Weekend Watch - Madame Web
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.
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.
Weekend Watch - Five Nights at Freddy’s
Five Nights at Freddy’s offers a slightly toned down but still atmospheric and jump-scare heavy horror film that just misses the mark on a few too many notes to feel totally true to its source material.
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 and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is Five Nights at Freddy’s, the videogame adaptation from Blumhouse about a security guard at a shutdown children’s pizza restaurant who must contend with the violent tendencies of its haunted animatronics while he keeps watch at night. The film stars Josh Hutcherson as the film’s lead Mike, joined by Piper Rubio as his sister and charge Abby, Elizabeth Lail as local police officer Vanessa, and Matthew Lillard as the career counselor who places Mike at Freddy’s, Steve Raglan. It opened last weekend to some of the worst reviews of the year while also winning the weekend at the box office. Let’s get into it.
Letter Grade: C-, it’s not as terrible as people say, but a few tweaks would take it from just okay to something truly great.
Review:
Five Nights at Freddy’s offers a slightly toned down but still atmospheric and jump-scare heavy horror film that just misses the mark on a few too many notes to feel totally true to its source material. Through its soundtrack, puppeteering, and creative twists on the game’s lore, it offers audiences a fairly fresh take on the horror genre, with lots of potential for any future installments. Unfortunately, predictable plot twists, inconsistent performances, and a miniscule level of the blood and gore that you might expect from such a film leave it as a middling offering to wrap up spooky season (or not if you’re trying to watch Thanksgiving in a couple of weeks).
As far as capturing the feel of the video game from which it is inspired, I think this film does a decent job. It has plenty of jump-scares, Easter eggs, and lore-specific statements to please fans of the game. The soundtrack that goes along with it all really adds to the 1980s atmospheric theming with lots of synth and 16-bit sounds that really immerse the audience in the world – particularly in the film’s opening sequence, which features maybe the film’s best overall vibes. The disappointment comes when the camera cuts away from the instances of violence in order to maintain a PG-13 rating that will give it a larger audience base and box office haul. While the games maintain a palatable T for Teen age rating, they do this by minimizing the on-screen violence and relying heavily on jump-scares, which makes for a satisfying gaming experience. However, horror films that cut away from the violence and utilize primarily jump-scares are inevitably going to suffer in the ratings department, and I think here, the film could actually be a more critical success if it leaned a bit harder into the franchise’s Saw adjacencies and less on its marketability with 8-to-12-year-olds.
Game creator and co-writer of the film Scott Cawthon has taken the lore of his hit franchise and twisted bits and pieces of it to craft what should be an original enough story for fans who came in knowing the depths of Freddy’s lore. It plays around with characters and storylines in a way that still gives us a satisfying story even if its beats are fairly predictable and familiar for the average moviegoer. The real breakdown is not so much in the changes from the source material but in the execution of the new story, which is rife with plot holes and less-than-surprising twists. Combine that with inconsistent performances from both Hutcherson and Lail, and you’re left with a somewhat disappointing story that still entertains but doesn’t really wow.
Hutcherson is at his best in the film when he gets to just talk and be present, expressing more subtle trauma and emotionality quite well. It’s the moments when he has to explode and emote more intensely that his performance breaks down a bit and reverts too much to his younger self to be believable. Likewise, Lail’s performance as Vanessa feels too insincere in the film’s moments of emotional connection and simple explanations, but when the going gets tough, she exhibits fear and terror excellently in her expressions, giving the audience a glimpse at some potential horror greatness if she can nail those other beats. Lillard’s cameo moments work well enough, but it’s fairly obvious what part he has to play, and certain moments feel a bit more phoned in than I’d typically like – he’s not late-90’s/early-2000s Matthew Lillard anymore (at least not here). Piper Rubio might give the film’s best performance, but it’s not an overly complex one, as she gives the audience a glimpse into the childlike innocence that has been so often victimized by the film’s antagonistic forces. She is kind and good and a little bit airy, but it works well enough.
Five Nights at Freddy’s struggles to find solid footing with an atmosphere and adaptation that almost work perfectly but break down like the animatronics in the presence of tasers when you take into account the film’s conventional plot and inconsistent performances that leave something to be desired. It’s by no means the worst film of the year, but it could definitely have been a much better film with just a few tweaks and really gone down as a great video game adaptation. As it stands, it’s a passable horror film on the level of most others, not really elevated or innovative but still thrilling in its creation of a suspenseful atmosphere and use of jump-scares.
Weekend Watch - A Haunting in Venice
A Haunting in Venice improves upon Kenneth Branagh’s Poirot formula in almost every facet with well-cast characters, more believable visuals, and elements of horror that make the film more interesting, but at the end of the day, the predictable mystery, lack of character development, and familiar tropes leave it as a basic mystery.
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 and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Kenneth Branagh’s latest Hercule Poirot film – A Haunting in Venice. This one finds Branagh again in the role of the Belgian sleuth, joined again by a star-studded cast of victims and suspects, including Michelle Yeoh, Jamie Dornan, Tina Fey, Riccardo Scamarcio, and Kelly Reilly. The film takes on a slightly different tone than Branagh’s other two Poirot films, leaning harder into the horror elements of its subject matter, loosely adapting Agatha Christie’s Hallowe’en Party. It opened this weekend in theaters. Let’s get into it.
Letter Grade: C+, the horror elements are a welcome addition to Branagh’s fairly nondescript detective film series, but minimal character development and a fairly predictable mystery keep the film in a middling tier of films.
Review:
A Haunting in Venice improves upon the Poirot formula with some new elements of supernatural horror and the use of far less CGI in its cinematography and set design to give us a decently passable entry in the canon of mystery films – superior in almost every way to its predecessor Death on the Nile and arguably better than Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express as well. The new ensemble of characters, while not overly fleshed out or dynamic, provide some solid performances with more to do than the cast of Branagh’s previous two entries in this current Poirot series, which then (surprisingly) gives Branagh less to do, again improving upon the flaws of the first two films, saving us from an excess of Branagh’s wild attempt at a Belgian accent. The story and mystery are still fairly simple and easy to follow and unravel, leaving this film stranded somewhere in the middle in terms of its watchability.
Venice finds our detective living in retirement in the titular city, enjoying the sights and eating pastries on his balcony while a bodyguard – Riccardo Scamarcio’s Vitale Portfoglio – keeps supplicants at bay. It is only the arrival of his friend, mystery author Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey), with an offer of debunking a medium at a séance followed by a murder at said séance that can bring Poirot back into the game. The mystery unfolds as the other Poirot films have, with a group of mostly familiar celebrity faces trapped in a single location while the detective endeavors to discover which of them committed the crime. The actual mystery is two-pronged, with the purported murderer most likely also responsible for a past murder in the same location, but it’s not the mystery that holds the audience’s attention for the majority of the film, as the perpetrator(s) quickly become apparent to most viewers. The true hook for the story (and the film) comes in the form of the supernatural elements in the second act. While the séance is quickly debunked, other seemingly supernatural occurrences continue throughout the film’s run, plaguing Poirot specifically with haunting children’s songs, phantom appearances in mirrors, and frightening images abounding in the film’s second forty minutes or so. While it’s not on the level of a James Wan film, for a PG-13 mystery horror, the suspense, atmosphere, and jump scares do a solid job of achieving that element of horror lite needed to season the mystery well.
One thing that Branagh has done well with his Poirot films is casting his ensembles of characters, and Venice continues in that tradition. While the characters are little more than archetypes, each of the actors portrays their archetype well. Branagh’s Poirot himself has arguably less to do in this film than in either of the other two entries, and that allows the actor to lean into the more endearing parts of the character without coming across as overtly self-serving, as he has in the past. Fey brings some levity and intensity to her role as the washed-up mystery novelist looking to revitalize her career with a new Poirot-inspired story. Yeoh seems like she gets to have the most fun as the nebulous medium Mrs. Reynolds, playing the woman with a connection to the other side with just the right blend of airiness and insanity. Dornan’s veteran physician suffering from PTSD offers a reminder of the actor’s versatility and ability to exhibit some level of depth and emotionality when given the opportunity. Finally, Kelly Reilly brings her A-game to the eternally mournful, not fully adjusted diva and host Rowena Drake, playing tragically bereaved mother and potential femme fatale with aplomb, rounding out the leading cast in satisfactory fashion.
A Haunting in Venice improves upon Kenneth Branagh’s Poirot formula in almost every facet with well-cast characters, more believable visuals, and elements of horror that make the film more interesting, but at the end of the day, the predictable mystery, lack of character development, and familiar tropes leave it as a basic mystery, just fine, but not groundbreaking. It’s fun to see Branagh getting better at making his Poirot mysteries, so if he does adapt another, maybe it’ll be the one that finally hits the nail right on the head.
Weekend Watch - Don’t Worry Darling
Strong performances, beautiful filmmaking, and a solid first two acts don’t do quite enough to cover all of the flaws in Don’t Worry Darling’s incredibly messy third act.
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 and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Olivia Wilde’s newest film, Don’t Worry Darling, starring Wilde, Florence Pugh, Harry Styles, and Chris Pine among others. This psychological thriller had its wide release yesterday after opening with poor to mixed reviews at festivals earlier this month. The drama surrounding the film’s publicity and release has perhaps become bigger than the film itself, as media outlets have been discussing beef between the director Wilde and her lead, Pugh, as well as footage of Harry Styles possibly spitting in Chris Pine’s lap at the film’s premiere. It’s been a crazy time, but I’m gonna focus on the film itself in this review from here on. Let’s get into it.
Letter Grade: C; this film is much better than its review numbers might indicate, but it’s by no means perfect or even great.
Should you Watch This Film? If you’re interested in seeing it, I won’t dissuade you from doing so. It was a fairly enjoyable theater experience and looks great on the big screen. If you weren’t interested, there’s not much here to suggest you should though.
Why?
I want to start out by saying that Don’t Worry Darling is a film that looks great. From its cast to its production design to its costuming to most of its cinematography, the film is beautifully done, and Olivia Wilde’s skill as a director carries over from her success in Booksmart. The film’s idyllic 50’s-esque setting works well at slipping the audience into an equal sense of comfort and unease depending on the scene, which plays well with the film’s more psychological nature. It is also beautifully acted from its leads. Olivia Wilde’s performance as Bunny, the neighbor/friend of Florence Pugh’s Alice, is a solid reminder of her multiple talents, showcasing a depth of emotion and passion beyond what some might have brought to the role. Chris Pine as the mysterious leader of the community, Frank, brings all of his charisma to bear in what is a truly menacing role as the film’s antagonist, absolutely working it from start to finish. Obviously, Florence Pugh’s performance carries the film. Her ability to take any role and make it the central one of all of her scenes shines here as the true lead, something we haven’t really seen her take on since Midsommar back in 2019. Her emotionally fraught performance is the biggest highlight of this film and makes it much easier to overlook some of the worse aspects of the film. Speaking of worse aspects, many have criticized Harry Styles’s performance as Alice’s husband, Jack, saying it’s weak or phoned-in and saying it would’ve been better had Shia LeBeouf not been cut from the role. Without speaking to the Shia piece, I feel like Styles brings a solid performance to the table, especially in the film’s otherwise weak third act, which I won’t spoil here. It’s not the best by any stretch of the imagination, but he does what needs to be done to allow Florence to shine in her role, which is probably better anyway – Frank isn’t a character that should be stealing scenes. The film’s true weakness – and the reason it’s not getting glowing reviews – lies in its story. The first two acts do a phenomenal job setting up a fascinating psychological thriller, albeit with a few forgivable plot holes. Unfortunately, it fails to stick the landing with weak reveals and a plethora of unresolved conflicts in the third act. While I appreciate the commitment to not giving the audience everything with the ending, there is so much that is left out on the table by the time the credits roll that it feels more dissatisfying than a J.J. Abrams series finale/third act/final film. With so much greatness packed into its first two acts, the conclusion takes too much wind out of the film’s sails and leaves its audience at least a little bit disappointed. Also, if you’ve watched other films with similar plot twists, the film’s reveal might feel not just unearned but also derivative, as it did for my wife who called it before we even got to the theater. Strong performances, beautiful filmmaking, and a solid first two acts don’t do quite enough to cover all of the flaws in Don’t Worry Darling’s incredibly messy third act. Fans of Wilde, Pine, Pugh, and Styles will not be entirely disappointed with the film, nor will people looking for excellent production design. Unfortunately, the film’s story falls short of getting a glowing recommendation. If you want to see this film, I recommend seeing it in theaters. If you don’t want to see this film, I’ll say you’re probably okay missing it.
Weekend Watch - Where the Crawdads Sing
Where the Crawdads Sing is a faithful, if lacking, adaptation of Delia Owens’s novel, featuring all the story points of the beloved book without the strong character and relationship development that tied it all together.
Welcome back to the new and improved Weekend Watch, where each week, you vote on the blog’s Instagram for what we should watch next weekend, and then I watch it and give a little review and recommendation about it. This week’s winner was the new theatrical release, Where the Crawdads Sing, based on the best-selling novel by Delia Owens. It features Daisy Edgar-Jones as the protagonist Kya Clark, Taylor John Smith and Harris Dickinson as her two love interests (Tate and Chase), and David Strathairn as her elderly lawyer, Tom Milton.
Letter Grade: C-, it definitely doesn’t wow, but it tells an interesting enough story
Should you Watch This Film? Fans of the book should enjoy this one well enough, but visually, it doesn’t bring enough to the table to necessitate a theatrical viewing.
Why?
Where the Crawdads Sing suffers from similar issues to many adaptations of detailed books into films. It tells the story well, but the story was only part of what made the book so well-liked. The character development is cast to the wayside in favor of hitting story points, but because of runtime requirements, the story points often feel disjointed from one another, making it a difficult film to categorize. This film has notes of a romantic drama, a woman-empowerment film, and a courtroom drama, but not quite enough of any individually to get it into those categories. It has a love triangle (of sorts) between three attractive actors, in which one guy is clearly better for the girl than the other is, but she has to discover that for herself. The only problem is that for extended stretches of the film, the romance plot simply disappears, taking you out of that genre’s mindset. The film features a strong female protagonist doing great things all on her own like fending for herself after being abandoned by her family, writing a plethora of books about local wildlife that end up published by academic publishers, and fighting off an attempted rapist all on her own. At the same time, she only learns of the publishers from one of the men in her life and her court case rests on the skill of her male lawyer, as she refuses to take the stand in her own defense. These are two clear moments of potential female empowerment that lose some of their impact because of the men involved, which is true to the book, but the book has plenty of other aspects that enforce the female empowerment piece, and maybe the story’s ending redeems those points to a lesser extent as well. Finally, as a courtroom drama, we get very little, which was also the case in the book, as the trial featured only at the story’s conclusion. In the film adaptation, the court case is sprinkled in throughout the film between flashbacks to other parts of the story. For the most part, the courtroom and related scenes serve mainly as a vehicle for David Strathairn to do some acting and very little else. Not much is revealed through those scenes, and they feel more like an afterthought to everything else going on in the film because of Kya’s reluctance to speak. Despite these tonal disparities, the story is compelling, and the acting is relatively solid (minus some occasional accent inconsistencies). I’d say this is certainly a film worth watching at some point, especially if you’ve read the book or you are at all curious about the book but haven’t had time to sit down and read it yet. Where the Crawdads Sing is a faithful, if lacking, adaptation of Delia Owens’s novel, featuring all the story points of the beloved book without the strong character and relationship development that tied it all together. It feels like something that could have been even better, had it gone the route of miniseries like so many other stories have in recent years.
Weekend Watch - Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers
The family aspects of Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers combined with the irreverent comedy of Schaffer and Samberg make it into a solid, if at times over-the-top, Disney outing for their growing streaming service.
Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of entertainment media and give a brief review and basic recommendation for watching or skipping that show or film. This week, the topic of conversation is the new Disney+ film Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers, featuring the voice talents of Andy Samberg, John Mulaney, Will Arnett, Eric Bana, and J.K. Simmons and the live action actress KiKi Layne, directed by Hot Rod and Pop Star: Never Stop Never Stopping director Akiva Schaffer.
Letter Grade: B; fun family movie with a little bit for everyone
Should you Watch This Film? If you have kids and Disney+, absolutely; if you are feeling nostalgic and have Disney+, probably so; if you want some less raunchy Lonely Island-esque humor, yes
Why?
Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers is a film that definitely feels like it knows its place in the world of entertainment pretty dang well. It’s not looking to be some awards-bait pseudo-children’s movie, but it works well as an elevated family movie. Akiva Schaffer and Andy Samberg working together means the comedy levels are going to hit for adults, kids, and all people in between, a sure sign of a family film worth watching. The film’s premise is really fun, playing off of the groundwork of films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Space Jam, creating a world where every piece of entertainment media is actually portrayed by a real person, cartoon, puppet, Claymation figure, etc. This world creates an abundance of references in every single shot to keep the adults happy. Some of the bits might be a little more meta than the film as a whole. For example, ugly Sonic (yes, from the OG Sonic the Hedgehog trailer) makes a cameo at the beginning of the film (voiced by Tim Robinson of I Think You Should Leave) but then ends up being an important side character for the film’s third act, and I’m not convinced that I wanted to see that much of the failed Sonic animation. Seth Rogen also voices/plays a henchperson animated in the “uncanny valley style” like Polar Express, which again works as a brief bit when first introduced but breaks down the more he appears on-screen. Each bit of comedy plays on a combination of nostalgia and irreverence that works well in parody but sometimes fails to connect with the wider story. The story is a basic Chip and Dale mystery with cartoon characters going missing and being made into bootleg versions of themselves – the bootleg bit is really well done throughout the film and is actually very funny. The mystery is complemented by a story of friendship and reconnection between the two titular characters, which again helps elevate the film beyond just an hour and a half episode of the 90s television show. Overall, the family aspects of Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers combined with the irreverent comedy of Schaffer and Samberg make it into a solid, if at times over-the-top, Disney outing for their growing streaming service.