For those keeping track, 'Death on the Nile' is the sequel to 2017's 'Murder on the Orient Express'. This is an updated version of Agatha Christie's book, and it certainly looks as though we've got a pretty solid series in the making here. It's a remake of an old story, yes, but I daresay that a good murder mystery goes a long way these days (with True Crime being so incredibly popular). And why not bring back some classic material for today's generation? Poirot, no doubt, can show 'em how it's done. The film opens with a bit of great detective Hercule Poirot's (Kenneth Branagh) history, in which we discover why he's got such an awesome mustache. It doesn't feel like it makes a whole lot of sense, but we also get a chance to see his innovation in the trenches and meet his lost love, Katherine (Susannah Fielding), which is admittedly interesting. Fast-forward to 1937, where the real story takes place, we catch up with the now mustachioed Poirot at a nightclub in London. There, Salome Otterbourne (Sophie Okonedo) performs while, very quickly, heiress Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) steals the handsome Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer) away from socialite Jacqueline "Jackie" de Bellefort (Emma Mackey). Now that we have a good set-up, we eventually get to them all (somewhat coincidentally) on a cruise along the Nile River, six weeks later. Linnet and Simon are there on a honeymoon but appear to have been followed by a jealous Jackie. And while the main case seems incredibly plain, there's a boat full of all sorts of colourful characters who could be behind one particular murder. As one would imagine, it's all a big puzzle to solve, probably doesn't quite turn out as expected in the end, and the real charm of the movie is behind Poirot's character as opposed to the murder mystery aspect. Now, truth be told, I'm terrible with murder mysteries like this, and tend to confuse fairly easily. I'm the kind of guy who blinks once and misses the entire plot to something like this, but I'm also not unable to find entertainment value in it. As mentioned before, I do find Poirot to be a rather charming character, the film has a mild sense of humour, but it's not altogether silly, and the cast of colourful characters is pretty solid. Among just some of the names included are Annette Bening, Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French (who may be a little more obvious to us fans of British Humour), Russell Brand, Rose Leslie, and that's just naming a few. I think it's safe to say that this will certainly be up other peoples' alleys more so than my own. But I say that very lightly because I was still entertained by this. There's really nothing I would point out as specifically bad about it, and I probably wouldn't mind checking it out again, it only to get a little more out of the story. I'll just say that if you're a fan of the classic murder mystery, this is well worth a watch - especially if you happened to be a fan of 'Murder on the Orient Express'. Poirot may not be any Sherlock Holmes, but I do have to admit that he's up there as one of the all-time great fictional detectives. 3/5
0 Comments
Over the years, Roland Emmerich has often been seen by many to be a sort of "other Michael Bay". In order to enjoy his works, you have to take them with a grain of salt, throw reality out the window, and whatever you do, don't question a damn thing. It's pure fantasy with the box office in mind, and you're there for a theatrical thrill ride. So (a lot like with Bay), I will often come out of an Emmerich movie saying something like "that was stupid, but it was fun". Somehow or another though, I left this with the idea that I had just been drastically insulted, but not sure if I was supposed to feel that way. I won't spoil anything but the "big reveal" to this movie is... REALLY out there - so much so that I couldn't even call it fun. The film honestly almost felt like a message to take conspiracy theorists seriously, and in this day and age, that's not a great message to try to convey. But again, I'm not sure if this was supposed to happen. What if Emmerich was secretly saying "see how dumb this is?" But then, if he was, he just made some money rather underhandedly. The film opens during a Space Shuttle mission to repair a satellite. Bantering back and forth are astronauts Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) and Jocinda Fowler (Halle Berry), and they are interrupted by a weird, black, swarming mass that ends up killing one of their crewmates. After a long investigation, Harper is ultimately fired with his unbelievable explanation, and NASA blames the fate of the crewmember on human error. As for Fowler, she was incapacitated during the swarm attack, so doesn't have much of a frame of reference for anything. Ten years later, we meet our conspiracy theorist, K.C. Houseman (John Bradley). His theories kind of have to be seen to be believed, so I won't reveal them here. But his theories ultimately lead him to stealing an opportunity to use a research telescope that isn't well guarded at all. Here, he notices that the Moon's orbit is off course, and it seems to be heading towards Earth. Eventually, he goes public with it, after a down-on-his-luck Harper refuses to listen to his ramblings. But then, NASA discovers this abnormality on their own, and it all leads to "let's send a crew up to the Moon to stop it from crashing into Earth as well as find out what this weird swarm is all about". There's not a whole hell of a lot more to it without spoilers, but once things really get going, the film just gets weirder, and weirder, and weirder. It's another one that's trying to combine a bunch of different movies, but to no real avail. In fact, it's been dubbed by a few to be the most recent "so bad, it's good" movie because it's just THAT crazy. There's so much in here that feels like it was written by a teenager, and though my plot description may seem weak, that really IS basically all there is to it. Even though there's plenty of stuff that looks pretty cool here, it's not nearly enough to save anything. I would highly recommend saving the theatrical viewing and just waiting for home release on this one, even if you happen to be an Emmerich fan. For yours truly, this is probably his weakest movie. I didn't leave this one saying it was "dumb fun", it was just plain "dumb", and it's hard for me to give it the benefit of the doubt. This goes beyond his average disaster flick, and gets almost too bizarre, even for him. This is one I might suggest watching with a room full of friends though, as you rip on everything wrong with it - especially if you have some friends who know a thing or two about the Moon! 1/5 This one comes to us from atmospheric extraordinaire, Guillermo del Toro, and is adapted from the William Lindsay Gresham novel of the same name. There was also a 1947 adaptation, which did really well. And, unlike many updated versions of stories, so did this. It's a film with a pretty stellar cast, fantastically creepy atmosphere, and the "old-timey" cinematography adds a fine dash of artwork to the whole project. Taking place in 1939, we open things with our lead, Stanton Carlisle (Bradley Cooper) dragging a dead body into (presumably) his house and burning it to the ground. Packing lightly, he heads out, and eventually stumbles on some work as a carny, hired by Clem Hoatley (Willem Dafoe), the carnival-owner. Here, we eventually learn that Clem has a dark side to him, which seems to give Stan some second thoughts on working for him. In the meantime, Stan works with "Madame Zeena" (Toni Collette) and her husband, Pete (David Strathairn). They teach Stan some of their tricks, but warn him not to make a "spook show" out of it (in other words, leading people on about communication with dead loved ones). Soon, Stan falls for a performer named Molly Cahill (Rooney Mara), whose act includes seemingly dangerous uses of electricity. Of course, no love story like this is complete without a jealous, brutish man named Bruno (Ron Perlman), but all of this isn't even the main part of the story, as most of it begins when (spoiler alert) Stan and Molly run off together after a fatal incident involving the consumption of wood alcohol. Talk about a tricky thing to try to review without spoilers. Anyway, the main story takes place about two years later, where Stan has reinvented himself, using the tricks of the trade, and having Molly as his partner. But how long before his "talents" end up hurting people - both audience, and loved ones? I won't go into much more detail than that, but a lot of it seems to be a story of morals, and how far a "magician" will take their "trickery". It's certainly a cautionary tale as well, as the way it ends is actually somewhat disturbing. All in all, this isn't something I would call a horror film, but it's definitely very dark and will make certain people cringe about things here and there. It's not a "hard-R", but it's "R" for good reasons. And hey, for all you ladies who may have a bit of a thing for Bradley Cooper, I'm gonna do you all a favour and admit to catching *ahem* a bit of a peekaboo (you're welcome). I did mention a pretty stellar cast, but I've only mentioned a few, as some others come into the picture as the story unfolds. But aside from those I have mentioned, we also get the likes of Cate Blanchett, Richard Jenkins and Peter MacNeill , to name a few. Blanchett ends up being the big one though, and I probably should have included her in the overall review. Having said that, however, she doesn't really enter into things until after Stan and Molly leave the carnival, and that's about a good hour into the movie. But don't worry, I honestly didn't spoil all that much, leaving one BIG plot point out of the review, completely. Unprofessional? Perhaps, but if you watch the film, you'll get why I did it. I think this is a totally solid title to check out for any real fan of del Toro. It provides the viewer with one of his few projects that isn't actually some sort of "creature feature". So if you're looking for monsters, you won't really find them here - at least not in the form as some sort of creature. This one effects the psychological side of the viewer, and really lends itself to the old-time carnival atmosphere, between the traveling "freak show" and being in the big city with it. Although it may not reach my Top 10 of 2021 (even though it's 2022 at this point - stupid Covid), I still found it incredibly enjoyable, and hope to see del Toro dabble in this sort of thing more in the future. 4/5 At this point, after yet another Covid lockdown, it appears that theaters are reopening again. So (knock on wood) I'll have access to movies we actually give a damn about, instead of reviewing titles like these, that probably have whoever is reading this asking "what in the hell is this?" There isn't even a summary of the film on its Wiki page (which I often use for help, lest I forget certain details)... I'll uh, do my best. The film opens with the crash-landing of a military cargo plane, during World War II. The crash happens behind enemy lines, within the Black Forest of Germany. The plane carried top secret material, and a team of skilled soldiers are sent by a Maj. Johnson (Mickey Rourke) to retrieve it. Led by Sergeant Brewer (Robert Knepper) and Walsh (Jackson Rathbone), the team search the forest until they discover the bodies of hanged Nazi soldiers among others, all bearing strange markings that turn out to be ancient magical symbols. Before the team knows it, all sorts of strange things start happening to them. Their compasses fail, and they get to questioning their own sanity, as they seem trapped by some kind of strong, supernatural entity. Knowing that Nazis are into the supernatural for uses of power, the team must dig deep, and discover the twisted truth that lies behind whatever it is that seems to be attacking them. So, a lot of this is another horror flick based on Nazi experimentation, of which there are FAR better titles to choose from. But, although it takes a weird direction, i can at least give it credit for a touch of originality. A lot of this dark magic turns out to be witchcraft, and I personally find it to be an original take on the World War II horror genre - which is around, but there's not a whole whack of them. There is something about soldiers facing off against the supernatural that speaks to the haunted mindset some real-world WWII soldiers probably had. A lot of it can be taken metaphorically, be it the soldiers "battling their inner demons", the soldiers "venturing into the very frightening unknown" or hey, sometimes the soldier has to just "fight a monster", either representative of the entire Nazi regime, or Hitler, himself. Having said all that, it's sort of difficult to place this in any of those particular categories. Sometimes a movie is just... being a B movie. So, it's a pretty good example of a movie made for fun, and there's nothing wrong with that. This parallels things like 'Piranha 3D' or 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter'. Its not too bad if you're just looking for a cheap thrill. But I will suggest to look elsewhere if you're looking for real substance. It's kinda fun, but it's not what I'd call "worthy of big-screen attention". 3/5 When it comes to the 'Matrix' series, I must confess to be one of the many audience members who fell into a state of confusion by the end of it all. This is a series I didn't get as attached to as my peers, other than the first film, released in 1999, which still stands alone as a GREAT film. I also enjoyed 'The Animatrix' for its overall style and imagination, but otherwise, there have been several other fantasy/sci-fi series I hold far above this one. Having said that, going into this, I was indifferent. My overall opinion upon seeing the trailer was that of feeling, yet again, "too little too late", but mixed with "altogether unnecessary". And I should probably be clear that I'm altogether unclear on a lot of what happened throughout the film, although I think I have the general idea. The thing is, I haven't watched ANY of the 'Matrix' movies in well over a decade, so there's a lot that I've forgotten. One of these days, I may revisit all of this with some sort of special, but for now, I have to go by my thoughts as a born-again-noob. Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) has created a series of three 'Matrix' video games that he bases on things like visions and dreams; leftovers from when he was Neo. Part of this includes a woman he runs into at a local coffee shop named Tiffany (Carrie-Anne Moss), whom he bases his game character of Trinity on. He sees a therapist (Neil Patrick Harris) who prescribes him blue pills, but eventually stops taking them, making these visions start to get a bit out of hand. Meanwhile, the confusion starts when a girl named Bugs (Jessica Henwick) discovers a "modal" (pronounced "mode-all") that's running an old code in a loops, reenacting the time Trinity found Neo in the first movie. A modal, by the way, is a "programming sandbox" created to develop characters; one of these is a new Morpheus (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) and, I guess in some ways, long story short, the original story is played out again with a few alterations. Forgive me for how undetailed the description of the film is, but once again, I'm not entirely sure I got it. For me, this was just another 'Matrix' addition that doesn't really need to be there, as the first 'Matrix' is still a great stand-alone film, and I stand by that. That's not to say that the others are just trash, in my opinion. I think it's just another case of them not really being for me... or I'm just too damn slow to pick up on what they're putting down, but that's fine. This is one I know for a fact I'm not alone on. With all that said, however, I can still see 'Matrix' fans really liking this. I will give it credit for sticking with style, and it's definitely another case of the film's eye candy overshadowing... basically everything else. I still might consider this the weakest of the bunch, however. It's honestly a coin-flip between this a 'Revolutions', but the biggest things about this include the film coming into an era where I feel like we're kind of over 'The Matrix'. Keanu is John Wick now, not so much Neo, and his performance (which I might blame on the direction) here is kind of brutal. It's almost more like he embraced his stereotype of being his classic character Ted, but stiffer. Nothing against the man. It's just that I'd much sooner see him do a 'John Wick 4' than a 'Matrix 4'. But that's just me and my opinion. I think others could still like this more than I do; but I will suggest one should go in with low expectations. Hopefully it plays on your nostalgia more than it did mine. 3/5 Theaters are once again closed near me, which means I'm resorting to searching online for new VOD releases. This one's available for rent right now for nice and cheap, and it makes for a pretty decent home invasion movie, if that's the kind of thing you're into. While there's really nothing about it that particularly stands out, it's really not bad for a simple, evening venture if you want a little thrill. While competing for the Olympics, downhill skier, Sophie Scott (Skyler Davenport) is diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease that causes blindness, thus bringing her Olympic dreams to a screeching halt. She becomes pretty bitter about her situation, and gives up altogether, even though her friend, Cam (Keaton Kaplan), seems to really want to help her train for the Paralympics. I have to admit, one thing that brings the movie down for me is Sophie's character. She's blind, yes, but it's hard to feel sympathetic when she ends up being such a jerk. Anyway, Sophie gets by, cat sitting for the wealthy and stealing things like priceless bottles of wine, to resell on the black market. She answers an ad, and just about goes about her regular criminal routine, but soon locks herself out of the house. After doing this, she contacts a service through an app called "See For Me", which allows the blind to connect with a seeing helper through video chat. In reality, there is something called "Be My Eyes" that works on a similar level. Soon, she's connected to Kelly (Jessica Parker Kennedy), and she manages to get back in. But little does she know, she's in for an interesting night. Sophie is awoken by a break-in, calls 9-1-1, and is told that due to her remote location, response might take a while. Being stuck without sight, she contacts Kelly again. Kelly soon sees the predicament she's in before being disconnected, and as the film continues, she does everything she can to try to help Sophie from behind her computer. Meanwhile, the motivation for the break-in is nothing at all surprising - it's about money. Even the criminals themselves are clichés - Otis (George Tchortov), Ernie (Pascal Langdale) and Dave (Joe Pingue). I forget who's who, honestly, but basically, your leader, your tough guy, and your sensitive guy. They're also lead by a man named Rico (Kim Coates) who isn't there. So, as one might imagine from a home invasion movie, a lot of it becomes Sophie trying to survive the night in this strange house, while blind, and being guided by someone (when they can connect) on the other end of a phone. This is a movie that's better reviewed than how I really feel about it though, so let's just get into some good. There are some intense moments, the concept is somewhat original (I'm sorry, but 'Silence of the Lambs' did something very similar with night vision goggles), and I do have to say that Kelly is a very likable character. But for me, the bad sort of outweighs the good here. Now, when I say "bad", I don't actually mean it in the strongest sense of the word. But the film's problems for me include it being a seemingly very standard set-up, the criminals are incredibly bland, the hero isn't very likable, and I feel like it's full of clichéd moments. However, it's that same basicness that makes it what I mentioned in the beginning - "really not bad for a simple, evening venture if you want a little thrill". I get the feeling that others would like this just fine, and perhaps I've just seen too much of the same sort of thing - like your average demonic possession movie these days, home invasion stuff gets pretty predictable. But hey, that's just me. It's a nice and cheap rental right now, if you wanna check it out for yourself. 3/5 With some recent reviews, like 'In the Heights', I've mentioned that musicals seem to be something I've been getting more and more into as time goes on. As a result, I figured I'd check out a version of 'West Side Story' as envisioned by the one and only Steven Spielberg. With that, I should probably mention that 'West Side Story' (aka 'Romeo & Juliet') was never really a favourite story of mine. A classic in it's own right, just not really up my alley. My hope was to go into this and get something from Spielberg's direction, or some kind of mind-blowing choreography. While these aspects are quite good here, I couldn't help but get the feeling that it's really just... 'West Side Story' again. I know, I know, what exactly do I want, right? I'll be kind enough to give the film some leeway on that. But I think the film's overall biggest strength (at least in my eyes) happens to also be its weakness, and it leaves me not quite knowing how to feel. The story takes place in 1957 Manhattan, as we immediately see the turf war taking place between the Jets; a gang of white Americans, and the Sharks; a gang of Puerto Ricans. According to officer Krupke (Brian d'Arcy James) and Lt. Schrank (Corey Stoll), who break up a scuffle between the rival gangs, their war is pointless. The whole neighbourhood is about to be demolished in order to make way for the now famous Lincoln Center. However, none of this stops leader of the Jets, Riff (Mike Faist), from proposing a "rumble" to finally settle things. This brings Riff to his out-on-parole friend, Tony (Ansel Elgort), who wishes to start a new life, living on the straight and narrow. Owner of a Puerto Rican general store, Valentina (Rita Moreno), helps Tony with getting his life back on track, and Tony doesn't find it hard to say "no" to the upcoming fight. Tony soon meets Maria (Rachel Zegler, in her pretty amazing film debut) and falls madly in love with her, but there's a catch - Maria happens to be the sister of the Sharks' leader, Bernardo (David Alvarez). Their forbidden love then leads to a collision course between the two gangs despite the fact that neither Tony nor Maria want any part of this fight. It's the story of forbidden love we've seen many times before. It's probably safe to say that you get everything you expect from the story if you're at all familiar with either 'Romeo & Juliet' and/or 'West Side Story', which both have a variety of stage renditions as well as screen adaptations. I think that's part of why I didn't see this as anything entirely special as opposed to... basically everyone else. It's just something I've seen before, the songs aren't new or different (and probably shouldn't be, to be fair), and it was never a favourite to begin with. But having said that, let me point out the good about this movie. I have to say, for as much as I didn't really care, there really was no "bad" to this. Sometimes a story just isn't for me, and that's something I can accept. For those who love the original musical (be it movie or stage), I really think you'll have a great time with this. Spielberg has always done a good job at capturing eras in time, and the 50s is definitely no exception (even if I didn't like 'Crystal Skull', the setting was still well done). It doesn't stop at the clothes or the cars either. There was something about this that made it feel like it's authentically from the 50s. Going back to what I said about the film's biggest strength also being it's biggest weakness, it's a messed up situation. On one hand, it kind of sucks that there was nothing very new or different about this. But on the other hand, it's authenticity for the era is what gives the film most of it's charm. It is a lot like watching a stage musical as opposed to many other adaptations that go out of the way to make sure you know it's still a movie... like 'Cats'... Anyway, the bottom line is that if you are into this story at all, you should definitely check out Spielberg's rendition. But if you're like me, just know that it's something you've seen before, and try to appreciate the direction more than anything else. 3/5 This is a movie that very much delves into family, as we open with a story along with a musical number, giving us a nice dose of magical family history. Years ago, a young woman named Alma Madrigal and her husband, Pedro, are forced to flee their home with their three newborn children, Julieta, Pepa and Bruno. Sadly, Pedro falls in combat, but Alma manages to escape the fight with the three kids. Fortunately, Alma happens upon a magical candle which provides her with a sentient house, known as the "Casita" (which makes total sense when you look at translations) for them to live in. Eventually, a whole village grows around the Casita, and the now grown up Madrigal family helps the village to grow and thrive. The Casita further grants the family special abilities to help these villagers. However, Bruno, having gained the gift of precognition, causes a lot of controversy and is ostracized by the family. The main story here focuses on the youngest daughter of Julieta (Angie Cepeda), Mirabel (Stephanie Beatriz), who we discover is a bit of a black sheep in that she gains no special abilities. She does, however, have a big heart, and considers her family to be all the blessing she really needs. One night, when the film provides an awesome example of the ability-gaining process, Mirabel finds a crack in the Casita. Fearing the worst, she tries to warn the family, but goes unheard, so naturally, she takes the mystery into her own hands, and the adventure goes from there. Along the way, we meet a variety of interesting family members and their abilities; namely, her sisters. There's her sister, Luisa (Jessica Darrow), with superhuman strength; cousin, Isabela (Diane Guerrero), who can make flowers grow; other cousin, Dolores (Adassa), with superhuman hearing and several more. All of the voice acting is solid here, and the songs are no exception. This is quite honestly one of few Disney animated films where I actually liked every song on its soundtrack. They all have this specific Colombian rhythm to them you can't help but find catchy. On top of all that, I have to appreciate the originality of the film's overall concept, while still using that "uncanny abilities" concept. I also like the fact that they don't see these as superpowers as though they're superheroes. They just kind of help with things around their village without ever having to face some big evil villain who wants *insert greedy desire here*. This is actually a great example of how to expand on the, shall we say, "superhero" concept while keeping things rather quite original in other ways. It also feels as authentically Colombian as 'Coco' feels authentically Mexican. There's even more to appreciate here as the film does things like have the heroine be the one who isn't superhuman in any way. It provides a good sense of "girl power" we should be seeing more of, but without cramming it down our throats. It's all topped off with a positive message about the importance of family, but does so in a way that I think whole families can relate to rather than just the kids watching. I have to admit, Disney animation has been reaching Pixar quality levels over the past several years, and this one is definitely no exception. I honestly loved it. 5/5 For those who don't know, and to keep it perfectly short, Edgar Wright = favorite director = total bias towards his films. I am generally of the opinion that everything the man is responsible for writing/directing is essentially gold. Of course, this is all personal taste. For some, it's Tarantino, for others, it's Spielberg. But the point is, with anything I review by Edgar Wright, one must be mindful that I'm basically in love with the guy's work. He has actually released two films this year; this along with a documentary called 'The Sparks Brothers', about the pop/rock duo, "Sparks". This, however, is the more mainstream one of the two, and once again flexes Wright's muscles as a director by being a more serious-toned thriller. You have to hand it to the guy, he likes trying out a variety of things. And yeah, this is me talking, but he succeeds every single damn time. 'Last Night in Soho' is certainly no exception. And interestingly enough, one might suggest this one leans more towards the female crowd based on overall subject matter. While I'm inclined to agree to a degree, I might suggest it's a good watch for the guys, too, if only as a cautionary tale of sorts. The film focuses on Eloise "Ellie" Turner (Thomasin McKenzie); an aspiring fashion designer with a thing for the 60s that about matches my thing for our director, here. She loves the music, she loves the fashion, she loves the setting, and she dreams of one day becoming a fashion designer in the Soho area of London, England. She also has a special gift where she can seemingly see her deceased mother (Aimee Cassettari) in her mirror. This is another case of accepting something without explanation - she has this ability, but we can only really guess where it comes from. What's more important here is how her ability seems to come into play. She one day gets her opportunity to study at the London College of Fashion, and moves from her country home near Redruth, Cornwall to the big city, only to find herself rooming with a snooty girl named Jocasta (Synnove Karlsen). After a night out, and being an emotional punching bag to Jocasta and her jerk friends (you really hate these girls quickly). Luckily, there is one kind student among them; a guy named John (Michael Ajao) Ellie decides to find somewhere new to stay while she goes to school, landing on a charming little room in Goodge Place, owned by a reasonably strict, elderly woman named Ms. Collins (Diana Rigg). Ellie finds herself having a vivid dream that first night about being in the same area of the city in the 60s, and observing a young blonde woman named Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy) developing a professional relationship with a night club owner named Jack (Matt Smith) in order to get a gig as one of his performers. During the dream, Ellie is basically in the role of Sandie, as we see through a very cool effect using mirrors. These dreams, however, have an 'Elm Street' style to them in as much as what happens in the dream carries over to real life. While Ellie is sort of in love with what she's experienced, she keeps the dreams up only to reveal something much more sinister going on behind the scenes. I will admit that while a lot of Wright's movies do a wonderful job of getting going, this one does feel like it has a bit of a slow set-up. But with that said, I never felt like things were really dragging. For this one, I give Wright a lot of credit for making this a cautionary tale for moth men and women. There's some "woke", #metoo material in here, but what I liked about it was that it didn't feel entirely black and white in the end. It certainly leaned one way, but it's clearly what Wright was going for. Just my opinion, but he did a good job here, right down to the twist ending. I'd probably prefer a good Edgar Wright comedy over this in the end, but I have to give Wright the credit for doing something kind of new with the whole "woke" movement. 4/5 The 'Bond' films are another really strange property for yours truly. If I could use one word to describe it, it might be "disconnect". I came into things during the Brosnan era with 'Goldeneye', but didn't see all of his films. Add to that the fact that I never saw anything prior, and the Craig era is the only era I ever paid any real attention to. Craig is, therefore, my Bond, and retiring from here on out. Between 'Casino Royale' to here, I have seen them all in theaters, and they've all been a real treat (except maybe 'Quantum of Solace'). This one was no exception. The film opens in the past where we meet a young Madeleine Swann (Coline Defaud), who we'll remember from 'Spectre', and her mother (Mathilde Bourbin). A mysterious man in a mask enters, who is after Madeleine's father, Mr. White (portrayed by Jesper Christensen in previous Craig films). White is gone, however, so he sets his sights on his family to hurt him even worse. In the process, Madeleine's life is spared, but she tragically loses her mother. We then fast-forward to present day where we see Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) with Bond (Daniel Craig), after the capture of Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) as they head for Matera where Bond will be able to say his final farewells to Vesper (previously played by Eva Green). Bond is suddenly ambushed by Spectre assassins, which leads Bond to believe that he's been double-crossed by Madeleine. They escape together, but he puts her on a train and parts ways with her, and the credits begin with Billie Eilish's 'No Time to Die' theme. Personally, not my favourite, and as far as the Craig films are concerned, 'Skyfall' is very hard to top. But graphically, it looked pretty amazing. This might be a good time to mention that, though you don't necessarily need to, it might be good to brush up on some of the history of 'Bond' before moving forward. I've already referenced a few things from previous films, but just in case I miss something, I might suggest taking a look a this. Anyway, five years pass, and we find MI6 scientist, Valdo Obruchev (David Dencik) kidnapped from his lab. He had developed a nanobot bioweapon able to infect upon touch, coded to an individual's DNA. The weapon is known as Project Heracles, and it was approved by M (Ralph Fiennes). Bond is contacted by Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) and his acquaintance, Logan Ash (Billy Magnussen) in their attempt to locate and retrieve Obruchev. At first he declines, but he soon realizes that a lady named Nomi (Lashana Lynch) has since taken his place as "007" since his retirement. He informs Bond about Haracles, kicking Bond into action, and that's about al of the plot I'm gonna roll out here. Being that this is the last of the Craig films, there's actually quite a bit that attaches itself to his previous films. I may even recommend a bit of a marathon before checking this one out, just to keep up to date. Truth be told, there were a few moments here and there when I had to try to remember who some of these characters were. It's not essential that you see the previous films beforehand, but I really think it would help a lot. There's four to go through, and 'Quantum' is actually pretty short, so it's not that bad of an undertaking. Also bear in mind that I'm not what one would call a 'Bond' fan. I don't have that attachment so many others do, so it's very likely that I miss a lot of the obvious to fans. When all said and done, this is just like any other 'Bond' movie I end up seeing. Although it's not necessarily meant for me and my mindset, I can still see 'Bond' fans really liking this. I also had to admire the way the film ended, in that it really does seem to come to a close. The only real questions on my mind at this point though are "Who will be the next James Bond?" and "Will I like them better than I liked Daniel Craig?" Time will tell, but until then, I would claim this as a property that has my utmost respect, even though it's not altogether up my alley. I still have a fun time watching these movies though, and I hope they keep coming with or without Craig, just because if nothing else, they are fun action adventure flicks made for the big screen experience. 4/5 Cards on the table, back when a lot of my peers were so eager to see Venom show up in a Raimi movie, I thought that was pushing things. I knew and enjoyed the character from various comic book reads, the '94 animated series (which, in my opinion, STILL does the best Venom story overall), and the PS1 'Spider-Man' game that no one seems to remember for some reason. Familiarity was there, but knowing Spidey's rouges gallery, there was a LOT to go through. So for me, Venom was cool, but I didn't NEED to see him in a movie as a one-off villain. Bottom line, turn to the '94 cartoon for the best version (aside from comics). Anyway, when it came to the 2018 film, I rolled with it and accepted it for the fun, albeit dark comedy that it was. I even reviewed it for my 2018 Halloween Special, because it totally had that Halloween vibe to it - almost horrific, but silly enough not to be. I gave a a 3/5, considered it a guilty pleasure and moved on, wondering what the future would hold with that stinger involving Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) and his clown hair. The answer came in a couple of forms - first and foremost being this continuing story that I enjoyed just about as much as the original. However, due to a stinger scene that I will not spoil here, more questions were answered as to even further films in this series. As a result, indeed, I did like this one a bit more (but not solely based on that). We open back in 1996, where we meet a young Cletus Kasady (Jack Bandeira) communicating back and forth through holding cells with Frances Barrison, AKA Shriek (Naomie Harris); his love interest. It's unmentioned in the film, but some may recognize her as being a mutant from the comics, and... well, that's all I'm gonna say about that. I'll just say that her appearance on top of the mid-credit stinger and a couple of other curious details do help push this one up for me in quality as opposed to the first. Anyway, long story short, we see Shriek's powers at work as she attempts to escape from a team trying to take her to a facility, led by officer Patrick Mulligan (Stephen Graham) but is ultimately unsuccessful, and separated from Cletus. In the present, Mulligan contacts Eddie Brock - still bonded with Venom (Tom Hardy) - to speak with Kasady, who he interviewed a year prior. Kasady offers him all of the information he can offer on his crimes in exchange for a favour, otherwise he ends up on death row. This, of course, eventually leads to a little piece of Venom bonding with Cletus to create our favourite symbiotic psychopath, Carnage, who helps Cletus with his search for his lost love. Meanwhile, there's a secondary plot involving Eddie's ex-fiancée, Anne Weying (Michelle Williams) and her engagement to Dr. Dan Lewis (Reid Scott) which kind of does the 'Spider-Man 2' in that so much of it has to do with his secret life interfering too much with his normal one. Now, for as much as I love the casting of Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock/Venom, I think it's safe to say that Woody Harrelson is the one who really steals the show here as Cletus Kasady/Carnage. For yours truly, this was always a weird case. I saw Cletus a lot like a Joker-type psychopath, and therefore if he was ever cast in a movie, there's some flexibility depending on how you want to interpret the character. Eddie, on the other hand, wasn't so flexible. He needed specifics, and our experience with 'Spider-Man 3' really showed us that when we collectively gasped "Topher Grace!?" But damn, Harrelson sets the bar here. This is one of those cases where I feel if he's to be recast in the future (as Joker has been so many times) it would be a very tough act to follow. On top of Harrelson's acting skills, I also really just love the way things look in these movies. Venom already always looked great, but what they do with Carnage here was just awesome. There's a big final fight where they show you all the crazy stuff Carnage can do, as Cletus has no problem with letting his symbiote take the wheel. So in case you haven't picked up on it, Carnage is what makes this movie worth watching more than anything. Otherwise, Eddie's relationship with Venom continues to be strained, and ultimately comedic, we see the return of Mrs. Chen (Peggy Lu), and one can get a few good laughs from Venom playing off his hatred of "Dr. Dan". All in all, I feel pretty much the same as I did with the first one, but I did appreciate Cletus/Carnage just enough that this is a "High 3" 3/5 Here we have our next dose of horror from director James Wan; the man who sent chills up our spines with the likes of 'Saw', 'Insidious', 'The Conjuring' and 'Fast & Furious 7' (although those chills were different). This was a title that, at least from my perspective, has been floating under the radar enough that I wasn't fully aware it existed until I was looking for something that would be released this week for review. The determining factor was, of course, Wan, himself. Speaking on a personal level, I am a fan. I feel like he's breathed a little bit of new into horror while maintaining a lot of that classic stuff we all know and love. 'Malignant' is another example of a relatively fresh take on a relatively old idea. One thing I will say right off the bat is that, speaking for myself, I found this to be entirely far too predictable. I wasn't entirely sure what the "Malignant" title was all about, but when things start going down in this, it's so easy to draw a conclusion. The mystery is in how this conclusion will play out - and let me just say, it's campy, and a bit reminiscent of a certain 'Simpsons' Halloween segment with hints of... 'Harry Potter' (you'll see what I mean by the end) and even at one point, kind of 'The Matrix'. I didn't think the film was altogether that great, but I can't deny that it was rather interesting in the way it all played out. Things open back in the early 90s where Dr. Florence Weaver (Jacqueline McKenzie), Dr. Victor Fields (Christian Clemenson) and Dr. John Gregory (Amir AboulEla) treat a psychatric patient named Gabriel who, one day, runs amok, kills a handful of staff, and we discover that this is a kid who should probably be under the care of Professor Xavier. This young man has superpowers, which include manipulation of electricity, and the ability to broadcast his thoughts through speakers. Near the end of this almost 'Jurassic Park'-like opening, we get our first glimpse of Gabriel - some sort of terrible creature who the doctors are trying to subdue. We fast-forward twenty-seven years where we meet a pregnant woman named Madison (Annabelle Wallis) who comes home to an abusive stereotype named Derek (Jake Abel). There's a fight, and he violently throws her head against the wall, prompting Madison to lock herself in the bedroom away from him for any amount of sleep. During sleep, she has a nightmare about a killer in the house, which may or may not have a sort of 'Elm Street'-like attachment to the real world. Without spoiling anything much, we find out soon enough. This eventually leads Madison down some strange rabbit hole where she learns some gritty details about her own past which could lead to solving a murder mystery that currently surrounds her life. Altogether, I wouldn't claim this to be Wan's best film, but I might also suggest that Wan could be an acquired taste for most. 'Saw' for example is a series I find altogether hit or miss, but I personally see the first as a horror classic at this point - and that's the only one Wan did. I might also argue that he did the best of the 'Fast' movies with the seventh, and 'The Conjuring' might be the best "haunted house" series currently running. But this is all my opinion, and if anyone were to debate any of this, I wouldn't try too hard to hit back, because I totally get not liking his style just as well. But I do think if you're like me, and a fan (though admittedly not what you'd call die-hard), it's worth checking out. The twist ending will either make you cringe or smile, but if you're lucky, it could lead to both, as Wan's films tend to do. 3/5 To begin with, this is one of few horror movie series that I never touched on. The curiosity has been there for a while, but I never considered the Candyman to be quite on the same level as someone like Freddy or Jason. Having said that, before checking this film out, I was about 99% clueless as to what 'Candyman' was all about. I knew the line "be my victim", I knew that he was associated with bees, I knew he had a hook for a hand, and I knew he appeared in the mirror after saying his name five times - really just another take on the 'Bloody Mary' game. I went into this thinking it was an all-out reboot, or even soft reboot, but it turns out that it's a direct sequel to the first film. Whether or not it excludes the second and third films in the original series and does an all out 'Halloween', I'm not sure. But from a noob's perspective, it seems to only tie in with the first film, as this has to do with little Anthony McCoy, about thirty years after the events of the original when we see him as a baby. For someone like me, something I had to admire about this movie was how it recalled the story of the original movie, with some paper cut-out animation that turns the first movie into a bit more of a campfire legend, which I thought was actually a pretty awesome idea. In the years that have passed, Anthony (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) has become a well-received visual artist, living with his girlfriend, Brianna Cartwright (Teyonah Parris), who also happens to be an art gallery director. One day, they are told the story of Helen Lyle (aka 'Candyman' '92) by Bianna's brother, Troy (Nathan Stewart-Jarrett). The story inspires Anthony to travel to Cabrini-Green (where the Helen story took place), looking for more inspiration to further his artwork. This soon leads him to laundromat owner, William Burke (Colman Domingo) who tells him the story of the Candyman, who once lived in his neighbourhood, and of course the big conclusion is the whole urban legend of saying his name in the mirror five times, only to have it result in your bloody demise. Inspiration hits Anthony like lightning, and he develops an exhibit based on the Candyman legend called "Say My Name" (and yes, 'Breaking Bad' still uses that phrase better). The audience's reaction to the exhibit isn't entirely positive, and before he knows it, people start playing the "Candyman" game, and lives are claimed, while he experiences a bee sting that isn't exactly average. What does it mean? Well, no spoilers. Anyway, as I expected from the film, I found it to be somewhat average, but somewhat admirable at the same time. The way it presented the events of the '92 film was one of the more admirable parts of this, and when I eventually do get around to watching it, it will feel a bit more like a prequel fans of this movie want to see. We've established that I really enjoy the animation, but on top of that, I liked the way this movie tackled the psychological aspect of horror while blending it with just enough gross gore and body horror that it's something that seems to cover all grounds. When you think of different horror elements, this is something that pretty much has it all. And, having seen bits a pieces of the original, it also seems to keep the aesthetic going. There's something cold and almost abandoned feeling about these movies. It's a hard thing to describe, but we can just land on psychological for now. It does a pretty good job of playing with the brain, and I couldn't help but like the way it ended - it's been done before, but the way it goes down is something I'm a sucker for. My only real criticism of this one is that there were parts that felt a bit slow. But even that is a pretty desperate nitpick, considering it's only an average hour and a half long flick. Jordan Peele is behind a lot of the writing here, along with BlacKKKlansman producer, Win Rosenfeld, and upcoming 'The Marvels' director (and director of this), Nia DaCosta - an up and coming African American woman who I look forward to seeing more from. My criticisms on this one are, if anything, very nitpicky, and this is altogether a pretty great modern horror movie. Between this and 'Quiet Place II', it's nice to see some horror that isn't just more ghosts and demons and exorcisms. I have missed the urban legend slasher, and even though this is more psychological, it counts as a breath of fresh air. 4/5 Some of my readers may recall how much I loved 'A Quiet Place'. Long story short, I made it one of my favourite movies of 2018. It did such a great job with building intensity, kept me on the edge of my seat, and provided a perfect example of how sometimes less is more when it came to horror. The scariness didn't lie in the creatures themselves, so much as the stress that comes from having to hide quietly in order to survive. For a brief recap (along with some potential spoilers), the film centers on a family who are in the midst of some sort of monstrous invasion. The creatures they end up having to hide from and avoid hunt their prey by sound, so the idea is to have to stay quiet in order to stay alive. It doesn't help, however that wife and mother, Evelyn (Emily Blunt) is pregnant, daughter, Regan (Millicent Simmonds) is deaf, and son, Marcus (Noah Jupe) is basically afraid of his own shadow. All the while their provider and protector is husband and father, Lee (John Krasinski). Again, spoiler alert (but without revealing how), we lose Lee, leaving Evelyn, Regan and Marcus on their own with a newborn baby. This one picks up immediately where the last one leaves off, but not without an intro telling us just how this all began. We don't really get any answers though, other than knowing they came from the sky. The family of now three and a half sets out on a journey here, looking for other survivors, now that Evelyn can handle a gun, and more importantly, Regan's discovery. She learns that using her hearing aid at a high frequency is an effective distraction to use against these creatures - even more effective if amplified. On their mission, however, Marcus ends up critically injured and the family is somewhat rescued by their former neighbour and friend, Emmett (Cillian Murphy). Emmett gives them shelter for the night, but somewhat cowardly insists they leave in the morning. During their stay, they tune a radio into clear music, suggesting there must be survivors out there somewhere. This prompts Regan to head off on her own, despite Marcus' objections, using her hearing aid as her main defence. Soon enough, Evelyn sends Emmett out after her while she heads out to look for supplies at the old pharmacy. The intensity of the film has a little more to do with the family being divided, and what can happen in a short amount of time. Can Regan find survivors with Emmett? Will Evelyn be able to fare on her own? Can Marcus take care of the baby with a bad injury? It just kind of adds up. I'll keep this simple enough. It's a very worthy sequel to its predecessor, and this would make for a pretty great back-to-back feature. My only real nitpick about it is that things end on a very similar note as the first film, but involving different characters. Having said that, it's also a way to develop these characters, and it does leave room for what could be a pretty exciting third film (if that will eventually happen). I further appreciate how this one relied on the separation of the family, which adds a twist of dread to what we already know is going on. Otherwise, the movie is well-acted, well-written, and just as perfectly atmospheric as the first film. As far as horror/thrillers go, these are definitely a couple of my personal favourites. 5/5 'The Hitman's Bodyguard' was a movie that I found to be quite a bit of fun, and though not necessarily a great flick, it gave me laughs, and delivered more or less what I expected. I saw it based on the idea of Ryan Reynolds and Sam Jackson playing off each other, which is honestly still something that sounds kind of amazing. The overall result was more of a randomized giggle-fest than something that made me constantly laugh out loud. Its sequel, here, isn't really something I feel different about. They are a fun couple of movies, good for a laugh, but nothing about them is as knee-slappingly hilarious as one might feel it could be. To recap the previous film, bodyguard Michael Bryce (Reynolds) is hired by an old flame to escort and protect a pro-assassin named Darius Kincaid (Jackson) so he can testify against a tyrant named Dukhovich (Gary Oldman), guilty of a share of unspeakable crimes. Kincaid and Bryce find themselves ducking and dodging Dukhovich's constant attacks, however, and the result ends up being a pretty witty sort of buddy cop film, without it really being a buddy cop film. It was a film not without its charm, something I'd watch again, but not something I'd rush to watch again. This is a touch different, but it's very much an excuse to get these characters back on screen again for those who want to see more of Reynolds being Reynolds and Jackson being Jackson (which, by the way, I am guilty of anyway, so no worries there). As this one picks up, we meet up with Bryce, who is trying to retire from the bodyguarding game after the events of the last film. He speaks to his therapist who suggests a vacation, which, of course, he goes on. However, while on his vacation, he is interrupted by Sonia Kincaid (Salma Hayek) who finds him there, under the impression her husband, Darius, is in a lot of trouble, needing his help. After the rescue, and instead of that being the plot, the trio are caught by Interpol agent Bobby O'Neill (Frank Grillo), needing their help to find a terrorist named Aristotle Papadopoulos (Antonio Banderas), who is plotting against the European Union, wanting to bring down the European power grid and infrastructure. Mission follows, humour ensues, and it's not quite as good as the first. Although I have a sort of bias towards both Reynolds and Jackson (I just love the guys as people, let alone a lot of the roles they play), much like the first film, I left this thinking it probably could have been better, but I'm also not turning my nose up at it. I got my fair share of giggles, it was more or less what I expected, and I don't really have any genuine complaints about it. The only thing that got a little bit under my skin was Selma Hayak's dialogue. They seem to go out of their way to make her the loud, vicious, no-shit-taking Mexican American stereotype. A lot of her humour has to do with how loud she is and how she pronounces things, and I know she can do much better. Reynolds and Jackson are pretty much what one would expect, but they don't manage to go as all out as they could have. I would say I like the first one better, but to be honest, I could find myself bored one night and giving these a nice back-to-back viewing. It's the kind of movie I'm not excited to see again, but it would make for a mildly fun double feature. Something to watch if you're sick at home, or just plain bored with nothing to do. These are a couple of movies that I have a tough time recommending to just anyone, but I would probably argue that it's perfectly watchable for Reynolds and/or Jackson fans. I think a lot of critics frown on these titles, but I choose to go somewhat against the grain on this one. I didn't love it, and it wasn't without its fair share of problems, but I have to admit that I still enjoyed it for what it was. 3/5 Here we have one of the 2020 titles that has been pushed back time and time again that I've pretty much been chomping at the bit for since first seeing a trailer back in late 2019. This seemed to have a concept that was right up my alley, featured Ryan Reynolds in the lead (because who doesn't love the guy?), and looked like it offered some pretty awesome visual effects, along with a gaming easter egg or two. Little did I know, however, that the trailer only scratched the surface on what this movie was all about. Most of what's awesome about this movie isn't actually seen in its trailers. What we know before going into the movie is that it features a Non-Playable Character (or NPC) named Guy (Reynolds) existing in an open-world, online game called 'Free City'. He works as a bank teller with his best friend, a security guard named Buddy (Lil Rel Howery), blissfully unaware that his life exists within a video game as he goes through the same bank heist routine day in, day out, to the point where it's just part of his day. He begins to deviate from his programming, however, when he runs into user "Molotov Girl" who he claims is the "girl of his dreams". This leads to him eventually stealing a user's sunglasses (users have sunglasses, NPCs do not) and developing a mind of his own, with the ability to see the gamer's display. Meanwhile, in the real world, we learn that 'Free City' is a famous game whose code was actually stolen from a game called 'Life Itself', created by our two real-world leads, Walter "Keys" McKey (Joe Keery) and Millie Rusk (Jodie Comer). Keys finds himself actually working for Soonami, the company that stole his work and defends things with the impression their creation is still famous, even though it went another route. Millie, however, isn't so forgiving as she spends time playing 'Free City' in search of hints of proof that their code was stolen by Soonami's head developer, the eccentric Antwan (Taika Waititi). She spends her time in the game as "Molotov Girl", and soon enough, without spoling too much, we learn what the connection is between the now self-aware Guy (who takes the time to level up his character and become super famous as "Blue Shirt Guy"), and the pair of 'Life Itself' developers. This was a fine example of a movie that not only gave me what I wanted to see, but offered more, and the more it offered, the more things about the movie made sense. I went into this thinking it was going to be some fun, mindless, Ryan Reynolds action with some solid comedy. However, when the film is all over, you do manage to see things on a somewhat deeper level than you probably thought you were going to experience. In its own way, the film is actually kind of beautiful, and does a good job of exploring how a self-aware NPC may think, work, etc. I enjoy the fact that when he starts levelling up, he does it very quickly, as it's very likely that his familiarity with the inner workings of the game far exceed the average users. If I was to mish-mash this together, comparing it to other movies, it's almost like taking 'Ready Player One', 'Scott Pigrim' and throwing them in a blender with 'Eternal Sunshine' and something like 'Inception'. There's a very dream-like quality to things here, but it does a good job at giving us the balance between what's going on in the real world vs what's going on in the game. In some ways, the main character of the film isn't even Guy so much as its Keys and everything he has to put up with in the real world, with Millie acting as the "messenger" in and out of the game. I loved the way everything came together; not necessarily predictable, and when it's all said and done, I was happy about the way things went. This has a great fun factor to it, and all sorts of easter eggs to keep an eye out for. I'm a sucker for a film where you have to pay attention to the plot but there's so much going on in the background that one might very well miss. It's not like 'Ready Player One' where it's literally everywhere, but it's generally subtly done, and you'll catch a few neat things like the less obvious Mega Man's Mega Buster, or the more obvious Portal Gun (which isn't exactly the same, but we all know what it's supposed to be). It does happen one time where Disney force feeds us some Avengers/Star Wars material, but even that makes for a pretty solid visual gag, so the complaint is there but very minimal. All in all, this is absolutely one of my favourite movies of 2021, and I can't wait to see it again to try to pick up on some more subtle easter eggs! 5/5 Not to be confused with the 2016 David Ayer film 'Suicide Squad', this one has 'Guardians of the Galaxy' director James Gunn behind the wheel. As a fan of those 'Guardians' movies, when I heard about Gunn taking the helm of this project, I got pretty excited and it has been on my "must-see" list since the news first emerged. Although there was controversy surrounding his name, considering what I knew he could do with an ensemble cast and his directorial style, he was just perfect for the job. The film opens, hitting the ground running as intelligence officer, Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) deploys two "Suicide Squad" teams (or Task Force X teams) to the South American island of Corto Maltese after its government is brought down by anti-American radicals. Team One is led by Colonel Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), and further consists of Savant (Michael Rooker), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Blackguard (Pete Davidson), T.D.K. (Nathan Fillion), Javelin (Flula Borg), Mongal (Mayling Ng), Weasel (Sean Gunn), and of course the great Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). We learn the basics really quick for those who may not have bothered with the first film, and it's simple - in exchange for completing the tasks set by Waller, these criminals get ten years off their prison sentence. Meanwhile, the second team, who has the same deal, approaches the island. Led by Bloodsport (Idriz Elba), this team further consists of Peacemaker (John Cena), King Shark (Sylvester Stallone/Steve Agee), Polka-Dot Man (David Dastmalchian) and Ratcatcher 2 (Daniela Melchior). The team's collective purpose for this mission is to locate a man known as the Thinker (Peter Capaldi), a metahuman who heads a top secret experiment potentially endangering all of humanity known as "Project Starfish". The teams are to bring down the Nazi-era laboratory Jötunheim, which holds said project. The main focus here is on the second team, as plot-wise, Bloodsport is in this to protect his daughter from jailtime. He's the lead here while Harley plays everyone's favourite DC anti-hero. I am very happy to report that James Gunn's directorial style was what I wanted to see and more. Not only does he totally succeed in delivering a lot of that humour we know him for with the 'Guardians' films, but he makes damn sure he delivers us a good R-rated superhero (or anti-hero) movie complete with violence, language, and even a bit of nudity. One could probably consider this DC's answer to the 'Deadpool' movies. There are plenty of laughs, and a lot of the laughs have to do with how over the top things can get. I honestly had a smile on my face through this whole thing, as it somewhat represents a release of all that pent of rage we've all been feeling under the shadow of Covid 19. One could consider this a pretty great outlet for the times. With an ensemble cast like this, one probably gets to wondering how all these names are handled. This certainly sounds like it has the potential to be another 'X-3' with too many characters in so little time. I have to say that Gunn handles things very well. I had to appreciate that he managed to make Harley more of a background character, but she still manages to steal the show here just doing what she does. There is a moment that might make Harley fans wince and cringe a bit, but don't worry, she doesn't exactly disappoint. Harley fans should get just as much a kick out of her here as they did with the last two films featuring her. One big question people have is "Is this a sequel?" Well, it's like this. Producer Peter Safran has described this as a total reboot, despite the fact that several cast members return as their respective characters. It's further confusing to try to figure out where 'Birds of Prey' lands in all of this too. Personally speaking, I think it's all open to interpretation. DC seems to have developed a bit of a talent over the past while in that they are making movies that could stand on their own instead of necessarliy being part of the DC Universe we see from 'Justice League'. Unlike the 'Avengers' films, there's not a whole lot of important connective material. So this very well could be a sequel, but really, it's meant to stand on its own. I think it plays more on the potential the original film had with same cast members. Again, look at 'Deadpool'. Ryan Reynolds was always perfect for the role, but 'Wolverine' really screwed it up. As far as 2021 movies go, as well as DC titles, this is easily one of my favourites. I didn't come out of this quite as mind-blown as I expected, but I really enjoyed it. Gunn did a great job here, providing some new faces, tackling a huge cast, making things stylistic, and absolutely not holding back on the R-rated violence we fans not only want but somewhat expect from a movie like this. It's another comic book title that deserves an R-rating in order to do it justice. I also have to admire that he just plain went for it. I mean, Project Starfish is really crazy and even kind of stupid when you think about it, but somehow he made it work really well here. What more can I say? I am impressed, and would love to see Gunn take on more of these (if there are going to be any more). 4/5 Here we have the next Disney flick based on one of their rides. Perhaps one may remember 'The Haunted Mansion' with Eddie Murphy, or this other little title, 'Pirates of the Caribbean' - so this isn't exactly a first. The real question is, is it more 'Mansion' (which was very mediocre), or more 'Pirates' (which became its own successful franchise)? The short answer - as one might expect, it's somewhere in the middle, but it does lean much more towards 'Pirates' in style and execution. The film opens with a little background, telling about how in the 16th century, a group of Spanish conquistadors go to South America to search for a tree whose petals can cure just about anything; known as the now mythological "Tears of the Moon". Things go down, and long story short, these conquistadors end up cursed by the jungle (a whole story that's unveiled later in the movie). We fast-forward to London, 1916, where Dr. Lily Houghton (Emily Blunt) and her brother, MacGregor (Jack Whitehall), present Lily's research on the Tears of the Moon, and suggest its aid in the British war effort, using its pedals to heal their wounded. They further request access to an arrowhead, believed to be the key to finding this tree. The pair are brushed aside, but Lily acquires it anyway, and the adventure begins. Eventually, the pair come across Frank Wolff (Dwayne Johnson), who poses as harbourmaster, Nilo (Paul Giamatti) when he realizes Lily has an arrowhead he apparently knows something about. He promises her and her brother a jungle tour that will potentially lead to the Tears of the Moon. However, on their tail, like any good 'Indiana Jones' movie, is a German Prince named Joachim (Jesse Plemons). He is also after the arrowhead and wants the Tears for his own selfish reasons. As the chase goes on, they encounter all the jungle can throw at them, but are they prepared to face some of the more dangerous things lurking in the jungle? Liker perhaps a few cursed conquistadors who can use jungle elements as, pretty much super powers? This is a movie that seems to borrow a lot from pre-existing material, and makes me think of it as a cross between 'Indiana Jones' and 'Pirates of the Caribbean'. But I might suggest I had more fun with those titles. There are a few moments to this that don't make a lot of sense, and it was a fun adventure, but it was no 'Curse of the Black Pearl' (still the best 'Pirates' movie, in my opinion) where I had a great time with it. This was entertaining, and not a bad one for a family night out to the theater. I really think that if I was younger, I would have had much more fun with this than I actually did. But I will say that the film isn't without a few things to praise. Although some of the CG is kind of weak, I have to admit that I rather enjoyed what they did with the cursed conquistadors. That part is very reminiscent of 'Dead Man's Chest', and the curse involved with that. The CG might not pop, but the concept of these half-man, half-whatever characters was always something I thought was cool. I also don't normally like Jesse Plemons in anything he does, but his performance here as a bit of a bumbler was actually kind of great. He's still the big bad guy here, and at moments to be taken seriously, but on the whole, it seems to be an almost unintentionally humorous portion of the movie. My final thoughts on this are pretty simple. I think if you've got a family with children who are chomping at the bit to get back into theaters, this is a perfectly fine, fun adventure movie that's good for everyone. There may be some scary bits for the little ones, but that's about where I compare it to the 'Pirates' movies. If your kid can survive a 'Pirates' movie, they can survive this. While it may not be something I had a blast with, it's something I'd recommend as a "first time back" (namely for us Canadians who have been stuck a little longer) for a family outing. For just the average movie-goer though, it's all dependent on taste. There are better adventure flicks out there, but I have to admit that its been a while since I've seen a decent jungle flick, and this really wasn't bad at all. 3/5 Upon starting this site, I haven't paid any attention to anything much Hasbro has put into theaters, save for 'Bumblebee'. So while that may be something to look at in the near future for a theme, a lot of it has to do with my lack of nostalgic interest. While most kids were playing with G.I. Joes (as seen here) and Transformers, I was busy with my Ghostbusters and Ninja Turtles. So before getting into the review, everyone should know I took this with a grain of salt. As mentioned in my previous review for 'F9', I'm really just happy to be back in theaters, and I thought this would be fun. Things open with a young boy experiencing a touch of childhood trauma when his father is killed in front of him in cold blood. When the boy is all grown up, he has since become a skilled martial artist who has dedicated his fight to one day avenging his father. So as we can see, it's a fairly typical revenge plot. In order to hide his identity, he calls himself "Snake Eyes" (Henry Golding) a call back to the events of his father's death). He fights in an underground circuit in LA, and is one day approached by a man named Kenta (Takehiro Hira); a wealthy Yakuza boss who offers to provide his father's killer if Snake works for him. At first, Snake's plan for vengeance is unfolding well, but soon he's asked to prove his loyalty by shooting Tommy (Andrew Koji), Kenta's cousin. From here, Snake and Tommy escape to Tommy's dojo in Japan, and requests that Snake be initiated due to his skill, and owing a life debt to him. In order to become part of the clan, Snake must undergo three trials in order to determine whether or not he is worthy (again, fairly typical). As the film unfolds, we get to some double-agent stuff, and it keeps you guessing as to who's supposed to be bad and who's supposed to be good, but any 'Joe' fan will be able to work it out pretty easily. Things like the Joes and Cobra are certainly a thing here, but the focus is thankfully more on the developing characters of Snake Eyes and Tommy, and though things are fairly typical, I can't deny that it was still fun. I would probably go so far as to say that of the 'Joe' movies, this is probably the best of them. But in saying that, one should probably remember that the bar hasn't been set all that high. However, I did think it was well executed with decent fight scenes, and you don't have to throw reality out the window quite as much as you had to with the other 'Joe' movies. I appreciated the focus on this, and it's nice that while there's a few Joe and Cobra characters, there is by no means an oversaturation of them. It does a good job of making sure we know this is Snake's story, and being perhaps the most popular 'Joe' character, it's simple enough to give a damn. It's also not one of these descriptive origins saying how he got everything he owns. There's essentially just a uniform scene, and maybe a sword. So all in all, for a 'G.I. Joe' story, this really wasn't bad. One should probably know that I went into this with very low expectations though. I'm still in a stage of appreciating the effect the big screen has on me again as opposed to viewing the movie in any sort of real negative way. But even with that, I can't really deny that I got what I expected; perhaps even a bit better. My opinion is that this is actually a perfectly passable movie, but one might not need the big screen to see it. It could just as easily be a straight to video release with its predictability and common themes. But what can I say? It's a 'G.I. Joe' movie, so one can't really expect gold. 3/5 Well folks, it has finally happened! Theaters are open again up here in Ontario, Canada, and I decided to make my return to the big screen with some mindless action. Despite the fact that this movie is the ninth chapter in an overall ridiculous franchise, this is going to get a little deeper than it probably should, on a personal level. But first, one must understand what going to the movies means to me. I'm typically there about once a week, but due to Covid, theaters have been closed, and I have been grounded. Before this, the last time I got to go was for 'New Mutants', almost a year ago. Returning to the big screen with a movie like 'F9' was a friendly reminder of what the big screen experience was all about for yours truly. This kind of "throw-you-brain-away" action ride is exactly the type of thing the big screen was meant for. This series could be considered something of a present-day 'Die Hard' saga, complete with heavy, fast action, likable heroes and a whole lot of physics bending. I learned to throw reality out the window with these a long time ago, and this has to be, quite possibly, their best example of needing to do that yet. With these scenes, there was a lot of me laughing because for as stupid as they are, you can't help but think of them as part of the ride you're taking. This chapter, however, does have an interesting balance to it as it opens in the past, portraying a younger Dominic Toretto (Vinnie Bennett) back in '89, where he and his brother, Jakob (Finn Cole) assist in the pit crew of their father, Jack's (JD Pardo) race. This is reflective to a story Dom tells in the first chapter, where he nearly beats a man to death for evidently crashing his dad's car, killing him. Fast-forward to the present, and Dom (Vin Diesel) has since retired from action, living with Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and raising their son, little Brian (Isaac/Immanuel Holtane). Being typical of this kind of movie though, things cut right to the chase to pull Dom out of retirement. Roman, Tej and Ramsey (Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris and Nathalie Emmanuel, respectively) pull up to Dom and Letty's peaceful existence to deliver the news that Mr. Nobody (Kurt Russell) has captured Cipher (Charlize Theron), but his plane was attacked by rogue agents only to crash-land in the fictional Montequinto. The deciding factor that puts Dom back in action is the realization that his brother, Jakob (John Cena) is involved. Without unfolding the whole story, however, things take off from there and we have the standard 'Fast' movie, starring pretty much literally everyone from the past. And the biting question everyone has is finally answered - yes, they do go to space in this movie. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is either the best or worst of the series, but I might suggest that it's probably the most interesting. It probably happened way before this, but with this chapter I definitely found that the series has totally come to terms with itself. This is less of a solid movie and more of a Saturday morning 'Fast & Furious' cartoon. I think that if you can go into these treating them as such, and never taking them seriously, you can have a really good time with them. This was no exception, and in fact is probably the cartooniest of all so far. They hit up space, the stunts are insane (you can't catch someone flying through the air on the hood of your car and have things be okay), and if you can't throw reality out the window with this, you're just plain doomed. One thing that really stood out to me here, however, is that this was definitely one for the more solid fans of the franchise. They bring in so many characters from the past here that I had forgotten about some of them. So it might very well be worth doing a bit of homework on the series before going, whether that means going through all of the previous movies or just Googling a lot of the basics, it might be worth going through. Then again, if you're like me and just wanna buckle in and go for a ride without it really meaning much of anything other than fun, I say go for it. It's not what I'd call a good movie, but not a lot of these ever really are. But that does not mean you can't go back to the big screen after all this time and just have some fun with it. 3/5 |