 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 |
RSS Feed