Weekend Watch - Beetlejuice Beetlejuice
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.
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 - Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes
While Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes fully delivers on the spectacle that we’ve come to expect from the franchise, its thematic shortcomings and generic villain hold it well behind the excellence of the trilogy that it seeks to follow.
Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest iteration of the science fiction saga – Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes – which opened in theaters this weekend. This newest film in the franchise remains in the continuity of the Rupert Wyatt/Matt Reeves prequel trilogy of the 2010s, but three hundred years after the end of War, bringing us an entirely new group of heroes and villains living on an Earth that has been increasingly dominated by the intelligent apes, with most humans having fully lost the ability to reason and speak. The film, directed by Wes Ball (Maze Runner) and written by Josh Friedman (Avatar: The Way of Water), stars Owen Teague as our new protagonist Noa, Lydia Peckham as his friend Soona, Freya Allan as the intelligent human Mae, Peter Macon as their travelling companion Raka, and Kevin Durand as the despotic ape Proximus Caesar. The film has received a generally positive reception thus far. Let’s get into it.
Letter Grade: C+; great visuals and new characters only take this film so far, as it doesn’t seem to have too much that it actually wants to say.
Should you Watch This Film? If you’re a fan of the other Apes films, this’ll scratch that itch for you, and if you’re looking for an easy to watch action/adventure film, this checks those boxes as well. If you aren’t really looking for either of those things, though, I can’t think of any great reasons to watch this film.
Why?
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is a visually stunning but thematically hollow action/adventure road film. It does a good job of creating new characters that feel fresh and different from those in the trilogy that it follows without entirely separating itself from that trilogy, tying them together with a borderline religion established around the now-deceased hero of those original films – Caesar. Unfortunately, by tying itself to those films, it also accepts the expectation that those films created that, not only will it give us great visuals and an engaging action story, it will also have something to say about the state of the world and about humanity, and it’s just missing those aspects – the commentary on animal testing of Rise, the urging against xenophobia of Dawn, and the warning against demagoguery of War. At my most generous, I can say that the film had some ideas about religion and fate that could have turned into something worth exploring if they had done anything besides mentioning them and then abandoning them in favor of the third act’s action sequences.
Don’t get me wrong, as a simple action/adventure film, Kingdom delivers a fun, if formulaic, take on those genres, combining tropes of road films, revenge films, and infiltration films into one cohesive piece that has characters worth exploring further. The visuals of the apes remain just as impressive as they have been, worthy of the awards that the franchise still hasn’t won in its rebooted iteration. The world, now three hundred years without human civilization, is full of creative landscapes reminiscent of the plant-covered post-apocalyptic world of The Last of Us, empty but gorgeous. Noa and Mae make for compelling protagonists, with the mystery of Mae’s mission and origins keeping you engaged with her story and Noa’s quest for revenge, restoration, and potentially leadership feeling familiar but still gripping. The film’s action sequences don’t do anything too groundbreaking, but they’re fun and harrowing enough to keep you on the edge of your seat.
Again, though, the actual substance of Kingdom feels so lacking in the face of all of its style. The villain Proximus feels so generic when held up to the franchise’s previous villains of Koba and the Colonel. His desire for technology to help him establish rule among the ape clans doesn’t really feel that bad, and his despotism feels far less sinister than your typical evil leader type – I guess we’ve reverted to the simple statement that any desire for power is inherently evil. If it weren’t for the fact that the protagonists were basically after the same thing, that explanation could work. Instead, we’re left with a feeling of uncertainty of how to feel when the dust finally settles and everyone gets what’s coming to them. Again, if we had leaned harder into the religious fanaticism of Proximus and his soldiers, I think it would be fine, but instead, he’s just a pretender to empire whose motivations are not far enough removed from the protagonists’ to make his villainy feel earned.
While Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes fully delivers on the spectacle that we’ve come to expect from the franchise, its thematic shortcomings and generic villain hold it well behind the excellence of the trilogy that it seeks to follow. If you’ve been missing the apes on your screen, it’s still worth watching, but don’t go in with insanely high hopes. The newness of a new era of apes can only take the film so far, but it does look good on the big screen, so do with that information what you will.
Weekend Watch - Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire
All told, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is a decent sequel that stays true to the formula and atmosphere of the original films that unfortunately gets bogged down in nostalgia and excessive storylines, limiting its overall impact.
Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest of the rebooted Ghostbusters films, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire. The film is the follow-up to 2021’s Ghostbusters: Afterlife and sees the return of many characters from that film and from the originals, including Paul Rudd, Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard, McKenna Grace, Celeste O’Connor, and Logan Kim reprising their roles from Afterlife, with Dan Aykroyd’s Ray Stantz taking a more prominent role this time around, and the additions of Kumail Nanjiani, Patton Oswalt, and Emily Alyn Lind to fill out the main cast. This one is directed by Afterlife writer Gil Kenan who is again joined in the writing room by Afterlife director, and son of the original Ghostbusters director, Jason Reitman. The film opened in theaters this weekend. Let’s get into it.
Letter Grade: C-, a weak third act and overstuffed first bring down what is otherwise a fun and well-crafted movie sequel.
Should you Watch This Film? Maybe, it’ll probably please fans of the first reboot film, and doesn’t really have anything that’ll upset die-hard classic fans too much either. If you aren’t about that Ghostbusters life, though, I doubt this film will win you over.
Why?
After taking a break from its usual haunt of the Big Apple in Afterlife, the Ghostbusters saga returns to NYC and the old red brick firehouse in Frozen Empire. An abundance of practical and digital effects return New York to its old, haunted self, in need of rescuing by a new generation of Ghostbusters. The characters, old and new, bring plenty of heart, if not necessarily humor, to this latest iteration of the films, which continues in the vein of its predecessor with McKenna Grace’s Phoebe Spengler taking center stage in the film’s narrative, again a solid choice, though weakened a bit by her continued fourth-place billing in the credits and attempts to create stories for the abundance of other characters filling out the film. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is a film that fits the visual feel and overall vibe of the franchise with fun characters and cool, nerdy technology and ghost stuff, but it trips itself up by getting too convoluted for its fairly breezy hour-and-fifty-five-minute runtime.
One thing you can certainly say in Frozen Empire’s favor, which goes a long way toward how much I liked this film, is that it maintains that same sense of practicality in all of its props, sets, and visuals that made the originals and Afterlife such successes. Obviously, not everything is practical, nor was it in the original, but their practical and digital effects alike remain very on-brand for the franchise. Slimer still looks like a weird puppet; there’s a lot of new ghosts that use that blend of practical and digital to great effect – some terrifying and others goofy or endearing; there’s a fantastic scene in the third act with one of the proton packs sparking up in the back that’s probably a simple effect, but it achieves this cool factor that gets you excited for what’s about to happen even if the story getting you there hasn’t. You can tell that Kenan and Reitman both care a lot for the franchise and that everyone who worked on the film wants to stay true to the originals.
Unfortunately, love for the old films and past iterations keeps Frozen Empire’s story mired in an excessively long first act that’s mostly just exposition and setup interspersed with nostalgia grabs and reveals of new gadgets and/or ghosts. It’s a textbook first act, except for the fact that it takes up almost the entire first hour of the film. This leads into a fun second act, though, that jumps between storylines fairly fluidly and keeps you engaged with payoffs from the setups in the first act. The pace picks up and you start to remember why you like these films in the first place. However, by the time we get to the film’s final act, there’s only about twenty minutes of the film left, and we get a regrettably rushed climax that misses out on much of its tension and emotional weight by rushing things that could otherwise have had extended scenes devoted to them had it not taken half the film to get everything rolling. Couple that with an astounding amount of shoehorned nostalgia for the sake of trailer spots, and you’re left with a conclusion that feels just a little too empty to justify the amount of time spent setting it up.
For whatever reason, they were trying to do too much. Much as I enjoyed the comedy of Kumail Nanjiani’s character, his inclusion and arc felt out of place and rushed alongside the rest of the film. It detracted some from both the screentime and character development of Phoebe, which in turn detracted from the overall impact of the film, since she’s the main character. On the other hand, relegating Finn Wolfhard’s Trevor to the role of comic relief might have been the best call they could have made – his arc in Afterlife wasn’t overly engaging, and he is absolutely the funniest part of this film, which gets me excited to see him do something more in that vein as his career develops. Carrie Coon and Paul Rudd get to fully step into the parenting roles (which Coon had in the first film as well), creating some odd tensions at certain points in the first half but paying off with some of Paul Rudd’s best scenes in the back half, so I’m mixed on that choice. Aykroyd getting some additional screentime probably shouldn’t have worked as well as it did, and don’t get me wrong, it’s no Blues Brothers or even O.G. Ghostbusters, but he makes for a passable secondary protagonist as Ray seeks purpose in his later years. Again, though, all of these extra plots and conflicts make that first act drag, when really all the film needed to work was the Spenglers (Grace, Wolfhard, and Coon) working with Gary as Ghostbusters for Ernie Hudson’s Winston Zeddemore, focusing on Phoebe’s relationship with Ghostbusting and her family, and it could have been a complete film. Everything else is fluff that drags this film’s potential down.
All told, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is a decent sequel that stays true to the formula and atmosphere of the original films that unfortunately gets bogged down in nostalgia and excessive storylines, limiting its overall impact. It definitely could have been better, but thanks to the care put into the details by the filmmakers and the actors, it manages to stay out of the abysmal territory of most of the films from the first quarter of the year so far. See it in theaters if you want, or don’t. I don’t have overly strong feelings on this one either way.
Weekend Watch - Book Club: The next Chapter
Book Club: The Next Chapter doesn’t offer anything new or inventive to the world of film and lacks a bit in the story department, but it makes up for its shortcomings by showcasing some familiar performers having a great time and showcasing some solid self-aware comedy.
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 Book Club: The Next Chapter, the sequel to 2018’s film, Book Club, about a group of women of a certain age who rediscover their sexuality by reading Fifty Shades of Grey in their book club. This film again stars Jane Fonda, Diane Keaton, Candice Bergen, and Mary Steenburgen as they take their club on a trip to Europe to celebrate Vivian’s (Fonda) engagement. The women are joined again by Andy Garcia, Don Johnson, and Craig T. Nelson with the additions of Giancarlo Giannini, Hugh Quarshie, and Vincent Riotta rounding out the supporting cast. Let’s get into it.
Letter Grade: D; this is a perfectly fine film for what it is – there are laughs and it’s true to the characters from its predecessor. That doesn’t mean it’s great or even good, but it’s not the worst 107 minutes ever put to screen.
Should you Watch This Film? If you’ve never seen the first Book Club, there’s absolutely no reason to watch this one, as it is a fairly direct continuation of the stories from the first with the same level of humor and acting. If you did see the first, there’s some decently satisfying conclusions to some of the open endings from the first that you might enjoy. And if you need something to see with your mom for Mother’s Day, go see Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. instead.
Why?
Book Club: The Next Chapter carries on with everything that made the first film as fun as it is, but they really are films with a fairly specific target audience whose entertainment value is going to be limited for anyone outside of that target audience. The comedy of Book Club: The Next Chapter relies almost exclusively on elderly people being self-aware about their age and making jokes about it and about their love lives at that stage of life. It works well enough to get some laughs, and the performers are familiar enough that you might be able to get past the predictable plot and simple writing, but this film is not a must-see theatrical experience – it accomplishes what it sets out to do and that’s about it.
The biggest thing holding The Next Chapter back is its nature as a sequel – relying on plots and character beats from the first film to build its emotional and romantic connections. For a romantic comedy, most of its romance actually came in the first film, and this one just has some romantic tensions with very limited payoff for the stories that start in this film. Most of this film’s story involves the four women getting into trouble in various Italian cities, which is fun and funny enough to keep you watching, but it doesn’t provide much actual plot or character development worth mentioning – exemplified by the final act’s reversion to closing out the plots from the original film rather than engaging at all with any of the side plots from this film.
Book Club: The Next Chapter doesn’t offer anything new or inventive to the world of film and lacks a bit in the story department, but it makes up for its shortcomings by showcasing some familiar performers having a great time and showcasing some solid self-aware comedy. It’s by no means a must-see, but fans of Fonda, Keaton, Bergen, and Steenburgen and/or the first Book Club will find something endearing about this getaway comedy from the group. Most people are probably okay skipping this one or waiting until it hits streaming to watch it.
Weekend Watch - Scream VI
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”.
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 - Creed III
A gorgeous trio of fights, great leading performances, and a solid story about family and masculinity help Creed III outshine any minor detractions it might have and give Michael B. Jordan an excellent first entry in his directing repertoire.
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 Creed III, the latest film in the follow-up series to the Rocky films, again starring Michael B. Jordan, Tessa Thompson, Wood Harris, and Phylicia Rashad, this time joined by Jonathan Majors, Mila Davis-Kent, and Jose Benavidez. The film follows Adonis Creed as he grapples with retirement, family life, mistakes from his childhood, and the return of an old friend who is hungry for the opportunity he believes he was denied after spending eighteen years in prison. Let’s get into it.
Letter Grade: A, the film has its flaws, but they are small and easily forgiven thanks to a strong story, moving characters, and excellent fights.
Should you Watch This Film? Yes! It looks great, feels great, and is fairly easy to digest even for someone with limited knowledge of the rest of the RCU (Rocky Cinematic Universe).
Why?
Creed III benefits from a combination of successful endeavors, with great performances from its two leads, an engaging story both in and out of the ring, a banging soundtrack, and visuals that might outshine all previous films in its franchise, highlighting the truly visceral nature of the fights it focuses on. Michael B. Jordan wears two hats for this film, playing the lead and directing (his first film ever) and he carries both burdens admirably, doing far more in both roles than I ever would have given him credit for. The script from Keenan Coogler and Zach Baylin (Oscar nominee for his King Richard screenplay) and the story from Ryan Coogler give the rookie director plenty to work with, and he also benefits from getting to act across from one of the biggest new talents in the game, Jonathan Majors.
The film’s story picks up at the “end” of Adonis Creed’s career with his very last fight – a bout against “Pretty” Ricky Conlan to solidify Creed as the universal champ on his way out. It then moves to his retirement as the audience gets to watch his interactions with his wife Bianca (Thompson) and their daughter Amara (Davis-Kent) who was born deaf in the previous film. The Creed family dynamic serves as the heart of the film, as Donny struggles to open up to his wife about some of the more troubling aspects of his past and as together they try to help their daughter communicate her emotions and unify that with her desire to fight like her father. The reintroduction of Majors’s “Diamond” Dame Anderson to Creed’s life comes after an eighteen year absence and gives the film its meat and spine – Dame returns from his time in prison hungry and hurting after losing his opportunity to achieve his dream and watching his friend live it instead. The exploration of both men’s pasts and their difficulty voicing and communicating emotion through anything but fighting serves as the start to a deeper conversation on masculinity and emotions that culminates in the film’s concluding act, which I’m not going to spoil here if I can help it.
The film’s performances carry its story. Tessa Thompson isn’t given a lot to do besides be a record producer and supportive wife, but she does it well with true commitment to the character. Phylicia Rashad gives an admirable, and even emotional, return to her character Mary-Anne Creed, Adonis’s adopted mother and the widow of Apollo Creed, serving as the inspiration for some of the film’s most deeply personal moments. Majors brings plenty of gravitas, swagger, and grit to the character of Dame to hold his own as the film’s antagonist – feeling in many ways like the parallel life of Adonis. The pain of his life and the passion of his future come through in chilling fashion as the character returns to boxing with a fire that threatens so much of what Adonis has built. He’s the most well-established and well-performed villain of probably any film in the entire franchise – Rocky and Creed. This might actually be the best performance I’ve seen from Michael B. Jordan. With plenty of solid co-stars to work with and the opportunity to showcase more than just his anger in his big moments, he shows off a more vulnerable side of the character and of his own persona. The role he plays feels incredibly well-thought-out and authentic to the experience he’s trying to capture. He is given more to do here, and he does more than just clench his teeth and yell about how he’s been waiting his whole life for this, and I was legitimately impressed with his performance.
Jordan also dazzles in the director’s chair, putting together quite possibly the most entertaining trio of fights in any of the films. Each fight showcases something different for the audience, and each also brings in a new element of filming that makes it feel, as Jordan was quoted to have said, in the “spirit” of an anime showdown. The Conlan fight utilizes slow-motion to emphasize Creed’s physicality and the ways that he understands his opponents, sizing them up in bullet time, so to speak. The Dame-Chavez fight utilizes the hyper-detail of zoom and hi-def cameras to showcase Dame’s less-than-legal style of fighting and the pain he seeks to inflict on his opponents, also highlighting his ability to break down opponents and setting him up as a legitimate contender. The final fight between Adonis and Dame might be the best fight in the entire saga, visually and emotionally engaging from start to finish. I won’t spoil what makes it so good but suffice it to say that this is a beautiful fight.
A gorgeous trio of fights, great leading performances, and a solid story about family and masculinity help Creed III outshine any minor detractions it might have and give Michael B. Jordan an excellent first entry in his directing repertoire. It's fun, engaging, emotional, well-paced, and a legitimate great time from start to finish. Check this one out in theaters while you can, and if you can’t, be sure to hit it up when it gets to streaming. I’d be surprised if this film didn’t manage to make my personal top 10 films of 2023 by the end of it all.