The year was 1996, I was in grade 9, and some friends and I arranged to check out the original 'Space Jam'. For whatever reason, be it the Tune Squad or my appreciation for basketball at the time, I dug it. I was a bit of an odd one out on it, but being 14 at the time, there was still that sliver of childhood hanging on and I tend to classify 'Space Jam' nowadays as a sort of time capsule for myself. While it's not nearly as good as I remember it, it's still a guilty pleasure. Naturally, I had to check out 'A New Legacy' and compare notes. I have since faded away from basketball to the point that I can't really name anyone on any teams. I was never really a sports guy, but for a short time in my youth, basketball was an exception and 'Space Jam' managed to be that last little bit of fandom I had for the sport. Now that we have LeBron James in the Michael Jordan role, it's a bit harder for me to really care. Nothing against the man, I'm just so out of touch I know him by name only. However, since he was animated for so much of the time he spends with the Tunes, it does make for a better performance than Jordan gave. Animating him was actually a clever idea for this time around. The film opens similarly to the original, portraying a young LeBron going after his dreams, and the credits open over a montage of his career, leading up to his life as a parent athlete. He wants his sons, Darius (Ceyair J Wright) and Dom (Cedric Joe) to follow in his footsteps, but Dom would rather do some programming, and dreams of developing video games. The family is invited to Warner Bros. studio to discuss a potential film deal, and the idea is presented by a secretly self-aware A.I. named Al G. Rhythm (Don Cheadle). The A.I. impresses Dom, and he expresses an interest in a future with Warner Bros. But LeBron puts his foot down on him keeping up with basketball, as he's got such talent. This argument eventually leads to the basement where Al G Rhythm zaps LeBron and Dom into the Warner Bros. super computer. As Rhythm kidnaps Dom in a very 'Hook'-like way (he tries to take Dom under his wing and turn him on his father), LeBron is sent into Looney Tunes world, where only Bugs (Jeff Bergman) exists. Before he's cast to Looney Tunes world, however, LeBron is ordered by Rhythm to assemble a Warner Bros.-based basketball team. I guess Rhythm's motive is more attention, so he wants to create an event to broadcast to the world. Anyway, long story short, Bugs and LeBron assemble the Looney Tunes team, including Lola (Zendaya) by visiting different Warner Bros. properties. This is where the marketing really takes off, and things become a giant ad for HBO Max. I will admit, however, that sometimes the properties Bugs and LeBron visit stand out. For me, particularly, I really liked the style of the DC Comic world they find Lola in, stylized like a moving comic. Finding Granny and Speedy in Matrix world, however, was a touch cringe worthy, as the bullet time gag is insanely dated at this point. There's also a few things here you just wouldn't expect to find in a movie aimed mainly at kids, like 'Game of Thrones' references and Rick and Morty showing up out of nowhere - and they have dialogue! I loved the cameo, but it didn't feel like it made a whole lot of sense. However, it's not like the first film was without such things, like a 'Pulp Fiction' reference. So for myself, that's all forgivable. We should also figure that a good chunk of this is aimed at us in our 30s who liked the original when it came out. As the movie goes on, it goes full 'Ready Player One' by bringing in an audience of Warner Bros. characters - everyone from Batman to Pennywise. It's fun to go around the background of this basketball game and see who you can find, but many stick out more than others. The Tune humour is pretty much what we expect, and I did enjoy the stylistic choices they used during the game, making it a replica of Dom's game he's been developing. I think ultimately this felt a bit deeper (and I use that term loosely) than the original, focusing on the family aspect and giving LeBron real motivation to win. For Jordan it was really just him helping the Tunes not get enslaved while the family aspect was really pushed to the side, and there to be cutesy. I can't really deny that I had a fun time with it, but it's having fun on a pretty mild level. Despite its style, there wasn't a whole lot that truly stood out here (other than maybe giving Lola more of a personality), and I'd probably rate the original and this at the same level, but for different reasons. I might consider 'New Legacy' just a touch better, if only because being inside a supercomputer full of Warner Bros. characters makes more sense than.... they just live somewhere under the Earth. I think as long as you realize what it is you're in for, this could be just like the first one - a guilty pleasure, complete with extremely cringe-worthy Porky Pig rap scene for no reason. So it's pretty dumb altogether, but you could still have fun with it in the right frame of mind - just like the original. 3/5
0 Comments
As far as Batman stories go, I tend to claim 'The Long Halloween' as my personal favourite (or 'The Killing Joke' - its honestly kind of a coin-flip). I enjoy how grounded it is, focusing on more of a detective story than an action adventure, and it's a good source for letting some of Batman's lesser known foes into the spotlight, if only for a moment. As an example, we have Calendar Man (David Dastmalchian), who is a bit of a 'Hannibal Lecter' type in this. But it provides us with some of our old favourites as well. Much like with 'The Dark Knight Returns', this one is split into two parts. This is one place I find DC kind of triumphs over Marvel with their animation. If they have a good, beloved story to tell, they will see to it that its told right. A two-parter allows for much more wiggle room. It tends to work out pretty well, and they have a good track record of providing us with some solid adaptations. There's a few bumps in the road, sure, but DC has a good way of not messing around with their darker animated stuff, and this is no exception. To be fair, I'm overdue for a re-read of this story, so there are a few places in the movie I'm not sure match up 100%. But as far as I can see, so far so good. Things kick off on Halloween night, when Carmine "The Roman" Falcone's (Titus Welliver) nephew, Johnny Viti, is killed by a suspect who leaves behind a jack-o-lantern as a sort of calling card. GCPD Captain James Gordon (Billy Burke) calls for a meeting with DA, Harvey Dent (Josh Duhamel), and Batman (Jensen Ackles), and has them look into the murder, bending, but not breaking any rules in the process. The trio find themselves pursuing a holiday killer they simply nickname "Holiday", who kills one holiday per month. One connection the victims seem to have is that they are all criminals. But who is offing them, why are they offing them, and why are they choosing holidays to do it? As mentioned earlier, some of our old favourites are along for this ride. The big ones for this chapter are Catwoman (Naya Rivera), who's more of a helper this time around, and of course the good old Joker (Troy Baker). There is more to come though, as we'll get to see the likes of Mad Hatter, Scarecrow, and Poison Ivy coming into the picture, each in their own unique way. It's that part that I'm looking forward to a little bit more, but I definitely had a good time with this. It's a good look into the darker, more grounded side of Batman stories, and is one of the more classic tellings of how Two-Face becomes Two-Face (another thing to look forward to in 'Part 2'). So if you're a Two-Face fan, this is actually a good story. His role here is a very back-and-forth one where its hard to tell just what side he's on. As far as the voice acting, the fact of the matter is that Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill remain the best respective voices for Batman and Joker, respectively. Having said that, while Troy Baker still does a great job here as Joker (not for the first time), Ackles does a somewhat surprisingly good job as Batman. When I learned about that casting, I was picturing Batman sounding like Dean from 'Supernatural'. He did the voice of Jason Todd in 'Under the Red Hood', but that seemed to just fit. As Batman, it was a pleasant surprise, and he actually does have a bit of a Conroy edge to his voice here. That aside, between the mystery and intrigue, this is a bit more of a unique Batman story, matching a tone a little more with the 'Arkham' series of games as opposed to the Animated Series. It's definitely solid, but really, it just got me excited to see what they will do with the second half of the story. 4/5 Here we have the latest film from director, Guy Ritchie; the man responsible for a couple of titles I consider classics - 'Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels' and 'Snatch' as well as Robert Downey Jr's 'Sherlock Holmes' movies (the first of which was far superior). He's a bit of a hit and miss director in my eyes, a lot of the time I tend to meet his films in the middle, and this is such a good example of one of his most middle-ground movies to me. The film flows a bit like 'Pulp Fiction' in as much as it's divided into four parts, all surrounding one particular event - the armed robbery of an armoured truck, killing two guards and a civilian. Five months later, we meet our mystery man lead, Patrick Hill, or more commonly, "H" (Jason Statham), who applies for a guard job at Fortico Security (the company we see get robbed in the beginning). His superior, Terry (Eddie Marsan) mentions the robbery, and warns him of the conditions of the job while the age-old cliche of H's new co-workers ripping on the new guy plays on. Among them, "Bullet" (Holt McCallany), who's responsible for showing him the new guy the ropes; the cocky guy who decidedly hates the new guy, "Boy Sweat" Dave (Josh Hartnett), and Dana (Niamh Algar) the token woman whose sole purpose is to emasculate all of the men. In the midst of a training pickup, Bullet is taken hostage, but H manages to rescue him showing phenomenal skill that suggests he held back during his training. As the film unfolds, we get to learn about just why H has become a part of the armoured trucks team when he's clearly overqualified. The result is basically a revenge film that offers a twist here, a turn there, and leaves you guessing about things along the way. The overall execution can get a bit confusing at points, however, and while the idea is pretty cool, it's still another revenge film, and I feel like I've seen better - even this year with 'Nobody'. I still enjoyed myself, but this is another case where I feel there's simply better material out there. I think if you're a Statham fan, this is a good time, especially since he's back to playing a strong silent type. Speaking for myself, this felt like a good example of another video game movie that isn't officially a video game movie. A lot of that isn't even about the action of it all so much as the way the characters interact. The whole opening locker room scene made me think of any game where you play the silent rookie, interacting with various people in the main hub before going on your mission. A lot of that is the dialogue, which I have to admit, I found pretty corny. I don't know if my description does it justice, but check it out, and you'll probably grasp what I'm trying to get across. This just happened to be an action flick that didn't entirely succeed on having my on the edge of my seat. This isn't like watching 'John Wick' where you watch the fighting with wide eyes and are somewhat blown away. This one's a touch more real-world about things, but it doesn't really do it with the same dose of comedy Ritchie's other films do. The comedy action is the real draw for me, but this was much more serious. While there's nothing wrong with that, I have to say I expected something else I didn't quite get. Still, it's not bad, and I wouldn't recommend avoiding it or anything either. If you wants some serious shoot-'em-up action with Statham behind the wheel, I say go for it. But I'll stick with Ritchie's other material. 3/5 When it comes to my particular taste in entertainment, musicals are fairly recent. It's a genre that I haven't really given a huge chance to, and there are many big titles I haven't seen yet, simply due to lack of interest. I finally started opening my mind up much more to them since 2016's 'LA LA Land' (one of the first movie I reviewed on this site). Since then, I've decided to give musicals a fair shake, and I can't really deny that there's something about them I can get into - perhaps the feel-good fantasy of it all. There really is something incredibly expressive about telling a story through song, and this is certainly no exception. As the film opens, we meet Usnavi de la Vega (Anthony Ramos) hanging out on a beach, and telling a group of kids a story about his experiences back home in Washington Heights. He lives with the neighbourhood's mother figure, Abuela Claudia (Olga Merediz), and owns a bodega where he delights in catering to the good people of the area. We are further introduced to Kevin Rosario (Jimmy Smits) who runs the local taxi dispatch, and is father to recent Stanford drop-out, Nina (Leslie Grace); love interest to one of Kevin's employees, Benny (Corey Hawkins). Meanwhile, side-stories unfold involving Usnavi's little cousin, Sonny (Gregory Diaz IV), salon ladies, Daniela (Daphne Rubin-Vega), Carla (Stephanie Beatriz) and Cuca (Dascha Polanco) and Vanessa; Usnavi's love interest. A lot of the plot is pretty simplistic, if bittersweet one, having to do with the Washington Heights area of New York City slowly fading away over time. On one hand, the locals are preparing to get out of the area and follow their dreams before they get stuck, broke and without power (a blackout plays a pretty big role here). On the other hand, the same locals see the community as a sort of family, and Washington Heights is plan and simply "home". So in some ways, the film could be seen as a touch contradictory. I sort of found my own meaning to it all though, in that while the grass may be greener on the other side of the fence, there's something about the current situation one may take comfort with. It's the difference between living where you were born, raised and made friends vs what may yet be a better lifestyle. Getting the weaker points out of the way first, I did find this to be a very simplistic story with not a whole lot of originality. It is another musical about following dreams, it is another musical with a a love story or two, and in some ways, it becomes musical to a fault. What I mean by that is, this is one of those musicals that's almost all singing, very seldom taking any breaks. Even just the causal convo is lyrical, which may be trouble for some to get around. It's also a touch predictable, and once it ends the way it does, you may shrug your shoulders and say "ah, I thought that might happen". I have also heard that there are some pretty big changes going on here that alter the original musical in several ways, so if you've seen and become a fan of the musical, you might be a bit disappointed. Having said all that, speaking for myself, I find the good certainly outweighs the bad here. I actually really enjoyed the musical numbers here, and was hard-pressed to find one I didn't enjoy. The one that really stands out here for me, 'Paciencia Y Fe', has to do with Abuela reminiscing about her past as an immigrant, and it does tug at the heart strings quite a bit. The other big standouts for me were the 'In the Heights' opening, '96,000'; a song about the possibilities of winning the local lottery, and 'Blackout', which was just a catchy and really well choreographed number that sees a lot happen throughout it. I have to say, the music is ultimately very catchy here, and gives me a whole new reason to finally check out 'Hamilton', as it also involves the multi-talented Lin-Manuel Miranda's lyrics and song writing (among other things... yes, I know, I haven't seen 'Hamilton' yet). When it was all sang and done, I definitely enjoyed myself. Even though I mention the plot being so simplistic, sometimes that's just what's needed. I think people can get a lot from this (at least if they haven't seen the original play), especially in this day and age. With Covid 19, theaters are just barely opening back up (except for up here in Ontario, Canada) and this is a nice, feel-good, catchy musical that has a lot to do with getting out into the open, and having a community come together in a big way. This could almost be seen as a well-timed celebration of life, if you look at it a certain way. It's fun, it's upbeat, and still had enough heavy moments for it to be appropriately dramatic. So, if you like a good musical that's a bit heavier on the sing-song side that delivers a mostly feel-good story, this is a good one to check out! 4/5 Let me start this one out by saying that, as one might very well expect, this is really just another 'Saw' movie. You've got your gruesome, torturous traps, you've got your detective who finds himself at the ass-end of it all, and you've got your twist. I will forever consider the first 'Saw' movie the best of the bunch, followed very closely by the second - but from '3' on, it seems to become much more about the traps and how brutally they can make the audience wince. With that said, I can respect the 'Saw' franchise to a degree in that they were the big new franchise to become an annual Halloween flick after 'Halloween'. Also, like 'Halloween', the franchise went from the proper Fall release to a Summer release, because box office. 'Halloween' did it with 'H20', and 'Saw' did it with... well, this. So kudos to 'Saw for at least outlasting a series like 'Halloween' in tradition. Anyway, after checking this one out, all I can say is that nothing at all is surprising, and you get what you get from the average 'Saw' movie. That's a franchise I dropped after '3', and still haven't seen anything else leading up to 'Jigsaw', which I managed to review somewhat half-assedly. Anyway, plot-wise, this one brings in Detective Ezekiel "Zeke" Banks (Chris Rock); he gets the "renegade cop" role here, overshadowed by his father, Detective Marcus Banks (Samuel L. Jackson). He gets partnered with a rookie named William Schenk (Max Minghella) and the pair are sent to investigate a grizzly murder. Upon inspecting the scene of the crime, they find out that they are dealing with a Jigsaw copycat killer... again. This one seems to be out for cops, and is seeking some sort of twisted justice. The more Zeke goes down the rabbit hole, the closer he finds himself to the killer, thus potentially putting himself and people around him in danger. Honestly - it's just another 'Saw' movie, tackling a hot button issue in the only way 'Saw' can. There are a few things to appreciate about this, but not very many. For one, the traps still do their jobs at making us wince, cringe, etc. so, if that's your deal, it works out pretty well - but there are also only a few of them. Of course, Chris Rock being Chris Rock, there are a few laughs here as well. The problem is, I just find Chris Rock really hard to take seriously as far as a role like this goes. I enjoy the guy, but I'm too used to him as a comedian at this point. I hear he does pretty good in 'Fargo', so maybe I should try that. But here, it's pretty much Chris Rock with an attitude, and he gives us a character that's kind of a tough one to route for. As far as horror goes, this is a franchise I can respect, but it's not entirely for me. The whole torture porn thing just gets under my skin (no pun intended), and I tend to see it as a pretty cheap way to make audiences flinch. But at the very least, things can get creative in 'Saw', and I've always found it interesting that the kills are set-ups for the victim to either suffer horribly and live, or die because they failed their trap. The "killer" never actually does the killing. I've always found that to be the most intriguing twist to the Jigsaw killer, plus when Tobin Bell is on-screen, you can't help but like him as the next big deal in horror villainy. For as intriguing as things could get (bearing in mind I still haven't seen 4-7), this just made me think of 'Jigsaw' a few years back in that it simply feels too little too late. For me, this is a matter of outdated material, and something that makes you wonder who was asking for it. That said, I've stumbled on the fact that this seems to be Part 9 of a 10-part series, so I guess this just has its handful of dedicated fans, and maybe it's something I don't entirely get. You've got to give it to them for lasting the way they have though, no matter how you feel. Thinking about the apparent, upcoming 'Saw X', it ought to be released in late October, 2024, giving the franchise a solid 20-year run and going back to its roots. Who knows? It could go back to being as good as the first two. But it definitely needs to be better than the last two. 2/5 Before I get too deeply into this, I should probably bring up the fact that, for me, the whole 'Conjuring' saga is a bit of a jumble. I tend to see these movies upon their release, then leave them alone, thus forgetting much of what happened by the time the next one comes along. Hell, I still haven't even seen 'The Nun', and the only one I've actually reviewed yet on this site has been 'Annabelle: Creation'. This is a series that I give enough respect to, however, as they tend to be creatively scary spook house movies, having a sort of psychological intensity to them that I rather enjoy. While this one is no exception, I have to admit that it's one of the weaker of the series, if only because its ideas and concepts are getting stale. By that I mean the whole demonic possession thing, which I have mentioned time and time again in movies like this. If superheroes have oversaturated the action/sci-fi genre, then demons and hauntings have oversaturated the horror genre. Speaking for myself, there was nothing this movie could have shown me that would have been particularly shocking. It's not without a few moments, but there doesn't seem to be anything left to make me go "woah" the way I did when I first say Regan crab-walk down the stairs in the director's cut of 'The Exorcist'. While all of the 'Conjuring' movies are "based on true stories" from the past, they still flow in order, and this one takes place in 1981; ten years after the first 'Conjuring'. Once again, we follow professional demonologists, Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, respectively) as they are documenting the exorcism of David Glatzel (Julian Hilliard); an 8-year-old boy who quite honestly does a fantastic job here. Among the family that are with them are his sister, Debbie (Sarah Catherine Hook) and her boyfriend, Arne Johnson (Ruairi O'Connor). During the nightmarish process (and probable love letter to 'The Exorcist'), Arne tells the demon to spare David and pick him instead. Thing seem to settle down after that, and the demon seems to just fizzle away. However, Ed witnesses the demon actually do the body-jump before it fades, and he's convinced that somewhere within Arne, the demon still lies. One day, while feeling very ill, Arne commits a murder, and this brings us full circle to the title of the film. The Warrens are supportive of Arne, and want to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, in court, that Arne was possessed at the time. However, when Arne is able to read from the Bible, that suggests he couldn't be possessed, which leads the Warrens to investigate further, uncovering some harsh realities that probably won't hold up in court - but they still have to try, knowing that Arne wasn't to blame. It seems that all of the 'Conjuring' films are linked to unique, real-life cases involving the Warrens. This namely includes this title, and 'Conjuring 2', which are based on very specific cases. The first seems to borrow from a few different cases, namely 'Annabelle' and 'Amityville' (if I have that wrong, please feel free to correct me). But upon a bit of research, it looks like they have enough material to make about two or three more movies if they carry on with things - the question is, should they? Again, speaking for myself, demonic possession as a whole is just plain stale now, and there are no surprises anymore. Not to say that things are absolutely predictable now, but you're never taken off your guard anymore. What's more is the fact that over the years, the Warrens legitimacy has come into question in a big way, even potentially putting the legendary 'Amityville' story on the chopping block It's a good time to remember that when a movie says "based on a true story" that does NOT mean "this 100% happened". In horror, it's a great way to get butts in seats, and none did it much better than 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', whose "true story" aspect was simply that Leatherface was essentially an Ed Gein type. Everything else about that movie just screams Grindhouse entertainment. I'd suggest that's exactly how to take something like this - it's taking the concept of the Warrens and making a decent horror story out of it. I find it best to just roll with things for entertainment value, and not feel the need to point at the screen and say "that never happened in real life" or "oh please, that's impossible". If one can see this as something that simple, it's perfectly passable... but I'd also probably recommend the first two quite a bit over this. 3/5 If you know your Disney, Cruella De Vil can often be remembered as one of the most deplorable villains in the Disney animated library. I mean, her motivation was as simple as fashion, and she was willing to kill a bunch of adorable puppies just to make a coat. Unlike a lot of what Disney does with its live-action stuff nowadays, this is not a copy-paste job of '101 Dalmatians'. This is an origin story in which we see how Cruella De Vil became Cruella De Vil - the high class, vicious but fashionable snob who has no regard for puppy life. As we open, we see Cruella's childhood. Her real name is Estella Miller (Tipper Seifert-Cleveland), and she lives with her mother, Catherine (Emily Beecham). Catherine gives Estella the nickname of "Cruella" due to her having a bit of a nasty streak. This nasty streak eventually gets her pulled from school with plans to move to London. On their way, they stop at a high class party, hosted by the awful Baroness von Hellman (Emma Thompson). They aren't allowed in, but Estella sneaks off for a peek at things. It is here that she sees all sorts of glamour and high fashion, and it immediately becomes a bit of an obsession. She, however, is found, chased out of the party by a few Dalmatians (thus giving her a bit of an instant hatred for them). While on the run, she evades the dogs, but the dogs end up knocking Catherine off a cliff to her death. So this is basically why Cruella is so heartless towards Dalmatians later in her life. Now orphaned, Estella wanders, eventually meeting Jasper (Ziggy Gardner) and Horace (Joseph MacDonald), and the three begin their friendship as a handful of street urchins in London. They make their way by stealing, stealing and more stealing. Ten years of this life lead to Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) stealing Estella (Emma Stone) a very special gift; a job as a cleaner at Liberty Department Store; owned by the Baroness, it is the highest in quality fashion. The job ends up sucking, and Estella's knack for fashion one day leads her to drunkenly fix a window display one night. The Baroness sees it, and instead of punishing her for it, she offers her a job as her assistant. It's here that Estella notices her dead mother's valuable necklace around the Baroness' neck, and from here, it pretty much becomes a heist movie while Estella transforms into Cruella through the process. Although this is a movie that has a lot to do with high society, fashion and the like (all of which I have next to no interest in at all), I have to admit that when it comes to live action Disney material, it's definitely a breath of fresh air. I really like that, for once, we have something very different. This is an original story that gives you some hints for '101 Dalmatians', but it's not just a remake. It's got the odd Easter egg here and there, and Emma Stone, I think, was the right way to go with casting. She is meant to be a more innocent character for a good chunk of this, and Emma has always been great at being likable - but she's also great at having fun with her roles. You can tell in this that she's having a blast with the transformation process, and when she gets to be full Cruella, she's really quite good. She even gets the cackle down. All that said, it is true that I tend to love Emma Stone in whatever she's doing - not only is she gorgeous, but she's very flexible as an actress. She can sing, she can speak with an English accent (although sometimes her American comes through - she's no Robert Downy Jr.), she can laugh just as easily as cry, she's great. This is one role where we get a little bit of everything from her, and I'd probably take her rivalry with Emma Thompson as the highlight of the movie. Just two people trying to out-style each other. While Cruella's a bit more in your face and out to make a statement, the Baroness is this high class snob with little to no regard for human life, everyone's beneath her, and she feels she can't be outdone. What I love here is that Cruella actually intrigues the Baroness rather than just having her freak out and retaliate. It's a bit of a slow-burn rivalry they have. But I love it when the big baddie of the movie has respect for the... well, in this case, anti-hero. This is another one of those titles I can definitely throw some respect to. My bias for Emma Stone aside, it's otherwise well-acted, has a surprising amount of heart, and it's just neat to see a Disney take on a heist movie. Really, Cruella is the perfect character to do something like that with. I do have a few beefs with the movie though, so don't think it's all praise coming from my end. For one, the CG is pretty awful when it does show up - namely one particular ending scene. Another is that some of the easter eggs are a bit heavy handed. At one point Cruella mentions Dalmations making a wonderful coat, but as a joke, and that was a bit of an eye-roller that felt crowbarred in. I also can't tell yet if my hatred of the Baroness is good or bad. She has to outdo Cruella, so the result is someone very, very easy to hate, especially if you despise snobbery as much as I do. As decent as the movie was, and for as much praise as I give it over criticism, the one thing you should take away from this is the fact that the subject matter is something I couldn't care less about. While the heist aspect is cool, this largely has to do with fashion, high society and exclusivity. Speaking as someone who has very easily been turned away from various clubs because I wasn't wearing something as simple as dress shoes (meanwhile seeing a ton of running shoes waiting in line) I have a real beef with things like that. That's a lot of what this movie is, and the Baroness is just one of those characters I'd love to run down with a car. So this is one I have a lot of respect for as to what it is, but it's not something I intend on coming back to any time soon. Most definitely, others who are into fashion and the like will get much more out of it than I did. But it's still a nice change from the regular live-action Disney remakes! 3/5 Once again, we have a last-minute change to my Now Playing review this week. The good news is I may have found a reliable source to give me a better idea of the release schedule, what will be theatrical only (in this case, 'Spiral'), and what I can find on VOD (this, which I really couldn't tell you would be a better or worse movie than a new 'Saw' flick). All in all, I wasn't entirely impressed with this one, and I have to wonder if the book its based on is better. Let's just dive right in, shall we? We are introduced to a smokejumper (a firefighter specializing in wildfires) named Hannah Faber (Angelina Jolie). She suffers from haunting memories of a fire she once misjudged that consumed three young boys right in front of her. Nowadays, she is posted in a fire lookout tower in Park County, Montana. Her ex-boyfriend, Ethan Sawyer (Jon Bernthal), is the town's Deputy Sheriff, living a happy life with his wife, Allison (Medina Senghore). However, he soon finds himself caught in the middle of something rather major. Ethan's brother-in-law, Owen Casserly (Jake Weber) is a forensic accountant who learns of a hit on his boss. Believing he's next on the list for these assassins, Jack and Patrick Blackwell (Aidan Gillen and Nicholas Hoult, respectively), Owen makes the decision to skip town with his son, Connor (Finn Little). He seeks refuge with Ethan, somewhere deep in the woods and well-hidden. However, the Blackwell brothers catch up to the father/son duo and open fire. While Conner survives, Owen is killed, and Conner finds himself on the run from the assassins who assume he could be carrying evidence against their employer; a mob boss named Arthur Phillip (Tyler Perry). Of course, this miraculously leads Conner right into Hannah's neck of the woods, and Hannah inadvertently finds herself provided with an opportunity to help out someone new. Eventually it turns into a whole escort mission movie where the Blackwells are trying to prevent their every move. I mean, honestly, it's a real downer of a movie altogether. There's tugging at the heartstrings, but then there's slamming tragedy into someone's face, and that's largely what this does. Between Hannah and Conner, there's hardly a scene where one of them isn't sobbing. The situations are understandable, but altogether forced. All in all, I wasn't a fan of this one. If the heavy-handed emotion isn't enough, these hitmen really go to extremes to carry out their work without any sort of subtlety. Jack, for example, just wants to set everything on fire. Of course, this includes the forest itself, eventually, and all you really see in the character is Baelish from 'Game of Thrones'; he's just a straight up terrible person. Either way, basically everyone starring in this is doing a better job elsewhere. This was something I found altogether forgettable, somewhat confusing, and something that beats you down with a message of "look how sad this is!" It also seems to have moments that don't make a whole lot of sense, light lightning hitting the ground around them about 50 times as they try to dodge it. I COULD be wrong about how lightning works, but I can't imagine that's actually a thing. I'm not going to claim this as unwatchable garbage or anything like that, as it seems there's enough people who do get some good from this. But it's not something I can honestly recommend either. I would suggest that the film tries a bit too hard, and as mentioned before, it just ends up being a total downer of a movie. I mean, the whole plot is surrounded by the idea of dying children, whether it's Hannah's memories of the kids she couldn't save, or Conner being hunted. So while we're still in this iffy pandemic period, this might not provide the best viewing material. But then again, this review is replacing 'Spiral: From the Book of Saw', so... who knows maybe I got the better end of the stick. 2/5 By this point, this film has been around for a little while. But to be honest, it went right over my head, and things didn't really click for me until some people at work started talking about it. When people started comparing it to 'John Wick', and mentioned Bob Odenkirk as the lead, it was easy for me to be sold. Like watching 'Better Call Saul' if Saul was some kind of ex-military badass. Upon watching it, so far, it's one of my favourite movies of the year. Hutch Mansell (Odenkirk) lives the life of an "everyman", with an average office job at a metal fabrication company. He lives in suburbia with his wife, Becca (Connie Nielsen) and two kids; teenage son, Blake (Gage Munroe) and loving little daughter, Abby (Paisley Cadorath). He does the every-day grind thing, and slowly it really starts getting to him, and he's about to be pushed over the edge. This is essentially achieved when, one night, two burglars break into their house and try to rob them at gunpoint. Hutch actually lets the perps go, and with that, word spreads about his actions despite his feelings that he made the right decision - especially based on what he could have done to them. The following day, Hutch is the subject of ridicule from such close people as his son, his brother-in-law, Charlie (Billy MacLellan), and his neighbour, Jim (Paul Essiembre). Upon coming home from work, Abby mentions that she can't find her kitty cat bracelet. Hutch figures that since it was in the bowl of cash the burglars grabbed, it went with them, and thus is triggered Hutch's "snap event", sending him on a mission to retrieve his daughter's bracelet. Things escalate fairly quickly as we find out Hutch isn't exactly the family man we thought he was, and soon his rampage leads him to unknowingly brutally injuring the brother of a notorious Russian mob boss, Yulian Kuznetsov (Aleksey Serebryakov). I tend to see this movie is as though 'John Wick' and 'Falling Down' had a baby with all of their best features. I love me a good revenge film, especially if it involves the "straw that broke the camel's back" situation. Here, it's a kitty cat bracelet, in 'John Wick', it's a puppy (though to be fair, that one's also incredibly relatable to most), and in 'Falling Down' it's really just a bad day for the wrong type of person. In other words, not typical "eye for an eye" revenge so much as that thing that pushes us over the edge. Every single one of us has faced some kind of God awful day, and movies like these allow us to live vicariously through these characters, in the legal safety of our own home. This could be compared to blowing off some steam while playing a good 3D shooter. The only other thing I want to bring up are a couple of cast names I missed, who really help make this movie a fun time. Hutch's more immediate family consists of a couple more specially skilled characters; his father, David (Christopher Lloyd), and his half-brother, Harry (RZA). By far, Christopher Lloyd is the most fun part of this movie, and between this and another new one called 'Senior Moment', it's nice to see the 82-year-old actor not only still going, but having a lot of fun doing it. You can tell he had a blast in this, and it adds a healthy does of comedy to everything. Lastly, making an almost unrecognizable cameo here is Michael Ironside as Hutch's father-in-law. He's a bit of a true neutral character here, routing for Hutch but concerned all at once. If you were ever a fan of 'Better Call Saul' (or enjoyed the character in 'Breaking Bad'), and you enjoy a good revenge film much along the lines of 'John Wick', then this is the movie for you right now. I had a hell of a lot of fun with it, and even watched it twice before landing on this review. It's a shame that it couldn't be a theatrical presentation for me, but even if you're stuck at home right now, it's a good one to cozy up to if you just want some senseless blood and gore with a more simplistic plot than 'Mortal Kombat'. It may have gone over my head back in March, but I'm glad that I caught up on it for this belated review. Maybe I'm a bit of a stand-alone here, but I really loved it! 5/5 What a strange week it has been for yours truly. 'Godzilla vs King Kong' was pushed back, so I had to seek out a different "Now Playing" review, not able to come up with much of anything too interesting. But then, I saw a trailer for this Apple TV Original (so perhaps a bit of a cheat) starring Tom Holland, and directed by the Russo Brothers. The trailer immediately grabbed my attention, as Holland looked like he was giving a tour de force, and so far, I only really know him as (arguably) the "best on-screen Spider-Man yet". Luckily for us, we have Apple TV, because it was honestly the only thing I really wanted to check out this week - even if this review is technically running a couple of weeks late, being that it was released March 12th, and here we are almost two weeks later. Anyway, no matter, here I am now to give my pinion on what looks like it could be some award-winning material. As luck would have it, the performances throughout the film were pretty well what I expected, and more. Holland especially shines here, and shows that he has much more range than just being a smart-ass teenager with a super suit. As for a lot of the rest of the movie, well, let's just say it's not entirely without flaw. We open things up with Cherry (Holland) robbing a bank, and taking us through the story of how exactly he got here. It all starts with a girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo) who he meets in college, and admits to us that at first, it's just lust. However, as things move forward, he falls for her hard, and their relationship becomes very strong despite a bit of hesitancy on Emily's part. She soon tells him, quite out of the blue, that she's leaving for school in Canada, and they would have to separate. In his devastation, Cherry joins the Army, but she comes back to tell him she's not going after all, putting him in an awkward position, having already joined up. Cherry serves overseas for two years, and comes back with PTSD due to what he sees out there. Sure enough, Emily waited for him, but Cherry's PTSD and coping with various drugs eventually turn the couple into junkies, and the film sort of unfolds from there. It's a bit like taking a Nicolas Sparks movie and dirtying it up with some 'Breaking Bad'-ness - if you're familiar with 'Breaking Bad', the relationship these two have isn't exactly dissimilar to Jesse's and Jane's. Also, for the record, I've given away most of the movie already. It is split into parts, and the first whole hour and a bit are the war part of the movie followed by the drug part. It reminded me, in some ways, of 'Jarhead' in as much as it not having to really do with the war itself, but what the war did to the lead character - in this case, made a junkie out of him. This is another one of those movies where the critics don't like it but a general audience certainly has the potential to. My only real criticism about the film is that I can see how it's quite formulaic in some ways - again, it really did make me think of the average Nicolas Sparks movie that has to do with a romance challenged because of war. But it also reminded me of just about any movie/show that has to do with becoming a heroin addict. I didn't personally find the whole ending of this predictable, but when it's all said and done, I could certainly see how one might. So, I think if you choose to check it out, you should be aware that you've probably seen something very similar. But this is an odd case where the story, at least for me, takes a back seat to these characters. I found Tom Holland's performance quite convincing, and he really breaks out here, proving that he can do so much more. Bravo was good for what she had as well, but it's very easy not to like her character, and you do wonder what the hell Cherry is holding onto with her sometimes. I found this to be a pretty intense movie, emotionally, in many ways. Cherry is that guy you care for, and feel for, but at the same time, you want to set him straight. He's that dear friend you want to go down the right path instead of the path he's heading down. I didn't care nearly as much for Emily, but I also think there's a good reason they made her such a way. Unfortunately for many, this IS an Apple TV exclusive, so hopefully other options will appear to eventually check this out if one doesn't have Apple TV. This is the problem with streaming taking things over - lack of accessibility to exclusives. It's like having an X-Box and wanting to play 'The Last of Us' because it's one of the best games ever created (humble opinion). But I can also say this is worth waiting for if you ever will be able to access it elsewhere. It's not a must-see now title, but I was entertained by what it was and moved by what it was saying, especially with Holland's performance. I sense big things for him, moving beyond the MCU. 3/5 First, let's just hit rewind for a moment and go back to 2017's original cut. You can see right here for yourself that it was a DC I actually enjoyed at the time. As time passed by, however, I managed to get completely sidetracked by everything Marvel was doing. By the time of 'JL's release, we Marvel fan-boys had reached 'Thor: Ragnarok', and the immense deal that would be 'Black Panther' was on the horizon. Speaking for myself, I expected to be let down as I was with 'Batman v Superman', and for that matter, 'Man of Steel'. However, I had fun with it, but perhaps because I chose to rather than think thoughts like "here we go again". Thus, the whole "#releasethesnydercut" thing that DC fans have been fighting with for years now was not a bandwagon that I ended up jumping on. I was actually somewhat satisfied with the original cut, and would tend to respond in true cinema-snob fashion - "It's just more Zack Snyder. Why is that a good thing all of a sudden?". Truth be told I've always found him kind of hit or miss, but my response would suggest I wasn't giving him a proper chance to hit. I had to finally take into consideration certain things like studio interference and tweaking, and above all else, the fact that I WANT to see more films where studios give its director full reign. So, I decided I wasn't being fair, and gave it a chance. For those unfamiliar with the plot/extended plot, here's a refresher. Centuries ago, a being named Darkseid (Ray Porter), with the combined energy of three "Mother Boxes", attempted to take over the world. In a flashback sequence, we see a massive battle fought between an alliance of Amazons, Atlanteans, Lanterns (at least one) and other humans going up against Darkseid and his Parademon army. Earth wins, and the Mother Boxes are separated and hidden around the world. As the film opens, we see where they end up; one in Themyscira, one in Atlantis and one in Cyborg's closet (don't worry, we find out why). One by one they are triggered by Superman's (Henry Cavill) final screams in death (from the end of 'Batman v Superman'), which send a sort of shockwave across the globe. One of Darkseid's servants, Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds), finds out about the reactivation of the Mother Boxes, and heads to Earth. He intends to invade and collect the boxes in an effort to regain Darkseid's favor. With the boxes, he will be able to terraform a new Earth in the image of their home world of Apokolips. Learning that there may be danger on the way, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) seeks the help of a handful of superheroes that include Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to battle what's coming. The problem is, what's coming may very well have only been held at bay because Superman was still alive to protect the planet. All in all, it's the same idea as the first but with so much more depth. The first thing that might come to mind is the length of the film, running at a full 4 hours. What I delighted in, however, was that the film was split into six chapters and an epilogue. One could just as easily slow-burn this movie in sittings or watch it like its a miniseries, using the chapters as cut-off points if you need to break for a meal or something. So its length isn't something I feel I can totally criticize, but I will nitpick about the overuse of slow-mo in this that could easily cut a bit out of it. Superman's dying sequence is about 7 minutes long when it's all done, and that shows us the activation of the boxes and where they are located. Sometimes, however, the slow-mo could be good. I appreciated the use of it when the film showed us things like Flash saving a woman from a near-fatal crash so casually, or perhaps to even establish certain moods for certain moments. But like with most of Snyder's films, there's also a lot of it just unnecessarily there. Thankfully, however, he doesn't use it for everything here. Plenty of action sequences are fast-paced when they need to be, and on the whole, everything looks pretty amazing. Add to that a lot of DC catch-up fan service that can only fit into a 4-hour long movie, like the introduction of a certain Martian. I say that like it's a negative, but I mean it when I say it's a positive. It all seems to be attached to something Snyder wants for the DC universe that may not come to pass... but you never say never with this kind of stuff. By the end of it all, despite a few lingering criticisms, I was actually impressed. I wasn't quite as excited about it as others seem to be, but that's all just in the fact that I've always been a heavier Marvel guy than a DC guy - even before any of these cinematic universes. 'Batman' was about all I was ever into when it came to DC, whereas I grew up with 'Spider-Man' and 'X-Men' more on the comic book side of it. So a DC movie is fun for me to check out, but I'll never be as invested in them as I am with Marvel. Having said that, I can't really deny that once things got going, I did find myself far more interested this time than last time. We have more character background and development this time around, which was missing more than I initially considered the first time around - Cyborg perhaps being the best example. I'm very happy that Snyder got to see his vision for this through, and further dedicate it to his late daughter, Autumn. When you see that sort of dedication float across the screen, you think something like "screw my opinion, this is for her". Her passing was what initially made Snyder step away the first time around and have Joss Whedon finish it. Me, being a Whedon fan as it was, perhaps gave the previous film a little more credit than it deserved, thinking things like "well, Whedon's better anyway". I said I'd eat my words, and eat my words, I did. When you get right down to it, the Snyder cut, while significantly longer, is still far superior. Snyder's direction does the job of taking us into that dark DC world here more than he ever has before, and nothing but the slow-mo style really got under my skin. This is a dark, DC comic book brought to life on screen more than it ever has been. I don't know what's gonna happen for DC or what they have planned for the future (other than upcoming 'Suicide Squad' and 'Batman' movies) but I'd love to see things play through to where they can become the Pepsi to Marvel's Coke - perhaps second-fiddle, but an incredibly worthy second-fiddle. If producers can pay attention to what this film did for its fans, it would be a great first step! Why not just hit rewind a little bit and use this as the jumping off point for more DC movies in this universe. Perhaps a redo of 'Green Lantern'? Time will tell. Until then, if you have Crave/HBO Max and love your DC material, then you really should check it out (multiple sittings if necessary, but it's pretty worth it) 4/5 I have to admit that while things have been fun for the most part, the time-loop movie seems to be becoming a bit of a cliche. While everyone and their mother loves 'Groundhog Day' as a sort of feel-good time-loop movie, others like to take the trend of the same day beginning again after death; most prevalent in my mind being 'The Edge of Tomorrow' and 'Happy Death Day'. This one adds a bit of a video game twist to things, however, and becomes another fairly solid video game movie that isn't actually a video game movie. While it remains a bit cliche in its execution, I can't deny the over-the-top fun factor this film still has. As the film opens, we get an inner monologue from ex Delta Force soldier, Roy Pulver (Frank Grillo) who gives us about 17-minutes worth of exposition. He takes us through his repeated day, as several people try to kill him while mentioning that he often slips up and has to do it all over again. Much like several times of practice with any video game, he eventually gets it all down, but I have to appreciate that the film takes slight human error into account - for example, at one point he simply stubs his toe, allowing for just enough distraction for someone to shoot him. While it's a long time before the story really gets going, it's still a fun sequence, and I can't deny a few laughs. In this time, the film lets you know what it is, and the idea of not taking it seriously is almost instantaneous. On his 48th attempt to survive this day, Roy attempts to call his estranged wife, Jemma Welles (Naomi Watts), but the phone is instead picked up by Dynow Labs' head of defense, Col. Clive Ventor (Mel Gibson) who informs him that Jemma is dead due to an accident. Roy knows that the time loop he's stuck in is tied to Jemma in some way, due to a strange visit they had the day before he got himself trapped. He then spends the time formulating a revenge plot, while getting answers to his questions slowly revealed to him with each trial and error attempt. Some of these answers could spell out the end of the world if Roy doesn't come through. Things are fairly basic here, and not much comes as a surprise while you're watching it. But if you're a dude looking for a fun action movie with a dark sense of humor and a whole lot of violence, this could be right up your alley. As many like to put it, including myself, this is straight up "dude porn" in that regard. It's just your average balls-to-the-wall action flick that will allow you to throw your brain out the window for a couple of hours, and revel in the shoot-em-up gore that we all find so satisfying after a really bad day. Again, it does it all with a dark sense of humor as well. Although, I will admit that there's a line or two here that might make one cringe and think it awkward - especially when delivered by Mel Gibson at one particular point. You will know it when you hear it. The film comes to us from director Joe Carnahan who also did 'The A-Team' and 'Smokin' Aces'. So to say that this is a dumb action movie that's perfectly enjoyable just for the fun of it shouldn't come as much of a surprise. It's currently available for rent for a decent, non-gouging price online, and I'd actually highly recommend it for anyone looking for such a film. One could almost watch this in place of whatever games they are playing on their PS5's (if, God willing, they managed to get their hands on one). It's a movie to have fun with, not take seriously, and just enjoy the thrill. 3/5 With another Disney+ Premier Access title, the first question to come to mind would probably be "is it worth it"? After all, 'Mulan' was sub-par, and it's truly surprising that Disney didn't drop their prices after so much outcry over such a cost. Here, in Canada, I'd be paying less to see this on an IMAX screen, in 3D. So with that, as a single person watching this, the answer is a straight up "no" - but honestly, no movie is worth such a cost to watch alone. Before you get the wrong idea, however, I will say that a big chunk of that cost can be forgiven if you're sitting down to watch this with the family - I'd say three people, plus. That still doesn't mean that Disney can't stand to lower that price though. Remember, you still need to be a Disney Plus subscriber on top of that cost. My deep down personal opinion is that anyone can just wait it out for a few of months for easier access at a lower cost. However, that's also just speaking for myself. It all depends on what gets you hyped, really, and this IS the next big Disney title in the tradition of 'Tangled', 'Frozen', and 'Moana'; all very successful films for impressionable young women. In this tale, we learn of a land called Kumandra which was once taken over by the Druun; a plague of evil spirits that turn people into stone, and multiply with every victim. A group of dragons who act as providers for Kumandra, use their remaining magic to create an orb that will ward off the Druun and revive the human population. In doing so, the dragons turn into stone, themselves. Kumandra then divides its borders in a power struggle for the orb, based on their placement along a dragon-shaped river. The orb stays in Heart, where our heroine, Raya (Kelly Marie Tran) and her Father, Benja (Daniel Dae Kim). The other tribes consist of Fang, Spine, Talon and Tail; all of whom believe they deserve the orb for their own reasons. Benja dreams of one day making Kumandra whole again, however, and invites the tribes to join theirs for a peace offering of a meal consisting of ingredients from each nation. With this, Raya meets the likes of a girl from the Fang tribe named Namaari (Gemma Chan), and discovers that they have a great deal in common, especially when it comes to their fascination with dragons. Raya's trust goes too far, however, when she shows Namaari the dragon orb. Namaari backstabs Rya to obtain the orb, and eventually all tribes get involved in a struggle. The orb drops, shatters, and each tribe obtains a piece of it in order to keep the now unleashed Druun at bay with its magic. One of the many victims turned to stone from the Drrun ends up being Benja, and for the six following, Raya sets out on an off-screen journey to try to find the last dragon, Sissu (Awkwafina). Sure enough she finds her, but Sissu isn't quite what Raya expected - and may not be what one would expect if one hasn't seen the trailer. The two then embark on a journey to find the other orb fragments and try to bring her father (and everyone else effected by the Druun) back to life. For yours truly, the best way to describe this movie is that it's a pleasant surprise. I mean, where to begin? Fist off, Sissu was one of those characters I thought might be problematic at first, as she's actually a comedy relief character who, at first, feels like a bit of a speedbump. There's a lot of really cool, beautifully animated, intense moments before her reveal, so in the beginning, she kind of takes you out of it. The crazy thing is, however, she slowly evolved into one of my favorite characters in the film. She's got jokes, and plays a bit like 'Aladdin's Genie, but she's got some depth too, and her backstory she gives Raya is actually pretty heart-felt. There's a lot here that speaks to a lot of social situations these days, especially when it comes to people being people, and seemingly wanting war for their own gain instead of living in peace. I know things aren't as black and white as that, but at the very least, this is something that might make you think. On top of a great story here, there's also a great bunch of likable characters. Not to spoil anything much, but Raya meets someone from each tribe along her journey who want to help her, as they have all experienced loss too. The execution is pretty reminiscent of 'Wizard of Oz', except that as we carry on Raya's journey, we see the potential for peace and unity with each new character. She's joined by a young, witty boy named Boun (Izaac Wang), a thieving baby named Little Noi (Thalia Tran), a muscle-bound but friendly warrior named Tong (Benedict Wong) and Raya's mount (a sort of giant armadillo-pug), Tuk Tuk (Alan Tudyk). Every character here is pretty great in their own way, but my personal favorite is Little Noi. That combination of extremely cute and totally badass gets me almost every time, and she's easily one of the best at it. I could go on and on about praising this movie, but I do have to wrap up the review at some point. Just to make it quick though, it's also full of gorgeous animation, settings that transport you into the film's magical world, a wonderful score, great action sequences, a total lack of singing (which I typically don't mind, but it is still a breath of fresh air to not have another potential 'Let It Go' on our hands), it gauges every emotion, and last but definitely not least - it's a near all-female cast and a total "girl power" movie but it does it ALL without getting into anything typical. No boy-slamming, no love interest at all, a boy and a man join Raya on her journey, there's nothing about what men thought women should be, and it all felt so natural and flowing. Raya is just a character who is joined by other characters to accomplish a mission that will save humanity, namely her father. I award it BIG points for pulling off such a thing. Of the new list of empowered Disney "princesses", I have been pretty steady on having 'Moana' as my front-runner... but this definitely took her off that throne. Color me thoroughly impressed! 5/5 Hey, remember last week how I talked about HBO Max and Warner Brothers being jerks about holding their multi-released material in America? Well, apparently I'm going to be able to access a few of these titles after all - not as conveniently, but it's still a step in the right direction. Let's just hope that I can get some of those more high profile titles, as 'Tom and Jerry' here wasn't exactly a movie I was excited to see. But hey, it's been a little while since I did a "Now Playing" review on a family title. So, is 'Tom and Jerry' worth checking out? The film opens with an unnecessary hip hop number involving a few unknown pigeons, we are introduced to Tom and Jerry who are here to do what they do throughout the whole movie. In a weird way, I actually credit the film for keeping Tom and Jerry as they should be - totally silent, and playing off each other, performing that classic cartoon violence they're known for. The actual plot of the film mostly revolves around one, Kayla Forester (Chloë Grace Moretz); a young woman looking for her place in Manhattan. After doing several odd jobs and constantly looking for work, she tries the Royal Gate Hotel, and in desperation, robs another applicant of her impressive resume in order to get the job. Yeah, security is super tight in this hotel. In order to prove herself worthy of the fancy hotel job, Kayla is tasked with helping an event planner named Terence Mendoza (Michael Peña) plan a high profile wedding for well-known celebrity couple, Preeta (Pallavi Sharda) and Ben (Colin Jost). The whole time, Terence is somewhat suspicious of Kayla's qualifications. But Kayla decides to further prove herself by helping get rid of a pesky mouse we know as Jerry, who has recently taken up residence in the hotel. Long story short, she eventually gets Tom to try to help her. What follows is pretty much a bunch of Tom and Jerry shenanigans risking the upcoming wedding being ruined. In the meantime, Kayla hopes her true, inexperienced identity won't be unveiled. All in all, things get significantly predictable, and the film is mediocre at best. This is a weird one for me. As a film, it's bad. It's hard to wrap my head around how this world works, exactly. It seems that real-life human beings live in a world where all of the animals are animated, and there's absolutely no explanation as to why things look like this. Furthermore, we have no idea who the hell this movie is for. There's a bit of nostalgia here, if only in the way Tom and Jerry act, but when I say that, it's only a slight pinch. Most of the humor here is definitely directed at kids, but the soundtrack is all R&B and hip-hop, a lot of it from the old school, and it feels very obvious that this is a studio cash-grab on parallel with something like... well, and of the 'Chipmunk' movies. What makes the film even worse is that it's scripted by Kevin Costello who also worked on 'Brigsby Bear', which is actually a movie that I highly recommend. The director here is Tim Story, who is pretty hit-or-miss, but I can tell you in all honesty that this is a miss. When I mention the nostalgic factor here, again, it's only very slight, and there isn't enough of it to really fuel the film. It further sucks that at no point is the movie REALLY about them. It's all about Kayla, and then suddenly it's about the potential bride and groom. For a movie with the title 'Tom and Jerry', it has very little to do without them, other than just showing us what they do. This is just another example of a movie that slaps a familiar title on it for a quick cash grab, and tries too hard to be "cool" for the kids these days. 'Scoob' was much better, and I only thought that was okay. 1/5 Consider the following review a "bookmark" of sorts. In part protest/part not wanting to pay a whole bunch per month, I have gotten rid of Crave and therefore HBO Max. My reasoning; the WB titles streaming on HBO Max as well as theaters are only available in America, thus we Canucks kind of just get screwed. It's irritating to me that WB has what I think is a great idea, but they aren't making it available elsewhere. Last I checked, our theaters were closed as well, so this means missing out on a lot of cool up-and-coming material. In fairness, the odd rental still might pop up here and there, like 'Wonder Woman '84' did. On a personal level, I'm okay with renting as long as the cost is relatively fair to my wallet ($20 for 'Onward' as opposed to $30 for 'Mulan'). For the time being, however, a lot of these "Now Playing" titles may be either late to the party (perhaps being released in Canada later than the US, like the last 'Spongebob' flick) or quite "Under the Radar" (as many of these have been lately). So, instead of reviewing the Oscar-Buzzing Frances McDormand movie that is 'Nomadland' this week, instead, it's movie that you've probably never heard of until now. But hey, it's "available"! Diving right in, after some time passes from a tragic incident involving a nurse named Katie and her patient, she becomes a devout Roman Catholic, and starts referring to herself as Maud. She now works as a palliative care nurse somewhere in England, and her next assignment is to Amanda; a minor celebrity in the world of dance choreography. Terminally ill with stage four lymphoma, she confesses her fears of death to Maud, who confesses back that she often feels God's response to her prayers. We see this as Maud responding to things in an almost orgasmic fashion. As time passes, Amanda is visited by Carol, who acts as a sex worker for her. As a result of this and Maud's devout faith to God, Maud becomes obsessive with the protection of Amanda, and wants nothing more than to save her soul from eternal damnation. Soon enough, the obsession turns sour and, through a series of events, Maud eventually has to question who it is that really needs saving; Amanda or herself. If the opening scene involving Katie/Maud locked up in an asylum is any indication, we certainly know that nothing will end up in Katie/Maud's favor, but it's mildly interesting to watch the events that unfold that got her there... very mildly. Just by reading the review here, your probable thoughts on the film being a little too religiously heavy are 100% accurate. All in all, it's your standard, run of the mill, supernatural, psychological religious thriller. It doesn't have a lot of the typical imagery, and a lot more of is is psychological than physically supernatural. The film gets you trapped in Maud's life and personal thoughts, all the while delivering some pretty uncomfortable imagery, but nothing so over the top as to truly call this "horror". I'd probably just say it's more uncomfortable than anything, and it really doesn't feel like it has much more of a point than Maud's confusion on what's really right and wrong - again, speaking in the biblical sense more than anything. It seems to combine the issues of mental health with religion, and that's always an iffy area for me as it is. So, as I expected, there's nothing particularly special here, and I wouldn't really recommend it to anyone in particular. It's not scary, it's not horrifically fun in any way, and it's just too heavy-handed with its religious aspect. I suppose it works out as a sort of hidden gem for some (considering its praise on Rotten Tomatoes with an average of 81%), but this is just one of those cases where if you told me I "just didn't get it", you'd probably be right. I guess it's ot without its moments of discomfort, and therefore doing its job, but I can tell that this will be a "forgotten title" for yours truly when 2021 comes to an end. 2/5 Ah the early winte months of the year, combined with a pandemic. It is what it is, but when it comes to my "Now Playing" reviews, some weeks involve tracking down something not so well known - like this particularly under-the-radar flick that's just kind of floating among the New Releases list on Google Play Movies (this is pretty much how I do things now). With titles like these, I always go in expecting it not to be very memorable, but I have to admit, this had some cool things about it I appreciated. The film opens with a girl running through the woods from a mysterious, hooded figure, chasing and attempting to kill her. The girl, Rain Burroughs (Madison Iseman) suddenly wakes up in a hospital, overhearing the voices of her mother Michelle (Katherine Heigl) and father John (Harry Connick Jr), and is taken to a therapy room for recovery. Upon a therapist visit and her coming back home, we quickly realize that Rain seemingly wasn't chased by anyone, but hallucinated the whole thing due to taking herself off whatever meds she was supposed to be on. The next day, Rain goes back to school where she seemingly loses a friend to a group of stuck up little brats who presume Rain is out for attention. However, along come Caleb (Israel Broussard) who manages to brighten her day with a card trick, and asking her out. But just as things are looking up for her, Rain starts to have more visions. While coming home from school, she sees a child get snatched, but suddenly the child and the kidnapper vanish. Then, one night, she has a nightmare involving her teacher and neighbor, Mrs. McConnell (Eugenie Bondurant) harboring a child. The next day, John and Rain go to check out Mrs. McConnell's house, but find no evidence of anything. However, Rain is still pretty certain of there being something fishy going on. She the recruits Caleb to help her out, as he seems to be the only one who will listen to her. Soon enough, however, she and the viewing audience begin to question what's real and what's in her head - namely, the situation involving Mrs. McConnell, and Caleb, himself. Can Rain rescue the little girl trapped next door, or is there even anyone in danger? All in all, I meet this one in the middle. Sometimes when movies show the dark side of mental health, and the people who react around the victim, I can have a hard time of it. I find myself looking for something to appreciate about it, and in fairness, this does a decent job of showing us the every day horror Rain has to go through on a daily basis. This poor girl suffers from both auditory and visual hallucinations, so things can get pretty uncomfortable to watch. In that case, the film does its job. She hears voices, sees things, and even has inner battles with herself. One thing I really appreciated about this was its cinematography. Rain's hallucinations are all portrayed visually quite well, utilizing some pretty cool effects, and text that jumps across the screen representing her "list" (things she has to question in order to snap out of her hallucinations). This all ends in an interesting twist, as one probably expects, but when it's all said and done you might consider it pretty predictable. Personally, I knew A twist was bound to happen, but when the big reveal shows itself, you just think "I shouldn't have missed that". All in all, this was pretty cool for what it was, but I can't imagine that it will stick out as a "favorite" by the end of 2021. 3/5 There are few things in the media that can get away with stupidity due to the stupidity being part of its charm. One of the leaders in this has to be, without a doubt, 'SpongeBob Squarepants', which has delivered the goods through silly fun and using its stupidity in a sort of clever way. Speaking for myself, I only watch 'SpongeBob' if I need a good laugh, but don't need to think about what I'm laughing at. It sort of follows the Nickelodeon tradition of things like 'Ren & Stimpy' or 'Rocko's Modern Life', but makes it all innocent enough for kids. However, for as much fun as SpongeBob provides, it's not an example of a cartoon I'd try to convince people to like. There is a somewhat annoying aspect to SpongeBob and Patrick, which is part of the humor, but if someone ever said "I can't stand that sponge", I'd get it. One could say SpongeBob is an acquired taste, and you'll never like it if you have an inability to throw your brain out the window. That said, I tend to lean towards the appreciative side of things. I enjoy 'SpongeBob' for a good laugh, but it's not something I appreciate quite as much as some other animated series out there. My list of viewed material is pretty much a few odd episodes of the series, and the first film from 2004. Alas, I did not catch 2015's 'Sponge Out of Water'. So with that, let's keep in mind I'm not reviewing this as a biased fan boy, but one who can see both sides of the coin. So much of the show revolves around a little villain named Plankton (Mr. Lawrence) who is constantly after the secret recipe of Krusty Krab burgers. The Krusty Krab is run by the greedy, but good-natured Mr. Krabs (Clancy Brown) while SpongeBob (Tom Kenney) whips up food in the kitchen, and the miserable Squidward (Rodger Bumpass) handles the register. To no one's surprise, the film opens with Plankton formulating a new plan to steal the recipe, but his robotic assistant, Karen (Jill Talley) informs him that he's been so focused on getting Mr. Krabs out of the way, he hasn't realized that SpongeBob has been the one constantly thwarting his plans (much of the time by accident). Plankton then devises a plan to get rid of SpongeBob by kidnapping his pet snail, Gary, and giving him to Poseidon (Matt Berry), who uses snail slime as a moisturizer, and is constantly running out because he squeezes them dry. This will send SpongeBob on a mission to find his missing snail, along with his best friend, Patrick (Bill Fagerbakke). That way, he can't possibly interfere with the stealing of the formula. However, without SpongeBob around, everyone involved eventually discovers how much they miss, and somewhat need SpongeBob in the picture. Meanwhile, the laughs are definitely delivered through a series of events involving celebrity cameos, not the least of which is Keanu Reeves as a tumbleweed, calling himself the Sage and guiding SpongeBob and Patrick on their journey. The other cameos popping up, however, I feel like one needs to see for themselves. It's a lot like telling someone Bill Murray was in 'Zombieland' at the time. Although 'SpongeBob' was never something I truly followed, I always did appreciate it for what it was. This movie is no exception. I can't really look at this in any other light that the simple fact that it's 'SpongeBob', and you can't expect to get Oscar-worthy material from something so silly. That's not to put it down or anything, that just isn't what 'SpongeBob' is, and there are many beloved movies that fall under such a category, like 'Dumb and Dumber' or 'Galaxy Quest' - great for what they are, and they don't need awards to prove they're any good. If you like 'SpongeBob' then you'll probably like this movie, if you don't, then you probably won't. It's as simple as that. Personally speaking, I'm not going to pretend I had a blast with it, but it made me laugh, tugged on the heartstrings ever-so slightly, and I got exactly what I expected to get. So although it's pretty average, you'll hear no real complaints from yours truly. On a side note, one might be wondering why this is "late" as a "Now Playing" review. Well, Covid has made things very uncertain with various theatrical releases, and dates are all over the place. Hell, IMDb still has its official release date for this as March 4, 2021, and here we are on February 10. Seeing as I just don't get what's happening with a lot of these titles and how they're dealing with the whole Covid situation anymore, all I'll say is don't be surprised f you see a title like this in "Now Playing" for the next while. Anyway, just to top off the review, despite its supposed March 4th release date, one can currently find it on Prime as a simple $5 rental. If you're a fan, I say go for it. If nothing else, it's a lot of fun. 3/5 Right off the bat, I'm going to have to confess that this review may not turn out to be my best. The fact of the matter is, this was not a movie that sucked me in, its ideas have been done before, but better, and it's just plain too long and boring for what it's trying to be. That's something I hate to admit to when Denzel is involved, as I consider him one of the finest actors in Hollywood, but it's sadly true. There is just nothing particularly special about this one. It all opens in 1990 where we see a girl being chased. She manages to run towards an oncoming transport truck and flag it down, thus rescuing her from her pursuer. So we get that there's some creepy guy on the loose and our first victim isn't even a mood-setting victim. Fast-forward a bit to Kern County, LA, where deputy sheriff Joe "Deke" Deacon (Denzel Washington) is called to collect evidence for a recent murder. Deacon soon accompanies new lead detective Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) to a fresh murder scene, where he finds similarities between this murder and one he was unable to solve during his time as a former LA sheriff's detective. Before long, the pair end up questioning one Albert Sparma (Jared Leto), a prime suspect in the murders who works at a repair shop. As the FBI starts to take things over, the detectives find themselves up against the clock even more so. Further to that, will they be able to solve these grizzly murder cases and find their killer without it affecting Deacon's performance? Or indeed, is Deacon the one we have to be worried about to begin with? The film is fairly reminiscent of 'Seven' and/or 'The Bone Collector' from my perspective - but also, from my perspective, both of those movies offer a lot more than this. While the aforementioned films consist of great suspense and disturbing imagery, this one tries, but manages it to a much lesser extent. My final impressions of this one were simply that it felt too long for what it needed to do, I've seen better movies within the genre, and this is a lot more talking than anything else. There's not a whole lot here that gives you an "edge-of-your-seat" perspective, and I would say it would be worth waiting out the current rental cost so as to stream it for free. If you're into the whole dark and disturbing detective thing, it works okay, but I'd liken it more to a 3-part TV miniseries than a movie made for big screen appreciation. Though it has shadows of movies like 'Seven', there's nothing that stands out about it apart from perhaps the performances. That actually brings me to my next point, because I don't necessarily mean that in a good way. In a movie with a cast that consists of Denzel Washington, Rami Malek and Jared Leto, the only one who really stands out is Rami Malek. Denzel seems to have taken a voluntary step down, and it feels like this might be a "paycheck" movie for the man. He's still charming as ever, but the writing has him sleepwalking through most of this. As for Leto, I think there's still too many shades of his Joker here, and that just turns me away altogether. He's always been incredibly hit-or-miss for me, and never truly a personal favorite. Malek, on the other hand, really seems to have come into his own after his portrayal of Freddie Mercury, and it's almost as if we're seeing Denzel pass the torch from solid A-lister to rookie A-lister. It's interesting, but you do kind of wonder how a movie starring Denzel does not have Denzel carrying it on his shoulders. So, if you're super curious about this one, I'm not gonna sit here and try to steer you away from watching it. I would, however, encourage you to wait it out so that at the very least it might be less costly. In the days of the video store, this would be the equivalent of me suggesting renting it from the video store when it comes out, as opposed to paying to see it on the big screen. There's just nothing special about it that stands out, and despite its best efforts, it's just a bit of a snooze-fest. It may manage to capture someone else's attention better than mine, but this one is reserved for those who get a kick out of detective movies where the conversation takes a front seat, leaving the action and overall suspense in the back. It does hurt to give a Denzel Washington movie a poor rating, but I suppose these things are eventually bound to happen. 2/5 Is it just me, or are DC films the undisputed champions of the "mixed review". The first 'Wonder Woman' seemed to be the most positively reviewed while basically everything else ends up being a fun ride with some great visual effects, but with little substance. People love them just as much as people seem to hate them, and some, like myself, aren't exactly fans, but understand some of the appeal. This is one of those truly medium entries into the DC library. A friend of mine gave it a one-word review of "meh", and I have to say, I'm right there with him. The film opens sometime in the past where a young Diana Prince (Lilly Aspell) participates in an athletic competition for the Amazonian women on Themyscira (the hidden world where the Amazonians live). This part of the film is pretty awesome, and could easily be watched a a clip before going through the first (and far superior) film; it sets up Diana's overall character. I won't say much about it, but it's a lot of fun, a good point is made, and it makes you think of Diana's actions as a hero the first time around. It's a very entertaining section of the film, and Lilly Aspell is one of these young actors I would suggest keeping an eye on for years to come - she delivers enough that you can really route for her, and in such a short window of time. After a peek at Diana's youth, we Fast-forward to 1984, where Diana works as a senior anthropologist as the Smithsonian in Washington, DC. In the meantime, she fights crime as Wonder Woman throughout the city. One day, at work, she meets an insecure brainiac named Barbara Ann Minerva (Kristen Wiig), who looks up to Diana, and even envies her. Barbara is asked by the FBI to examine a relic that appears to be simple plastic, but apparently has the ability to grant wishes. Barbara makes a wish to be more like Diana, and Diana unknowingly makes a wish to see her deceased lover, Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) again. Diana gets her wish (kind of) as Steve returns in the body of another man, but more interestingly, Barbara inadvertently becomes more like Diana than she could have imagined. Meanwhile our villain is a wealthy oil tycoon named Max Lorenzano (Pedro Pascal) who is after the stone (dubbed the "Dream Stone") to not only save his failing oil company, but go power hungry and wish to become the embodiment of the Dream Stone itself. This way, he has the power to not only grant wishes, but take whatever he wants. Each wish comes with a cost, however, and there's a bit of a Money's Paw thing going on through the film. While the first film easily remains DC's best modern title (at least in the 'Justice League' Universe), its follow-up isn't terrible, but fairly bland. If 'Wonder Woman' is a fresh, cold, glass bottle of Coca-Cola, '84' is a bit more like an unrefrigerated can of Coke you got from your basement stash - it's tolerable, but it's just nowhere near the same. A lot about this is very reminiscent of older superhero movies, and 'Batman Returns' was a title that kept springing to mind. I find Barbara's journey here very drawn from Michelle Pfeifer's Catwoman. Hell, she even becomes Cheetah Girl, and gets manipulated by a rich tycoon named "Max". This is where my mixed emotions about the film really come into play. The fact of the matter is, this is a movie entitles 'Wonder Woman 1984', so for it to play like an oldschool superhero movie does make a lot of sense. That said, however, it still feels like a somewhat lazy excuse to go back to nostalgic roots instead of giving us a worthy follow-up to such a great predecessor. 'Wonder Woman' is DC's bread and butter, and though the film wasn't necessarily bad, it wasn't quite what it could have been. I can't say I was thoroughly disappointed; this wasn't like watching 'Batman & Robin'. But it might be in the same realm as... well, 'Batman Returns' - it's okay, but it has nothing on the previous film. It's just average at best, and certainly not the heroic film the first one was. 3/5 Funnily enough, I couldn't find much that stuck out to me this week as far as new Christmas movies go. However, since my last review in November was a Christmas movie, and new major releases are becoming easier to access, I really wanted to tackle the sequel to 'The Croods' - a fun, animated family adventure about cavepeople, their reluctancy to venture out into the world, and their eventual discoveries when they are forced to do so. I don't have a full review on the first one, but as luck would have it, this starts out with a brief recap, and it's easy enough to understand what's going on. Following the events of the first film, the Crood family is still looking for a place to settle, following the sun into "tomorrow" (a whole symbolism thing about the future having a light at the end of the tunnel). The Croods are headed by Grug (Nicolas Cage), his partner, Ugga (Catherine Keener), and Gran (Cloris Leachman); Ugga's mother. The partners have three children; the animalistic baby Sandy (Kailey Crawford), the dimwitted son, Thunk (Clark Duke) and the adventurous Eep (Emma Stone) who has developed a relationship with a random caveman she meets from the first film, Guy (Ryan Reynolds). We get a bit more of Guy's backstory in the very beginning of this film as well - it's short, sweet, to the point, and tells us all we need to know about the character. On their travels, the Croods run into a family, familiar to Guy, the Bettermans. Headed by Phil (Peter Dinklage) and Hope (Leslie Mann) One could easily compare the Bettermans to the Flintstones - basically, they've become creative and live in an advanced treehouse. The Bettermans also have a daughter named Dawn (Kelly Marie Tran) who they see as Guy's fit mate. Now, with a scenario like this, it seems very predictable that it would unfold into the general jealousy scenario involving Guy between a battling Eep and Dawn. I am so pleased to announce that the typical does not unfold here in any way. In fact, there's a whole lesson to be learned at the end that isn't the same old with this situation. Eep and Dawn become friends based on the idea neither of them quite knew other teenage girls existed. The real fight lies in the parental units thinking they know what's best for their kids, along with Guy finding new ways to enjoy himself, away from Crood traditions. This obviously effects Eep, as she loves her family and doesn't see anything wrong with the way things are. So I guess one could say there's some subtext in here about how advancing technologies take away from what one might consider "the good old days", but I wouldn't say it gets preachy about it either. Things are a lot of fun the whole way through, and reach an adventurous conclusion once we find out why Phil is so adamant about his bananas. There's a whole thing where his one rule is that no one is allowed to eat the bananas. You find out why, but it's such a farce on people's "forbidden furniture" and the like - you know, when you go to a house with a comfy-looking couch but are told no one's allowed to sit on it. I actually had to watch these back-to-back, because I had pretty much forgotten how the first film went, and didn't want to go in half-blind. Again, it does give us a brief recap, so one can get through this without needing to see the first one. But with that said, I might still recommend giving these a back-to-back watch for a couple of great, fun animated films. The entire cast is great with their voice work, the animation is beautiful, and there's quite a few laugh out loud moments. Perhaps best of all, they keep setting you up for the typical yet delivering the very untypical - especially with the girlfriend situation here. Either of these films are breaths of fresh air, and great for the whole family. I'd highly recommend both for a good family night in! Just bear one important thing in mind - the animals in this don't really make a lot of sense, so you might try watching it as a fantasy movie all the same. 4/5 |