Suitable Flesh.

Review #2470: Suitable Flesh.

Cast: 

Heather Graham (Dr. Elizabeth Derby), Judah Lewis (Asa Waite), Bruce Davison (Ephraim Waite), Johnathon Schaech (Edward Derby), Barbara Crampton (Dr. Daniella Upton), Graham Skipper (Pathologist), Brett Newton (Professor Fisk), Chris McKenna (Crawley), J. D. Evermore (Detective Ledger), and Ann Mahoney (Susan) Directed by Joe Lynch (#2469 - Mayhem)

Review:

"I think part of it stems from I grew up watching a lot of horror movies -- and again, this is just my kind of cinematic fetish -- I like to be affected by watching something. I don't like to just complacently let something wash over me, whether it's watching Airplane! or Top Secret where you can't help but laugh at the absurdity of everything that's happening on screen, to A Serbian Film, where you can't help but go [cringes] "Ohhhh, ugh, my god." There's something about the kind of films I grew up watching and still watch today that push the limits because I like to be provoked. I like to see where that line is as a viewer and go "Yeah, go ahead, push it over." I want to be challenged. I like cinema that challenges me."

You might remember that Dennis Paoli wrote a handful of films with Stuart Gordon to varying success. Paoli had been friends with Stuart Gordon since high school with a shared interest in films and reading. Naturally this became a fit for Gordon's Re-Animator (1985), which was based on the works of H.P. Lovecraft. Paoli served as a co-writer on From Beyond (1986), another loose adaptation of Lovecraft. Paoli worked on a handful of scripts for movies in the years that followed, such as The Pit and the Pendulum (1991), Body Snatchers (1993) and Dagon (2001). Gordon and Paoli had planned to work together on an adaptation of Lovecraft's The Thing on the Doorstep, but it never got all the way off the ground before Gordon died in 2020. The resulting remembrances of Gordon led to Paoli and Barbara Crampton reconnecting and talking about scripts, as she was now a producer. He brought it over to Crampton, who in turned showed it to Lynch. Lynch had an interesting idea that intrigued Paoli and others: gender-swapping the leads. The film had a limited release in 2023 before getting onto the video/streaming circuit.

Admittedly, I do sometimes check the rating of a film by other folks around the Internet to get a gauge on how people view something because, well, it never hurts to check. For whatever reason, this is apparently one of those "love it or hate it" type of flick, and I guess the viewpoint doesn't help matters, since Lynch wanted to make a movie where the lead character visualizes the movie as if it was a "late night 10 o'clock erotic thriller from the '80s or '90s". If you go in thinking the movie will just be a Gordon pastiche, well, you might not get all you want, particularly with the effects, but I don't really see a problem with that here. This is a body-swapping movie that wants to ask what all the fuss is about in feeling around new things that, proudly or not, would be fit for the "Skinemax" comparison...or an offbeat Freaky Friday with a few camera spins. Honestly, I dug the movie, mostly because there is something to have fun with in the mayhem of body politics with a demon that likes to jump around for the sake of trying new things (and also smoke) at the expense of people's lives. In that sense, Graham and Lewis have a bit of a challenge in making the swap game interesting beyond just doing the "how to prove one isn't who they are" thing. Each approach it in different ways, naturally (a tiny bit of nudity comes from seeing Graham and maybe a tiny bit of kinky nature). A good chunk of it could be considered a "midlife crisis" when it comes to Graham's character, as if writing books and having to hear people prattle on in therapy while being married just can't compare to maybe, just maybe, having a bit on the side. Graham makes this trouble work, I can believe that one could be tempted (and then, well, horrified) by a new presence among the doldrums of life. When it comes to the scenes of swapping, she makes it quite charming to actually see engage with the new self (yes, the demon craves flesh and doesn't really care who it is, which I guess makes it a greedy bastard more than just bisexual). In the torment of what is and what isn't quite there in the body, Lewis makes a worthy performer to display some of the charm and some of the strangeness in trying to adapt around, mainly because the chemistry between him and Graham is more the fact that he is just something new rather than because he's God's gift to talking to women. Admittedly, it is nice to see a few moments with Davison commit to the bit of playing a hungry demon needing a nibble for a time, and Crampton makes a capable presence of going with the growing absurdity of events without being swept away by it. Some might think it a bit hokey with its body swapping and maybe not nearly as gooey as it could be, but I had a fun time with the movie, mostly because I thought it was a pretty amusing movie in seeing the perils of basically a midlife crisis explode in your face. I liked its sleazy nature, right down to its ending and would say that even if it isn't for everybody, it is nice to have a movie as weird as this come around every now and then.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And so ends the 7th rendition of Halloween: The Week After. Nine reviews over the course of those seven days went mostly without a hitch. The horror season will be a fun one in 2026 with all of the runner-ups we had in October/November. We'll see how the rest of the month goes and beyond. 

Some of the movies we missed in the 38 days of horror: 

The Girl Who Knew Too Much (1963), Frankenstein Unbound, Nightmares, Inn of the Damned, The Legacy (1978), The Guardian, Daughters of Darkness, The Uncanny, Torture Garden, The Company of Wolves, A Taste of Blood, Scream Blacula Scream, Monkey Shines, Basket Case, Full Circle (1977), Nightbreed, Innocent Blood, What Lies Beneath, He Knows You're Alone, Schlock (1973), Asylum (1972), The Monster Squad, People Toys, The Brood, The Descent Part 2, Messiah of Evil, The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964)

Quartermass 2, Lust for a Vampire (1971), Captain Kronos – Vampire Hunter, Paranormal Activity, Ring 0, The Funhouse, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, The Evil Dead (2013), Child's Play 3, Critters, Ginger Snaps, Possession (1981), Repulsion, The Omen II, One Missed Call, Van Helsing, Toxic Avenger II, The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Insidious II, Scream 2, Phantasm II, Hellraiser II, Ravenous, and Drag Me to Hell.

Be ready for Halloween: The Week After - Crazy Eights in 2026.

Late Night with the Devil.

Review #2196: Late Night with the Devil.

Cast: 

David Dastmalchian (Jack Delroy), Laura Gordon (Dr. June Ross-Mitchell), Ian Bliss (Carmichael the Conjurer), Fayssal Bazzi (Christou), Ingrid Torelli (Lilly D'Abo), Rhys Auteri (Gus McConnell), Nicole Chapman (Cleo James), Georgina Haig (Madeleine Delroy), Josh Quong Tart (Leo Fiske), and Michael Ironside (the Narrator) Written and Directed by Colin Cairnes and Cameron Cairnes.

Review: 

"In the '70s and '80s, there was something slightly dangerous about late-night TV. Talk shows in particular were a window into some strange adult world. We thought combining that charged, live-to-air atmosphere with the supernatural could make for a uniquely frightening film experience."

Sure, some films just come out of the blue. The Cairnes brothers had worked on a handful of television and film productions (in or around their native Australia), such as 100 Bloody Acres (2012) and Scare Campaign (2016), which had limited releases, but this film came out of the intent of the two to do something that could be self-contained, which eventually sprang with what they saw as "always felt a little bit taboo and dangerous to us as kids" with late-night talk shows of long ago. Filmed in Australia with a varied level of funding that makes this a production of Australia-UAE-USA, Late Night with the Devil was first shown on the festival circuit in early 2023, but some of us are fortunate to get a screening in a theater (IFC Films and Shudder are behind the distribution for the States prior to release in Australia, and, well, by mid-April one could stream it, so you get the idea). There is a mix of effects that range from the practical to digital to the use of AI-generated ones (with the last one: I don't care for AI as anything other than a guiding tool, so go with that in mind). 

By default, one pretty much compares found footage movies to The Blair Witch Project (1999) when it comes to achieving some sort of effect, I suppose. Fortunately, since that movie is massively overrated, clearing the bar of "Blair Witch" is a step in the right direction, and the conceit generated here by this film works out pretty well for gnarly interest for 93 minutes. I think it is more a movie I wished I liked even more than I did, because while it is a pretty good one, there are a few quibbles one can have, whether in its starting conceit or with its finish, which you may or may not see arise pretty quickly. So yes, it involves the pursuit of ratings under the guise of curiosity, and the opening is the only part that doesn't take place around the set of the show, which does look pretty nice in capturing a feeling of a time long past. The performance of Dastmalchian is the key to the whole film to being what it is when it comes to having to play a second-rate host. Apparently, it was an article he wrote in a magazine about regional hosts that got him asked first. He excels here in that clear-cut balance of self-assuring charm that has the layer of something lurking beyond the surface of someone who you can see loves the audience member that only a showbiz person can love when wanting to love them in confines bigger than one could imagine. Late night hosts can feel like one's friend (unless it is someone who sucks, like Jim-), so it is a tightrope to walk in not playing it as just a Johnny Carson pastiche or clear-cut smarm, and he does well to work it out. Bliss is the one who gets to work out the smarm in a spin probably loosely inspired by James Randi, the famed skeptic and former magician that had a handful of appearances dedicated to knocking on alleged paranormal activity (such as fraud Uri Geller, who failed to bend spoons like a fraud on live TV and then failed to successfully sue Randi when he wrote a book calling him a fraud) who also offered a cash prize if someone could prove their powers (no one ever did). His skepticism fuels the film with worthwhile conflict that is is self-aggrandizing in the most delightful of senses, particularly when paired against Gordon and her do-gooder attitude to trying to be validated in a interesting sort of contradictions (as only one can do, with a book tour but totally not willing to go all-out in parading a teenager on television, sure). Auteri plays a quality sidekick to the presentation as it degrades into one certain type of desperation in mind. Torelli plays pretty key to the film as well when it comes to an aura that likes to back in the glow of a camera by staring right into it that fits right in with the movie's presentation of clear-cut terror looming. The ending can be a bit hit or miss depending on one likes to see dread stick the landing when it finally boils to a head. Personally, this might seem odd, but I kind of wish the film ended just a minute or two before it really ends, because one could really have it go completely Twilight Zone and have it end with a great twist involving a man sacrificing the things around him to be #1 only to be trapped in a never-ending illusion. But at any rate, I accept the conclusion when it comes to sealing some entertaining dread in footage form for a movie that is on the level in pretty good execution from everyone involved. It is the kind of indie film that could make a solid recommendation on a late night for one who craves building of dread within comfortable confines.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Iron Claw.

Review #2166: The Iron Claw.

Cast: 

Zac Efron (Kevin Von Erich), Jeremy Allen White (Kerry Von Erich), Harris Dickinson (David Von Erich), Maura Tierney (Doris Von Erich), Stanley Simons (Mike Von Erich), Holt McCallany (Fritz Von Erich), Lily James (Pam Adkisson), and Michael J. Harney (Bill Mercer) Written and Directed by Sean Durkin.

Review: 

“These big wrestlers are in the ring performing acts of extreme emotion—pain, glory, injustice. But then they go back behind the curtain and have to follow these old-school ideas of male toughness—keeping their emotions inside, not talking about mental health, and not dealing with how depressing it is to spend 300 nights a year on the road. That was the real curse. I think the reason Kevin survived and was able to start again was because of his access to his emotions. He speaks so beautifully about his pain and is so unafraid to talk about it." - Sean Durkin, 2023

"I wouldn’t want anyone to feel sorry for me. What am I doing today? I watch Ross play football; my kids call and tell me they love me; my investments do well. I have a good life, and I’m planning on having a lot more. When people say, ‘How do you do it?’ the answer is pretty simple, really. If you don’t have any choice, then it’s easy to deal with. What else are you going to do? Just drop dead and sink into the ground like rain?” - Kevin Von Erich, 2005

Admittedly, film and life can be pretty interesting in those things (big or not as big) that can't quite make it in the telling. For one thing, Fritz Von Erich had the name he played in the ring come two ways: Stu Hart (famed promoter in the business) came up with it to play with the heel gimmick of a Nazi (Fritz, really named Jack Adkisson, had a mother with a maiden name of Erich), which he utilized for a good chunk of the 1950s (before eventually going lighter). This gimmick saw him paired with Walter Sieber, who went by "Waldo Von Erich" and would fight for a variety of years, most notably with the Worldwide Wrestling Federation. Fritz had six sons: Jack Jr, Kevin, David, Kerry, Mike, and Chris, for which three died by suicide and two died suddenly (one from drowning after electrocution and the other by dubious circumstances). Fritz himself died of brain cancer at the age of 68 in 1997, five years after he went through divorce (apparently, before his death, he even put a gun up to his son Kevin). Von Erich and Durkin had an open dialogue about the project, although that did not extend to the script written by Durkin, which excised Chris (who had suffered from asthma as a child that left him at 5'4 and had tried to make it as a wrestler for years before his suicide). I would like to mention that not only did Kerry win the world heavyweight championship in the first held "Von Erich Memorial Parade of Champions", the promotion of having a memorial parade named after the Von Erichs went for five straight years. And yes, Kerry did in fact wrestle after he lost his right foot (while telling little about the prosthetic he wore under a boot in the ring); the details of his trouble with the law, particularly the chance of being sent to jail for violation of probation right before his death, is not addressed in the film nor are his children. While Durkin was nervous about showing the final film to him and telling him about what it would and wouldn't show, Von Erich was fine with it, calling it a vision where "you don't want the film to be about grief". Almost lost in this is Durkin, who spent several years in developing the film, which is his third feature effort. The Canadian lived in both England and America as a youth before studying film at New York University.

Wrestling isn't exactly something I watch or think about on a daily basis, but I do have the occasional memory in childhood of viewing it...because my parents were pretty interested in viewing WWE stuff from time to time (one particular theme sticks out). Of course, before WWE became the big thing among things in wrestling beyond regions, promotions such as World Class Championship Wrestling made their mark, and it surprised me that I did not know about this North Texas mainstay before. That blend of theatricality rolling with physicality has driven crowds for over a century (in fact, there are newspaper articles in multiple decades that show perceptions of people who view it knowing what professional wrestling "really is": they don't care). Technically speaking, watching a film involving professional wrestling is watching actors act as wrestlers who are acting out moves for an audience (where the champs are usually ones that have played themselves to the crowd well enough, such as on the mic that is demonstrated in the film). The result is a fascinating film that far from being about curses is really the tragedy of a family ripped apart from the inside. The irony is in the fact that the sons are so dedicated to the belief by their dad in that if they are the "toughest, strongest, and most successful" that nothing can hurt them, that they end up being the one to end themselves. Wrestling is a tough venture for any one person, but the toil of trying to live up to the image that is presented to the public, particularly in an infused era of mania of the old days (drugs or otherwise) is just as tough. One could argue just how much tragedy one should and could see in a film (one that is a film as opposed to say, Vice's documentary series Dark Side of the Ring). Or wonder about the portrayal of say, Ric Flair, but that is its own can of worms. Efron is the heart of the film because beyond the physicality that is shown from time to time is a sense of a man who really has to learn to grow beyond the predisposed ideas that made him who he was in growing up. Yes, the real Von Erich would wrestle on and off until his final match in 2017, but one detects both the screen and real Von Erich had the courage to go on tĥeir path without being swept in denial. Efron finds the footing best in showing that beneath the pain of theatrics in the ring and the pain outside of it is a man in dignity. It is composed pain that does not ring false in the chemistry required with James (the only main presence beside the Von Erichs, whose best scene may be their date that has her communicate her interest in him to seemingly his surprise) to show that in the end it is not merely enough to just be physically tough because one doesn't have to do it alone. The on-screen chemistry (in the facets that come in wrestling, drug use, etc.) of the siblings in Efron-White-Dickinson is worthwhile in the devotion that is seen between them that makes for such tremendous tragedy when the roots start to wither. Undoubtedly, McCallany and Tierney play the support of a family with the illusion of strong faith with useful tenor of hard-driving hubris (particularly from McCallany). I feel that the film really could have made for an even better miniseries than a film, because the muddling in the timeline (i.e. what happens in biopic a chunk of the time) does make the execution for the end a bit strange; the two sequences to counter each other in brothers being together is certainly a choice to see play out. As a whole, it is a pretty good effort in the ways that matter most, headlined by Efron in particular, that make for a worthwhile modern tragedy of illusions and reality coming to hit one another like wrestlers in the ring.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Takashi Miike's Audition.

The Boy and the Heron.

Review #2156: The Boy and the Heron.

Cast: 

Soma Santoki (Mahito Maki), Masaki Suda (The Grey Heron), Aimyon (Lady Himi), Yoshino Kimura (Natsuko), Takuya Kimura (Shoichi Maki), Shōhei Hino (Granduncle), Ko Shibasaki (Kiriko), Kaoru Kobayashi (Noble Pelican), and Jun Kunimura (The Parakeet King) Written and Directed by Hayao Miyazaki (#1111 - Spirited Away, #1233 - Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, #1480 - Castle in the Sky, #1758 - My Neighbor Totoro, #1934 - Kiki's Delivery Service)

Review: 

“Being the work of a retiree, it’ll have to feel like it had to be made. I insisted no more was needed, after all. I don’t know, but it’ll be something new. A place I’d never been before.”

In 2013, upon the release of The Wind Rises, Hayao Miyazaki had announced that he would retire from feature filmmaking due to his age. The funny thing is this was not even the first time he said this, because he stated his intent to retire after the release of both Princess Mononoke (1997) and Spirited Away (2001). And yet, a man in his seventies retiring seemed ideal to believe. And yet, two years after his third attempt from retiring, he was approached by producer/co-creator of Studio Ghibli Toshio Suzuki) if he wanted to make a short film for exclusive screening at the Ghibli Museum (the result was Boro the Caterpillar in 2018). In 2016, he even brought plans to propose a feature film. The eventual result, done in the course of several years that had no deadlines (from the studio that used eight years to do The Tale of the Princess Kaguya) is this film, which apparently is one of the most expensive films made in Japan. On release there in July 2023, it was released with the name of a 1937 novel called How Do You Live? by Genzaburō Yoshino, which is referenced in the film (incidentally, the English translation of the book only came out in 2021); the film isn't really an adaptation of the book, and yet a good deal of folks went out in search of it online, go figure. One person Miyazaki has cited was the desire to leave something for his grandson. This is the first feature film for Studio Ghibli since Earwig and the Witch (2020), which had been directed by his son Goro (which, well, his father had thought about being behind that film, but instead here we are). This is the kind of film that was released in its native Japan with no usual marketing campaign, save for exactly one poster, as planned by Suzuki. The film was released in July in Japan, but only now in America can see the film in a theater, and for those who specialize in dubs, GKIDS spearheaded the distribution for American release.

So yes, for a good chunk of folks, you have the choice of what type of language to hear in a Ghibli film, and audiences gave it a pretty good first weekend in the States (after already making its round of impressions in Japan). Miyazaki apparently is in the middle of planning to do another film, which would be his 13th, and, well, who knows? The way to understanding the film is to see it as one where living for others is that key step in life, as opposed to just being adrift as oneself. It is a gradually paced film of 124 minutes that rewards those interested in a tale of self-discovery and absorbing animation. Ranking it among Miyazaki's previous eleven films would be a tight task for anyone, but I would say it would rank favorably among the ones I have actually seen, which is "pretty good". Wrapped in a deluge of wonderous animation and a winding road of growth within truths and lies is a film that ponders mortality and choices with seemingly semiautobiographical manners from Miyazaki (well, his mother did not die in the Pacific War, but spending eight years in treatment for spinal tuberculosis certainly does have an effect on oneself). Santoki carries this with the worthy journey required in someone that has to forge their own path with choices that have the facets of compelling drama. The struggle is transcendent while mattering more than just being familiar for the sake of it. Suda provides that spark of wily creature of mischief that is more than just the image one sees. The rest of the actors do well in the lines of making the line between fact and fiction work with general amusement and investment that goes beyond just having varying sizes of creatures (such as parakeets). The drama is in the decision to make more than anything. It is evident to see where the craft can go with dedication of time in terms of visual wonder, that much is certain. In short: the film (like Miyazaki) accepts the mortality that comes with deciding to make a place for themselves as grown people and sets forth to make something out of such things with a ready glance that isn't forced. Whenever one watches it, they will have found a pleasant experience yet again from Miyazaki in terms of engaging animation and boisterous storytelling for both youth and adult alike in ways that shouldn't be a surprise from the old master, and one should savor getting to see his particular vision on screen as long as one can.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Silent Night (2023).

Review #2155: Silent Night (2023).

Cast: 

Joel Kinnaman (Brian Godlock), Scott Mescudi (Detective Dennis Vassel), Harold Torres (Playa), and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Saya Godlock) Directed by John Woo (#030 - Face/Off, #336 - Broken Arrow (1996), #1100 - Mission: Impossible 2, #1855 - Hard Target, #1875 - A Better Tomorrow)

Review: 

"The biggest difference for me now is that the action should be realistic. It should serve the drama. In the past, my action was pretty much supposed to be entertaining. Silent Night’s action looks more realistic and more powerful, and it gives the audience more of a feeling instead of just being entertaining.”

Curiosity matters sometimes. What we have here is a film composed of just background noise. The director? Oh, just John Woo, who had last directed an American feature film with Paycheck (2003). Of course, he had never stopped making films when moving past his sixties and seventies, he just branched out back to his roots when it came to not one but two Chinese-Hong Kong two-part films (that, and he stated that he no longer was being offered quality scripts). The script for this film was done by Robert Archer Lynn, who had a few scripts to his credit such as, well, Already Dead (2007). Woo expressed his excitement at the script for what it could bring in terms of challenge as an experiment that he could "feel the freedom" for. As you probably guessed, one of the production companies for the film was Thunder Road Films, which happened to be one of the spearheading forces behind the John Wick series (a sign of the influence Woo had on filmmakers today). 

Cynically, one could wonder how an action movie plays out differently to those who watch with as little distraction as possible as opposed to those who are a bit looser with attention. But in general, the conclusion I come to at the end of the 104-minute runtime is that it all is just fine. It isn't great or terrible, it just is...fine. In a sea of action films that are either ready for DVD viewing or on demand that do their share of budget filmmaking, one will find a lean feature here that lives and dies and just how much one appreciates the curiosity of watching a movie that goes through the general motions of a revenge flick without dialogue to chatter away with. If you like a film that goes through the basics with likeable enough people behind it, this is the one for you. Kinnaman does well enough with the material required in terms of building worthy interest in seeing where the descent of voiceless torment goes when believing that the only way to dig out of that pit is to set forth on a singular-minded goal of oblivion. His intensity in the eyes is what matters most, and he makes that grief one to endure to the very end in meaningful tension. Granted, it may not take much to really care about a revenge thriller with a specific type of lean/mean tick of action, but he fits the bill without playing to just the minimum. The others, well, can only go so far. Think of the movie more as an experiment rather than a strait-laced quiet film, because it can only go so far with people simply deciding to not speak once before one just goes "sure". The film is so devoted to its goal of no-talk, DIY-action that it can only work to those who really invest in what a film composed of chatter can do. Action films with little dialogue aren't that new (I mean, you could just cite The Three Musketeers [1921]), but the general execution of it here works in that bleak sense of the word when it comes to the beat going on when it goes into gear. People live and die but things move on. It didn't need to be a detailed action film when it comes to theatrics, and Woo knows that. Action movies come and go, with this one being just fine in its execution that is more curious than gimmick in the nicest way possible. It can't rank as one of Woo's best films but giving it a whirl to pay attention to in the endgame is not a bad idea one could have for the time of season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Godzilla Minus One.

Review #2154: Godzilla Minus One.

Cast: 

Ryunosuke Kamiki (Kōichi Shikishima), Minami Hamabe (Noriko Ōishi), Yuki Yamada (Shirō Mizushima), Munetaka Aoki (Sōsaku Tachibana), Hidetaka Yoshioka (Kenji Noda), Sakura Ando (Sumiko Ōta), Kuranosuke Sasaki (Yōji Akitsu), Mio Tanaka (Tatsuo Hotta), and Yuya Endo (Tadayuki Saitō) Written and Directed by Takashi Yamazaki.

Review: 

"I love the original Godzilla, and I felt I should stay true to that spirit, addressing the issues of war and nuclear weapons."

Admittedly, I have been a bit slow in covering Godzilla films, because really, I feel like I should've done better than seeing just the first eight films in eleven years (oh sure, the American ones got their due, but whatever - there are 33 Toho Godzilla films and four-going-on-five American ones!). I vaguely remember hearing about Shin Godzilla (2016), but, well, what are the odds that it actually got a release where I live (read: small town - it should be mentioned that the 2016 film was the first of those films to have a North American release since Godzilla 2000)? Fate does lend a hand sometimes, and when I heard that this film (released in Japan in November) was getting a release with subtitles, hell yes I was up for seeing this. This is the first live-action Godzilla film released by Toho since the aforementioned 2016 film, which is because the studio could not produce one until at least 2020 due a contract they did with Legendary Pictures (of course, Polygon Pictures and Toho Animation did serve as production companies on an anime trilogy: Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters (2017), Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle (2018), and Godzilla: The Planet Eater [2018]). Takashi Yamazaki directed films when he was a youth (as influenced by viewing features such as 1977's Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind) and he worked in visual effects for a number of years before becoming a feature director with Juvenile (2000); he had included a CGI cameo of Godzilla in a brief sequence in his 2007 film Always: Sunset of Third Street 2 along with one for an amusement park ride. Yamazaki has stated that the original film (as done by Ishiro Honda) and Shusuke Kaneko's Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (2001) served as influences on his film, among a few non-Godzilla ones to go with seeing the anxiety and unreliability that came with the COVID pandemic. Yamazaki and Kiyoko Shibuya were involved in the creation of the visual effects (as handled by Shirogumi) for a film with a reported budget of $15 million.

What better way to serve as a "70th Anniversary" film than to make a period piece Godzilla film Making a replica of Kyushu J7W Shinden and doing a film that looks for the idea of life even in the hands of despair and fear makes this probably the best Godzilla film in a number of years. It isn't too often you see Godzilla stand alone in a monster mash, and yet here we are with a particularly involving 125-minute film that shows one thing above all: you really can't beat the theater when it comes to experiencing film in the best way possible for life. People coming together really does make for a compelling adventure. The terror of the bomb of the original film still rings for a coherent film that seems as relevant as ever, with this one citing the two nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll in 1946 (Operation Crossroads - one of the tests was described as the "world's first nuclear disaster") when it comes to mutations; of course, one also sees a bit of effects fudging to depict why America would not be involved in any dealing with Godzilla once spotted near Japan, so there's something to consider (or just how one considers governments in general). Kamiki is here to carry the emotional weight of survivor guilt that makes for quite the experience when it comes to the nature of what really matters to those who sees the eyes of death and live with the pain of telling the tale. He rings true in the pain of being in a spot among others that struggles with the fact that he is even there at all no matter how many things can go favorably for them (in this case, anyway). One doesn't always remember the lead performer for a Godzilla film, but he makes a good case for it here. The rest of the cast handle it just as well in that endearing sense of soul and general interest, which mainly involves competency on the level one hopes for in a period piece, whether that is the patient Hamabe or a boisterous crew in Yoshioka and company that keep things afloat even when one sees the inevitable coming in the force of nature. The filmmakers set out to make Godzilla look "deadliest in history", and I think they did a pretty good job in that regard when it comes to the sheer scope of annihilation in certain sequences, such as its appearance in Ginza. In general, the film doesn't ring a false note in its period trappings or in its effects sequences, and it does earn those certain music cues when it matters most. I appreciate the film best because I got to see it in a theater with the full experience of hearing and viewing the scope of the film with the best of intentions that earns its moments for quality and involving entertainment. Who knows where it stands among the Godzilla films as a whole (the original is a hard one to beat for sheer originality), but Godzilla Minus One has a solid case for all to recommend as something to watch in the best state possible.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Thanksgiving (2023).

Review #2152: Thanksgiving.

Cast: 

Patrick Dempsey (Sheriff Eric Newlon), Nell Verlaque (Jessica), Addison Rae (Gabby), Jalen Thomas Brooks (Bobby), Milo Manheim (Ryan), Rick Hoffman (Thomas Wright), Gina Gershon (Amanda Collins), Tomaso Sanelli (Evan), Gabriel Davenport (Scuba), Jenna Warren (Yulia), Karen Cliche (Kathleen), and Jeff Teravainen (Deputy Bret Labelle) Directed by Eli Roth (#2117 - Cabin Fever)

Review: 

"We said, 'Let's pretend Thanksgiving was a movie from 1980 that was so offensive that every print was destroyed. All the scripts were burned. The director disappeared. The crew members changed their names. One person saved the trailer and uploaded it to the darkest corners of 4chan, and now it's made it out. So this is a 2023 reboot.' Once we said that, it freed us up."

Remember Grindhouse? That was the double feature extravaganza (Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof) that had a handful of "fake trailers" that were shown before each film. These included the following: Machete (done by Rodriguez), Werewolf Women of the SS (done by Rob Zombie), Don't (done by Edgar Wright), Thanksgiving (done by Eli Roth), and for a good chunk of Canadians, Hobo with a Shotgun (as directed by Jason Eisener). The trailer for Roth's creation showed a setting of Plymouth, Massachusetts with a turkey mascot that gets his head cut off by a guy dressed up as a pilgrim to go with a stunt of a cheerleader being on a trampoline before being cut by a knife. Funny enough, this is now the third of those five "fake trailers" to lead to its own film adaptation, compete with Roth as director here for an R-rated film released in November. Roth and Jeff Rendell (who had played the Pilgrim in the trailer) were huge slasher fans and had wanted to do something involving Thanksgiving and Massachusetts. Of course, the 2007 trailer was the best avenue for shooting just the "best parts" when it came to nudity or gore, but the film is its own thing. Now you have a film where the killer wears the mask of John Carver, who actually was a pioneer involved with the Mayflower voyage in 1620 which resulted in the creation of Plymouth Colony in America. Never let me say I don't try to deliver some sort of interesting notes to look further into on Movie Night.

I enjoyed the film pretty well. It has over-the-top gore and an evident appreciation for the slasher films of the past that would be just fun to put on the holidays just in the same way one might watch New Year's Evil (1980). Sure, there are a handful of previous Thanksgiving slasher films in Home Sweet Home (1981), Blood Rage (1987), and even ThanksKilling (2009), but it is nice to have one that leans in with no hesitation in mayhem here. Some of the stuff for the trailer is done here for the film to go with a handful of other death sequences that might inspire a chuckle. You have a killer that sees a cat after committing the deed that decides the cat must be fed cat food before the scene ends. The film opens where else but a supermarket on Black Friday, because that is how you make an interesting setup: show people at their exaggerated weirdness. Technically, I can't say I've had a Black Friday shopping experience on any of those levels (waiting early to buy things is boring), but I appreciate the time taken to set up mayhem and motivation for whoever may decide revenge is necessary afterwards. Verlaque makes a solid lead to follow in the midst of a group of general one-type people that, well, are set up for you know what. At least they are amusing in the setup to get them in chaos, such as the livestreaming jock in Sanelli or the totally mysterious Brooks that makes for probably the most middle of triangles with Verlaque and Manheim. As long as you make the folks who you know are going to get it seem ripe enough for doom, you've got something neat on the hands. This includes a very large oven and a target practically set up for splatter. Dempsey and Hoffman make quality support among the adults at play in trying to figure out what makes the most sense in dealing with a man in a mask that only speaks near the end and likes public shaming. The eventual reveal at least doesn't stretch credibility when it comes to motivations or eventual outcomes, even with a bit of second -guessing thrown in there. I think I could have done with the final shot of the film, really. You could argue that hey, would-be bait/mess-with-the-audience ideas is fine if you like the film, but sometimes one really should let things lie. Regardless, I enjoyed the mayhem executed by Roth and company for a mostly interesting time spent with slasher tropes that doesn't test one's patience or leave one malnourished for what you would hope from a horror film in theatrical release. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Killers of the Flower Moon.

Review #2142: Killers of the Flower Moon.

Cast: 

Leonardo DiCaprio (Ernest Burkhart), Robert De Niro (William King Hale), Lily Gladstone (Mollie Kyle), Jesse Plemons (Thomas Bruce White Sr), Tantoo Cardinal (Lizzie Q), John Lithgow (Prosecutor Peter Leaward), Brendan Fraser (W. S. Hamilton), Cara Jade Myers (Anna Brown), JaNae Collins (Reta), Jillian Dion (Minnie), Jason Isbell (Bill Smith), William Belleau (Henry Roan), Louis Cancelmi (Kelsie Morrison), Scott Shepherd (Byron Burkhart), Everett Waller (Paul Red Eagle), Talee Redcorn (Non-Hon-Zhin-Ga / Traditional Leader), Yancey Red Corn (Chief Bonnicastle), Tatanka Means (John Wren), Tommy Schultz (Blackie Thompson), Sturgill Simpson (Henry Grammer), and Ty Mitchell (John Ramsey) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed, #1559 - Hugo, and #1567 - The Wolf of Wall Street)

Review: 

“As far as taking risks at this age, what else can I do? No, let’s go do something comfortable.’ Are you kidding?”

The Native American and the white man in particular, did not have the greatest of relations in the early years of the United States, particularly in the 19th century. At any rate, by the dawn of the 20th century, the Osage Nation was undergoing significant change. The Burke Act in 1906 tried to assess the competency of Native Americans (as a person), while the Oklahoma and Indian Territories merged in 1907 when they were admitted into the Union. By this time, the Osage had found oil on their land. Long story short, there were headrights assigned to the people of the tribe when it came to royalties for oil, which would change their lives in ways that could never be reversed (which is depicted in the opening of the film with a ceremony cutting right to oil). There were guardians assigned to the tribe to "manage" the rights for decades (incidentally, when the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was signed, President Calvin Coolidge was photographed with four members of the Osage). By the time legislation was done to ensure that non-Osage could not inherit the headrights, a string of murders later called "The Reign of Terror" was already in motion for people such as the Bureau of Investigation (later named the FBI) to eventually break into. The murders had a wide effect for the people that saw it and others around. Fred Grove (a part-Osage) was a child when he heard the bombing murders and became a novelist. Tragedies of the Osage Hills (1926) was a dramatization done by James Young Deer (a man with Nanticoke ancestry), although it is now lost. The FBI Story (1959) dramatized the crime investigation The movie shows a handful of the murders, but it is estimated that over 60 people may have been murder as a part of these murders, with one of the ringleaders being William King Hale. In 2017, the nonfiction novel Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI as written by David Grann, was published, and the attention was so present that Imperative Entertainment paid $5 million to the film rights the year before the film was released. The original intent for the film apparently was focusing mostly on the investigation (where DiCaprio would star as Thomas Bruce White). However, this was shifted to a focus instead onto Ernest Burkhart and his wife Mollie Kyle as Scorsese stated that since the audience knows the film is really a "who-didn't-do-it" rather than a whodunit. Osage Nation chief Geoffrey Standing Bear served as a consultant on the film; Scorsese wrote the film with Eric Roth

Leave it to me to give credit to Apple TV+ for helping to fund the film (Paramount Pictures became distributor rather than just the whole funding studio when fears arose about the budget rising to $200 million). Well, anybody that lets a film that runs for over three hours a proper release in cinemas deserves worthwhile attention, so imagine releasing one that is really good. Scorsese is one of our most enduring directors alive today when it comes to storytelling that has the scope and range to back up everything that comes and goes with this film. It is a lament for the dead that seems now more than ever important to remember when it comes to the lessons that one can find within the dangers that come in greed and power. The pace never seems to loom on one's interest because of just how much there is to show within this town in terms of hypocrisy. People are killed or set up to be killed in ways that make one recoil in the sheer audacity. There are so many actors present that pop in and out that can't even be mentioned due to space (such as Barry Corbin, playing a gloomy undertaker, or Fraser using those moments of screentime for appropriate bluster opposite Lithgow), much in the same way that one can't mention every nook and cranny when it comes to the history aspects (the book notes the rumor that William Hale was the father of the unborn child that was being carried by Anna Brown before she was murdered). This is quite a worthy trio to hold it all together when it comes to just how much greed and language can touch upon people's lives (consider that De Niro's character speaks to the Osage in their language and yet it never is translated). The dynamic of DiCaprio and Gladstone is especially important to gaze upon when it comes to viewing just what looks like deception and looks like an actual sense of love. DiCaprio sells the game well when it comes to playing the part of puppet and puppeteer that makes for such a grand act of pathetic measures of men. Admittedly, it might seem odd that Hale, a person who was in his late forties when the murders were being done, is being played by De Niro (in his late seventies), but he proves a skillful performance in conniving sociopathy, one who never looks to show any remorse for what they reap and see from their actions. Amidst all of the tragedy, the one most visible is with Gladstone because of the decay that becomes apparent the longer the proceedings go on that she handles with tenacity. That last scene with her and DiCaprio is a worthy one to close their story out with all one needs to know when it comes to truths and lies. The way that the film ends is particularly well done because it goes twofold with how the last words go with the last image of Osage celebrating their culture in a large tribal dance with just what has endured from those dark days. People live, people die, but the culture endures. As a film, it is a great tragedy that will surely prove enduring when looking upon the many worthy films that Scorsese has made as a filmmaker in over a half-century. This lesson of greedy horror in a time that does not strike as too different from now is handled with effective execution and stature that could only be viewed best with dedicated patience and curiosity through and through.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Saw X.

Review #2100: Saw X.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young,, Synnøve Macody Lund (Cecilia Pederson), Steven Brand (Parker Sears), Renata Vaca (Gabriela), Joshua Okamoto (Diego), Octavio Hinojosa (Mateo), Paulette Hernández (Valentina), and Jorge Briseño (Carlos) Directed by Kevin Gretuert.

Review: 

Admittedly, I was wondering if it sounded weird to do the tenth installment of a franchise before watching even half of the series. But Saw (2004) was a decent film, so I assumed it would go just fine to roll right into Saw X without thinking about the fact that the premise for the film was the one rejected in favor of Lionsgate going forward with Spiral (2021), the one with Chris Rock as star and no Tobin Bell. Incidentally, Kevin Greutert, who had edited a number of the previous films and directed Saw VI (2009) and Saw 3D (2010), serves as director for this film, which is set between the original film and Saw II (2005). The script was written by Peter Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg, who had written for both Jigsaw (2017) and Spiral. It was apparently done with as many practical effects as possible, which is something to highlight when one is actually taking the time to film in a location that they are actually setting the film in (this case being Mexico). The two returning actors from previous installments may be a bit older, but it does not take long to get used to them being back here with a film set between films released nearly 20 years ago. The original film, as you probably know, involved the investigation of a series of people that had to deal with certain traps that had the shape of a puzzle piece cut into the ones that failed said test. 

This time around, one is following Bell for the entirety of the film that basically sees him as a protagonist of the most basic sort: ones who don't care for others taking advantage of the most desperate. Don't get me wrong, the film is quite gnarly in horror for those who like to keep their fingers close by to wrap in fear, but it is a capable film because it has the most interest in setting a purpose beyond gory traps. It maintains a steady pace of 118 minutes that makes an engaging buildup of the con game that makes the inevitable discovery all the more involving for a decent effort. The pain inflicted by the character upon these flawed individuals makes for frightening horror if only because one doesn't really want to think about they would do in that scenario or in the other scary scenario of being bilked by a false hero of hope. For some, hope is all a person has, so imagine seeing that taken away. It lends Bell his best chance to give the character a sense of purpose and integrity that basically swings on down to what might be the most intriguing sequel of the series in years. He obviously is relishing the chance provided here to extoll what it means to be a man with nothing to lose and all the time to set rules for others to play (granted the puppet is a bit much). It may be a personal revenge story, but it is an involving revenge story. Smith is the only other returning actor from the series (okay, maybe not only...) to appear here, and she does well in well-intentioned interest to follow in the footsteps of Bell in dictating in the art of rules and order. Lund makes a quality adversarial presence against Bell, the kind of person with conniving spirit that would use intestines as a rope when the opportunity presents itself. The stakes may be a bit different because of where it sets itself, but the viewer still cares about the process of people trying to figure out what it means to be wrapped in a situation of sacrifice. The buildup to the ending (complete with flashing back to scenes we just saw a couple of minutes ago to hammer a point home) is about as ridiculously elaborate as one probably expects from the series. It is squeamish, but it is the kind of thing that followers of the series will be right at home with while proving just fine for those less familiar, and I think that makes for a suitable choice in the horror season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Exorcist III.

The Exorcist: Believer.

Review #2099: The Exorcist: Believer.

Cast: 

Leslie Odom Jr (Victor Fielding), Ann Dowd (Ann), Jennifer Nettles (Miranda), Norbert Leo Butz (Tony), Lidya Jewett (Angela Fielding), Olivia Marcum (Katherine), Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Okwui Okpokwasili (Dr. Beehibe), Raphael Sbarge (Don Revans), and Danny McCarthy (Stuart) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018), #1752 - Halloween Kills, and #1906 - Halloween Ends)

Review: 

In the beginning was The Exorcist (1973), and the directorial word was with William Friedkin and the written word was William Peter Blatty. As you probably already know, the novel came about because of a story that Blatty heard about a teenager that had suffered possession from the Devil before undergoing an exorcism. To put it mildly, it was one hell of a good time in atmospheric quality that was made by a craftsman with striking belief in what they were doing when it came to suspense and the "mystery of faith, the mystery of goodness, that mystery which is inexplicable, but it's there." For better or worse, no other film with the Exorcist label has come even close to following it as a sequel or even a prequel. The 1977 sequel was made by someone who vehemently rejected doing the original, while Blatty's 1990 feature was meddled by executives for the ending. Exorcist: The Beginning (2004) and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) is a tale for another time to pick apart. Anyway. One wonders if you thought this was going to be a good film even with hearing that it would apparently be the first of three new Exorcist films. I believed that there was a flicker of hope, because Green did manage to make one successful Halloween film that seemed like the best of the shovel-load of the previous sequels. Of course, he made two inferior films immediately after (Ends was so frustrating that I wrote two thousand words about it), but I had my hope for even the most basic average quality. In theory, a new Exorcist film could have opened the door for trying to blow the doors off all of those other films about exorcisms and possessions that have followed in the wake of the original. Maybe there was something useful to say as the 50th anniversary of the original film was this year, even with the passing of William Friedkin. The screenplay was done by Peter Sattler and David Gordon Green, while the story was done by Scott Teems, Danny McBride, and David Gordon Green.

Congratulations, we have the worst Exorcist sequel since Exorcist II: The Heretic. I would say that Gordon Green should be ashamed of himself for making such a mediocre movie, but I am not sure if he actually would have shame at the idea of making yet another hack sequel to a horror franchise. One detects the belief of trying to play both tribute and one-upper when it comes to Believer, which goes from mildly bland in its first half to a climax that is somehow less scary than a homeless man talking to you about Christ while smelling of alcohol. Friedkin never saw the sequels, but I think his statement about them proves doubly correct here, what Believer does in its "attempt to do is to defrock the story and to send the thing up.” When it comes to acting, it reminds of a bland family drama. It mildly involves the viewer, because the initial setup (after a snoozer prologue) is two children that wind up going missing before turning up with burns on the feet and a strange affliction. There is no sense of tension with these actors, even with Odom trying his best to deliver a performance of someone of challenged faith. You might wonder where Burstyn comes in to play as the one returning actor from the original (well, not the only one...), and oh look, a main character of a previous film being found to have written a book on their previous experience, haven't seen that before. I imagine the paycheck was great for such a shallow role that lasts all of a couple of minutes, because it surely proves that even Academy Award winning actresses can flail in films that don't give them a useful role just like everyone else (such as say, Linda Blair from the second one). It is amusing that the film does fine with its effects but finds nothing when it comes to sacrifice or suspense. Why should we care about what happens in this film with these people when it doesn't have the fortitude to do anything to challenge the perception that this is just a worthless retread? One would have better ethical dilemmas when debating whether to donate $1 or $5 to their receipt than what they see here. Unlike the do-gooders that bloated words about the 1973 film having an R rating rather than an X rating, there won't be a soul here that even care that this is R-rated, because the teens and adults have seen better.

You might wonder why I feel a 5 is necessary for this film. Well, I wanted to be fair and take a nap before debating the merits of calling it either "not quite good enough in mediocrity" or "not even mediocre enough to maybe recommend". Every compliment I could give the film seems like a back-handed one when thinking back to other better films one could watch in 2023 or in their archives. So what if the film looks decent to view? So what if the actors don't detract the quality in acting? So what, so what, so what, this film is crap. At least crap like Blood of Dracula (1957) have the excuse of rushing through production to entertain audiences as their reason to be fast and cheap, but this is a multi-million-dollar budgeted film that serves as yet another violation of not understanding why the original film was as powerful and entertaining as it was. The original was made by a believer that knew how serious it was to treat its story with dignity to go with useful effects that managed to even make a medical procedure seem frightening to view. This film is made by people who should know better but only seem to make a case for people like me to call them hacks, pure and simple. I cannot imagine seeing another one of these in the theater, but heaven (or hell) knows horror films are always ripe for surprise. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Oh look, a 2023 horror film that doesn't suck: Saw X.

The Creator (2023).

Review #2092: The Creator.

Cast: 

John David Washington (Joshua), Madeleine Yuna Voyles (Alpha-Omega "Alphie"), Gemma Chan (Maya Fey), Ken Watanabe (Harun), Sturgill Simpson (Drew), Allison Janney (Colonel Howell), Ralph Ineson (General Andrews), Marc Menchaca (General McBride), and Veronica Ngo (Kami) Directed by Gareth Edwards (#582 - Godzilla (2014) and #888 - Rogue One)

Review: 

I had to remind myself that Gareth Edwards had not been behind a film for the past seven years (Rogue One was indeed released in 2016). Granted, the director isn't the biggest focus of any film discussion point (particularly for sci-fi), but it did lend a hand in checking out a film to close out the decidedly-non spooky month of September out (you might think, hey, it's got this person in the cast, but I find that only works for older films). Contrary to the usual big-budget gorgonzola films, there is actually an attempt here to make a sci-fi film with a semblance of design work to it. As stated by Edwards, the crew shot the film in a wide variety of locations that resembled certain images that they wanted before the editing process would see these frames painted, effectively doing a runaround on expectations of green screen or extensive spending (as opposed to spending) before the effects would be headlined by Industrial Light & Magic. What better year to release a film that happens to talk about AI than 2023, one supposes. Edwards has cited various films as inspiration for his film (which he co-wrote with Chris Weitz) such as Apocalypse Now (1979), Baraka (1992), Blade Runner (1982), Akira (1988), Rain Man (1988), The Hit (1984), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) and Paper Moon (1973); this is the fourth feature film by Edwards.

It may seem a familiar film, and perhaps it may have a view that you can see arising before the end of its 133-minute runtime, but I enjoyed what I saw and felt from the film, and that is essentially what one is hoping to see from a sci-fi film that is obviously crafted with the audience in mind. I wouldn't exactly call it a pro-AI film, because really the heart of the film is one of redemption. Yes, it does push at times for the idea of making a real attempt at co-existence, but really the only way to create a new phase of living is to break apart the old system (this does not involve talky sequence, of course, but I'm sure you can read what that means). That might as well make it a modern-day parable, one that examines the moral quandaries that exist within the similarities that really do seem to lie within humans and the AI that they had crafted, particularly when it comes to crafting a living in the hardest of times. The grip of the military-industrial complex cannot have their boot firmly in place on the oppressed when they find a way to dig out (oh sure, painting humanity in a weird light seems odd, but, well, have you seen the dregs of humanity at times?). With that in mind, the scope of the film works best within its effects. I love the look of Nomad, spaceship that is the focus for the climax that resembles a bird of prey with those particular features in its looming nature. It is the kind of future you make for useful scare in one's mind when it comes to the human element and what really is real. Washington proves a useful lead presence in that search for humanity on the road that makes for quality desperation once the passiveness is shed away. This works with Voyles for a suitable pairing, one that shows the bounds of what it means to be around someone beyond crafting a name and feeling to one that did not have it before. The rest do fine but are mostly just players being moved around the board in the senses of interaction, which is mostly consisted of mercenaries on either side. The action sequences are pretty entertaining, mostly because it doesn't come off as sludge to accompany green screen sludge but instead manages to seem like a blockbuster made in a better time that actually seems to care about creating something interesting even if at times it nearly reaches the plodding-off point at times. The film closes itself with a feeling of peace that does not feel the need to bait for further blockbuster spelunking, which is totally fine with me, because sometimes a good feature really can just end right where it is and leave it up to the viewer more than looking up a screen. There are worse ways to spend time with a film that builds a world more than a big story when you can have the imagination to let it ride.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Looking to the past in order to set the future for October. You'll see. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.

Review #2083: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem.

Cast: 

Micah Abbey (Donatello), Shamon Brown Jr (Michelangelo), Nicolas Cantu (Leonardo), Brady Noon (Raphael), Ayo Edebiri (April O'Neil), Jackie Chan (Splinter), Ice Cube (Superfly), Maya Rudolph (Cynthia Utrom), John Cena (Rocksteady), Seth Rogen (Bebop), Rose Byrne (Leatherhead), Natasia Demetriou (Wingnut), Giancarlo Esposito (Baxter Stockman), and Paul Rudd (Mondo Gecko) Directed by Jeff Rowe and Kyler Spears.

Review: 

“The first tentpole we planted in the ground was authenticity. We wanted it to be a real coming-of-age teenage movie. Past versions of the Turtles have been muscular and ripped, and few teenagers are as jacked as many of the Ninja Turtles have been. They need to look like real teens. Lanky. Awkward. Maybe not comfortable in their bodies yet.”

Admittedly, my familiarity with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is pretty limited in the art of actually watching it. I vaguely remember viewing the two first live-action films in 2011 and 2013 and that is essentially it. As you may already know, it all started as a comic created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird in 1983 with the original idea of doing a one-off parody of comics of the time, which happened to involve teenage mutants, animals that talk, and, well, ninjas; they self-published the comic, to shocking success. There have been a handful of television shows (yes, one for pretty much each decade of adolescent) and now seven feature films. Interestingly enough, this is only the second animated film, with the only other one being TMNT (2007), which also featured a handful of name actors in supporting roles...but this is the first one of any of these to feature a primary cast of teenage actors for the lead four characters. The film had five credited writers: Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, Jeff Rowe, Dan Hernandez, and Benji Samit (of note is that while each did the screenplay, the latter of the five was not responsible for the story); it is Rowe who has noted that the script required a good deal of re-working when it came to the structure of the main characters being in high school at a certain point. You may or may not recognize Rowe as the co-director behind The Mitchells vs. the Machines (2021), having previously done work on Gravity Falls and Disenchantment; as for Spears, this is his feature directorial debut. The inspiration for the film was multi-layered, with the evident one being to find their "North Star comic book look" (as described about what made Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) so successful), which led to plenty of inspiration from sketches that one would make as a teen that led to a result involving fiddling with the frame rate and other ideas that were meant to look like it was done on purpose. 

Perhaps there is no better reference material to show clips of Internet videos about martial arts training to go alongside clips of Jackie Chan kung fu films. Admittedly, coming-of-age stories are a dime a dozen, but it never hurts to have one that tries to cut a message involving acceptance that makes for a solid film for those who know exactly what to look for within entertaining animation and a few decent jokes and action sequences. I appreciate the heart the film has, one that manages to show an interesting quartet of youths that will likely please people already quite familiar with turtles in a half shell while also seeming interesting enough for those less familiar (ones who aren't "green with envy", you might say). The credit for the film can go to the filmmakers first or second, but the fact that the leads (Abbey-Brown-Cantu-Noon) make fun with improv and charm as raw youths (who want to be high schoolers, go figure) that makes me chortle rather than bristle, but I suppose one has their own varying milage when it comes to cliche patience. Besides, they make a good grouping with Chan, who basically reflects with Cube when it comes to the presentation of "our makeshift family vs. the world", and on that note, Cube makes a solid threat in hardened scorn that isn't just a goofy threat (well, Superfly is only a name). The rest of the cast is generally fine in not being just a noted goofy voice, as noted by folks such as Edebiri that keep the film on the level (for all I ragged Rogen on for The Super Mario Bros Movie, he is fine here). The action is done with clear energy that doesn't lose itself in murky staging, and the city landscape sure does look pretty well here, particularly when it comes to the final fight with its big freaky monster (involving horses). 100 minutes is a desirable length to spend with a serviceably executed film that plays it well with maintaining something to care about in youthful folks to go in a familiar story that is high energy silly fun. It's the kind of thing to switch on for those looking for a bit of mayhem with neat animation that will make ideas of seeking further adventures seem like a shell of a good time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Oppenheimer.

Review #2050: Oppenheimer.

Cast: 

Cillian Murphy (J. Robert Oppenheimer), Emily Blunt (Katherine "Kitty" Oppenheimer), Matt Damon (Leslie Groves), Robert Downey Jr (Lewis Strauss), Florence Pugh (Jean Tatlock), Josh Hartnett (Ernest Lawrence), Casey Affleck (Boris Pash), Rami Malek (David Hill), Kenneth Branagh (Niels Bohr), Benny Safdie (Edward Teller), Dylan Arnold (Frank Oppenheimer), Gustaf Skarsgård (Hans Bethe), David Krumholtz (Isidor Isaac Rabi), Matthew Modine (Vannevar Bush), David Dastmalchian (William L. Borden), Tom Conti (Albert Einstein), Michael Angarano (Robert Serber), Jack Quaid (Richard Feynman), Josh Peck (Kenneth Bainbridge), Olivia Thirlby (Lilli Hornig), Dane DeHaan (Kenneth Nichols), Danny Deferrari (Enrico Fermi), Alden Ehrenreich (Senate aide), Jefferson Hall (Haakon Chevalier), and Jason Clarke (Roger Robb) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, and #1618 - Tenet)

Review: 

“I’m always pushing various things forward, but this is one where a lot of different planets aligned. Los Alamos, this place that will always live in history or infamy, was first a place where Oppenheimer and his brother loved to go camping. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, I’m looking at the most personal possible connection between a character and a massive change to the world that couldn’t be undone.” - Christopher Nolan

There is no way to state how damn good the film is besides saying it is a really great achievement that should be seen. Blah blah Barbie, you could see that any time in the next couple of weeks but consider Oppenheimer as early as one could possibly do. No really, see it as quickly as you can, the three-hour runtime is worth the time presented, and I am sure you will be rewarded by the experience that makes for a fascinating biopic. The story of J. Robert Oppenheimer has been argued to be one of a modern tragedy, and this film proves that very point by the time it even has built two-thirds of the scope required of three hours of breathtaking film. Lord do I wish it was easy to just say what I mean in less than a handful of paragraphs, but if one can say roughly over 900 words for a film involving humans and dolls, clearly one has to make sure to put in the hours to articulate the importance of watching a film (specifically Nolan, who wrote the screenplay) that took its inspiration from the 2005 biography of the famed Oppenheimer in American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin (incidentally, some of the subjects interviewed by Sherwin had been featured in The Day After Trinity, such as Haakon Chevalier). Oppenheimer is seen in various places besides Los Alamos in New Mexico, of course, such as his time as professor at thee University of California, Berkeley and his time spent after the war at the Institute for Advanced Study, while one other moment in history is seen under the cloud of Oppenheimer with the 1959 confirmation hearing of Lewis Strauss for the Secretary of Commerce, after having taken office via a recess appointment the previous year (the film obviously doesn't have time to mention everyone, but the scuttling of the confirmation had help from Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, whose disagreements with Strauss drove him to drive such an effort, complete with an ally in fellow Senator and committee member dealing with commerce in Gale W. McGee). You can thank the efforts of folks such as J. David Wargo and James Woods (both executive producers) for getting this film to the finish line, since plans for doing one based on the book had muddled for over a decade; the only film to feature Oppenheimer in a prominent role was Fat Man and Little Boy (as played by Dwight Shultz for a film released in 1989), which absolutely nobody remembers fondly, at least when compared to say, the 1980 BBC TV serial Oppenheimer, which had Sam Waterston as star. Nolan has stated the purpose of having scenes in black-and-white is meant to present an objective view of the story of Oppenheimer from the point of view of the one most seen in these scenes with Strauss.

Oppenheimer the man is presented in all of his epic qualities of contradiction of brilliance. He is the namesake for both a process and approximation in science (with collaboration with other scientists, naturally) that is also wracked in paradoxes that make the heart of the film. Pride really does come before the fall, especially for someone who was under constant surveillance by the FBI before and after the war. The man is presented as a man with qualities and flaws apparent to all of us, a man of brilliance, a man of guilt, a man of womanizers, a man fit to argue as one of great tragedy. There are so many performances in this film that one can't mention every single person that portray these figures (some of whom only appear for a time such as Gary Oldman as President Harry Truman or James Remar as Henry Stimson). It is easy to state however, that Murphy and Downey Jr rein in the best performances of the whole film, with each of their stories being told in such compelling detail. Murphy has the weight of the title role on his shoulders, but he handles it with such clear conviction that one sees him as Oppenheimer with perfect efficiency that makes it so one never sees an actor playing a man but just the man and all of his qualities thrust upon us, and it takes a most exceptional person to give the role justice with such persuasive power. We live in a world created by Oppenheimer's actions and we feel it firmly with his performance. Downey Jr is practically the mirror of Oppenheimer when it comes to how he handles being cast into the light of his own hearing. All great villains believe themselves to be in the right, ones who believe that power stays in the shadows because only amateurs chase the sun, and Downey Jr plays this with such devastating power that is conniving and breathtaking in the time he is on screen. His arrogance is breathtaking in the greatest of ways possible, one filled with pique that is accompanied in moments with Ehrenreich for fascinating interaction. Murphy and Downey Jr clearly deserve all the recognition they have gotten for this film already and I am sure they will endure in the years to come. Of course, the rest of the performers are magnificent as well in conveying the players to destruction necessary, mostly in the case of Damon and Blunt. The clash of hard-driving practicality in Damon clashes with the philosophical Murphy for such riveting tension and even more riveting in the respect you see between the two that comes out because of how effective it all is played out. Blunt and her own contradictions make for a worthy pairing with Murphy, one with razor-sharp timing and unwavering confidence that goes well when you consider how Murphy is presented with Pugh on the other side of feminine curiosity (which in of itself is useful to watch). You get the point about these performers, they are useful in all the ways that matter without distraction, which is bookended by Conti but also sees people such as Hartnett and Safdie shine too.

Nothing is more exhilarating than seeing Lewis Strauss not become a member of a cabinet. Nah, just kidding (fun fact: he was the first person not confirmed for a cabinet seat by the US Senate since 1925 - never let it be said that Movie Night does not try to deliver "education" beyond rambling), because the buildup to the Trinity test is one for the ages. The buildup to the bomb and the accompanying music by Ludwig Göransson is absolutely worth the price of admission, complete with the moment itself in its beautiful destructive quality (the film was done with minimal computer-generated imagery). Of course, other sequences such as expressing certain scientific aspects (remember that the real Oppenheimer made contributions to various theories such as black holes) is a reminder that seeing this film on the biggest screen possible really can be a rewarding time for all involved. The guilt is crushing in all of the ways that matter when it comes to the level of involvement one has in forming a bomb and seeing it go away from your hands or seeing the results of it. Of course, since the film includes the noted scene of President Truman mocking Oppenheimer of just who has "blood on their hands", the fascination will endure further in discussion of ethics and beyond. Far from just a biopic that goes from point A to point B, the film flourishes from the very get-go and never lets up in conveying the wonder that comes in seeing the Manhattan Project meet its destiny that intertwine with the destinies of both Oppenheimer and Strauss with their hearings. God do I love this film, and I can't say enough about just how brilliant it is or how devilishly well-timed it is to make the three hours pass by without a single complaint. It serves as both an informative feature of the time and also a warning to the danger that comes with living in a world that Nolan believes is one shaped by Oppenheimer, whether we like it or not.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.