Weekend Watch - The Flash

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is The Flash, the latest offering (and last of the most recent iteration) from the DC cinematic universe. This film is the first to star Ezra Miller’s version of the speedster as its titular hero and also features Ben Affleck’s and Michael Keaton’s versions of Batman/Bruce Wayne alongside Michael Shannon reprising his villainous role of General Zod and the newcomer Sasha Calle playing Supergirl/Kara Zor-El. With an increasing amount of superhero fatigue around seemingly throwaway films and the coming reboot of the DC Universe with James Gunn and Peter Safran at the helm, the film has underperformed so far at the box office. Let’s get into it.

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

                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 vote by the blog’s Instagram followers is Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Sony Animation’s and Lord and Miller’s sequel to 2018’s Best Animated Feature, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. This film features the returning voice talents of Shameik Moore as Miles Morales, Hailee Steinfeld as Gwen Stacy, Brian Tyree Henry as Jeff Morales, Luna Lauren Velez as Rio Morales, Jake Johnson as Peter B. Parker, and (technically returning if you count the post-credits scene) Oscar Isaac as Miguel O’Hara. A few of the notable voices joining the Spider-crew this time around are Jason Schwartzman as the villain Spot, Issa Rae as Jessica Drew, Daniel Kaluuya as Hobie Brown, Karan Soni as Pavitr Prabhakar, Shea Wigham as George Stacy, and Andy Samberg as Ben Reilly. Opening last weekend to rave reviews, this film has made its way to the very top of Letterboxd’s rankings and into IMDB’s Top 250 movies as well (at #11 currently). Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A; the only thing keeping it from that “+” is its reliance on a sequel to finish its story. If Beyond the Spider-Verse sticks the landing, it unquestionably jumps to an “A+”.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes! Emphatically, yes! Across the Spider-Verse is the best animated film since Into the Spider-Verse and might be one of the best films in general since then as well. Everyone needs to see this film.

Why?

                Across the Spider-Verse picks up a year after the events of its predecessor with Miles Morales more established as Brooklyn’s very own Spider-Man, working in tandem with his father, Officer Jeff Morales, who still does not know his son’s secret identity, to bring down criminals across New York. After a jaunt into Gwen’s backstory, the film picks up when Gwen appears again in Miles’s universe, this time of her own volition, telling Miles about a multiversal team of Spider-heroes who protect the multiverse from existential threats. Upon discovering his own involvement in the current threat to the multiverse (inadvertently allowing Spot to escape), Miles secretly tags along with Gwen to make things right, sending the pair on a multiverse-spanning adventure that hasn’t quite wrapped up just yet.

                This film does everything it sets out to do incredibly well. The animation is some of the best in film history, taking the comic book style of the first film and amping it up, giving each Spider-person’s universe its own style and colors, giving audiences some of the most beautiful scenes ever put to screen that also happen to be full of details and/or emotional moments that help flesh the film out. A two-hour-and-twenty-minute runtime is ambitious for an animated feature, but it never loses steam, jumping from moment to moment with a well-paced blend of humor, action, and human emotion. It does what all sequels are supposed to do – fleshes out the universe and playing with the themes of the first without ever losing the charm that made the first so great. It follows in the vein of great sequels like The Dark Knight or The Empire Strikes Back, taking on a slightly heavier story than its self-contained predecessor, personalizing the stakes for its heroes, and leaving you in need of a satisfying conclusion when the credits roll.

                That ending is one of the only legitimate knocks against Across the Spider-Verse, leaving virtually all of its existing conflicts unresolved, more in the vein of 2021’s Dune or this year’s Fast X. It does a solid job of giving certain arcs some emotional closure but leaves the audience with a profound sense of satisfied dissatisfaction. You love what you’ve just seen, but there is an acute awareness of the fact that the story has so much resolution still to come. Again, I think it’ll pan out because Lord and Miller are great writers, and the directors they have chosen (Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson in this case) do an excellent job executing their artistic vision. It’s just one of those things in film where you’re stuck not knowing what the follow-up is going to bring. Will it be epic but bloated like At World’s End, campy and satisfying like Return of the Jedi, methodical but convenient like The Dark Knight Rises, bigger and with more fan service like Endgame, some other new descriptor we haven’t even thought of yet? Who’s to say? Regardless, I’m excited to see how they bring this trilogy home, and I really hope it does justice to these first two films, because they have been excellent.

                Across the Spider-Verse delivers everything you could want from a sequel and then some, going even harder with its gorgeous animation, involved action sequences, and emotional set-ups for payoffs we’ve yet to fully see. The film is tracking to be a legitimate contender, not just for Best Animated Feature this year, but to be the best film of the year overall. If you haven’t already, please go see this film in theaters while it’s there. I’m going back tonight to celebrate my birthday if you needed any further endorsement.

Weekend Watch - The Little Mermaid (2023)

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is Disney’s latest live action remake – The Little Mermaid. This film adapts the 1989 animated film of the same name and stars Halle Bailey in the titular role, featuring the voice talents of Daveed Diggs, Awkwafina, and Jacob Tremblay as Ariel’s various animal friends, and featuring Jonah Hauer-King, Melissa McCarthy, and Javier Bardem in the supporting roles of Prince Eric, Ursula, and King Triton, respectively. Let’s get into it.

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - 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 - Book Club: The next Chapter

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Book Club: The Next Chapter, the sequel to 2018’s film, Book Club, about a group of women of a certain age who rediscover their sexuality by reading Fifty Shades of Grey in their book club. This film again stars Jane Fonda, Diane Keaton, Candice Bergen, and Mary Steenburgen as they take their club on a trip to Europe to celebrate Vivian’s (Fonda) engagement. The women are joined again by Andy Garcia, Don Johnson, and Craig T. Nelson with the additions of Giancarlo Giannini, Hugh Quarshie, and Vincent Riotta rounding out the supporting cast. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: D; this is a perfectly fine film for what it is – there are laughs and it’s true to the characters from its predecessor. That doesn’t mean it’s great or even good, but it’s not the worst 107 minutes ever put to screen.

Should you Watch This Film? If you’ve never seen the first Book Club, there’s absolutely no reason to watch this one, as it is a fairly direct continuation of the stories from the first with the same level of humor and acting. If you did see the first, there’s some decently satisfying conclusions to some of the open endings from the first that you might enjoy. And if you need something to see with your mom for Mother’s Day, go see Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. instead.

Why?

                Book Club: The Next Chapter carries on with everything that made the first film as fun as it is, but they really are films with a fairly specific target audience whose entertainment value is going to be limited for anyone outside of that target audience. The comedy of Book Club: The Next Chapter relies almost exclusively on elderly people being self-aware about their age and making jokes about it and about their love lives at that stage of life. It works well enough to get some laughs, and the performers are familiar enough that you might be able to get past the predictable plot and simple writing, but this film is not a must-see theatrical experience – it accomplishes what it sets out to do and that’s about it.

                The biggest thing holding The Next Chapter back is its nature as a sequel – relying on plots and character beats from the first film to build its emotional and romantic connections. For a romantic comedy, most of its romance actually came in the first film, and this one just has some romantic tensions with very limited payoff for the stories that start in this film. Most of this film’s story involves the four women getting into trouble in various Italian cities, which is fun and funny enough to keep you watching, but it doesn’t provide much actual plot or character development worth mentioning – exemplified by the final act’s reversion to closing out the plots from the original film rather than engaging at all with any of the side plots from this film.

                Book Club: The Next Chapter doesn’t offer anything new or inventive to the world of film and lacks a bit in the story department, but it makes up for its shortcomings by showcasing some familiar performers having a great time and showcasing some solid self-aware comedy. It’s by no means a must-see, but fans of Fonda, Keaton, Bergen, and Steenburgen and/or the first Book Club will find something endearing about this getaway comedy from the group. Most people are probably okay skipping this one or waiting until it hits streaming to watch it.

Weekend Watch - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is James Gunn’s Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, the third (and final?) installment in the quirky trilogy of films following the interstellar band of misfit heroes within the MCU. This film sees the return of Chris Pratt, Dave Bautista, Pom Klementieff, Zoe Saldana, Karen Gillan, Sean Gunn, and the vocal talents of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel in their respective roles in the franchise, joined this time by Will Poulter as the superpowered Adam Warlock, Chukwudi Iwuji as the diabolical High Evolutionary, Elizabeth Debicki reprising her role as Ayesha the Sovereign High Priestess, and the voice of Maria Bakalova as the Cosmo the (telekinetic) Space Dog. The film hit theaters this weekend to some mixed-positive critic reviews and overwhelming love from audiences. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; the threequel can’t outshine the originality of the trilogy’s first film, but it makes enough fresh decisions while staying true to the formula that it remains a great watch.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes, but there’s a caveat. This is a much darker PG-13 than Marvel usually goes with – I would recommend giving this a screening before going with kids under ten because of how specifically dark it goes with exploring Rocket’s backstory.

Why?

                I’ll be the first to admit that I tend to be a little bit higher on Marvel releases than a lot of people, but I really think this is one that won’t be too against the grain. The issues of bloating and excessive interconnectivity are notably gone from this installment of the MCU, allowing the film to focus the entirety of its story on the development of its own characters and giving them satisfying conclusions to their character arcs. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 delivers an excellent conclusion for its players with plenty of wacky hijinks and fun music cues to excuse its darker deviations, particularly thanks to the excellent work of Chukwudi Iwuji in the role of the villainous High Evolutionary.

                The story of Guardians 3 focuses on Rocket’s backstory, establishing his connection to the High Evolutionary while also giving the team the motivation they need to take on the embodiment of science without ethics. For the most part, this feels like a return to the trilogy’s roots, featuring ill-advised heist attempts motivated by personal choices that then puts the Guardians in a spot to save many more people than just themselves. While familiar, the lovable characters at its heart, the despicable villain on the other side, and the originality of the settings help keep the film from ever feeling overdone or derivative. Within this story are a few flashbacks that provide some insight into the plans of the High Evolutionary and Rocket’s development into the character he was at the start of the trilogy that feature some pretty intense emotional moments regarding violence against animals that might keep some viewers from fully embracing the film.

                That villainy in the backstory and his continued performance in the present helps make Iwuji’s High Evolutionary one of the best in the MCU. His stakes aren’t quite as high as some might want from a film about the Guardians of the GALAXY – focusing mainly on reclaiming his lost property (Rocket’s brain) and the fact that he’s just a bad guy – but Iwuji fully goes for it and elevates the character to true villainous greatness. Marvel has had a run of “good” villains in the midst of their somewhat middling run of Phase 4 – Namor in the overstuffed Wakanda Forever, Gorr in the overly light Love and Thunder, Scarlet Witch in the story-light Multiverse of Madness, and even Green Goblin and Xu Wenwu in the fairly solid films No Way Home and Shang-Chi respectively – but they’ve all shared the same trait, choosing redemption to bring about their defeat. Marvel went with the Doc Oc formula from Spider-Man 2, and it worked for their villains, just not their stories. Iwuji’s Evolutionary is just really and truly evil, not twisted by any tragic backstory, just a bad dude with a lot of power who uses it to do unethical things, and Iwuji plays him excellently. This is not the generic “bad guy” of Guardians 1 or the chipper god/dad/planet of Guardians 2; the High Evolutionary is the answer to the question, “What if Victor Frankenstein had the future technology and the powers of a god?” and that answer is a terrifying blend of mania, ego, genius, and cruelty. This is a villain that you will absolutely love to hate in the best way.

                With such a great villain, the Guardians have an easy job of making the rest of the film memorable and enjoyable, with each getting their time to shine. Zoe Saladana’s new Gamora has to find her place in the galaxy following her five-year jump into the future, and she does so in a surprisingly impactful way. Groot gets to feature in some truly creative action set pieces that allow him to shine in brilliantly creative ways. Pom Klementieff’s Mantis gets to show off her own emotions and some real fighting skills as she truly finds her footing as an individual in this film. Dave Bautista’s Drax gets to actually show off his more tender side, still serving in many ways as the film’s comic relief, but with a more emotional impact than even his quest for vengeance in the first film. Chris Pratt’s Peter Quill finally gets to come to terms with his obligations to Earth while also processing the grief of his lost love and general relationships with women in a deeply positive way. Karen Gillan’s Nebula might be the true anchor of the film, reminding the Guardians of their roles while forging her own ties with the team separate from her estranged sister. Obviously, Rocket is the centerpiece of the film, and Cooper’s voice acting really lends a lot to the emotional beats of the film, and his story is brought to full fruition by the film’s end.

                With its weakest links being Poulter’s Adam Warlock and an inability to fully live up to the expectations set by the first Guardians film, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 still manages to stand solidly on its own thanks to the trilogy’s best villain and satisfying ends to its characters’ story arcs. Some of its darker aspects make this a film to screen before showing your younger kids who might otherwise love the MCU films, but it really is a refreshing return to form for the franchise, and I’m excited for the future again. Check this one out in theaters when you get the chance.

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 - Renfield

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is the Nic Cage, Awkwafina, and Nicholas Hoult starring action/comedy/horror film, Renfield, which opened in theaters nationwide this weekend. The film also features a supporting cast of Ben Schwartz, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Brandon Scott Jones, Camille Chen, and Adrian Martinez as it tells a modern story of Dracula and his titular familiar Renfield. Let’s get into it.

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - The Super Mario Bros. Movie

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is The Super Mario Bros. Movie, the latest animated release from Illumination studios. The film is an adaptation of the Super Mario Bros. IP from Nintendo, featuring the voice talents of Chris Pratt, Charlie Day, Anya Taylor-Joy, Jack Black, Keegan-Michael Key, Seth Rogen, and Fred Armisen as Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Bowser, Toad, Donkey Kong, and Cranky Kong respectively. The film hit theaters on Wednesday and is projected to hit nearly $200 million at the box office in its opening weekend, one of the biggest of the year. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C-; the film provides excellent nostalgia and references to the IP, but that doesn’t mean that it’s free of any other flaws.

Should you Watch This Film? Maybe, if you’ve got kids, this is going to be a solid watch for them, particularly if they struggle with attention spans; if you don’t, I’m not sure that the nostalgia and references do enough for me to recommend it to you.

Why?

                The Super Mario Bros. Movie is one of those films that pours most of its effort into making references and keeping the action moving with very little story to speak of. The nostalgia factor is huge, and they have done a great job capturing the fun of Mario with creative platforming, a race down Rainbow Road, a fight with Donkey Kong, and plenty of musical cues to take you back to your days of playing the games yourself (they do play the “DK Rap”, and I might have ascended to heaven when it came on). Even the majority of the needle drops in the film work to enhance the scene they are part of without taking you out of it too much.

                The voice cast has done a solid job of capturing the characters they play, and no one really feels out of place. Are Mario and Luigi’s accents still of indeterminate Italian origin? Yes, but their less cartoonish nature allows the characters to go through their more emotional beats without feeling too out of place. Anya Taylor-Joy’s Peach is fine, leaning more into the recent iterations of a fully capable Peach who just gets captured due to obligations of her station rather than helplessness. Keegan-Michael Key lends a bit of fun to Toad, blending the memeable vocals with his own to make the character fit in with the story’s other heroes. Seth Rogen’s Donkey Kong is really just Seth Rogen in video game form, but that works for what he’s asked to do – be the goofy, overconfident side hero. The film’s true vocal highlight comes in the form of Jack Black’s Bowser, who really takes on the most complex form of the character that we’ve ever seen. Indeed, Black’s portrayal allows the character to be just as menacing as always while still having a sympathetic side that explains why they keep inviting him to things like races and parties for fun.

                Where the film’s entertainment value falters, though, is its story, or lack thereof. The characters are really just thrown from situation to situation, and the only character with any complex motivation is Bowser. Peach, Mario, and Luigi are all given moments of development, but most of those happen in the form of flashbacks or in the middle of fights when they hit that rock-and-a-hard-place moment that pushes them beyond their limits, more out of necessity than out of true growth. Even the film’s plot unfolds in the form of random location jumps and convenient devices that allow them to throw in another video game reference. To quote another review that I read, the film’s plot is “Paper Mario thin”, which is actually not the most accurate statement, since the Paper Mario games actually have some of the most complex plots of any Mario game. In response to defenses of the film’s lack of plot in the name of it being a kids’ movie or not having much to work with in the actual games, I have to point out that there are plenty of great films targeted at children that do have great stories to go along with them. Perhaps one of the best examples is The Lego Movie (2014), which has some of the best innovation of IP with little story to speak of while still being commercially successful and loved by adults and kids alike. I get that kids (and a lot of adults) don’t really ask much of their movies beyond simple entertainment value, but you can ask for more than this particular film gives in terms of story and still come in right around the hour and a half mark.

                The Super Mario Bros. Movie hits the mark with its referential material and its vocal cast but is heavily lacking in the story and message department, leaving it as a mixed bag for moviegoers. If you want to be part of the conversation this week or if you want to scratch that Mario movie itch, this is not the worst thing you could go see in theaters. Otherwise, I’d suggest waiting for it to hit streaming and calling for a better story in the next film (because a sequel is definitely coming).

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 - Shazam! Fury of the Gods

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is Shazam! Fury of the Gods, the sequel to 2019’s Shazam!. The sequel sees the return of Zachary Levi as the superhero version of Asher Angel’s Billy Batson alongside his found family of foster kids turned superheroes. Djimon Hounsou reprises his role as the Wizard here, and Lucy Liu, Helen Mirren, and Rachel Zegler join the cast in new roles. This sequel looks to be one of the biggest films of the month even as it comes toward the end of this iteration of DC’s film universe – let’s get into it.

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - 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 - Creed III

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers is Creed III, the latest film in the follow-up series to the Rocky films, again starring Michael B. Jordan, Tessa Thompson, Wood Harris, and Phylicia Rashad, this time joined by Jonathan Majors, Mila Davis-Kent, and Jose Benavidez. The film follows Adonis Creed as he grapples with retirement, family life, mistakes from his childhood, and the return of an old friend who is hungry for the opportunity he believes he was denied after spending eighteen years in prison. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A, the film has its flaws, but they are small and easily forgiven thanks to a strong story, moving characters, and excellent fights.

Should you Watch This Film? Yes! It looks great, feels great, and is fairly easy to digest even for someone with limited knowledge of the rest of the RCU (Rocky Cinematic Universe).

Why?

                Creed III benefits from a combination of successful endeavors, with great performances from its two leads, an engaging story both in and out of the ring, a banging soundtrack, and visuals that might outshine all previous films in its franchise, highlighting the truly visceral nature of the fights it focuses on. Michael B. Jordan wears two hats for this film, playing the lead and directing (his first film ever) and he carries both burdens admirably, doing far more in both roles than I ever would have given him credit for. The script from Keenan Coogler and Zach Baylin (Oscar nominee for his King Richard screenplay) and the story from Ryan Coogler give the rookie director plenty to work with, and he also benefits from getting to act across from one of the biggest new talents in the game, Jonathan Majors.

                The film’s story picks up at the “end” of Adonis Creed’s career with his very last fight – a bout against “Pretty” Ricky Conlan to solidify Creed as the universal champ on his way out. It then moves to his retirement as the audience gets to watch his interactions with his wife Bianca (Thompson) and their daughter Amara (Davis-Kent) who was born deaf in the previous film. The Creed family dynamic serves as the heart of the film, as Donny struggles to open up to his wife about some of the more troubling aspects of his past and as together they try to help their daughter communicate her emotions and unify that with her desire to fight like her father. The reintroduction of Majors’s “Diamond” Dame Anderson to Creed’s life comes after an eighteen year absence and gives the film its meat and spine – Dame returns from his time in prison hungry and hurting after losing his opportunity to achieve his dream and watching his friend live it instead. The exploration of both men’s pasts and their difficulty voicing and communicating emotion through anything but fighting serves as the start to a deeper conversation on masculinity and emotions that culminates in the film’s concluding act, which I’m not going to spoil here if I can help it.

                The film’s performances carry its story. Tessa Thompson isn’t given a lot to do besides be a record producer and supportive wife, but she does it well with true commitment to the character. Phylicia Rashad gives an admirable, and even emotional, return to her character Mary-Anne Creed, Adonis’s adopted mother and the widow of Apollo Creed, serving as the inspiration for some of the film’s most deeply personal moments. Majors brings plenty of gravitas, swagger, and grit to the character of Dame to hold his own as the film’s antagonist – feeling in many ways like the parallel life of Adonis. The pain of his life and the passion of his future come through in chilling fashion as the character returns to boxing with a fire that threatens so much of what Adonis has built. He’s the most well-established and well-performed villain of probably any film in the entire franchise – Rocky and Creed. This might actually be the best performance I’ve seen from Michael B. Jordan. With plenty of solid co-stars to work with and the opportunity to showcase more than just his anger in his big moments, he shows off a more vulnerable side of the character and of his own persona. The role he plays feels incredibly well-thought-out and authentic to the experience he’s trying to capture. He is given more to do here, and he does more than just clench his teeth and yell about how he’s been waiting his whole life for this, and I was legitimately impressed with his performance.

                Jordan also dazzles in the director’s chair, putting together quite possibly the most entertaining trio of fights in any of the films. Each fight showcases something different for the audience, and each also brings in a new element of filming that makes it feel, as Jordan was quoted to have said, in the “spirit” of an anime showdown. The Conlan fight utilizes slow-motion to emphasize Creed’s physicality and the ways that he understands his opponents, sizing them up in bullet time, so to speak. The Dame-Chavez fight utilizes the hyper-detail of zoom and hi-def cameras to showcase Dame’s less-than-legal style of fighting and the pain he seeks to inflict on his opponents, also highlighting his ability to break down opponents and setting him up as a legitimate contender. The final fight between Adonis and Dame might be the best fight in the entire saga, visually and emotionally engaging from start to finish. I won’t spoil what makes it so good but suffice it to say that this is a beautiful fight.

                A gorgeous trio of fights, great leading performances, and a solid story about family and masculinity help Creed III outshine any minor detractions it might have and give Michael B. Jordan an excellent first entry in his directing repertoire. It's fun, engaging, emotional, well-paced, and a legitimate great time from start to finish. Check this one out in theaters while you can, and if you can’t, be sure to hit it up when it gets to streaming. I’d be surprised if this film didn’t manage to make my personal top 10 films of 2023 by the end of it all.

Weekend Watch - Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

                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 Marvel’s latest film, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. The film is the launch of Marvel’s Phase Five, introducing the new big-bad of the universe, Kang, to theatrical audiences after he received a soft-launch in the Loki series back in 2021. The film sees the return of Paul Rudd’s Scott Lang/Ant-Man alongside Evangeline Lilly’s Hope Van Dyne/Wasp, Michael Douglas’s Hank Pym, and Michelle Pfeiffer’s Janet Van Dyne. In addition to Jonathan Majors’s Kang the Conqueror, the film also introduces Kathryn Newton as the new actress for the now-teenage Cassie Lang and features cameos from Bill Murray, William Jackson Harper, and Corey Stoll. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; there’s no denying that the film has issues, but there’s a lot to enjoy here that makes it better than the current critic consensus.

Should you Watch This Film? If you enjoy the MCU or comic book films, this is a great watch for you. If you don’t like that type of film, there’s not enough here that will change your mind.

Why?

                Marvel’s introduction to Phase Five gives audiences a clear vision for the future of the franchise in the midst of a muddled story in the present, fitting for a film set predominantly in a region that exists outside of time and space. The film is unquestionably high on its new characters (the future of the franchise) with an excellent villain performance from Majors and one of the better “teen” outings in the franchise from Newton. Unfortunately, their performances and the rightly directed focus on Pfeiffer’s Janet can’t save the film entirely from the odd shift in direction for the Ant-Man films and a story shot full of holes.

                In terms of performances, Quantumania benefits from some of the best in recent MCU history with actors fully committed to their characters, even if their writing and story are imperfect. Rudd has truly come into his own as Lang and Ant-Man, making the character in his own image as a recognizably lovable celebrity who also happens to have saved the world a few years ago. He brings the same lightness to this film that we have become used to but also manages to rise to the physicality that this story requires with believable results. Michael Douglas is tasked with the role of comedic side character typically filled by Michael Peña in these films and actually does an admirable job. Is it as iconic or likeable as Peña’s Luis? Absolutely not, but Douglas manages to turn his supergenius into enough of a relief to keep the film moving. In my opinion, “the Wasp” referred to in this film’s title has to be Michelle Pfeiffer’s Janet Van Dyne because she has so much more to do than Evangeline Lilly in this film and carries that burden well. Having played a fairly minimal role in the last Ant-Man film, Pfeiffer comes to the front as the expert on the Quantum Realm and Kang, giving plenty of backstory and explanation even as she struggles to cope with the consequences of her past mistakes. It’s easy to see that she enjoys the role and is fully capable of carrying the yoke of secondary protagonist. Kathryn Newton takes her role as Cassie Lang head-on, again managing to turn the loss of a fan-favorite character into a net neutral (and perhaps even gain in this case) as she serves as the heroes’ moral compass for most of the film, reminding Scott of what heroes are supposed to do at every turn. Finally, Jonathan Majors goes to work as the new Big-Bad of the saga – Kang the Conqueror. He plays the character as this malevolent force, offering to save the multiverse no matter how many people and universes he has to destroy in the process. His writing is perhaps the strongest, and Majors takes advantage, delivering line after line of despotic dialogue with weight and excellence.

                All the strong performances can’t do enough to salvage Quantumania’s overly expository and underwhelming Star Wars-lite story. From the first scene in the Quantum Realm, the inspiration from Disney’s other major franchise becomes clear, complete with desert scavengers, a cantina, and an evil empire fighting against rebels. From there, the story takes too long to get where it wants to go (introducing Kang) in order to get a frankly underwhelming Bill Murray cameo into the start of the second act. Unfortunately, for all of Majors’s greatness as Kang, the film’s third act does him pretty dang dirty – having him lose in fairly embarrassing fashion multiple times. His performance does enough to keep me excited for his future in the MCU, but the contrivance for the heroes to win in this film makes me wary of future underutilization of the villain’s genius, charisma, and physicality. We’ll see.

                Great performances from most of its leads don’t fully salvage Quantumania’s mess of a script, resulting in a mixed bag in Marvel’s first Phase Five film. Its visuals and charismatic leads help keep it enjoyable enough to warrant watching in theaters, and I think it probably would be pretty solid in 3D if you want to pay extra for that. As it stands, it’s not the best that Marvel has ever put out. It’s not the worst, either, and I think that with Bob Iger back at Disney, they’ll be able to return their focus to producing quality over quantity again.

Weekend Watch - Magic Mike’s Last Dance

                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 Magic Mike’s Last Dance, the third film in Steven Soderbergh’s trilogy starring Channing Tatum as the male stripper Mike Lane. In this final(?) installment, Tatum is joined by Salma Hayek, Jemelia George, Ayub Khan-Din, and Juliette Motamed as he travels to London to direct a dance show for a wealthy new business partner after the pandemic put an end to his furniture business. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: D+; it’s still watchable, but it misses on so many points that it’s hard to see its merit.

Should you Watch This Film? If you are a fan of Channing Tatum and/or Salma Hayek, there’s enough from both of them in this to warrant giving it a watch, just maybe not on the big screen.

Why?

                Magic Mike’s Last Dance goes away from Soderbergh’s formula for third films of getting the band back together for one final show and instead chooses to focus almost exclusively on the character of Mike and also Salma Hayek’s Max. Former audience favorites Joe Manganiello, Matt Bomer, Adam Rodriguez, and Kevin Nash only appear in a brief video chat cameo that serves as an explanation for why Mike has taken his job in London – to make the money he needs to pay his friends back. Otherwise, all the dancers and other important players are entirely new to the franchise, giving it that odd feeling of a television show that got cancelled on cable but renewed on streaming and lost some of its magic and actors in the transition.

                If the missing favorites were the only issue, I think Last Dance would still be a solid film. Unfortunately, its story also leaves a bit to be desired, following through on a moniker given to Salma Hayek’s Max – the film truly is the “Queen of the First Act”. It starts strong with a fun meet-cute between Mike and Max, followed up with a steamy dance from the two performers and a hasty throwing of Mike into Max’s complicated life in London. The first act keeps you on your toes and hoping for something original and fulfilling that the rest of the film never fully delivers on. The second act is devoted to Mike’s and Max’s constant tweaking of the show they are working on and a fairly tension-less flirtation between the two as they struggle to keep their relationship strictly professional. The final act does bring the story home with plenty of dances in all styles, including an emotional dramatic wet dance from Tatum as a way to express his feelings for Max on stage, but the show ultimately feels a little underwhelming because of the lack of story and abundance of montages that it builds on. It entertains with the performers’ and filmmakers’ technical skills – excellently choreographed and filmed – but never really gives you that oomph that you want from what could have been an emotionally charged romantic third act with a better foundation.

                The great choreography and solid cinematography that we’ve come to expect from the Magic Mike franchise are there in his Last Dance, but it’s definitely missing its lovable side characters and any kind of solid story that could make it a better film. Will it make an audience of middle-aged women happy? Probably so, if my theater from last night is any indication. Is it going to be on anyone’s lists of best films of 2023? I certainly doubt it. It’s currently available in theaters if you want to see Channing Tatum dancing on the big screen; otherwise, I’d suggest waiting until it hits streaming to catch this one.

Weekend Watch - 80 for Brady

                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 80 for Brady, the sports comedy about four elderly Patriots fans trying to get in to watch Super Bowl LI, Tom Brady’s last with the Patriots. The film stars Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda, Sally Field, and Rita Moreno and features cameos from Tom Brady, Guy Fieri, Rob Gronkowski, Billy Porter, and Harry Hamlin. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: C+; realistically, it’s probably worse, but I went in with zero expectations and had a decently entertaining time.

Should you Watch This Film? I’d personally wait for this to hit streaming, but if you’re looking for a simple comedy where everyone looks like they’re having a great time, this is a solid new offering.

Why?

                Look, 80 for Brady is a simple lady friends comedy movie with four incredibly talented actresses carrying the whole thing with pure charisma. The story doesn’t do anything unexpected and often strays into the unbelievable to sell the comedic and emotional beats of the film, but again, I don’t know why you would go into this expecting anything else. I said this to my wife when we left the theater, “Not every movie has to be this big awards-bait new and creative thing. Sometimes we need those familiar comfort films to just have a good time,” and I think 80 for Brady checks that box of familiar comfort movie – something easy to throw on during a lazy Saturday afternoon that you don’t have to pay much attention to and can still get some laughs and feel-good energy going.

                In addition to its four leading ladies, 80 for Brady relies heavily on cameos to keep the audience engaged. Obviously Tom Brady plays a heavy side role, often breaking through his interviews on television to speak directly to Lily Tomlin’s Lou. The now-retired(?) quarterback does a fine job delivering the equivalent of huddle pep talks and does help sell one of the more touching scenes at the end of the film when the ladies actually get to meet him in person. It’s not Kevin Garnett in Uncut Gems, but it’s also definitely not Michael Jordan in Space Jam, so a just fine performance from the superstar. Guy Fieri plays a larger role in the film than I initially expected but still doesn’t have a lot of acting to do – playing himself has its perks, and he serves more as a comedic bit than a true character in the film. It’s funny because it’s Guy Fieri, but it’s nothing to write home about. For whatever reason, Billy Porter is in this film as the halftime choreographer who befriends the four women. Again, his role is more of a cog in the machine that gets the ladies into the big game, but he does the most with it, as he does with most of his roles. It’s fun to see these side characters all having a great time just basically being themselves in the film.

                As for the ladies, what else is there to say other than they had a great time in this film? Each one has a role to play as part of the friend group, and each one plays it with a clear sense that they are here for a good time. Tomlin’s Lou serves as the “quarterback” of the group with probably the most emotionally deep character arc, putting off talking to her doctors about some tests she had done before going to the Super Bowl and having to come to terms with living life in the present, not worrying about the past or future (just like Tom Brady has to do in his comeback against the Atlanta Falcons). Fonda’s Trish is the hot one who never settled down and gets a romantic arc in the film where she has to decide whether she’s willing to give love a try after being burned so many times. Moreno’s Maura is working through grief over losing her husband a year ago but also serves as the primary comic relief of the group after inadvertently taking some drug gummy bears and joining a high-stakes charity poker game – it’s the performance with the widest range but also least depth. Finally, Field’s Betty acts as the group’s “responsible one” who has been married for fifty years, has grandkids, and also happens to be a retired mathematics professor from MIT. Her relationship with her husband serves as the main story arc for the character, culminating in a touching phone call where she finally decides to take some time for herself at the big game.

                Four actresses having a great time as football fans in a film with plenty of celebrity cameos to keep its target audience engaged, 80 for Brady is by no means a perfect or Good film, but it is a good movie that accomplishes what it sets out to do – make you laugh, remind you of the power of friendship, and showcase Tom Brady’s acting “talent”. I’m not going to call this a must-watch film, but as feel-good easy watches go, this one is a nice time with minimal stress for when it hits streaming.

Weekend Watch - M3GAN

                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 Blumhouse’s latest horror cult classic in the making, M3GAN. The film released last weekend to surprisingly great reviews (a 72 Metacritic score and 95% Certified Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes) considering its genre, marketing, and the month of January. The film about an A.I. doll that gains increasing levels of sentience, leading to drastic actions in pursuit of its prime directive of protecting the child Cady, stars Allison Williams, Violet McGraw, Ronny Chieng, and Amie Donald and is now showing in theaters. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: B; it’s definitely not “good” but by embracing its ridiculousness it triumphs, nonetheless.

Should you Watch This Film? Absolutely! It’s a great time, a welcome escape for a quick hour and forty-two minutes with enough heart and story to keep everyone entertained; though you can probably wait for this to hit streaming if you’d rather.

Why?

                Move over, Child’s Play, we’ve got a new scary doll movie that might just be about to make some franchise waves. M3GAN lets you know from the jump exactly what kind of experience this is about to be – irreverent, on-the-nose, and surprisingly tame in terms of its violence. This film has no desire to be in the same club as Get Out or Hereditary or even writer James Wan’s The Conjuring and does a phenomenal job carving out its own niche among the more under-the-radar horror comedies like Happy Death Day or The Cabin in the Woods. In this case, M3GAN’s niche happens to be that of toy horror and its modern evolution out of haunted/possessed dolls into threatening A.I. The film delivers all that you could want from a PG-13 version of this film, with a solid combination of build-up and jump scares, a touching story about family and coming to terms with loss, and so many payoffs you’d swear the writers studied under Chekhov himself.

                As surprising as M3GAN’s success has been, I should also note here that the film is by no means perfect. For January, it might be the closest we’re ever going to get to a perfect wide release, but M3GAN still has its issues. For starters, its PG-13 rating keeps the elements that could have made it a great slasher at a minimum. With no major gore or physical horror to speak of, the film feels a bit muzzled in the horror department. When she finally goes on her rampage, M3GAN only actually kills two characters, neither of which felt overly impactful to the lives of the protagonists. The film’s total body count, including animals and people not killed by the robot, comes to a grand total of seven – not the most violent, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be.

                M3GAN makes up for some of its lack of horror with plenty of (I think intentional) comedy. My theater was laughing out loud noticeably in at least four distinct moments in the film that I can remember, and I found myself and/or my wife chuckling to ourselves in at least ten or twelve others. Ultimately, the film’s embrace of its comedic nature is what has endeared it to audiences and made it one of the most commercially successful January releases in quite some time. A doll singing Sia after it makes a kill, doing a dance as a threat to a potential victim, and running through the woods after a kid on all fours are only a few of the moments that stand out as prime examples (all of which featured in the trailer, so this avoids spoilers) of the filmmakers going full-send on their film’s wild premise. Any film that is so unapologetically itself as M3GAN is deserves recognition and appreciation, and I’m glad to offer it here.

                M3GAN’s ability to embrace its blend of horror, childishness, and fresh takes helps it overcome quite a bit of its shortcomings in the horror department, launching the film on what I anticipate will be a franchise-starting path. It’s currently showing in theaters if you can’t wait to go see it. Otherwise, it’ll probably hit streaming around March, and I definitely recommend giving it a watch.

Weekend Watch - December 2022 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. Since last week was the Year-End Watch, this week, we are looking back at the films that released specifically in the month of December, focusing on the films that have a chance to make it onto this blog’s list of the Greatest Films of All Time. As always with these recaps, the films will be organized into three categories: Sure Things, Possible Things, and Long Shots. December brought a slew of holiday movies, awards bait films, and a few not-so-surprise hit blockbusters to close out the year and tie a nice bow on it all. Let’s get into it.

Long Shots:

Empire of Light: Apparently Sam Mendes’s film starring Olivia Colman, Micheal Ward, and Colin Firth doesn’t do quite enough with its premise of romance at the movies to make it a film worth watching, according to both critics and fans. Its awards chances for Olivia Colman and perhaps for its cinematography leave it here as a long shot.

Bardo: False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths: Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s semi-autobiographical film about a Mexican journalist/filmmaker hit Netflix this month to the tune of critical and fan-based mediocrity. Its length combined with its frenetic pacing and story structure don’t seem to be hitting the notes that his past couple of films (Birdman and The Revenant) were able to, and so it looks like this’ll be left off of the list barring a crazy miracle.

Babylon: Damien Chazelle told audiences exactly what this film was going to be about and still critics and fans are taken aback by the film’s aggressive debauchery. Like Bardo, Babylon suffers from issues of length and overstuffing, and, unfortunately, excellent performances from Margot Robbie, Brad Pitt, and Deigo Calva don’t seem to be doing enough to raise this film to the ranks of its director’s previous three films.

Corsage: This under-the-radar film fictionalizing the year that Empress Elisabeth of Austria turned forty has gotten a lot of love from the few people who have seen it, with plenty of praise specifically for Vicky Krieps’s leading performance. In a lot of ways, this feels like a film that is good but doesn’t quite have enough going to be truly great, but it sounds like it’s worth checking out.

Emancipation: Apple TV+’s film about a runaway slave, starring Will Smith, seems to have run into an unfortunate combination of factors that will most likely keep it from being considered “Great”. Will Smith is unfortunately not an overly marketable face in Hollywood at the moment, and the film industry seems to finally be moving past its desire to see slave films and the brutality of slavery depicted on-screen (trauma porn doesn’t make a film great).

White Noise: Noah Baumbach’s science fiction/comedy/mystery seems to be suffering from the classic “The book was better” criticism, not quite escaping the shadow of its critically acclaimed source material. Adam Driver’s performance looks to be the film’s saving grace and what keeps it as a long shot.

I Wanna Dance with Somebody: The Whitney Houston biopic starring Naomi Ackie has released to okay box office numbers and ratings. Ackie’s performance is phenomenal, but the film does very little innovation to its story or its genre, and as a result, it feels like an even less impactful rehashing of Bohemian Rhapsody. Don’t get me wrong, the film is entertaining and fun and informative, just not overly deep.

Possible Things:

Women Talking: Even though its wider release technically comes this weekend, Sarah Polley’s film about women living in an oppressive religious system started its awards campaign in December. The film was initially a frontrunner in many awards categories and looked to be a legitimate contender for best film of 2022. Now that people are seeing it, that no longer seems to be the case. It missed out on most nominations from both the Critics Choice and Golden Globes and is receiving reviews that are only just above average. We’ll see how it does once more people give it a shot.

Sr.: Netflix’s documentary about the life of Robert Downey, Sr., is another hit for the streaming service who seems to have found a new niche in documentary filmmaking. I don’t know that this translates into any wider love, but my mom really liked it, and it’s receiving generally positive reviews, so it could do something and make its way even higher.

Avatar: The Way of Water: I toyed with putting this as a sure thing, especially with its passing Top Gun: Maverick at the box office last weekend, but its average critic reviews leave it just as a possibility, in need of the awards love that it will no doubt be receiving to make its way solidly onto “the list”.

One Fine Morning: Mia Hansen-Løve started her film’s awards campaign in December as well. Léa Seydoux’s performance is receiving a lot of praise, and the director’s other films have a tendency to flirt with making their way onto the list as well. I’m curious to see just how far One Fine Morning will rise.

The Whale: Once a frontrunner in the best actor categories, Brendan Fraser’s campaign seems to be losing a bit of steam now that people are seeing his film. Its borderline nihilistic take on reconciliation and obesity and the end of life seems to be a bit much for many critics. Fraser’s performance and positive audience reactions are keeping this film as a legitimate contender for now.

The Quiet Girl: A film almost entirely in Irish Gaelic is relatively unheard of up until now, but this film about a foster daughter in Ireland has hit some solid chords with critics and fans. Ireland’s official submission for best international feature film might climb even higher if it plays its cards right.

Puss in Boots: The Last Wish: Perhaps the biggest surprise of the month is this sequel to the Shrek spin-off Puss in Boots. Fans and critics alike are raving about this animated film that now looks to be the biggest contender looking to upset Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio for Best Animated Film this year.

Roald Dahl’s Matilda the Musical: Netflix’s film adaptation of the stage show is a heartwarming hit that also hit meme status on TikTok thanks to some fancy footwork from its young cast. I don’t necessarily expect it to receive any major awards love to elevate it beyond its place here, but it’s received better reviews than the long shots, so it’ll sit here as a possibility.

Sure Things:

Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio: I already did an entire Weekend Watch review of this film but suffice it to say that its combination of horror, wonderment, and stylizations has made it an instant hit with both critics and fans. It looks to be one of the most solid locks, come awards night, to win for Best Animated Film.

Weekend Watch - Avatar: The Way of Water

                Welcome back to the Weekend Watch where each week, we take a look at a new piece of film or television media and give it a rating, review, and recommendation. This week’s topic, as voted by the blog’s Instagram followers, is James Cameron’s latest blockbuster hit, Avatar: The Way of Water, the thirteen-years-removed sequel to the highest grossing film of all time Avatar (2009). This film picks up a little bit more than thirteen years after the original, following main characters Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and his mate (wife) Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) as they once again have to deal with people from Earth infringing upon the natural world of Pandora, this time with the help of their four children who have been born since the last film. Let’s get into it.

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

Weekend Watch - The Fabelmans

                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 Steven Spielberg’s latest offering, the semi-autobiographical The Fabelmans about a young Jewish boy who wants to become a filmmaker and his family. The film released on Wednesday and stars Gabriel LaBelle, Michelle Williams, Paul Dano, Judd Hirsch, Seth Rogen, Mateo Zoryan, and Julia Butters. Let’s get into it.

Letter Grade: A-; Spielberg pays homage to so much greatness in here, but it’s lacking a bit in emotional weight.

Should you Watch This Film? Probably so, this will easily go down as one of the best films of 2022, and there’s plenty in here for all kinds of movie fans. On the big screen it looks great, but I’m sure it’ll be solid at home as well if you really can’t make it.

Why?

                The more I think about The Fabelmans, the more I grow to love it. Spielberg works his semi-autobiography as more of a family study and homage to the power of the camera than as a biopic or an homage to watching films. In that way, it successfully subverted my expectations and left me still thoroughly enjoying myself at the end. Each of its parts on their own is great, and together, they coalesce into something uniquely great as well. From the performances to the references to filmmaking to the little bits of home filmmaking thrown in as well, it all coheres into something worth seeing.

                Paul Dano, Judd Hirsch, Gabriel LaBelle, and Michelle Williams are the acting highlights of The Fabelmans, each doing his or her own part to make the film what it is. Dano’s Burt Fabelman ends up as the sympathetic father figure, condemned to distance from his family by his own technical genius and practical mind. Dano does an admirable job bringing humanity to this character and keeping him redeemable throughout. Judd Hirsch’s ten minutes of screen time as Uncle Boris might be the best part of the entire film. He comes in as this otherworldly figure to mourn the loss of his sister, Sammy’s grandmother, and stays to give Sammy the advice that will shape his future endeavors, noting that his passion for film and his love for his family will tear him apart if he isn’t careful. Relative newcome Gabriel LaBelle plays the teenage version of Sammy in the film and carries the film’s third act, which is more of a high school rom-com than anything else, as we see the character and the actor come into their own by the film’s conclusion. If you’ve been paying any attention to Oscar buzz, you know that Michelle Williams’s performance as Mitzi Fabelman has been a seeming shoe-in for one of the Best Actress nominations, and she more than delivers here. Her portrayal of a mother and woman with passions and flaws and grace and everything else drives the film’s narrative for a good portion, and she bears that weight beautifully.

                In the midst of Spielberg’s family drama, he weaves details of filmmaking like editing machines and camera models and shot framing to remind the audience that this isn’t just a film about his life but also a film about his passion. Through cutaways to family films and self-produced westerns and war movies, Spielberg endears himself and the film to the audience as he so often does, asking them to relate and want more by imparting a bit of his own passion to the audience. If there is to be any gripe with The Fabelmans, it is that, by including these other films and belaboring certain points of discovery and passion, the emotional moments of the film end up feeling very telegraphed and, as such, not overly moving. The rest of the film hits the points it needs to, making the audience love and care for each of the characters and get on board with Spielberg’s love for filmmaking; it’s just the emotional catharsis that never quite finds purchase.

                The Fabelmans is a triumph of a film, showcasing some great acting performances and the director’s passion for filmmaking. Expect to hear its name a lot in the coming months of film awards, as it is deserving of plenty with its star-studded cast and great technical aspects. Its emotional shortcomings are more than overcome with an engrossing story and quality filmmaking across the board.