 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
0 Comments
 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  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  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  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  Here we have yet another high-octane, balls-to-the-wall action revenge flick that follows the ideas of 'Monkey Man' fairly close. Therefore, I will probably be making quite a few comparisons between the two, as they each tell almost the same story (what little story there is to tell), but execute them in such different ways. For as enjoyable as 'Monkey Man' was, though, based on personal taste, I have to say that the execution of what we have here is far more up my alley, and I definitely liked this a bit better.
For me, the idea of a revenge film that tries to reach the bar 'John Wick' has set is a bit of a tired concept. I do tend to have fun with them, but at the same time, its understandable that people might be getting sick of them. Hell, even seeing this movie almost paralleling 'Monkey Man' upon its release, even I said "another revenge film?" However, upon seeing the trailer for this, it added a couple of little details that managed to draw me in. It was clearly made for fun as opposed to heavy drama, it seemed to be influenced mostly by video games, and the narration of H. Jon Benjamin added a cherry to this revenge sundae of a movie. An unnamed city is run by the corrupt Van Der Koy family; artistic wannabe, Gideon (Brett Gelman), the harsh and heartless Melanie (Michelle Dockery), her equally heartless husband, Glen (Sharlto Copley) and head of the family, Hilda (Famke Janssen). An annual event the family hosts known as "The Culling" chooses twelve seemingly random victims to be murdered on live television for entertainment, suggesting the ideas we have of what the Colosseum in Rome once was have resurfaced in this dystopian future. One might also compare the ideas here to 'The Hunger Games' for a more modern take. One day, a boy we only ever know as "Boy" (Cameron & Nicholas Crovetti), his little sister and best friend, Mina (Quinn Copeland) and their mother (Rolanda Marais) are brought to the town square, and Hilda executes both Mina and her mother in preparation for The Culling, leaving Boy for death, deaf and mute. Eventually, Boy is found by an unnamed Shaman (Yayan Ruhian), and to make a long story short, the Shaman trains Boy through the years so that he can follow through with his revenge on the Van Der Koys for killing his family in cold blood. As a result of Boy's inability to speak or hear, he has created his own inner monologue (H. Jon Benjamin) whose voice he took from his favourite arcade game he used to play with Mina. He has also learned to read lips, which yields some pretty hilarious results when he can't see the lips moving clearly. There are a few moments here when nonsense is uttered because of improper lip reading, and with my love of random humour, it really just adds to things for me with a fun and, in my opinion, creative idea. Boy also constantly hallucinates Mina, who seems to be trying to help with on his mission, offering advice and perhaps a bit of a conscience. As mentioned earlier, there's a lot here that could be compared to 'Monkey Man'. Aside from the basic revenge plot, 'Monkey Man' has a similar lead name with "Kid," they both feature a funny sidekick type, here being Andrew Koji as Basho, and Sharlto Copley shows up in both as a despicable character. As far as which is better, it will all be a matter of taste, and it feels like it reflects the time of disaster movies in the late 90s when there was two of something a lot of the time, like 'Volcano'/'Dante's Peak' or 'Armageddon'/'Deep Impact'. Despite quality of either, you'll end up picking one that speaks to you a bit more. In the case of 'Monkey Man' vs 'Boy Kills World,' the big selling points for me on 'Boy' being "better" include much better fight choreography, much less shaky cam and the fact that it takes itself less seriously and almost feels like parody. It makes its heavily game-influenced execution known from the get-go, and reminds me of other non-video-game-based movies that make for good video game movies, like 'Scott Pilgrim.' To top things off, the blood is nice and over-the-top, almost adding to the absurdity of it all. While 'Monkey Man' may be preferred by some, I can say honestly that I had more fun with this one. 4/5  I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to me that over the past while, horror movies have actually been getting quite a bit better than they once were. They sprinkle a bit more humour into things, and subject matter is finally stepping away from haunting, possession and a whole lot of grief symbolism. Filmmakers have been doing a good job about putting their new spins onto old ideas, be they sequels like 'Saw X' or re-imaginings like this, which is a loose, modern take of 1936's 'Dracula's Daughter.'
Admittedly, I wasn't entirely sure what to think of things judging by the trailer, but was ultimately sold on one of my favourite actors of villainy, Giancarlo Esposito, and looked forward to seeing what he would be a part of throughout the film. As it turns out, however, if you're like me and go to see what's up with Mr. Esposito, you might be disappointed to know that he's really not a big part of things here. Having said that, though, I was nevertheless pleasantly surprised by how the film turned out, and still had a lot of fun with things. It all starts as we see a young ballet dancer named Abigail (Alisha Weir), dancing her little heart out on stage in an abandoned theatre. In the meantime, six unnamed criminals are setting up at Abigail's home, awaiting her arrival. The six criminals have been sent to kidnap this girl by their informant, Lambert (Esposito), who intends on holding her for ransom, as Abigail's father is said to be a powerful man. The six are told they will each receive their payment of 7 million in 24 hours as long as Abigail is left safe and unharmed. The six in question are all given nicknames derived from the original Rat Pack. Joey (Melissa Barrera) is the all-around lead, a recovering drug-addict and former Army medic; Frank (Dan Stevens) is a former NYPD detective; Sammy (Kathryn Newton) is a bit of a ditsy hacker born into money; Dean (Angus Cloud) is the wheel man, and seemingly the stoner of the group; Rickles (William Catlett) is a Marine sniper, and Peter (Kevin Durand) is a mob enforcer, a fellow Canadian, and the all-around "dummy" of the group. But like, what can ya do, eh? He's still a big part of the humour here, bud. Eventually, the group does figure out who Abigail's father actually is (and no, thank God, it's not just Dracula), which sends a wave of fear through the group when it comes to the stories some of them have heard about the man. We can think of it as the equivalent of what kidnapping Tony Soprano's daughter might entail. The catch here, however, is that eventually it's also revealed that not only are they holding the daughter of someone important, but they're also holding a vicious little vampire who isn't afraid to defend herself by any means necessary. I have to admit, I kind of wish that I knew absolutely nothing about this movie going in, because it would have been more fun to have things revealed to me as they're revealed to the group here. Still, though, that doesn't take away from how fun the film is. It's perhaps a little slow-moving at first, but it's filled with light humour to fill the time. Once things do get going, things get nice and bloody, and even at time are a touch reminiscent of the 'Evil Dead' movies as far as amounts of blood. It's messy, but the messiness is part of the thrill of it all, as sick and twisted as that may seem to some. I think what stood out the most to me, personally, was Alisha Weir's performance as Abigail. I'd even say it was the highlight of the movie. With her range, this performance alone could act as a sort of resume for her down the line. While that is probably the most impressive part of the movie, audiences will still get their laughs, their jumps and their gore. I could equate this to more of a thrill ride than anything in the same genre that tries to dig deeper. It's a friendly reminder that sometimes when it comes to horror, we just wanna have fun with it. 4/5  This is gonna be another one of those films in which I can recognize it as a solid movie for the right audience, but I'm not altogether sure that I am that audience. I've never been a fan of the "political thriller" genre, and it's often because I have a hard time wrapping my head around politics and all of the complications that lie within. The other side of it is that I tend to find them incredibly dry, and just take them as not being "for me". However, I can say with all honesty that 'Civil War' is an interesting spin on the subject matter.
One can view the film's overall execution in a few different ways, reading into some sort of deeper political meanings. It can be seen as a cautionary tale about what to expect in our future if America ends up on the wrong path. But a lot of people also seem to see it as a heavy-handed exercise in shock value, considering a lot of the brutal imagery depicted within the film. But if I'm honest, my takeaway had very little to do with anything political at all, and the true thrill of the movie is in following our leads; all battlefield reporters who end up on the front lines of a slew of danger in order to deliver hard-hitting true stories to the nation. The idea here is that America is in the midst of its second Civil War between a US government run on a dictatorship, and various regional factions who are fighting back. It all opens with the President (Nick Offerman), now in a third term, who paints an instant portrait of what America has turned into. Enter our lead, a famous war photographer named Lee Smith (Kirsten Dunst) who we see doing her job to a disturbing degree, but we can still sympathize with her when she rescues an aspiring photojournalist named Jessie Cullen (Cailee Spaeny) from certain death. Lee, along with her friend and associate, Joel (Wagner Moura) plan to go to Washington to try to get one last interview with the president in before the city is taken. They are joined by Lee's mentor, Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and, unbeknownst to Lee, Jessie, who wants to follow in Lee's footsteps and become a pro. The thing is, in order to do that, Jessie will have to make herself come face to face with all sorts of torment, death, destruction and people who would just as soon shoot you as look at you. And it's all for the best photos. Throughout their journey to Washington, the foursome find themselves caught in the middle of a lot of the aforementioned danger, but as Lee looks after Jessie and tries to keep her out of danger, she simultaneously hints that the danger is where the action is in photojournalism, and Jessie gets better and better at the whole thing as the film unfolds. My takeaway from the film is more about the imminent danger that photographers put themselves through for a paycheck, and it helps us get a bit of insight into their brutal personalities. We've all seen a video or know of a story in which a reporter asks the victim of a disaster how they feel, and we've all had that same reaction of wanting to knock the reporter out for being so insensitive. This is not a movie that will change anyone's mind on that perspective, but it will give deeper insight into what it takes to be one of these people. You learn that in order to do this it takes a cold heart, but also quite a bit of bravery, and a lot of it is to spread the word to the masses about how terrible things have gotten in a situation. The film also shows us that these photojournalists do help where they can. But it still doesn't do a hell of a lot to make me like them. I had a hard time knowing how to feel at the end of it all, because without spoiling anything, there's a bit of a surprise ending. It doesn't really paint these people as heroes or villains, which is something I usually like, but the depth of these characters didn't offer much, despite a few solid performances that I can't really deny. In the end, I take it to be a bit of a thinker, and something to talk about, but I also don't know what else to say about it. I really think everyone's takeaway will be different. 3/5  I love a good revenge film, as several of my readers probably know by now. It's all about being able to route for the downtrodden, the "little guy," or victims of senseless circumstances. For me, 'John Wick' has the bar set, and set pretty damn high, plowing his way through four movies, each with something fairly unique to offer. Since the release of the first 'JW' (which set that bar), revenge films have still been solid, but not quite the same because, hell, you just do NOT mess with someone's puppy dog!
Nevertheless, it's still one of my favourite sub-genres of action, as they tend to allow the viewer to get inside the head of whoever is victimized and seeking their revenge. For as many as I've seen before, this one hits particularly hard for me, and probably will to anyone else who has a strong relationship with family. It leaves me with mixed emotions. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a revenge plot that I could get more behind (puppies aside), yet I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a few nitpicks about the movie's overall execution. Kid's (Dev Patel) revenge plot here is aimed mainly at the corrupt Yatana police chief, Rana Singh (Sikandar Kher) and corrupt guru Baba Shakti (Makrand Deshpande). When Kid was a... kid, living a happy life in a quaint Indian village alongside his family, Singh and several others, ordered by Shakti, drove his family out of the village, killing some, and Kid has pretty much devoted himself to revenge since. He makes his money at a grungy, bare-knuckle boxing club as a masked fighter, paid to take dives by his boss, Tiger (Sharlto Copley). In the meantime, in order to get close to Singh, Kid will need to infiltrate an exclusive luxury brothel called "Kings," run by Queenie Kapoor (Ashwini Kalsekar). He gets himself a job in the kitchen and befriends Alfonso (Pitobash), who ultimately helps him climb the ladder so that he can get closer to Singh and Shakti, not only to avenge the family he lost in the raid on his village, but to free the exploited girls in this brothel as well, namely Sita (Sobhita Dhulipala), whom he also befriends, and appears to be one of the more abused and taken advantage of out of the girls. Concerning Kid's family getting driven out of their village in such a brutal manor and the victimized girls of this brothel, the desire to see Kid succeed in this mission of his is pretty high. Kid's a very easy character to route for, especially considering how much patience and effort he puts into his mission. What I do like about this is that, unlike John Wick, Kid is sort of an "every-man" who needs to learn and train his way through things. There's something more relatable about that, and for that reason, this feels like there's a bit more heart put into things. Having said that, let's get into some of the problems I had with things here. Again, a lot of it is me being nitpicky about things. The biggest thing here is that shaky-cam action, which I have a hard time with. I wanna see what the hell is going on, not feel like I'm falling down the stairs, and there's a lot of shaky-cam action to this movie. However, the film's atmosphere is also very rough, raw and almost dirty, so that kind of messy action also sort of makes sense for the feel of things. I'm not mad about it or anything, but shaky cam isn't really for me these days. The only other thing I can say about it negative is that there's a couple of moments where the viewer might ask "what happened with this character?" Not that it creates plot holes, but some of the characters I liked in this (including a dog who thankfully survives this movie) kinda just get left behind after a while. In the grand scheme of things I can probably think of a lot of better revenge flicks, but there's really nothing particularly bad about this in any way either. 'John Wick' still has that bar set for me, and for as good as this was, it still didn't quite reach. If only the shaky-cam fights were smoother. 3/5  It's hard to know what to feel about this one, altogether. If one refers to a lot of reviews and criticisms about the film, they'll see that it's not going all too well. And while I completely understand where these criticisms are coming from, as I have quite a few, myself, I can't deny that there were bits and pieces about this that I DID enjoy, even if it's on a level of "guilty pleasure." Looking at the overall spirit of things, it feels like they were trying to tip their hat to such 80s horror titles as 'Nightmare on Elm Street' to some degree.
Having said that, one should "bear" in mind that there are aspects of this movie that I have a certain bias towards, but that doesn't mean these things were necessarily executed well, either. This is one of those movies that feels like it's one thing for about half of it, and then it switches into something completely different, not quite feeling like the same movie. The first half is reminiscent of movies like 'Child's Play' or 'Annabelle' in which this teddy bear known as Chauncey just kinda sits there, and it's up to the kid who has befriended him to freak the audience out. The film centres on a new stepmom/children's author named Jessica (DeWanda Wise) who is trying her best in her role. But while the young Alice (Pyper Braun) is friendly with her, the typical (and annoyingly bratty) teenager, Taylor isn't a fan. After a series of horrible nightmares involving her own creations, keeping her and her husband, Max (Tom Payne) awake at ungodly hours, they decide to move the family into Jessica's childhood home in an attempt to calm things down. To no one's real surprise, Taylor isn't entirely on-board, but Alice keeps things civil. It's not long before Alice discovers a teddy bear (Chauncey) in the house's basement and forms a bond with him. According to her, Chauncey makes up a scavenger hunt for Alice to complete, which actually consists of a pretty controversial list, and long story short, like any film like this, things go off the rails fairly quickly with a concerned adult/parent, a kid who doesn't understand or know any better, and the kid's imaginary friend/doll/toy who is secretly pulling all of the seemingly supernatural strings. So yeah, this is something we've seen done before, done better, and becomes altogether pretty predictable. In my opinion, what kind of adds to it is when their neighbour, Gloria (Betty Buckley) comes into the picture with memories of babysitting Jessica, and a whole big conspiracy theory about imaginary friends and the world they come from. I really don't wanna spoil much here, but I will say that this is where I get reflections of concepts from 'Nightmare on Elm Street', and I have to give the film at least a little credit for creativity. The problem is that it's too much too fast, changing the film's tone, completely. and just because I thought they made some creative choices doesn't make it altogether good. Critically, I'm not a fan of how the film handled the kids' real mother (Alix Angelis) who in some ways felt kind of crow-barred in to add some level of horror to things while not entirely adding anything to the plot. If I'm honest, a lot of the writing is kinda rough too, and they seem to go a little too far with Taylor's mouthiness sometimes. I get that she's supposed to be a bratty teenager, but it's also evident that she cares a great deal for Alice and will do anything to help her, so they could have done better with giving us a reason to route for her. I do, however, like some of the concepts they put into the second half of the movie, and I have to say, I am fan of some of the creature design here once things do get going. It's a tricky one to navigate. On one hand, it's creative and even sometimes kinda fun. But on the other hand, I'd be hard-pressed to call this a "good" movie. It's one I can't really recommend one way or the other, and I'd say it'd probably be better to await streaming. But I'd still argue it's passable for someone dipping their toes into the horror genre, especially when, at times, it delivers some corny laughs. At best, it's probably just a guilty pleasure. 2/5  This was one of those titles this year that sort of hovered in existence amid other titles that might put butts in seats. Admittedly, the advertising for this one wasn't entirely effective, and I was only really drawn in by Ethan Coen's name behind the film along with the stylistic look of it. The thing is, the trailer is altogether pretty misleading, offering up a fun road-trip looking 'Thelma & Louise' style adventure with a few solid names attached to it. The reality is that this is more of a story about two contrasting lesbian characters than anything else.
To be perfectly clear, I don't have a problem with what the film turned out to be, it's just that it didn't turn out to be what I expected. It should also be noted that the other big names we see in the trailer like Matt Damon and Pedro Pascal are barely a part of things, and show up just to say "look who's here!" And while the film isn't without a bit of casually dark humour as Ethan Coen is known for, in order to enjoy this one to any degree, one will have to let go of some of the greater expectations they have from the name. In other words, this could be considered another 'Burn After Reading' for some. Taking place in 1999, Philadelphia, we meet Jamie (Margaret Qualley), a lady living her life in the fast lane, cheating enough on her lover, Sukie (Beanie Feldstein) that it leads her to getting kicked out of their apartment. While she's figuring out what to do about her situation, she learns that her friend, Marian (Geraldine Viswanathan) is planning to head out to Tallahassee, FL to visit family, so she requests to come along for the road trip. To do so, they go to a drive-away car service in which someone drives a car from one place to another for another client. The pair ask about a car destined to Tallahassee, which confuses the shop owner, Curlie (Bill Camp) a bit, but he shrugs it off and gives the girls the keys. It turns out his confusion was warranted, however, as someone else had already booked a car for Tallahassee; three criminals, Arliss (Joey Slotnick), Flint (C.J. Wilson) and Chief (Colman Domingo), who seemingly leads the team. Here, we find out that Jamie and Marian are, by no fault of their own, carrying something very sensitive in a mysterious briefcase. From there, Arliss and Flint begin the chase, questioning everyone the "Dolls" have been in contact with along the way. That's pretty much the plot, and it doesn't sound as misleading as I might have mentioned, but that plot does take a back seat to the other story here. What the film is really about is two friends; Jamie, who's wild and free, and Marian, who's far more conservative and a bit uptight, and Jamie trying to get Marian to loosen up and enjoy life more. All the while the pair share some sexual tension within their friendship as well, so things do indeed get a bit spicy with this one as one, again, might not take away from the trailer. I think the worst thing about this one is that before seeing the movie, I joked about what the precious contents of the briefcase might be, and it turned out I actually called it. Despite having a good laugh about accidentally calling it with a joke, that's also the problem - It really was a joke, and to some degree, that makes things kind of disappointing. Between that, a total tease of star power and things being pretty misleading, I definitely have my criticisms. I don't have any hate towards it, really, but I have to say I was disappointed on the whole, and when it comes to the Coen name, there are much better titles out there. To put it another way, I could see this getting something of a cult following over time, considering its overall subject matter, and the fact that it was a box office flop, so not a whole hell of a lot of people went to check it out upon its release. I didn't hate it, I didn't love it, it's misleading and pretty silly overall, but it's also not really without its moments. I think as long as one can go in with their minds open and know that this is more of a movie about a lesbian relationship than anything else it can be a decent time. But again, not the top of the Coen list of great movies. 3/5  Director Matthew Vaughn is one of those directors who, in my opinion, when he hits, he knocks it out of the park. Movie's like 'Stardust', 'Kick-Ass', 'X-Men: First Class' and the FIRST 'Kingsman' movie were all great for what they were. But it feels like once 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' hit, Vaughn has not been able to escape that world of making espionage "hip", so to speak. So at least going by the trailer for this, I knew a bit of what to expect. I went in thinking it would probably be all right as a fun romp, but what I got was... well, I'll just say worse.
Before getting into this, I'd like to bring up Bryce Dallas Howard and the fact that she is one of my least favourite actresses (but a pretty great director!) To be clear, I have nothing against her. But she always seems to end up playing a character I don't like, be it the girlfriend from '50/50', Hilly Holbrook from 'The Help', or Claire of the 'Jurassic World' series. Hell, I consider the 'Nosedive' episode of 'Black Mirror' one of its all-time best episodes, but her character in that is still easily loathed (until the end). The point is, I've just never really seen her in anything where I'm routing for her, and 'Argylle' continues this trend. Here, Howard plays Elly Conway, a novelist who writes spy novels centred on a character named Aubrey Argylle (Henry Cavill), who we often see in fantasy play-outs, along with, to a lesser extent, his Bond-like femme fatale, Lagrange (Dua Lipa) and his partner, Wyatt (John Cena). And when I say "lesser extent" I mean, if you came here to see them, you're done in about ten minutes. Anyway, Elly lives an introverted life, cozy at home with her cat (the poster-boy for this movie), Alfie. One day her mother (Catherine O'Hara) calls her to pay a visit, so she and Alfie hop on a train. On the train, she meets a real spy by the name of Aidan Wylde (Sam Rockwell) who, after they get attacked on the train, tells her that a secret group known as The Division, led by Director Ritter (Bryan Cranston) is tracking her because, supposedly, her novels predict future events. From there, the film unfolds with a lot of lazy writing, time-filler, confusion, and so many unnecessary twists and turns that M. Night Shyamalan would look at it and say "okay, calm down." Honestly, this movie is all over the place. It keeps you guessing, sure, but there's just too damn much of it. In fact, I'd even say it starts to feel like a parody after a while. Going back to Howard for a bit, here, she feels like a helpless character along for the ride who spends the whole time in distress, remind me a bit of Willie from 'Temple of Doom', which is never a good thing. Once again, nothing against the person, but I really wanna see what she can do aside from a character who, quite frankly, kind of annoys me. To her credit, however, she did direct a few solid episodes of 'Mandalorian' and 'Book of Boba Fett', so I'm not just brushing her aside as something "bad". She's also not entirely what makes me dislike this movie, so much as almost everything else about it. The big question on everyone's mind is probably something along the lines of "what's up with this cat?" Without spoiling anything, I'm just gonna say that for the most part, he's there to be a cute addition to everything going on. There is a reason for him to be there but when you see what it is, you see what I mean when I say "lazy writing." This is from Jason Fuchs, who wrote the screenplay for 'Wonder Woman', so we know he can do better. This just has a lot of situations in which a character needs a quck escape so something is just made up on the spot. It gets to the point of there being no real tension because you just know better. Going back to Matthew Vaughn now, I kind of hate that he's trapped in this fantasy spy world now. While the first 'Kingsman' movie was great, none of its following chapters quite matched up in quality, and I really wanna see him go back to directing some of those adaptations, because I feel like 'Stardust', 'Kick-Ass' and 'First Class' were among his best works. But even with the way this ends, we can tell he's not done with this spy stuff yet. I guess people still enjoy it, but I feel like there's a lot of what could be that we're missing out on with him. This could have been much better than it was, especially after seeing the mid-credit scene, which just kinda buried the film further. 2/5  If you'll forgive the pun, this one has been sort of floating under the radar this January. Despite it being a wide release, it debuted at #7 in the American Box Office, and the following week got bumped off the Top 10 to #12. So it has not been doing well. That being said, I have to say that on the whole, this isn't really a bad film. I think to some degree we are pretty brainwashed into taking January releases for granted, because for the most part, this is a movie that plays on paranoia and antitrust quite well and provides a solid thriller for the start of the year.
But don't get the wrong idea here either. The film is far from perfect, and if you don't like loose or open endings, you're definitely not gonna like where this goes with things. On top of that, I'm almost 100% certain that if a real astronaut were to watch this, they'd be able to point out flaw after flaw after flaw. Heck, I don't know a whole lot about how things work in space, and even I was questioning some validity to some of the stuff I saw. But if you're able to get past all of that and just treat it as a suspense thriller for entertainment purposes, I think it does a decent job. We are introduced to a group of three NASA astronauts, including our lead, Kira Foster (Ariana DeBose), Christian Campbell (John Gallagher Jr.) and Commander Gordon Barrett (Chris Messina), and three Russian Cosmonauts, Weronika Vetrov (Masha Mashkova) and brothers, Nicholai (Costa Ronin) and Alexy Pulov (Pilou Asbæk). Kira, being new to the group, sort of plays the audience here as she's introduced to life on the International Space Station where she not only has to deal with adapting to things like 0-gravity sleeping conditions, but also has to deal with a bit of a language barrier with the Russians. All in all, however, things go pretty well on board the I.S.S. The group gets along despite their cultural differences, and as they view the humbling beauty of Earth from way up high, there's a pretty nice moment in which it's discussed that despite their many differences down on Earth, up on the I.S.S., none of that matters. They don't have to bring their on-planet issues up there, where they can give real meaning to the term "teamwork". But while that all sounds very nice, we are here to watch a suspense thriller, so of course, we know some things aren't meant to last. One day (if that means anything in space) while working away, the crew of the I.S.S. witnesses a massive nuclear holocaust take place on Earth. While communications aboard the I.S.S. fail when trying to get in touch with Earth, both the Americans and Russians receive word that war has broken out on Earth, and further instructions take the I.S.S. by any means necessary. To make matters worse, they are hovering too close to Earth and need Earth's assistance for course correction, or else plummet towards the planet. So there's quite a bit going on here to make the tension rise. As far as I'm concerned, this is a movie that pretty much nails the suspense-factor, and even plays on the general fear of the overall emptiness and soundlessness of space. For a good first half of the movie, it's really quite good. But it's not really to last. The film does admittedly get to a point of near silliness after a while, and all the tension that was making it good to begin with kind of flies out the window. It doesn't do any of it with any amount of humour either, so it does feel like a movie that takes itself more seriously than it probably should. This is a movie that I really wanted to check out based on the trailer alone. I love me a good suspense movie that takes place in space, so it felt kind of up my alley. It worked, for the most part, and I could even give some of the silliness a bit of leeway, but the fact of the matter is that the ending leaves far too many unanswered questions. I usually like open-ended movies, but this was just too much. It's fine and passable as a decent suspense movie to stream some dreary evening, but even the shots of space aren't enough to make it worth the price of admission. While I stll think it might be a bit overcriticised, It's still just... fine. 3/5  If you enjoy a good action flick that's a solid combination of dumb and fun, 'The Beekeeper' is a fairly solid choice for something new that holds age-old action movie traditions. All told, this movie is kinda ridiculous when you get right down to it, but I'll be damned if I said I didn't still have a really fun time with it. If you've come to see a Jason Statham action movie, you will not be disappointed because that's what you get. But I do have to say that upon reading a few ratings elsewhere it is a flick that's probably kinda overrated for what it actually is.
That being said, what we do have here is pretty much a standard revenge film in the spirit of something like 'John Wick', but this time, the revenge is fuelled by crooked companies who delight in phishing scams. Anyone who knows someone who has fallen victim to something like a phishing scam, especially a family member, will not have any problem routing for our main character here, Adam Clay (Statham). And I will say that for anyone who loves seeing Statham kick ass and take names, the film does a good job of delivering that action. This whole thing starts when a woman named Eloise Parker (Phylicia Rashad) falls for a phishing scam so badly that it leads her to commit suicide. This, in turn, pours the fuel on the fire that is Adam Clay's rage, as he lived as a tenant in her barn as a friendly beekeeper, and she was only ever sweet and kind to him. Turns out that his title as "beekeeper" extends to a mysterious organization of people with incredible skills, very reminiscent of the Continental Hotel, once again, from 'John Wick'. Through them, Clay finds the scammers responsible for not only Eloise, but countless other innocent victims they've cleaned out. Clay begins his revenge by storming a UDG (United Data Group) building, which the Beekeepers led him to, messing it up real nice, and capturing the attention of technology executive, Derek Danforth (Josh Hutcherson) who sends thugs to take care of him. Of course, with Danforth being the head of everything, Clay gives him fair warning that he's coming after him, and will take care of anyone who stands in his way. This is fairly typical, we've seen it all before, and that's why I conclude that perhaps the film is a touch overrated according to various reviews. But again, it's fun, and it's easy to put ourselves in the victims' shoes. In the meantime, while Clay is doing his vigilante thing, we have two regular cops who are trying to get down to the source of Eloise's suicide; a cop of comedy relief, Agent Matt Wiley (Bobby Naderi) and more importantly, Agent Verona Parker (Emmy Raver-Lampman), Eloise's daughter. Meanwhile out villain also gets help from ex head-of-CIA, Wallace Westwyld (Jeremy Irons) whose seriousness brings a solid contrast to his scenes with Danforth; Danforth basically being the sarcastic brat who isn't listening to "Uncle" Wallace... or his own Mom (Jemma Redgrave), who, of course, is really running the show. All in all, this is something of a combination of 'John Wick' as far as revenge plot goes, and just about any old Steven Seagal action flick as far as how over the top and almost overkill it can get. And oh yes, there are a few one-liners here as well as some great (albeit cheesy) bee puns. This is one of those movies I like to classify as a "carnival ride" in as much as it's just a fun, good time. It's a film that doesn't take itself seriously, and you pretty much know exactly what you're in for just by the trailer, if not the title alone. A Jason Statham action movie called "The Beekeeper?" I mean, c'mon. Have fun with it. And while this movie is a good time, I return to the point where I said this was perhaps a bit overrated. That's only really because we've seen revenge films almost just like this before, many times, and often done better. But if you're like me and enjoy a good fun-dumb action movie full of puns, overall silliness, ridiculous scenarios and even a bit of relatability fuelling everything, this is a movie that holds its own. It's not gonna top my list by the end of the year, but it's something I had fun with, and it's something I'd recommend to anyone just looking for a bit of fun... but violent fun... as only Statham can deliver. 4/5  I tend to usually have faith in Blumhouse Studio's ability to deliver a decent horror flick, but I can also say that they're not always home runs. One such example is this year's otherwise intriguing (to me, anyway) 'Night Swim,' coming to us from writer/director Bryce McGuire, who presented this concept originally as a better, much creepier short, running just about four minutes long and, while still not wondrous, having a better effect than this film as a whole. So I'm just gonna say that off the bat - the short is more entertaining for me.
What drew me in with this was the idea that I'm not sure I've ever seen a horror movie use a swimming pool as its "monster," so to speak. I'm sure it has happened somewhere, but short of Freddy Krueger using a public pool in 'Dream Child,' I'm hard-pressed to think of anything to use as their main source of whatever curse or haunting this is. I'm still unsure, as the film does a lame job explaining things. Either way, I saw some originality and considered it a cool idea to scare those swimmers who could still feel safe from "Jaws" in a swimming pool. It was a new thing for people to fear, and I wanted to see how things played out. So we open in 1992 with what is essentially the film trying to be 'It,' when a little girl named Rebecca (Ayazhan Dalabayeva) tries to get her sick brother's toy boat out of the family pool when a mysterious force yanks her in. Fast-forward to the present day, and we get to the Waller family, looking for a more permanent place to live after the father, Ray (Wyatt Russell) is forced to retire from professional baseball due to multiple sclerosis. When water therapy is recommended as part of his therapy, Ray expresses a desire to move into a specific house the family checked out with a pool - the same pool in which Rebecca drowned in 1992. While the water therapy seems to do wonders for Ray, his wife, Eve (Kerry Condon), begins to get concerned over her husband's often odd behaviour, and their kids, Izzy (Amélie Hoeferle) and Elliot (Gavin Warren), begin seeing and experiencing weird things in the pool when they go swimming. As far as anything else goes, one can just take this as a much weaker version of 'The Shining' or 'Amityville Horror' in which the father is empowered by bad things, and the family has to survive to the end. Yeah... without meaning to spoil anything, we've just seen this done before and done better. As far as the pool and its weird haunts go, it is eventually half-explained. While Rebecca's drowning takes a bit of a front seat, there's also something more seemingly demonic going on there, and the best answer we get is that the pool was built over a natural spring. It goes from that to something like, "Who knows what things were built over?" and that's what we get. It's cool to use one's imagination to fill in the blanks, and I don't always wanna be spoon-fed, but the explanation here felt incredibly lazy. We just get what the pool does instead of why it does it. I will be fair and say that I could have missed a subtle detail that suggests something like "ancient burial ground." But even if so, it's subtle enough to easily be missed. It ends up being a movie about choice and sacrifice. But, again, it's been done before and better. The one thing I'd say this movie has going for it is that I do find the concept of a cursed and/or haunted swimming pool original enough to give it just a little tiny bit of credit. The thing is, they failed to execute it very well, having about 90% of the suspense involve reaching for something in the pool from poolside, creating such predictability it's ridiculous. It's hard to get hyped for movies of this type when they're released in January or February, but as I said, Blumhouse often does a good job, so it's always a roll of the dice for them. For example, I really enjoyed last year's 'M3GAN', but at the same time, 'Five Nights at Freddy's' was quite lame. You never know with this studio, but unfortunately, this was one time they didn't exactly blow the competition out of the water. It may have a moment or two of mild horror, but I wouldn't highly recommend it until you check out the short first. Then if you don't like the short, simply do not bother! 1/5 |
RSS Feed