Weekend Watch - Y2K

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the late 90s, early 2000s nostalgia-fueled teen horror comedy from SNL alum Kyle Mooney and production studio A24, Y2K. The disaster movie about what could have happened if the machine apocalypse really was triggered by the turnover from 1999 to 2000 stars Jaeden Martell, Rachel Zegler, Julian Dennison, Daniel Zolghadri, Lachlan Watson, Fred Durst, Kyle Mooney, Eduardo Franco, Mason Gooding, and The Kid Laroi. The film opened in theaters this weekend to middling reviews from both audiences and critics. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: D+; giving this film any rating higher than this would feel wrong, but it does some things really well, depending on your take on it.

Should you Watch This Film? Obviously not, right? Unless… there’s some moments in this film that are truly some of the funniest moments this year (often unintentionally). It’s not good, but it might be fun enough to warrant a watch.

Why?

                Y2K on paper is a film full of clunky dialogue, odd skips in scenes, a marked lack of internal logic for its premise, and an aggressive amount of homages to the cringeyest parts of late 90s and early 2000s culture. If you’re watching it as a conventional high school horror comedy, you’re going to be frustrated with the seeming randomness of the way that story beats unfold – the story is the loosest skeleton, relying almost entirely on convenient plot points to move from scene to scene and moment to moment – and the horror never really hits beyond some moments of gore and some solid practical effects for a B-movie. However, by the end of the film, I was able to appreciate what the film was doing because it becomes readily apparent that the film and actors are in on the joke. No one in this film, by the time it made it to the big screen at least, seems to be seeking to make something “good”. Rather, the film feels like one big troll and/or parody of the 90s and 2000s nostalgia that has been seeing a resurgence in the last year or so. The first twenty minutes of film will hit like crack for people looking for those old references within a high school comedy, and it’s probably objectively the best part of the film; however, once things start spinning out of control, the film leans into the odder parts of 2000s culture – coding, niche rap, Limp Bizkit – and you start to realize that you can either lean into the jokes and laugh at the fact that people once lived like this or sit back and get mad that the film isn’t behaving at all like a typical high school, horror, or nostalgia film. On some level this is a smart film, but on all other levels, it’s incredibly dumb, but don’t let that stop you from seeing it, as it’s still one of the funniest new films I’ve watched this year. I don’t know that everyone should see this film, and I don’t know that it really was as intentionally constructed as I’m giving it credit for. What I do know is that my wife and I both laughed a lot while agreeing that it's a very dumb movie. Check it out in theaters if you want to, or don’t. It’s up to you.

Weekend Watch - Here

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch, where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest film from Robert Zemeckis, teaming him back up with Forrest Gump stars Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, Here, based on the graphic novel by Richard McGuire. The film takes a look at a single location in the world across time, using a single camera angle to present the many eras and stories of this single location, focusing primarily on the life of Richard (Hanks), who grows up and lives much of his life in the living room of his family’s suburban house – the film’s location. In addition to Hanks and Wright, the film also features Paul Bettany, Kelly Reilly, Lauren McQueen, Harry Marcus, Zsa Zsa Zemeckis, Michelle Dockery, David Fynn, Ophelia Lovibond, Nicholas Pinnock, Nikki Amuka-Bird, and Anya Marco Harris in varying roles throughout the history of the location. The film opened last weekend to mixed reviews from critics and audiences. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C; it’s a high concept, low execution film, but it’s not terrible.

Should you Watch This Film? There’s nothing in Here that demands to be seen on the big screen, but if you’re a fan of Hanks or the creative swings that Zemeckis takes, it’ll be worth catching when this film hits streaming (or Freeform on a Sunday afternoon).

Why?

                As a concept, Here is one of the most interesting and cool films of the year. Unfortunately, in its execution it fails to give audiences anything of substance, relying much more heavily on its gimmick than its story or characters to create a film worth watching, and the result is a film that certainly engages but leaves us with a relatively hollow film whose themes will most likely resonate with audiences whose life has already moved beyond learning the lesson that the film has to offer. Hanks gives a solid performance, but Wright and most of the rest of the ensemble feel fairly sidelined by the film’s commitment to jumping between stories and timelines and to revolving its story around period and generational norms. The film’s women are mostly held in reserve, playing generic mother figures for the most part, and even fun-loving Stella Beekman (Ophelia Lovibond) in the 1920s ends up as an eye-candy pinup girl rather than individual character with any agency. In terms of message, Zemeckis seems to want his audience to remember to take time to do what they love when they can rather than waiting for some nebulous future that is far from guaranteed. On one hand, this should be a resonant message were it not hampered by clunky theming around the limiting nature of children and families, especially for mothers, choosing to center regret as its primary emotional motivator rather than any positive emotion – indeed the one person who does seem to achieve the fullness of their dreams never really gets any time on screen once they’ve done so. Creatively, the single shot framing and even the time jumps do work to keep you engaged, I just don’t know that they’re enough to overcome a dated and stale story to make Here a film for everyone. If you do want to see it in theaters, you can probably still find it; otherwise, you can wait to catch this one on streaming or skip it until it shows up on television around Thanksgiving next year.

Weekend Watch - Venom: The Last Dance

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the third film in Tom Hardy’s Venom trilogy, Venom: The Last Dance, which looks to be the final installment of Sony’s partnership with Hardy in bringing the symbiote antihero to the big screen. Co-written by its star Hardy and director Kelly Marcel (Cruella and Fifty Shades of Grey), the film also features performances from Chiwetel Ejiofor, Juno Temple, Rhys Ifans, and Cristo Fernández. It opened this weekend to the same collection of mixed reviews from audiences and critics as its two predecessors. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C-; it’s just as ok as the two films that came before – fun but not at all substantial.

Should you Watch This Film? If you like the first two Venom films, you’ll probably enjoy this one as well. If you want something fresh, new, and groundbreaking, this film is not the film for you.

Why?

                Venom: The Last Dance seeks to establish itself as the true conclusion to a trilogy. Unfortunately, the trilogy it’s seeking to conclude lacked serious thematic and/or narrative cohesion, and the result is yet another tonally disjointed film with oddly communicated stakes and a marked lack of any natural emotional beats, which trilogy concluders so often seek. There’s some solid sound and visual effects work being done on the part of the post-production team, and the film does take some big swings with its action sequences, but none of it ever comes together with the intervening story to make something that feels at all better than a middling 2000s superhero film, just like the two films that came before. I appreciate the effort and love that Hardy and Marcel seem to have poured into their script and the film itself, but they seem to be working at a studio where no one else cares enough about their product and characters to actually give them the editing and fine-tuning that it would take to make these films into something great. On paper, a goofy, violent, multi-personality anti-hero should be an easy slam dunk in this age of superhero films, but Sony has never been able to get out of their own way and let these films be as self-aware as they’d need to be to work. Don’t get me wrong, the action set pieces are really fun here – arguably the best of the trilogy – but the story might be the weakest of the trilogy. It’s decent enough to please those who have been pleased with the first two entries, but it does nothing well enough to sway any new fans or break into new territory for the superhero genre. If you want new Venom content, go check it out in theaters. If not, don’t worry about making it for this one.

Weekend Watch - We Live in Time

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh starring romantic drama from director John Crowley (Brooklyn and Boy A) and writer Nick Payne (The Sense of an Ending), We Live in Time. In addition to Garfield and Pugh as the film’s romantic leads, the film also features Lee Braithwaite, Adam James, and Douglas Hodge in supporting roles. The film opened this weekend across the U.S. to solid audience responses and mixed critic reviews. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; great acting and a devastating story are held back from their fullest potential by some odd story choices.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe. If you want a highly emotional romantic drama, this one definitely checks that box. If you have trauma related to fertility, I should warn here that this film does deal with that pretty intimately, so you’d be okay waiting to stream this one. For everyone else, it’s a good film, but not necessarily a great one, so I’ll leave it up to you.

Why?

                We Live in Time offers this year’s look at the dramas of romance and relationships, following a relationship from its creative start (Almut hits Tobias with her car and then takes him to the hospital) and then through the typical beats, a honeymoon phase full of sex and dramatic declarations, an early bump in the road about the different expectations regarding family, the reconciliation, and finally, walking through the challenges of a committed relationship together – in this case, cancer and struggles with fertility. Garfield and Pugh are phenomenal as the two leads, carrying it from start to finish with grounded performances that feel incredibly authentic and feature some strong romantic chemistry. Even the story of their relationship is itself compelling with some startlingly real moments that can hit incredibly close to home for people who have walked through similar experiences in their own relationships. The problem is that, for some reason, screenwriter Nick Payne decided that this needed to be presented as a nonlinear narrative, jumping between points in the couple’s relationship almost at random. It’s basically giving us three stories at once – the commitment to the relationship, the pregnancy and birth, and the cancer – which could work if one of those were selected as the main story and the other two treated as jumps forward and/or flashbacks. Instead, we’re given each as its own story unfolding in parallel, and we’re left with far less investment in the couple’s relationship than it otherwise could have been. If we had committed to just one story as the primary plot with the other two in support, I think this would be a true contender for one of the best films of the year because of how compelling and honest the story actually is as it unfolds. As it stands, Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh give great performances as we’ve come to expect from them; the story is compelling and real and connects on an emotional level, but the way the story is presented detracts and distracts from the impact that the film could have otherwise had. I wanted to love this film, but I just liked it. It definitely resonated with me and will be one that I think about for a while, but I think that’s despite its odd plotting choices rather than because of them. Andrew and Florence deserved a better plot for as great as their performances were. You won’t be hugely disappointed if you go see this film, just be sure to temper your expectations a bit.                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh starring romantic drama from director John Crowley (Brooklyn and Boy A) and writer Nick Payne (The Sense of an Ending), We Live in Time. In addition to Garfield and Pugh as the film’s romantic leads, the film also features Lee Braithwaite, Adam James, and Douglas Hodge in supporting roles. The film opened this weekend across the U.S. to solid audience responses and mixed critic reviews. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; great acting and a devastating story are held back from their fullest potential by some odd story choices.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe. If you want a highly emotional romantic drama, this one definitely checks that box. If you have trauma related to fertility, I should warn here that this film does deal with that pretty intimately, so you’d be okay waiting to stream this one. For everyone else, it’s a good film, but not necessarily a great one, so I’ll leave it up to you.

Why?

                We Live in Time offers this year’s look at the dramas of romance and relationships, following a relationship from its creative start (Almut hits Tobias with her car and then takes him to the hospital) and then through the typical beats, a honeymoon phase full of sex and dramatic declarations, an early bump in the road about the different expectations regarding family, the reconciliation, and finally, walking through the challenges of a committed relationship together – in this case, cancer and struggles with fertility. Garfield and Pugh are phenomenal as the two leads, carrying it from start to finish with grounded performances that feel incredibly authentic and feature some strong romantic chemistry. Even the story of their relationship is itself compelling with some startlingly real moments that can hit incredibly close to home for people who have walked through similar experiences in their own relationships. The problem is that, for some reason, screenwriter Nick Payne decided that this needed to be presented as a nonlinear narrative, jumping between points in the couple’s relationship almost at random. It’s basically giving us three stories at once – the commitment to the relationship, the pregnancy and birth, and the cancer – which could work if one of those were selected as the main story and the other two treated as jumps forward and/or flashbacks. Instead, we’re given each as its own story unfolding in parallel, and we’re left with far less investment in the couple’s relationship than it otherwise could have been. If we had committed to just one story as the primary plot with the other two in support, I think this would be a true contender for one of the best films of the year because of how compelling and honest the story actually is as it unfolds. As it stands, Andrew Garfield and Florence Pugh give great performances as we’ve come to expect from them; the story is compelling and real and connects on an emotional level, but the way the story is presented detracts and distracts from the impact that the film could have otherwise had. I wanted to love this film, but I just liked it. It definitely resonated with me and will be one that I think about for a while, but I think that’s despite its odd plotting choices rather than because of them. Andrew and Florence deserved a better plot for as great as their performances were. You won’t be hugely disappointed if you go see this film, just be sure to temper your expectations a bit.

Weekend Watch - Saturday Night

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Jason Reitman’s film adaptation of the 90 minutes leading up to the airing of the first episode of SNL, Saturday Night. The film stars an ensemble cast as the show’s ensemble of players and writers, including Gabriel LaBelle as creator and writer Lorne Michaels, Rachel Sennott as Michaels’s wife and show writer Rosie Shuster, Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, Ella Hunt as Gilda Radner, Dylan O’Brien as Dan Aykroyd, Emily Fairn as Laraine Newman, Matt Wood as John Belushi, Lamorne Morris as Garrett Morris (no relation), Kim Matula as Jane Curtin, Nicholas Braun as Andy Kaufman and Jim Henson, Cooper Hoffman as Dick Ebersol, Andrew Barth Feldman as Neil Levy, Willem Dafoe as Dave Tebet, and Matthew Rhys as Dan Carlin. The film, which chronicles most of the behind-the-scenes goings on of the sketch comedy show’s first night, opened this weekend. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B-; this is a good film, not a great one that could have been great with just a little bit more fine tuning.

Should you Watch This Film? If you are a huge fan of SNL and consider yourself an expert in the show’s history, you’ll probably love this film and what it does. If you have some knowledge of and interest in SNL, then you can find something worth watching in it. If you have no interest in the show, I don’t know what this film does that’ll endear it to you.

Why?

                Saturday Night is a mildly disjointed passion project from a director in Reitman who clearly loves and knows way too much about his subject matter. The actors all do a phenomenal job playing these iconic figures of comedy history, marking the film’s real high point. Story-wise, though, it feels like Reitman had too many fun facts that he wanted to include to really create a satisfyingly cohesive narrative, jumping between business drama, drug comedy, relationship dramedy, biopic, and celebration of SNL without any clear sense of direction until the final sequence, which suddenly becomes this feel-good underdog drama. If it was going for the disconnected feel of an episode of SNL, highlighted more by the entertainment that comes from watching talented people do what they do best than by any sense of message or stance, then it might still work, but I’m not convinced that that’s really what Reitman was going for here. Like an episode of SNL, there are some bits that hit and others that fail to resonate at all and you’re left wondering whether everything you just witnessed in the last hour and half plus was really anything more than an excuse for the performers to put their talents on display. The 16mm film cinematography looks really good, also lending itself to that style over substance that the film seems to be going for. Ultimately, it’s an entertaining but empty film with talent that still deserves to be seen.

                While all of the actors playing their various characters do great jobs in their roles, playing the comedy titans faithfully and skillfully, it’s the performances from the behind-the-scenes characters that really stand out as more than just phenomenal impressions. Rachel Sennott gives us a compelling look at the complex marriage between Lorne Michaels and Rose Shuster, playing Rose as this capable and self-aware woman who made the show possible. Cooper Hoffman gives an admirable performance as the young executive who supported Michaels and his show, Dick Ebersol, punctuated by a strong scene where he finally reveals the precarious situation that the show is in to Lorne in a seedily lit stairwell. It really is LaBelle, though, who holds the whole film down, carrying it with a portrayal of Lorne Michaels as I’m sure Michaels would like to see himself, a young idealist who can’t imagine failing regardless of what practical knowledge might suggest. Gabriel LaBelle is a rising talent, and I’m glad that he does such a great job in this leading role.

                While the film struggles with thematic cohesion like an episode of the show that inspired it, the performances and stylistic choices that Reitman makes still make Saturday Night a film worth watching, though mostly for fans of the show and its history as opposed to a truly broad audience. It takes some unique swings, and some of them even hit. You can find this film in theaters right now if it sounds like something you’d like to check out. I’ll leave that up to you.

Weekend Watch - The Wild Robot

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest release from DreamWorks Animation, the film adaptation of Peter Brown’s book The Wild Robot. The film is written and directed by Chris Sanders (Lilo and Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon) and features the voice talents of Lupita Nyong’o, Pedro Pascal, Bill Nighy, Kit Connor, Stephanie Hsu, Matt Berry, Ving Rhames, Mark Hamill, and Catherine O’Hara. It follows the adventure of a helpful robot stranded on an island populated only by animals who view her as a potential predator or prey. The film opened this weekend in the U.S., winning the box office in the process. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A; this is a top 5 film this year for me, and I expect it will be for you as well with its beautiful animation and poignant story.

Should you Watch This Film? Absolutely! This is a film you can watch on your own, with friends, with a significant other, with kids, really with anyone, and you’ll all walk away with something to appreciate.

Why?

                If you’ve seen any trailers for The Wild Robot, you already know that its animation is gorgeous both stylistically and in execution, and that rings true throughout the film, but there have been plenty of animated films in the last decade that are beautifully produced but lack in the story department. This is not one of those films. The voice acting is superb and lends to the story’s emotional weight and poignancy, and the story itself feels just fresh enough to engage even the most cynical moviegoer. While a few minor clichés hold it back from being a perfect A+ film, the story about found family, adaptation, kindness, and even motherhood is certainly one of the most original brought to a mainstream film in the medium in quite some time. It is poignant and important, imparting not just emotional payoffs but actual life lessons that we all need to learn and/or be reminded of in the trying times we live in. This film deserves to be the front-runner for most of the animated awards in the coming award season.

                I came into the theater to watch The Wild Robot expecting quality animation and potentially some emotional beats, but I didn’t necessarily expect to be so wowed by the film’s story and characters. From the jump, we are immersed in this world of wilderness where a robot like the film’s titular protagonist, ROZZUM Unit 7134 or “Roz” (Nyong’o), sticks out like a sore thumb, lacking the ability initially to even communicate with its unsuspecting “customers”. The hilarity and tragedy of Roz’s situation are portrayed excellently as she struggles to find anyone willing to even speak with her after she spends months learning to translate the language of the animals. Eventually her quest brings her an orphaned gosling to adopt and prepare for the coming migration, giving her a new directive – feed the baby goose, teach it to swim, and teach it to fly by the time the rest of the island’s geese undertake their migration ahead of its harsh winters. Roz’s conversations with her less than willing “co-parent” Fink the fox (Pascal) about “programming” and the laws of nature and survival skills mirror concepts that we all are familiar with in our own lives – nature, nurture, social norms, and the competition that society breeds into us. As the film goes on and we see Roz’s gosling Brightbill (Connor) mature into a semi-functional adult goose, those themes become more central alongside the film’s surprisingly profound exploration of motherhood and family, as viewed through the lens of Roz’s role in Brightbill’s life and the lives of the rest of the island’s inhabitants. The film’s final act has a few of its most cliché moments, but it brings everything home in a solid way without feeling the need to put a perfect bow on everything, making it one of the more adventurous mainstream animated films in that area as well.

                The Wild Robot is simply one of the best films of the year so far thanks to its gorgeous animation, skilled voice acting, and poignant story that explores themes relevant to viewers of all ages, engaging not just children, but parents, teens, and single adults as well. It’s a film worth checking out in theaters if possible, especially with its quality animation. Definitely seek it out if it’s playing near you.

Weekend Watch - Speak No Evil

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is the remake of the 2022 Danish horror film of the same name, Speak No Evil. The Blumhouse-produced remake stars James McAvoy and Aisling Franciosi across from Mackenzie Davis and Scoot McNairy as a pair of couples who meet on vacation in Italy and then decide to spend a long weekend together in the country upon their return to the U.K. The film released in theaters this weekend to solid audience reviews so far and looks to be one of the early successes of 2024’s spooky season. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; while not necessarily the most adventurous film, it’s still solidly entertaining.

Should you Watch This Film? If you have seen and loved the first film, I have a feeling that this film won’t be for you, but if you’re looking for a relatively tame but thrilling horror film, it’s worth checking out.

Why?

                Speak No Evil (2024) does a lot of taming down of the story and themes from the original, making the final product much more palatable for a broad audience, already reflected in the films’ respective IMDB, Tomatometer, and Popcornmeter scores, all of which favor this year’s high-tension remake over the subtler and darker European original. To its credit, this year’s film offers a highly entertaining, fairly safe, and solidly acted horror film. It features some quality comedy that cuts through the tension at appropriate moments without ever losing how uncomfortable the characters rightfully are. At the same time, the writing loses some of the plot by playing most of the twists and third act fairly safe, and it gets a bit too heavy-handed with communicating its themes, straight up stating its main idea in a third-act monologue from McAvoy’s antagonist, Paddy. It’s nowhere near a perfect film, but it mostly accomplishes what it sets out to do, offering some good tension and scares to elevate the heartrate that should satisfy most audiences, especially if you can separate it from the original in your mind.

                The real highlight of the film is McAvoy as the film’s primary antagonist, whose twisted motivations become more apparent as the couples’ weekend at Paddy and Ciara’s (Franciosi) farmhouse unfolds. He brings a physicality and eeriness to the character that really sells the ever-increasing tension that the film needs to execute its premise well. He starts out as this hot, abrasive British dad, slowly devolving into a sinister, narcissistic not-quite-mastermind as everything unfolds. It’s a commanding performance that’s sure to stick with everyone who goes to see the film, and it definitely elevates the film above what it might otherwise have been with the same plot and writing.

                The film’s exploration of family dynamics, commentary on society’s people-pleasing tendencies, and critique on our unwillingness to ever just say no land relatively well. None of what the film wants to say is particularly earth-shattering, and it is sometimes delivered with a tendency to tell rather than show. However, the themes aren’t really the point of the film, more just window dressing to give it a sense of weight while the tension and its eventual release keep the audience gripped.

                A fun, if a bit sanitized and simple, horror thriller, Speak No Evil is carried by James McAvoy’s startling performance as the villain, bolstered by some strong tension building, culminating in a solid final act. It definitely won’t please fans of the original, but it should be what those looking for a fun, not too involved, horror film in the early phases of spooky season want from their theater-going experience. You can currently find it in theaters from Blumhouse if you need something like that in your world right now.

Weekend Watch - Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is this week’s latest legacy sequel, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, the follow-up to Tim Burton’s 1988 cult classic Beetlejuice. The potential surprise September blockbuster sees the return of Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, and Catherine O’Hara reprising their roles from the original, joined by Jenna Ortega, Justin Theroux, Willem Dafoe, Monica Bellucci, and Arthur Conti in this rich ensemble of quirky new and returning characters. After opening the Venice Film Festival last week, the film released in theaters this weekend. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C; it’s the same energy as the first with less narrative cohesion, so it’s fine.

Should you Watch This Film? If you love the original, you’ll probably love this one as well. If Tim Burton’s vibe is your whole deal, then this’ll check that box well. If you have no interest in either of the aforementioned things, this is not for you.

Why?

                The original Beetlejuice was the very definition of a cult classic – lots of great practical effects and wacky production design with some weirdness all around wrapped in a decently poignant story about ghosts – and its sequel finds itself in those same shoes. On most levels, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice matches the quirky fun of the original while mostly justifying its existence with some new fun set pieces. Unfortunately, the weakness of the original – a thin story – is all the more prevalent in the sequel. Less attachment, too many plots, but fantastic production design are the hallmarks of this legacy sequel, sure to please fans of the original well enough without setting itself apart as some new innovation in filmmaking.

                The main cast (Ryder, Keaton, O’Hara, and Ortega) all perform admirably in their duties, with the original returners doing a good job of reprising and building on their characters from the first film and Jenna Ortega showing some versatility as the grounded activist daughter of Ryder’s Lydia Deetz, now the host of her own television show about speaking to ghosts. Keaton remains the highlight of the film, bringing all the ridiculousness of the iconic character that made the first film so successful, once again playing a highly entertaining and gross version of himself. O’Hara is once again in her most outlandish form, having lost no steps as the unique artist Delia. The supporting cast are a bit more hit and miss with Monica Bellucci feeling almost wasted as an intimidating, yet highly underutilized, villain hunting down Beetlejuice for revenge. Willem Dafoe gets to do a bit more and offers some of the most consistent laughs in the film as deceased actor, turned afterlife cop Wolf Jackson. Justin Theroux is inconsistent but goofily melodramatic enough to make for a decent complication in the plot as Lydia’s manager.

                Visually, the film refreshingly maintains its primarily practical effects, featuring a plethora of excellent costume designs, stop motion animation, and wild sets that help sell the film’s griminess, which simply wouldn’t have worked with how most of the modern VFX have been going in mainstream films. Unfortunately, the story doesn’t really back up the visual promise of the film, giving us a whole lot of ideas and scenes that never really cohere into something that feels like an overarching narrative. The emotional moments don’t come close to landing because of how many storylines are going on around them, reducing the film’s impact and poignancy, and tragically, the jokes aren’t consistently hitting enough to warrant such an incoherent collection of plots.

                With Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, the vision is there, the visuals are fully there, the acting is mostly there, but the story is so all over the place that the film falls well short of its potential. It’ll be a crowd-pleaser for those seeking new Tim Burton content and/or those who loved the original, but it doesn’t have enough to say or deliver on enough of its comedic or quirky promise to really be a must-see film for all audiences.

Weekend Watch - A Quiet Place: Day One

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest film in the A Quiet Place franchise, A Quiet Place: Day One, the prequel directed by Michael Sarnoski (Pig) and cowritten by Sarnoski and A Quiet Place director John Krasinski. The prequel looks at the start of the franchise’s alien invasion in New York City from the perspective of cancer patient Sam (Lupita Nyong’o) as she fights to survive and get herself some pizza. The film also features appearances from Joseph Quinn as a stranded British law student, Alex Wolff as hospice nurse Reuben, and Djimon Hounsou as harried father Henri. The film opened this weekend to mixed but positive audience and critic reviews. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; while not as tension filled as the other two films in the franchise, it still finds those moments of terror and humanity that have made the series such a hit.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’re looking for a less intense horror film, this’ll definitely be one you can check out. The characters are strong, and their stories make it worth watching.

Why?

                I don’t know that A Quiet Place: Day One is going to be what everyone was looking for from the prequel film. It doesn’t set out to explain the aliens or their reasons for coming to Earth or even set up some initial fight against them. It simply wants to look at another story within this universe that happens to occur in the first few days of the alien invasion. For me, that’s exactly what I needed from it. I was so worried going in that it was going to try and do too much explaining and worldbuilding and lose any of the pieces that make the first two films so good – the human stories. Instead, this film leans harder into the human element, feeling almost more like a disaster/survival horror than the jumpscare-filled home invasion horror of the first or the postapocalyptic road trip of the second. It’s also helped in this endeavor by the strong performances from Lupita Nyong’o (Us and Little Monsters) and Joseph Quinn (Overlord and Stranger Things) who portray their struggle to survive as something inherently tied to everything that has come before them and their own humanity.

                Technically, the film remains on par with the prior films with a strong sound design, solid visual effects, and another bout of creative cinematography that you really only get from horror films. The oppressive silence isn’t quite as pervasive here as in the past films, but in the moments of true tension, it returns to amp up that heart rate just a bit more at each small sound. The creatures feature a bit more prevalently in this film, and any time you get to see them up close, the visual design holds up as something not quite knowable and immediately horrifying. The camera work continues to do a great job adding to the tension of the scenes, and it all comes together so well to give us another strong, if slightly less terrifying, horror film.

                By focusing on the characters, the film does lose some of that intensity that we’ve become familiar with in the first two films, and I think that’s why we’re seeing some of those less than stellar reviews. The first film really blended those two elements together better than so many horror films, and the second continued in that same vein. This one swings back and forth between the human drama and horror sequences more than actually blending them, but it still works because of how well-executed the human element is. Lupita Nyong’o and Joseph Quinn play well individually and off of each other thanks in large part to each of their abilities to emote, leaning into the gimmick of these films by communicating so well without words. Quinn plays the supporting character so well, portraying empathy and desperation in equal parts so well, and he really gives the story the extra oomph that it needs to really resonate. Obviously, though, Nyong’o is the showstopper here, showing us from the jump how versatile her acting bag is. Here, she plays Sam as this cynical, jaded woman without any real reason to hope, but she manages to find those moments worth celebrating even as the world falls apart around her, and we believe it the whole time thanks to the combination of solid writing and her amazing acting abilities. By the time the credits roll, we’ve seen her progress through a satisfying and believable character arc that reminds us all of why life is worth living – to eat pizza and connect with other people.

                A Quiet Place: Day One might not answer all the burning questions that we have about the start of the alien invasion, and it might lack some of the horror chops of the previous installments, but it still turns in a decently scary survival flick with a truly compelling story about people, which is the core of the Quiet Place films anyway. It’s probably not going to be what everyone wants it to be, but for me, I can now definitely say that I just want to keep watching stories of different individuals in this postapocalyptic world much more than I want to understand how any of it works. This film is currently in theaters, and if you’re looking for a solid thriller, this is the one to go see this weekend.

Weekend Watch - Inside Out 2

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Pixar’s latest theatrical release (their first since Lightyear), Inside Out 2, the sequel to 2015’s Best Animated Feature winner. The sequel sees the return of voice actors Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Lewis Black, Diane Lane, and Kyle MacLachlan as the voices of Joy, Sadness, Anger, Mom, and Dad, joined this time by Kensington Tallman as Riley, Maya Hawke as Anxiety, Liza Lapira as Disgust, Tony Hale as Fear, and Ayo Edebiri as Envy, just to name a few of the new names and faces. The film follows Riley and her emotions as they move from childhood into adolescence with the complications of starting high school, fitting in, and puberty bringing a whole new set of issues to reckon with. The film opened this weekend to relatively positive reviews. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; it’s not saying anything wrong; I just don’t know that what it’s saying carries the weight that I want it to.

Should you Watch This Film? If you want a good movie to see with your kids or are a fan of the first, this is worth checking out. Otherwise, you can definitely wait to stream this one later on when you’re catching up on all the Oscar nominees.

Why?

                Inside Out 2 does a lot of things right as a sequel, building on the world of the last film while telling an original story with a positive message, memorable characters, and a few good laughs. Unfortunately, it also suffers as a product of the current Disney/Pixar machine (the first after the infamous announcement that they’ll be moving away from autobiographical stories like those in Turning Red and Luca), and in its quest for “universality” (whatever that means), loses most of the emotional (ironic, I know) resonance that they’ve become so well known for. I felt more emotional connection to the characters and stories of every Pixar film since 2020 (besides Lightyear) than I did watching Inside Out 2. They’ve given us an important message with solid characters that somehow manages to avoid actually getting the audience at all invested in the characters that they’re watching on the screen. The film’s story feels like it’s been designed around getting to a couple of key points in the film’s third act, and the result is a sense of manufactured emotion rather than genuine connection (unlike the authenticity of Turning Red, Luca, Soul, Onward, and even the first Inside Out).

                Now I know you’re asking how this film got even a B rating after all this negativity, and that’s because it really is a well-made film. The animation remains beautiful both in the real world and in Riley’s mind with some new techniques on display that really impressed me and made for some fun world-building and comedy. The new characters add some fun new wrinkles to the world of these films, with both Anxiety and Envy being the standouts. There’s a few jokes in here that really work well, even if too many feel more tailored to the younger audience that filled my theater, who for the most part weren’t laughing as much as I might’ve expected. The sound design and Andrea Datzman’s music do a solid job of creating tension and atmosphere. Even the film’s message is one that checks that Pixar box of being relevant for both adults and children – that anxiety is something that can easily come to define us if we don’t monitor how we’re framing our situation, and that’ll always lead to disaster. All of that speaks to the success of the new Pixar method in theory. On paper, this is an excellent film, but in practice, it’s missing that personal element that’s made modern Pixar so successful – the autobiographical stories of Turning Red and Luca, the family narrative of Coco, the friendship narrative of Toy Story 4, etc. Inside Out 2 tries to create those personal moments by telling a story about anxiety, growing up, and friendship, but none of the beats of those stories feel authentic enough (besides an excellently realistic panic attack) to create the resonance that it wants to – maybe that’s also because most of the development in this story happens to Riley herself rather than the emotions in her mind, who are supposed to be the main characters.

                Inside Out 2 is an excellently crafted animated film that unfortunately fails to deliver on what people actually love about the other Pixar films – authentic emotion, which is unfortunately ironic for this sequel. It looks good, sounds good, and even feels pretty good, but it fails to deliver in its biggest moments. If you liked the first film, you’ll probably still enjoy this one, but I don’t know that it’s a film that everyone needs to go see immediately in theaters.

Weekend Watch - Bad Boys: Ride or Die

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest installment of the Will Smith and Martin Lawrence action/comedy series, Bad Boys: Ride or Die. The film picks up some time after the events of Bad Boys for Life and follows Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett as they become embroiled in a plot to frame the deceased Captain Howard as a contact for the cartel. The film sees the return of Will Smith and Martin Lawrence in the leading roles along with Joe Pantoliano as Captain Howard, John Salley as Fletcher, Jacob Scipio as Armando, Dennis Greene as Reggie, Paola Nuñez as Rita, Alexander Ludwig as Dorn, and Vanessa Hudges as Kelly along with an influx of newcomers Eric Dane, Ioan Gruffudd, Melanie Liburd, and Tasha Smith. Bad Boys for Life directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah return to the helm for this installment along with writer Chris Bremner and newcomer to the series Chris Beall (Aquaman). The film opened this weekend and looks to take the top spot on a potentially revitalizing start to the summer box office. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; nothing about the Bad Boys movies screams art film, so don’t expect it to be on the same level as an awards-bait, critically acclaimed piece of cinema, but this one checks most of the boxes you want in an action/comedy.

Should you Watch This Film? Absolutely! While its predecessor was a bit of a misfire in terms of the series, not hitting quite as many of the right notes, this one gets right back into the Bad Boys stride with jokes and action at 100.

Why?

                Bad Boys: Ride or Die is a true return of the Bad Boys franchise to its former greatness (obviously, we’re talking entertainment here and not so much the social commentary or anything else). The jokes are hitting, the action feels fresh and fun, and the characters are fantastic. The biggest drawbacks for this “fourquel” are its occasional reliance on callbacks in its humor and plot points and its fairly problematic storyline, given the state of American politics in this moment. Smith and Lawrence continue to be a fantastic duo; Hudgens and Ludwig remain two of the best “requel” additions to a franchise in the last ten years, and even the supporting players – familiar faces like Fletcher (John Salley) and Reggie (Dennis Greene) and cameos like DJ Khaled and Tiffany Haddish – shine in their featured moments.

                The film’s primary driving force is a dynamic shift between Mike and Marcus, with Smith’s Mike becoming the worrier as a result of his lack of commitment to any kind of real therapy for his past losses and Lawrence’s Marcus becoming the overconfident macho man, believing he can’t die after a near-death experience. It makes for a fun twist on the usual dynamic between the two, and the comedy and action certainly benefit from it, remaining fresh even in this fourth iteration. While not every joke landed, most of them did, and every action sequence had something in it that felt new and exciting – there’s a first-person sequence at one point that was particularly fun.

                At the same time, with a more critical eye, the copaganda and problematic messaging of the film’s plot becomes a bit clearer. These are films about cops who basically operate with a license to kill, shooting first and only occasionally asking questions later. This particular sequel also features a plot that revolves around cartels and government officials secretly working together to protect the “borders” from terrorists as long as the cartels get to bring their drugs into the U.S. It sounds like something off a 4chan conspiracy board, but there are people who will eat that plot up without a second thought. I don’t think this or any other film in the franchise should be taken too seriously in terms of its social “commentary”, but it warrants pointing out that there are definitely some people who will.

                At the end of the day, Bad Boys: Ride or Die feels like the ideal summer blockbuster to revitalize the box office, heavy on fairly impressive action and funny comedy, light on themes and commentary, with plenty of star power and supporting players to win over the whole audience. It might not be the best film in the franchise, but it hits the formula well and should be an easy one to get into for fans of the originals. Newcomers might be a bit confused at the significance of certain moments and events, but the overall structure of the film makes it easy to just sit back and enjoy it. Check it out in theaters while you can.

Weekend Watch - Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is George Miller’s prequel to his critical hit Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) – Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga. The prequel stars Anya Taylor-Joy as the titular heroine, the younger version of Charlize Theron’s character from Fury Road. She is joined by Chris Hemsworth as her nemesis Dementus, Tom Burke as her mentor Praetorian Jack, Alyla Browne as the child version of Furiosa, George Shevstov as the History Man, and Lachy Hulme as Immortan Joe. It follows Furiosa from her childhood when she’s taken from her lush home and out into the wasteland through her adolescence and young adulthood pursuing vengeance against Dementus and a return to her lost home. The film opened to a solid critical response and strong audience reception this weekend. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; it’s a far cry from living up to its predecessor in terms of pure energy, but the technique and worldbuilding are still there in spades.

Should you Watch This Film? If you enjoy the Mad Max films or just a solid postapocalyptic action thriller, this film is definitely worth the watch. It’s not quite as transcendent as Fury Road, though, so I don’t know that everyone has to see it.

Why?

                For starters, Furiosa takes on an entirely different scale than Fury Road did and, therefore, ends up with a slower pace, which bogs it down in exposition and uneven movement from beat to beat, weakening the overall story. It seeks to tell Furiosa’s full life story leading up to the events of the previous film, and as such, lives up to its name as a “saga”, which will probably result in some division in the audience. If you’re okay with a slower burn, but equally as brutal, character study/revenge thriller, Furiosa probably won’t feel like much of a fall off and will still make for a solid theatrical experience. If, however, you’re hoping for a repeat of the high-octane, nonstop car chase that was Fury Road, you’re going to come away with a definite sense of disappointment. Comparison aside, it’s a feat of filmmaking with gorgeous visuals, fun action sequences when they come, and a decent, if shallow, story to keep everything engaging.

                The performers all do admirable jobs with what they’re given, with Taylor-Joy shouldering the load of action heroine quite well even with her fabled twenty lines of dialogue – she masters the physicality and emotive performance that an action lead requires refreshingly well for an actress with her resumé. For me, though, it was Chris Hemsworth who kept the film worth watching. His Dementus shows up in each new chapter of the film as an evolved iteration of the villain, becoming more unhinged and more nihilistic at each turn, his devolution mirroring the evolution of Furiosa. It’s a weird but incredibly memorable performance that feels right at home in the postapocalyptic world that George Miller has created. Together, the two characters and the two actors make the film what it is, giving the audience that compelling revenge narrative of an unexpected underdog coming after the once great warlord. Its culmination is one of the best moments in the film, so I won’t spoil it, but I will say that the ending definitely makes Hemsworth’s performance, if not Taylor-Joy’s feel oh-so worth it.

                Technically, Miller is once again at the height of his form, giving us gorgeous visuals of this postapocalyptic landscape that draw you into all of the weirdness, violence, and off-putting beauty that his world has to offer. The score, sound, and cinematography all make for an excellent moviegoing experience, and they deserve to be witnessed in as epic a format as can be found. The technical aspects also go a long way in making up for some of the predictability and slowness that creeps into the film’s story. With so much of the story being told through the visual, rather than auditory, offerings of the film, it can feel overly expository at times, slowing down with each new chapter start to catch the audience up on what’s happened in the meantime with lots of establishing shots and broad landscapes. At the same time, all of that is great to look at and listen to, so I can’t complain too much about it.

                Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is a solid, if imperfect, addition to the action/revenge genre, giving us two memorable leads, fun sequences of action, and excellent production design to overcome an unevenly paced and fairly formulaic story. It might not hit exactly the notes that everyone wants it to, given the more universal acclaim of the film that it follows, but it still does scratch that itch that can only be scratched by George Miller’s postapocalyptic automobile-themed wasteland. I’d say if you’re thinking about seeing it, you definitely should on the largest screen you can find.

Weekend Watch - Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest iteration of the science fiction saga – Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes – which opened in theaters this weekend. This newest film in the franchise remains in the continuity of the Rupert Wyatt/Matt Reeves prequel trilogy of the 2010s, but three hundred years after the end of War, bringing us an entirely new group of heroes and villains living on an Earth that has been increasingly dominated by the intelligent apes, with most humans having fully lost the ability to reason and speak. The film, directed by Wes Ball (Maze Runner) and written by Josh Friedman (Avatar: The Way of Water), stars Owen Teague as our new protagonist Noa, Lydia Peckham as his friend Soona, Freya Allan as the intelligent human Mae, Peter Macon as their travelling companion Raka, and Kevin Durand as the despotic ape Proximus Caesar. The film has received a generally positive reception thus far. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C+; great visuals and new characters only take this film so far, as it doesn’t seem to have too much that it actually wants to say.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’re a fan of the other Apes films, this’ll scratch that itch for you, and if you’re looking for an easy to watch action/adventure film, this checks those boxes as well. If you aren’t really looking for either of those things, though, I can’t think of any great reasons to watch this film.

Why?

                Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is a visually stunning but thematically hollow action/adventure road film. It does a good job of creating new characters that feel fresh and different from those in the trilogy that it follows without entirely separating itself from that trilogy, tying them together with a borderline religion established around the now-deceased hero of those original films – Caesar. Unfortunately, by tying itself to those films, it also accepts the expectation that those films created that, not only will it give us great visuals and an engaging action story, it will also have something to say about the state of the world and about humanity, and it’s just missing those aspects – the commentary on animal testing of Rise, the urging against xenophobia of Dawn, and the warning against demagoguery of War. At my most generous, I can say that the film had some ideas about religion and fate that could have turned into something worth exploring if they had done anything besides mentioning them and then abandoning them in favor of the third act’s action sequences.

                Don’t get me wrong, as a simple action/adventure film, Kingdom delivers a fun, if formulaic, take on those genres, combining tropes of road films, revenge films, and infiltration films into one cohesive piece that has characters worth exploring further. The visuals of the apes remain just as impressive as they have been, worthy of the awards that the franchise still hasn’t won in its rebooted iteration. The world, now three hundred years without human civilization, is full of creative landscapes reminiscent of the plant-covered post-apocalyptic world of The Last of Us, empty but gorgeous. Noa and Mae make for compelling protagonists, with the mystery of Mae’s mission and origins keeping you engaged with her story and Noa’s quest for revenge, restoration, and potentially leadership feeling familiar but still gripping. The film’s action sequences don’t do anything too groundbreaking, but they’re fun and harrowing enough to keep you on the edge of your seat.

                Again, though, the actual substance of Kingdom feels so lacking in the face of all of its style. The villain Proximus feels so generic when held up to the franchise’s previous villains of Koba and the Colonel. His desire for technology to help him establish rule among the ape clans doesn’t really feel that bad, and his despotism feels far less sinister than your typical evil leader type – I guess we’ve reverted to the simple statement that any desire for power is inherently evil. If it weren’t for the fact that the protagonists were basically after the same thing, that explanation could work. Instead, we’re left with a feeling of uncertainty of how to feel when the dust finally settles and everyone gets what’s coming to them. Again, if we had leaned harder into the religious fanaticism of Proximus and his soldiers, I think it would be fine, but instead, he’s just a pretender to empire whose motivations are not far enough removed from the protagonists’ to make his villainy feel earned.

                While Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes fully delivers on the spectacle that we’ve come to expect from the franchise, its thematic shortcomings and generic villain hold it well behind the excellence of the trilogy that it seeks to follow. If you’ve been missing the apes on your screen, it’s still worth watching, but don’t go in with insanely high hopes. The newness of a new era of apes can only take the film so far, but it does look good on the big screen, so do with that information what you will.

Weekend Watch - Challengers

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Luca Guadagnino’s Challengers, which opened in theaters across the U.S. this weekend. The love-triangle-tennis-movie hybrid stars Zendaya, Mike Faist, and Josh O’Connor as a trio of tennis stars whose interweaving professional and personal lives culminate at a small-stakes challenger event in advance of the U.S. Open. Scripted by Justin Kuritzkes (husband of Past Lives director Celine Song and creator of the “Potion Seller” YouTube video), directed by Guadagnino, and scored by the ever-talented Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, the film has received a slew of critical acclaim and decent audience reception as well. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; for the most part this film delivers what you want it to, and it’s all executed with excellence and innovation.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’re looking for an innovative sports relationship dramedy, this’ll be right up your alley; however, if you’re looking for that debauchery-fueled sex-fest promised in the trailers or a film with clear heroes and villains, you’ll be leaving at least slightly disappointed.

Why?

                Though perhaps a bit oversold in its marketing for broader audiences, Challengers delivers one of the better sports films and love triangle films in recent history. The performances from the three leads make for gripping romance, intrigue, and athletic sequences. Kuritzkes’s script provides a compelling story about the destructive forces of passion, jealousy, and insecurity. Guadagnino and cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom create a menagerie of charged sequences in both the interpersonal moments and the tennis matches, showcasing a creativity in shot choice that continuously leaves the audience dazzled. Reznor and Ross supplement it all with a score that breathes life, energy, and urgency into every scene, elevating the whole thing while increasing the plot’s sense of urgency. The film’s only real missteps come in the form of a predictable and maybe even overdone “twist” in the third act and a focus on the character relationships more than the characters themselves in the film’s story development.

                As a sports film, Challengers offers engrossing competition, compelling character drama, and a creative presentation of the sport of tennis itself, not yet seen in this way in mainstream films. It frames the game of tennis as a relationship, inextricably tying the sport portion of the film to the love triangle portion of the film, and it makes for even more intense competitions on the court and honestly one of the best climaxes and conclusions in any sports film, and certainly the best of the year so far. The ways that the camera is used in the tennis matches turns the sport into cinema, looking at each match from angles never seen before that keep the audience on edge for each serve, each volley, each point.

                As a relationship film, certain aspects feel a bit more familiar than the sport aspects, but it still manages to keep everything compelling, partially due to the direction of Guadagnino and the score of Reznor and Ross and partially due to the leads’ performances and Kuritzkes’s clear understanding of unhealthy relationship dynamics. Zendaya plays young star Tashi Duncan, a promising tennis star whose career is cut short by injury after she hits a rough spot with her tennis player boyfriend Patrick Zweig (Josh O’Connor), friend and rival of Mike Faist’s Art Donaldson who also has a huge crush on Tashi. The origins of their friendships and romantic entanglements are explored in nonlinear sequences of their interactions at youth tournaments and college before catching up to the present where Art is now a grand slam winner, coached by his wife Tashi, and where Patrick has fallen on hard times, struggling to find success as a tennis professional, seeking to qualify for the U.S. Open by winning the same challenger where Art has come to get his groove back ahead of the only grand slam that has yet eluded him. The ins and outs of Art’s development make for the most compelling portion of the film, as he goes from insecure also-ran to confident adult ready for the next phase of life while his rival and his wife remain their same childish selves, stuck in the what-ifs of the past. This lack of development for Tashi and Patrick has left some audiences less than thrilled with the film’s character development, particularly because their arcs culminate in a frustratingly predictable moment designed to lend extra weight to the film’s climax that really just reminds you just how little development they’ve had in comparison to Art. All three play their characters well, though, and the film’s conclusion in a relationship moment that highlights all three of their roles and sends each of them off on a high note certainly goes a long way in making up for the lack of attention paid to the actual characters of Patrick and Tashi.

                Challengers is a sexy, if not overly sexual, take on tennis films, couched in a love triangle relationship dramedy that’s skillfully executed by everyone involved with a few knocks against it for some overdone relationship tropes and weak character development, that delivers a satisfying and innovative take on sports films and plenty of relational melodrama to keep everyone invested. It’s not necessarily everything that the trailers promised that it would be, but that makes it, honestly, a better film overall, avoiding that desire to be transgressive simply to push the bubble while pushing that bubble in different ways than expected. It’s worth the watch if you’re into cinematic innovation, complex relationship dynamics, fun sports action, and films without any singularly perfect hero.

Weekend Watch - The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Guy Ritchie’s latest action film that opened this week in theaters, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. The film is based on the now declassified British World War II Operation Postmaster and stars Henry Cavill, Alan Ritchson, Alex Pettyfer, Eiza González, Babs Olusanmokun, Cary Elwes, Hero Fiennes Tiffin, Henry Golding, Rory Kinnear, Til Schweiger, Freddie Fox, and Danny Sapani as the various historical characters involved in the story. It has opened, like most of Ritchie’s latest films, to mixed reviews from critics and a generally positive audience reception. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C-; with good action and actors that you can tell are enjoying themselves, you can’t really say that this is a bad movie, just a bit underwhelming.

Should you Watch This Film? If this was a film you were already interested in seeing, I’d go a head and see it in theaters, but if you haven’t heard about it or weren’t intrigued by it, you’re totally fine skipping it.

Why?

                The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare manages to tell a fresh story about a period of history that feels so overdone in cinema and does it with solid action and some fun actors. I think Ritchie’s desire to be true to the historicity of the events, while admirable, weakens the film’s action sensibilities, but it’s not trying to be prestige war picture, so some of the decisions don’t make perfect sense. It’s definitely a film that pleases its target audience (TNT dads) well enough but that doesn’t hit any of its notes perfectly enough to have any kind of staying power, unlike Ritchie’s early films.

                The film has the cast of a bigtime, hard hitting action film with the plot of a more historical film. It contains three major action sequences, which should build on each other, getting more intense with each successive scene, instead peaking in the middle. The opening sequence of the film grips you immediately with Ritchie’s typical blend of humor, action, and tension, well-played by Cavill and Ritchson. The film then cuts to its flashback for exposition, explaining the details of the operation and giving us a decent idea of who each of the characters are before getting back to the next, and best, action sequence in the film – an intense breakout from a Nazi prison camp that really showcases the potential of the film that it unfortunately never really realizes again. The back half of the film is devoted to complicating the plan, introducing new and decently interesting side characters, like Danny Sapani’s Kambili Kalu and the villain Heinrich Luhr, played menacingly enough by Til Schweiger. Eiza González and Babs Olusanmokun certainly have the most to do in this portion of the film, playing the intelligence operatives who consistently have to pass information back to the British to keep Cavill’s March-Phillips and company apprised of the current state of affairs. All of this culminates in what should be a climactic action sequence of taking over a ship, escaping an island, and sabotaging a U-boat refueling depot that underwhelms at almost every turn compared to the rest of the film’s action sequences. It leaves the audience with a sense that they’ve just been watching an Assassin’s Creed film but with guns with the sheer number of faceless stealth kills and lack of climactic showdowns where the heroes’ success is ever in doubt.

                To its credit, the film is decently produced and well-cast. The film’s sound is the standout of the technical department with every scene drawing you in at the right moments through the sound engineers’ creative use of silence, cacophony, and focused sound effects, keeping everything, even the slower parts moving at an acceptable pace. By having all these World War II British soldiers and operatives played by some of the most fun people in the industry at the moment, they keep you invested in the characters even with the film’s minimal character development. González and Olusanmokun do their parts well as the on-the-ground operatives, looking the part and playing well off of each other in the process. Of the “active” group, Pettyfer feels the most out of place, mostly because his character has to be the group’s mastermind and straight man, so he doesn’t have much to do besides stand there looking good and come up with ideas. Hero Fiennes Tiffin is a surprisingly welcome addition to the cast, playing Irishman Henry Hayes as the fun young guy along for the ride. Henry Golding is the requisite unhinged explosives expert, which somehow works for him, as he gets to show off both his action and comedy skills. Cavill, as the team’s leader, feels like the inspiration for James Bond that Ritchie wanted him to be, just coming across as the coolest dude you’ve ever seen in an action movie (until you see what the guy actually looked like). But for me, and most of the audience in my theater, it was Ritchson as the Danish expat Anders Lassen who stole the show at every turn, giving the funniest and most physically impressive performance of the film (this film combined with his recent slew of tweets might finally get me to check out Reacher).

                The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare offers a solid theatrical experience with some decent action sequences and fun characters that just falls short due to an underwhelming climax and a profound lack of character development, leaning harder on its action and espionage than the characters themselves. It’s inoffensive and fun but not as fun as it could be. The story is interesting enough to feel fresh in the context of World War II, and the technique of its telling offers some solid examples of production design. If you wanted to see this film before reading this review, I think you’ll still have a solid time watching it. If you didn’t, you’re not going to miss something that changes your life. It’s a film that does just what it says it’s going to, leaving a lot on the table that could’ve made it better without ever really misstepping into “bad” territory.

Weekend Watch - Monkey Man

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Dev Patel’s directorial debut Monkey Man that released in theaters this weekend. Patel took on multiple roles in this film, directing, starring, writing, and editing the revenge action thriller. He is joined in the cast by Sharlto Copley, Pitobash, Vipin Sharma, Sikandar Kher, Adithi Kalkunte, Sobhita Dhulipala, Ashwini Kalsekar, and Makrand Deshpande. After initially being slated to premier on Netflix, Jordan Peele screened it and jumped on-board as a producer to release the film in theaters because he thought it was so good. So far, audiences and critics seem to agree with him. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+, it’s a phenomenal debut film, but it still definitely has some of the rough edges of a debut film as well.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes! This is the kind of action thriller that we need more of – passion projects that involve underrepresented groups in Hollywood.

Why?

                What Patel has given us in Monkey Man is a thrilling blend of homage, passion project, and original film, and it works beautifully. His love of action films from around the globe and throughout film history comes to life in every action sequence (of which there are many); his decision to cast almost entirely South Asian actors and to tell a story set in that region that is steeped in its culture speaks to his desire to be true to himself, and what few missteps there are simply serve as a reminder that he is the one who basically singlehandedly made this film happen. It’s not a perfect film or even an entirely original film, but every inch of it is stamped with its filmmaker’s passion and his desire to make something epic and memorable.

                To start with a few nitpicks, the film does have a few places where scene continuity breaks down and where you can tell that different cameras were used probably out of necessity rather than choice. There’s one fight sequence in particular where the setup occurs in one location before the fight happens in another that he’s sent back to where the transition between locations feels just a bit clunky and doesn’t flow as smoothly as the chase that led up to it did or the fight that ensues after it does, which isn’t huge, but as someone who doesn’t always notice these things, I did this time, which I think speaks to the excellence with which most of the rest of the action sequences were cut more than it speaks to Patel’s shortcomings in making the film. It’s also been widely shared that multiple cameras broke during filming, which resulted in the use of Go-Pros and iPhones to capture some footage, and, while it’s not easily noticeable in any action sequences, there are a few of the film’s more dramatic moments that cut between two shots repeatedly where it feels like watching two separate definitions, most likely due to the cameras’ reception to light or something along those lines, but again, it’s one of those little things that could take you out of it if it wasn’t for the excellence going on around it.

                Story-wise, it’s a really well-executed revenge thriller. It never tells you more than it needs to, hinting at pasts so you know who’s important until it becomes time for them to receive their comeuppance. The supporting characters are fairly memorable, if occasionally underutilized. Pitobash plays a street-level drug dealer named Alphonso who acts as the Kid’s (Patel) gateway into the world of his enemies, and it’s arguably the film’s funniest role, but he gets sidelined for basically the entire back half of the film despite being integral to the Kid’s entrance and exit in this world of danger. Sobhita Dhulipala’s Sita makes for a beautiful and mysterious potential romantic partner for the Kid, but we never quite learn enough about her to make her a fully compelling secondary character. The villains, played skillfully by Sikandar Kher and Makrand Deshpande definitely have the most to do of the supporting cast, with Kher’s corrupt police chief Rana being the ideal heavy for Patel to face off against in the film’s final act and Deshpande’s overzealous spiritual leader Baba Shakti acting as the man behind it all who you do in fact love to hate. Together, they provide a compelling set of obstacles for Patel’s leading man to overcome and defeat on his way to making a mark on those who destroyed his home and killed his mother. The film’s most compelling subplot comes in the form of the transgender acolytes, led by Vipin Sharma’s Alpha, who save the Kid after his first run-in with Rana and his men. They comprise the focus of the film’s political and religious messaging, offering a look into modern political and religious issues in India for a Western audience with an issue that’s prevalent in this country as well. It’s a smart move by Patel, and Alpha and the other acolytes make for compelling supporting characters that keep the audience engaged in the slowdown that comes in the leadup to the film’s climax.

                Obviously, though, even with a perfect story, this film couldn’t succeed without excellent action sequences, and Patel delivers those in abundance. From the jump, we are given brutal hand-to-hand combat, starting with the underground fight ring run by Sharlto Copley’s Tiger where the Kid dons a monkey mask and faces down and loses to a slew of opponents. The action then takes off fully with a combination fight and chase sequence after the Kid’s first attempt on the police chief’s life goes sideways, giving us a glimpse at Patel’s skill in crafting action scenes that look original, feel brutal, and sound great with consistently well-timed and catchy background tracks for all of the action in this film. After a slowdown and training/healing montage that itself has some great musical cues, we are thrown into the film’s climactic series of action sequences, starting with a great underground fight with a classic massive opponent for the Kid to overcome before he sets out to disrupt the election night party where Rana and Baba Shakti will be. The sequence of fights that lead to the film’s conclusion are some of the best in the business, with a well-earned and even better choreographed kitchen fight, a brawl in a dining room, a showdown in a club, and a faceoff in a penthouse capping the film off. It’s one of the most intense and engaging climax sequences that I’ve seen in an action film in a while. I know it’s a bit reductive, but it really is right up there with the John Wick films in terms of its final act’s execution.

                With Monkey Man, Dev Patel has shown us his capabilities as a well-rounded filmmaker, offering a fresh take on the story of the revenge thriller while providing some excellent action sequences to top it all off. Some of the characters might fall short of their potential, and certain editing errors certainly exist, as should be expected from a rookie filmmaker, but overall, it’s a great time at the theater, and I really encourage you to go see it. We need to let producers know that these are the kinds of films that we want to see more of.

Weekend Watch - Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest of the rebooted Ghostbusters films, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire. The film is the follow-up to 2021’s Ghostbusters: Afterlife and sees the return of many characters from that film and from the originals, including Paul Rudd, Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard, McKenna Grace, Celeste O’Connor, and Logan Kim reprising their roles from Afterlife, with Dan Aykroyd’s Ray Stantz taking a more prominent role this time around, and the additions of Kumail Nanjiani, Patton Oswalt, and Emily Alyn Lind to fill out the main cast. This one is directed by Afterlife writer Gil Kenan who is again joined in the writing room by Afterlife director, and son of the original Ghostbusters director, Jason Reitman. The film opened in theaters this weekend. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C-, a weak third act and overstuffed first bring down what is otherwise a fun and well-crafted movie sequel.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe, it’ll probably please fans of the first reboot film, and doesn’t really have anything that’ll upset die-hard classic fans too much either. If you aren’t about that Ghostbusters life, though, I doubt this film will win you over.

Why?

                After taking a break from its usual haunt of the Big Apple in Afterlife, the Ghostbusters saga returns to NYC and the old red brick firehouse in Frozen Empire. An abundance of practical and digital effects return New York to its old, haunted self, in need of rescuing by a new generation of Ghostbusters. The characters, old and new, bring plenty of heart, if not necessarily humor, to this latest iteration of the films, which continues in the vein of its predecessor with McKenna Grace’s Phoebe Spengler taking center stage in the film’s narrative, again a solid choice, though weakened a bit by her continued fourth-place billing in the credits and attempts to create stories for the abundance of other characters filling out the film. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is a film that fits the visual feel and overall vibe of the franchise with fun characters and cool, nerdy technology and ghost stuff, but it trips itself up by getting too convoluted for its fairly breezy hour-and-fifty-five-minute runtime.

                One thing you can certainly say in Frozen Empire’s favor, which goes a long way toward how much I liked this film, is that it maintains that same sense of practicality in all of its props, sets, and visuals that made the originals and Afterlife such successes. Obviously, not everything is practical, nor was it in the original, but their practical and digital effects alike remain very on-brand for the franchise. Slimer still looks like a weird puppet; there’s a lot of new ghosts that use that blend of practical and digital to great effect – some terrifying and others goofy or endearing; there’s a fantastic scene in the third act with one of the proton packs sparking up in the back that’s probably a simple effect, but it achieves this cool factor that gets you excited for what’s about to happen even if the story getting you there hasn’t. You can tell that Kenan and Reitman both care a lot for the franchise and that everyone who worked on the film wants to stay true to the originals.

                Unfortunately, love for the old films and past iterations keeps Frozen Empire’s story mired in an excessively long first act that’s mostly just exposition and setup interspersed with nostalgia grabs and reveals of new gadgets and/or ghosts. It’s a textbook first act, except for the fact that it takes up almost the entire first hour of the film. This leads into a fun second act, though, that jumps between storylines fairly fluidly and keeps you engaged with payoffs from the setups in the first act. The pace picks up and you start to remember why you like these films in the first place. However, by the time we get to the film’s final act, there’s only about twenty minutes of the film left, and we get a regrettably rushed climax that misses out on much of its tension and emotional weight by rushing things that could otherwise have had extended scenes devoted to them had it not taken half the film to get everything rolling. Couple that with an astounding amount of shoehorned nostalgia for the sake of trailer spots, and you’re left with a conclusion that feels just a little too empty to justify the amount of time spent setting it up.

                For whatever reason, they were trying to do too much. Much as I enjoyed the comedy of Kumail Nanjiani’s character, his inclusion and arc felt out of place and rushed alongside the rest of the film. It detracted some from both the screentime and character development of Phoebe, which in turn detracted from the overall impact of the film, since she’s the main character. On the other hand, relegating Finn Wolfhard’s Trevor to the role of comic relief might have been the best call they could have made – his arc in Afterlife wasn’t overly engaging, and he is absolutely the funniest part of this film, which gets me excited to see him do something more in that vein as his career develops. Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd get to fully step into the parenting roles (which Coon had in the first film as well), creating some odd tensions at certain points in the first half but paying off with some of Paul Rudd’s best scenes in the back half, so I’m mixed on that choice. Aykroyd getting some additional screentime probably shouldn’t have worked as well as it did, and don’t get me wrong, it’s no Blues Brothers or even O.G. Ghostbusters, but he makes for a passable secondary protagonist as Ray seeks purpose in his later years. Again, though, all of these extra plots and conflicts make that first act drag, when really all the film needed to work was the Spenglers (Grace, Wolfhard, and Coon) working with Gary as Ghostbusters for Ernie Hudson’s Winston Zeddemore, focusing on Phoebe’s relationship with Ghostbusting and her family, and it could have been a complete film. Everything else is fluff that drags this film’s potential down.

                All told, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is a decent sequel that stays true to the formula and atmosphere of the original films that unfortunately gets bogged down in nostalgia and excessive storylines, limiting its overall impact. It definitely could have been better, but thanks to the care put into the details by the filmmakers and the actors, it manages to stay out of the abysmal territory of most of the films from the first quarter of the year so far. See it in theaters if you want, or don’t. I don’t have overly strong feelings on this one either way.

Weekend Watch - Kung Fu Panda 4

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest from Dreamworks animation, Kung Fu Panda 4, the latest in the Jack Black-led franchise about anthropomorphic animals doing kung fu in a stylized version of ancient China. This one sees Po, the titular panda, being thrust into a new role as the “Spiritual Leader of the Valley of Peace”, meaning that he has to choose a successor to be the new Dragon Warrior. His hesitation to embrace this change in titles leads him to seek one last adventure as the Dragon Warrior, bringing him into conflict with this film’s antagonist, the sorceress known as The Chameleon. This installment features the returning voice talents of Jack Black as Po, Dustin Hoffman as Master Shifu, Bryan Cranston as Po’s father Li, James Hong as his adoptive father Mr. Ping, and Ian McShane as Tai Lung, joined this time by newcomers Awkwafina as Zhen the gray fox, Ke Huy Quan as Han the pangolin criminal, and Viola Davis as The Chameleon. The film opened in theaters this weekend. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: D+, this is a film that’s trying to do too much all in the same movie, sacrificing quality in the process.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’ve got a kid who’s a big Kung Fu Panda fan or is really into seeing animated movies in theaters right now, this isn’t the worst option for you, but this isn’t a film that anyone really needs to seek out in theaters otherwise. It’s definitely a streamer at best in my book.

Why?

                Kung Fu Panda 4 is definitely the weakest entry in the franchise so far, missing out on so many of the pieces that make the others successful for not just kids, but adults as well. The voice acting and animation remain the highlights of the film by far with a weak story, intentionally unoriginal villain, and action pieces that don’t quite live up to the rest of the films. The ideas of the film are pretty cool – a villain who can shapeshift into past villains, a new big city for Po to visit, having Po take on a more mature role, and building on the past films’ themes of knowing yourself by exploring the concept of change. Somewhere along the way, though, the film becomes overstuffed with concepts and understuffed with execution.

                It does still justify its existence with some beautiful animation and solid voice performances, but I don’t know that they make it worth seeing in theaters. The film’s best action sequence is probably a chase through the big city, but that happens early in the film’s second act, so the rest of the film doesn’t really deliver on those big action set pieces that we’ve become so familiar with in the franchise. The final fight with The Chameleon was fairly underwhelming and the cool silhouetted fight sequence teased in the film’s trailer has too many cuts to make it look as cool as it could have. The actual settings are richly crafted by the animators, though, and the requisite mix of animation styles in the flashbacks remains solid.

                Jack Black’s vocal performance stays consistently solid, and Bryan Cranston and James Hong get some really fun buddy comedy dad moments that highlight the range of the two actors that we don’t always get to see. Awkwafina is definitely still Awkwafina in her portrayal of the enigmatic street hustler Zhen, but it works really well when she gets to do some vocal sparring with Black’s Po that give us some decently funny moments. In the more emotional moments, both of their performances come up a bit short, but I think that has more to do with the film’s story than it does with either of the actors because Jack Black has hit some phenomenal emotional beats in the past films in the franchise, and Awkwafina isn’t incapable of giving a strong performance, as showcased in The Farewell. The highlight of the voice cast, though, is by far Viola Davis, turning in yet another chillingly villainous performance as The Chameleon. She gives weight and intimidation to the villain that perfectly sets her up to be the film’s big bad, even if the actual story and execution don’t fully deliver.

                The film’s story is really where it falls apart. Most of the story beats feel even more contrived than those of the past films, with developments forced on the characters or just written into the dialogue without much lead-up, making most of the character moments feel shoehorned. While The Chameleon’s character design is really cool and an example of the film’s strong animation, her motivations are just an amalgamation of the motivations of the series’ other villains – she feels that she deserves to know the secrets of kung fu (Tai Lung), she wants to conquer China (Shen), and she’s going to do it by collecting the powers of past kung fu practitioners (Kai). While her shapeshifting goes along with the film’s theme of grappling with internal and external change just when you are starting to get comfortable with how things are, she ultimately feels like the least original of the villains, and it’s quite disappointing.

                Underdeveloped plot and characters and less-than-impressive action sequences leave much to be desired from this good-looking and well-voiced animation sequel, making Kung Fu Panda 4 one to stream later even for die-hard fans of the franchise. It’ll keep kids happy enough if you really want to get out of the house as spring breaks start happening here in the U.S., but I definitely wouldn’t say it’s a must-watch for anyone else. I wish it could’ve been better because I really do think that its ideas are strong, but their execution is just so weak that I can’t recommend it.

Weekend Watch - Dune: Part Two

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, an recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Dune: Part 2, the sequel to Denis Villeneuve’s award-winning adaptation of the first part of Frank Herbert’s acclaimed science fiction novel of the same name. After a delay from its original November release date due to last year’s Hollywood strikes, the film finally released widely this weekend (plus some early screenings in various theaters over the past few weeks). It sees the return of Timothée Chalamet as protagonist Paul Atreides, Rebecca Ferguson as Lady Jessica, Zendaya as Chani, Javier Bardem as Stilgar, Josh Brolin as Gurney Halleck, Dave Bautista as Rabban, Charlotte Rampling as Reverend Mother Mohiam, and Stellan Skarsgård as Baron Harkonnen. They are joined in this continuation by Austin Butler as Feyd-Rautha, Florence Pugh as Princess Irulan, Christopher Walken as the Emperor, and Léa Seydoux as Lady Margot Fenring, rounding out the all-star cast of this sci-fi epic. With stellar reviews from audiences and generally favorable returns from critics, this looks to be the best film of the year so far. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; while not perfect, it delivers on so many of the promises of the first film in compelling fashion.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes! In the theater, with good speakers, get the full experience. It’s a thrill.

Why?

                Dune: Part 2 is the science fiction epic that we were promised in 2021’s Dune. Its action is bigger, its characters are more fleshed-out even with a wider cast of characters, and it’s just as visually stunning as the first installment. As character motivations become more apparent, so does the film’s true message about the dangers of “chosen ones” and issues with buying into your own mythos and the ills of settler colonialism – all the messages of Herbert’s original 1965 novel, made even more evident by its sequel Dune Messiah. The actors have all elevated their game in one way or another to give audiences a collection of memorable characters. The film’s sound and visuals continue to stun in every sense of the word – sets, locations, special effects, the “props”, costumes, Hans Zimmer’s score – everything working together to immerse the audience in the world of the film. It transports and grips you as its story unfolds in thrilling, tragic, and epic fashion.

                We’ll start with story and execution, since that’s where the film’s biggest issues lie. It’s troubling when a film that’s two hours and forty-six minutes in length feels like it could’ve told its story more effectively with an extra twenty minutes or so. It improves on the story issues of the first film, where if often felt that the audience were merely casual observers of these moments that carried weight for characters to whom we had little connection. This time, a combination of improved character development, legitimately compelling themes, and intense action sequences get the audience fully invested in the story from the jump. What’s missing this time around is the mystery and atemporality of the first film. Gone are Paul’s vague and confusing visions of unknown characters and uncertain futures, replaced by ominous looks at his mother walking past starving bodies, which feels much more heavy-handed in its messaging than the hints of the visions from the first film. It also does feel again as if we are jumping from moment to moment in time with the characters, missing out on some (though not all) of the film’s potential character moments and interactions not tied directly to the plot. Again, this is a loss to the film’s runtime, which does feel as long as it is and would probably not be abbreviated by any extra moments, so we’re left with a stronger story and film that nevertheless still feels like it’s missing something.

                Where obviously the technical aspects and score for this film are excellent, the welcome addition is a cast of actors giving committed, fun, and engaging performances, helping to cover the aforementioned story issues because of how easy it is to invest in their characters. Where the first film had some strong showings from Oscar Isaac and Rebecca Ferguson, you can feel the improvement from everyone in this film, making the most of their increased character development. Zendaya, who was notably absent from most of the first film, immediately makes Chani a rich and dynamic character, more than just a love interest, with some excellent character moments and really solid expressive work. Ferguson takes an even tougher role in this one as Lady Jessica steps into a more prominent position among the Fremen, and it’s again a captivating performance, if a bit more intimidating, that might just be her best yet. Javier Bardem takes on an ironically more comedic role in this one as Stilgar’s dedication to the prophecies of the Lisan al-Gaib come to the fore, giving him the opportunity to deliver lines with such earnestness that the audience actually erupted in laughter because of their ironic timing. While Florence Pugh and Léa Seydoux are satisfyingly welcome additions to the cast, the runaway favorite of the new characters has to be Austin Butler’s Feyd-Rautha. He plays the new villain in a chillingly animated fashion, crafting a memorable performance that’ll end up alongside the likes of Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger, Tom Hardy’s Bane, and Ricardo Montalban’s Khan in the annals of film history. Finally, Timothée Chalamet has come into his own here, establishing his movie star status as he takes Paul through his journey from reluctant hero to willingly participating messiah. It’s a powerful performance, full of excellent vocal, physical, and expressive work that confirms his place as one of the best actors currently working.

                Denis Villeneuve has executed a phenomenal science fiction sequel that stays true to its source material and innovates with compelling characters, stunning production value, and memorable performances that supplement a story that could probably have benefited from a few more scenes but is nevertheless engaging. It’s the best film of the year so far by a fairly wide margin, and the theatrical experience of watching it is glorious – people laughed, they applauded, and some even called it “terrible”. It’ll probably be a while before I recommend a new release this strongly.

Weekend Watch - Madame Web

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest film in the Sony Spider-Verse, Madame Web, starring Dakota Johnson, Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced, Celeste O’Connor, Tahar Rahim, Emma Roberts, and Adam Scott. The film opened this weekend and is the first of Sony’s Spider-Verse films to focus on a hero in their roster of Spider-Man comic characters, rather than a villain-turned-antihero. Directed by S.J. Clarkson (Jessica Jones and Love, Nina) and written by Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless (Morbius), Claire Parker, and Clarkson, the film opened in theaters this weekend to the worst reviews for a film yet in Sony’s superhero universe. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: D-; it’s a movie that occasionally gets you engaged with what’s going on, so I can’t quite give it an F, but man, we were close here.

Should you Watch This Film? Because watching it in theaters right now would justify Sony continuing to churn out low quality films like this, I can’t recommend going to watch this in theaters; however, it might be just the kind of bad film that you have to see at some point, so… maybe.

Why?

                Her web might connect them all, but it might be the most tangled, incomprehensible, poorly cut, and absolutely terrified of plot holes web that has ever been put to screen. Personally, I don’t think that this film’s problems are the fault of the filmmakers so much as the production company that hasn’t put out a good live-action superhero film without Kevin Feige’s involvement since the first Amazing Spider-Man (I like Venom, but I’m not going to so far as to call it “good”). Madam Web is the natural result of a studio full of producers who don’t understand their cinematic audience trying to manufacture a box office hit without actually being willing to commit to any kind of risk. It’s the most egregiously corporatized film I’ve seen since The Emoji Movie, and it’s honestly pretty depressing. It’s clear that, at some point down the line, this film could have been something good because the actors involved at least have the charisma necessary to carry a film like this, but the lack of character development, weak dialogue, odd cuts, forced product placement, baffling use of ADR on Tahar Rahim, and lack of any serious superhero sequences completely undercut whatever potential this film had. (I do want to note here that this is not the worst comic book movie ever made because Catwoman [2004] and Fantastic Four [2015] do still exist, but this is way down there.)

                On the positive side, I do think that the casting was well done for this film if only because the actors feel like they could be a good team if the film they currently are in wasn’t constantly getting in the way. There is a cool shot of the characters in their costumes toward the end of the film that briefly got me excited for the potential of seeing Dakota Johnson, Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced, and Celeste O’Connor in action together as a team of Spider-Women before I remembered that this film is going to be a critical and box office failure, and Sony will assume it’s because it featured female heroes in its leading roles and not because they over-managed it into oblivion just like they have all their other live action Spider-films post-2014. They certainly look the part of superheroes; this film just doesn’t give them anything to work with in terms of character development, action, or really even costuming.

                Every moment of this film feels manufactured to create a superhero film that people will want to like, and because of that, it comes up short at every turn. The action sequences are generic, not overly memorable, and fairly uninspired. The use of Cassandra Webb’s powers feels like a bad rip-off of every other time-loop and future-seeing movie ever made. Tahar Rahim’s voice has been redubbed over basically every scene with absolutely terrible sound mixing on the ADR. The 2000s “nostalgia” references aren’t consistently present enough to actually warrant setting the film twenty years ago, especially when the costumes look like something more out of a 2020s street scene than anything in the 2000s (Dakota Johnson might be great at pulling off the high-waisted skinny jean, but that wasn’t a look in any scenario in 2003). The copious references to Pepsi and Pepsi products is so egregiously shoehorned that you can’t help but laugh by the film’s resolution at the abandoned Pepsi factory. Finally, as a superhero film, it wants to be smartly referential and full of easter eggs, but every attempt is so heavy-handed that any audience that didn’t feel insulted by what Sony executives thought we might miss should probably have their bank accounts checked for deposits from the media conglomerate.

                Madame Web contains the pieces of a much better film, but the gap between that potential and the reality of the mess that we got on-screen is so wide that it’s difficult to understand what led to the release of this particular version of the film other than corporate meddling. It’s not a film that you should ever pay to see, but if you can find it for free at some point, it makes for a good lesson in why writers, directors, and actors, along with their production teams should be the ones making most of the decisions for film rather than the production company executives who may or may not actually like movies at all – see David Zaslav and his love of The Flash for reference.