Anora.

Review #2358: Anora.

Cast: 

Mikey Madison (Anora "Ani" Mikheeva), Mark Eydelshteyn (Ivan "Vanya" Zakharov), Yura Borisov (Igor), Karren Karagulian (Toros), Vache Tovmasyan (Garnik), Aleksei Serebryakov (Nikolai Zakharov), Darya Ekamasova (Galina Zakharova), Luna Sofía Miranda (Lulu), Lindsey Normington (Diamond), Vincent Radwinsky (Jimmy), Anton Bitter (Tom), and Ivy Wolk (Crystal) Written and Directed by Sean Baker.

Review:

"My true passion, and the only thing I’m truly interested in, is feature films that are made for the intention of going into a theater. Whether they make it there or not, I don’t know, but that’s what I want to focus on, and that’s how I fell in love with cinema. "

It's funny to get to enter in a new director* to the ledger, particularly with a movie that, well, managed to attract some attention. So, why don't we talk a little bit about Sean Baker? I trust anyone who wanted to be a filmmaker because of watching James Whale's Frankenstein (1931), and the New Jersey native even worked as film projectionist in high school. He studied film at New York University before getting into doing industrial films and TV commercials. He made his feature debut with Four Letter Words (2000). He then worked with Shih-Ching Tsou in directing/writing/editing on Take Out (2004). Starlet (2012) was among the first of his films to deal with folks of the adult sensibility (if you will), while Tangerine (2015) was about a transgender prostitute while Red Rocket (2021) was about a retired porn actor; he has been quoted as being interested in telling "human stories...that are hopefully universal." In each of his eight films, he has also served as editor and writer. Anora had a variety of inspirations: for one, Baker actually edited wedding videos in his younger years and a chunk of them involved Russians, and one story he had heard was about a young Russian-American newlywed who was kidnapped for collateral; long story short, when one doesn't want to make a movie about Russian gangsters but want to talk about themes of power, you go straight to money and oligarchs. The result was a movie (first screened in May 2024) that won five Academy Awards (Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing, and Actress). Of course, the real reason I watched the movie is because, well, I noticed there were a few showtimes of it at my local theater, so let's go with it (believe it or not, if you really, really liked the movie, you could have a Criterion DVD of it in April).

I am going to be as nice as I can: it is a nice film. It may remind one of Pretty Woman (1990), but there even is a bit of Coming to America (1988) there, if you think about it. But really, who exactly believes this is the kind of movie where one person deserves four Academy Awards for it?** This is not a review meant to talk about "preferences" when it comes to what one expects or wants from a movie, because that would be a bit weird.*** Let's get it out of the way: it is a relatively entertaining movie, one that comes and goes in attempts to stir interest in juggling the hustle that comes with people and money that could probably be construed as a messed-up fairytale, right down to the tinsel-haired lead character. But man...you know damn well where it is going to go once our lead gets on the road of looking upon that sorry sap beyond the club scene. You know it, I know it, the exploitation director who would've loved ripping this off if Anora was made in the 1970s knows it. To quibble with the film length (139 minutes) is hard to do but let me be honest: the film is at its most interesting in the midst of its home invasion sequence, mainly because it manages to work in strange humor for the burrowing that comes in looking upon these folks ride the ship of foolishness down New York. It sits on the shoulders of Madison, who has to sell the moods one might see when it comes to having a free ride basically drop right into one's lap and wondering what really matters when one has the luxury giveth and taketh away. Sure, you don't really get to know her (besides what is basically a daydream, and no I don't really count the time spent at the club), but she sells the roughness that comes with this hard-edged person, one that is to be used and screwed like most of the other people in the film. It just so happens that the trio of Borisov-Karagulian-Tovmasyan that pop in end up helping Madison in providing chaos in the art of pursuit that goes through the gamut of emotions****. Borisov manages to accomplish the double-wire act of content with being the muscle in a group and the attentive nature of sensitivity (in an interview, he described "love is the same as attention to someone"). He watches just as much as he speaks because that's the way it is for guys like him, at least on the outside. Eydelshteyn can be construed as an obvious "red flag" when it comes, to, well, guys that get into marriages that are done in a Las Vegas chapel, but that does lend to a few amusing moments despite the fact that he disappears for a good chunk of the film; Ekamasova is the last piece for a certain type of pride and poise that is fairly convincing. The climax unites them all together for a release of the inevitable in people and power (timing the meet up between Anora and Galina is one for the books). With the ending, it sure is up to you, but Baker has stated that they wanted to "take it much further than [this whole idea of Stockholm syndrome] and have an act that could be interpreted, questioned and debated in many different ways." For me, I basically read it as just as a coping method for what cannot be solved so easily when it comes to transactions and people. As a whole, Anora is a pretty effective movie when it wants to be in terms of the humor that can be mined from seeing the truth beneath facades with screwball energy more than anything. If it seems up your alley to dance, it might work for you too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Since I log every director (credited or not, depending on how one terms a director), Baker joins the club (that I should probably triple-check) of 1,287 other directors.

**Most famously, the only other person to win four Oscars in a single ceremony was Walt Disney, in 1953, for a handful of documentaries and shorts that he had produced. Of course, winning for directing, writing and for best picture last happened with Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert with Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

***I probably made a mistake watching The Substance before Anora, because The Substance > Anora. 

****Okay, a good chunk of that is "fuck", but hey. See, I also wanted to refrain from using too many profanities in a review, would you call that progress? Then again, I'm not calling someone a "sex worker" when "prostitute" is an older word in the first place. 

The Substance.

Review #2355: The Substance.

Cast: 

Demi Moore (Elisabeth Sparkle), Margaret Qualley (Sue), Dennis Quaid (Harvey), Edward Hamilton-Clark (Fred), Gore Abrams (Oliver), Oscar Lesage (Troy), Christian Erickson (man at diner), Robin Greer (nurse), Tom Morton (doctor), with Hugo Diego Garcia (Diego, boyfriend), and Yann Bean (The Substance voice) Written and Directed by Coralie Fargeat.

Review: 

"“It’s really a movie about our bodies and about the reality of how we feel in our bodies. I needed to speak to the reality of the way our flesh can reflect our mental deformation, and I knew this had to exist for real.”

Honestly, I probably should've tried to make the trip to see the movie when it was new. I vaguely remember checking a showing for this particular film a city or two away from where I was when it was still in theaters...and, well, sometimes it seems better to wait for it to hit DVD like the champion for physical media that I strive to be. In honesty, I didn't really know anything about Coralie Fargeat prior to going in with this, but I'm sure her first feature Revenge (a rape and revenge action thriller released in 2017) was something I should've paid attention to. She wanted creative freedom for her next film to go along with casting and arranging a movie that was quite a venture to do when it comes to prosthetics and the like. Apparently, the movie was originally signed to be distributed by Universal Pictures (through a deal with Working Title) but go figure, a few film executives (take a guess at the gender) did want to release it as is, which led to Mubi acquiring rights to release the movie, which resulted in what you might call a bonafide hit; the movie was nominated for five Academy Awards and won one for Best Makeup and Hairstyling.

One of the things I will say is that for some odd reason, certain parts of horror actually makes me have a laugh when seeing the execution of, well, the guts of a movie. I probably enjoyed this movie far more than if I had seen it in a theater with people if only because I had such a good time from the get-go looking at the absurdity that comes with the obsession we have with women's bodies at all costs. We care so much about how an ass looks because it's real to them, damn it. I joked once that it had been a while since someone tried to do a movie about a woman so obsessed with trying to turn back the clock that they would take anything to get it back with The Wasp Woman (1959)*, and that was a bit on my mind when watching this movie, but I really should've tried to guess that the movie would remind me the tiniest bit of Being John Malkovich (1999), a movie that technically is also about someone trying to manufacture a life away from the one they are currently inhabiting, complete with using a larger-than-life image of its star at a certain juncture (why else would one feature a large picture of a younger Moore?); one had a film tag about being someone else, this one asks about being a better version of yourself. I probably should see or mention movies that also apparently come up such as Death Becomes Her (1992) and Seconds (1966). In short: we have a fairy tale kind of movie that can be as horrifying as much as it can be darkly amusing by the time it closes its 141-minute runtime of messiness about the way we can rip ourselves apart when it comes to image that is captured in gloriously symbolistic ways. The movie coasts along on visuals and vibe more so than trying to get too invested in, well, the substance within the substance (if you think about it, by doing this process, one is stuck in a place in perpetuity when having to await the next delivery week after week while only getting older and older). For all we can try to be in united for others in helping and promoting people...we really can rip the hell out of each other when the opportunity presents itself. We can hate each other just as much as we can hate ourselves and what we look like because some people really do crave love like it was crack. It just so happens we have a quality trio to hold the movie up when it comes to listening and hearing just what we see in one's self-image as we move through the tunnel of light. I'm probably not as familiar with Moore as I would like to admit.** However, she pulls off a tremendous performance, one who manages to sell the visceral pain that comes with being so alone in a body that can only go so far and be so much before it all snaps. Having to be caked in makeup of varying levels (turning the idea of playing a role a decade younger than they actually are on the head) is quite the endurance test for anyone, and Moore handles it with the type of grace that can only come from someone who clearly is committed to the material in knowing what it all is about when wrapped in a business built on flesh and bone that can be comprised of truth and plenty of lies (consider that we never see her interact with anybody that seems like an actual friend). Qualley matches her with a burning intensity and energy that is hypnotic to see play on screen in the furor that comes with youth and trying to control oneself in maintaining an image at all costs, particularly since we sure see plenty of Moore and Qualley in skin that probably says more about us that we'd like to admit (such as living through others, perhaps).***

And then of course there is Quaid, who was cast a few months into preparation for the film because the original choice in mind (Ray Liotta) died. Suffice to say that it is interesting to see Quaid here.**** He manages to evoke a type of disgust and excess that is so easy to see in our actual everyday lives and make it strangely amusing to see pop in from time to time, particularly with the camera angles used to see him (consider the shrimp eating scene to how he is seen by the end). I can certainly see where one might wonder just where the film could've ended, because technically there are two other ways to envision film before it splatters its way to the final realization, but then I say to myself: is there really such a thing as going too far in horror? The answer, to those with the skin to say it, is no, no, no, and hell no. I sometimes wonder when rating a movie to hopefully not come back to it later and think it was a tad too high...but this is the kind of movie where I wonder if I will like it more the second time around (when I can just say some of the highlights without spoiling the curiosity for those who haven't seen it) because of the visceral delight I had in seeing it, one that manages to make one see and hear the horror (and darkly amusement, in my mind) that comes with the body and we would do for perfection. Fargeat clearly likes to experiment with what she wants to make for films, and I look forward to seeing what might lurk next for her as a whole.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Starting now, I'm just going to put some notes down here rather than waste space on parenthesis.  

*I was wondering a bit what Corman would've done in trying to ape off The Substance for a knockoff, because you could certainly lean in on that theatricality.

**Well, Mr. Brooks (2006) was okay. Interestingly, I had considered Striptease (1996) for Acknowledged in August in 2024 but, well, Showgirls seemed more suitable, suffice to say.

***I applaud anybody who likes to make a movie that actually goes ga-ga for gore and/or nudity because duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

****(speaking of movies I dragged my feet on, I actually thought about seeing him in Reagan [2024]...if the movie was actually as ridiculous at it sounded).

 

Nosferatu (2024).

Review #2327: Nosferatu.

Cast: 

Bill Skarsgård (Count Orlok / Nosferatu), Nicholas Hoult (Thomas Hutter), Lily-Rose Depp (Ellen Hutter), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Friedrich Harding), Emma Corrin (Anna Harding), Willem Dafoe (Prof. Albin Eberhart Von Franz), Ralph Ineson (Dr. Wilhelm Sievers), and Simon McBurney (Herr Knock) Directed by Robert Eggers (#780 - The Witch, #1833 - The Northman)

Review: 

"A lot of people talk about my films as stylized. But aside from the fairy tale composition, it’s not intended to be stylized. I over-rehearse with the intention of it being in the actors’ muscle memory, so that it doesn’t feel like hitting a mark. If you’re doing expressionist cinema, you are aware of the artifice so much, because it’s stylizing the world in a way that is completely unrealistic. Here, obviously — you know, I’m sick of talking about my research, too, but obviously the verisimilitude of the material world is very important to me."

In 1922, a movie from a cheap studio came out with unusual circumstances. Prana Film was behind one and only one film: this one, which had been founded by Enrico Dieckmann and Albin Grau, with the latter being an occultist artist (supposedly, he was inspired to do the film based on an experience in World War I, where he met a Serbian farmer that apparently had a father rise from the grave to feed on blood); Grau designed the sets and costumes, complete with making up a letter with "Enochian" symbols that shows up in the film. The duo brought Henrik Galeen in to write a screenplay that would be inspired by the 1897 novel Dracula (as written by Bram Stoker) and F.W. Murnau as a director. Of course, Florence Balcombe, the widow of Stoker, did not like hearing that someone made a movie freely adapted from Dracula and issued a lawsuit, with the result being the negative and all prints of the film ordered to be destroyed (incidentally: years after the lawsuit, she did grant the rights of the book to a guy who made it into a play for the theater which, well, she didn't get the entitlements for it). But the movie, unlike Balcombe, would endure in the public sphere. Over a half-century later, Werner Herzog was eager to make his own "homage" of Nosferatu and waited until the copyright for Dracula to enter the public domain to make what became Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979). which had the names of the book characters incorporated for a curious outcome of artful terror (it set itself in 1850, whereas both the 1922 and 2024 film are set in 1838). As a youth, Eggers found an image of its star in Max Schreck that had him obsessed enough to later direct a stage version of Nosferatu. Eggers had first been tapped to direct a Nosferatu remake since the first announcement being in 2015. Each version has their own distinct edge in terms of the climax (the 1922 movie details a "pure-hearted woman" offering blood of her own will, the 1979 movie features an awakened sick man, and, well, "the purity of dawn" is something you have to see here).

I'm not quite sure where I would rank it among movies involving vampires, but it probably will rest pretty high, managing to outrank directors who tried to make their own Dracula movies such as Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), for example. But with this "folk vampire" story, one will have plenty to highlight in a movie that focuses on a psychic and erotic connection with a creature of pure evil that emanates haunting atmosphere most films would dream to have. It is the perils of being blinded by perceived enlightened times at the cost of folk tales. With a film like this, we get to participate in the ritual of folk terror that clearly had plenty of investment from Eggers in history and curiosity (for one, Eggers had already read Montague Summers in terms of his work on vampires but obviously one would wonder about the imitation of Vlad the Impaler and the works of Jean-Martin Charcot in terms of hysteria). In short, Eggers has crafted his own legend of unsettling nature that earns every moment it crafts in terror with craftsmanship made from love that is deliberate in its pacing (132 minutes) for all of the senses possible. Interestingly, Skarsgard had read for the role later played by Hoult (of course, I can't imagine what the film would've ended up with Harry Styles or Anya Taylor-Joy as leads). Skarsgard (as aided by opera singer Ásgerður Júníusdóttir in lowering his vocal range) is exquisite in his unsettling nature as a rotting Transylvanian nobleman corpse. He ends up wrapped in darkness and makeup that makes him pretty distinct in an obsession and rotting core that one can certainly see as both repulsive and seductive. Wrapped in agency as a victim of choices (most significantly the ones to start and close the movie) is a wonderful Rose-Depp that seems to understand the darkness that lies beneath the surface of the time one is wrapped up into with a grace that works well in selling this gothic tragedy. Hoult is the most normal of the folks in the main group, which namely means a man having his 19th century preconceptions shattered (consider that in this version, he is even warned to not go to the Carpathian Mountains by his wife), which he handles with worthy timing. Rounding out the cast is a mix of strange seasoned dignity, whether that involves the conventional in Ineson, the shaken Taylor-Johnson (who gets to have a disturbing last highlight), or, well, the occult magic of Dafoe, who plays the role with gusto in terms of shattering belief that dominates the screen in a way that is distinct from the usual "vampire hunter" role because of how committed he is mystical devotion. Of course, Corrin and McBurney also do well in the cast (the latter proves quite suitable in raving madness). Above all, this is a tremendously gorgeous movie to view in Gothic despair (as captured by Jarin Blaschke), one in which there are plenty of moments to simply gaze in curiosity, whether that involves a nighttime ritual (consider what they do there when compared to how things go in the last scene involving vampire confrontation) or the leadup to meeting Orlok on his realm. As a whole, it is a charmer of the grotesque that builds its dread for righteous furor for a damn good time that likely will improve with further viewings. It is a tossup to figure out what lurks best in the totally-not Dracula adaptations, but you will not go wrong here.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Review #2323: Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Cast: 

Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik / Professor Gerald Robotnik), Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Keanu Reeves (Shadow), Idris Elba (Knuckles), Colleen O'Shaughnessey (Tails), James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Krysten Ritter (Director Rockwell), Adam Pally (Wade), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Shemar Moore (Randall), with Alyla Browne (Maria), and Tom Butler (Commander Walters) Directed by Jeff Fowler (#1353 - Sonic the Hedgehog and #1830 - Sonic the Hedgehog 2)

Review: 

Believe it or not, there aren't that many video game movies that reach "3" that anyone is actually anticipating. Sure, the first film (as released in 2020) was a pretty decent starter in gently getting folks to be invested in a silly blue blur (as originally developed by Sonic Team in 1991) that goes fast but has to learn about friends, stuff, and, well, a villain (Carrey) being the big highlight when it comes to useful bombast. The sequel (released in 2022) expanded on the lore with two more cuddly dudley creatures for an experience that was reasonably satisfying when it wasn't too grounded in the human element (we are not going to talk about the wedding sequence). It has been a while (there apparently was a "TV series" with one of its characters, but I'll be damned if I spend any time on a streaming show), but here we are with a third movie. This one shares the same writers as before in Pat Casey, Josh Miller, and John Whittington. Evidently, a fourth film is already in development for about three years from now. 

It isn't hard to say that the best parts of the film is when it settles down with familiar characters and lets a moment of spectacle breathe. No, I don't mean a music montage or a litany of references, I mean getting to the point and having fun. It helps to have a committed cast to deliver on building worthwhile stakes and, well, making you happy to see beyond the Earth. The games were designed to play fast and loose with its environment (whether in the dimension of "2D" or otherwise) and an egg-shaped man that loves wreaking havoc in the name of science or something like that. For a movie that runs 110 minutes, it does manage to carry water in solid entertainment that delivers on its expectations in terms of execution in story beats (primarily with Carrey and Reeves). It leaves the viewer (Sonic fanatic or not) with satisfaction and curiosity to see what lurks further in the undiscovered country of further adventures. Admittedly, I was most curious about how Carrey would approach this film because, well, he was "serious about retiring" and would only consider a really good script to come back. Far more than just a money grab or a makeup trap, he manages to do well in generating amusement in the double act (Brendan Murphy played the double for scenes requiring, well, two Carreys) of eccentric geniuses that show distinct layers in terms of being shaped in the disappointment in humanity, whether that means megalomania or something worse. In other words, it isn't just Carrey playing it silly with a big suit with phoning in, he is clearly having enough fun in bombast to sell it all the way down. You might be familiar with the character of Shadow (yet another hedgehog), as first featured in the game Sonic Adventure 2 in 2001 (as created by Takashi Iizuka and Shiro Maekawa with design by Kazuyuki Hoshino for what was meant to be just one game but ended up inspiring its own spinoff game). It helps to have committed voicework from Reeves in making a capable antihero that presents useful pathos and a capable threat to match against Schwartz in beings shaped by the people ripped from them that lives in memory (whether that means throwing a wrench in the usual playful energy or coarse gun-toting coolness). Sure, there are a few worthy quips from the friendly trio (Schwartz-O'Shaughnessey-Elba), but it does find enough time to make the flashback sequences have meaningful structure that doesn't bog itself down in too much self-importance or self-awareness (okay, one duo joke to go with a "garden" is worth it), complete with semblance of having Marsden and Sumpter (fine presences but hey, we are now in the presence of further quick creatures). The action is relatively charming for those who like their sequences with relatively bright lighting and actual time spent in space before having one little rug pull to set for the future (film wise anyway, don't try and sell me on streaming, gaming is my other pastime). In general, it is a neat sequel, establishing further beats to the mythology of speed creatures that happen to reside on Earth for fun that brings charming excitement and danger for the best installment (so far) of the film series.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, it is nice to celebrate fourteen years on the familiar grounds of the Internet for movies. A historic October to go with worthwhile theme-months in New Directors (January)/another "A" in August/the November starters/finishers will surely mean bigger and better heights for Season XV in the year ahead. Now let's close out Season 14 with a few more bangers...

Terrifier 3.

Review #2273: Terrifier 3.

Cast: 

David Howard Thornton (Art the Clown), Lauren LaVera (Sienna Shaw), Elliot Fullam (Jonathan Shaw), Samantha Scaffidi (Victoria "Vicky" Heyes), Margaret Anne Florence (Jessica), Bryce Johnson (Greg), Antonella Rose (Gabbie), Chris Jericho (Burke), Daniel Roebuck (Santa Claus), Tom Savini (a bystander), and Jason Patric (Michael Shaw) Directed by Damien Leone (#2271 - Terrifier, #2272 - Terrifier 2)

Review: 

“Yeah, I do set boundaries on myself. I would say there’s no subject matter that’s too taboo that I won’t tackle it, if I really feel it’s necessary to the story or something. But then if I decide to go in that direction, it’s my responsibility to execute it in a tolerable way and to see if I could still make it palatable somehow—because we could certainly make these scenes 10 times worse than they are. But then you’re really going to alienate everybody. And ultimately, I want this to be a fun experience for the audience, even though that’s—of course, taste is subjective and we’re clearly going beyond the boundaries of what some people feel is accessible, acceptable, and what their taste is.”

...I really should kick myself for not inquiring earlier about the Terrifier films. No, really, I should. These are films that Damien Leone clearly put his soul into when it comes to making clear-headed horror film that ended up far better than I expected them to be. The interest for these films is a hell of a thing to think about. Leone aimed to make sequels that would not simply just be gorefests for its mime clown killer but instead build on the weird journey that arises from having both gore and humor. Leone has stated countless times about the kind of curiosity that the films have generated for its fans, ones who really are "trying to find ways to deal with the horrors of reality". You don't always get horror sequels that increase their budget (apparently $2 million here) from before, but this is one of them, complete with deciding to be a Christmas-themed horror movie. It also begins with a cold open because Leone aimed to remind one quickly about the creep factor intended with this lead character right then and there from someone who has stated their appreciation for Black Christmas and Tales from the Crypt's "And All Through the House". The aim of gore and disgust for a certain type of audience was the perfect bait for me to watch on opening night, but I would like to personally thank Cinemark for having a "one-day only" double feature of the second film and this one so I could make up for my stupidity. A fourth film apparently is in development, so we shall see where that could go in gut-churners.

I wonder sometimes why I enjoy certain kinds of "depraved" movies. Mayhem is fun when you are ready for where it is going to go in terms of enthusiasm from the person behind the camera, and I think certain people go for these kinds of movies because they like it as a vessel of release from what they see in their own life. You could see garbage or flowers in the proverbial field of life, but you sure need something to deal with what you see day after day, and movies are quite the way to confront that itch. With Art the Clown, we have a guy who awakens after a five-year sleep to go right back to the craft of dedicated, equal-opportunity mayhem that seems to reflect the viewer when it comes to dedicating time to the craft. It is the kind of movie to inspire the same amount of wincing (if not more) when it comes to the execution of carnage in a 125-minute venture for relative curiosity. LaVera and Scaffidi are the key returning (speaking) people returning for this film, and each do a pretty useful job in showing the reflection of what it means to live in the shadow of terror (if one forgets, the second film ended with a birthing scene). One can either be chilling or resourceful when it comes to coping with seeing the face of their plight then and back and again, and each are committed to making those moments engage with the audience. This is an atmosphere of strange swords and possessions that I enjoyed seeing play out to the end for 125 minutes because it pushes that envelope just a bit further beyond having a Santa impersonator get their beard ripped off (think "bomb" and go from there). While it might not make as much of a splash as it would like when it comes to examining the after-events of terror, but it has enough energy to rise above say, an average 80s slasher (complete with Clint Howard showing up for whatever reason), and it is clear from its ending that no matter where it ultimately ends up, one probably won't be shortchanged. I do think there will be a fun debate over just which sequel is the standout feature (the second might be a smidge better). You don't get many sequels that seem to polish further on the previous venture, particularly since the second already polished what had come before in the first film. But here we are with a movie I enjoyed pretty well and look forward to getting around to again maybe a few years down the line when thinking back to gory yuletide stuff.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Wild Robot.

Review #2258: The Wild Robot.

Cast: 

Lupita Nyong'o (ROZZUM unit 7134), Pedro Pascal (Fink), Kit Connor (Brightbill), Catherine O'Hara (Pinktail), Bill Nighy (Longneck), Stephanie Hsu (Vontra), Mark Hamill (Thorn), Matt Berry (Paddler), and Ving Rhames (Thunderbolt) Written and Directed by Chris Sanders (#294 - How to Train Your Dragon and #387 - Lilo & Stitch)

Review: 

"I only engage with projects that take risks, and go to audacious places. But with The Wild Robot, there was also an unusual purity to the world which I never expected to encounter in my career. The animal characters have no cars, jobs, neckties or cell phones. The animals move like … animals!  I knew immediately we had to elevate our visuals so they would allow the emotional wavelengths to fully resonate. Put simply, the style of this film needed to be worthy of the story we were telling."

It probably shouldn't be a surprise that this is based on a children's book (with illustrations that were actually black and white) by Peter Brown. He had been struck with an image in his head of a robot next to a tree when working on a book that stood with him and eventually it came to him as basically an extreme example of a "fish out of water" story that gelled with his love of science fiction and nature. The Wild Robot was published in 2016 and became its own series, complete with a third book that was released last year. Chris Sanders had a daughter that had read the book but hadn't really thought about it until Dreamworks Animation had the rights to the book for possible filming since before the book had been published. He read the book and described it as "at once deceptively simple, and emotionally complex" while believing he was the guy that could bring the book to the screen. A handful of films have been cited by Sanders as inspiration such as Bambi and My Neighbor Totoro, as he had the imagery of each film in his head when reading The Wild Robot and it came to him that a film adaptation had to be visually sophisticated. This is apparently the last Dreamworks Animation film to be produced fully in-house at their studio, as they are cutting costs by using third-party studios for further features (which are distributed by Universal Studios). It happens to be the first animated film directed by Sanders since The Croods (2013).

I'm sure there is no surprise to be found here in saying this is a pretty good feature. It is the execution that matters most when it comes to making a story about kindness and a select group of talking animals stand on its own in crisp entertainment. It is the kind of movie that looks and feels like it would make a neat doubleheader with The Iron Giant (1999), if that makes sense. The hand-painted aesthetic is lovely in establishing the atmosphere that arises when trying to make a film look and feel organic that really should be seen on a screen as big as possible. The 102-minute runtime shows plenty of warmth without being a vessel for cheap songs or bits just for the sake of it. If the books aimed for a sense of being a fable, the film surely has achieved that same effect by making one remember what a connection means to the world around it to go with appreciating a landscape as breathtaking as nature can be. It rests on the shoulders of Nyong'o to make the lead work as well as it does in making the journey of a robot (and accompanying expressions from the salespitcher-turned-naturebot) worth seeing play out, which she does quite well. The pursuit of a task leading to adoptive motherhood is tenderly handled by her to go with Pascal and his trading of snide remarks and advice that is just as effective in showing the importance in following the circle of life. One takes flight when the moment requires one to feel flight and one has the same wonder when spending a few moments away from the island setting in the sheer difference that is apparent in a less-natural world. In other words, it isn't merely just a mother hen story with a cute duck, it really is a neat little coming-of-age story, for which Connor handles that part pretty well. The training sequences of trying to be one with a species (such as flying) is pretty fascinating. There are a few bits of levity provided by O'Hara and Berry while Hsu comes in late for an interesting (if not exactly covered too much) look in trying to do friendly forced compliance for robots. The ending for the film is interesting, mostly because it really does click this as a fable worth looking to and back again that doesn't play a cheap trick on the audience and leaves them satisfied, regardless of if there was a craving for a sequel or not. In general, it is a dazzling movie that has plenty to offer in crisp filmmaking from committed people and voices to match that should play well for just about anybody, which is a worthwhile thing to say when it comes to a film about kindness.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Review #2251: Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Cast: 

Michael Keaton (Betelgeuse), Winona Ryder (Lydia Deetz), Catherine O'Hara (Delia Deetz), Jenna Ortega (Astrid Deetz), Justin Theroux (Rory), Monica Bellucci (Delores LaVerge), Willem Dafoe (Wolf Jackson), Arthur Conti (Jeremy Frazier), Burn Gorman (Father Damien), Amy Nuttall (Jane Butterfield Jr.), Santiago Cabrera (Richard), Danny DeVito (Janitor), and Nick Kellington (Bob) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman [1989], #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes [2001], #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, #1295 - Sleepy Hollow, #1615 - Edward Scissorhands, #2160 - Mars Attacks!)

Review: 

"It was only until fairly recently, with all this talk, that I just put all the noise away and I just go, 'Okay, I love the Lydia character.' That was the character that I connected with, like, as a teenager. So I go, 'What happened to this person 35 years later? What weird thing?' You go from cool teenager to some fucked-up adult. What relationships do you have? Do you have kids? What's your relationship with that? It's not something I could have done back then; it's only something you could do once you experience those things yourself. So for me, this became a very personal movie, like a kind of weird family movie about a weird family."

You know, I actually had to go back and look up the most recent Tim Burton film I expressed interest in seeing right then and there. I actually forgot it has been five years since his last feature film, in which I'm sure went completely well in non-soulless remaking in Dumbo [2019] (in fairness, younger me was okay with Alice in Wonderland [2010]). I didn't really think about the chance of Beetlejuice having a sequel, even though I remember having a neat time with it in the couple times I remember seeing it, one originally devised by Michael McDowell and Larry Wilson with helpful re-writing from Warren Skaaren that had plenty of amusement within the bureaucracy of the dead and a free-spirited (read: pervert) bio-exorcist. In some ways, it really is a manic syrupy tribute to the B-movies that Burton grew up with, made in an era where one could just do stop motion and blue screen effects to go with slapstick in a neat 92-minute package. The idea of a sequel has been kicked around long enough that one concept was to have the title character go to Hawaii, but it only gained actual steam in the last couple of years (so just a bit after someone adapted the film into a musical). The screenplay this time around was done by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (best known for developing Smallville and incidentally, Wednesday) while the story was done by Gough, Millar, and Seth Grahame-Smith (probably best known as the writer of the mashup Pride and Prejudice and Zombies). 

Sure, the sequel isn't quite at the same level of "good" than the original, but it is evident that Burton and company at least had a good time making it. I didn't really pick it because "hey, sequel to something I liked", I picked it more because I figured it would be the type of film to experience with a crowd at least once (as opposed to the usual "who cares" or half-empty amusement, because even mothers deserve a visit to the theater for the first time since *Cats*). It complements the original while fulfilling two obvious things: thank goodness this was not a lazy "continuation TV series" (or god forbid, a streaming original) and thank goodness it was a film that wasn't merely a lazy vessel for passing the torch. One moves on from the stylings of Harry Belafonte to stuff such as "Tragedy" and "MacArthur Park" without a bump in the road that will surely mean a Beetlejuice double-header in the coming years would be a delightful idea for the spooky season (104 minutes is resourceful enough when you consider the earlier film was also under two hours). Of course, it helps that Keaton, Ryder and O'Hara are committed to not mailing in their returns to go with a few neat moments from the fresh faces to go alongside a few interesting moments involving effects (read: a movie that generally doesn't look like it got shot on one stage), which is probably most amusing in its handling of killing off a character (ironic that a film about a perverted title character featured an actor later found to be a pervert) or in not over-riding the "Beetlejuice baby" into the ground. Keaton might be in his seventies, but he obviously hasn't lost his enjoyment in terms of mischief that he handles in such carefully crafted time on screen (Keaton didn't want to have that much screentime in the film, which actually reflects the original, when you think about it). One can savor those moments of mischief without thinking back to the original and thinking things have gone soft (sure, he might not turn into a snake, but one late bit is pretty hell-raising). Of course, the dynamic of Ortega and Ryder is playing on a few familiar beats (we have graduated from "strange and unusual" to estrange daughter of "strange and unusual"), but Ortega is snappy and charming enough to go with the material for us to follow along with. Theroux is amusingly wormy to stick out, while Bellucci is basically relying on screen presence and little to really do for a movie that isn't exactly keen on having a "big bad" but instead just relies of, shall we say, casual macabre vibes (this is a movie where someone gets their limbs back while playing an oldie tape). Dafoe playing a stock cop type somehow seems on point for worthwhile commitment. In general, the movie inspired a few neat chuckles in its eventual road to getting a climax that borrows a bit from before while feeling the need to try and do something a bit wilder than already mentioned, which is, well, fine. I was conflicted about rating the film for a few days because sometimes it really does take a while to wonder just how "good" something is. The original was pretty neat, and the sequel is fine, but I'm not sure if giving it the whole "good" rating makes sense when there is a totally serviceable option in calling it "fine" (this is when I debate if putting a ".5" rating would be ideal in the future). It is a solid film in the aspects of slipping it on one night and just admiring that a well-made sequel to a film from decades ago will come and go in spooking the gut without churning one's soul, if you know what I mean.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Alien: Romulus.

Review #2247: Alien: Romulus.

Cast: 

Cailee Spaeny (Rain), David Jonsson (Andy), Archie Renaux (Tyler), Isabela Merced (Kay), Spike Fearn (Bjorn), Aileen Wu (Navarro), and Daniel Betts (Rook) Directed by Fede Alvarez (#839 - Don't Breathe)

Review: 

Admittedly, there isn't much of an excuse I can come up with that explains why I forgot to watch Prometheus (2012) or Alien: Covenant (2017), which if you remember were the previous two films of the Alien franchise released into theaters (counting the Alien vs. Predator films sounds futile). Plans for this film first came out in 2022 for...release on Hulu. These plans changed for the best, if only because, well, we are not friends of promoters of streaming experiences. The film was written by Fede Álvarez and Rodo Sayagues, who have previously worked together on Alvarez's 2013 Evil Dead film and Don't Breathe (2016). Evidently, the film has already made back the money on its $80 million budget in a week.

Admittedly, the pursuit of better things by the youth when it comes to exploring space is at least a useful way to approach making a standalone film for a series built on, well, alien terror. Of course, the one thing I really should have learned was to not peek at the Internet for even the slightest second, if only because hearing the vaguest of early reviews comparing this film to Rogue One (2016) gave me the tiniest bit of pause. I might get the opposite effect that I did with that film in which maybe I will appreciate Alien: Romulus better if I saw it again a few months removed from the initial sense of optimism that was soon met with mild entertainment that has a really good look befuddled by a mild script (when not deluged with trying to reference every single Alien film, for better or worse). Ever get a decent film that you have to carefully say "yes, I liked it despite saying these quibbles that seem like gripes"? This is Exhibit A, right here and there. It seems pointless to say to watch the movie rather than just hear gripes so you can interpret on your own, but hey, you have your time and I have mine, let's just run it down. For starters, I like the general look of the film, mostly because if you are going to wedge yourself between the Scott/Cameron films, you'd better have the commitment to not stick out like a sore thumb (so yes, there are some pretty well done effects) It manages to invoke some of the terror involved in deadly creatures that happen to be desirable in the corporate human sense. The dynamic between Spaeny and Jonsson is actually pretty interesting from the perspective of surrogate relations and examining just what matters most in the lines of loyalty and beyond. Each of them are pretty good in their roles, especially when it comes to handling the dilemmas of the last act (some created by themselves, some by circumstance). In terms of actual factual moments of the last act, it is a pretty neat one in getting to the point.

And then one gets to the "Rogue One" part of the film and one immediately wonders who the hell thought this was a great idea. Yes, one does in fact see a face from the past in the film through the art of effects (such as an animatronic). The character of Rook happens to look like Ian Holm (who passed away in 2020), although it isn't exactly just seeing Ash from the original 1977 Alien. Nothing about seeing Rook seems necessary here (the Holm estate can be happy, of course) beyond just doing a reference just for the sake of it, which pretty much hinders the movie in some respects to actually, well, get moving on its own feet. One is watching a 119-minute movie that only seems to really get going when it strikes the familiar vein of people getting chest-bursted (as opposed to trying to ape bits from Aliens because...?). The characters are mildly involving, but maybe I have missed something from previous films, because it seems this one had the most folks where I was basically waiting for them to get killed (well there was Alien 3, the one that thought taking out most of the survivors of Aliens and putting Ripley on a dude-criminal planet, but it's been a while), particularly in the case of Fearn, who at least has the most satisfying end scene. With so few people around to start the film, one really has a spaced-out amount of terror that is, well, decently executed. As a whole, it invokes some of the wonder and terror that had shaped the first two Alien movies (i.e. the only ones that are really, really good) before trying to play familiar with the others one for a synthesis that is touch-and-go in actual effective power. It is a fine crowd-pleaser that has most of the right elements when it comes to atmosphere and conviction while doing mildly fine in the overall outcome that reminds one that there is a fine line between familiarity and checklist material. I'm not sure exactly where the movie rests in the series when it comes to quality a few years down the line, but being a decent ride sure seems worth remembering.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next time: Ishtar.

Trap (2024).

Review #2238: Trap.

Cast: 

Josh Hartnett (Cooper), Ariel Donoghue (Riley), Saleka Shyamalan (Lady Raven), Alison Pill (Rachel), Hayley Mills (Dr. Josephine Grant), Jonathan Langdon (Jamie), Mark Bacolcol (Spencer), Marnie McPhail (Jody's mom), and Kid Cudi (the Thinker) Written and Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, #1183 - Unbreakable, #1184 - Glass, #2164 - Signs)

Review: 

"For me, being original and having certain aspects, let's say like highest quality audience movies is what I want to make, and being proud and honored to make audience movies. Maybe other people might think of genre as a lesser art form. I don't think of it that way. "

Strangely, for a month called "Acknowledged in August", this film may actually qualify as worth being acknowledged because of the apparent divide in what people think of this film. It's interesting to see the progression of interest in the films of M. Night Shyamalan, if you think about it, particularly since this month happens to be the 25th anniversary of the release of his first major film in The Sixth Sense (1999). Even among the films (Trap is the 13th of his since the release of Sense) considered as part of his "lower tier", one always seems to have plenty to say about a filmmaker that really doesn't pack as many twists in his films as people think. At any rate, Shyamalan has stated that the film was inspired in part by conversations he had with his daughter about the nature of concert and theatrical experiences being similar and what could happen if one puts those together. Basically, this is how one gets the pitch of "The Silence of the Lambs at a Taylor Swift concert". Of course, in real life, one really can find actual examples of crook-catching in say, "Operation Flagship", which was an actual sting operation that was successful in capturing a select group of criminals tricked into a giveaway involving football tickets.

Sure, I understand why this particular film will vary in enjoyment from person to person. It relies heavily on its primary actor to carry the film that is mostly enclosed in one location to go along with a third act that will probably try the patience of those who seem to have a checklist for thrillers. That being said, I enjoyed it pretty well as a psychological thriller that, well, has fun. I actually found a few parts worth chuckling along with because of the sheer curiosity that comes with positioning the whole film on a family man who just happens to be a murderer. It is a cat-and-mouse game where one is firmly watching the cat that decides at some point to just throw up the board for tongue-in-cheek enjoyment, but your milage obviously will vary because, well, heaven forbid a movie play around with what you might see in a thriller. One rolls with the concert sequence in the most singular sense from the frenzy of people to the array of cell phones that love to record the stuff they are already seeing while having the tension about just what could turn next in the mind of someone who could be called the "friendly neighborhood serial killer". To put it mildly, Hartnett is the star attraction in a way I really should've seen coming, because there are quite a few thrillers (or horror, whatever) involving actors playing against type, and Hartnett plays it with such unnerving confidence. For better or worse, his performance dominates the film where one, well, doesn't have too much to say about the cast around him, although Donoghue is about on par for what one probably expects from a starstruck person. In an industry where quite a few folks could be accused of "nepotism", I can't really fault this for being a father-daughter piece in terms of one writing and performing their own music, although I can't really say the music is any better in terms of energy (it isn't Purple Rain, to put it mildly) than her part to play in the third act, which is adequate at best. Sure, Pill and Mills are fine, but one gets the feeling that in all of the routine-playing, only Hartnett has the resolve to make the viewer care one way or the other about just where it all is going to finish; of course, with Langdon, he provides the most curious moment of the film in dropping exposition along with seeing Hartnett interact with another person not related to him (and a certain subsequent scene). In general, the 105-minute runtime makes for a pretty neat package that grips one's attention in the tension of what could and could not happen with so many people around: consider the effort taken to get an apron at one point by possibly ruining someone's life in laying oil onto a fryer and how the film briskly moves along. The third act moves it on to a different type of trail because of the fact that the movie has decided one can't have it all set in a concert, but I like the shaky feeling that comes with the blurring of family man and butcher man when it comes to figuring out what is the difference between a man of pieces and the pieces that make up a person. In the end, "the process" is what I care for in a film, and I think Shyamalan's attempts at making a thriller within a concert is an engaging one worth following all the way to the end because of Hartnett's commitment to it all. I can't say I know the work of Shyamalan as well as the next guy, but I will say that he sure made a worthy attempt at a ride for the audience to sit and absorb.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Oscar (1991), the John Landis comedy with Sylvester Stallone

Deadpool & Wolverine.

Review #2236: Deadpool & Wolverine.

Cast: 

Ryan Reynolds (Wade Wilson / Deadpool), Hugh Jackman (Logan / Wolverine), Emma Corrin (Cassandra Nova), Matthew Macfadyen (Mr. Paradox), Dafne Keen (Laura / X-23), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Morena Baccarin (Vanessa), Rob Delaney (Peter), with Leslie Uggams (Blind Al), Jennifer Garner (Elektra), Wesley Snipes (Blade), and Channing Tatum (Gambit) Directed by Shawn Levy.

Review: 

I will admit that I liked what I saw of Deadpool (2016) and Deadpool 2 (2018), but there is probably something a bit strange to my inner self that I didn't write as much as I thought I did about why I thought they were good. I am then reminded that the character (as created by Fabian Nicieza and Rob Liefeld that first showed in publication in 1990) being once described as looking like "Ryan Reynolds crossed with a Shar Pei" apparently sprung a desire for Reynolds to, well, want to involved in making a Deadpool film for years (we do not speak of X-Men Origins: Wolverine) before it actually became a thing (as credited by a certain leak of test footage). I generally forget about seeing films a second time around unless I really feel like it, but I imagine that the pace and energy of those two films worked more often than not to go with commitment from Reynolds that was worthwhile enough for most folks. Honestly though, I didn't really care about the idea of trying to pull the character for spinoffs because, well, keeping things simple really is sometimes better (of course I still can't really get used to the term "20th Century Studios", so there we are). But sure, I suppose six years between Deadpool films is a fair accomplishment, particularly since my interest in seeing comic book movies (particularly sequels) has become more of a coinflip than ever. With that in mind, it isn't too much of a surprise to see five credited writers with Ryan Reynolds, Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, Zeb Wells, and Shawn Levy (Reese and Wernick wrote the last two films, incidentally) to see both the return of Deadpool and Wolverine (as last played by Hugh Jackman seven years ago that surely isn't referenced here).

It is easy to say the movie is fine. It is comfortably decent in a way that I somehow should have seen coming and yet here we are with a movie that will accomplish its goals of R-rated entertainment in the realm best equated to a checkbox. Okay, maybe that isn't completely fair or meant to be an insult, but there were times during the 128-minute runtime (surprise, that is the longest of the series) where I was wondering where the line was drawn in making the film when it came to the meaning of "restraint" for what is basically a road movie. It seems to aim for being the goofball kind of comic movie that maybe ends up more like the drunk uncle type of goofiness that works best in the actual dynamic between its two main actors more than the bits and pieces of formula, which could either be about its comedic tone or, well, in its action. Jackman practically steps right back into the gear he always managed to achieve without strain or hesitation in terms of a cool loner with physicality and the timing that was a clear favorite anytime he was on the screen in the days of future past. That manages to make for a dynamic with Reynolds that is pretty funny mostly because each actually seem to have a good time being around each other in the style of a road movie. Reynolds and his love of such a gloriously violent silly character is evident still even with such time spent masked, this is for sure. Corrin is slightly effective in the rote sense of adversary (think back to the last two Deadpool film villains and get back to me) without really sticking the landing by the time of the ending because of that usual MCU complaint that still seems true: it's hard to make a neat villain when you know an effects show (or silly cameo) is coming. I actually am a bit bummed at the little time spent with the actual Deadpool supporting cast, particularly when Macfadyen only just manages to distract one in a few neat moments of timing. Evidently, there were plans to do a "Gambit" film with Tatum as the title character that ended up never happening, so here he gets to do a bit with that character, complete with an accent that I'm sure Peter Sellars would've loved in absurdity. But even with that accent, well, Snipes takes the cake as (still) the one and only Blade when it comes to timing. I suppose there is something to say about Garner returning for a bit to an old role, but Keen does better in one little campfire scene than the entirety of Garner and that one particular joke used to clearly draw laughs (there is one other cameo that drags to the most obvious death scene, but whatever). 

It only just manages to hit the line of not overrunning its welcome (more times than not) in humor, but I sure as hell can understand where that schtick can really please or really drag, and this was one of those films where even liking a film means having a moment where you hold your hand in a twirling fashion and I think you get the picture. I'm sure there are folks that will enjoy that deluge of Deadpools in its diversionary and amusing tactics, but you know, I do wonder if someone got drunk when watching Spider-Verse and thought, "hey!". I find it peculiar to see this as a sort of tribute (well, the logo is found in the sand at one point but it plays "Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)...which is a song old enough for me to remember hearing it in my elementary video-book nearly 20 years ago) to those days of 20th Century Fox-Marvel films, because like an old high school friend that you used to know, that stuff was already buried neatly without the need to bring it all up again (such as the yellow suit, which I don't really understand why people care that much when the "actor" is what matters, but whatever; however, I will not argue on saying the mask looks too goofy for that one scene it gets used). As a whole, I don't usually find myself trying to wrestle with assessing a film as average as this one, but there is a strange sense of trying to figure out where the line gets drawn between having one's patience tested and accepting the overall finish. I was fine with the movie in terms of where it finished for entertainment in the plundering world of familiar images and bits that come and go that one could be forgiven for thinking of as a pastiche or even a pastiche of a pastiche. The enjoyment of the film for me lies firmly in the middle, one that proves the importance of not pushing and rushing everything in fulfillment even when just making it in the margins.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: another theme month for August.

Longlegs.

Review #2230: Longlegs.

Cast: 

Maika Monroe (Lee Harker), Nicolas Cage (Longlegs), Blair Underwood (Agent Carter), Alicia Witt (Ruth Harker), Michelle Choi-Lee (Agent Browning), Dakota Daulby (Agent Horatio Fisk), Kiernan Shipka (Carrie Anne Camera), Jason Day (Father Camera), and Lisa Chandler (Mother Camera) Written and Directed by Oz Perkins.

Review: 

"I really just tried to make something that would be noticeable and enjoyable, especially to a horror audience. Horror audiences put up with a lot of bad stuff and they take it because they need it; they need the horror fix. But every once in a while, you want to give them something that’s a little bit more manicured and curated for them."

I will admit that I waited a bit to write this review because I wanted to process just what this film managed to do in its execution and understand just where the film rests as probably one of the more breakout kind of films to hit the theater. For one thing, this is the fourth film directed by Oz Perkins, who became a director in 2015 with The Blackcoat's Daughter. He had done a few stints in acting prior to becoming a writer/director, as one might expect from the son of two actors. One description of the film by Perkins (as writer/director) was one where the aim was to "create a pop art piece." There apparently was a guerilla marketing campaign (as coordinated by distributor Neon) when it came to marketing the film that involved stuff one could find in billboards and "true crime" websites to go with masking a certain presence for trailers (no television). Well, I found the movie having buzz because of a bit of rumblings on the thing they call the Internet and was thinking "if it makes my theater, sure"; the result was a film that has been said to be relative hit for all involved since being released this July.

I want to preface this by saying that the movie is pretty good on the technical levels. It is the kind of movie that doesn't really ripple away from its period setting and it does have a level of dread present within that conclusion drawn from sacrifices. Anyway, I was fine with the movie, but I really should temper my expectations on a movie that gets some really good buzz. You get a few familiar feelings when watching it such as Se7en (1995), or other serial killer-related topics but don't find something lacking in atmosphere when it comes to details for a calmly lived-in 101-minute feature. The film is a showcase of sorts for Monroe (who actually starred in a film I should probably have covered before with It Follows [2014]), mostly because her clinical performance works wonders for the film in inquisitive grace. She just has that zip without even needing much dialogue to really make it all work in someone thrust into such a growing rumble of startling realization that comes with being gripped with the actual place in the art of procedure. And then of course there is Cage, caked in some interesting makeup and a few scenes to lurk around with the presence of a spider weaving yet another web for itself. He achieves an unsettling feeling with the way he approaches the camera with an aura of expression and timing that you can believe could lurk among the rest of the pawns in the board of life and death (consider how one sees him from his first sighting and, say, the one where he lurks in a small store). Underwood and Witt are crucial keys in forming the fair amount of dread that comes in procedure, particularly with the latter because of the on-screen dynamic between the two that shows the right amount of understanding in what really lurks beyond the nature of parental sacrifice. As a whole, I found that waiting to assess the film made me realize that a film that wanted to play patient within general patience in procedure did in fact manage to do just enough to work in good execution despite my misgivings that arose from the handling in between a certain moment and the climax, which is pretty unsettling in the ultimate long run when it comes being, well, the end of a story in more ways than one. It isn't exactly my favorite horror film of the year, but it is still pretty efficient in most of its unsettling foundation to make a worthwhile feature in the eyes of procedural dread and the beast that lurks in both secrets and sacrifices that could work well for those with the patience to just let it sink in.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

MaXXXine.

Review #2227: MaXXXine.

Cast: 

Mia Goth (Maxine Minx), Elizabeth Debicki (Elizabeth Bender), Moses Sumney (Leon), Michelle Monaghan (Det. Williams), Bobby Cannavale (Det. Torres), Halsey (Tabby Martin), Lily Collins (Molly Bennett), Giancarlo Esposito (Teddy Knight, Esq.), Kevin Bacon (John Labat), and Simon Prast (Ernest Miller) Written and Directed by Ti West (#1893 - Pearl and #2133 - X)

Review: 

"My goal is to put you in the era and to put you in the aesthetics of that, so that way it feels end-to-end created."

X (2022) was a neat time for those who like films with a touch of familiar sleaze to go with their horror movies, one that was a "ballad of sex and violence". Pearl (2022) was, well, delightful in its bloody charm that I seem to mention either too much or not enough in charming horror features that included a teaser for "MaXXXine". As with the last two, West serves as both editor, co-producer and director/writer. The film (if you didn't already know) is set in 1985 around the time of The Night Stalker murders, who had a spree of murders and offenses in the state of Calfornia prior to his capture on August 31, 1985. Evidently, MaXXXine may not be the capstone of an "X trilogy" but instead just the third wheel of a well-oiled pastiche machine, which actually seems to be a compliment when it comes to worthwhile slasher fun that looks around at just how people get influenced by cinema (such as perhaps the kind of folks that can recite Hollywood Boulevard [1976] or The Day of the Locust [1975] when thinking about slime in the belly of the filmmaking beast). Or at least a film in the journey of self-actualization with an ending that happens to be a bit different than expected.

Sure, it is a glossy pastiche that is a notch below the last two films. But the enjoyment of the film for me makes it pretty easy because it seems pretty evident that when it comes to genres of film, horror is the easiest to spotlight and defend at the same time. B-movies and slasher films, when entertaining, still manage to get crap from people who either think horror is supposed to be "dignified" or wouldn't know entertainment if it bit them in the ass. People like to get spooked just as much as they like to absorb a film trying to play familiar dress up. This is a delightfully vapid and occasionally gruesome movie that I enjoyed most of the time that really does show just how cheap thrills really do provide worthwhile intervention when executed well enough. The driven nature of the main character was pretty unnerving in each of the previous two films, and while it may not be as prominent this time around, there are flashes of just how craven one really can be when driven to get the life they believe they deserve, even if it means stomping away (literally) at would-be saboteurs. Goth manages to maintain that strange sense of unnerving confidence that is alluring in all of its weird charm that straddles the craven line that comes in someone that really could be called an antihero in the best of ways. There are a few scenes that could stand as a highlight, but I think the one where she finds herself stuck in a chair with makeup all over spooks me the most (well, a stomping one might be spooky for others too, but staging terror is a matter of pride when it comes to horror). Being wrapped up in a murder mystery while others try to play A-values into a B-movie production makes for a few chuckles with Debicki or with Sumney (playing the other side of movie-connected folks, a man of the video store), but it is pretty evident that Bacon steals the show with such smarmy confidence befitting of his natural energy that comes out (accent and all). Monaghan and Cannavale provide familiar procedural chuckles that roll right in for my tastes because, well, familiarity always wins the day if it is committed. Eventually one sees where Esposito and Prast make for homely touches of where the film really will go within gruesome truths, particularly with the latter. The eventual reveal is probably not hard to see coming after a certain amount of time, but I appreciate the circular logic that comes in wanting to make a statement about the nature of Hollywood by making a film themselves. In the end, the intervention that arises for its climax (if you haven't seen it, it sounds like a dumb joke, but...) serves the film enough as a hodgepodge of gloss and blood for an engaging time that will surely make West's next idea a worthwhile one to look forward to.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga.

Review #2216: Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga. 

Cast: 

Anya Taylor-Joy (Furiosa; Alyla Browne as young Furiosa), Chris Hemsworth (Dementus), Tom Burke (Praetorian Jack), Lachy Hulme (Immortan Joe), Nathan Jones (Rictus Erectus), Josh Helman (Scrotus), John Howard (The People Eater), Angus Sampson (The Organic Mechanic), and Charlee Fraser (Mary Jo Bassa) Directed by George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, #493 - The Witches of Eastwick, #707 - Mad Max 2, #781 - Mad Max: Fury Road, #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie, #2215 - Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome)

Review: 

It seemed only yesterday that one was heralding the return of George Miller to directing a new Mad Max film, because the development of Fury Road (which in addition to having Tom Hardy as the title character had Charlize Theron co-starring as Furiosa, who if you remember had one grey arm and paint around the eyes) was one that took multiple decades to go from an idea of a continuous chase to something that resulted in plenty of stuff (as developed by Miller, Brendan McCarthy, and Nico Lathouris for the screenplay) that could've resulted in a whole other film (in fact, there was an idea to shoot back-to-back a Furiosa film with Fury Road, but, this did not pass). Long story short, years would pass before Miller got to make what he envisioned in a film that is both prequel to Fury Road and spinoff; there was an idea to use de-aging tech on Theron but instead Miller went with just casting a younger actress for this film (of course, in the segments of the film with a really young Furiosa, technology was used on the eyes to more resemble Taylor-Joy). Several members of the crew from the last film returned here (such as for production design, music, and, well Miller writing with Lathoruis for the screenplay). Evidently, it took over two months to shoot the big action sequence of the film (the longest of the films at 148 minutes). which is only the tip of the iceberg in rip-roaring interest before its climax. Plans are never set in stone, but Miller apparently has one idea in mind for another Mad Max film involving a Wasteland, but one never knows.

It is pretty amazing for a series like Mad Max to go five-for-five in quality entertainment. Miller wanted to make a movie that goes all in for action that lends its lead actor plenty to show in their eyes rather than copious amounts of dialogue (Miller has stated his longstanding passion for silent films) that also manages to look like something worth seeing in a theater for all of its spectacle. It manages to uphold what made Fury Road so special all those years ago that acts on instinct in a manner that makes for quite the accomplishment once again for primary Australian productions and Miller. You could highlight the opening chase sequence or the rig sequence for its execution of sound and not be wrong with either choice. The landscape always manages to make an impression on oneself when viewing it among the imagery in a way that makes the storytelling all the more effective in what gets conveyed within the selective dialogue used. Browne and Taylor-Joy each have their moments in the sun to express so much when it comes to having to make a place for themselves in a world that values resources above all (as evidenced by the fact that two of the main locations of the film are "Gastown" and "Bullet Farm"), particularly for someone like her that has plenty of suppression amid all of the mayhem. It isn't about the dialogue that matters so much to her journey as it is the way she maneuvers the surroundings that arise from such perils. The dynamic that arises from her and Burke in trying to carve a living while in a rig that doesn't seem to allow any thought of it is a curious one because of that understated charm that arises as if one was viewing a Western (again, it seems hard to have any sort of bond with people in a place full of nuts named "Immortan"). Hulme works well in fitting into the role as originally played by Hugh Keays-Byrne in terms of stature (as opposed to just calling him a creep for all of those wives, shall we say). However, it is Hemsworth who seems to stand out the best in the film because of how much he commands of the screen in his villainy. Far from just an inflated nose and other little things to spot in his features (and of course, the chariot), he cultivates a unnerving presence that is tremendously captivating within his brutality and chaotic nature (consider the group seen with him at the start as compared with how he stands at the end). He clearly relishes being in this role and the climactic scene with him and Taylor-Joy is especially helpful in understanding the nature of revenge versus fulfillment within one's soul. In general, this is the kind of film that gives a spark to make plans to watch alongside Fury Road and enjoy with complete fulfillment for all of the technical accomplishment that arises from each production in post-apocalyptic spectacle and mythmaking on the most interesting levels. I'm not sure where it ranks when compared to the other quality predecessors, but it is quite an odyssey to experience.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.