Weekend Watch - Bad Boys: Ride or Die

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - 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 - Thanksgiving

                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 Eli Roth’s new holiday slasher, Thanksgiving, which opened in theaters this weekend. The film, which follows the citizens of Plymouth, MA, who are being terrorized at Thanksgiving by a masked killer one year after a disastrous Black Friday sale left multiple people dead, stars Nell Verlaque, Patrick Dempsey (sexiest man alive 2023), Rick Hoffman, Milo Manheim, Addison Rae, Karen Cliche, Ty Olsson, Jenna Warren, Tomaso Sanelli, Gabriel Davenport, and Joe Delfin as its ensemble of potential killers and victims. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; it’s got plenty of that tongue-in-cheek slasher humor and gory action to please any audience even if its story underwhelms in the final act.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes! This is a great time at the theater that never gets too serious or self-important, giving audiences just about everything they might want in a new classic slasher.

Why?

                Thanksgiving delivers up a fun, anti-Black Friday slasher ride that feels like Eli Roth at his most crowd-pleasing, never getting excessive with its gore while still maintaining the director’s twisted reputation with a collection of creative holiday-themed kills and injuries. It’s not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination with a third act and mystery that end up fairly underwhelming in their execution due to an aggressively choreographed plot twist that even the most basic viewer can probably see coming from a mile away. There’s plenty of dangling plot details to potentially give us sequels if it does well enough, and I really hope that it does because the film’s themes of corrupt business owners, cross-town rivalries, and Thanksgiving-related shenanigans deserve to be further explored alongside its archetypal cast of characters.

                The best parts of the film are its moments of creative kills and attacks that often come out of nowhere. They had the audience in my theater absolutely losing our minds with creative use of industrial-grade ovens, corn cob holders, pilgrim axes, and the heavy doors of a restaurant’s dumpster. They are brutal in the most hilarious ways possible, living very much in the same space as Tarantino’s stylized gore. Each one leans into the film’s holiday motifs and feels like something you haven’t quite seen before in a slasher, at least not in this context. It’s fun to see this type of innovation in a genre that so often relies solely on tropes and familiarity, especially in recent years, to win audiences over.

                Story-wise, Thanksgiving jumps in with a promising premise – someone is out for revenge on the people responsible for a violent and deadly Black Friday mob one year later at Thanksgiving in Plymouth, Massachusetts, the home of the original Thanksgiving (purportedly). After showcasing the horror of a mob at a Black Friday sale, which also introduces us to the film’s collection of characters, it gets into its present-day setting, a town amping up for a Thanksgiving celebration with cross-town sports rivalries, a parade getting prepped up, and lots of hurt feelings as the town approaches the anniversary of the previous year’s disaster. Every bit of dialogue is loaded with potentially incriminating statements to keep the audience guessing as to who the real killer is and whether there might even be multiple killers operating in tandem. For anyone paying the slightest bit of attention, it’s pretty obvious who the perpetrator(s) is (are?), but there’s enough smoke and mirrors and plenty of fun violence to make up for that lack of mystery.

                Each of the characters are fun and decently fleshed-out, with a well-selected cast of lesser-known actors portraying them (2023’s sexiest man alive Patrick Dempsey notwithstanding). Dempsey delivers a performance that works well in building up the setting as Plymouth’s thick-accented sheriff, worried about the impact of the killings on the town’s annual celebration of Thanksgiving. Nell Verlaque does the most as Thanksgiving’s new final girl, occasionally making some questionable decisions but never losing the audience’s support in a passable performance as a burgeoning scream queen. Her band of friends, comprised of Milo Manheim, Addison Rae, Jenna Warren, Tomaso Sanelli, and Gabriel Davenport, fills out the cast well, giving the audience enough individuality to make us curious about who makes it out and who might be the killer.

                Thanksgiving might not have the most surprising reveals and suffers some in its third act, but its fun characters, innovative violence, and tongue-in-cheek humor more than make it a satisfying time in the theaters and a welcome addition to the slasher genre. It might not be perfect, but there’s plenty of potential to follow it up with Thanksgiving 2 (or Easter or St. Patrick’s Day or July 4th) if Eli Roth wants to give us more, and I certainly hope that he does. It’s currently showing in theaters, and I definitely recommend checking it out this week as a way to celebrate the holiday.

Weekend Watch - Five Nights at Freddy’s

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is Five Nights at Freddy’s, the videogame adaptation from Blumhouse about a security guard at a shutdown children’s pizza restaurant who must contend with the violent tendencies of its haunted animatronics while he keeps watch at night. The film stars Josh Hutcherson as the film’s lead Mike, joined by Piper Rubio as his sister and charge Abby, Elizabeth Lail as local police officer Vanessa, and Matthew Lillard as the career counselor who places Mike at Freddy’s, Steve Raglan. It opened last weekend to some of the worst reviews of the year while also winning the weekend at the box office. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C-, it’s not as terrible as people say, but a few tweaks would take it from just okay to something truly great.

Review:

                Five Nights at Freddy’s offers a slightly toned down but still atmospheric and jump-scare heavy horror film that just misses the mark on a few too many notes to feel totally true to its source material. Through its soundtrack, puppeteering, and creative twists on the game’s lore, it offers audiences a fairly fresh take on the horror genre, with lots of potential for any future installments. Unfortunately, predictable plot twists, inconsistent performances, and a miniscule level of the blood and gore that you might expect from such a film leave it as a middling offering to wrap up spooky season (or not if you’re trying to watch Thanksgiving in a couple of weeks).

                As far as capturing the feel of the video game from which it is inspired, I think this film does a decent job. It has plenty of jump-scares, Easter eggs, and lore-specific statements to please fans of the game. The soundtrack that goes along with it all really adds to the 1980s atmospheric theming with lots of synth and 16-bit sounds that really immerse the audience in the world – particularly in the film’s opening sequence, which features maybe the film’s best overall vibes. The disappointment comes when the camera cuts away from the instances of violence in order to maintain a PG-13 rating that will give it a larger audience base and box office haul. While the games maintain a palatable T for Teen age rating, they do this by minimizing the on-screen violence and relying heavily on jump-scares, which makes for a satisfying gaming experience. However, horror films that cut away from the violence and utilize primarily jump-scares are inevitably going to suffer in the ratings department, and I think here, the film could actually be a more critical success if it leaned a bit harder into the franchise’s Saw adjacencies and less on its marketability with 8-to-12-year-olds.

                Game creator and co-writer of the film Scott Cawthon has taken the lore of his hit franchise and twisted bits and pieces of it to craft what should be an original enough story for fans who came in knowing the depths of Freddy’s lore. It plays around with characters and storylines in a way that still gives us a satisfying story even if its beats are fairly predictable and familiar for the average moviegoer. The real breakdown is not so much in the changes from the source material but in the execution of the new story, which is rife with plot holes and less-than-surprising twists. Combine that with inconsistent performances from both Hutcherson and Lail, and you’re left with a somewhat disappointing story that still entertains but doesn’t really wow.

                Hutcherson is at his best in the film when he gets to just talk and be present, expressing more subtle trauma and emotionality quite well. It’s the moments when he has to explode and emote more intensely that his performance breaks down a bit and reverts too much to his younger self to be believable. Likewise, Lail’s performance as Vanessa feels too insincere in the film’s moments of emotional connection and simple explanations, but when the going gets tough, she exhibits fear and terror excellently in her expressions, giving the audience a glimpse at some potential horror greatness if she can nail those other beats. Lillard’s cameo moments work well enough, but it’s fairly obvious what part he has to play, and certain moments feel a bit more phoned in than I’d typically like – he’s not late-90’s/early-2000s Matthew Lillard anymore (at least not here). Piper Rubio might give the film’s best performance, but it’s not an overly complex one, as she gives the audience a glimpse into the childlike innocence that has been so often victimized by the film’s antagonistic forces. She is kind and good and a little bit airy, but it works well enough.

                Five Nights at Freddy’s struggles to find solid footing with an atmosphere and adaptation that almost work perfectly but break down like the animatronics in the presence of tasers when you take into account the film’s conventional plot and inconsistent performances that leave something to be desired. It’s by no means the worst film of the year, but it could definitely have been a much better film with just a few tweaks and really gone down as a great video game adaptation. As it stands, it’s a passable horror film on the level of most others, not really elevated or innovative but still thrilling in its creation of a suspenseful atmosphere and use of jump-scares.

Weekend Watch - Killers of the Flower Moon

                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 Martin Scorsese’s latest crime epic, Killers of the Flower Moon. The film opened across the U.S. this weekend amid huge buzz for the prolific filmmaker’s return to the director’s chair. Based on David Grann’s nonfiction book of the same name, the film documents the Osage Indian murders of the 1920s, focusing on the perpetrators Ernest Burkhart and William Hale and one of the survivors, Mollie Burkhart. It stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest, Robert De Niro as Hale, and Lily Gladstone as Mollie, and also features Jesse Plemons, John Lithgow, Brendan Fraser, Cara Jade Myers, Jenae Collins, Jason Isbell, William Belleau, Louis Cancelmi, and Scott Shepherd in prominent roles. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; if a three hour and twenty-six-minute runtime sounds daunting, this film will not be your cup of tea. The positives outweigh the negatives here overall, but it’s not a film without flaws.

Review:

                Martin Scorsese is back with another weighty true crime story with some of his favorite collaborators and new faces as well. This one takes us to the plains of Oklahoma, the land of the Osage in the 1920s, where vast oil reserves made the Native Americans one of the wealthiest people groups in the world before the wealth drew American settlers looking to use intermarriage and “accidental” deaths to steal that wealth away. It’s a story that begs to be told, and Scorsese feels like one of the better choices to tell it, honoring the heritage and culture of the Osage even as he focuses the spotlight on the white perpetrators. The three central performances carry the film’s hefty runtime, not really lightening the load but making it a more acceptable slog. Is the film 20 to 40 minutes longer than it could be? Probably, but I think most of the length comes from an intentionally plodding pace rather than an excess of unnecessary story moments. It would feel a disservice to cut much of the story, but a more typical Scorsese pace could have shortened things a bit and made it more easily marketable to a wider audience.

                Your take on the latest Scorsese film will most likely come down to how willing you are to bask in the corruption and deceit of William Hale and his cronies because Scorsese really wants you to take it all in – to witness just how far American greed is willing to go and just how many people it’ll walk over to make a profit. If you come in knowing much about the story, the slow pace could frustrate rather than engulf and leave you wondering why you agreed to sit for this long watching a single film whose outcome you already knew. If you don’t know much, there’s enough from moment to moment that keeps even the slow moments engaging as the web becomes more and more complex. I’m not sure how effective putting DiCaprio’s Ernest Burkhart as the film’s focus is for the goal of the film, since he’s almost too much of a yes-man to feel like the scathing picture of an American capitalist that Scorsese loves to portray as his leading hero/villains. De Niro’s Hale as the lead could have been a truly chilling look at American greed, and Gladstone’s Mollie could have provided more of that victimized minority perspective were she serving as the lead instead. As it stands, the story has impact because of how tragic and seemingly thoughtless most of the deaths were, but it doesn’t go a long way in offering any modern condemnation of continuing American exploitations in the name of “progress” and capitalism.

                As I mentioned above, the three leads drive the film, even if their characters don’t necessarily receive the proper amount of screentime, respectively. DiCaprio is on his A-game as the leading man, blending the affability of Rick Dalton with the sliminess of Calvin Candy and the greed of Jordan Belfort to produce the bumbling henchman that is this film’s leading man. I don’t know that I’d go so far as to put it as the actor’s best performance, but in combining his three best performances, the actor unlocks something unforgettably gray and discomforting in this film. Gladstone turns in a career-making performance as Mollie, offering the audience a quiet but pervasive look into the viewpoint of the victims of these crimes. It’s a slow-developing performance that percolates as the plot of the film does, hitting its peak in the third act when she finally knows as much as the audience does and delivers the deathblow to Ernest’s illusions of coming back from everything that he has participated in with no lasting repercussions. It is De Niro’s performance, though, that truly dominates the film. His portrayal of William Hale will go down with Ledger’s Joker, Bardem’s Anton Chigurh, DiCaprio’s Calvin Candy, and Waltz’s Hans Landa as one of the best villains of the 21st century. He’s a character that’s so chilling because he really believes that his actions are justified and that his “good” deeds excuse any evils and victimization that result from his machinations.

                With captivating performances from its three leads and a story that absolutely has to be told, Killers of the Flower Moon outshines an excessive runtime and a focus on the wrong character to insert itself into the upper echelons of films released this year. It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, especially being as long as it is, but Scorsese’s filmmaking certainly hasn’t fallen off with this latest outing.

Weekend Watch - Loki Season 2, Episodes 1 & 2

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

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

Review:

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - A Haunting in Venice

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Kenneth Branagh’s latest Hercule Poirot film – A Haunting in Venice. This one finds Branagh again in the role of the Belgian sleuth, joined again by a star-studded cast of victims and suspects, including Michelle Yeoh, Jamie Dornan, Tina Fey, Riccardo Scamarcio, and Kelly Reilly. The film takes on a slightly different tone than Branagh’s other two Poirot films, leaning harder into the horror elements of its subject matter, loosely adapting Agatha Christie’s Hallowe’en Party. It opened this weekend in theaters. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C+, the horror elements are a welcome addition to Branagh’s fairly nondescript detective film series, but minimal character development and a fairly predictable mystery keep the film in a middling tier of films.

Review:

                A Haunting in Venice improves upon the Poirot formula with some new elements of supernatural horror and the use of far less CGI in its cinematography and set design to give us a decently passable entry in the canon of mystery films – superior in almost every way to its predecessor Death on the Nile and arguably better than Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express as well. The new ensemble of characters, while not overly fleshed out or dynamic, provide some solid performances with more to do than the cast of Branagh’s previous two entries in this current Poirot series, which then (surprisingly) gives Branagh less to do, again improving upon the flaws of the first two films, saving us from an excess of Branagh’s wild attempt at a Belgian accent. The story and mystery are still fairly simple and easy to follow and unravel, leaving this film stranded somewhere in the middle in terms of its watchability.

                Venice finds our detective living in retirement in the titular city, enjoying the sights and eating pastries on his balcony while a bodyguard – Riccardo Scamarcio’s Vitale Portfoglio – keeps supplicants at bay. It is only the arrival of his friend, mystery author Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey), with an offer of debunking a medium at a séance followed by a murder at said séance that can bring Poirot back into the game. The mystery unfolds as the other Poirot films have, with a group of mostly familiar celebrity faces trapped in a single location while the detective endeavors to discover which of them committed the crime. The actual mystery is two-pronged, with the purported murderer most likely also responsible for a past murder in the same location, but it’s not the mystery that holds the audience’s attention for the majority of the film, as the perpetrator(s) quickly become apparent to most viewers. The true hook for the story (and the film) comes in the form of the supernatural elements in the second act. While the séance is quickly debunked, other seemingly supernatural occurrences continue throughout the film’s run, plaguing Poirot specifically with haunting children’s songs, phantom appearances in mirrors, and frightening images abounding in the film’s second forty minutes or so. While it’s not on the level of a James Wan film, for a PG-13 mystery horror, the suspense, atmosphere, and jump scares do a solid job of achieving that element of horror lite needed to season the mystery well.

                One thing that Branagh has done well with his Poirot films is casting his ensembles of characters, and Venice continues in that tradition. While the characters are little more than archetypes, each of the actors portrays their archetype well. Branagh’s Poirot himself has arguably less to do in this film than in either of the other two entries, and that allows the actor to lean into the more endearing parts of the character without coming across as overtly self-serving, as he has in the past. Fey brings some levity and intensity to her role as the washed-up mystery novelist looking to revitalize her career with a new Poirot-inspired story. Yeoh seems like she gets to have the most fun as the nebulous medium Mrs. Reynolds, playing the woman with a connection to the other side with just the right blend of airiness and insanity. Dornan’s veteran physician suffering from PTSD offers a reminder of the actor’s versatility and ability to exhibit some level of depth and emotionality when given the opportunity. Finally, Kelly Reilly brings her A-game to the eternally mournful, not fully adjusted diva and host Rowena Drake, playing tragically bereaved mother and potential femme fatale with aplomb, rounding out the leading cast in satisfactory fashion.

                A Haunting in Venice improves upon Kenneth Branagh’s Poirot formula in almost every facet with well-cast characters, more believable visuals, and elements of horror that make the film more interesting, but at the end of the day, the predictable mystery, lack of character development, and familiar tropes leave it as a basic mystery, just fine, but not groundbreaking. It’s fun to see Branagh getting better at making his Poirot mysteries, so if he does adapt another, maybe it’ll be the one that finally hits the nail right on the head.

Weekend Watch - 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 - Fast X

                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 Fast X, the eleventh film in the Fast and Furious franchise and tenth of the main continuity about Dom Toretto and his “family” of drivers, racers, and thieves. The film stars the usual suspects of Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris, and Sung Kang joined again by cameos (and a bit more) from Jason Statham, Helen Mirren, Nathalie Emmanuel, Charlize Theron, Scott Eastwood, and John Cena. The film also introduces the new faces of Brie Larson, Jason Momoa, Alan Ritchson, and Daniela Melchior to the ever-expanding cast of characters in this high-octane universe of mobile heists, double crosses, and family. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; for the most part, this is a really good Fast and Furious film, it just has a few too many ill-delivered one-liners, unexplained cameos, and a wild cliff-hanger keeping it from joining the upper echelons of the franchise.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’re ok with a pure thrills film, this film is great for that – entertaining and heart-pounding as all get out. If you’d rather only consume thought-provoking media, you can probably skip this one.

Why?

                Fast X fully embraces the niche that the franchise has carved out for itself, containing a plethora of cheesy one-liners, ridiculous car chases, enemies becoming friends, and some classic street racing to keep the fans happy. There are times when the film almost seems in on its own joke, particularly a high-intensity conversation between Brie Larson’s Tess and Alan Ritchson’s Aimes – high-ranking members of the Agency discussing how to treat the pattern of destruction that Dom and his team consistently leave in their wake. Its story defies the logic of even the suspension of disbelief, seeing the team travel to all points of the globe on thin leads and thinner motivations as Momoa’s Dante Reyes carries out his vengeful plan to divide and destroy Dom’s family. Momoa is himself the highest point of this film, fully committing to a completely unhinged villainous performance that just might be the best baddie of the franchise so far. It’s obviously a film designed to get your heart pounding and your adrenaline up, and it succeeds there even if it fails in its writing – there’s no denying that it’s a good time.

                The action sequences of Fast X are its defining trait, and each one delivers something different and new and ridiculous, which is why this film ends up working as well as it does even with its poor writing and vaguely frustrating cliffhanger ending. The opening sequence serves up a reshoot of Fast Five’s vault heist to establish Dante’s villainous origins – nothing too crazy, but it’s still fun to watch that scene on the big screen again. The Rome heist ends up becoming a giant game of pinball with cars and bombs rolling through the streets of the iconic city in insane but gripping fashion. Jason Statham and Sung Kang get a fight scene that goes a long way in quashing their characters’ beef, as does the reportedly directorless fight between Rodriguez’s Letty and Theron’s Cipher. There’s a solid character-establishing race in Rio between Dom and Dante that features some higher stakes than your typical F&F race, keeping the scene fresh. And the film’s final sequence, featuring John Cena’s Jacob’s “cannon car”, an army of nondescript black chase cars, Dom’s requisite muscle car, Dante pulling the strings, and a surprise twist and cliffhanger, delivers that gut punch that you want in a film setting up a duology/trilogy with enough action to still be satisfying.

                A next-level villainous turn from Jason Momoa might be the real piece that keeps Fast X in the top half of the franchise rankings. From front to back he full-sends the most outrageous villain that’s ever graced the screen in a Fast and Furious film. He matches the ridiculous energy that the franchise seems to have hit with its last few installments and cranks the whole thing up to twelve with flamboyant outfits, more cocky swagger than a WWE entrance, and an unhinged level of cruelty on par with the Jokers and Anton Chigurhs of the world, minus the cerebral films built around them. He had my jaw dropped for most of his screentime with how committedly over-the-top his performance was, and I look forward to seeing more stuff like this from the actor.

                The familiar high-adrenaline action of the Fast and Furious franchise delivers again in Fast X, keeping it a solid action film with the help of Momoa’s time in the villain’s seat despite some poorly constructed dialogue and a story that strains incredulity. It’ll leave audiences with plenty of thrills and high-octane fun even if it’s not among the best the franchise has to offer overall. This is a theatrical experience for sure if that’s what you’re looking for. If it’s not, I won’t recommend going out for a hate-watch. At this point you know whether you like the Fast and Furious movies or not, and this is not a big deviation from the formula.

Weekend Watch - Scream VI

                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 Scream VI, the latest film in the wildly successful meta slasher franchise. This film takes the franchise to the Big Apple, following Sam (Melissa Barrera), Tara (Jenna Ortega), Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown), and Chad (Mason Gooding) from last year’s soft reboot, Scream, as they go to college in NYC and are again pursued by the Ghostface Killer. The film again sees the return of Courteney Cox as reporter Gale Weathers and Hayden Panettiere as Scream 4 survivor Kirby Reed, now an FBI agent. Josh Segarra, Jack Champion, Liana Liberato, Devyn Nekoda, and Dermot Mulroney join the cast as newcomers to help round out the roster of potential killers. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+/A-; it all depends on your willingness to buy into the nature of the Scream franchise and on how much you enjoyed last year’s reboot – there’s good gore and fun twists either way though.

Should you Watch This Film? If there’s nothing you enjoy about slashers, then Scream VI probably isn’t for you; otherwise, it’s a great time at the theater and entirely worth your time.

Why?

                Scream VI continues in the footsteps of last year’s reboot, focusing on the new characters while sticking with the meta humor and intense slasher violence that have made the films so popular, and it works even better here as the new characters start to come into their own, even if the absence of Neve Campbell’s Sydney does put a bit of a damper on things. The violence is bigger and more intense than in past installments, amping up the gore to new levels in places, making the requisite fake-out deaths even less believable than usual. The performances in the reveal moments are over-the-top in ways that would make William Shatner proud, but even that feels true to the nature of the franchise – making light of itself and other horror films with a solid blend of parody and homage.

                Scream VI’s story feels a bit more contained (even set in the nation’s most populous city) than 5 or 3, focusing most of its action in three locations, allowing the characters to play off of each other and establish themselves as the focus beyond simple connections to the past films. Obviously, much of Melissa Barrera’s Sam’s development focuses on her connection to Billy Loomis, but since it’s all out in the open now, she manages to imbue her character with a deeper sense of self, no longer shrouded in mystery. Jenna Ortega’s Tara continues her streak of rebellious youth characters, but here, she comes into her own as a proverbial “scream queen”, putting herself less in the shoes of the younger sister character and more on the level of a true “final girl” with a performance totally unlike her characters in either Wednesday or X. Even siblings Mindy and Chad manage to establish themselves as something a bit more than one-note, both through romantic ties. Mindy’s knowledge of horror tropes remains endearing, but her genuinely emotional connection to the new character of Anika gives her a bit more depth. Similarly, Chad is no longer just the jock nephew of Randy Meeks, he is now an emotionally invested potential love interest for Tara. Altogether, this feels like a more establishing film than 5 and promises an interesting future for the franchise.

                On some level, the Scream films do seem to have become a bit predictable, and Scream VI is no different. It offers a phenomenal opening scene, playing with the tropes of the past films in new and interesting ways before morphing into a fairly telegraphed whodunnit. This predictability might also stem from my marathon of the rest of the films that I held with my wife last week, putting all the twists and connections fresh in our minds, but suffice it to say that we were only mildly surprised at the inevitable third act reveal. Knowing what was up didn’t really do much to detract from our enjoyment because they did a good job of making us question what we thought we knew thanks to fake-out deaths and red herrings, including a great tease for a surprise return.

                Ultimately, Scream VI is a solid outing for the new “core four” of the franchise, establishing them while providing an entertaining, if mildly flawed, “sequel to the requel” that lands somewhere on the level of 4 and 5 in terms of greatness, better than 3 but not as good as the first two classic films. It’s a great time at the movies with a blend of jump-scares and gore that is sure to please most slasher fans without trying to do too much.

Weekend Watch - Don’t Worry Darling

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch, where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Olivia Wilde’s newest film, Don’t Worry Darling, starring Wilde, Florence Pugh, Harry Styles, and Chris Pine among others. This psychological thriller had its wide release yesterday after opening with poor to mixed reviews at festivals earlier this month. The drama surrounding the film’s publicity and release has perhaps become bigger than the film itself, as media outlets have been discussing beef between the director Wilde and her lead, Pugh, as well as footage of Harry Styles possibly spitting in Chris Pine’s lap at the film’s premiere. It’s been a crazy time, but I’m gonna focus on the film itself in this review from here on. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C; this film is much better than its review numbers might indicate, but it’s by no means perfect or even great.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’re interested in seeing it, I won’t dissuade you from doing so. It was a fairly enjoyable theater experience and looks great on the big screen. If you weren’t interested, there’s not much here to suggest you should though.

Why?

                I want to start out by saying that Don’t Worry Darling is a film that looks great. From its cast to its production design to its costuming to most of its cinematography, the film is beautifully done, and Olivia Wilde’s skill as a director carries over from her success in Booksmart. The film’s idyllic 50’s-esque setting works well at slipping the audience into an equal sense of comfort and unease depending on the scene, which plays well with the film’s more psychological nature. It is also beautifully acted from its leads. Olivia Wilde’s performance as Bunny, the neighbor/friend of Florence Pugh’s Alice, is a solid reminder of her multiple talents, showcasing a depth of emotion and passion beyond what some might have brought to the role. Chris Pine as the mysterious leader of the community, Frank, brings all of his charisma to bear in what is a truly menacing role as the film’s antagonist, absolutely working it from start to finish. Obviously, Florence Pugh’s performance carries the film. Her ability to take any role and make it the central one of all of her scenes shines here as the true lead, something we haven’t really seen her take on since Midsommar back in 2019. Her emotionally fraught performance is the biggest highlight of this film and makes it much easier to overlook some of the worse aspects of the film. Speaking of worse aspects, many have criticized Harry Styles’s performance as Alice’s husband, Jack, saying it’s weak or phoned-in and saying it would’ve been better had Shia LeBeouf not been cut from the role. Without speaking to the Shia piece, I feel like Styles brings a solid performance to the table, especially in the film’s otherwise weak third act, which I won’t spoil here. It’s not the best by any stretch of the imagination, but he does what needs to be done to allow Florence to shine in her role, which is probably better anyway – Frank isn’t a character that should be stealing scenes. The film’s true weakness – and the reason it’s not getting glowing reviews – lies in its story. The first two acts do a phenomenal job setting up a fascinating psychological thriller, albeit with a few forgivable plot holes. Unfortunately, it fails to stick the landing with weak reveals and a plethora of unresolved conflicts in the third act. While I appreciate the commitment to not giving the audience everything with the ending, there is so much that is left out on the table by the time the credits roll that it feels more dissatisfying than a J.J. Abrams series finale/third act/final film. With so much greatness packed into its first two acts, the conclusion takes too much wind out of the film’s sails and leaves its audience at least a little bit disappointed. Also, if you’ve watched other films with similar plot twists, the film’s reveal might feel not just unearned but also derivative, as it did for my wife who called it before we even got to the theater. Strong performances, beautiful filmmaking, and a solid first two acts don’t do quite enough to cover all of the flaws in Don’t Worry Darling’s incredibly messy third act. Fans of Wilde, Pine, Pugh, and Styles will not be entirely disappointed with the film, nor will people looking for excellent production design. Unfortunately, the film’s story falls short of getting a glowing recommendation. If you want to see this film, I recommend seeing it in theaters. If you don’t want to see this film, I’ll say you’re probably okay missing it.

Weekend Watch - Where the Crawdads Sing

                Welcome back to the new and improved Weekend Watch, where each week, you vote on the blog’s Instagram for what we should watch next weekend, and then I watch it and give a little review and recommendation about it. This week’s winner was the new theatrical release, Where the Crawdads Sing, based on the best-selling novel by Delia Owens. It features Daisy Edgar-Jones as the protagonist Kya Clark, Taylor John Smith and Harris Dickinson as her two love interests (Tate and Chase), and David Strathairn as her elderly lawyer, Tom Milton.

Letter Grade: C-, it definitely doesn’t wow, but it tells an interesting enough story

Should you Watch This Film? Fans of the book should enjoy this one well enough, but visually, it doesn’t bring enough to the table to necessitate a theatrical viewing.

Why?

                Where the Crawdads Sing suffers from similar issues to many adaptations of detailed books into films. It tells the story well, but the story was only part of what made the book so well-liked. The character development is cast to the wayside in favor of hitting story points, but because of runtime requirements, the story points often feel disjointed from one another, making it a difficult film to categorize. This film has notes of a romantic drama, a woman-empowerment film, and a courtroom drama, but not quite enough of any individually to get it into those categories. It has a love triangle (of sorts) between three attractive actors, in which one guy is clearly better for the girl than the other is, but she has to discover that for herself. The only problem is that for extended stretches of the film, the romance plot simply disappears, taking you out of that genre’s mindset. The film features a strong female protagonist doing great things all on her own like fending for herself after being abandoned by her family, writing a plethora of books about local wildlife that end up published by academic publishers, and fighting off an attempted rapist all on her own. At the same time, she only learns of the publishers from one of the men in her life and her court case rests on the skill of her male lawyer, as she refuses to take the stand in her own defense. These are two clear moments of potential female empowerment that lose some of their impact because of the men involved, which is true to the book, but the book has plenty of other aspects that enforce the female empowerment piece, and maybe the story’s ending redeems those points to a lesser extent as well. Finally, as a courtroom drama, we get very little, which was also the case in the book, as the trial featured only at the story’s conclusion. In the film adaptation, the court case is sprinkled in throughout the film between flashbacks to other parts of the story. For the most part, the courtroom and related scenes serve mainly as a vehicle for David Strathairn to do some acting and very little else. Not much is revealed through those scenes, and they feel more like an afterthought to everything else going on in the film because of Kya’s reluctance to speak. Despite these tonal disparities, the story is compelling, and the acting is relatively solid (minus some occasional accent inconsistencies). I’d say this is certainly a film worth watching at some point, especially if you’ve read the book or you are at all curious about the book but haven’t had time to sit down and read it yet. Where the Crawdads Sing is a faithful, if lacking, adaptation of Delia Owens’s novel, featuring all the story points of the beloved book without the strong character and relationship development that tied it all together. It feels like something that could have been even better, had it gone the route of miniseries like so many other stories have in recent years.

Weekend Watch - Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of entertainment media and give a brief review and basic recommendation for watching or skipping that show or film. This week, the topic of conversation is the new Disney+ film Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers, featuring the voice talents of Andy Samberg, John Mulaney, Will Arnett, Eric Bana, and J.K. Simmons and the live action actress KiKi Layne, directed by Hot Rod and Pop Star: Never Stop Never Stopping director Akiva Schaffer.

Letter Grade: B; fun family movie with a little bit for everyone

Should you Watch This Film? If you have kids and Disney+, absolutely; if you are feeling nostalgic and have Disney+, probably so; if you want some less raunchy Lonely Island-esque humor, yes

Why?

                Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers is a film that definitely feels like it knows its place in the world of entertainment pretty dang well. It’s not looking to be some awards-bait pseudo-children’s movie, but it works well as an elevated family movie. Akiva Schaffer and Andy Samberg working together means the comedy levels are going to hit for adults, kids, and all people in between, a sure sign of a family film worth watching. The film’s premise is really fun, playing off of the groundwork of films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Space Jam, creating a world where every piece of entertainment media is actually portrayed by a real person, cartoon, puppet, Claymation figure, etc. This world creates an abundance of references in every single shot to keep the adults happy. Some of the bits might be a little more meta than the film as a whole. For example, ugly Sonic (yes, from the OG Sonic the Hedgehog trailer) makes a cameo at the beginning of the film (voiced by Tim Robinson of I Think You Should Leave) but then ends up being an important side character for the film’s third act, and I’m not convinced that I wanted to see that much of the failed Sonic animation. Seth Rogen also voices/plays a henchperson animated in the “uncanny valley style” like Polar Express, which again works as a brief bit when first introduced but breaks down the more he appears on-screen. Each bit of comedy plays on a combination of nostalgia and irreverence that works well in parody but sometimes fails to connect with the wider story. The story is a basic Chip and Dale mystery with cartoon characters going missing and being made into bootleg versions of themselves – the bootleg bit is really well done throughout the film and is actually very funny. The mystery is complemented by a story of friendship and reconnection between the two titular characters, which again helps elevate the film beyond just an hour and a half episode of the 90s television show. Overall, the family aspects of Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers combined with the irreverent comedy of Schaffer and Samberg make it into a solid, if at times over-the-top, Disney outing for their growing streaming service.