 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  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  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  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  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  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  Now here's a movie that provides a good opportunity to remind people that just because Ryan Reynolds is Ryan Reynolds, his name is much more than the raunchy comedies, horror flicks (yes, I said horror) and the character we all recognize him as probably best at this point, Deadpool. While I have to admit this wasn't anything great, it was kinda nice to see Reynolds take on that family-friendly tone again here, showing more range with his work, much like with 'The Adam Project.'
My apologies, however, this isn't a Ryan Reynolds biography. I just wanted to mention it because I feel like a lot of people will flock to this movie because of Ryan Reynolds without fully realizing how much of a children's film it really is. And because of that, I can't help but give it a bit of leeway on my criticisms. I left the film thinking that it could have been much better, and expecting a "family film" more than the "kid's film" it turned out to be. But honestly, that's fine. It wasn't made for us adults in mind, and these types of movies are few and far between these days. Let the kids have it. The general synopsis involves Bea (Cailey Fleming) who's going through a bit of an 'Up'-like opening credit sequence, and it ends with her moving into her grandmother Margaret's (Fiona Shaw) apartment, while she waits for her father (John Krasinski - who also directs this far cry from 'A Quiet Place') to undergo heart surgery. She's 12 years old, and at that age where childhood starts slipping away, the more serious side of life starts being shown to her, and things start getting tough. That is until she encounters a strange creature, accompanying a strange man, whom she follows into her grandmother's apartment complex one day. Eventually the man is revealed to be a former clown named Cal (Reynolds) who heads a failing base of operations in which he finds homes for "IFs" (Imaginary Friends) by attempting to pair them up with kids who may need them, as their original kids have grown up and forgotten about them. The main two are the poster creature for this film, a giant, fluffy, purple guy named Blue (Steve Carell), and an old black & white cartoon-style butterfly named Blossom (Phoebe Waller-Bridge). The rest is pretty much just about Bea helping Cal with his operation. Along the way, Bea is introduced to several IFs, including a teddy bear named Lewis (Louis Gossett Jr.), who helps them both out and inspires Bea to use her imagination more, and the friendliest little kid named Benjamin (Alan Kim) who, if I'm perfectly honest, really does play a ray of sunshine in this movie. The kid is found with broken limbs in the hospital, and he just kinda jokes about falling a lot, perpetually seeing the bright side of life. He's basically where they start with trying to pair off IFs, and is very much a side character, but he'll leave you with a smile. If I have any real criticisms about the film, its that a lot of the jokes kinda fall flat. I can honestly say that nothing here gave me a good, genuine laugh. Aside from that, there's a scene or two that seemingly comes out of the blue and feels nonsensical despite the fact that there IS a reason for the scene. This is heaviest in a scene in which Bea uses her imagination to rebuild a facility for the IFs. It kinda just turns into a music video for a while, and took me out of the movie despite how creative it got. It was a scene I had no idea how to react to. Despite a few nitpicks and criticisms though, one must be reminded again that this IS a kid's film, depicting much more innocence than your average family film, which generally have a lesson or moral to in them. I think largely of Pixar films as an example. To me, this wasn't much more that a simple take on "don't grow up too fast" and "there's always room for imagination." It's all well and good for kids, but us adults won't get much more out of it than just being a sweet movie. It reminded me quite a bit of 'My Neighbour Totoro,' but Americanized. So take the kids and enjoy a bit of innocence. Just don't expect anything mind-blowing. 3/5  Where do I start when it comes to how much I actually loved this movie? I guess I'll go with my all-out opinion on its director, David Leitch. With such solid titles as 'Bullet Train,' 'Deadpool 2,' 'Atomic Blonde' (which more people really need to check out), and the perhaps less appreciated, but super fun, 'Hobbs & Shaw.' I love this guy's style as an action director, and when he works with the right people, he can create something that takes you back to what blockbuster entertainment value used to be about.
For this movie in particular, Leitch reconnects with writer Drew Pearce ('Hobbs & Shaw') and brings in co-writer Glen A. Larson, who's best known for his television writing on resurrected shows like 'Battlestar Galactica,' 'Magnum PI,' and 'Hawaii 5-0.' I wanna give this trio a lot of credit here, because it feels like they've delivered something here that just about anyone can enjoy. It's funny, it's action-packed, it's charming, and it's unique in that it's an underdog hero film about that unsung hero of film that is the stuntman. Said stuntman here is Colt Seavers (Ryan Gosling) who works in Hollywood as a stunt double for action star Tom Ryder (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). He has an off-screen romance with a camerawoman named Jody Moreno (Emily Blunt), loves his work and is living the dream. That is until one day, a stunt goes terribly wrong, Colt injures himself severely, and he abandons his career, leaving Jodi behind. He takes a job as a valet, in the meantime, parking cars with style for the rich and snobby. One day, Colt gets a call from producer, Gail Meyer (Hannah Waddingham) with the news that Jody is directing her first film, wanting Colt to join the production in Sydney, Australia. Colt jumps at the opportunity, despite being hesitant, but soon finds out why he was really brought in - to use his stuntman skills to find Tom Ryder, who has disappeared. His absence marks the film's cancellation, and he's needed back on set for it to go on. Not wanting Jody's film to fall through the cracks, Colt agrees, and the film picks up from there. When considering the film as a whole, there's so much I admire about its execution. One of the biggest details for me is that you have the ex-couple here throughout the movie, but their dialogue isn't just a bunch of bickering back and forth because for some reason people think that's funny. The few times they do get into any kind of fight, it's nothing overboard or stupid, and it's generally padded with real humour. For anyone who has seen this, the bullhorn scene is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. All that aside, it's always admirable to see some action with less CG and more genuine stunt work, and this movie is full of that. Some of the stunts end up being pretty unique, as well, my favourite being a bit of street surfing, which one can also catch a bit of in the trailer. There's even a long credit sequence here where they take you behind the scenes to see the real stuntmen at work on the film, which is admirable, as that's what the film is all about. I have to further credit it for being directed by a stunt coordinator. It's a great, unique idea. I can admit that at the end of the day, the film as a whole may end up somewhat predictable for some, and we've definitely seen the general plot of the famous person going missing and the unlikely hero(es) having to find them. But it's the execution of things I really admire here. It sort of stands as proof that in all honesty, a PG-13-rated action movie can still be a whole lot of fun. On a persoal level, I really loved what they came up with here, and it's bound to be on my "favourites" list of 2024. This is one I can recommend to the masses, so go have fun with this one if you haven't yet! 5/5  I should probably make things abundantly clear again about how I feel about 'Dune' in general. It's not really my cup of tea when it comes to things as a whole. I can't really explain why, it just never truly struck a chord for me as much as other things like 'Star Wars' did. Still, it has my respect as a great story (at least what I've seen from these two movies, as I've never read these books), one that established itself well before so many like it, and above all else, I still think of it as a breath of fresh air between overexposure to things like superheroes.
'Dune' feels much more as though it's meant to be the next big epic three-parter adapted from classic writings since 'Lord of the Rings'/'The Hobbit', and so far, it's succeeding very well. About 99% of anyone I talk to even remotely about these movies seem to be pretty blown away by what writer/director Denis Villeneuve has accomplished, changes from the book notwithstanding, as per usual with things like this. For yours truly, I've really been enjoying them for what they are, but I don't truly see myself coming back to them until the next chapter is about to release. Before getting into things here, however, it should probably be noted that some pretty heavy spoilers lie ahead for the first movie, so I wouldn't highly recommend reading on unless you've either seen the first film, or simply don't care one way or another. But without further adieu, let's get into it. In the first film, the honourable House Atreides are essentially given planet Arrakis by the Emperor of the Universe, Shaddam VI (Now played by Christopher Walken), taking it away from the House Harkonnen who, in turn, launch an attack to wipe Atreides out, all for control of a substance called "spice" which is the only means for interstellar travel. Following these events, Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) and his Mother, Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) survive these attacks, and head for the Fremen (the native race of Arrakis) sanctuary of Sietch Tabr. While there, a bit more light is shed on Paul's role in this story, as a Fremen named Stilgar (Javier Bardem) and several others see that Paul and Jessica could be there to fulfill a prophecy that will bring order to Arrakis. Still, however, some Fremen aren't swayed so easily, believing they could be spies, and Chani (Zendaya) and her friend, Shishakli (Souheila Yacoub) believe the prophecy to be an all-out lie. Said prophecy includes a lot of stuff that comes "as written", as Stilgar mentions almost too many times in this, and slowly but surely both Paul and Jessica begin to fulfil the propechy on both of their ends. Chani eventually gives respect to Paul when he promises that he wishes to fight alongside them as opposed to rule over them as the prophecy seems to foretell. Meanwhile, a pregnant Jessica earns the ability to communicate with her unborn child, Alia, through injesting "The Water of Life" as a whole part of her end of prophecy fulfillment. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of important information here, so forgive me. On the Harkonnen end of things, after a series of spice raids on them from the Fremen, Chani and Paul, included, Baron Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgård) replaces his nephew, Rabban (Dave Bautista) as the new Arrakis ruler with his other nephew, the totally badass but psychotic Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler) who sort of becomes the big baddie in this chapter, complete with a beautifully shot arena scene in black and white to artistically reflect the "black and white", primitive and brutal Harkonnen way of life, so a definite kudos to them for letting the audience feel the Harkonnen as oppsed to just seeing and hearing them. I know I've still glazed over a few things in explanation, but just to speak of the quality of the movie, it's one that should definitely be seen on the big screen if one is genuinely interested in seeing what happens after 'Dune' ('21). Any sort of effects, CG or practical manage to jump off the screen with their epic quality, and it's pretty plain to see that this is the "next big thing" (as far as box office epics go). While it may not necessarily be in my wheelhouse as something I'll return to again and again, these movies are nevertheless solid and do a good job of reminding us that some things non-superhero can still demand a big-screen viewing. 5/5 |
RSS Feed