So, with known spoilers ahead, let's just quickly break down the "smile curse," itself. Basically, a demonic entity, which can take on other forms (think 'The Thing'), terrorizes one person at a time, causing them to commit grizzly acts of suicide in front of a witness, who will then inherit the curse for about a week before things repeat themselves (think 'The Ring'). The only way to shake the curse is to take a life, again, in front of a witness, as the entity seems to need a host at any given time. Lastly, upon taking on other forms or possessing its victim, the entity will show off a ghastly, haunting smile. This time around, the focus is on a pop star named Skye Riley (Naomi Scott), who makes a comeback appearance on the Drew Barrymore show in which we learn about a dark past with drug abuse, and a horrible car crash she was in, along with her actor boyfriend, Paul Hudson (Ray Nicholson), who died in the crash. She's taken care of by her mother/manager, Elizabeth (Rosemarie DeWitt), and her assistant Joshua (Miles Gutierrez-Riley), even if they are a little overbearing at times, adding to piling up stress before her comeback tour. During rehearsals one night, Skye throws her back out, and sneaks away to her old dealer, Lewis (Lukas Gage) for some Vicodin. While there, Lewis begins acting erratic and panicky, and seemingly chokes to death on the ground. This is where we realize he's possessed by the Smile demon, and without giving away so many details, this is also where the Smile demon gets transferred to Skye, and before she knows it, she's terrorized by crazy, smiley people, and visions of her accident, as the entity seems to feed off its victim reliving past trauma. The rest of the film unfolds more or less basically as one would expect, but there are little additions here and there to make it more interesting. For example the concept of potentially stopping Skye's heart to make the entity think she's dead before she's revived - using a freezer, by the way, and lifting the entire concept (and I honestly think even some of the dialogue, reworded just slightly) from 'The Frighteners,' which is irksome, but the idea admittedly does make sense for trying to beat this thing. I like the idea here that even though a lot of things unfold similarly to the first 'Smile' movie, the leads are very different people with very different occupations. I liked how the first one had a professional therapist questioning her own reality, and here, I liked how they used the stress of being a pop star to its advantage, along with a drug problem that makes others think shes using again when in reality, she's perfectly clean. So much of what makes these movies scary is the way this demon plays with your worst trauma, much like Freddy Krueger. All in all, this is a very worthy sequel to its predecessor, and I'm gonna go ahead and say this series is two for two now. It even manages to add a twist to its ending that a lot of people will probably see coming, but it's an intriguing twist nonetheless. I have to say, I feel like more was taken from other properties here, and it doesn't have the same "oomph" as the first one with its out-of-the-blue reveals near the end. But if one gives these a back-to-back viewing it'll flow nicely. I'm hoping to see more! 4/5  While not quite being of age to be able to appreciate the original cast of 'SNL,' I do still have fond memories of staying up late in the early 90s to catch it in my generations prime. This was when lost, but great comedic talents like Chris Farley, Norm MacDonald and Phil Hartman were involved, and, I daresay, where a lot of us got our idea of what adult humour is while still in our youths. But none of it would have ever been possible if the show never made it off the ground in the first place, and that's what this is about.
To be more specific, it's about the tension and pressure of the show's air date on October 11, 1975, the chaos leading up to the 11:30 time slot, and the behind the scenes drama that occurred. At the heart of it is producer Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle), who is simply trying to follow his vision through, dealing with all sorts of stress just hours before airtime, as he tries to pull it all together. And while that's the main story, it also deals with varying drama involving the actors and crew, most of which is exaggerated, or even partly made up for dramatic effect, so a lot of this is to be taken with a grain of salt. From what I've read about what did and did not actually happen that night, it seems clear that while liberties were taken, the purpose of it all was to relay to the viewer just how intense the spirit of everything felt. One may also take this as an example of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story, but I would strongly suggest not taking certain things here too seriously, and zero in on character personalities as opposed to sheer accuracy, as that seems to be more the point of the film. As far as said personalities go, Chevy Chase (Cory Michael Smith), Dan Aykroyd (Dylan O'Brien) and John Belushi (Matt Wood) and Garrit Morris (Lamorne Morris) seem to be the main focuses. They respectively deal with inflated ego, Lorne's open-relationship with Rosie Shuster (Rachel Sennott), a drug problem causing violent mood swings, and questioning why they're on set in the first place. In the meantime, the ladies, Gilda Radner (Ella Hunt) Laraine Newman (Emily Fairn) and Jane Curtin (Kim Matula) seem to just try to have fun. More big names pop up here, portraying a bit more of a cameo appearance, including host George Carlin (Matthew Rhys), big-shot Milton Berle (J.K. Simmons), and perhaps funniest throughout the movie, the one-two punch of Andy Kaufman and Jim Henson (both Nicholas Braun) who add a lot of lightheartedness to the otherwise stress-inducing night. Braun plays them both so innocently, one can't help but giggle whenever they pop up. Kaufman gets himself lost in the NBC building, and Henson has to deal with his Muppets getting made fun of. By the way, for as much as I laughed at most of what happens to Henson here, let it be known that the man is still a personal hero of mine, I love the Muppets, and it's wonderful to know that after all of this, he moved on to bigger and better things. But the way they make his character an equivalent to someone like Butters from 'South Park' makes for a lot of laughs, as he's a very PG-style man in a very R-rated atmosphere. Equally as funny is the censor Joan Carbunkle (Catherine Curtin), often mislead as to what certain phrases mean. When its put all together, it does make for some pretty good, if intense storytelling. But it will leave the viewer questioning its accuracy, and I would again stress not to take things too seriously here. There are various lists out there one can look up to answer their questions about what really happened that night. It's an interesting bit of film, nevertheless, and may very well encourage one to try to find that first episode to watch right after the movie, keeping all of that tension (which was very real, despite certain moments perhaps not being fully real) in mind. 3/5  For those who don't know, the Joker character is who I consider my favourite villain of all time. I say "character" because part of what makes him my favourite is how flexible he can be as far as portrayal goes. While there are so many similarities between so many different versions, they're all really quite unique in their own ways. I won't go through each and every one, but my personal favourites include Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, and Mark Hamill. I will admit, however, that Joaquin Phoenix could be added to that list... if it wasn't for this movie.
In the first 'Joker,' I truly appreciated the more dramatic take on it, bringing the mental health situation into play. Essentially, the origin story had a lot to say about the stigmas still attached to mental health problems, and the Joker, himself, ends up being a product of untreated mental health thanks to poor government funding. It was really well done, I appreciated to new take on things, and I enjoyed how they managed to combine his genuine creepiness with a bit of sympathy. It's no fun 'Batman' flick, but it was well executed. A little time unfolded, discussions were had, word of mouth spread, and a lot of people even ended up making Phoenix their new favourite portrayal of the Joker. Then we all received that odd bit of news saying that the sequel would be a musical starring Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn. That was a lot to digest. I was lukewarm to the idea of Gaga being Quinn, and the musical aspect felt odd. But even with all of that, I was still willing to give it a chance, recognizing that he musical aspect of things would tie into the mental health aspect of things, and play out as fantasy. Joker, a.k.a. Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) awaits his trial for his crimes at Arkham State Hospital. His lawyer, Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener) plans to use dissociative identity disorder as their defence, hoping to convince the judge that the Joker did the crimes of the previous movie, and not Arthur Fleck. This is pretty much the whole movie - awaiting the trial, and then the trial itself. All in all, at least in my humble opinion, it's kinda boring, and it drags. The only real saving grace could possibly be the arrival of Harleen Quinzel (Gaga), who calls herself "Lee" through the movie. These two meet, not in therapy sessions conducted by Lee as a professional, but in the same hospital. It is mentioned that she has degrees in her field of psychology, but otherwise, here, she's just another patient. She comes to admire the way Arthur pulled off his crimes, and is in love with his destructive and chaotic personality. Real fans of Harley Quinn need not apply,. however, because this is about as far away from Harley as I can imagine, aside from a couple of very basic personality traits, which have already pretty much been mentioned. While the whole trial portion of the film is a bore on its own, the rest of it is just Arthur and Lee putting on some kind of half-assed Broadway show about how much they love each other, and whether or not Lee can be trusted. If you're looking for a dark, violent movie with a dash of dark comedy, you are SOL here. There's a bit of violence, but it's completely crowbarred in, and any supposed jokes fall pretty flat here. And then there's the ending, which seems evidently controversial for fans, but even as a fan, I just plain didn't care either way. I am going to be slightly controversial here, myself, and give the film credit for just one thing. Unfortunately, that one thing happens to be the risks they took with things here in trying something new and different. It flopped on its ass, but at least they were ballsy enough to go for it. In the end, this really ends up being a bit more of an artsy-fartsy film starring the Joker. But the rest of us fans remember Nicholson's art gallery scene from '89, and prefer that more chaotic version of the Joker being artistic. This didn't ruin the character for me or anything, but I can say with full conviction now that Phoenix is NOT my Joker. 1/5  Every once in a while, a movie comes along that just leaves me with a big smile on my face, and 'The Wild Robot' here is a shining example of such a movie. Such films tend to include a vast innocence about them, but have the occasional adult joke, or over-the-top sight gag built in, so it can appeal to older audiences as well. The other thing about them is how clever the writing and storytelling is, in that while they can be good movies for kids, there's nothing about them I see as an adult as being so called "kid's stuff."
Generally speaking, Pixar is the undisputed king company of such animated movies. But DreamWorks did a great job with this trailer in reminding us that they can definitely deliver the goods as well, with groundbreaking series like 'How to Train Your Dragon,' (which really made us appreciate how good flight looked in 3D) and 'Shrek' (which began the "Best Animated Picture" Oscar category). 'The Wild Robot' here is absolutely the next in line for the go-to DreamWorks series. Between it being ultimately successful, and based on a book series, a sequel is already in the works as I write this. It all begins when a cargo ship crashes somewhere in the wilderness, losing six "ROZZUM" robots; AI robots that can assist with more physical tasks in order to make our lives easier. One day, one such robot is accidentally activated by the local wildlife, and would eventually become known as "Roz" (Lupita Nyong'o). In attempting to help the animals, she ends up scaring them all instead. On one failed attempt, she's sent tumbling into a goose nest, crushing everything except for one lone egg. Eventually the egg hatches, and an adorable gosling eventually named "Brightbill" imprints on Roz, giving her purpose to essentially serve as Brightbill's "mother" until he's ready to fly south with the other geese for the winter season. She even gets help from a reluctant fox named Fink (Pedro Pascal), who would normally see Brightbill as a meal. The whole process of getting the little guy up and flying is cute, often funny, and often heartwarming. Best of all though, you'd think that would be all there was to the movie, but there's actually quite a bit more. Brightbill actually takes off on his flight about half way through the movie, but that doesn't make Roz's learning experience end. She further learns about the harshness of winter, and what it means to hybernate, while she awaits the arrival of her little gosling, which is months away. During this time, she works with the rest of the local wildlife in an attempt to create peace among them. Meanwhile, a lot of Brightbill's abilities are tested on his flight when he faces danger here and there, and is made to move up from his underdog position in the flock. I could see this as a learning experience about facing inexperience and the anxieties that come with it. Roz, a robot, has to become a mother figure to Brightbill, and the old tale about AI growing emotion is a part of it, but in a much more positive way than we usually see. Brightbill has to try to learn to fly with an improper teacher, and learn to be among strangers who tend to dislike him. Fink, perhaps harshest of all, has to learn to go against his most basic instincts as a predator, and it does not end with Brightbill looking tasty. This was a title that warmed my heart, left me smiling, and further shows that animated movies aren't just "cartoons for kids." This was a pretty great story that covers a lot of ground, and it comes as a high recommendation from yours truly for something a little more family friendly. I'd put it somewhere between 'The Iron Giant' and 'WALL-E' as far as what it reminds me of in quality, and those are two of my all-time faves. So get the family together and check it out, because there's a lot to appreciate about it! 5/5  I haven't really been giving the horror genre much credit for what has been released this year, save for one or two titles. But then, this movie comes along that isn't even really full-fledged horror, yet I have to credit it for having the ability to make me feel genuinely uncomfortable throughout most of it. The thing about movies like these is their realism and potential for happening in real life. Movies like these provide fine examples of cautionary tales, use nothing supernatural, and are frankly more scary than most actual horror nowadays.
This was one whee the trailer truly worked its magic on me, and made me want to check it out based on James McAvoy coming back to play some kind of psychopathic character, which he nailed in 'Split.' He's one of the best at it today, especially when a LOT of us know him first as the genuinely good-natures Professor Xavier from the later 'X-Men' flicks. And I can tell you, what you see in the trailer of his performance is what you get from him in the movie, including a creepy scene or two that we don't get in said trailer. American couple, Louise (Mackenzie Davis) and Ben Dalton (Scoot McNairy) open the film in Italy, along with their 12-year-old daughter, Agnes (Alix West Lefler). They meet and befriend another British family there, Paddy (McAvoy), Ciara (Aisling Franciosi), and their mute son, Ant (Dan Hough). Immediately, we get "iffy" vibes from them, being an out-of-town family, and having their own free-spirited ways. It was good to see that tiny bit of tention from the get-go, as the movie simply asks the audience "what would you do in this situation?" While back home in London, the Daltons receive a letter from Paddy and Ciara, inviting them to visit their countryside farmhouse for a few nights. Between Louise being a bit unfaithful, Ben being unemployed, and Agnes having anxiety enough to require a stuffed bunny (much to Ben's dismay), they decide a positive change of scenery would be good for them, and take the road trip to said farmhouse to let loose with a family that seems to really know how to do so. Upon their arrival, they feel a bit unsure about their accommodations, but ultimately decide a bit of roughing it would be good for them. Before long, the Daltons start to feel appropriately uncomfortable by their hosts passive-aggressive behaviour, and a bunch of weird situations branch from that. The kids end up left with a strange babysitter, Paddy and Ciara kinda treat Ant like crap, and they seemingly like to push boundaries as far as they can possibly go. As the trailer clearly shows, and I'm glad that it didn't try making it a surprise, the Daltons actually end up stuck with a couple of crazy people who ultimately become the serial killing villains of the film, but I won't say much more. This one was made for anyone who has ever, or does, tend to befriend strangers while vacationing. Films have been made like it before, but I have never been able to give them much more credit than I do this one for some reason or another. I came to appreciate how simplistic this story was, and how unnerving it could get, especially with McAvoy's performance, and just knowing that most of us have been in an uncomfortable situation, wanted to leave, and maybe even found themselves stuck. It's interesting to think that I liked this movie more because the trailer showed me what to expect. Usually, it would be a criticism that the trailer showed too much, but in this case, the filmmakers understood how quickly we'd predict the scenario to go down. It likes to play with our emotions, too, often actually wondering if there was any possible way we're misunderstanding this British couple. 'The Visit' was probably the last time I was impressed by a similar situation. So while this isn't terrifying, it's still suspenseful and creepy, and does its job very well, reminding us all that sometimes simplicity can be the scariest thing. 4/5  To be honest, I didn't really know how I felt about this from the get-go. 'Beetlejuice' is such a classic Burton flick as a stand-alone, I never felt like a sequel was necessary, even going back to the days when 'Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian' was being pitched, but never saw the light of day. So, when this sequel finally did manage to come along a full 36(ish) years later, the only thing I saw was another cash-in on a nostalgic property that wasn't gonna hold up to the original. But, after a couple of trailers, my curiosity did manage to peak.
I went into this with average expectations. I knew that it wasn't quite gonna be the classic from my childhood, but I remained open-minded. What I got out of it was a totally mixed bag of feelings towards it. This has a whole bunch of positives to it, and those positives may very well outweigh the negatives I found. I'd say this is another one where my criticisms are just nitpicky things I'd have done differently. But, with the good probably outweighing the bad, let's kick it all off with something positive- the opening! We get a remix of the classic 'Beetlejuice' theme from original composer, Danny Elfman, and another scan of the town model, just like in the original. This is a solid way to do fan service well, as nothing about it feels cheesy, and music is a great way to fuel that nostalgia. That's also some of the only fan service we get here. Not so much uttering memorable catch phrases, cutting and pasting familiar scenes (except one, but more on that in a bit) or even just repeating the same concepts of the original in a slightly different way. This time around, the scan of the model town of Winter River, Connecticut transitions to a talk show, hosted by Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder), called "Ghost House," where she interviews people about their paranormal experiences. After hallucinating glimpses of Betelgeuse (Michael Keaton), she gets a call from her stepmother, Delia (Catherine O'Hara), relaying the news of Lydia's father, Charles' death, leading Lydia, along with her producer boyfriend, Rory (Justin Theroux) back to Winter River, and the old house where everything went down. On their way into town, they pick up Lydia's estranged daughter, Astrid (Jenna Ortega), whose father passed away, and who Lydia, despite her gifts that allow her to see the dead, can't see him. Matters are made worse for Astrid when Rory proposes to Lydia, adding another complication to her life, along with a mother everyone sees as a "freak," a dead father, and bullies at school. It all sends her running into the arms of a kid named Jeremy Frazier (Arthur Conti). As for Beetlejuice, he comes back into Lydia's life whilst on the run from his ex-wife, Delores (Monica Bellucci). If he continues his marriage with Lydia, he won't have to deal with Delores. In exchange, he has to help her with some afterlife business that ends up being a bit of a spoiler if I say too much. But I can say that I enjoyed seeing the afterlife play a bigger role here, in true Tim Burton fashion, as far as style and tone go. It feels like a slight upgrade from the '88 version we saw, but not taking anything away. Honestly, my criticisms are mostly nitpicky things I might have handled differently. But what was good about it was that, overall, it felt very old school Burton, and it was cool to see him go back to things like his style of animation, etc. I think for the average 'Beetlejuice' fan, this is a decent watch, and who knows? Maybe you'll like it more than the first. But, much like the first, I'd say it's acquired taste. If you didn't like the first, just don't bother. But for those who liked the first, I'd classify this as a worthy sequel, especially considering a 36-year gap! 3/5  When it comes to a variety of sub-genres, I tend to usually take things for what they are, and try to have fun with things while keeping an eye out for any sort of original ideas and/or concepts. It can be fun no matter how many times its repeated, like zombie horror, but it can also get really lame, really fast, and that (at least speaking for myself) is where the AI horror sub-genre fits for me these days. Films about how artificial intelligence will one day ultimately reveal the folly of mankind by becoming self-aware and, therefore, dangerous.
Interestingly enough, it probably should mean more to people now than ever before, but the sad, cold, hard truth of the matter is that a lot of this cautionary stuff is just too late. We use new tech to make our lives more convenient, including a fancy computer that was once used for actual phone calls, ironically called a "phone," plus our home computers, all with algorithms that are keeping track of our interests, so it can cater all those irritating ads we complain about to us. The real moral of any of these is to stay protected and safe, so please, Google how to do these things... using Firefox! This is a tale that's really no different, and therefore, lacks in any real scares or shocks. We all pretty much know how things will go down, we just don't know what the body count will be (if any). Here, a full home installation of an AI called "AIA" (Havana Rose Liu) comes to a family of five through the father/husband, Curtis' (John Cho) computer engineering company for testing, and as one would probably predict, things run pretty solid for the family until the AI gets a little out of hand. Among the problems the family faces that they ask AIA for include teenage Iris (Lukita Maxwell) having boyfriend problems; the younger Preston (Wyatt Lindner), who has an anxiety disorder, and bully trouble; and the youngest, Cal (Isaac Bae), who has a medical condition with his breathing. As it always goes with these movies, AIA basically ends up becoming a family hero, but soon begins to overwhelm them with how far "she" will go in order to help. When you get right down to things, almost anyone reading this has seen this same movie before in some way, shape or form. It's all just old news, and it's no real surprise that its theatrical run was barely even a thing, debuting and bombing hard at #9. Granted, all of the advertising wasn't there for this, but it kinda goes to show where peoples' invested interests aren't. Yours truly included. This also didn't exactly do well, critically, and it's one case in which I can mostly agree with them. About the only real thing I can give this movie is the idea of different AIs being helpful to their owners, ultimately resulting in a sort of accidental war between people. I might also venture to say that the film dares the viewer with the thought of having such a powerful AI working just for you. Would you use it to keep your house clean and study a new skill? Or would you use it to your full advantage, get all dark-side with it and smite your enemies?... well, not smite, but at least exact revenge of some sort. It's right up there with asking "what superpower do you want?" Other than a few interesting ideas and updates to the concept, there's not a whole hell of a lot else to say about it. The best way to describe the movie is a word like "fine." It's kinda bland, we've seen scarier AI movies, and it's yet another step in warning us about the dangers of AI that we're most definitely gonna ignore because, again, we're kinda too late. It's not quite at movie level yet, but make no mistake, it's there. I guess it's just a "me" thing, but it's just the kind of thing that doesn't freak me out... I mean, unless there's a real Terminator war one day. 2/5  Let me start this one off by putting my cards on the table and fully admitting that I know basically nothing about this series. I've never once picked up one of these games, and my peers have often wondered how that was possible, as it's a franchise that seems right up my alley. Regardless, this means that while watching the movie, I wasn't trying to point out everything wrong about the adaptation. As far as I'm concerned, this could be a carbon copy of the game's story - I have no clue. Having said all that, however... this movie is still pretty bad.
Taking place on Planet Pandora (not to be confused with the one from 'Avatar'), the film opens as a rogue merc soldier named Roland (Kevin Hart) takes a teen known as "Tiny Tina" (Ariana Greenblatt) out of a holding cell with the help of Krieg (Florian Munteanu), a "Psycho," which are mostly here to be "bad guys" with little to no explanation behind them. According to the games, they have gone insane with obsession over "The Vault," where the secrets of Pandora's lost civilization's advanced technology are kept. It turns out that Tina may be the key to opening said vault, and Roland's motivation is for her protection. On some other planet, bounty hunter, Lilith (Cate Blanchett) is contacted by a powerful corporate magnate named Atlas (Edgar Ramírez), who convinces her to go to Pandora and seek out Tina, who happens to be his daughter, not as a bounty hunt but a rescue attempt. Once Lilith reaches Pandora, she gets a bit of help from a robot named Claptrap (Jack Black), who is far, far more irritating than we all want Jack Black to be. He's meant to be the comic relief here, and just about everything falls flat. The jokes are more for kids here. Anyway, eventually Lilith and Claptrap meet up with Tina, who won't go quietly, under the assumption Lilith is bringing her in for a bounty. It's not long before Roland and Krieg come into play, we find out Atlas is crooked (as if it wasn't predictable), and they all end up working as a team that is trying far too hard to be the 'Guardians of the Galaxy'. Eventually they also get help from Lilith's estranged foster mother, Dr. Patricia Tannis (Jamie Lee Curtis), and even she feels kinda tacked on, just so they could complete a character list. The film essentially becomes one big escort mission, as the unlikely team forms around Tina's protection so she can't be used for all the wrong reasons. As if it's not already stealing a lot of atmosphere from 'Guardians', and again, not knowing anything about the underlying plots of these games, the whole "protecting the chosen one" plot line is ripped right out of 'The Last of Us'. To be 100% fair, even then it wasn't an entirely original concept, but it does feel like Eli Roth looked at the TV series, said "that idea works," and rolled with it. One of the most criminal things about this movie is its rating. This thing is a PG-13 title (PG up here in the Great White North) and it's based on a solid M-rated series, thus taking a gigantic step backwards for video game adaptations, be it theatrical or streaming. It's a genre that was finally beginning to see some light, and then this thing came along and knocks it all onto its ass. For God's sake, 'Deadpool' set this R-rated bar for adaptations ages ago! Eli Roth, a master of gory, torture porn horror directed this M-rated movie with NO R-rating, which also gives adaptations in general a gigantic step backwards. Usually, if I get to see something everyone else is panning that I'm unfamiliar with, I tend to give it a little leeway. But with everything I mentioned before, along with a star-studded cast of disappointing, non-fleshed out characters, bad writing, pacing that moves way too fast, action sequences that seem almost thrown in just because "action is cool" (Michael Bay style) and a lot of telling as opposed to showing, with Blachett's narration, it's hard to give this any kind of pass. Honestly, it just left me happy that I wasn't more disappointed in it as a game adaptation with my unfamiliarity. These game adaptations can do better! 1/5  Out of all the famous directors out there who have some kind of a something they're known for, M. Night Shyamalan has got to be one of the more irksome. Famous for his twists, several of them hold up really well and make for an awesome first (maybe second) watch. Sometimes, however, these twists fall on their asses, and make for something more of either a confusing mess, or a bitter disappointment. With 'Trap' here, we have a bit of an anomaly, because the twist is something we see coming from a mile away... but in less time than half the movie.
However, while a lot of people seem to be meeting this entry in the middle as far as quality is concerned, I have to say it was one of the more disappointing for me, and has (maybe this is just a "me" thing) notes of 'Lady in the Water' to it, which I still claim to be Shyamalan's worst project. Were there things I liked about it? Sure, but it's kinda like saying I liked the sauce on some horribly burnt chicken wings. This is another one I feel almost insults the audience with some of the things they get away with, plot-wise. In this world, there is a pop idol named Lady Raven (Saleka Shyamalan), who Saleka mentions was inspired by a mixture of Rihanna, Rosalía, Adele, and Billie Eilish. Throwing a concert in Philly, a father named Cooper Adams (Josh Hartnett) takes his daughter, Riley (Ariel Donoghue), as a reward for her good grades. As the concert unfolds, Cooper starts to notice an abundance of cops and even FBI agents start to surround the arena, both inside and out. While Riley tries to enjoy the concert of her dreams, Cooper starts to believe that something more is up. Upon asking around, Cooper eventually learns that the heavy police force is surrounding the area in hopes to capture a ruthless serial killer, known only as "The Butcher" (could we be more unoriginal?), who was said to be present at the concert that night. This is where we learn the twist that we see coming from a mile away, probably even from the trailer, and things try to get intense from there, but don't do a very good job when we see that the person they are looking for slips past the feds for a cup of coffee - as I mentioned, insulting. Unfortunately, there's not a whole hell of a lot to say about it without giving too much away, but even having said that, the film hasn't entirely been a box office smash hit either, suggesting there aren't a whole lot of people still riding that Shyamalan train. Every now and then, he'll come up with a gem, but I think his disappointments outweigh his hits, and people have tuned into that. I'm not gonna sit here and say he's awful, but I will say he may have become an acquired taste over the years. Going back to some of the things I did enjoy about the film, however, start with Josh Hartnett's performance. To anyone who has seen this, it goes without saying that he's pretty over-the-top with his acting, but I feel like it's very much done on purpose, as if to help give away the twist easier. It's almost like Shyamalan wanted to do a bit more of the same, but keep it different enough, almost parodying how obvious his twists can be to some people. It does feel a little self-aware at times. It still comes across as bad, but it's an interesting thought. Personally speaking, I never know if I'm gonna like one of Shyamalan's movies or not, but I'm generally willing to give them a chance. Out of his last four films preceding this, I liked two of them, but didn't think much of the other two, so for me, he remains unpredictable for my own tastes. So I'll still be watching Shyamalan flicks when they come out, but I'll never feel like I'm rolling the dice with a director more. 'Trap' just added to his pile of bad material, but at least I can say there are definitely worse titles from him out there. 2/5  It's kinda crazy to think of myself as a guy who appreciates imagination after having grown up with a LOT of imaginative and creative material, yet never hearing of 'Harold and the Purple Crayon' until this movie came along. Not only is it a famous kids book, but it was also adapted into a series of shorts over the years, featured on 'Captain Kangaroo' (not that I really watched it), and even featured as a short-run animated series in 2001, narrated by Sharon Stone. You'd think just word of mouth would have gotten to me, eventually.
The story (which is also the opening to the movie) involves four-year-old Harold, who has the power to create his own world, simply by drawing it with his purple crayon. He creates, and creates, but eventually gets tired and wants to go home to bed, so has to search for his bedroom window. Soon enough, he remembers where his bedroom window is, and makes himself a bed to dose off in, "the end." But the opening of the film continues Harold's (Zachary Levi) adventures, as he grows up and creates his two best friends, Moose (Lil Rel Howery) and Porcupine (Tanya Reynolds). As the opening shows you all of this in animation, it's being narrated by Alfred Molina; someone Harold can actually communicate with as he tells Harold's stories. One day, Harold tries calling out to the narrator, and realizes he seems to have gone missing. Knowing that the narrator lives in the real world, however, Harold comes up with a simple solution by drawing a door to the "Real World" and opening it up, providing him a portal to Earth as we know it. You wanna roll your eyes at the simplicity of it, but at the same time, I admire that they just went with it, because if they didn't, we'd be asking "why doesn't he just?" Harold enters the real world with Moose, who turns into a human, but Porcupine gets left behind. They immediately get into an accident with a lady named Terry (Zooey Deschanel) and her son, (*cringe*) Melvin (Benjamin Bottani), ultimately giving them a place to stay, once Harold uses his purple crayon to fix Terry's tire. By the way, Mel sees this, Terry doesn't, and that's something that gets repeated time and time again throughout the film to a fault. But anyway, Harold and Mel become friends, which may or may not be creepy depending on who you are, but it is at least addressed by Terry more than once. Eventually, Mel offers to help Harold find his "Dad" (the narrator), and that's essentially what the movie is all about, while on the side, Zooey Deschanel is basically reprising her role from 'Elf' as a somewhat bitter lady who needs to cheer up through the help of a colourful main character. Meanwhile, Porcupine does end up entering the real world, but her story is a bit more fun, as she basically becomes a criminal through her actions, but really, she's just doing what porcupines do. It's a bit like watching 'Smurfs' where live-action Gargamel is the best part of an otherwise typical fish-out-of-water story. A lot of logic really irked me with this one. So many moments involve Terry dismissing the purple crayon magic as nonsense, and somewhat shunning her own kid for his overactive imagination. But either Harold OR Mel (who gets his own piece of the crayon) could show her how it all works, and for some dumb reason don't, even when the climax his happening, involving our villain; a failed author named Gary (Jemaine Clement), whose motivation through the movie involves using the purple crayon to bring his imaginary world to life, and hopefully getting with Terry. But I must say, for as stupid as things like that come across, there's a particular innocence about the movie that can't be overlooked. As far as truly family-friendly movies go, despite an irksome moment or two, it's fine. It's generally harmless, kinda fun in a kid's movie kind of way, and it's a solid reminder of how well our imaginations can serve us in a time of need. 'IF' was very similar in tone and morality; this too is very much a kid's movie, and needs to be seen as such. For as irksome as some of the more obvious things can be, I can say with all honesty that I'd have eaten this movie up when I was a kid. 3/5  Every once in a while, a movie (remake/sequel, or re-imagining) will come along, shows me a trailer, and I'll wonder why the hell I should care. A lot of the time, my hunches about it are correct, and the film ends up being nothing but an easy cash-in for its respective studio. However, while pretty much all such titles are guilty of their cash-in methods, sometimes its done right. Sometimes the film will deliver good and memorable characters, a decent story, and in cases like 'Twisters', a huge leap forward in special effects.
I have always been one to defend 1996's 'Twister' as a fun popcorn action/adventure movie for a time when that kind of thing was what ran the box office - not superheroes. Even though by today's standards 'Twister' may not hold up for some, it was still something I thought didn't need any sort of sequel, as it stood on its own as a disaster classic (that's the genre, not the actual quality of the movie, though some will disagree). The trailer for this had me saying things like "so, they're just making the same movie?" To some degree I was kinda, sorta right about that, but upon seeing this, I decided I liked this chapter just a touch better than the classic disaster movie I had been defending so hard. This takes all the fun of 'Twister' and cranks it to eleven by offering up much, much better twister/storm scenes; most of which I understand were shot by technical consultants, including real-life storm chaser, Sean Casey (who seems to somehow go uncredited here, but his resume speaks for itself). Much like with the original, the opening of the film involves our lead, Kate Carter (Daisy Edgar-Jones) losing people important to her due to a tornado's brutal force. In this case, its during an attempt to launch a Dorothy V doppler (as seen in the original). While in the original it was done to study a tornado and its patterns in an attempt to predict them earlier, this time it involves using sodium polyacrylate beads meant to try to shrink the tornado, and make it less disastrous, and I'm sure this is not scientifically sound, but I'll come back to that. Kate and her friend, Javi (Anthony Ramos) survive the incident, but the experiment was ultimately unsuccessful, and Kate ends up blaming herself for the deaths of her colleagues, seemingly over nothing. She quits storm chasing, but Javi continues, and soon enough comes back into her life to get the plot moving. Now working for a company called Storm Par, Javi invites Kate to join them and try a new tornado scanning system. Of course, she eventually agrees based on the idea that they could be saving lives, especially with her keen senses. The team comes across "The Tornado Wrangler", Tyler Owens (Glen Powell); a wild cowboy type who chases these storms for kicks, and throws them onto YouTube. It's actually with this that the movie starts getting interesting, not only because it gets more fun, but it also dabbles with the concept of different companies and how they profit after a tornado has touched down. It's a good look at both sides of the equation, who's crooked, who's charitable, etc. I have to hand it to the film for giving us a generous combination of both a cash-in with its nostalgic-poking title, and actually delivering a product that was worked on as opposed to just being pushed out, hoping a name will put butts in seats. Much like its predecessor, it's a far from perfect movie, but it is a friendly reminder that sometimes we don't need to take movies like this so seriously. With great lines like "you don't face your fears, you ride 'em," one's clearly meant to have fun with this. 4/5  This one ended up being advertised this year as what would probably be the next big title in horror, with ads reminiscent of things like 'Blair Witch' or 'Paranormal Activity', touting promises of scares that could potentially change the game in the genre. But, as usual, this too ended up being not entirely bad, but just kind of underwhelming. The whole genre has to stop advertising in such ways just to get butts in seats. In this one, the big tease is Nicolas Cage playing a new horror villain, and that would have been better for them to run with.
Nicolas Cage has kind of been his own meme for ages now, so when the trailers tried to advertise this movie with his apparent made-up appearance in mind, they kind of dropped the ball. I'm telling you right now, it is NOT a scary makeup job, and Cage's performance, while very good, still comes across as Nicholas Cage being Nicholas Cage. It's a performance I meet in the middle. It could very well be more effective for anyone unfamiliar with Cage, but all I end up seeing here is Cage doing the best with what he has to work with. Potentially clairvoyant FBI agent Lee Harker (Maika Monroe) gets assigned by her supervisor, William Carter (Blair Underwood) to investigate a case of family-related murder-suicides occurring recently in Oregon. Each case involves a series of overwhelming coincidences involving the family members, their daughter's ninth birthdays, all occurring on the 14th of their birth months, and letters left at the crime scene, waiting to be decoded (much like the Zodiac Killer), all signed at the bottom with the name "Longlegs." More or less on her own, Lee digs deeper and deeper into the case, eventually revealing some pretty nasty stuff. But it's not long before her success in the case starts to backfire on her, as Longlegs begins to threaten those close to Lee is she gets too close to him. It's all pretty par for the course when it comes to serial killer horror, and this is a movie that reflects the (in my opinion) much better 'Silence of the Lambs' - so if you're into the genre, and also into true crime, like myself, you're not gonna see a whole hell of a lot here that will blow your mind. While probably to no one's surprise, this is a movie I meet very much in the middle. But I can say with all honesty that if I wasn't into true crime stories or the horror genre in general, this does a pretty good job at providing the audience not only with some decent horror elements, but a story that one might not be surprised to hear on a true crime podcast. It dabbles very lightly in supernatural elements, mostly involving Lee's possibly clairvoyance, and Longlegs' Satan worship. But it does it all on a grounded level, and nothing goes overboard. The film also uses things to its advantage, such as a damn-near complete absence of music, having it all occur in a quaint, rural "every town" (looking like a place where it seems fine to keep your doors unlocked), and making sure our eyes wander to the background with a chance glimpse of something that may or may not be sinister. I mean, atmospherically, between all of that and Cage's performance, they really hit the nail on the head as far as the whole creep factor of the movie goes. Despite how effective it is at being unsettling, however, I still can't get past Nicolas Cage, even if he IS putting on a solid performance. If you know him well, and have seen him in everything, this won't be as good, as all you'll see is Cage being Cagey. BUT, if you're more unfamiliar with his work, the film will be far more effective at what it's trying to do. I liked a lot about this movie, but disliked a chunk of it too, concerning a lot of wooden performances, and a whole weird thing involving dolls that look like victims that didn't feel like it needed to be there. It's one I can hardly recommend one way or another, but still perfectly passable. 3/5  Even though we all know that this is just another chapter in a series that can make some serious bank off those Minions, it's nice to see that despite a couple of rough entries into the series, it hasn't entirely lost its heart. If I were to compare this to one of the chapters in the series as far as quality goes, I would probably put it up against 'DM2', as it offers more growth to Gru's family (without his annoying brother), balances the cute moments between the girls and the Minions well, and offers more genuine laughs while still being a warmhearted story.
We're at a point in the game now where audiences are going to be split about a few things concerning the film. Most obviously, the Minions have been running amok in the public eye for years now, and it's understandable that many will just be tired enough by now to avoid seeing this. But beyond that, it has been going as a series since 2010, so by now, some people who enjoyed it as kids are also starting to really outgrow the cutesy stuff this series is so well-known for. I get that some people are just plain done with it. That said, I plan to review this as more of a hanger-on to the series, as I'm still a fan, so non-fans need not continue. As the film opens, Gru (Steve Carell) heads to a villain reunion at his old villain school Lycée Pas Bon (which translates quite literally to "Not Good High School"). Undercover, and still working for the Anti-Villain League, he's there to stop his old rival, Maxime Le Mal (Will Ferrell) before he uses his newly applied cockroach powers to take over the world. Gru is successful in his arrest, but it doesn't last when Maxime is busted out of prison with the help of his girlfriend, Valentina (Sofía Vergara). Maxime has been holding onto a grudge against Gru for ages now, as Gru stole his act for the school talent show when they were kids. Now this grudge becomes tenfold, and Maxime intends on using a machine he's developed to turn people into human/cockroach hybrids directly on Gru and Lucy's newborn son, Gru Jr. With this, head of AVL, Silas Ramsbottom (Steve Coogan) forces Gru and his family into the witness protection program in order to protect Gru's growing family. With that, the family all take on new identities, even though Agnes (Madison Skyy Polan) has trouble with lying being "wrong," and five Minions who have been taken in by the AVL are subjected to a super serum that gives them each super powers. This may very well be the best part of the movie, as it eventually provides commentary on how destructive superheroes can be, even though they're trying to do what's right. Quite frankly, I found the Minions to funnier there than they've been in a while - especially the poor guy who gets caught in a vending machine that no one seems to care about. Something else I appreciated about this story was that the B story to it mostly involved Gru as well, instead of the movie playing on the cuteness of the girls/minions for it. While in witness protection, Gru meets a young neighbour girl named Poppy Prescott (Joey King) who knows who he is, and wants to learn from him on how to become a villain. I won't get into spoiler territory concerning what it all leads up to, but altogether, I appreciated seeing something that lent itself to a bit of character development as opposed to... y'know, looking for unicorns. I think as long as you're anything like me and still have that soft spot for these characters, it's a perfectly enjoyable film, and a huge step forward from 'DM3'. It is nice to see the series seemingly finding its footing again. I don't know how much more life this series has in it, but as long as it continues down this kind of path, I'll keep coming to these movies just for that breath of innocent and fun fresh air we all need once in a while. As long as we keep the Minions and the girls as cute side characters and not main focuses, I'm here for it. 3/5  I liked this entry to the series, but I do feel like 'A Quiet Place' is another name in movies in which nothing can quite live up to the original - a trait similarly held by series like 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Matrix'. That first film can totally stand on its own as a modern classic, and may even be historical in its own way, but from then on, it's largely a collection of cash-in projects. Thankfully, sometimes there's a bit more heart put into some, and it applies here (for me) as at least being better than the second, which felt almost too 'Walking Dead' at times.
It's also another movie that seems to have audiences incredibly split, which are the types of movies I love to review as, admittedly, nothing sways me one way or the other. In other words, I go into the film with neither high, nor low expectations, can (hopefully) enjoy the film for what it is, and, in my reviews, not sound like I'm picking a side to sound like either a "one-percenter" or the latest passenger of a popular bandwagon. So, without further adieu, let's get into this 'Quiet Place' prequel. Our protagonist here is Samira (Lupita Nyong'o), who kicks off the film with her understandable pessimism, as she's living in a hospice, stricken with terminal cancer, and her only joy in life is her service cat, Frodo (Nico... that's right, animals get credited too). Despite the way her life is, however, they make her pretty hard to like in the beginning. She's not terrible or anything, just a bit of a brat about things. That said, that's also part of what I liked about this movie; her development throughout. One day, one of the nurses, Reuben (Alex Wolff) convinces her to attend a marionette show in Manhattan, which was, in my opinion, a very well done scene that not only shows that Sam's not such a rough person to deal with, but if you really dig into it, it could be seen as largely symbolic for what's about to happen, be it to her with her terminal cancer or the more grounded fact that they're all about to be invaded by those sound-seeking alien creatures we've come to know from the last couple of movies. The film then picks up, and carries us through a lot of intensity as this invasion is going on. She soon meets Henri (Djimon Hounsou) who comes across as the guy in charge of a group who are meant to be hidden and quiet until someone can rescue them. Eventually this, of course, leads the now cooped up Sam to set out on her own for Harlem, along with her cat, and it's all survival horror/thriller/action from there. By the way, cat-lovers, just to be a jerk, I will not spoil Frodo's fate. It truly adds to the intensity of things, and that's what these films do best. I think if I have to end up giving one thing to all three of these movies across the board, it's that they provide a really good atmosphere of intensity and suspense. We never know when something's gonna happen, and when it's unexpected it's more satisfying for us horror fans. The whole concept of these movies, about having to stay quiet in order to survive is kind of a stroke of genius. Sure, the idea of surviving by being silent is nothing new, but I'm hard-pressed to think of that concept as a full-length feature before the first of these. My final thoughts on the film are nothing short of it adding to a solid series of good, suspenseful horror. Although I have my nitpicks about the second film, I'd say this is a solid series all the way through for the average viewer. I stick to my guns on the first one being more of a modern classic, and nothing that follows in the series will probably top it. But at least this didn't just get worse and worse as it went on. If you liked the first tqo, definitely give this one a shot as well. 4/5  I suppose for this one, I should first talk about the experiences I've had with bikers in the past. Nothing to this extreme, but there were bits and pieces about the lifestyle I picked up on that are quite well-reflected in this movie - first and foremost probably being that bikers aren't just simply "bad people" so much as there's a lot of misunderstanding behind where their "bad" lies. I am by no means an expert or a scholar on the matter, and in fact, I'm terrified of motorcycles (judge as you must), but there was something about this film that felt "right" or "correct."
On one hand, they do a good job of showing what these bikers come across as to the general public, but it does a better job of showing how they act within their club, showing us more of a sort of rough and tumble gang who you wouldn't terribly mind getting a drink with, and they're not necessarily bad people, but at the same time, these guys aren't exactly a picture of innocence either. Almost no scene puts this all across better than the story's opener, and it does it well enough to peak your curiosity to see where things go. However we start by meeting a photography student named Danny Lyon (Mike Faist) and discover that the film is executed in a faux documentary style, as Danny gets the film's story through the mouths of members of the fictional biker club, The Vandals, who are meant to be portraying the Outlaws, circa the 1960s. Foremost among the interviewees, is Kathy Bauer (Jodie Comer), wife of Benny Cross (Austin Butler), a primary member of The Vandals, based in Chicago, and good friend of club founder, Johnny Davis (Tom Hardy). Through several other club members, and mainly Kathy, Danny learns all about the backstory behind Benny, his marriage to Kathy, his place in the Vandals motorcycle club, the club itself, Johnny's leadership, and a biker wannabe who only goes by "The Kid" (Toby Wallace). We furthermore learn the difference between the biker gangs that we all fear and the biker clubs that are a little more misunderstood, and their most unfortunate merging over time. The whole thing is actually pretty damn intriguing, makes for a solid story, and feels a bit more realistic than what Hollywood would typically put forward with a movie like this. I think what I probably appreciated the most about it were the interviews with the secondary and tertiary characters of the plot. As one has probably seen in trailers, some of the more recognizable faces include Norman Reedus as "Funny Sonny", Michael Shannon as "Zipco", but there's quite a few others who add to the charm (yes, I said charm) of the whole experience as well, by telling their stories the way they see it, and adding a bit of humour to the mix. They're really what make the movie more fun than dramatic. This one comes to us from the perhaps lesser-known Jeff Nichols, whose most famous film to date is probably 2012's 'Mud' (if you remember that McConaughey vehicle). I have to admit that this did kind of make me want to check out his other, more obscure projects to see what else he can do. Critically speaking, 'The Bikeriders' does a lot of what I've seen before in things like mafia movies. Having said that, though, the idea of this being a biker club story adds just that little dash of difference necessary to keep it a little more fresh. Personally speaking, I found this to be one of those movies you can enjoy more for its dramatic tone, but you know full well that it may not make it into that "Oscar-worthy" category all the same. I would probably claim it to be one of the all-around better movies I've seen this year, and I'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of problems with it, critically. I would say it probably won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I'd also probably say it's one of my favourites of this year, so I'd say check it out if you're at all curious! 5/5  Most who know me have understood that I had a certain connection with the first 'Inside Out'. It was one of Pixar's many movies that actually spoke to me in a deeper way about deeper things; in this case, one's emotions, using the base emotions of Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust and Anger. While I admired the film for having so many cool and original ideas as to how the brain worked by giving personality to these emotions, the big takeaway is that some of the more negative emotions are absolutely necessary for growth.
'Inside Out 2' brings all of your favourite emotions back, but this time with a couple of voice casting changes. While Joy, Sadness and Anger (Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith and Lewis Black, respectively) are the same voices coming back to the stage, replacements were done with Fear (now Tony Hale) and Disgust (now Liza Lapira). The five core emotions are on a role with their girl Riley (Kensington Tallman) as she's living her best life, now at 13, doing well in school, playing hockey, making new friends, Bree (Sumayyah Nuriddin-Green) and Grace (Grace Lu) and still giving lots of love to her Mom (Diane Lane) and Dad (Kyle MacLachlan). Through all of her development in the past couple of years, Riley has developed her "sense of self", which is home to her select memories that become core beliefs. Joy even creates a mechanism that will fire Riley's negative memories to the back of her mind, thus filling her sense of self with positivity. Riley is soon brought to a hockey skills camp to train with her best friends, but is challenged when, not only do her friends fess up to going to a different school in the next year, but the "cool girls" take notice of her, namely the somewhat legendary Valentina (Lilimar). This is where the Puberty Alarm we say at the end of the previous film springs into action, and new emotions come into play, including Embarassment (Paul Walter Hauser), Envy (Ayo Edebiri), Ennui (Adèle Exarchopoulos), and last but certainly not least, Anxiety (Maya Hawke). Due to the clashing ideas on how to run things in Riley's brain, Anxiety takes things over, most regularly teamed up with Envy, and sends the five core emotions to the back of the brain, along with Riley's sense of self. So this time, Joy and the others have to try to find Riley's good sense of self and get it back to Headquarters, making the execution somewhat similar. Having said that, however, the way this is all executed is nothing short of brilliant in my mind. I gave the first one a lot of credit for how it did things, but being one of those people who has had to find a way to curb his own anxiety, there was so much relatability to this movie, even to the point where I admittedly shed a few tears here and there because this was a film that completely understood what anxiety was and how it worked. The idea that Anxiety replaces Joy is sort of key, and there's even a few bits of dialogue here that tap into things. I also like what they did with Riley here because, like I'm sure many have done, I have gone through that exact thing. That inner struggle of whether you want to try to remain lyal to your good friends despite you feeling they may hold you back, or going with the popular kids to try to fit in and be what you think might be better. All things I've learned the hard way over time, and my sincerest apologies to those of my friends I've hurt along the way, due to my social blindness. It should be said that in many ways, this one is more mature than the first one. But I see this one a lot like I see 'Soul' in that regard. It's a movie that doesn't dumb anything down for the kids, involves some fairly mature themes, and will tug at one's heartstrings no matter what the age. But if you suffer from anything like depression or anxiety, I HIGHLY encourage you to check both of these movies out, especially this one, as it understand what you're going through, and may even provide comfort in its understanding. It reminds us that we're nor alone, and that while Anxiety can be a real bitch, Joy can be found if you look hard enough. 5/5 |
RSS Feed