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 - 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 - 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 - Fallout

                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 video game to television adaptation from Amazon – Fallout, based in the world of the highly successful video game series from Interplay and Bethesda. The show, set in a postapocalyptic, retrofuturistic version of our own world, takes place 219 years after a massive nuclear war and follows a menagerie of characters who are figuring out how best to survive in the new wild west that is the bombed out west coast. It stars Ella Purnell as vault dweller Lucy MacLean, Aaron Moten as Brotherhood of Steel Squire Maximus, Walton Goggins as mutated former Hollywood star Cooper Howard, and Moises Arias as Lucy’s brother Norm MacLean in addition to a roster of recognizable cameos and B-list actors filling out the rest of the cast. The show premiered on Amazon Prime Video last Wednesday evening and has quickly become a hit with both critics and audiences. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+, it’s not a perfect show, but it captures the spirit of the games well without alienating potential new audiences with too much overreliance on lore and references.

Should you Watch This Show? It depends on what you’re looking for in a show. If you want gory, occasionally goofy, action with just enough heart and topical discussion of corporate greed and government infighting, this’ll be right up your alley. If not, I don’t know that the characters and world have enough to offer everyone to make it a universally lovable show.

Why?

                So much of Fallout’s highs and lows go hand in hand, with leading characters being hit or miss in their writing and how compelling their stories are, worldbuilding that doesn’t go too hard in its lore dumping but does require some suspension of disbelief, and action sequences that thrill but could feel excessive to some audiences. It captures the contemporary spirit of the latest Fallout games, embracing its kitschy 1950s meets wild west meets futuristic dystopian aesthetic and themes in every sequence. The music, production design, costumes, makeup, and visual effects (mostly) hold up really well and deliver what you’d want in a series based on these video games. They also don’t try to cater too intensely to the fans of the games that newcomers will be totally lost, which really helped my wife and me get into it from the jump – I have played probably ten hours combined of Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, and she had no interaction with the brand before starting the show. I will say that I’m not sure if it offers enough to keep people who aren’t interested in the world and themes of the games super invested (i.e., this isn’t going to suddenly become your parents’ and grandparents’ favorite show), but it’s a fun one for its target audience of late teens to 40-somethings.

                As far as the show’s story goes, I’m not going to get too into it here to avoid spoilers, but I will say that they’ve done a good job with their characters (mostly). It’s really fun to see Moises Arias in a well-reviewed piece of media that’s not aiming for the YA audience, and his character has a surprisingly engaging subplot that allows him to flex some of his more serious chops without losing his snarky, jaded humor either. Ella Purnell shines as the series’ lead, playing the fish-out-of-water archetype so well as she slowly assimilates to the world outside of the vault where she was raised, serving as both audience proxy and compelling heroine at the same time. Lucy’s a really fun lead character for the modern era, and Purnell plays her well. So many side characters have such well-fleshed-out stories and characterizations that I don’t have time to go into all of them here, but it really does give the show that sense of being lived in that the best open-world video games seek to capture, and I’d argue that the combination of great casting and writing accomplish that even more so here. The true star of the show, though, is Walton Goggins, whose gunslinging “ghoul” is simultaneously the coolest and most loathsome antihero we’ve seen in a long time, especially in the world of sci-fi/action media. He gets to do a lot in both the present and in flashbacks, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him contend for an Emmy before it’s all said and done. The one character that I have some issues with is Aaron Moten’s Maximus. Moten does a good job of delivering the dialogue and playing up the character with his flaws and motivations. It’s just that the show takes way too long to flesh out his motivations, and in the time they take doing that, Maximus comes across as inexplicably incompetent, vaguely whiny, and generally not likable enough to be the secondary protagonist that they want him to be by the time we get to the back half of the season. I have faith that he’ll improve as a character in the show’s next season (hopefully), but his parts are definitely the weakest and slowest in this season – again, at no fault of Moten’s.

                Fallout manages to offer audiences an original story, fun world, faithful game adaptation, memorable characters, and strong performances in its retrofuturistic packaging, sure to please fans both old and new even if its story occasionally lags and it doesn’t necessarily have that universal charm needed to snag some of the older audiences. It’s so much better than I had any reason to expect, and I look forward to it getting that second season. You can currently watch this show on Amazon Prime Video, and I’d encourage you to do so.

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 - Argylle

                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 Matthew Vaughn’s latest theatrical release, Argylle. The film, written by Jason Fuchs and directed by Vaughn, follows a spy novelist as she discovers that her novels have been predicting real events in the espionage world and that opposing forces are after her latest manuscript to get ahead in the game. The film stars Bryce Dallas Howard, Henry Cavill, Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston, Dua Lipa, Ariana DeBose, Richard E. Grant, John Cena, Catherine O’Hara, and Samuel L. Jackson. The $200 million film opened this weekend to the worst critical reviews for any of Vaughn’s films but still looks to win the weekend box office. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C+; this movie should be so much worse than it actually is, and for that, I’m giving it a passing grade.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’re looking for an easy watching piece of pure entertainment at the movies, I don’t know that there’s any film currently out that will scratch that itch more than this one, so probably yes.

Why?

                The bad action movie is back with a vengeance! Argylle builds on the long tradition of Lethal Weapon, Charlie’s Angels, and even Vaughn’s own Kingsman films with a completely contrived, convoluted, action-packed mess of an action film that will still leave you smiling when you leave the theater. The cast’s commitment to the many bits of this film is what should make it a lasting success in the proverbial Spike TV movie specials (I guess it’s probably FXX now or something along those lines). The crossover of Elly Conway’s (Bryce Dallas Howard) fictional universe and the real-world spy action makes for some really fun rug pulls, and there’s plenty of twists and turns to keep you on the edge of your seat. Is it the most cohesive or clean or grittily real spy thriller ever made? Absolutely not, and it’s not going to floor you with anything groundbreaking, but it is fully committed to its own bit, and that’s incredibly refreshing in a big budget studio film.

                All of the main cast feel like the right fit for their respective roles. Bryan Cranston looks and acts the part of shady spy corporation head, channeling just a bit of that old Heisenberg into a few of his scenes, while also getting to show off some of his comedic timing as well. Catherine O’Hara is the perfect skeptical mom, giving plenty of iconic reactions to her daughter’s increasingly ridiculous involvement with her work. Henry Cavill (even with one of the worst haircuts I’ve ever seen) plays the part of Bond knock-off excellently, nailing the physicality and suave that his role demands. It’s always fun to see John Cena and Dua Lipa in cameo roles that fit them, and that’s no different here as they bring just the right amount of star power to the film’s wild opening, mirroring the L.L. Cool J cameo in the start of Charlie’s Angels (2000). Bryce Dallas Howard brings a commitment to the role of unwilling protagonist, nailing the cat lady forced into espionage that the role demands, giving us a fun take on the reluctant hero in the process. The person most at home in his role has to be action-comedy veteran Sam Rockwell (Charlie’s Angels and Mr. Right). He again brings that unassuming charm and hidden action hero style to his role as the real-life spy who tasks himself with keeping Elly safe from the more sinister elements that are after her.

                Of course, the action sequences have the requisite Matthew Vaughn flair for the unrealistic with colorful and ridiculously high-paced action that may or may not be everyone’s cup of tea. There’s one particular sequence involving ice skating that feels so ridiculous that you can’t help but marvel at the director’s willingness to try new things (even when they’re so ridiculous in their execution). Unfortunately, the flipside of Vaughn’s films is their story struggles, and with Jason Fuchs (Wonder Woman and Pan) taking on the writing duties this time, the story feels even weaker than usual. An abundance of twists and turns keeps the story engaging, but most of its reveals and surprises feel more unearned and heavy-handed than actually well-choreographed and satisfying. In recent years, it’s become popular to say that certain big budget films are good as long as you can turn your brain off while you watch it, and I’ve never seen that sentiment so blatantly on display as it is in Argylle.

                There’s enough creativity in the action sequences and commitment from its star-studded ensemble to help Argylle overcome its vast screenplay shortcomings to be an entertaining, if not overly substantial, time at the theaters. It’s definitely not a waste of money at the theaters because of how ridiculous and over-the-top it is, which works well on the big screen, but I don’t know that I’d call it a must-see film. It’s more of a solid excuse to go to the theaters if that’s something that you’re looking for.

Weekend Watch - Wonka

                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 will be our last Watch of 2023, as I’ll be taking the holiday weekends off. The topic this week, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Paul King’s prequel to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory that released this week, entitled Wonka. The film stars Timothée Chalamet as the titular chocolate magician, and he is joined by Calah Lane as the orphan Noodle, Olivia Colman as landlady and launderess Mrs. Scrubitt, Paterson Joseph, Matt Lucas, and Mathew Baynton as the chocolate “cartel”, Keegan-Michael Key as the Chief of Police, Jim Carter, Rakhee Thakrar, Natasha Rockwell, and Rich Fulcher as Wonka’s fellow lodgers and workers in town, Sally Hawkins as Wonka’s mother, and Hugh Grant as the Oompa-Loompa. The star-studded musical has thus far landed with a solid splash. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+, but in a good way; this film feels like a solid, wholesome end to 2023, not necessarily perfect but definitely a much-needed bolt of positivity in December.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes! This film is another example of Paul King making good family fun without feeling saccharine or forced, and it’s always refreshing.

Why?

                Wonka delivers everything you might want from an obvious cash-grab of a prequel – an engaging story, fun songs, well-managed fan service, and a fun blend of old and new characters, all of which gives some new perspective to the franchise(?) and the character of Willy Wonka. Chalamet, while initially a questionable pick to take over the mantle of the iconic chocolatier, perfectly slots into his role in the film, bringing the right blend of charisma, madcappery, and heart to the younger, less jaded version of Willy Wonka. King’s direction and writing take this musical to a place of family iconography that should hold a lasting place in the libraries of many movie fans. It’s not a film free from flaws, as some of its more fan-servicey moments and CGI feel a bit on-the-nose, but for a prequel that no one really asked for, those elements remain fairly few and far between.

                The film’s story delivers a slightly different plot than the trailers seemed to promise, focusing on an already fairly skilled Willy as he comes to the city to make his fortune selling the whimsical chocolates that he’s learned to make in his adolescent travels. The conflict stems from a lack of funding rather than from a lack of talent, and it becomes a film of class solidarity and the potential to overcome the wealthy and corrupt when working together toward a common goal. After being swindled into owing an inordinate amount of money to his landlords, Willy is forced to work off his debt rather than making his chocolate, which puts him into close contact with other victims of the price gouging of Scrubitt (Olivia Colman) and Bleacher (Tom Davis) – the orphan Noodle (Calah Lane), accountant Abacus Crunch (Jim Carter), telephone operator Lottie Bell (Rakhee Thakrar), plumber Piper Benz (Natasha Rothwell), and aspiring comedian Larry Chucklesworth (Rich Fulcher) – who then become his comrades in arms in his plot to make it big in the Gallery Gourmet, where all the best chocolate in the world is made. The chocolatiers of the gourmet pose the other primary obstacle to Wonka’s rise, with Slugworth (Paterson Joseph), Prodnose (Matt Lucas), and Fickelgruber (Mathew Baynton) holding a veritable oligopoly on the trade of sweets in the Gallery, using their excess of chocolate to bribe city officials, police, and the clergy into helping them maintain their hold on the trade. The escapades of Willy’s little group, which is eventually joined by Hugh Grant’s Oompa-Loompa, comprise the majority of the film’s runtime and make for some solid entertainment along the way. It’s not without a few plot holes and a few convenient deus ex machina’s in the closing act, but overall, it’s a fun story with a positive message of solidarity and companionship that is always welcome in the holiday season (even if this isn’t an explicitly holiday film).

                Chalamet’s performance is the driving force of the film, and now that I’ve seen it, I understand his Golden Globe nomination. He sings more than passably in the film’s plethora of upbeat and fun musical numbers, and his personification of the iconic character feels like a healthy homage to Wilder’s and Depp’s other iterations while bringing that youthful flair that the prequel’s story asks for. He’s well-cast, and I’m sorry for any disparaging remarks I may have made after watching the film’s underwhelming trailers. The rest of the film’s ensemble does their jobs decently without any major standouts. Colman seems to be doing her best homage to Mrs. Lovett of Sweeney Todd, but it works as a solid secondary villain. Though they are the film’s antagonists, Slughorn, Prodnose, Fickelgruber, and the Chief of Police also serve as its primary source of comic relief, and the timing and delivery from all four actors manage to elicit some laughs just about every time they’re onscreen.

                Chalamet’s impressive leading performance works with Paul King’s creative prequel narrative and some strong costume and production design to elevate Wonka above the typical prequel fare even if it does stray at times into that territory with some overt fan service and inconsistent CGI. It’s a great time at the theaters in this season of celebration, and once again, Paul King has given us a film that the whole family can enjoy without feeling too pandered to. You can check this one out in theaters for the next few weeks, and if you’re looking for something more upbeat, I have to recommend it.

Weekend Watch - The Boy and the Heron

                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 Boy and the Heron, the newest film from acclaimed Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki. The film has been reported as the filmmaker’s final film, but more recent reports seem to imply that he might have one more in him. Either way, after opening in Japan in July, this film opened in U.S. theaters this weekend. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A; animation, themes, characters, and story all hit those notes that we’ve come to expect from Miyazaki, yet again in a new and exciting tale.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes, but I do think that not everyone will love this film equally.

Why?

                Whether The Boy and the Heron truly is Miyazaki’s final film or not, much of the film feels like a swan song from the master of animation. The story, drawing its name from the novel by Genzaburo Yoshino, is loosely based on the filmmaker’s own adolescence during World War II, while also drawing on themes from his other works and combining all of that with his own sense of self and nearing the end of his life and career. It’s a film by Miyazaki for fans of Miyazaki first and foremost, but it doesn’t stop there, offering an engaging coming-of-age story for all audiences with one of the most complex protagonists that the animator has ever delivered. With what might be the filmmaker’s best display of animation, just the right amount of levity, and an engaging exploration of grief, growing up, aging, and generational responsibility, this film delivers a strong endcap to a year full of animated instant classics.

                The film’s story follows Mahito, a teen living in Japan during World War II, who loses his mother in a fire and then moves to the countryside when his father marries his mother’s younger sister, Natsuko. At their new house, Mahito struggles to accept Natsuko as his new mother and is harassed by a grey heron who lives on the grounds. Eventually, though, when Natsuko disappears into the forest surrounding the house – apparently taken by the mischievous grey heron – Mahito takes it on himself to bring her back, following her with one of the elderly women of the house (Kiriko) to the abandoned tower on the grounds that was built by his eccentric granduncle many years past. In the tower, the heron informs Mahito that his mother is still alive somewhere within the tower and that Mahito has to save both her and Natsuko before he leaves. Mahito’s adventure into the magical world of the tower brings him into conflict with the human-sized, man-eating parakeets that have taken up residence there and seek to rule it for themselves. To face them down, he is aided by a young fisherwoman named Kiriko, a magical girl with fire powers named Himi, and the heron who might have designs of his own. Ultimately, Mahito must choose between staying in the tower as its new master or returning with Natsuko to his world and his father. It’s one of Miyazaki’s more complex stories if you’re going beat by beat (which this recap certainly wasn’t), but it’s still fairly easy to follow in terms of the key points and very engaging thanks to the characters and animation.

                As always, Miyazaki’s animation is gorgeous, capturing a combination of realism, fantasy, and whimsy in the characters and landscapes that he brings to the screen. It might actually be the best that he’s ever done. The opening sequence of the film on its own is one of the two best animated scenes I’ve seen this year – the Spider-Gwen montage from the beginning of Across the Spider-Verse being the other – and the rest of the film keeps that excellence going, even if it’s never quite at that level again. I was struck by the realism of the way that Mahito was animated, with movements that look and feel like the movements of a real human, more than any character that I have ever seen in one of the director’s films. At the same time, the fantastical animations of the heron, the parakeets, the warawara (the requisite cutesy spirits that, in this case, look strikingly like plastic bags with faces), and the magical world of the tower feel inspired and totally new and distinct from Miyazaki’s other works, even while drawing inspiration from them. In particular, the parakeets give the film a feeling of levity that keeps the audience from falling too deeply into the potential for melancholy that the film’s story offers.

                Miyazaki has offered us a story full of the deeply human themes of loss and growing up and responsibility that still manages to stay light in the midst of its heavy realism thanks to his incredibly fun characters and animation that will leave audiences coming back to this film over and over again, discovering something new every time. While the film’s story might be overwhelming on the first watch, its wealth of detail and depth of themes make it an easy film to revisit, and the emotion and characters make it one that you’ll want to revisit. Currently, this film is showing (both subbed and dubbed) in theaters, and if my experience was any indication, I strongly recommend seeing it while you can on the big screen.

Weekend Watch - The Marvels

                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 (now that the studios have agreed to pay their writers and actors what they deserve) recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is Marvel Studios’ The Marvels – the latest release from the MCU, featuring the team-up of Captain Marvel (Brie Larson), Miss Marvel (Iman Vellani), and Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) who currently has no official superhero alias in the cinematic universe. In addition to its leading ladies, the film also sees the return of Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury to the Marvel films, the big-screen debut of Kamala Khan’s family portrayed by Zenobia Shroff, Mohan Kapur, and Saagar Shaikh, reprising their roles from the Miss Marvel Disney+ show, and sees the introduction of the villain Dar-Benn, played by Zawe Ashton, and Prince Yan of Aladna, portrayed by Park Seo-joon. The film opened this weekend to what looks to be the lowest box office debut of any MCU film to date. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B-; it’s a great time at the movies, and the leads help make the film really fun, but many of the important story beats break down under any kind of close examination.

Should you Watch This Film? If you are a fan of any of these three leading characters from the MCU, this film does them justice, and you’ll find your fandom rewarded. I don’t know how much this film impacts the overall continuity of the “Multiverse Saga”, so it’s a “maybe” for any other Marvel fans. People who haven’t enjoyed the latest offerings of the MCU probably won’t have their minds changed by this one, either.

Why?

                The Marvels, like most of the MCU films post-Endgame, is a mixed bag of good ideas, fun characters, decent effects, and a thin story. In the case of this particular outing, the good ideas come in the form of creative action sequences and a very fun team-up. The effects feel a little bit more consistent than in some of the recent outings; though, at times, the CGI of Captain Marvel flying around doesn’t look overly lifelike. The characters don’t have overly complex arcs in this quick film, but their interpersonal relationships take center stage and make for some solid fleshing out of the three leads. In a broad sense, the story works – forcing Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers to actually address the fallout from her past actions and do her best to patch things up, both with the Kree and with Monica. Unfortunately, the finer details of the story are where it starts to fall apart with more plot-holes than even I am comfortable with in a superhero film.

                Starting with the positives, it’s very fun to see all three of these leading characters on the big screen, and having them work together as a team is the icing on that particular cake. Aside from a tertiary role in Wandavision, we haven’t gotten to see much of Teyonah Parris’s Monica Rambeau, and in this film, she proves to be quite a welcome addition to the team. Beyond actually figuring out what her powers can do, she provides a human connection for Carol/Captain Marvel to wrestle with, which wasn’t as fully present in the first Captain Marvel film, and she brings more of a grounded perspective to the trio, acting as the voice of reason between Carol’s brashness and Kamala’s fangirling. She’s a fun character that has potential to be even more important as the second of the MCU’s sagas unfolds. Kamala Khan/Miss Marvel at least had her own show leading into this film, but Vellani’s character finds her stride here as she becomes part of a team, realizing that she has more to contribute than just being a sidekick to more famous heroes. While Monica is the brains of the operation and Carol is the main character and strength of the trio, Kamala serves as the team’s heart, reminding them time and again of their individual and collective greatness, becoming the best part of the film in the process. Her interactions with each member of the team, with Jackson’s Nick Fury, and with her own family serve as the comedic heart of the film but also the emotional core of the film, as her arc from fan/b-lister to mainline superhero comes to full fruition. Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers, in contrast with Kamala’s heart-on-her-sleeve passion, has to be brought out of her shell some in this film, benefitting greatly in this regard from Kamala’s outgoing nature and her emotional connection to Monica and her deceased mother. She’s obviously still one of the most powerful beings in the MCU, but her character gets to play in that space a bit more, as she’s forced to reckon with her inextricable connections to those weaker than her and to come to appreciate those connections rather than shy away from them and the vulnerability that they bring. Those connections offer a much-needed depth to her character that makes her a more integral part of the universe moving forward.

                On the flipside, the story surrounding these three great characters lacks a solid narrative framework and feels like a shell that was built around the awesome team-up. It’s a film that makes for a great time while you watch it, but when you look back and think about it, you’re puzzled by the logic and many conveniences that happen in the midst of it. Zawe Ashton does a commendable job as the villain Dar-Benn, coming across as the desperate world leader that she’s asked to portray, but many of the character’s decisions feel more like they were meant to bring the characters to certain locations and set pieces rather than the coordinated actions of the leader of an entire planet (empire?). Don’t get me wrong, those set-pieces are mostly pretty solid – the musical planet with Prince Yan, the cat rescue, and the initial entanglement sequence all make for highly entertaining film – but it’s again not the most logical in terms of story development. Likewise, I found myself wondering multiple times about how Monica just knew certain bits of information about the universe and physics that pertained to their specific situations and how the trio moved on so easily from witnessing multiple potentially world-ending events in pretty rapid succession. The processing scenes are either missing entirely or much too short to be fully satisfying. But that also speaks to my initial point that this film is here to showcase the trio rather than explore the universe that they inhabit, which may or may not work all the time.

                The Marvels is at its best when its leading team is on-screen, working together, and interacting in fun and fresh ways; unfortunately, much of that fun comes at the expense of a cohesive story, with the writing feeling more constructed around the characters as opposed to the characters developing around the story. It probably won’t work perfectly for most audiences, and a bit more time spent on story development could easily have made this one of the best MCU films. As it stands, it’s still a very fun superhero film with memorable characters, some original action sequences, and lots of heart that just misses the mark on some of its story logic. I think it’s worth your time if you’re looking for a lighthearted action flick that’s currently showing in theaters. Otherwise, you can probably wait for this one to hit streaming if you’re a Marvel fan or skip it if you aren’t because I’ve seen too many people dumping on this film for not being “cinema” for me to tell those people to watch it. They’ve already made up their minds because Scorsese told them to, and they’re not changing for a Brie Larson superhero film. If that’s you, just don’t see it rather than wasting time trashing people for doing their jobs.

Weekend Watch - Loki Season 2, Episodes 1 & 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 and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the opening episodes of Loki season 2 from Disney+. This new season of the show (the first to get a second season from the MCU Disney+ shows) sees the return of Tom Hiddleston, Sophia Di Martino, Owen Wilson, Eugene Cordero, and Wunmi Mosaku in their respective roles from season 1, joined in this season by Ke Huy Quan, Kate Dickie, and Rafael Casal in the new roles of OB, General Dox, and Hunter X-5/Brad Wolfe, respectively. This season is releasing weekly on Thursday evenings on Disney+. Let’s get into it.

Rating: B+; it maintains the solid production design and frenetic pace of the first season well, and the performances have only improved, but a lack of direction has me hesitant to call this new season a full-on improvement from the first.

Review:

                As far as season openers go, Loki season 2 has had two solid first episodes in terms of introducing its new characters and resolving most of the unresolved threads from season 1; however, it has so far done very little to bring in a compelling new conflict to fill the void now that Loki and Sylvie have convinced the TVA to accept branching timelines. (Also, this is not a show where you can jump in at the start of season 2 without having watched the first season and be fully in the know, so there’s that as well.) It feels like we’re moving toward either a showdown with Miss Minutes and Gugu Mbatha-Raw’s Ravonna Renslayer or with some new version of Kang/He Who Remains, but all of those characters were notably absent from these first two episodes aside from a few statues of Kang (who seems to still be played by Jonathan Majors despite his arrest and accusations of abuse). On the positive side of things, the show continues to improve in its production design and casting/performances, giving audiences more of that dingy brown retro TVA vibe that they loved in the first season and more of Hiddleston playing the complex anti-hero that Loki has become.

                With the story picking up basically immediately after the end of season 1, we are thrust very much back into the middle of things and are introduced to a new complication for Loki – he is experiencing time slippage while in the TVA, jumping back and forth between the past and present. This comprises the main conflict of the first episode, as Wilson’s Mobius and Mosaku’s Hunter B-15 are able fairly easily to convince most of the TVA leadership (aside from General Dox and her hunters) that branching timelines are acceptable. Their quest to anchor Loki in the present leads them to Ke Huy Quan’s OB (Ouroboros) who runs all the tech for the TVA and knows a lot about the flow of time. The resolution of that episode then leads into the second episode’s conflict, which is stopping Dox and her hunters from getting Sylvie and reverting the timelines back to a single timeline. This gets the band back together as Loki, Mobius, and Sylvie have to team up to stop this from happening, which ends up being fairly easy – much easier than any of the resolutions from the first season, and with such limited consequences as Sylvie leaving again, I’m hesitant to fully commit to the rest of the season.

                What bolsters this season opener, though, are the performances from the characters – old and new. Wunmi Mosaku turns in another solid performance as Hunter B-15, this time on the side of Loki and Mobius, delivering her stoic but inspired lines with just the right amount of camp to match the show’s energy. Sophia Di Martino doesn’t have quite as much to do in these first two episodes as she did down the stretch in season 1, but her portrayal of Sylvie still holds up as the jaded, powerful, witty Loki variant that she is, and I’m glad she’s still in the show. Kate Dickie gets to do a lot with her limited screen time as the “villain” of the first two episodes, and it’s always frustratingly fun to see her get to lean into that loathsome side of herself (like in Game of Thrones and The Witch), which she does again here, giving the audience someone to root against in the early goings of this new season. Owen Wilson’s Mobius hasn’t gotten as much into the actor’s surprisingly complex bag this season as he did, especially toward the end, in last season, but his buddy cop repartee with Hiddleston’s Loki forms the backbone of the show, and it’s still just as good here. Ke Huy Quan joins the show in the role of OB, which feels like a character that’s always been there, showcasing how seamlessly the actor fits in with the energy and vibe of the rest of the cast and the show, bringing levity, lore, and some level of stakes to these first two episodes, and I look forward to seeing more of him as the season progresses. Hiddleston is in his bag here in these first two episodes, getting to be more villain and more hero than he was even in the show’s first season, really leaning into the anti-hero side of the character. In these first few episodes, he feels more established and in control than he’s ever felt as the MCU’s iteration of the Norse God of Mischief, and it anchors the whole show, offering (for me at least) the most compelling reason to see where the rest of this season goes.

                As the show leans more heavily on its namesake, Loki season 2 has opened with a solid foundation of characters, performances, and production value that helps it overcome its somewhat lackluster stakes and conflicts through its first two episodes. I look forward to it hopefully amping up as we jump into the middle third of the season, and if the performances are any indication, I think we’ll continue to see why this show was the MCU’s first to get a second season. It will release weekly on Thursdays for the next four weeks, wrapping up on November 9th if you’d rather wait until it’s all out to binge it.

Weekend Watch - PAW Patrol: The Mighty Movie

                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 (and a surprisingly large number of my wife’s friends), is the latest animated film about every child’s favorite group of crime fighting pups: PAW Patrol: The Mighty Movie. The film is the sequel to 2021’s commercially successful PAW Patrol: The Movie, the first theatrical spin-off of the widely popular Nick Jr. show about a team of dogs who work with a boy to keep their town safe from a wide array of disasters, utilizing large vehicles in pursuit of this goal. Notable additions to the usual voice cast of the film include McKenna Grace taking over to voice the pup Skye, Taraji P. Henson voicing the new villain Victoria Vance, and Lil Rel Howery voicing Adventure City’s news anchor Sam Stringer. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: D without young children, B+ with young children; there’s really only one brief scene that makes this film feel like it’s paying any attention to the adults in the crowd, but the small children that permeated the audience were having a fantastic time.

Review:

                Anyone vaguely familiar with the PAW Patrol franchise probably gets the gist of what this film is about – there’s dogs, they have big vehicles, their boss(?) is an unexplainably independently wealthy child, they want to protect people from bad things happening – and if you’ve seen any marketing for this specific film, you probably know the rest – the dogs get super powers from a meteor and have to stop a mad scientist from stealing their powers and using them to destroy Adventure City. Nothing in this film feels overly original (or makes a ton of sense), but it delivers what the young fans of the franchise come to the theater to see – dogs in cool cars and outfits getting superpowers and doing even more than they usually can thanks to those new powers. The sense of delight and fun was palpable in the theater even if the actual film didn’t give me much in terms of content – the kid next to us in a Chase costume was having a spectacular time, and it was just endearing enough to keep me having a good time.

                The Mighty Movie is not entirely devoid of moments with a bit more depth than the television show typically showcases. This story focuses on the character of Skye – the smallest of the pups who flies a helicopter and, now, a plane as well – and her desire to prove herself as just as good as the rest of the crew despite her smaller stature. Her backstory as the runt of the litter who willed herself to being adopted by Ryder features in a flashback reminiscent of the flashback montages in Pixar films like Cars or Toy Story 2, complete with an emotional song and different color palette. It’s that moment that keeps this film feeling like it almost considered a broader audience than just the kids, but it quickly returns to the fast-paced, less-than-logical action sequences that the crowds came to see.

                While adults in the audience – especially those without young children – won’t find a lot in this film for them, it still delivers some emotional moments and plenty of the kid-friendly action that audiences come to this type of film to see, pleasing the kids in the audience as it should. Don’t expect groundbreaking animation like the Spider-Verse films or innovative stories like TMNT or Nimona, but just come in looking for a good kid-friendly romp, and you shouldn’t be overly disappointed.

Weekend Watch - Expend4bles

                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 the latest in Sylvester Stallone’s action franchise, Expend4bles. The fourth film in the series sees the return of Stallone as Barney, the leader of the titular team of military contractors, as well as Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, and Randy Couture in reprisals of their respective roles. They are joined this time by Megan Fox (Transformers), 50 Cent (Escape Plan), Tony Jaa (Ong Bak), Jacob Scipio (Bad Boys for Life), and Levy Tran (The First Purge) as additions to the team, Andy Garcia as the team’s CIA handler, and Iko Uwais of The Raid films as the new villain – Rahmat. The film opened in theaters this weekend. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: D+, this film is probably a C+ in its best form, but a truly convoluted story and more misogyny than you’d even expect weigh it down.

Review:

                Expend4bles offers more of the same fare that we’ve all come to expect of the franchise – classic action heroes getting to show off that they’ve still got it alongside some decently well-known up and comers while they try to stop the bad guy from doing something that threatens world peace (or whatever). In this particular iteration, Statham is given more of a leading role, while Stallone takes a backseat, which works for the pacing of most of the film’s action sequences, but leaves it lacking a bit of the goofy heart that has made the films as successful as they have been (at least financially), since Statham is stuck delivering his one-liners to dead (or soon-to-be-dead) henchmen more often than his aging associates.

                The mission is another odd point for the film, considering the absence of Stallone’s Barney for much of its runtime. The Expendables are called on by the CIA to infiltrate a hijacked cargo ship that is carrying a nuclear device and stop it from entering Russian waters while also uncovering the identity of a shadowy figure from Barney’s days before the Expendables and bringing him to justice. That second point is what makes Barney’s absence from most of the back portion of the film so odd. The character motivations of everyone on the team not played by Stallone end up becoming fairly shallow when he dips out. It ends up becoming a film about watching people do their jobs, sometimes with some entertaining action sequences and decent one-liners.

                The biggest saving grace that keeps Expend4bles watchable, like the other films in its franchise, are the action sequences. An opening villain takeover of a desert compound gets things going, showcasing Iko Uwais’s capabilities as a fighter for any unfamiliar with his other work as he dominates the grunts that try to come between him and his prize. The chase with military-grade ATVs, a cargo plane, trucks, and a Humvee makes for a solid wrap-up to the first act – nothing overly creative, but it still works to establish characters, conflict, and keep the audience engaged. Statham then gets his own infiltration sequence that works really well in the second act before being elevated by the addition of Tony Jaa and plenty of hand-to-hand combat for both of them. The big team-up moment is fine with enough gunplay and knife play to keep those hungry for action happy, even if the stakes feel fairly basic and understated. The final showdown is probably the weakest in terms of actual action, focusing more on reveals, elevating the stakes, and offering the audience payoffs, which leaves it somewhat underwhelming after a series of solid fights up to that point.

                Odd but predictable story choices, fun but mostly basic action sequences, and a marked lack of character development for anyone leaves Expend4bles as a disappointing and barely entertaining offering in theaters this weekend. This probably shouldn't come as a huge surprise to anyone who’s seen the first three films, but it would’ve been nice to see it improve just a bit in the direction of its second installment, which remains a decent B-level action flick, rather than the predictability and underperformance of the first and third installments. Nonetheless, here we are coming into the last week of September, so hopefully, we’ll be kicking back into gear in the next few weeks with awards season rolling ever closer.

Weekend Watch - Gran Turismo

                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 Gran Turismo, based on the true story of Jann Mardenborough – a Play Station gamer whose skills at the titular video game allowed him to become a professional racer. The film stars Archie Madekwe as the gamer-turned-racer, joined by David Harbour as his chief engineer Jack Salter, Orlando Bloom as the marketing executive who first pitched the idea Danny Moore, and Djimon Hounsou as Jann’s father Steve who played soccer professionally in his younger days. After a brief delay from Sony, the film got its wide release this weekend to massive audience fanfare but middling responses from critics. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; there’s definitely two different tones to this film, and one of them is much better than the other (plus, I had a wild viewing experience that will make this film unforgettable for me).

Review:

                I’ll start out by saying that, based on my experience last night, the target audience for this film is ten-year-old boys (because, collectively, my wife and I had eight kids in that range on either side of us), and it works great for that demographic, with enough for the adults and sports film fans in the audience to keep it widely marketable. It’s a feel-good story about an underdog making his dream of becoming a professional athlete come true thanks to his skills at a video game – just hearing that, you probably know what kind of audience this is going to draw the most. It helps that director Neill Blomkamp was willing to get creative with the racing sequences and give audiences a strong video game adaptation with just a few simple visuals that keep the whole thing feeling fresh even while the two biggest races in the film (Nürburgring and Le Mans) have both featured just as prominently in the two other biggest films about professional racing in the last ten years (Rush and Ford v Ferrari, respectively).

                While the film’s story might not be the most innovative ever brought to screen, it does offer a fresh look at the modern world of motorsports, showcasing both its highs and lows through the eyes of a virtual outsider in the main character of Jann. Unfortunately, his venture into professional racing doesn’t begin in earnest until about halfway through the film, making its first act drag as it tries to build tension in an audience that already knows how it’s going to end up. Had the arc about Jann qualifying to be Team Nissan’s first “sim racer” been about fifteen minutes shorter, I think this film might have better critic scores than its current 46 Metascore and 59% Tomatometer. It spends most of that time reminding the audience how accurate the game Gran Turismo is to real racing and generally serving as an advertisement for Sony’s product, which is one of the big reasons why I think it could have been pared down to make a better and more universally successful film.

                Though the film is about Jann’s story, it features more of a hybrid three-man leading performance from Madekwe, Harbour, and Bloom, each with his own story and contribution to the main plot. Bloom’s Danny Moore feels the least fleshed out of the trio, serving more as the optimistically skeptical head of the threesome, a catalyst who’s never completely bought in to the story unfolding as a result of his dream. Harbour gives a more grounded (and impactful performance) as the technical head of the trio, serving as both the coach and washed-up former pro in the same role, and he brings a lot of fun to his part. Madekwe, in his first starring role shows some flashes of potential, exploring the emotions of racing and being an outsider and living out his dream all at once. It’s not necessarily the most demanding performance, but he brings a depth to the character that you don’t always see in these types of films. Djimon Hounsou anchors the cast (and probably helps solidify Madekwe’s performance) by playing the disapproving father who cares deeply for his son and isn’t convinced that video games and racing are setting him up for the most success. He takes a fairly cliché role and turns it into something deeply impactful by the film’s end, as only Hounsou is capable of doing.

                Intense and original racing sequences coupled with some solid performances for a sports film help make Gran Turismo a quality addition to the genre despite some overlong love paid to its video game sponsor and a fairly familiar story. Be aware that if you go see this in theaters, you might have talking/farting/barefoot boys on either side of you, but that you’ll probably have a good time despite all that too. This film probably isn’t going to win any awards, but it will win over its audience.

Weekend Watch - Blue Beetle

                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 Blue Beetle, the latest origin story from the DC Universe of comic book films. The film stars Xolo Maridueña as the titular hero, Jaime Reyes, joined by his family – Damián Alcázar, George Lopez, Adriana Barraza, Belissa Escobedo, and Elpidia Carrillo – and love interest Jenny Kord, played by Bruna Marquezine, against the villains Victoria Kord (Susan Sarandon) and Carapax (Raoul Max Trujillo). The film serves as the first unofficial entry in the new reboot of the DC Universe, now helmed by James Gunn and Peter Safran. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; it’s a fairly formulaic story, but the film uses that to explore new themes and fun characters in the process.

Review:

                Blue Beetle plays it safe with the familiar superhero origin story, complete with the evil version of the hero, comedic test-run of the hero’s new powers, and a shady corporation after the hero for his powers. Within that formulaic story, though, the filmmakers explore new themes, thanks in large part to the Latino hero and his family. The film features strong – and well-crafted – Latino representation, something that has up to this point been mostly sidelined in mainstream superhero films, and in that, it gets to dive into themes of immigration, microaggressions, American exploitation of Latin America and Latin American immigrants, and the privatization and militarization of police. It’s a surprisingly deep well of thematic elements to draw on and play into for a superhero origin film, but those themes are what keep it afloat and set it apart even as its plot and some of its visuals leave something to be desired.

                Blue Beetle’s other primary highlight comes in the form of its stellar cast. No one feels out of place, and each performance brings something fresh and fun to the film, keeping it light even as it delves into some heavier material underneath. Maridueña is a natural as the leading man, stepping into the role of Jaime Reyes with just the right blend of cool and hesitancy. His performance helps sell the audience on the character and sets the whole franchise up for future success on his charisma. Each member of the Reyes family also brings their own flair to the film, providing the film with the heart that it needs to connect with the audience. Marquezine gets to have some fun in her ample role as the love interest and unintentional catalyst for Jaime/Blue Beetle, serving as more than just a damsel in distress or a quest giver – giving a solid performance across from some of the film’s biggest powerhouses (Sarandon and Lopez) in most of her scenes. I don’t know that you could have cast a better villain than Susan Sarandon in this iteration of Victoria Kord. She plays entitled white woman, rich billionaire, and military industrial capitalist in such a loathsome way throughout the film, making her one of the simpler villains that we’ve seen in recent comic book films, but also the easiest to root against.

                A simple and too-familiar plot, along with some inconsistent visual effects, hold the film back from being an instant classic, but engaging and relevant themes and a cast that play their roles brilliantly help make Blue Beetle a passable and enjoyable introduction to a new hero and a new era of the DC Universe. The new universe feels like it’s headed in a fun and engaging, if a bit too safe, direction, and I look forward to seeing more of Jaime Reyes and his supporting cast in the future films from the movie studio.

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part 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, in solidarity with the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes, I’ll be refraining from giving any actual recommendations, and just stick to reviews and ratings. The topic this week, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest in Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible franchise – Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One – which opened this weekend in theaters. The film stars Cruise, joined by his usual gang of Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg alongside returners Rebecca Ferguson, Vanessa Kirby, and Henry Czerny from previous films in the franchise. Newcomers to the film’s ensemble include Hayley Atwell, Esai Morales, Pom Klementieff, Greg Tarzan Davis, and Shea Wigham. Dominating this weekend’s box office and receiving high praise from critics and fans, it looks like Cruise and McQuarrie have another action hit on their hands. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; while not the worst film in the franchise by any stretch of the imagination, this feels like a clear drop-off from the past few entries.

Review:

                Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One is a “part one” in so many frustrating and endearing ways. On the upside, none of the great action sequences feel rushed to get to a conclusion, allowing the audience to experience them in their fullness. For this, the film’s near-three-hour runtime doesn’t end up feeling nearly that long, and you’re left with a really fun theatrical experience. On the flipside, the film struggles to tell a complete story with compelling characters and stakes, which is something that the past few M:I’s have done incredibly well. Dead Reckoning Part One’s villain has what feels like a shoehorned connection to Ethan’s past to try to force the audience’s rooting interest, but it never really works since his motivations are left fairly ambiguous – both in the past and the present. Also, as a part one, the audience can tell that everything is building to what is going to be some sort of cliffhanger, and in this particular one, we’re left feeling that the stakes of the whole film were fairly small because of how it all ends up. Yes, you want to know how it all ends up, but not because of some looming threat to the heroes (which is a bit overplayed, I’ll grant you, but it works), rather because the audience has to know whether this whole film was actually worth the effort – is “the Entity” truly as devastating and world-threatening as the film would have us believe through exposition?

                Don’t get me wrong, the technical aspects and stunts of this film are excellent, and anyone saying otherwise probably walked into the wrong film (Sound of Freedom if I had to hazard a guess). It’s clear that McQuarrie has learned from the successes of Fallout and Top Gun: Maverick, utilizing some truly excellent visuals and camera work in all of the big action sequences to truly give the audience that feeling of being part of the action. It’s thrilling in the best way possible, and knowing that most of them are real stunts done by real performers just makes it that much more impressive. Cruise’s requisite highlight stunt in this film might not quite be as insane as his hanging off the side of a plane from Rogue Nation, but it still impresses as he jumps off a cliff on a motorcycle in the film’s climactic sequence. It’s fun and over-the-top in a way that reminds you of how great these films can be when firing on all cylinders.

                In terms of performances, none stand out as truly excellent, but none are terrible either. Cruise gives one of his more dynamic turns as Hunt, giving some humor in the midst of his single-minded dedication to the mission and his team. Atwell is a welcome addition to the franchise as career-criminal “Grace”, bringing a freshness to the film that is much needed even if her start is a bit slow before stepping into her own in the back half of the film. Rebecca Ferguson is a great actress, but she is tragically wasted in this film, serving more as a plot device than character, a disappointing deviation from her past roles in Rogue Nation and Fallout. Vanessa Kirby again holds her own as the White Widow, playing the role with all the charm, confidence, and menace that she did last time around. Shea Whigham and Greg Tarzan Davis bring a fun buddy comedy energy to their roles that fills in for the noticeably lessened roles of both Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames.

                Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part One feels in many ways like a return to the median for the espionage thriller franchise, giving great action sequences and visuals with a less-than-compelling story, passable acting, and stakes that feel like they should be higher to set up for a truly satisfying conclusion in Part Two. There’s no denying the fun factor of Dead Reckoning, but its other entertainment pieces could definitely have been better executed, leaving it as a bit of a question mark going forward to its second half.

Weekend Watch - Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

                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 James Mangold’s entry in the Indiana Jones saga, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, which released this weekend in theaters from Disney and Lucasfilm. The film finds Harrison Ford’s adventuring archaeologist in a race against Nazi holdovers, the CIA, and his goddaughter Helena (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) to claim the titular time-traveling artifact that was invented thousands of years ago by famed mathematician, Archimedes. Along with Waller-Bridge’s enigmatic role, the film also features Mads Mikkelsen and Boyd Holbrook as the true villains and contains cameos from Antonio Banderas, Toby Jones, Karen Allen, and John Rhys-Davies. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C+; it’s technically an Indiana Jones film, but it’s missing something that the original three definitely had.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe, if you need a relatively family-friendly action film, this checks that box, but I’m not sure that it’s got much of anything else going for it.

Why?

                Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny follows much more in the footsteps of its most recent predecessor than the films that came before, giving audiences a grizzled and hesitant Jones thrown into an adventure through connections that we’ve only just been introduced to before diving into a lively but not overly high-stakes second act that ends with a ridiculously over-the-top climax. The music and action are well-executed and fun, but the story feels forced, the villain never feels fully committed to his own mission, and the whole thing leaves you asking why they felt the need to make it.

                The action sequences are all pretty solid, playing with the typical Indiana Jones bits, giving Ford one last chance to bust out the whip and fedora (but no gun for most of the film for whatever reason) and get himself into and out of tough spots with a solid blend of suspense, fun, and adrenaline. The opening sequence (taking place back at the end of World War II) is probably the weakest action sequence, struggling to make us believe that we’re seeing a young Harrison Ford when every time he speaks, the aged-down man sounds like an octogenarian. They get better from there with a fun little chase through the streets of 1960s Chicago, a wild tuk-tuk chase around Tangier, before capping everything with maybe the most ridiculous and biggest action set piece in any Indiana Jones film at the end. It might not work for everyone because of how insane it really is, but if you can suspend some disbelief (and why wouldn’t you while watching a film about a globetrotting archaeologist fighting Nazis in the 1960s), you’ll find yourself enjoying it despite your probable frustration with the rest of the film that isn’t John Williams’s score.

                Dial of Destiny’s two biggest issues are its hero and its villain. For the hero (Indiana Jones), most of his choices and developments are externally motivated, not coming from his actual desire to see or do anything but from his obligations to characters and ideas that we haven’t really encountered at all before this film. Even when he does try to make his own choices, Jones is coopted or circumvented by other characters, rendering those moments more as comic relief than dramatic character moments. It’s not so much that Harrison Ford does a bad job of executing the character – he fits well in the role still as it has evolved to age with him – but more that the story is written with Jones as an archetype than as an actual character. Similarly, Mikkelsen’s villain Dr. Voller feels like two villains rolled into one and not well-developed in either facet. On one hand, he’s a scientist devoted to claiming the Dial for science and his own personal use. On the other, he’s a Nazi who dreams of bringing back the Third Reich despite never seeming to espouse any of the ideals of the Nazis until the film’s final act – even in his introduction at the end of the Second World War, he feels more like a scientist swept up by the Nazis than an actual Nazi himself. For the first two acts, you feel like Indy’s facing off against one villain, but then in the climax, the villain is reduced to a literal image of a Nazi officer because that’s who Indiana faced off against in the best films in the franchise. The whole story feels like somebody watched the Indiana Jones films and then had to write another film in the franchise, as opposed to actually wanting to write another film.

                John Williams’s excellent score and some fun action set pieces only go so far in elevating Dial of Destiny’s half-hearted story and middling character development to a place of being watchable and enjoyable. It’s an okay film made worse by the greatness of the first three films in its franchise that is fine for a popcorn flick but not much else. Watch it if you want, but don’t expect to get a game-changing blockbuster for the ages.

Weekend Watch - The Flash

                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 Flash, the latest offering (and last of the most recent iteration) from the DC cinematic universe. This film is the first to star Ezra Miller’s version of the speedster as its titular hero and also features Ben Affleck’s and Michael Keaton’s versions of Batman/Bruce Wayne alongside Michael Shannon reprising his villainous role of General Zod and the newcomer Sasha Calle playing Supergirl/Kara Zor-El. With an increasing amount of superhero fatigue around seemingly throwaway films and the coming reboot of the DC Universe with James Gunn and Peter Safran at the helm, the film has underperformed so far at the box office. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C; this is a totally acceptable superhero film that you can see if you need to scratch that itch.

Should you Watch This Film? If you are firmly invested in seeing a Flash movie, I’m not sure when the next one will be coming on DC’s slate, so this might be your best choice. Otherwise, you can probably skip this and won’t be missing too much in the grand scheme of things – culturally and in the film universe.

Why?

                The Flash offers audiences a film that, at this point, we’ve stopped asking for and only cared slightly about to begin with, doing a fine job of showcasing its characters and story but leaving everyone wondering why exactly it exists, particularly with its box office returns being as poor as they have been so far. It feels like a poorly informed cash grab in the vein of Morbius but with slightly better story, action, and characters. For a film that embraces the story of Zach Snyder’s Justice League, this film departs strongly from the vibes and vision of that drab, plodding superhero film. Instead, The Flash presents audiences with a brightly colored, poorly CGIed superhero action comedy with more unearned fan service than should be allowed in a single film.

                Let’s talk highs first. As a standalone superhero comedy, The Flash works just fine. Ezra Miller has never really made it as a dramatic actor, so letting them go full manic comedy seems like the right choice for this film. It’s a film that never tries to be anything but itself, and for that I applaud them. The comedy hits most of the time even when it feels like a strong deviation from any superhero formula that we’ve yet seen. The jokes keep the whole film fairly light and keep the pace moving, rushing you through the film’s almost two-and-a-half-hour runtime at a pace that feels closer to an hour and forty-five minutes. Now, the levity does have one major drawback – it removes any feeling of drama and suspense that you might normally have given the situations unfolding onscreen. There’s so much humor that I never felt fully invested in any of the conflicts (that might also be because we know the universe is getting a reboot after this anyway) and the more emotional beats of the film only halfway landed.

                Performance-wise, Ezra Miller does the best with what they’re given, leaning hard into the multiple Barrys thing and delivering well on the comedy. Are they the best iteration of Flash ever brought to screen? No way, but I found them enjoyable enough to keep the film watchable in their role. Ben Affleck’s limited screentime works out fine, as this might be his most phoned-in Batman/Bruce Wayne performance yet, understandably so with it being his last time in the role as far as anyone knows. Michael Keaton is a welcome addition to the cast, and his Bruce/Bat makes a lot of sense in the film, given its lighter (borderline campier) tones. He gets to do more than Affleck, and that’s not a bad thing. If anything, The Flash actually helps cement Keaton’s take on Batman as my second-favorite behind Robert Pattinson’s. (That’s not a statement about any of their films, just how I feel about their interpretations of the Caped Crusader.) Calle’s Supergirl and Shannon’s Zod feel almost more like throwaway plot points than actual characters, through no fault of the actors, more due to the writing, but they work in their roles. Obviously, Shannon is a great actor, and his Zod is probably the best villain from this saga of DC films. Calle does great in her action sequences but isn’t given much to do in terms of character work, so I’m curious to see whether she gets to come back in the new universe or not – it could be good.

                The Flash is a bit of a mess narratively and tonally that works best when it’s not taking itself too seriously – not the worst superhero film of the year but nowhere near the best either. If you need that itch scratched or are just deeply committed to seeing Ezra Miller’s Flash on the big screen, this is the film for you. Otherwise, you can definitely skip its theatrical run and might even be okay avoiding it entirely. Tragically, in a world full of superhero universes, films that lack legitimate consequence within those universes end up being fairly skippable.

Weekend Watch - The Little Mermaid (2023)

                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 Disney’s latest live action remake – The Little Mermaid. This film adapts the 1989 animated film of the same name and stars Halle Bailey in the titular role, featuring the voice talents of Daveed Diggs, Awkwafina, and Jacob Tremblay as Ariel’s various animal friends, and featuring Jonah Hauer-King, Melissa McCarthy, and Javier Bardem in the supporting roles of Prince Eric, Ursula, and King Triton, respectively. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C+; did we need a live-action remake? No. Does this do some creative things with the original and even improve on it in some places? Sure. Does this feature one of the worst songs in Disney history? Absolutely.

Should you Watch This Film? If you need a decent theatrical experience this weekend, particularly that’s kid-friendly, this is good enough to warrant a visit. It’s not necessarily a must-watch if you hadn’t planned on seeing it.

Why?

                While most remakes don’t feel overly necessary, The Little Mermaid follows in the footsteps of its more positively received predecessors (The Jungle Book, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin) by staying true to the beloved story and characters of the original while adding just enough good new pieces to justify its existence. With almost an hour of extra runtime, The Little Mermaid fleshes out the romance at its heart, giving it legs to stand on (pun slightly intended) in a way that the original never really achieved. At the same time, its 2 hour and 15-minute runtime feels a bit long for its target audience, its CGI only looks good in certain scenes, and it does add one of the worst songs I’ve ever heard in a Disney film in its extended runtime.

                One of the most legitimate critiques of the original The Little Mermaid is how shallow its romantic narrative is (see Childish Gambino’s “II. Worldstar” for reference). The live-action remake improves that aspect greatly, giving Ariel and Eric points of connection beyond mutual levels of hotness. They feel more connected to each other before the official washing up on shore occurs. Is the three days to fall in love trope still a little bit troubling? Yeah, but they again give the characters more interpersonal connections so that it doesn’t feel quite as shallow. These romantic additions are helped also by Halle Bailey’s expressive performance and strong vocals and a passable supporting performance from Jonah Hauer-King. They both look the part of the roles they play and sell the romance individually and together. Bailey, in particular, holds her own as the leading lady, keeping the part familiar while adding her own flairs here and there to really own the role.

                Visually, the film fluctuates with some underwater scenes that are truly breathtaking but most of which just come across as disappointing after seeing Avatar: The Way of Water. The digitally choreographed “Under the Sea” scene is one of the best musical numbers in any of the Disney remakes and really was a joy to watch. Unfortunately, the scenes around it were full of underwhelming animation and strange character designs that only work one in three times. The designs for Scuttle and Flounder both invoke just a little bit too much of an uncanny valley for my taste, while the Sebastian design actually works for whatever reason – maybe it’s because crabs don’t have noticeably moving mouths and eyes for the most part, unlike fish and birds. I’d also be remiss if I did not mention the most jarring and cringeworthy song – an Awkwafina rap as Scuttle that feels so out of place in the film and isn’t even good enough to justify its weirdness (unlike Moana’s “Shiny”). Awkwafina’s voice-acting for Scuttle is really not that bad, but her song is up there with the ice cream song from Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness for most disconcerting movie moments of the 2020s.

                Where The Little Mermaid improves on and lives up to the success of the original animated film, it really works; unfortunately, an extra-long runtime, up and down visual effects, and a truly upsetting new song hold it back from reaching true greatness. It’s good enough to be a passable kids film that adults will also enjoy, but it’s by no means the turnaround in live action remakes that will suddenly change your mind about them. It’s good enough to warrant seeing in theaters if you want, but it isn’t necessarily a must-watch for every moviegoer.