Weekend Watch - Speak No Evil

                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 remake of the 2022 Danish horror film of the same name, Speak No Evil. The Blumhouse-produced remake stars James McAvoy and Aisling Franciosi across from Mackenzie Davis and Scoot McNairy as a pair of couples who meet on vacation in Italy and then decide to spend a long weekend together in the country upon their return to the U.K. The film released in theaters this weekend to solid audience reviews so far and looks to be one of the early successes of 2024’s spooky season. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; while not necessarily the most adventurous film, it’s still solidly entertaining.

Should you Watch This Film? If you have seen and loved the first film, I have a feeling that this film won’t be for you, but if you’re looking for a relatively tame but thrilling horror film, it’s worth checking out.

Why?

                Speak No Evil (2024) does a lot of taming down of the story and themes from the original, making the final product much more palatable for a broad audience, already reflected in the films’ respective IMDB, Tomatometer, and Popcornmeter scores, all of which favor this year’s high-tension remake over the subtler and darker European original. To its credit, this year’s film offers a highly entertaining, fairly safe, and solidly acted horror film. It features some quality comedy that cuts through the tension at appropriate moments without ever losing how uncomfortable the characters rightfully are. At the same time, the writing loses some of the plot by playing most of the twists and third act fairly safe, and it gets a bit too heavy-handed with communicating its themes, straight up stating its main idea in a third-act monologue from McAvoy’s antagonist, Paddy. It’s nowhere near a perfect film, but it mostly accomplishes what it sets out to do, offering some good tension and scares to elevate the heartrate that should satisfy most audiences, especially if you can separate it from the original in your mind.

                The real highlight of the film is McAvoy as the film’s primary antagonist, whose twisted motivations become more apparent as the couples’ weekend at Paddy and Ciara’s (Franciosi) farmhouse unfolds. He brings a physicality and eeriness to the character that really sells the ever-increasing tension that the film needs to execute its premise well. He starts out as this hot, abrasive British dad, slowly devolving into a sinister, narcissistic not-quite-mastermind as everything unfolds. It’s a commanding performance that’s sure to stick with everyone who goes to see the film, and it definitely elevates the film above what it might otherwise have been with the same plot and writing.

                The film’s exploration of family dynamics, commentary on society’s people-pleasing tendencies, and critique on our unwillingness to ever just say no land relatively well. None of what the film wants to say is particularly earth-shattering, and it is sometimes delivered with a tendency to tell rather than show. However, the themes aren’t really the point of the film, more just window dressing to give it a sense of weight while the tension and its eventual release keep the audience gripped.

                A fun, if a bit sanitized and simple, horror thriller, Speak No Evil is carried by James McAvoy’s startling performance as the villain, bolstered by some strong tension building, culminating in a solid final act. It definitely won’t please fans of the original, but it should be what those looking for a fun, not too involved, horror film in the early phases of spooky season want from their theater-going experience. You can currently find it in theaters from Blumhouse if you need something like that in your world right now.

Weekend Watch - A Quiet Place: Day One

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest film in the A Quiet Place franchise, A Quiet Place: Day One, the prequel directed by Michael Sarnoski (Pig) and cowritten by Sarnoski and A Quiet Place director John Krasinski. The prequel looks at the start of the franchise’s alien invasion in New York City from the perspective of cancer patient Sam (Lupita Nyong’o) as she fights to survive and get herself some pizza. The film also features appearances from Joseph Quinn as a stranded British law student, Alex Wolff as hospice nurse Reuben, and Djimon Hounsou as harried father Henri. The film opened this weekend to mixed but positive audience and critic reviews. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; while not as tension filled as the other two films in the franchise, it still finds those moments of terror and humanity that have made the series such a hit.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’re looking for a less intense horror film, this’ll definitely be one you can check out. The characters are strong, and their stories make it worth watching.

Why?

                I don’t know that A Quiet Place: Day One is going to be what everyone was looking for from the prequel film. It doesn’t set out to explain the aliens or their reasons for coming to Earth or even set up some initial fight against them. It simply wants to look at another story within this universe that happens to occur in the first few days of the alien invasion. For me, that’s exactly what I needed from it. I was so worried going in that it was going to try and do too much explaining and worldbuilding and lose any of the pieces that make the first two films so good – the human stories. Instead, this film leans harder into the human element, feeling almost more like a disaster/survival horror than the jumpscare-filled home invasion horror of the first or the postapocalyptic road trip of the second. It’s also helped in this endeavor by the strong performances from Lupita Nyong’o (Us and Little Monsters) and Joseph Quinn (Overlord and Stranger Things) who portray their struggle to survive as something inherently tied to everything that has come before them and their own humanity.

                Technically, the film remains on par with the prior films with a strong sound design, solid visual effects, and another bout of creative cinematography that you really only get from horror films. The oppressive silence isn’t quite as pervasive here as in the past films, but in the moments of true tension, it returns to amp up that heart rate just a bit more at each small sound. The creatures feature a bit more prevalently in this film, and any time you get to see them up close, the visual design holds up as something not quite knowable and immediately horrifying. The camera work continues to do a great job adding to the tension of the scenes, and it all comes together so well to give us another strong, if slightly less terrifying, horror film.

                By focusing on the characters, the film does lose some of that intensity that we’ve become familiar with in the first two films, and I think that’s why we’re seeing some of those less than stellar reviews. The first film really blended those two elements together better than so many horror films, and the second continued in that same vein. This one swings back and forth between the human drama and horror sequences more than actually blending them, but it still works because of how well-executed the human element is. Lupita Nyong’o and Joseph Quinn play well individually and off of each other thanks in large part to each of their abilities to emote, leaning into the gimmick of these films by communicating so well without words. Quinn plays the supporting character so well, portraying empathy and desperation in equal parts so well, and he really gives the story the extra oomph that it needs to really resonate. Obviously, though, Nyong’o is the showstopper here, showing us from the jump how versatile her acting bag is. Here, she plays Sam as this cynical, jaded woman without any real reason to hope, but she manages to find those moments worth celebrating even as the world falls apart around her, and we believe it the whole time thanks to the combination of solid writing and her amazing acting abilities. By the time the credits roll, we’ve seen her progress through a satisfying and believable character arc that reminds us all of why life is worth living – to eat pizza and connect with other people.

                A Quiet Place: Day One might not answer all the burning questions that we have about the start of the alien invasion, and it might lack some of the horror chops of the previous installments, but it still turns in a decently scary survival flick with a truly compelling story about people, which is the core of the Quiet Place films anyway. It’s probably not going to be what everyone wants it to be, but for me, I can now definitely say that I just want to keep watching stories of different individuals in this postapocalyptic world much more than I want to understand how any of it works. This film is currently in theaters, and if you’re looking for a solid thriller, this is the one to go see this weekend.

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 - Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is George Miller’s prequel to his critical hit Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) – Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga. The prequel stars Anya Taylor-Joy as the titular heroine, the younger version of Charlize Theron’s character from Fury Road. She is joined by Chris Hemsworth as her nemesis Dementus, Tom Burke as her mentor Praetorian Jack, Alyla Browne as the child version of Furiosa, George Shevstov as the History Man, and Lachy Hulme as Immortan Joe. It follows Furiosa from her childhood when she’s taken from her lush home and out into the wasteland through her adolescence and young adulthood pursuing vengeance against Dementus and a return to her lost home. The film opened to a solid critical response and strong audience reception this weekend. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; it’s a far cry from living up to its predecessor in terms of pure energy, but the technique and worldbuilding are still there in spades.

Should you Watch This Film? If you enjoy the Mad Max films or just a solid postapocalyptic action thriller, this film is definitely worth the watch. It’s not quite as transcendent as Fury Road, though, so I don’t know that everyone has to see it.

Why?

                For starters, Furiosa takes on an entirely different scale than Fury Road did and, therefore, ends up with a slower pace, which bogs it down in exposition and uneven movement from beat to beat, weakening the overall story. It seeks to tell Furiosa’s full life story leading up to the events of the previous film, and as such, lives up to its name as a “saga”, which will probably result in some division in the audience. If you’re okay with a slower burn, but equally as brutal, character study/revenge thriller, Furiosa probably won’t feel like much of a fall off and will still make for a solid theatrical experience. If, however, you’re hoping for a repeat of the high-octane, nonstop car chase that was Fury Road, you’re going to come away with a definite sense of disappointment. Comparison aside, it’s a feat of filmmaking with gorgeous visuals, fun action sequences when they come, and a decent, if shallow, story to keep everything engaging.

                The performers all do admirable jobs with what they’re given, with Taylor-Joy shouldering the load of action heroine quite well even with her fabled twenty lines of dialogue – she masters the physicality and emotive performance that an action lead requires refreshingly well for an actress with her resumé. For me, though, it was Chris Hemsworth who kept the film worth watching. His Dementus shows up in each new chapter of the film as an evolved iteration of the villain, becoming more unhinged and more nihilistic at each turn, his devolution mirroring the evolution of Furiosa. It’s a weird but incredibly memorable performance that feels right at home in the postapocalyptic world that George Miller has created. Together, the two characters and the two actors make the film what it is, giving the audience that compelling revenge narrative of an unexpected underdog coming after the once great warlord. Its culmination is one of the best moments in the film, so I won’t spoil it, but I will say that the ending definitely makes Hemsworth’s performance, if not Taylor-Joy’s feel oh-so worth it.

                Technically, Miller is once again at the height of his form, giving us gorgeous visuals of this postapocalyptic landscape that draw you into all of the weirdness, violence, and off-putting beauty that his world has to offer. The score, sound, and cinematography all make for an excellent moviegoing experience, and they deserve to be witnessed in as epic a format as can be found. The technical aspects also go a long way in making up for some of the predictability and slowness that creeps into the film’s story. With so much of the story being told through the visual, rather than auditory, offerings of the film, it can feel overly expository at times, slowing down with each new chapter start to catch the audience up on what’s happened in the meantime with lots of establishing shots and broad landscapes. At the same time, all of that is great to look at and listen to, so I can’t complain too much about it.

                Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is a solid, if imperfect, addition to the action/revenge genre, giving us two memorable leads, fun sequences of action, and excellent production design to overcome an unevenly paced and fairly formulaic story. It might not hit exactly the notes that everyone wants it to, given the more universal acclaim of the film that it follows, but it still does scratch that itch that can only be scratched by George Miller’s postapocalyptic automobile-themed wasteland. I’d say if you’re thinking about seeing it, you definitely should on the largest screen you can find.

Weekend Watch - The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Guy Ritchie’s latest action film that opened this week in theaters, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. The film is based on the now declassified British World War II Operation Postmaster and stars Henry Cavill, Alan Ritchson, Alex Pettyfer, Eiza González, Babs Olusanmokun, Cary Elwes, Hero Fiennes Tiffin, Henry Golding, Rory Kinnear, Til Schweiger, Freddie Fox, and Danny Sapani as the various historical characters involved in the story. It has opened, like most of Ritchie’s latest films, to mixed reviews from critics and a generally positive audience reception. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C-; with good action and actors that you can tell are enjoying themselves, you can’t really say that this is a bad movie, just a bit underwhelming.

Should you Watch This Film? If this was a film you were already interested in seeing, I’d go a head and see it in theaters, but if you haven’t heard about it or weren’t intrigued by it, you’re totally fine skipping it.

Why?

                The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare manages to tell a fresh story about a period of history that feels so overdone in cinema and does it with solid action and some fun actors. I think Ritchie’s desire to be true to the historicity of the events, while admirable, weakens the film’s action sensibilities, but it’s not trying to be prestige war picture, so some of the decisions don’t make perfect sense. It’s definitely a film that pleases its target audience (TNT dads) well enough but that doesn’t hit any of its notes perfectly enough to have any kind of staying power, unlike Ritchie’s early films.

                The film has the cast of a bigtime, hard hitting action film with the plot of a more historical film. It contains three major action sequences, which should build on each other, getting more intense with each successive scene, instead peaking in the middle. The opening sequence of the film grips you immediately with Ritchie’s typical blend of humor, action, and tension, well-played by Cavill and Ritchson. The film then cuts to its flashback for exposition, explaining the details of the operation and giving us a decent idea of who each of the characters are before getting back to the next, and best, action sequence in the film – an intense breakout from a Nazi prison camp that really showcases the potential of the film that it unfortunately never really realizes again. The back half of the film is devoted to complicating the plan, introducing new and decently interesting side characters, like Danny Sapani’s Kambili Kalu and the villain Heinrich Luhr, played menacingly enough by Til Schweiger. Eiza González and Babs Olusanmokun certainly have the most to do in this portion of the film, playing the intelligence operatives who consistently have to pass information back to the British to keep Cavill’s March-Phillips and company apprised of the current state of affairs. All of this culminates in what should be a climactic action sequence of taking over a ship, escaping an island, and sabotaging a U-boat refueling depot that underwhelms at almost every turn compared to the rest of the film’s action sequences. It leaves the audience with a sense that they’ve just been watching an Assassin’s Creed film but with guns with the sheer number of faceless stealth kills and lack of climactic showdowns where the heroes’ success is ever in doubt.

                To its credit, the film is decently produced and well-cast. The film’s sound is the standout of the technical department with every scene drawing you in at the right moments through the sound engineers’ creative use of silence, cacophony, and focused sound effects, keeping everything, even the slower parts moving at an acceptable pace. By having all these World War II British soldiers and operatives played by some of the most fun people in the industry at the moment, they keep you invested in the characters even with the film’s minimal character development. González and Olusanmokun do their parts well as the on-the-ground operatives, looking the part and playing well off of each other in the process. Of the “active” group, Pettyfer feels the most out of place, mostly because his character has to be the group’s mastermind and straight man, so he doesn’t have much to do besides stand there looking good and come up with ideas. Hero Fiennes Tiffin is a surprisingly welcome addition to the cast, playing Irishman Henry Hayes as the fun young guy along for the ride. Henry Golding is the requisite unhinged explosives expert, which somehow works for him, as he gets to show off both his action and comedy skills. Cavill, as the team’s leader, feels like the inspiration for James Bond that Ritchie wanted him to be, just coming across as the coolest dude you’ve ever seen in an action movie (until you see what the guy actually looked like). But for me, and most of the audience in my theater, it was Ritchson as the Danish expat Anders Lassen who stole the show at every turn, giving the funniest and most physically impressive performance of the film (this film combined with his recent slew of tweets might finally get me to check out Reacher).

                The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare offers a solid theatrical experience with some decent action sequences and fun characters that just falls short due to an underwhelming climax and a profound lack of character development, leaning harder on its action and espionage than the characters themselves. It’s inoffensive and fun but not as fun as it could be. The story is interesting enough to feel fresh in the context of World War II, and the technique of its telling offers some solid examples of production design. If you wanted to see this film before reading this review, I think you’ll still have a solid time watching it. If you didn’t, you’re not going to miss something that changes your life. It’s a film that does just what it says it’s going to, leaving a lot on the table that could’ve made it better without ever really misstepping into “bad” territory.

Weekend Watch - Fallout

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - Monkey Man

                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 Dev Patel’s directorial debut Monkey Man that released in theaters this weekend. Patel took on multiple roles in this film, directing, starring, writing, and editing the revenge action thriller. He is joined in the cast by Sharlto Copley, Pitobash, Vipin Sharma, Sikandar Kher, Adithi Kalkunte, Sobhita Dhulipala, Ashwini Kalsekar, and Makrand Deshpande. After initially being slated to premier on Netflix, Jordan Peele screened it and jumped on-board as a producer to release the film in theaters because he thought it was so good. So far, audiences and critics seem to agree with him. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+, it’s a phenomenal debut film, but it still definitely has some of the rough edges of a debut film as well.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes! This is the kind of action thriller that we need more of – passion projects that involve underrepresented groups in Hollywood.

Why?

                What Patel has given us in Monkey Man is a thrilling blend of homage, passion project, and original film, and it works beautifully. His love of action films from around the globe and throughout film history comes to life in every action sequence (of which there are many); his decision to cast almost entirely South Asian actors and to tell a story set in that region that is steeped in its culture speaks to his desire to be true to himself, and what few missteps there are simply serve as a reminder that he is the one who basically singlehandedly made this film happen. It’s not a perfect film or even an entirely original film, but every inch of it is stamped with its filmmaker’s passion and his desire to make something epic and memorable.

                To start with a few nitpicks, the film does have a few places where scene continuity breaks down and where you can tell that different cameras were used probably out of necessity rather than choice. There’s one fight sequence in particular where the setup occurs in one location before the fight happens in another that he’s sent back to where the transition between locations feels just a bit clunky and doesn’t flow as smoothly as the chase that led up to it did or the fight that ensues after it does, which isn’t huge, but as someone who doesn’t always notice these things, I did this time, which I think speaks to the excellence with which most of the rest of the action sequences were cut more than it speaks to Patel’s shortcomings in making the film. It’s also been widely shared that multiple cameras broke during filming, which resulted in the use of Go-Pros and iPhones to capture some footage, and, while it’s not easily noticeable in any action sequences, there are a few of the film’s more dramatic moments that cut between two shots repeatedly where it feels like watching two separate definitions, most likely due to the cameras’ reception to light or something along those lines, but again, it’s one of those little things that could take you out of it if it wasn’t for the excellence going on around it.

                Story-wise, it’s a really well-executed revenge thriller. It never tells you more than it needs to, hinting at pasts so you know who’s important until it becomes time for them to receive their comeuppance. The supporting characters are fairly memorable, if occasionally underutilized. Pitobash plays a street-level drug dealer named Alphonso who acts as the Kid’s (Patel) gateway into the world of his enemies, and it’s arguably the film’s funniest role, but he gets sidelined for basically the entire back half of the film despite being integral to the Kid’s entrance and exit in this world of danger. Sobhita Dhulipala’s Sita makes for a beautiful and mysterious potential romantic partner for the Kid, but we never quite learn enough about her to make her a fully compelling secondary character. The villains, played skillfully by Sikandar Kher and Makrand Deshpande definitely have the most to do of the supporting cast, with Kher’s corrupt police chief Rana being the ideal heavy for Patel to face off against in the film’s final act and Deshpande’s overzealous spiritual leader Baba Shakti acting as the man behind it all who you do in fact love to hate. Together, they provide a compelling set of obstacles for Patel’s leading man to overcome and defeat on his way to making a mark on those who destroyed his home and killed his mother. The film’s most compelling subplot comes in the form of the transgender acolytes, led by Vipin Sharma’s Alpha, who save the Kid after his first run-in with Rana and his men. They comprise the focus of the film’s political and religious messaging, offering a look into modern political and religious issues in India for a Western audience with an issue that’s prevalent in this country as well. It’s a smart move by Patel, and Alpha and the other acolytes make for compelling supporting characters that keep the audience engaged in the slowdown that comes in the leadup to the film’s climax.

                Obviously, though, even with a perfect story, this film couldn’t succeed without excellent action sequences, and Patel delivers those in abundance. From the jump, we are given brutal hand-to-hand combat, starting with the underground fight ring run by Sharlto Copley’s Tiger where the Kid dons a monkey mask and faces down and loses to a slew of opponents. The action then takes off fully with a combination fight and chase sequence after the Kid’s first attempt on the police chief’s life goes sideways, giving us a glimpse at Patel’s skill in crafting action scenes that look original, feel brutal, and sound great with consistently well-timed and catchy background tracks for all of the action in this film. After a slowdown and training/healing montage that itself has some great musical cues, we are thrown into the film’s climactic series of action sequences, starting with a great underground fight with a classic massive opponent for the Kid to overcome before he sets out to disrupt the election night party where Rana and Baba Shakti will be. The sequence of fights that lead to the film’s conclusion are some of the best in the business, with a well-earned and even better choreographed kitchen fight, a brawl in a dining room, a showdown in a club, and a faceoff in a penthouse capping the film off. It’s one of the most intense and engaging climax sequences that I’ve seen in an action film in a while. I know it’s a bit reductive, but it really is right up there with the John Wick films in terms of its final act’s execution.

                With Monkey Man, Dev Patel has shown us his capabilities as a well-rounded filmmaker, offering a fresh take on the story of the revenge thriller while providing some excellent action sequences to top it all off. Some of the characters might fall short of their potential, and certain editing errors certainly exist, as should be expected from a rookie filmmaker, but overall, it’s a great time at the theater, and I really encourage you to go see it. We need to let producers know that these are the kinds of films that we want to see more of.

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 - Argylle

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Matthew Vaughn’s latest theatrical release, Argylle. The film, written by Jason Fuchs and directed by Vaughn, follows a spy novelist as she discovers that her novels have been predicting real events in the espionage world and that opposing forces are after her latest manuscript to get ahead in the game. The film stars Bryce Dallas Howard, Henry Cavill, Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston, Dua Lipa, Ariana DeBose, Richard E. Grant, John Cena, Catherine O’Hara, and Samuel L. Jackson. The $200 million film opened this weekend to the worst critical reviews for any of Vaughn’s films but still looks to win the weekend box office. Let’s get into it.

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - Saltburn

                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 Emerald Fennell’s highly anticipated sophomore feature Saltburn. The film follows a scholarship Oxford student as he spends his summer holidays at the estate of one of his wealthy schoolmates and slowly inserts himself into that world of wealth. It stars Barry Keoghan, Jacob Elordi, Archie Madekwe, Paul Rhys, Richard E. Grant, Rosamund Pike, Carey Mulligan, and Alison Oliver and opened last week to a strong response from audiences even if its critic reviews are only a bit mixed. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; so much of the film’s themes have been gone over time and again, but it executes them in such innovative fashion that you can’t help but be enraptured.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe: filmgoers interested in a film that blends The Talented Mr. Ripley with Babylon are sure to be thrilled. People who find either or both of those films off-putting are probably in for a bad time, though.

Why?

                Saltburn delivers on its promises of exploring the excesses of the British aristocracy and the lengths that people will go to attain wealth through a twisted series of events. Fennell has delivered a depraved but highly entertaining story about class, education, and desire that is at its best when its actors get to show off the fullness of their characters’ idiosyncrasies and sociopathy. The film takes the premise of “eat the rich” to a whole new level that ultimately reads as much as a critique of middle-class social climbers as it does of the aristocracy that it puts on display. Keoghan, Elordi, Madekwe, and Pike, in particular, stand out in their performances, bringing the sexiness that the film requires to hold its audience’s attention as it dives deeper and deeper into the lifestyles of the denizens of Saltburn and into Keoghan’s Oliver’s need to be part of it all.

                In terms of its actual story, Saltburn is fairly reminiscent of Anthony Minghella’s The Talented Mr. Ripley, following a gifted middle-class college student who inserts himself in increasingly aggressive fashion into the life of his rich schoolmate and his friends and family. Keoghan’s Oliver Quick is perhaps more chilling than Damon’s Tom Ripley simply on his ability to lurk while hot, giving a more disconcerting lead performance than Damon’s obsessive one. The twist that kicks off the film’s third act comes only as a mild surprise, and Oliver’s final reveal (no, not that one) might leave too little to the audience’s imagination. Overall, though, the story works because of how fun it is to watch Oliver and his machinations play out, even when you’re pretty sure you know where it’s all headed.

                In addition to the film’s fun – at times, disturbing – story beats, the cast of characters keep things compelling as well. Archie Madekwe, who continues to have himself a year with his supporting performance here, perfectly plays the spoiled, but broke, American cousin of the Cattons, Farleigh Start. He plays smug and confident with so much smarminess that you can’t help but love to hate him. Even toward the film’s end, when his arc becomes more tragic, he brings just enough ridiculousness that you feel he deserves whatever comes, and he manages to never get shown up by any of the film’s “bigger” names. Jacob Elordi also happens to be putting up career numbers this year, and in Saltburn, his Felix Catton is aloof enough to draw the audience in and jealous enough to make them stay. His charisma and sex-appeal ooze from every scene he’s in, and you almost empathize with Oliver’s blend of obsession and frustration with the rich young socialite. Rosamund Pike, though secondary in the film’s cast of characters, gives a scene-stealing performance as the matriarch, Elspeth Catton. Her deadpan delivery of some truly wild lines brings an element of unexpected humor to many of the film’s tensest situations, and she plays so well off of every character she sits across from – Richard E. Grant’s Sir James, Keoghan’s Oliver, Elordi’s Felix, and even Carey Mulligan’s Pamela – elevating every scene that she’s in because you never know exactly what she’s going to do next, raising the whole cast up to her incredibly talented level. Obviously, though, Barry Keoghan carries the bulk of the film on his back, playing that unnerving little dude just as well as he ever has here as Oliver Quick. In every moment, his decisions, however uncouth and out-there they might be, feel true to the desperation of his character, and the actor feels like the perfect casting for such a uniquely depraved performance. I never doubted his willingness to fully send, and he full sends many MANY times in this film.

                A brilliant cast of characters, some truly gorgeous visuals, and plenty of wild story beats keep Emerald Fennell’s sophomore outing fresh and entertaining even as the themes it explores feel a bit overdone in modern popular media. The big swings taken by the filmmakers certainly won’t land with all audiences, but those looking to see a well-acted film that innovates and takes risks in the modern landscape of film are sure to be rewarded for their watch. Saltburn is currently showing in theaters around the country if you’d like to check it out while it’s still there.

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 - Expend4bles

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating and review. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the latest in Sylvester Stallone’s action franchise, Expend4bles. The fourth film in the series sees the return of Stallone as Barney, the leader of the titular team of military contractors, as well as Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, and Randy Couture in reprisals of their respective roles. They are joined this time by Megan Fox (Transformers), 50 Cent (Escape Plan), Tony Jaa (Ong Bak), Jacob Scipio (Bad Boys for Life), and Levy Tran (The First Purge) as additions to the team, Andy Garcia as the team’s CIA handler, and Iko Uwais of The Raid films as the new villain – Rahmat. The film opened in theaters this weekend. Let’s get into it.

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

Review:

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - 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.

Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One

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

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

Review:

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - 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 - Beau Is Afraid

                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 Beau Is Afraid, Ari Aster’s latest directorial exploit, starring Joaquin Phoenix in the film’s titular role, supported by Patti LuPone, Amy Ryan, Nathan Lane, Kylie Rogers, Parker Posey, Zoe Lister-Jones, Armen Nahapetian, Julia Antonelli, and Stephen McKinley Henderson. With its wide release coming this weekend, the film has already received the monicker of “divisive” from both critics and audiences – praising the film’s direction and performances but coming down less cohesively positive on the story. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B+; this film simply isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea, but it could have been made slightly more accessible with just a few edits (maybe just one, honestly).

Should you Watch This Film? I don’t exactly know who this film is for, but I think if you’re looking for a film that captures the feeling of an anxiety-induced nightmare, then you’ll leave feeling satisfied.

Why?

                Beau Is Afraid, for me, is the best of Ari Aster’s feature films (I still don’t think he’s reached the pinnacle of cinema that is his short film The Strange Thing About the Johnsons yet). In this film, the polarizing up-and-comer has stepped into his own vision, possibly even his own genre, driven by Freudian psychology, existential dread, and some truly excellent filmmaking choices. Aster never misses with his casting choices, and Beau Is Afraid again hits those character choices right on the nose with its ensemble of character actors and headliner of Phoenix. He also has managed to create a near-perfect rendering of a stress nightmare, not really terrifying for any conventional reasons, just incredibly off-putting with a constant waiting for the other shoe to drop.

                With its easily recognizable themes of parental manipulation, guilt, and the societal disconnect that comes when mental health issues are not properly and positively addressed and treated, Beau Is Afraid sometimes strays a little bit too far from the new road that it seeks to pave. The Freudian themes and symbols of Beau’s oedipal complex sometimes gets carried away, serving to distract from the film rather than enhance it. Don’t get me wrong, a phallic symbol here and a yonic symbol there tends to be par for the course in any film that even touches on human sexuality, but usually there’s not a large monster that derails your focus on the entire third act because you’re trying to figure out what it was there for. I won’t go into any more detail than that for fear of spoilers, but I feel like however that particular scene is interpreted (and if you’ve already seen this film, you know exactly the scene I’m talking about), it doesn't actually make the film better, it just makes it weirder. For the rest of the film, the weirdness is set to just the right scale to not derail the themes or the story, but that single choice knocks the whole film down a notch for me because it’s all people seem to be wanting to talk about. They breeze over the excellence of the first two acts and don’t really engage with the creativity of the film’s last scene just to talk about this one other scene. It’s undeniably memorable because, clearly, I’m in the same boat, but I feel that the film is just as memorable and noteworthy without that particular interpretation of Freudian expression.

                The rest of the film works incredibly well, though. Joaquin Phoenix delivers yet another performance as a disturbed man living in a world that seems to be aggressively against him (whether that’s just in his mind or not). He’s asked to do a lot by Aster’s script, but he delivers on it all, playing the harried, guilt-ridden son with just the right amount of untrustworthiness to get the film’s setting to feel off for the audience. The rest of the cast fills the world out incredibly well. LuPone’s performance as Beau’s mother Mona might be one of the best “villain” performances in such a film – feeling like maybe the only real and honest character in the whole film with her overt selfishness and callousness toward the rest of the world. Amy Ryan, Nathan Lane, and Kylie Rogers have all the makings of the ideal family with a dark secret just under the surface, and they play their part in Beau’s story with just the right blend of levity and ominousness. Like I said, Aster is a master of putting his actors in the best possible situations for their skillsets.

                Visually and in its pacing, Beau Is Afraid truly feels like an extended nightmare/dream sequence, alternating depending on the vibe of the scene. Every frame of the film feels just off enough to instill in the audience the same sense of unease (and sometimes dread) that Beau feels, sometimes with comic results, sometimes with heart-pounding ones. Combine that with the film’s pacing, sometimes frenetic, other times methodical, and you get a film that never really feels as long as its near-three-hour runtime would lead you to expect. The level of detail in every shot help to accentuate the film’s immaculate vibes, with plenty of Easter eggs and visual comedy for the observant members of the audience, moving things along that much quicker.

                Beau Is Afraid is a well-designed, excellently acted, and mostly well-written piece of filmmaking whose last act is marred somewhat by the only bit of the film that can truly be called divisive but that manages to stick its landing – uncomfortable, strange, and unique as it is. Fans of Aster’s non-horror works will probably be more pleased with the way this film plays out than other audience members, but I do think that it’s possible to enjoy most of this film for most adult audiences. That last act might be a dealbreaker, though, and I totally understand if you never watch this or at least put it off until it’s out of theaters.

Weekend Watch - John Wick: Chapter 4

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is John Wick: Chapter 4, the latest (and final?) chapter of the Keanu Reeves action saga about the hidden world of assassins and intrigue run by the mysterious High Table. This film features the return of Reeves in the titular role as well as Laurence Fishburne, Lance Reddick, and Ian McShane reprising their roles from the previous films. Joining the cast in this iteration are Clancy Brown, Marko Zaror, Bill Skarsgård, Donnie Yen, Hiroyuki Sanada, Shamier Anderson, and Rina Sawayama to round out the action film’s ensemble of players. The film currently sits as the best reviewed of the franchise, so let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; the film delivers everything we’ve come to expect from the John Wick franchise and then some with very little to gripe about.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes, but only if you’ve watched the previous three or at least read detailed synopses of them, otherwise most of the film’s stakes and references will make little to no sense.

Why?

                John Wick: Chapter 4 is the culmination of the story and violence of the three previous films. Picking up a short amount of time after Chapter 3, this one again hits the ground running but this time with John as the pursuer rather than the pursued. This film unfolds differently than its predecessors because of this shift, focusing on the High Table’s response to John’s aggression against them, resulting in more time to breathe between set pieces but also more character development and exploration of the saga’s central themes of revenge and cyclical violence. Obviously, the action remains the highlight, but the characters are given space to live and die here as well.

                Chapter 4 might be the best of the John Wick franchise because of how it brings closure to the story of the first three. From the simple revenge tale of the first to the frustration at being drawn back into a life of violence of the second to the repercussions of his actions from the second in the third, everything is brought home in Chapter 4. John’s desire for freedom from his past life, his vendetta against the High Table, the political machinations of the Bowery King and Winston – all of them are brought to a close in one way or another in this chapter. The world gets a bit more fleshed out but only as far as it needs to in order to understand how John can possibly attain his goal of escape. The true highlight of the film is John’s attempt to answer whether he can have a life outside of the killing – the question at the heart of every John Wick film. In this case, he seems to have decided that one final push of killing anyone in his way just might give him the opportunity to answer that question satisfactorily (a fascinating and tragic contradiction). Unfortunately, his decision to untether himself from specifically motivated vengeance leaves him on a fairly destructive and self-destructive path that he can only be wrested back from through human (and animal) connections. The story reminds us of our need for others in life, particularly in the hard times, to keep us from devolving into something worse – a plea for society, yes, but specifically good and supportive society as opposed to the toxic and parasitic one that John is seeking to break from.

                The action remains fairly creative in this one, with a few more faceless henchmen in the first few sequences than I’d usually care for, but that error is quickly alleviated with a solid heavy fight in the middle of things and a high-octane final sequence that ends with a brilliant bit of simple one-on-one combat, which might be my favorite of the series on gravity alone. Overall, I’m still inclined to give Chapter 2 the props for best top-to-bottom action, but the implications present in every scene of violence in Chapter 4 definitely help it make up a lot of ground. I should also point out that Donnie Yen is the best addition to the John Wick cast, and I don’t totally understand why it took so long to get him here. His scenes are arguably better than Keanu Reeves’s for most of the film, but it really peaks when the two of them are facing off or working together (it alternates from scene to scene).

                If you have loved the ride of the previous films in the saga, John Wick: Chapter 4 brings it all together for one last hurrah, sending the assassin off with its most weighty action sequences and plenty of closing thoughts on its world and story themes. In terms of pure action, it might not be the top one of the saga, but it carries plenty of energy to keep its fans happy. This film is currently available to see in theaters, and I encourage you to check it out if you can.

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 - January/February 2023 Recap

                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, we are recapping the notable films that have released so far in 2023, as is tradition. In keeping with the norm in recent years, January and February this year have been pretty sparse in terms of all-time great films; a few cult classics have marked themselves out as long-shots to keep an eye on, but there’s really not even any possible things and certainly no sure things this early in the year. Now that we are “back” from COVID protocols, the late releasing Best Picture contenders have had to jump back into December and have left us without anything but some above average action and horror films to tide us over until the blockbusters and sleeper hits of March come. Let’s get into it.

Long Shots:

M3GAN: The slasher comedy was another box office success for the horror genre, achieving a sequel announcement already and giving us something to talk about for a few weeks there in January. Unfortunately for the memeable robot, I’m not sure that its slightly above-average reviews from fans and critics will be enough to elevate it to the status of an all-time great.

A Man Called Otto: Critics were fairly low on the Tom Hanks-led American remake of A Man Called Ove, but Tom Hanks and an uplifting story seem to have been enough to keep fans happy, sitting at a 97% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and a 7.6 overall on IMDB. I don’t expect it to rise much farther than that, but it’s worth mentioning.

Plane: Another overperforming genre film from January, this time from the action films. The Mike Coulter and Gerard Butler collaboration has outdone everything that you could expect from such an underwhelming title, also being greenlit for a sequel “Boat”. Again, I don’t expect this to receive any kind of late in the game love, but its above average reviews make it a welcome addition to recent January films.

Sick: It’s a straight to Peacock slasher film about a killer during quarantine. For all intents and purposes, this film should have been terrible. As it stands, it seems like it was just decent, which means I’ve gotta mention it here. Any time a film with as much against it as this one has gets average or above average reviews from both fans and critics, there’s definitely something there worth talking about.

Missing: Following in the footsteps of its predecessor Searching, the latest found-footage cell phone thriller has again given audiences and critics what they want. It’s a testament to the writers, Sev Ohanian and Aneesh Chaganty, that they’ve been able to come up with two crowd-pleasing stories that are told through what is essentially a phone screen on the big screen. They’re not quite good enough to achieve all-time status on their own but definitely a film to keep your eye on.

Pamela: A Love Story: Netflix’s Pamela Anderson documentary is the first of many documentaries that will generate some buzz this year but probably won’t end up on anyone’s lists of awards finalists. Its 98% Tomatometer score and 94% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes indicate that it’s a film worth seeing, but don’t expect to hear much more about it.

Knock at the Cabin: What has been heralded as M. Night Shyamalan’s best film since Signs still sits with a bunch of very average ratings from fans and critics. It seems the formula of Dave Bautista and a predetermined direction for the story have enough to get M. Night away from his recent history of Old and Glass, but not enough to get him back to the all-time greatness of The Sixth Sense.

Infinity Pool: Brandon Cronenberg has followed in his father’s footsteps with this one, crafting a thrilling body horror piece with plenty of social critique attached. Also following in his father’s footsteps, Brandon’s film has divided audiences, satisfying fans of the genre but not bringing in any new converts. Mia Goth and Alexander Skarsgård have received some love for their work as well, but I’d expect this to be mentioned as Goth’s stat-padding film rather than her focus for an awards campaign later this year.

Of an Age: This indie romance hit theaters this past week with solid reviews, praising the film’s writing and its performances. I’ve heard it called Moonlight lite, which is high praise. Its currently just above average reviews will probably keep it on the radar, but I don’t currently expect it to hit the highs of its comparison; I could be wrong though.

Jesus Revolution: Look, I really don’t expect this film to go anywhere – its Metacritic score of 46 and Tomatometer of 46% should tell you all you actually need to know. However, a 7.6 on IMDB and 99% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes means that this film about the start of the modern evangelical movement (problematic as it is) starring Kelsey Grammer and Kimberly Williams Paisley gets a mention.

Bruiser: This Hulu original film about toxic masculinity and generational violence has probably the best overall reviews of any film that has released this year so far. If IMDB wasn’t losing credibility by the minute in terms of its overall scores for any film starring a black lead, female lead, or LGBT lead, this film would probably be sitting as a possible thing. Like its other sleeper hit Prey, I don’t expect Bruiser to bring much outside success to the streaming service.

Cocaine Bear: Should this even be here? I talked about Jesus Revolution, so I’m also gonna talk about Cocaine Bear. The consensus around the creature thriller seems to be that it is definitely crazy but could do with more of the bear. Expect this to be one of those films mentioned alongside M3GAN and Pacific Rim in the future. It does what it sets out to do, but there’s nothing truly groundbreaking here.