Weekend Watch - Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - 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 - Kung Fu Panda 4

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - Dune: Part Two

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - Madame Web

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - All of Us Strangers

                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 BAFTA-nominated film from Andrew Haigh that finally got a theatrical release at a theater within feasible driving distance of my house this weekend – All of Us Strangers. The film, adapted from Taichi Yamada’s novel Strangers, stars Andrew Scott, Paul Mescal, Jamie Bell, and Claire Foy in a story about a lonely screenwriter (Scott) whose work on a script based on his own adolescent tragedy leads him back to his childhood home where his deceased parents (Bell and Foy) are seemingly still alive, while he also starts to open himself up to a relationship with a fellow tenant (Mescal) at his supremely vacant apartment complex. The intimate and mind-bending film has already received six BAFTA nominations, a Golden Globe nomination, and a Critics Choice Award nomination. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A; this film meets and exceeds expectations at almost every level.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes, assuming that it’s playing in your area and you’re allowed/able to go see R-rated films.

Why?

                All of Us Strangers does, in fact, live up to the expectations that I have had about it. It delivers a beautifully acted, emotional, engaging, well-shot, mentally stimulating, and intimate look at grief, love, memory, family, and the universal human need for connection and intimacy. On the one hand, it offers a devastating portrayal of loneliness and its consequences when left unchecked, but on the other, it presents the audience with the beautiful nature of the alternative – opening yourself up to being vulnerable with others who might be able to love you (platonically, paternally, romantically, or any other way) and whom you might love in return. Andrew Haigh’s adaptation of Yamada’s novel takes the premise of what I understand to be a fantasy/romance/mystery/horror-lite story (based on the plot synopses I’ve read) whose focus is on letting go of past hurts and loss so that you can connect with your present and twists it into something that lacks a bit of that horror element but that leans hard into the other aspects to tell a story of opening up despite past hurts because of the need that everyone has for connection. Add to that adaptation the four excellent performances from Scott, Mescal, Bell, and Foy, and you’ve got yourself a modern masterpiece of film.

                I think that there exists a problematic and simplistic reading of this film as a purely LGBTQ+ story about how, in fact, being non-cis non-het is inherently isolating to the point of total despair. Adam (Scott) consistently describes himself as lonely, even from childhood before the deaths of his parents, and attributes that loneliness to his sense of feeling different and his fear of being judged and/or ostracized by his peers and his parents for being gay. Likewise, Harry (Mescal) talks about his lack of contact with his family once he told them about his sexuality being an operating factor in his own loneliness and isolation. I think, though, that reading such an interpretation – “the gays are lonely and sad” – into this film is reductive and dismissive of what Haigh (and the cast) are actually trying to accomplish. Their isolation doesn’t stem from their sexuality; it stems from the sense of rejection that they chose to latch onto, that society continues to push everyone toward. This fear of potentially being hurt by others because someone did once hurt you or someone like you seems to permeate modern society and relationships, from children to work environments to families to romantic partnerships to everything in between, and it’s that type of isolation that Haigh seeks to highlight – isolation driven by fear, fearing that you’ll never be loved or be enough but also fearing the possibility of finding out whether or not you are right. It’s so much deeper than a story of gay men being isolated, and it being told from an LGBTQ+ perspective simply lends more truth and power to its universal nature – that I, a straight man, can resonate with and recognize the tension of needing connection but fearing the hurt that comes when you connect with imperfect people as an imperfect person. It’s powerful.

                To top it all off, though, each of the four actors in this film (because it really is just a four-person film with two other credited actors who share one line between the two of them) delivers some of their best work, and when Oscar nominations leave all four of them out on Tuesday, it’s going to be a travesty. Claire Foy as Adam’s mother gets the opportunity to play this maternal figure to a forty-something man while being five to ten years younger than him due to the circumstances of her life and death. It’s a fascinating performance to watch because of how natural it feels, how, no matter the age of your child, you never stop being a mother – with all the highs and lows of motherhood included. Across from her, Jamie Bell plays Adam’s father in what is arguably the most emotionally taxing role of the film as he comes to terms with his treatment of his son while alive, forgive himself, and ask for a chance to be better in one of the most touching scenes from a film in the past year. Paul Mescal provides the perfect sounding board for Adam’s newfound desire for intimacy, offering a caring and interested romantic partner who hides his own pain just as deep down as Adam. It’s a strong supporting performance that comes to a climax in the film’s final sequences when his own pain and isolation finally make themselves known, and the audience gets to see the fullness of his own character development that’s been happening across the film. Finally, without Andrew Scott, this film simply doesn't work. His combination of longing, loneliness, and eventual acceptance come through in every facial expression, movement, and line delivery as he takes the audience along with him on this emotional ride of learning to connect with others and shed his fear of rejection. His is actually one of the best male performances of the year.

                All of Us Strangers gives audiences a glimpse at the power of films to tell universal truths in compelling and emotionally engaging packages thanks to the excellent adaptation and direction of Andrew Haigh and the spot-on performances from all four of the film’s primary players. On the surface this film could be one of the bleakest and most depressing looks at the current state of humanity, but deep down it offers a beautiful alternative if we can only get over ourselves and let others into our hurts and fears and see their own as we want to be seen. If you’ve got this film showing at a theater near you, I can’t stress enough how much you should go check it out. If not, definitely find it when it hits streaming.

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 - Haunted Mansion

                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 Haunted Mansion, the latest of Disney’s films based on rides from their parks. This film is in no way related to the Eddie Murphy film from the early 2000s except in its inspiration coming from the same ride. The current film stars an ensemble cast of LaKeith Stanfield, Rosario Dawson, Owen Wilson, Tiffany Haddish, Danny DeVito, Jamie Lee Curtis, Chase Dillon, and Jared Leto. It focuses on Dawson’s Gabbie and her son Travis (Dillon) who have bought a new home outside of New Orleans with the goal of turning it into a bed and breakfast and have discovered that it is haunted, leading them to turn to a series of experts – a physicist, medium, historian, and priest played by Stanfield, Haddish, DeVito, and Wilson respectively – to rid themselves of their ghost problem. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B-; this film isn’t “good” like last week’s slate of excellence, but it knows its lane and delivers a solid film for its genres and target audience.

Review:

                Haunted Mansion is every bit the Disney ride adaptation that we’ve come to expect, never quite hitting the highs of the first Pirates film, but delivering a quality blend of goofy effects, Easter eggs for the devoted fans, and light comedy in the midst of serious stakes. For me, I’d say this film outperforms the more recent ride adaptations – Jungle Cruise, Tomorrowland, The Country Bears, and The Haunted Mansion – thanks to better comedy, better acting, and a simpler story.

                The humor can be hit and miss, but for my wife and me, it was certainly more hit than miss – even if the rest of the audience didn’t quite seem as tickled by a lot of it. This can’t come as much of a surprise, considering writer Katie Dippold’s track record – writing such hits as Parks and Rec’s “Indianapolis” and “The Set Up” but also flops like Ghostbusters (2016) and Snatched. The jokes and characters all feel very trope-y in an endearing way that keeps the film familiar even if it’s not overly original. With a story that does a good job of establishing characters and connections, including a fun heist-esque montage of recruiting the various players, the film is at its best in the first two acts with a third act that rushes a bit to get the characters to a conclusion that only feels satisfying for one of its characters but leaves you happy enough with the outcome.

                The actors help to make their archetypes work well, introducing unique flairs to their characters to help them stand out against the familiarity. Dawson plays maybe the most familiar character in Gabbie, the unsuspecting homeowner and mother who gets caught up in a haunting. She plays her with the right amount of heart and backbone to hold the unlikely team together. Dillon’s Travis plays an interesting addition/sidekick to Gabbie’s character, struggling with his recent disconnection from his father (Gabbie’s husband). Dillon brings a lot of fun to the son character while still giving a deep enough performance to make his character arc interesting. Stanfield’s Ben Matthias has the most depth of the film’s players, struggling with an inner grief that he portrays in a surprisingly heartfelt and moving way for such an otherwise simple and comedic film. His acting far outweighs the rest of the cast for most of the film, but he manages to tone it down enough in the funny moments to get some laughs for himself as well. Wilson, Haddish, and DeVito deliver the most laughs of the film as the supporting cast, each with their own unique takes on the familiar character tropes. Wilson’s priest with a shady background, Father Kent, brings that familiar Owen Wilson squirrely charm to the typical unorthodox priest character. Haddish’s medium, Harriet, gets the most laugh-out-loud moments and lines in the film, coming across as a fraud with just a hint of authenticity, keeping the energy very light as we’ve come to expect from the skilled comedienne. DeVito’s historian, Bruce Davis, mostly exists to give some exposition, but he also gets some moments to be the funny, irreverent old man that DeVito so often embodies these days.

                With an ensemble cast that brings a solid blend of heart and humor to the familiar (and maybe a bit too rushed) story, plenty of nods to the ride that inspired it, and just enough mild and goofy horror moments, Haunted Mansion is a passable and fun time at the movies that won’t necessarily break any new ground in its genres but should please the crowd. It far outshines some of the more recent live action Disney outings, but it also won’t be making anyone’s top-10 family or horror or comedy films any time soon. Go in hoping for a lighthearted good time that won’t make you think too hard, and you won’t be disappointed.

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.

Weekend Watch - Renfield

                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 Nic Cage, Awkwafina, and Nicholas Hoult starring action/comedy/horror film, Renfield, which opened in theaters nationwide this weekend. The film also features a supporting cast of Ben Schwartz, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Brandon Scott Jones, Camille Chen, and Adrian Martinez as it tells a modern story of Dracula and his titular familiar Renfield. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C; this film delivers on all the levels that a bad action comedy should; it just struggles in most other areas.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe: Nic Cage fans will be happy with his performance, and people who enjoy an excessively gory action/comedy will have that itch scratched. I don’t know that it’s a must-see in theaters for anyone though.

Why?

                Renfield’s highs are honestly surprisingly high, while its lows are almost abysmally low. It’s got a few performances that have really sold out to their roles, delivering wildly memorable performances, and some really fun and creative violent action sequences that almost look like something out of Deadpool or (for those who will get the reference) Happy Tree Friends with their levels of insanity and cartoonish gore. On the flip side, the writing – especially the “inspirational” moments – comes across as aggressively cringey in most scenes, and the comedy only hits about half the time if you haven’t been drinking excessively before you come in (speaking for the group of guys in front of me at the theater who laughed late and loud at just about every joke, no matter how small). So really, your enjoyment of Renfield depends entirely on what you walk into the movie looking for.

                Performance-wise, there’s a few worth noting in this film who took some mediocre writing and turned it into solid acting. Nicholas Hoult as the titular anti-hero (at least in this iteration) does what the script requires and delivers yet another solid man-who-has-never-fully-expressed-his-emotions-before-and-is-now-on-a-journey-of-self-discovery performance to add to his repertoire (see Warm Bodies, X-Men: First Class, and Mad Max: Fury Road for more examples). Awkwafina’s Officer Rebecca Quincy is given a lot of expository dialogue, hampering her character somewhat, but she fully delivers on every single comedic line she’s given, quickly becoming a crowd favorite as the film progresses. Ben Schwartz is once again playing a slightly eviler Jean-Ralphio Saperstein, and since he’s lived in this lane for so long, it makes sense to see him play the skeevy son of a crime boss in his side villain role as Ted Lobo. Brandon Scott Jones gets to have maybe the most fun in the film, playing the sponsor of the codependent relationship support group that Renfield attends, Mark, as the comedic MVP of the film, playing just the cheesiest version of a group sponsor you could possibly imagine – so out of place but so great in the midst of this otherwise dark comedy. Really though, the best performance in this film is given by Nicolas Cage as Dracula. He benefits from some great makeup work, but even without it, his acting would speak for itself as he brings just the right blend of menace, cruelty, and aloofness to the world’s most famous vampire. It’s his performance that truly elevates the film from generic to memorable, making it worth watching in my book.

                All of those performances shone in the film despite its regrettably by-the-numbers plot and often cheesy dialogue. Sometimes the cheese worked with the film, edging it closer to the campy vibe that it goes for – especially with its opening homage to the classic 1930s Dracula, which starts you down a road that never really reaches that desired destination. Unfortunately, most of the cheese feels more forced than organic and serves to take you out of the experience rather than getting you to laugh along with it. Bringing the writing down another notch is its simple and predictable plot that feels like it could have been so much better with just a few tweaks here or there. For the most part, the plot feels like a device to move the audience from one fun action set piece to another, but those moments in between feel so familiar and generic that the film loses a lot of its flair in those moments. Hints at werewolves that never actually come to fruition, vague explanations of Rebecca’s dad being a hero cop that never receive any fleshing out, and middling emotional beats that don’t do anything to actually develop the characters are all points that could have been improved with a few extra rewrites and elevated this film from mostly generic to a true standout.

                Renfield delivers the memorable Dracula performance that you want from Nic Cage, some decently comedic moments, and really fun action sequences in the midst of an otherwise generic story and at-times cringe-worthy script, making it a bad action film at best. If that’s all you’re looking for, I can basically guarantee that you’ll have a good time. If you wanted an iconic horror-comedy with just the right blend of camp and gore, this’ll probably leave you a little bit disappointed. At the end of the day, it’s all about what you want out of the experience and what you go in expecting.

Weekend Watch - Shazam! Fury of the Gods

                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 Shazam! Fury of the Gods, the sequel to 2019’s Shazam!. The sequel sees the return of Zachary Levi as the superhero version of Asher Angel’s Billy Batson alongside his found family of foster kids turned superheroes. Djimon Hounsou reprises his role as the Wizard here, and Lucy Liu, Helen Mirren, and Rachel Zegler join the cast in new roles. This sequel looks to be one of the biggest films of the month even as it comes toward the end of this iteration of DC’s film universe – let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C+; it’s definitely not a bad time at the theater, just not anything revolutionary.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’re looking for a classic big-budget blockbuster theater experience, this one’s worth checking out. It’s definitely a fun time out.

Why?

                Shazam! Fury of the Gods carries on from the surprise success of the first film by maintaining most of what made that film so enjoyable – its blend of humor and family drama with plenty of ridiculous superhero action. In this case, Fury of the Gods feels less original than the first and feels more like a recent Marvel film, complete with a promising start, messy third act, and completely unexplained and unnecessary cameo from the wider universe. The film’s formulaic feel doesn’t keep it from being a rousing good time in terms of action and comedy.

                All of the action sequences in this sequel carry on the success of the first, and actually improve on it in some places, showcasing Shazam and his family’s heroic capabilities against disasters, monsters, and villains. The bridge sequence at the start features the whole family and allows each of their personalities to shine in endearing fashion, even if the set-up for the scene feels a bit underwhelming. The siblings’ fight with the Daughters of Atlas showcases some fun powers from Mirren and Liu and gives that classic hard-hitting superhero combat, backed by a menacing series of monologues from Mirren’s Hespera. The final sequence of the family fighting Greek monsters and Shazam fighting a dragon is a reminder of just how wacky the IP really can be and again brings the proper stakes to the film’s third act, even if it’s all a bit more contrived than it has to be.

                The film’s comedy might be its crowning achievement. Obviously, Zachary Levi’s teenager in an adult’s body performance continues to shine, but it was Djimon Hounsou and Jack Dylan Grazer who were getting the biggest laughs from the audience in my theater. They get an extended buddy comedy sequence, which was entirely unexpected but not at all unwelcome. Grazer and Hounsou are the two actors most committed to their performances in the film, and watching the two of them play off of each other – a two-time Oscar nominated character actor and one of the kids from the It remake – shouldn’t work, but it does simply because each actor clearly enjoys the role he is in and brings plenty of charisma to the comedy.

                Fun action and some surprising comedic sequences keep Shazam! Fury of the Gods enjoyable even with its messy and predictable script, making it a solid theatrical outing – a classic popcorn pic if you will. Don’t expect to hear much else about the film, particularly with the other more critically acclaimed blockbusters that have already released and are still to come in March, but if you need something to watch in the next week, there’s worse ways to spend money than by supporting your local theater and watching this fast-paced superhero flick. Check it out if you’d like.

Weekend Watch - Avatar: The Way of Water

                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 Cameron’s latest blockbuster hit, Avatar: The Way of Water, the thirteen-years-removed sequel to the highest grossing film of all time Avatar (2009). This film picks up a little bit more than thirteen years after the original, following main characters Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and his mate (wife) Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) as they once again have to deal with people from Earth infringing upon the natural world of Pandora, this time with the help of their four children who have been born since the last film. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; a lot of the issues (story) of the first film are greatly improved upon, but new flaws keep it from being an A-level feature.

Should you Watch This Film? Begrudgingly, yeah. If you have a friend with a great sound system and massive TV (or if you are that friend), you can wait for this one to hit Disney+ next year; otherwise, there’s enough here to make it worth seeing in theaters.

Why?

                Avatar: The Way of Water delivers on a lot of the hype surrounding the long-awaited sequel. The visuals and sound are gorgeously designed – accomplishing things that I’m sure James Cameron only dreamed of back in 2009. The story improves on the weaknesses of first by providing more personal character motivations and characters that feel a little bit more than just archetypes (sometimes). The action is amped up and feels more visceral, providing even more engaging set pieces than the first as well. Though not without flaws of its own, The Way of Water provides what you want from a blockbuster and leaves you thrilled with your theatrical experience. I’m not going to do a deep dive on the visuals and sound because other people can communicate the whys and whats way better than I can, but suffice it to say that this movie feels great in the theater.

                I think that I can (guardedly) say that people might actually remember a couple of more characters from this film than the first. The story inserts Jake’s and Neytiri’s children (Neteyam, Lo’ak, Kiri, Tuk, and sometimes Spider) to the unfolding saga of Pandora in a way that endears the film to audiences far beyond the first. Though Sam Worthington still can’t decide whether he’s American or Australian, giving Jake Sully children with individual personalities and character arcs helps make him a character worth caring about, though I can’t help but also notice that Neytiri does fall a bit to the background in this one and feels more like a tertiary character to her husband and children with even less of a character arc than the film’s villain.

                When I first heard that Avatar (2009) was getting a sequel, my first thoughts were “Why?” and then “How?”, since the first film feels so self-contained. For the most part, The Way of Water carries on in this fashion, containing a simple (if overly stretched) story of its own with a beginning, middle, and end. In this film’s case, however, we know that a sequel is coming in two years and, looking at some of the film’s less fleshed out details, that anticipation becomes immediately apparent. Part of what makes this sequel so overly long are character details and story points that feel completely irrelevant to this film’s story but that I am sure will come into play in the third, fourth, and fifth films. Kiri, in particular, felt like an annoyingly extra character (not just because de-aged, animated Sigourney Weaver strays a little too far into the uncanny valley for my taste), filling the role of weird, but make it quirky, daughter whose backstory is just that of Jesus or Anakin Skywalker. I’m sure Cameron has great plans for her (and also for Edie Falco’s character whose name I’ve already forgotten), but they do more to fill out the film’s overlong runtime than be legitimately engaging in their own right.

                Suffering from some all-too-familiar issues of overcrowding and a continued obsession with Papyrus font, Avatar: The Way of Water provides an imperfect, but superior, sequel to the original blockbuster with excellent effects and improved characters that have me mildly optimistic about the future of the PCU (Pandora Cinematic Universe), or whatever it is they’re calling this. If you have the time to see it in theaters, it’ll be worth your time. If you can’t, try to find somebody with a great television set-up to catch it on streaming in the spring (or sooner, who knows what these release schedules are).

Weekend Watch - Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio

                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 Netflix Animation’s new Best Animated Feature frontrunner, Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio. The film is a reimagining of the classic tale, set in fascist Italy, done with stop-motion animation, and featuring the voice talents of Ewan McGregor, David Bradley, Gregory Mann, Ron Perlman, Finn Wolfhard, Christoph Waltz, Tilda Swinton, and a few others. The animated musical is now streaming on Netflix; let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; the many reimagined elements of the story keep it fresh, and it has enough emotional weight to engage both children and adults.

Should you Watch This Film? I think so. The animation, del Toro’s direction, and the story itself make it a quality film, worth watching for most audiences (note: there are a few scenes that take on a bit of del Toro’s horror proclivities, so think of this more like Alice in Wonderland than Zootopia in terms of its kid-friendliness).

Why?

                Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio has been easily one of the most anticipated films of the year, particularly for fans of “real cinema” (awards bait films), and it lives up to that hype for the most part. It’s not going to win Best Picture or anything, but the argument against this winning Best Animated Feature is going to be very hard to get across (apparently the Puss in Boots sequel bangs though, so I might have to eat my words in a couple of weeks). The film’s animation style, its reimagined story elements, and the story as a whole go a long way in making the film one of the best of 2022.

                Mark Gustafson’s animation direction is gorgeous to look at, bringing del Toro’s vision to life with rich textures, expressive characters, and scenes chock full of minute details to hold the audience’s attention. His most famous other work is Fantastic Mr. Fox, Wes Anderson’s first stop-motion film, which is also phenomenal and animated with similar excellence. In Pinocchio, Gustafson has created for del Toro a world that is equally fantastic and realistic, reminiscent of the production design of two of the prolific director’s greatest films – The Shape of Water and Pan’s Labyrinth. It feels grounded enough to give the story a sense of realism but also fantastical enough to take the audience into another world just adjacent to ours.

                Gustafson’s animation allows del Toro’s reimagining of the classic tale to really work well. The film contains most of the story beats of the classic book and Disney’s animated adaptation but with a totally different brand of execution. Geppetto makes a boy out of wood who is then brought to life by a fantastical blue creature. The boy then gets involved with a circus, Count Volpe, and a boy named Candlestick before being swallowed by a large sea creature along with his father and then escaping out of its blowhole. Those surface-level similarities are where the parallels end. Del Toro has chosen to set his Pinocchio in fascist Italy, a choice that allows him to craft yet another beautiful, anti-fascist story of dark childlike wonderment. The characters and backstory are a bit more fleshed out than in the Disney version, and the moral of the story is not the basic (and a bit overdone) “Children, obey your parents.” Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio engages with a far deeper theme – what it means to be a “real boy” and how society treats its children. It is a film that is made not just for the children who will watch it and enjoy the whimsical animation and the funny songs and Ewan McGregor’s lighthearted narration but also for the parents who will watch it with their children and be drawn into a story about parenting and the treatment of children and the ills of fascism and the importance of childlike wonderment – I should point out here, that the film is trying to do a lot, and only the most important themes of the film really get fleshed out while the others feel a bit more like hints of spice to keep the audience guessing.

                One of the only other major drawbacks of this new take on the story is that, with its extra story beats, it has extended its runtime to nearly two hours, making it one that might be more difficult to watch with smaller children. I do think that the animation, the songs, and the characters should be enough to keep them engrossed for most of it though. I also think that even people (like myself) without children will be able to find plenty to enjoy here. Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio is an excellent animated feature for anyone who takes the time to watch it, presenting the classic story in a new way that presents an entirely new and arguably more important message for a new generation of movie watchers, though perhaps in an overlong format.

Weekend Watch - Wendell and Wild

                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 subject, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Netflix’s latest stop-motion animated film Wendell and Wild. The film features the voice talents of Lyric Ross, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele, Angela Bassett, James Hong, Sam Zelaya, and Ving Rhames. It tells the story of Kat, an orphaned girl who makes a deal with two demons (Wendell and Wild) to bring them to the world of the living in exchange for her parents’ resurrection. It’s an interesting film that has been getting some awards buzz in recent days, so let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C+, there’s a lot to like here, but it ends up being a little underwhelming.

Should you Watch This Film? If stop-motion animation or films about the prison industrial complex are your particular cup of tea, this film is for you. Otherwise, there’s not a ton to write home about.

Why?

                Wendell and Wild is an animated film that has both style and substance but is lacking in the department that brings those two elements together – its story. For starters, there are a lot of fun things going on in the animation department. The colors, the textures, the movements, and the sets all look great and craft a really fun world for the film to explore, both in the underworld and on the surface. Fans of the stop-motion style of animation who enjoy finding the little details in each shot will be rewarded with plenty of easter eggs to keep them happy on multiple rewatches. The film’s overall message and themes are surprisingly heavy, dealing with issues of privatized prisons, coping with the death of loved ones, and the evolving role of parents in the lives of their children. By the end of the film, I was able to say that I agreed with the film’s message and that it felt fairly relevant. Unfortunately, the film’s story does not have a whole lot going for it to make the delivery of its message feel worthwhile. The plot progresses via convenient development after convenient development with few of the film’s conflicts providing any kind of actual issue for the film’s protagonist and her friends. In addition, Kat, the protagonist, ends up being one of the film’s least compelling characters. She is the archetypal troubled teen, lacking in much complexity aside from some very questionable decision-making skills. Wendell and Wild also fail to live up to the typical charm of Key and Peele, ending up feeling more like childish caricatures than fully fleshed-out characters. The film’s most compelling character and its high point, in my opinion, is Kat’s friend Raoul. Raoul’s hesitancy to trust the demons and drive to help his mother discover the culprits that ruined their hometown serves to make him the film’s most interesting character with ties to both Kat’s present and her past and his own story of seeking acceptance within their school community. At the end of the day, Wendell and Wild’s weak story detracts from its stellar animation and resonant message to create a film that is somewhat underwhelming, bolstered only by its more compelling side characters. This film is currently streaming on Netflix, so if you need an okay spooky season watch in the next couple of days, check it out.

Weekend Watch - Black Adam

                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 DC Universe’s latest feature film release, Black Adam. The film stars Dwayne Johnson as the titular antihero, with Pierce Brosnan, Aldis Hodge, Noah Centineo, Sarah Shahi, Quintessa Swindell, Marwan Kenzari, Bodhi Sabongui, and Mohammed Amer in supporting roles. The film follows the return of Black Adam to Earth after years of exile and his conflict with other heroes and villains as he works to keep his homeland truly free. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C, this film is fine, definitely nothing to write home about.

Should you Watch This Film? If you really want to see Dwayne Johnson playing himself again but with flying and lightning powers or are a fan of Aldis Hodge or Pierce Brosnan, this is probably a solid film for you.

Why?

                Black Adam’s action sequences are its crowning achievement, showcasing a solid mix of slo-mo shots, brutal kills, and decent visual effects. Black Adam, Hawkman, Dr. Fate, Atom Smasher, and Cyclone are all given moments to shine in the various sequences in typically thrilling ways. Unfortunately, after their introductory fight scenes, the action doesn’t really try anything overly daring, becoming quickly repetitive. The dialogue doesn’t do a whole lot either, offering a few quippy one-liners and a plethora of dry exposition with not many truly emotional beats. Dwayne Johnson gets to be his same charismatic self, if a bit more one-note here because most of the humor comes from other sources. The film’s story is pretty basic with a few plot twists that would’ve been so much better if they hadn’t already been given away in the film’s virtually unavoidable marketing campaign. I really feel like if I had seen none of the film’s trailers that I would have enjoyed the twists and the film would be getting better reviews right now. As it stands, the fun aspects of new characters, Dwayne Johnson, and solid action moments often end up overshadowed by a spoiled plot that wasn’t even that complex to begin with and writing that focuses a little too much on exposition and not enough on actual character development. I am guardedly excited to see what they do with this character and the supporting cast in the future. Noah Centineo’s Atom Smasher was a really fun addition to the film, and he could bring a lot to another team-up film. Pierce Brosnan’s Dr. Fate was arguably the coolest and most interesting aspect of the film, but even he isn’t given enough screentime to really connect deeply with his character, and if we’re being honest, the moments without Black Adam on screen were pretty consistently the best parts of the film. The coolest moment Black Adam gets comes not during the film’s run-time but in a post credits scene where we get some actual insight into how he is going to fit in the wider DC Universe going forward. Overall, Black Adam has a lot of potential, but left so much on the table and underdelivered on so much that it can’t be called much more than an average superhero film, on par with X-Men: First Class or Batman Forever. This film is currently showing in theaters if you want to go check it out.

Weekend Watch - Werewolf by Night

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s subject, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Marvel’s first “Special Presentation” Werewolf by Night. The hour-long special features performances from Gael Garcia Bernal, Laura Donnelly, Harriet Sansom Harris, and Kirk R. Thatcher in what amounts to an MCU Halloween Special that draws heavily on 1930s and ‘40s monster movie influences. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+, heavy on style and content, but slightly lower on substance, this is one of Marvel’s most successfully unique offerings in a while

Should you Watch This Television Special? If you already have a Disney+ subscription, then yes. It’s imperfect but thoroughly entertaining for a quick spooky season evening watch.

Why?

                Werewolf by Night relies heavily on its stylistic flair to entertain with a fairly basic story and characters that may or may not interest you, depending on your sensibilities. The use of black and white film, a plethora of practical effects, limited CGI, intensely violent sequences, and simple sets allows the special to be a thoroughly original homage to the monster flicks of the 1930s and ‘40s that happens to also be set within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (implicitly). The cinematography, fight choreography, and production design for this special are remarkably well-executed, immersing the audience well in the world and mood that the filmmakers wanted to create – particularly in the moment when the werewolf is finally revealed. Michael Giacchino’s direction and musical score come through beautifully, blending a few superhero tropes (generic armed guards, a crystal that’ll solve most of the problems, and a will-they/won’t-they relationship between the two leads) with a predominantly original concept, introducing Marvel fans to a part of the universe that had only been hinted at up to this point. With an entirely new cast of characters, most of which are throwaways, Werewolf by Night still manages to achieve buy-in thanks to its production value – something shows like Moon Knight and Ms. Marvel have struggled with to some extent. The characters that make it out of the special are certainly worth exploring further, and the performances across the board, while basic, were solid. Gael García Bernal shines as Jack Russell, bringing his own take to the character, hinting at his tortured soul while also delivering some of Marvel’s textbook wittiness. Laura Donnelly’s Elsa Bloodborne works well in the combination role of femme fatale and damsel in distress, succeeding at being both action star and potential love interest, it’ll be fun to see whether her character is revisited in the future or not. Finally, Harriet Sansom Harris fully commits to the role of Verussa Bloodborne, the host of the evening and seemingly sinister cult leader as well. I say that their performances are solid but basic because these actors are not given much to work with in terms of story, which is the special’s biggest weakness. Because they were shooting for that hour-long runtime, the story beats come quite quickly, and a lot of character development has to be told rather than shown to keep the action moving along. The story is not a total failure, however, because it does give the audience enough to care about the characters and showcases their roles in the universe well enough that by the end of its time, you do want to see more of them. Overall, Werewolf by Night is a successful introduction to this new style of production from Marvel thanks to its good casting choices and unique production design that pays homage to classic monster flicks. I’m excited to see where they continue to take these particular characters and to see what they do in the future with this particular mode of production. Check it out, now streaming on Disney+.

Weekend Watch - The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

                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 review and recommendations. This week’s subject, as voted by our Instagram followers, is The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, Amazon Prime Video’s new show set in Middle Earth, thousands of years before the events of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogies. The show stars Morfydd Clark, Ismael Cruz Cordova, Markella Kavenagh, Megan Richards, Charlie Vickers, Robert Aramayo, Nazanin Boniadi, and others as a slew of returning and new characters in the Lord of the Rings franchise. The first three episodes are streaming now, and that’s what this review will be based on. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; a fun return to Middle Earth, it might not have as much of a pull for new viewers.

Should you Watch This Show? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: This show probably has more to offer fans of the franchise than new viewers, but its production value and originality might be enough for them too.

Why?

                The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power offers a new look at the history of Middle Earth, bringing a combination of familiar characters and new faces, set at the pivotal moments surrounding the forging of the Rings of Power. Thus far, the show has done a good job showcasing its many storylines, giving the audience a solid mix of action, potential romance, suspense, drama, and lore dumps across its three currently streaming episodes. The leading performers have done well with their roles so far, with Morfydd Clark’s Galadriel, Ismael Cruz Cordova’s Arondir, and Markella Kavenagh’s Nori Brandyfoot featuring as early standouts. With each of these new/old characters come storylines that should grasp the interest of Tolkien die-hards and new viewers. The stories of the fall of Numenor, the hunt for and return of Sauron, the forging of the Rings, the coming of the Istari (wizards), and the founding of the kingdoms of Gondor and Rohan have all been seeded just in these first episodes, offering plenty of potential for great tales as the show moves forward. Against the backdrop of these great moments, the show has also brought plenty of the personal character moments that made the Lord of the Rings trilogy into one of the greatest ever made. Galadriel’s rescue by Halbrand in the sea, Nori’s decision to help “the Stranger”, Arondir’s complicated relationship with Bronwyn, and Elrond’s friendship with the dwarf prince Durin and his wife are all personal moments that already stand out as important and memorable in these first episodes. But perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the show’s story so far has been the teasing of Sauron’s return. Due to the nature of the show’s overall story, we know Sauron is coming, but we don’t know the form he will take, other than deceptive. So far, at least two possibilities have been teased with potentially another coming at the conclusion of this week’s episode. I have enjoyed the mystery surrounding the show’s ultimate villain so far, and I feel that it has created some solid discourse around the show. In addition to its solid characters and story, the show’s production value has been high so far. Utilizing a combination of real locations and CGI like Jackson’s trilogies, the show looks and feels very much like a true return to Middle Earth. Being a television show, some of the CGI doesn’t look perfect, but revisiting The Hobbit trilogy, some of that wasn’t the best either. Additionally, the show also brought back Howard Shore to score the show, delivering new but familiar music to go along with this return to Middle Earth. Overall, The Rings of Power offers a refreshing return to Middle Earth, offering plenty of new stories and characters in a familiar setting to bring in both old fans and new. Check this one out, with new episodes streaming every Friday for the next few weeks.

Weekend Watch - House of the Dragon - Pilot Episode

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch, where each week we take a new piece of film or television media, as voted by the followers on the blog’s Instagram, and give it a rating, review, and watch recommendation. This week’s subject is the pilot episode of HBO’s House of the Dragon, a prequel series to the wildly successful Game of Thrones, set 172 years before Robert’s Rebellion, the event that directly set up the events of Thrones. The pilot stars Matt Smith, Paddy Considine, Rhys Ifans, Steve Toussaint, Fabien Frankel, Milly Alcock, Emily Carey, and Graham McTavish, among others, as major players in this family drama set in the land of Westeros. The viewership numbers for the pilot episode were apparently the highest of any HBO premier in recent history, allowing the show’s second season to already receive the green light before its second episode has released. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+/A-; there’s a lot to love and a lot of potential in this pilot, but I want to wait before I’m fully sold on the show.

Should you Watch This Show? If you were a fan of Game of Thrones, absolutely. If you like Succession or other family dramas and also want something with a more medieval/fantasy bent, absolutely. If those things are not your cup of tea, you’re probably okay skipping this one.

Why?

                House of the Dragon comes out swinging with a pilot episode full of intrigue, dragons, violence, big characters, and difficult content. After a brief, possibly unnecessary, prologue, the show flashes to its present with a dragon front and center, flying over King’s Landing – a shot that might be slightly triggering to certain fans of Game of Thrones who were less than satisfied with that show’s final season. Immediately, the show’s production value (much higher than most comparable shows) becomes apparent, with some pretty good CGI work, excellent set pieces, and decent costume and makeup design (some of the wigs look a little more wig-ish than others). The characters, whose names might be a bit more difficult to pronounce/remember than Ned, Jon, or Jaime, still stand out as individuals, particularly Matt Smith’s villain(?) Daemon Targaryen, Fabien Frankel’s hot, young nobody Criston Cole, and Milly Alcock’s young heroine Rhaenyra Targaryen. Smith embodies a combination of characteristics reminiscent of some of Thrones’s most iconic villains – the creeping menace of Ramsay Bolton and the entitled violence of Joffrey Baratheon – I’m intrigued to see where they take his character as the show progresses. Frankel’s simple charm combined with his character’s skill on a battlefield make him a potentially great tragic hero, alongside Robb Stark or Jon Snow or Oberyn Martell from the original show. Alcock brings much of the charm of a young Arya Stark and combines it with the tact of Margaery Tyrell to become the show’s new protagonist (at least at this point), having to walk the complex minefield that is the political state of Westeros. If we’re being honest, my two biggest concerns going forward with the show are its inevitable time jump, which has already been teased, as both Rhaenyra and her friend Alicent Hightower are portrayed by different actresses later on in the season, and its lack of a fully likable character (a Tyrion Lannister). Time jumps in the middle of a show’s inaugural season make me considerably nervous, as audiences don’t always react super well to a change in actor, particularly in shows with character lists as lengthy as House of the Dragon’s. I also know that you shouldn’t compare two shows when doing a review, but it’s hard not to with Dragon and Thrones, especially with the knowledge of how the original ended. The surprise deaths and complex political games will only take a show so far if it doesn’t have an almost universally beloved secondary protagonist. Overall, House of the Dragon’s pilot episode does a great job of filling the shoes that its fans expected it to fill with a combination of high production value and memorable characters; we’ll see where it all ends up as the season progresses, but there’s a lot here to be optimistic about in HBO’s return to Westeros. The first episode is available on HBO Max if you missed its premier, and the second episode drops on Sunday night on HBO and HBO Max simultaneously.

Weekend Watch - The Sandman

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch, where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give you a review and recommendation for watching it. This week, the subject is Netflix’s latest horror series: The Sandman, based on the graphic novel by Neil Gaiman. It features Tom Sturridge as the titular “Sandman” or “Morpheus” or “Dream” and also Boyd Holbrook, Patton Oswalt’s voice, Vivienne Acheampong, Vanesu Samunyai, David Thewlis, and many others. It follows the story of the King of Dreams after he escapes one hundred years of imprisonment in the human world and seeks to set his realm and the things associated with it back to relative normalcy. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+, there’s a lot of potential here, but it still needs some work to be great

Should you Watch This Show? If you are at all a fan of the graphic novel, yes! If you are looking for a dark fantasy show with really good worldbuilding, then also yes. I don’t think this show is as universally watchable as some of Netflix’s other releases (read Stranger Things) though.

Why?

                Let’s start with some of what makes the show good. From what I can tell, fans of the graphic novel are highly pleased with most of what the show has done with the source material, which is always a good sign for adaptations (we’ll see how Amazon fares next month with their Rings of Power series). The aesthetic of the art comes through well in the visuals, which are mostly phenomenal to behold – some of the more intricate CGI leaves a little to be desired, but for a television show, the effects are pretty solid. The world of the novel also comes through well in the worldbuilding of the show. The many realms and mythical characters come into the story naturally and with adequate explanation, leaving very little confusion as to the role of each new character. The worldbuilding also leaves you wanting more by the end of the season – at least, it did for me, the sucker for good worldbuilding. Unfortunately, because of all of the characters and story arcs that are brought into the ten-episode season, the story sometimes gets left by the wayside and then caught up with later, rather quickly. The two main stories that feature in this season are deeply interesting in their own right, but because of the exposition that also has to occur, the stories both resolve rather quickly and conveniently with little payoff of things set up earlier in the show. At the same time, it feels like this show wants to set up for an adaptation of the entirety of The Sandman, the graphic novel, as many characters have now been introduced who have larger roles to play later on in the greater story, so that’s promising. (That does mean that we need even more watchers when season 2 drops in the future so that Netflix doesn't cancel it as they so often do. In addition to the solid worldbuilding and oddly paced storytelling, the shows acting is at times great and, at others, only so-so. Vanesu Samunyai, whose first credit is this show, puts forth a valiant effort as Rose Walker, the Dream Vortex and focus of the second half of this season, playing to the levels of the actors in her scene. When across from Tom Sturridge, Boyd Holbrook, and John Cameron Mitchell, she brings a very solid A-game, showcasing the emotional and emotive range of a far more experienced actress, holding her own and even upstaging these more seasoned actors. At the same time, in scenes with Razane Jammal’s Lyta or Eddie Karanja’s Jed, the show reverts to acting more on the level with a CW superhero show (still entertaining in a popcorn-y way, but definitely with more cheese). In addition to the performances of Sturridge, Holbrook, and Mitchell, the true highlights of the show come from David Thewlis as the villain of the first arc – the very creepily unhinged John Dee, whom he portrays with just the right amount of menace – and Kirby Howell-Baptiste and Vivienne Acheampong as the two positive mythical influences in Dream’s life – Death and Lucienne the librarian respectively. Death’s one episode in the middle of the season serves as a high point in both the acting and worldbuilding of the show, showcasing its potential, highlighted in Howell-Baptiste’s subtly emotional portrayal of the avatar of Death, who is apparently Dream’s favorite sibling and the one with the most influence over him. In similar fashion, Acheampong plays Lucienne, the librarian of the realm of Dream, and the closest thing Dream has to an advisor or a friend in his own realm. Her acting is consistent throughout the show, delivering a lot of exposition without ever feeling unnecessary and while having a legitimately involved character arc at the same time, developing alongside Dream. All told, the first season of The Sandman is a mixed bag of great worldbuilding, inconsistent storytelling, and acting that is all over the board. The show’s potential to get better makes it worth watching, along with its skillful adaptation of the original source material.