Obsession (2025).

Review #2539: Obsession.

Cast: 

Michael Johnston (Baron "Bear" Bailey), Inde Navarrette (Nikki Freeman), Cooper Tomlinson (Ian), Megan Lawless (Sarah Harper), Andy Richter (Carter Harper), with Haley Fitzgerald (Viola), Darin Toonder (Harry), and Curry Barker (voice on the phone) Edited and Directed by Curry Barker.

Review: 

"I didn't want it to just be this angry, possessed, dark-eyed thing. I wanted it to be more like, “No, this is just a toxic, toxic relationship, and she's just so obsessed with him.” And I didn't want to add anything that felt like it wouldn't… Because it's so easy to go down this rabbit hole of just becoming a slasher movie, but it's like, no, no, no, what would a person do if in the circumstance, all they want is you? All they want is to be with you. So then it becomes manipulation, it becomes tactics of like, “How can I get you to stay longer? Can I use my self-harm to make you feel guilty?” Things like that, instead of, like, “I'm going to kill everybody.”

Sure, let's do the new movie garnering attention that happens to be directed by a YouTuber.* Born and raised in Alabama, Curry Barker had met Cooper Tomlinson on the campus of NYFA Los Angeles and had a quick connection to where they made sketch comedy together for the channel "that's a bad idea". They made a few short films as well before making a film together for $800 with Milk & Serial, a found footage film that they decided would be best to put out on YouTube for their fans. Barker stated that he had an idea about an obsessed person and a relationship, but the wishing aspect came about by seeing an old episode of The Simpsons (specifically "Treehouse of Horror II", which involved a segment with a monkey's paw). The film was shot over a span of under four weeks while having a bit of re-shoots (such as including the opening scene or the scene where the brief confrontation scene after getting his hair cut in his sleep). It premiered originally at a midnight section of the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2025 and attracted enough attention to get Focus Features to acquire distribution rights in America. We've all seen a few things with the monkey's paw or with great desires of control such as The Twilight Zone's "The Chaser" or Tales from the Crypt (the 1972 segment "Wish You Were Here", or the 1991 episode "Loved to Death"). Or maybe the Wishmaster movies, or Wish Upon (2017). Well, maybe not everything (okay, I didn't see the latter two, but I'm sure someone did), but still. 

It's a pretty good movie, which is a relief to me in hearing about a horror movie that garnered some attention that did in fact make it worthwhile to see in a movie theater (as opposed to ones that annoyed me, like Hereditary*). It's a movie for those who realizes the fine line that exists between "love story" and "romance" and also know how terrifying it really would be to have someone obsessed with you to along with the ramifications of believing that you could actually make it all work even when basically being on the edge of the cliff. Regardless of what you think is going to happen, the fear all comes in wondering when it will all bubble up to the surface. It probably helps that the One Wish Willow is just presented as a cheap enough trinket that isn't needlessly explained beyond having "customer service", honestly (there are moments that are pitch black in terms of humor, but the line between scary and funny is a pretty thin one, particularly in horror). Within the 109-minute runtime is a fairly suitable opening portion (yes, the diner scene was added in) before the inevitable hammer drops that makes it all the more tragic, namely in the idea that might as well be timeless in people who don't really know how to say what they mean (at least the lead guy doesn't ask Chat GPT what to do*). 

Johnston makes for a capable lead focus to see all of this play out in basic pathetic nature, a man who doesn't really know what's so bad about being with him in the way he has set things. He basically ruins four lives (in one interview, Johnston noted he had a key contribution for the ending, incidentally) because of his own great selfishness, and Johnston handles it with such conviction that you want to keep seeing how he keeps digging himself further into the hole (anything to avoid rejection - note the fact that we don't really see this guy with anyone older than him besides his friend group). Navarrette was basically told to not play her role (after the wishing willow is used) as possessed, instead going for manipulation (one inspiration noted was Pearl [2022]). She runs the gamut in such an unnerving way of doing toxic lust, one who probably represents the ouroboros more than anything in the cynical nature of raw longing for someone at any cost. One instance sees them lurking in a corner, since the divide between Nikki and, well, the one trapped in a sunken place*, is pretty stark and that just makes the tension all the more harrowing besides just noting them using duct tape on a door. The chemistry between Johnston and Navarrette is unnerving in all of right places that goes to show that it isn't always a head-splatter that proves the most unsettling thing to experience in a film like this. The rest of the group fits the bill for what is needed in being swallowed in the vortex of ill-begotten ideas (the other thought that came about in the drunk Jenga scene is, hey, I want to be around that place). By the time the movie ends with such a good ol' downer*, you get plenty of satisfaction in seeing the perils of what can and what cannot be understood about decisions made for oneself in the name of "desire". As a whole, Obsession is a pretty entertaining horror movie, managing to evoke a good deal of scares into a simple enough premise of the perils that come from getting what you think you want and the fear in seeing it having an effect on everything around you. It's the kind of claustrophobic churning type of horror movie that will stick right with you by the time it all goes down.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Hey, Danny and Michael Philippou started out on YouTube, as was the case with Chris Stuckmann (Shelby Oaks) and Mark "Markiplier" Fischbach (Iron Lung). If I really wanted to look for YouTuber movies, it would actually start with Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie or one by Brad Jones, because I really don't watch that many YouTube channels anyway. I head RedLetterMedia is fine? 

*Ironically, I enjoyed Ari Aster's subsequent Midsommar a bit more than Hereditary. I will also say that Beau is Afraid has been on my back burner for a bit. 

*Hey, fuck Chat GPT.

*Maybe not exactly a riff of Get Out (as shot near Barker's home), but one does wonder if there was even the tiniest inspiration from that. 

*Apparently the film originally had an ending (text is light, highlight to read): where Nikki died. A request by a studio to reverse that basically ended up being more bleak, interestingly. I will say that the only way that things would've been ever more fucked for a downer ending would be if: Nikki awakens after the dream is ended but she finds out that she is pregnant.

War of the Worlds (2025).

Review #2481: War of the Worlds (2025).

Cast: 

Ice Cube (Will Radford), Eva Longoria (Dr. Sandra Salas), Clark Gregg (Donald Briggs), Iman Benson (Faith Radford), Henry Hunter Hall (Dave Radford), Devon Bostick (Mark Goodman), Michael O'Neill (Walter Crystal, United States Secretary of Defense), Andrea Savage (Sheila Jeffries, FBI Agent), and Jim Meskimen (the President) Directed by Rich Lee.

Review:

This is the debut feature of Rich Lee, who had spent two decades directing music videos for various bands after first doing work at Scenic Technologies doing sets/sculpting and also did work with previsualization for a few feature films. Not exactly the worse resume for a movie that might go down in infamy as one of the most ineffective feature film debuts ever. At any rate, let's start carefully. The screenplay was credited to Kenneth A. Golde and Marc Hyman, with a story by Golde as based on the novel of the same name by H. G. Wells (which apparently is in the public domain now). Evidently, the first rumblings of making this film started in 2020 that would use "screenlife technology" (as, as popularized by films such as Searching (2018), which shares a producer with this film in Timur Bekmambetov. So yes, they wanted to make a film that looked like an event but with the budget of a small thriller. Apparently, post-production lasted for two years after the film was shot over the course of fifteen days and had a handful of edits made over and over again. Actual footage of disasters (such as a fire) had CGI put over it to serve for this film. Universal was originally set to release it, but it was later sold to Amazon, who released it onto Prime Video. You might wonder why this film gets a pass then despite being on a streaming thing. Well, I do love a good target, especially one that claims to not be deterred by bad reviews.

The following things are namedropped or shown: Spotify, FaceTime, VISA, Zoom, the Mac, Tesla, the Push button ("that was easy"), Amazon (drones are totally cool) and gift cards, commentators such as Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. Bekmambetov apparently believed that the best way to experience the action through the lens of phones and computers that surely would be a modern spin of the novel akin to the Orson Welles radio broadcast from 1938. I cannot imagine someone trying to pretend to be immersed in the film actually portraying an invasion and people rising above it to tell truths by displaying an image that says: "Let's Disrupt Some Shit". You have got to be kidding me with this movie, right? There is no desire in my mind to give the film the "so bad it's good" treatment, there is only a desire to bury this movie into the ground for all of the genuine terrible quality that comes through in 89 minutes of what barely even counts as a film. How can you call this a movie where you are basically paying attention to small rectangle rather than the whole frame? How can you call this a movie where you already know the outcome and the characters are still badly developed? How could this have passed for a film? Is that all there is, movies being made for "content"? To call this a movie is an insult to movies made on a shoestring budget or even Neil Breen. You can't believe anything you see or hear with the film from hacking to the art of needing a thumb drive as delivered by a drone. Ice Cube can't even make this tolerable to watch because he just sounds bored by what he is doing here, a movie where he was filmed without the director or actors around. Gregg can't even sell the idea that he cares about the perils of trying to seize a higher place of power in disaster because he has the commitment level of someone stuck in an unending phone call. The "Disruptor" stuff is just cringe and unconvincing in actually making you believe in the film besides the invasion. The effects, aside from the probable tastelessness (debate for yourself) of taking actual suffering and putting CG over it, don't even heighten the drama because the visuals just aren't interesting to look at. In the end, you could stick with the 1953 or 2005 version of War of the Worlds, end of story. This is an insult to moviemaking, and it honestly deserves to be buried into the ground for sheer audacity in wasting the time of its audience with no sense of tension, interest, or soul in any shape or form. Laughing at it isn't enough, giving it a 0 is what it deserves.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

Well, we tried our best to do a quality Turkey Week. Six Novembers of having some pretty bad movies to close out the month has been pretty enjoyable, and I look forward to further years of ridicule. At any rate, presented here were the finalists: 

Doolittle / Killing Me Softly / National Lampoon's Movie Madness / Gotti / Driven / Date Movie / H. G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come / Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Predator: Badlands.

Review #2472: Predator: Badlands.

Cast: 

Elle Fanning (Thia / Tessa), Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi (Dek / voice of Njohrr / Apex Predator / Father), Reuben de Jong (Njohrr / Apex Predator / Father), Mike Homik (Kwei; Stefan Grube as voice), Rohinal Narayan (Bud), Cameron Brown (Smyth), and Alison Wright (voice of MU/TH/UR) Directed by Dan Trachtenberg (#784 - 10 Cloverfield Lane)

Review: 

Predator (1987) came onto the scene when its writers Jim and John Thomas wondered, "What would it be like to be hunted by a dilettante hunter from another planet the way we hunt big game in Africa?” It ended up being more than that of course, as one does when having John McTiernan as a director and the fact that yes, it was far more than just an "macho" action movie because most importantly: it was a movie that dealt with one creature setting out to find a worthy opponent (i.e. a thinker besides just shooting at what moves) that would actually engage with the environment and scenario given for a meaningful battle. The follow-ups that have followed in the wake of a movie that is now rightfully seen as an action/sci-fi/horror staple have been, well, distinct: Predator 2 (1990) was the last of the series with the Thomas brothers writing it and I really have to re-consider why I didn't care about it back when I saw it years ago. We do not speak of Alien vs. Predator or its equally dumb follow-up. Predators (2010) had a variety of actors to choose from for an interesting focus on a planet of killers being hunted down...and landed on Adrien Brody, the weakest possible choice (I will die on that hill). The Predator (2018) apparently nearly killed the franchise before the streaming circuit saw a variety of films from Dan Trachtenberg in Prey (2022) and Predator: Killer of Killers (2025); I didn't have time to see those two movies on Hulu, sue me.* But we are here for the movie bold enough to be in theaters with Badlands, which was written by Patrick Aison and Trachtenberg. Made on a budget of $105 million (the most expensive film of the franchise), the movie has so far made its budget back in its release to theaters this month. Nice to be in theaters, eh?

 

It may interest you to know the MPA considers violence of synthetic robots and alien creatures such as the Yautja (okay, I don't remember when they got that name, but obviously it wasn't going to be "Predators") to be worthy of a PG-13 rating, which amuses me when you consider the amount of things that get churned down to doom. This was a fun movie, if you could tell by my statement. It is a solid middle-tier effort in a series that really just benefits from just enjoying the hunt and the surroundings. The rule of the jungle is at hand here with a fairly likable group of people to see through it all, as opposed to going with merely the tried-and-true method of honorable warrior stuff and instead finds a fun adventure in creature-gazing. It helps to have Fanning there to deliver most of the audible lines (to us, anyway, since the Yautja communicate through subtitles, which I'm sure nobody would complain about) in a double role that lends her the chance to have some fun in showing the two sides of synths: ones who like playing with others and ones that, well, like to serve MU/TH/UR (which, maybe is a bit of a spoiler alert, goes better when one has legs to stand on, apparently). Will some have a point in not caring for some of the moments of, uh, humor? Maybe, but what is so damn bad about having a movie with a little bit of buddy humor for a series built on just doing whatever it wants? You want Predator (1987)? Then go watch Predator. Schuster-Koloamatangi proves worthy enough to provide the physicality required for a movie that invites you to consider a "runt" predator and be on its side in seeing Dek get back home. Amidst the spilling of non-human blood every now and then is a pretty nice locale to see the action take place, figuratively and literally (blade grass anyone?). I would venture to guess that another Predator movie with these filmmakers would be an enticing one. As a whole, Predator: Badlands is a solid movie fit for consideration among the usual suspects of adventures with its own type of blended pairing that happens to have a few visual interests to go along with a sense of charm and engagement for the spirit of what it means to really hunt.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*At least Trachtenberg did 10 Cloverfield Lane. Also, why the hell couldn't they just do another Cloverfield follow-up? I'm still not over The Cloverfield Paradox just being dumped.

NEXT TIME: Turkey Week Six looms this Sunday.

The Running Man (2025).

Review #2471: The Running Man (2025).

Cast: 

Glen Powell (Ben Richards), Josh Brolin (Dan Killian), Colman Domingo (Bobby "Bobby T" Thompson), Lee Pace (Evan McCone), Michael Cera (Elton Parrakis), Emilia Jones (Amelia Williams), William H. Macy (Molie Jernigan), Daniel Ezra (Bradley Throckmorton), Jayme Lawson (Sheila Richards), Alyssa and Sienna Benn (Cathy Richards), Katy O'Brian (Jenni Laughlin), Karl Glusman (Frank), Martin Herlihy (Tim Jansky), Sean Hayes (Gary Greenbacks), David Zayas (Richard Manuel), and Sandra Dickinson (Victoria Parrakis) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver, #1537 - Shaun of the Dead, #2408 - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World)

Review: 

“It’s clear, having done test screenings, that there are people who have neither read the book nor seen the 1987 film. But when it first came to me, I wasn’t interested in doing a remake of the film because there wasn’t any sort of reason to do that. I think the reason to remake a film is if there’s something else in the material. So it was never going to be a scene-for-scene literal remake. It was always, in our heads, a new adaptation of the source material.”

You might remember that The Running Man was originally a novel before being churned into the moviemaking circuit. Stephen King, under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, originally wrote the novel in 1982 as a paperback original. It was set in the year 2025 in which a dystopian America has a government-operated TV station that has shows fit for public consumption in violence that included "The Running Man", where one has to survive 30 days from any opportunistic person and a group of killers to go along with having to send in messages every day. Apparently, the book featured the contestants getting $100 an hour to stay alive and $100 for every cop or hunter they kill. King apparently wrote the work in the span of a week (as opposed to his process of writing pages-to-pages in a few months). The 1987 movie came about as the result of people who saw the idea of George P. Cosmatos or Andrew Davis to direct Christopher Reeve and said, nope, you're getting Paul Michael Glaser (past star of Starsky & Hutch and future director of Kazaam) directing Arnold Schwarzenegger, as written by Steven E. de Souza. There are a few beats in the movie that was pretty fun beneath the slashing to the literary material...because all one had to do was go through four game quads in three hours. Yep, just three hours while dealing with dudes that had the following: a hockey-themed killer, a dude on a chainsaw, an opera singing electric shooter and a flamethrower to go along with Richard Dawson having probably the time of his life as Killian (in the book, Killian is merely just the producer, not the actual host). Funny enough, a lawsuit came out not too long after the release of the film that accused the film of plagiarizing a 1982 French film Le prix du danger, which had been an adaptation of Robert Sheckley's 1958 short story “The Prize of Peril" (that story had a normal man faced with escaping murderers with the help of alleged good Samaritans, incidentally). Incidentally, the 2025 movie, in following certain beats of the book while having its own type of ending, was endorsed by King. Oh, and it is a movie where you can see Arnold Schwarzenegger on the $100 bill.

There will be people who just compare it to the 1987 movie (one that could alternatively be cited as being a fun action movie but also one you really can't take seriously) and basically not give this movie the fair shake it deserves. And damn it, this feels like one of those movies that deserves to have a following because it just wants to aim for slick entertainment in seeing both a dystopia built on illusions that probably aren't too different from our world (a nation built on suffering, maybe?). This would probably make a good double feature with the other King adaptation of this year in The Long Walk, with both movies having an ordinary guy choosing to participate in a deadly game where one just has to keep moving to survive because of their desperate situation. I found it interesting to present the game as being played not by ordinary Joes but instead "lazy" people that is in turn built up by the production team in its own form of staged high-scale drama while also having some time spent with a few oddballs to meet up with our Everyman. Powell does pretty well with the desperation required in making a hero that you could believe would jump into the pool of sharks in charm, although I suppose others will take their time to buy him as one who stumbles into being a folk hero of some sort. I enjoyed the push-and-pull of despair and hope you can get as the movie goes further on in one man's quest to simply help the people around him in a mostly familiar place of dystopia (read: not too far from now, because where does the bar go in reality TV crap after having people play games for money?) and a few enjoyable action beats.

Admittedly, the film doesn't have as much of a ham in an adversary as, well Richard Dawson, since Domingo is merely a figurehead of bombast while Brolin shows up from time to time in smarmy conviction to go along with a mostly faceless Pace (faceless boots of authority? Wonder where that came from). But it is nice to see them there to represent the spectacle (i.e., the boot on the neck of the public). You see a few guests along the way to roll along with Powell that make for a few interesting moments, mostly from Cera because of the amount of time you see with him in barely-contained paranoia. Admittedly, the film does nearly stumble at the climax, as if somehow the runtime (133 minutes) actually needed a bit more time to really breathe to make everything sink in. But I think it is the kind of ending I can forgive in the spirit of "I've liked what I have seen, so let it pass." As a whole, The Running Man is a ball of a time for those who just want to see a King work get its due with a few visceral moments of charm and bite to make for a solid popcorn movie at least one time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Black Phone 2.

Review #2445: Black Phone 2.

Cast: 

Mason Thames (Finney Blake), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen Blake), Ethan Hawke (the Grabber), Demián Bichir (Armando), Jeremy Davies (Terrence Blake), Miguel Mora (Ernesto), Arianna Rivas (Mustang), Anna Lore (Hope Blake), Graham Abbey (Kenneth), and Maev Beaty (Barbara) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange, #1865 - The Black Phone, #1905 - Sinister)

Review: 

You might remember that The Black Phone was released just a few years ago, first premiering in the festival circuit back in 2021 before Universal Pictures eventually got on actually releasing the movie to theaters in 2022. Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill cultivated a story based on Joe Hill's short story of the same name with a good deal of inspiration from people Derrickson knew when he was younger, which differed from say, the "Spielberg Amblin suburban middle school life": there were obviously a handful of differences between story and movie, most notably that the sister was actually the older one along with having calls from just one person in the story (who actually does tell him to fill the phone with sand as a weapon) and, well, the story ends right as one is trying to escape the house all while the phone is ringing* In 2023, Derrickson and Cargill worked on "Dreamkill", a segment for the found footage horror anthology movie V/H/S/85 that dealt with a cousin of the Blake family with their own psychic ability. Derrickson and Cargill wrote the script just as they did for the previous film, although Hill apparently came up with an idea ("The Grabber calls Finn from hell") for the sequel.

It probably was spooky to watch a movie where you see people in a film just yanked out of the blue that won't come back and will stare at nothing for the rest of time. Sure, a good chunk of the last Black Phone movie was basically an escape room, but it had an interesting performance in Ethan Hawke to go along with a few unsettling moments with a person who clearly had the headspace of wanting to win his own game (whether that involves his brother or not) while wearing such a strange imposing mask. Sure, the movie didn't outright show much in terms of gore, but I think you get the creeping factor that could come in what might happen if one in fact can't just stay dead with a sequel. This is a lot of words for me saying I really wished that I liked the movie, because it is quite ridiculous, when you get down to it (I will try to not spoil anything too specific unless you scroll down below for notes). Let's start with some praise first. McGraw does manage to shine the best among the cast in terms of evoking interest in vulnerable. And I do like Thames reasonably well in his burrowing evolution from the point of "what next?", for the most part. Hawke does still have an unsettling presence here, even if a good chunk of it is really just a voice more than anything (the not-quite spoiler is that being dead means not being able to just take your mask off). The 114-minute runtime can only go so far when having ideas of trying to ape A Nightmare on Elm Street (as I recall, the climaxes for 3 and 4 dealt with resting bones and a soul revolt, respectively), although I imagine someone would argue it might have had a bit of inspiration from Friday the 13th with its camp scenario. But you can only do so many things involving dreams. To put it mildly, there are quite a few scenes now spent in Super 8-filmed dreamland that takes things to new levels convenience. Since the Grabber is basically only around in the dream world (or when he calls Finn because, obviously), it means a good chunk of time is spent in going from thing to thing because the movie can only maneuver itself forward within dreams, particularly when the movie doesn't have as much urgency as you wish it would have. For a movie that tries to be "Good vs. Evil", you can only go so far before you start to wonder if "Black Phone: Rocky Vacation" would've been a more apt title, complete with clunky dialogue all in its midst. I sometimes felt like I was back in It Chapter Two (2019) territory, for whatever reason.

Three ideas popped into my head about what the movie could've been: Finn trying to actually cope with his survivor's guilt, or lurking further with what the Grabber is beyond being a "bottomless pit" of sins, or maybe asking aloud if Gwen actually is going nuts (okay maybe everyone starts to believe something is up when being levitated in the air, but, well). Instead, it goes for lurking in dreams again and again and again until it eventually reveals the last card that comes with things that either could be thought of as a blessing or a curse*. It can only go so far when trying to make the Grabber a thing because you can only go so far in the first place* before it all becomes too goofy for words. You might say it isn't advisable to judge a movie on what you want it to be rather than what it actually is, but for me, there is a uneasy feeling of being underwhelmed by what I was watching by the time the film stumbles to the climax. It already felt sluggish for its first half, but it just doesn't stick the landing all the way through. You can say that it isn't a slasher movie and that it is supernatural and yea, okay, the first movie was about dead kids calling someone, but now we are talking about once-dead beings skating on ice as if they were the Invisible Man, so keep trying to say "atmosphere, atmosphere"- yadda yadda yadda. Some might find it spooky, other might just find it only mildly involving. In trying to justify its existence, it only ends up feeling like an epilogue. As a whole, I wanted to like the movie beyond tagging it as just mildly disappointing but didn't quite find what I was looking for. It's just too average to really love. The tough situation of having voices of the dead be the one point standing between a trapped person and a kidnapper seemingly turned on to playing a game with a stacked deck is now just a rocky mountain adventure. The movie accomplishes a good chunk of its goals but doesn't really pull the punches that were as apparent in the first film. You might think of it as a solid sequel, and that's fine with me. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the short story (30 pages) is available on the Wayback Machine. To prove that, the first words of the story: "The fat man on the other side of the road was about to drop his groceries."

*Okay, one spoiler: Imagine, if even for a second, that Gwen was actually just going a bit crazy, rather than just being The Most Correct Person To Ever Live. But nah, she even gets to be the one who mom talks to on the phone at the end. Sucks to be you Finn! And don't tell me that is supposed to be an emotional hallmark, you already make it so the mom did not in fact kill herself (ITS ALL CONNECTED AHHHHHHH), do you need closure on closure too? I wanted to know if the religious parents died in the ice or not, by the way.

*Addendum: Technically, the movie has no actual body count. Sure, you are told about a few more dead kids from the 1950s, but really: is a movie spookier when you are told about something or when you actually see it? You can't introduce three new characters to join the proceedings and then basically not have any of them deal with mortality. And no, the mom doesn't count, that's just retconning/cheating.

One Battle After Another.

Review #2426: One Battle After Another.

Cast: 

Leonardo DiCaprio (Bob Ferguson / "Ghetto" Pat Calhoun), Sean Penn (Col. Steven J. Lockjaw), Benicio del Toro (Sergio St. Carlos), Regina Hall (Deandra), Teyana Taylor (Perfidia Beverly Hills), Chase Infiniti (Willa Ferguson / Charlene Calhoun), Alana Haim (Mae West), Wood Harris (Laredo), Shayna McHayle (Junglepussy), Paul Grimstad (Howard Sommerville), Dijon Duenas (Talleyrand), Tony Goldwyn (Virgil Throckmorton), Starletta DuPois (Grandma Jennie), John Hoogenakker (Tim Smith), and Eric Schweig (Avanti) Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (#1546 - There Will Be Blood)

Review: 

"I think even before I had kids, I kind of felt a connection to how this father felt about his daughter. And it only grew deeper and stronger as I have had kids to understand what he was writing about in that way. And I’m trying to take from the book what I needed and pursue my own path and let it move in directions that it seemed that it wanted to go.”

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised to encounter this in the proper place for a new film: a movie theater*. Apparently, Paul Thomas Anderson had wanted to do a movie based on Thomas Pynchon's 1990 novel Vineland for many years. He loved the book so much that he struggled with how to adapt it and set it aside. He found later that when he wrote a series of separate stories, he found it worked to combine those with certain elements of Vineland (a book set in 1984 dealing with a burnt-out hippie, a traitorous revolutionary and a DEA agent dealing with a secret that also features "like death, but different" Thanatoids, to provide an example of what the book sounds like) for what became this film; previously, he made an adaptation of Pynchon's Inherent Vice in 2014 and had taken slight inspiration from Pynchon's V. for The Master in 2012. You may or may not know that the title of the movie is shared with a statement put out by Weather Underground, the far-left militant organization (and described as "domestic terrorist" by the FBI) that had run for a good deal of the 1970s (with targeted bombing of government buildings and banks, with a good chunk having warnings set out beforehand) before it splintered off into other organizations.

It is an interesting movie, that's for sure. It probably goes without saying that it rises above just being termed an "action thriller", mostly in the strange places that it mines for screwy moments of humor without straining into parody or sanctimonious hokum. It manages to cycle through 162 minutes with such energy and charm that reminds one of the enthusiasm that can be found with letting movies flow on their own terms. The ensemble does work out for captivating interest in seeing where the wind blows in would-be revolutionaries in the eternal battle that comes not just from trying to challenge the system but also the battle of seeing what the world will look like for the next generation. It works out well for DiCaprio, who gets to play the role in all of its burned-out flaws that come with people that may or may not be ready for what lies ahead in real danger, whether that involves a gun or, well, being a person in someone's life. It is bleakly amusing to see how one sees him from the first thirty minutes (where he, alongside Taylor in her own path of self-serving nature, is depicted as in and later out of the French 75 lifestyle) to him for most of the film as the hazy chaser in a strange world around him. Consider how he looks when paired with del Toro (who just glides through the movie like a pro) in certain sequences of what you might as well call revolution with ideas of, well, responsibility. It befuddles me to note I had seen exactly one movie with Sean Penn in it before this one. At any rate, this is a movie with a real standout performance by Penn, who makes for a compelling adversary that actually does inspire the tiniest bit of humor from an aspiring fascist club member. There is plenty of menace to be found even within the growing absurdities that come with a character that really, really wants approval in all of the strange ways possible (as one does when starting out by being forced to get an erection before ending with, well, a pitch-black moment very fitting for him). He isn't too different from Taylor when it comes to self-serving people that love the sound of their own voice when it comes to force - really, he could be anybody who ever managed to make it to a certain position of privilege and still crave affection (notice how we never see if Lockjaw has a spouse or other kids) in such seething contempt because they can't just admit it. Likely the best representation of how Taylor (who does pretty well with a role that is only in the aforementioned first part but basically haunts the entire narrative) is similar is the robbery sequence where you might think the group is going to assert their identity of being able to move along freely (one does that by being on the counter without a mask, for example), loud and proud right up until Taylor's character just shoots a guard because he dared to move.

People come and go with one hell of a tempo behind it, and Infiniti (in her film debut) does a worthy job keeping up with the proceedings with patience and a presence to match the growing insanity. The sequence with her and Penn meeting for the first time to basically size each other up is especially enthralling in the display of two people displaying just how much hatred (and, dark humor) can be found in a test of DNA. As a whole, the movie finds one thing above all in its chase of the frontier (namely with one hell of a car sequence): there are many battles to be had in life, but the ideal one to really, madly, deeply want to win is to raise a good person to walk in your footsteps. You are not your parents, you are the choices that come from what you learn from the people around you, for better or worse. The dueling groups of people that seek to fight for a different future (whether by bomb or incinerating false hopes) will come and go, but the plight of people around us will be clear as day to those who actually take the time to look and listen with their own eyes and ears. Basically, it is a movie that moves with enough of a jolt to remind you what love can be about in the face of bubbling dread for what the world might look like for the next people. In that sense, it is a timely movie to check out and see for yourself what the fuss is about.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Is it a bias against Netflix? Meh, who knows I just hate the idea of streaming anything new.

*I do kind of wonder for the record about one little plot thing, so scroll at your risk: how exactly do Bob and Willa get back home with the safety of having a cell phone now? Did the government just say "fuck it, these guys aren't worth the trouble". Does him having a phone mean that he is less paranoid, and how does one get to that point when you basically went through hell? Also I totally wonder if it was picked at random that the person presented to be gender neutral is the one that ends up ratting to the troops that Willa does in fact have a phone to track.

The Long Walk (2025).

Review #2419: The Long Walk.

Cast: 

Cooper Hoffman (Raymond Garraty [#47]), David Jonsson (Peter McVries [#23]), Garrett Wareing (Billy Stebbins [#38]), Tut Nyuot (Arthur Baker [#6]), Charlie Plummer (Gary Barkovitch [#5]), Ben Wang (Hank Olson [#46]), Jordan Gonzalez (Richard Harkness [#49]), Joshua Odjick (Collie Parker [#48]), Mark Hamill (The Major), Roman Griffin Davis (Thomas Curley [#7]), Judy Greer (Ginnie Garraty), and Josh Hamilton (William Garraty) Directed by Francis Lawrence.

Review: 

“To me, that’s what the whole thing is about. The whole thing is about the two of them bonding, and kind of falling in love in a weird way. The conflict of what they’re there for and what they’ve been through in the past only brings them closer together. The sacrifices they make for one another, to me, is the whole movie.”

There are many Stephen King stories that have been turned into a film or adapted for television, but, yes, The Long Walk finally gets its due for the first time ever. Apparently, the book was the first that Stephen King wrote, as he started writing it in high school (which he has stated was not done "consciously" about the ongoing carnage of the Vietnam War) and finished it by the time he started attending the University of Maine in 1967. Years later, having become an established writer, The Long Walk was published in 1979 (under his pen name Richard Bachman, because authors weren't expected to release books so quickly). A cursory glance at a summary of the book reveals a few distinct details that the film is different from: 100 participants are walking on a road that must average a pace of four miles per hour (no I am not correcting that to kilometers) that gets warnings if they miss the threshold for 30 seconds. And yes, you can't stop for anything (in real life, you could last a few days without walking, albeit with growing levels of severe damage to one's insides). Apparently, there had been quite a few filmmakers that wanted to do a film adaptation that ranged from George A. Romero to Frank Darabont before it came together in 2023 under the direction of Francis Lawrence, who you might remember as the director of The Hunger Games follow-up films; the movie was written by JT Mollner.

We live in a nation that seems to love watching suffering, don't we? The age of the Internet accelerated our curiosity to overdrive for watching people do damn near anything out of desperation (this of course extends to watching "political streamers", because hey, if you are going to hear about the news, you might as well be angry too). Debate all you want where it all may go in the future in terms of bloodlust when it comes to how we treat the deaths of others, it probably correlates with people complaining that their country has sucked for several decades now. So, in a movie with a dystopian setting that wants to fight against a malaise of laziness with the ultimate expression of fitness, it only makes sense for me to treat it as basically a horror movie* where the greatest enemy is inevitability. Everyone dies, but some will suffer far more than others in that last moment spent on the great rock. With that in mind, this is a pretty good movie in the execution of tension and brotherhood that comes out even with all the inevitable qualities that come with its 108-minute runtime. Most of its time is spent on that one road with only cursory glances at the countryside (one member of the landscape seen is a cat with no eyes) to go along with the sights and sounds of people being shot. In that sense, the ensemble is exceptionally talented to hold up the task of a movie that could've easily had a chance to go off the rails with less confidence to hold things together (really I'm more surprised someone had not made a low-budget cheapie of this before). Hoffman and Jonsson each carry the film with a bond that is fascinating to see build and build as the film goes on, selling the curdling fear that comes with seeing people die and die that might as well make the possible winner the biggest victim of them all. Sure, you might find moments of levity within the road of gloom, but you have a group that sells the tension that comes with knowing and losing people who it might hurt more to remember their name (as opposed to the numbered tag they wear, which seems to fit the times more if you think about it). You get to see the personalities of these people wither down to the logical conclusion, be it a bully who sees death right in front of them, wisecrackers or a self-realization about one's perceived value. Calling it a cross between Stand by Me and a war movie is probably not as far off as it may seem, and there isn't a weak note among the cast. Hamill pops in from time to time with one specific type of presence (namely never taking off those sunglasses), which is fairly effective in authoritative menace. To say nothing of the ending, it provides its own distinct take on the meaning of having a wish versus actually realizing it in the wake of the road getting there that is pretty solid when you see it play out.* As a whole, it is a tense burner of a movie, having a worthy execution of suspense within the horror of inevitability within death in brotherhood that may very well become a curiosity to view in the coming years.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*What? People try to label movies clearly in the horror genre as musicals or "psychological thrillers", change my mind.

*I wouldn't call this a "both sides" thing, there are people who just brush aside school shootings, so you know where they can shove the "decency card".

*Spoiler (in lighter text): The book has McVries die (sitting at peace) before Stebbins, who then dies so Garraty wins. The book ends with Garraty wandering to catch a figure he sees in the distance, ignoring the victory. The movie ends with McVries being the winner after Garraty stops moving before the prize is awarded. You might debate whether anything after the victory is really real, but I'll go with the literal ending just for the hell of it: shooting the Major dead and McVries wandering into the distance...

Caught Stealing.

Review #2418: Caught Stealing.

Cast: 

Austin Butler (Henry "Hank" Thompson), Regina King (Det. Elise Roman), Zoë Kravitz (Yvonne), Matt Smith (Russ), Liev Schreiber (Lipa Drucker), Vincent D'Onofrio (Shmully Drucker), Benito A Martínez Ocasio (Colorado), Griffin Dunne (Paul), Carol Kane (Bubbe), Yuri Kolokolnikov (Aleksei), and Nikita Kukushkin (Pavel) Directed by Darren Aronofsky (#1112 - Pi, #1580 - mother!)

Review: 

Sure, this is the new film from director Darren Aronofsky, but I'll be honest, the reason I picked the movie is that it seemed like the kind of movie that would slip through the cracks if I didn't act quickly. Honestly, I think I saw exactly one trailer for the movie, but I'm sure this was going to be something fitting of the guy who did Pi (1998) rather than say, the guy who did mother! (2017). So, what is the movie? Well, it is based on the 2004 novel of the same name (the first of three books involving the character, as followed by Six Bad Things and A Dangerous Man) by Charlie Huston, who wrote the screenplay for this film, which is the ninth feature film by Aronofsky. You might think is a caper with a few bits of humor. Well...it is technically a funny movie, but you sure will get some whiplash by the stuff that happens with this movie (as set in 1998, specifically late September in New York) which features a handful of characters that get killed for 107 minutes (horror movies wish they had that kind of body count). Omen or not, I saw the movie on a Thursday night to about three other people (my kind of audience, at least when it comes to ill-timed laughs). 

I did enjoy the movie, albeit one that sure takes its time to really get going in a tightly wound thriller about one man who is having an increasingly bad week, as one does when engulfed in trying to think quick for a myriad of tough decisions beyond "oh, I have a cat to take care of". But really, it is a funny movie even with such squeamish moments, mostly because I did get a kick out of the ways one is wriggled in and out of chaos: some may call it whiplash, but I lied, it really is just mayhem and I think some people prefer to shudder at it rather than admit that there was some sort of perverse enjoyment to be had (sure, there is some violence that might be too much, but, well, too bad). It does help to have a pretty neat lead behind it all with Butler, who maneuvers vulnerability (past and current) and a general sense of charm that we get behind pretty quickly in the expanding-and-shrinking scenario that comes with people and surprises at every corner. He has a certain natural attitude that just clicks to what we are seeing without seeming like just being an impersonation of say, Steve McQueen. His demons are ones that we understand when it goes from a path of realization in, well, not turning away from their problems. The cast around him is fairly quirky in their machinations of mayhem (with a cat involved, naturally), whether that involves the coarse King or the delightful rat in the coming-and-going Smith or the late favorite in friendly neighborhood killer pair in Schreiber and D'Onofrio. There are plenty of little sequences to highlight within the ever-growing pulse of terror of someone who isn't exactly gripped in calm/normal reality to begin with, and I think the ending is a pretty apt one in laying out that being on the beach may not be all it looks to be in "peace". It basically is a movie close to the sights and sounds you might have found in old fashioned chase movies, one that might be better with multiple rewatches down the road, suffice to say. I just wish I liked it more, mostly because there is a fewling this could have gone even murkier, but I guess people would have gotten up in arms more (to say nothing of its one big shock). As a whole, if you want a slap-bang film that is reasonably engaged with its late 1990s setting, you might find something worth getting into here. It has enough of a rumble in its execution to make it probably worth a watch, squeamish or not.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night is taking a few days off, just for the record.

Foolishly, I forgot to detail my shortlist of stuff I forgot to review for August, so here it was: Frankenstein vs. Baragon, Gamera vs. Gyaos, 1941, Don Q, Son of Zorro / Mask of Zorro / Zorro, The Gay Blade, But I'm a Cheerleader, City Heat, The Black Swan.

Weapons (2025).

Review #2412: Weapons.

Cast: 

Josh Brolin (Archer Graff), Julia Garner (Justine Gandy), Cary Christopher (Alex Lilly), Alden Ehrenreich (Paul Morgan), Austin Abrams (James), Benedict Wong (Marcus Miller), Amy Madigan (Gladys), Toby Huss (Ed Locke), Sara Paxton (Erica), Justin Long (Gary), June Diane Raphael (Donna Morgan), Whitmer Thomas (Mr. Lilly), and Callie Schuttera (Mrs. Lilly) Directed by Zach Cregger (#1894 - Barbarian)

Review:

"It seems like horror is one of the few outlets for real creativity right now on a big scale. I can’t really think of another one. Without horror, you go to the theater and you get people in tights for $200 million and there’s not a lot of room for risk in those movies. And no shade, I’m all for entertainment, entertaining. But, it’s a shame that there’s not a lot of room for anything else. I love horror, my creative tuning fork resonates strong with horror, so I’m lucky in that regard."

Above all, the best thing to give credit for with this movie is that the bidding war was won by folks who aimed to put this in theaters, because it could've easily gone to Netflix. The success of Barbarian (2022) obviously lent itself the idea that whatever Zach Cregger would do next, it would generate some interest. When in the last stages of making that movie, his best friend died in an accident and the emotional pain that came from that led to writing that went from "a place of catharsis" to, well, something that became a script. The labor disputes of the past few years resulted in delays (namely because of casting, as Pedro Pascal was originally cast as the lead opposite Renate Reisve), but here we are. The movie has partial inspiration in its structure from Magnolia (1999) and the Jennifer Egan novel A Visit from the Goon Squad that also saw him take inspiration from his personal life (read further into the idea of the inversion of a family dynamic from a foreign element that isn't merely just alcohol, maybe). The result is a movie (made for roughly over $30 million) that is already thought of as a considerable success with audiences; the possibility of a follow-up might spring up somewhere down the line. Truly, there are some interesting directors to consider for horror (some with hype like Jordan Peele, others with curiosity from us like Damien Leone, insert one here).

The game of surprise is on display a bit with this movie, which I was hoping would be just fine with the hype that it had received around its release date because sometimes you really can get burned by hype (see: Hereditary). But this is a fine movie, even if it probably a bit more darkly amusing than particularly spooky. It probably helped that I didn't know that much about it, right down to it basically being comprised of "little movies" inside its 128-minute structure that lend a few layers in understanding what happens when people really are just themselves rather than part of a deeper community. Because, well, for this movie at least, a tragedy isn't a way for people to find some common ground with others but is instead a way for self-isolation to grow further and further (we are not that far apart from people who lived in the time where they got spooked by a child having AIDS, if you want to go that far). With a mystery (real or imagined) in particular, people get irritated with the longer it all goes because clearly conspiracies exist everywhere, where the technology of now (ring cameras, anybody? of course, it also helps to have maps) hasn't made us any less prone to paranoia. Basically, the movie isn't about the mystery of where those 17 children are but instead is about the type of people that are basically left over from that (i.e. a reaction to grief, as one probably infers from how the movie came to be in the first place*). Whether that means springing to the blame wagon or hitting the bottle or trying to do their job, it all crashes together by the time the curtain has been pulled down. It helps that the ensemble is pretty damn good in carrying it all together. Brolin and Garner each share the spotlight in their varying reaction to such sorrow around them (one sleeps in their son's bed, the other sleeps with the bottle*). There is a straight-shooting sensibility to both that let you see the quirks and flaws that arise in each of them that is worth emphasizing with and following through to all of the odd moments (one moment in particular stands out in having a strange sequence get summarized in one pithy question that is pretty funny in context). The other folks are just as interesting in seeing the weary nature of trying to keep up appearances in a world that doesn't really seem to care about communities as it believes itself to be (or so one hears from PTA meetings), which probably works best with the humor expressed in the contrast between how Ehrenrich is seen vs Abrams in similar sequences (at least that is how you would put a sequence of someone meeting up at a bar seen twice) that sees inner chuckles delivered from each. Christopher probably does the best of the bunch in what is required from the last proverbial leg of the (spooky) chair in the reactions that come from a life invaded that works out pretty well when paired with Madigan, who is quite spooky in the veneer of a human creature that commands one's attention when she arrives to the proceedings. Basically, you get a movie about people that do not have their house nearly in order as they believe themselves to be that is darkly amusing because of the maneuvering that has to take place just to get to certain points (consider, for example, that the chase sequence starts at a distance, has a middle with a store where the storekeep stands idly by and ends with a splat), right down to its ending*. Most of it works out to engaging heights when you consider who the real boogeyman can be. Sure, some people probably will think it is a bit of a rug pull when you see what it really is all about and others will roll right with the road taken. I just wish it had a little more sizzle in terms of spooks, but there are a handful of effects (Wong and his fate come to mind) that do carry attention to satisfy my curiosity. Basically, the enemy is someone who can play the guy who believes in chemtrails as a sucker in order to do things in plain sight. As a whole, Weapons clearly works best when you don't see it as a mystery or waiting for jump scares and just let it flow through you with curiosity that may or may not be the kind of film worth looking into further on another watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Okay, some people might find the movie to be about school shootings or something. Hell, maybe the curtains really are just blue too.

*I myself don't get alcohol, but if I had to deal with a few nuts every waking day, sure, why not drink a bit?

*Look, I love movies that decide that the villain has to be ripped to shreds like it was Christmas wrapping, that's pretty funny. The narration that starts and ends the film is pretty convenient but about on point without spoonfeeding you. I do wonder what the reaction of Justine was in terms of "You parents owe me big time" when the children were found - maybe they elect her mayor or give her $1000 in booze?

Nobody 2.

Review #2411: Nobody 2.

Cast: 

Bob Odenkirk (Hutch Mansell), Connie Nielsen (Becca Mansell), John Ortiz (Wyatt Martin), Colin Hanks (Abel), RZA (Harry Mansell), Christopher Lloyd (David Mansell), Sharon Stone (Lendina), Colin Salmon (The Barber), Gage Munroe (Brady Mansell), Paisley Cadorath (Sammy Mansell), Daniel Bernhardt (Kartoush), and Lucius Hoyos (Max Martin) Directed by Timo Tjahjanto.

Review: 

You might remember that Nobody (2021) was a bit of a delight in what one could call an "addiction drama about a man whose addiction is violence." Derek Kolstad wrote the script for that movie, and it probably is a good omen that he returns to write the script (having sole credit for the story and co-writing the screenplay with Aaron Rabin). Sure, maybe the punchline at the end of the day was that an action hero was being inhabited by Bob Odenkirk, but it was a pretty neat movie in both showing someone who did look the part for an action movie and had fun with it (and, apparently, the training regimen done for that movie probably saved his life when he had a heart issue in 2021). The movie is directed by Timo Tjahjanto, a West German-born Indonesian filmmaker making his American debut after five movies made in his native Indonesia. For the most part, a good deal of the cast from the first film reprise their roles for this film.

The movie might be on vacation a bit, but at least it does have some entertainment value for the most basic of requirements. On the average scale of action movies, it probably would be in the middle between the 2025 slate of Novocaine and Ballerina, and it certainly wouldn't top the first Nobody, but being an average sequel is not a bad thing. Instead of trying to cope with the idea of just being a dull family man, we now have a guy who just kicks ass and thinks he can simply just ride that wave for a while that really can't just have a break. I guess one's nature makes things inevitable for someone who just allows things to get nuts. Do I expect more from certain action movies? Eh....not really. In fact, sometimes an action movie beat could resemble the horror movie in where I play generous because God only knows what would happen if either genre was at the mercy of streaming.* Odenkirk is still pretty game to carry the proceedings with worthwhile believability that can look and sound the part of an asskicker (to an extent) while having the troubles that come with someone who just can't resist scratching the proverbial itch. Nielsen is relatively fine in the same way that one is accepting of a dark cloud gathering because they are clearly ready with an umbrella in hand, I suppose. Stone is actually pretty neat as the routine villain, minus the fact that one could do with most (all?) of the lines stating how scary she is meant to be (ooh, she'll kill your bloodline if you cross her, what's next, she'll clone you to kill you again?), because she just has that basic instinctual touch to seem unnerving enough already. You get a smidge of time with others that are mostly "hey, that's nice" or "sure", so there's that. The action sequences are generally satisfying in the staging that mostly keeps things fresh, as signified with having a duck boat involved to go with a few chuckles in the lingering absurdity that comes with a vacation area becoming the most evident staging area for mayhem. The ending is, well, surely a bit too familiar, mainly because it thrives on conveniences for nearly too much of its 89 minutes (the last movie also started and ended in the same place, naturally) and I'm not entirely sure this is a movie that needs a follow up to feel whole. As a whole, Nobody 2 is a casual trek through the proverbial woods of movie-shuffling, one that achieves most of what it sets out to do in vacation-based action beats. I don't really know if there is a profound desire for a third of these movies, but I can always endorse a decent time with an action movie when it seems necessary to do so, so there's that, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Arguably, you have stuff happen to people in action movies that would fit right in for horror movies, such as say, a dart to the eye.

The Naked Gun (2025).

Review #2409: The Naked Gun.

Cast: 

Liam Neeson (Lt. Frank Drebin Jr.), Pamela Anderson (Beth Davenport), Paul Walter Hauser (Capt. Ed Hocken Jr.), Danny Huston (Richard Cane), CCH Pounder (Chief Davis), Kevin Durand (Sig Gustafson), Liza Koshy (Detective Barnes), Eddie Yu (Detective Park), Moses Jones ("Not Nordberg Jr."), and Cody Rhodes (Bartender) Directed by Akiva Schaffer.

Review: 

Okay, I wanted to wait a bit on this one. Hey, remember The Naked Gun? The trio of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and Jerry Zucker had been behind The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977) and Airplane! (1980) and they wanted to do another spoof movie, with the TV show M Squad as the basis, since they liked the show (which you might remember starred Lee Marvin back in the 1950s). But Michael Eisner of Paramount Pictures liked the concept enough to try and secure a six-episode TV show (against the better judgement of the trio) that ended up being aired on ABC in 1982...and the network didn't get it (a show with no laugh track that looked like a 60s program? Too hard for audiences). Six episodes (two directed by Joe Dante) were shown, but two were dumped in the summer. Eventually, through the efforts of them and Pat Proft, The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (which took a few bits from the show) came out in 1988. Zucker described the kind of spoof that they did as one not of comic timing but dramatic timing that had actors act as if they didn't know they were in a comedy, with Leslie Nielsen being a natural. Sure, the two sequels (Zucker directed 2½: The Smell of Fear [1991] and co-wrote 33⅓: The Final Insult [1994] with Proft) were mostly fine in quality, but I think you understand the fun involved. Oddly enough, there really were plans for a fourth movie many, many years down the line in 2009, complete with it being intended for TV with Nielsen (ironically, the script was to be written by Alan Spencer, who had developed his own cop parody years prior with the TV show Sledge Hammer!). Nielsen passed away in 2010 before anything could happen, but plans bubbled again with Ed Helms in mind to be the lead, and Zucker and Proft were even tapped to write (with a secret agent son of Frank Drebin) that went nowhere. Finally, in 2021, plans bubbled again with Seth MacFarlane being hired to develop the project (which wouldn't have Zucker or Proft involved, although at least the former isn't bitter about it) and pitch it to Liam Neeson (who had worked with MacFarlane with A Million Ways to Die in the West [2014]) to star. The result is a movie written by Dan Gregor, Doug Mand, and Akiva Schaffer (with various contributions by Mark Hentemann, MacFarlane and Alec Sulkin); you might know Schaffer from such movies as Hot Rod [2007] and Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping [2016].

There are probably a few people who love or hate reboots, remakes, the whatever word you want to call it. I'm pretty on the fence on the idea because maybe I am not old enough to really stress about the world soon having two Running Man movies. There are quite a few nice things I can say about this movie, which is a nice relief. Neeson seems to be the right choice to go from a litany of dramas and action movies to try and play comedy, doesn't he? Admittedly, doing a "new version" of something might make one hesitate (especially when nearly doing the "horror movie followed up with the same title" thing), but I think what The Naked Gun does best is to simply roll along with the lines with daffy enthusiasm, right down to ending on a take on freeze frames. It probably helps that the runtime (85 minutes) just seems right on point for having the viewer satisfied with quick satisfaction that doesn't seem rushed or seem like an overgrown made-for-TV sheen. It just aims to deliver as many gags as possible with an interest in having fun with the idea of real-world foibles like oddball rich people (some obsess over naming apps after letters, others obsess about their pants), oddball technology, cloying over the old days (people actually hate Clippy? Shame!)*, and so on. Even for someone in their seventies, Neeson clearly has the touch for comedy to really carry this movie as long as it needs to go, operating the proceedings with such gruff sincerity that isn't simply just trying to be Leslie Nielsen all over again (the instance of gun fu at one point is particularly amusing). It happens that he has some worthwhile chemistry with Anderson*, who is just as adept in mowing down lines with sharp rhythm that might be worth seeing again in the future. Huston (as following the tradition of Ricardo Montalbán, Robert Goulet, and Fred Ward in Naked Gun adversaries) actually ends up being pretty neat, smarmy but totally just having fun with being the kind of guy who would be in a comedy about trying to make people fight each other (the last scene in particularly is pretty funny). You then have a worthy supporting ensemble that runs down from Hauser (a neat successor to Sr's George Kennedy) to the always on-time Pounder. There are a litany of gags and cameos that accompany the movie like any good ol' comedy would do without seeming like painful obligation and it leaves the possibility of wanting more without reeking of desperation. As a whole, it probably is the best of the three follow-ups to the original Naked Gun,

which is a hell of a thing to say when wanting to talk about a commitment-filled comedy in 2025.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*What the hell is a TiVo, anyway?

*Apparently, Anderson was to be in the third Naked Gun movie but had to turn it down. The circle is complete.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Review #2405: The Fantastic Four: First Steps.

Cast: 

Pedro Pascal (Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic), Vanessa Kirby (Sue Storm / Invisible Woman), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Ben Grimm / The Thing), Joseph Quinn (Johnny Storm / Human Torch), Julia Garner (Shalla-Bal / Silver Surfer), Sarah Niles (Lynne Nichols), Mark Gatiss (Ted Gilbert), Natasha Lyonne (Rachel Rozman), Paul Walter Hauser (Harvey Elder / Mole Man), Ralph Ineson (Galactus), and Matthew Wood (H.E.R.B.I.E.) Directed by Matt Shakman.

Review: 

Sure, you might know that 20th Century Fox was behind those ridiculous attempts at making Fantastic Four movies based on the team that on each occasion (2005, 2007, 2015) somehow managed to flounder more than if the unreleased 1994 movie had been given the shot it deserved.* It took six years from the acquisition of that studio (and subsequent pausing of any plans to do a Marvel-based movie) and one cameo from a different Reed Richards (hey, remember when they let Sam Raimi do a movie with Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness [2022]?) but here we are again. The director for this film in Matt Shakman (remember that Jon Watts was once tapped for the film before dropping out) had previously directed one film with Cut Bank (2014) that was in the midst of plenty of television from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to whatever "WandaVision" is (his family-centric pitch, for already established heroes is what you get here, and you can infer further here). For whatever reason, there are five writers listed for this film: Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan, Ian Springer, and Kat Wood for the story and Josh Friedman, Pearson, Kaplan, Springer for the screenplay.

I wanted to wait a while to see the movie because what the hell is this movie doing being released so close to the other superhero movie of the summer? Was this movie rushed in the belief that it just had to meet a late July slate? It can't even last for over two hours (114 minutes might sound like I'm only technically correct, but still), what exactly happened here? Sure, it does have a few interesting moments to go with a resourceful style (speaking of which, how idiotic must one be to not have included H.E.R.B.I.E. in one of these previous movies?) and so on, but there is something that you either will believe should've been done years ago or is not nearly as grand as it should be. Maybe it is the over-saturation that had been present in the past few years (if I have to spend time streaming a show in the attempts at going with an alleged film universe, I would rather learn how to knit instead), maybe the general feeling that setting it in a different Earth when an "Avengers movie" is already imminent seems a bit silly, maybe it just is an okay film. Do you ever watch something and in your mind, you think it is making all the "right moves" and yet somehow just doesn't click every box you want for a really good time rather than just "fine time for a rental"? Was the bar so low for a Fantastic Four movie that didn't suck (in a way, the best family-led group of superheroes for a film...is still The Incredibles [2004])? But let's at least start with positives: it does have a neat quartet of characters, mainly thriving on the qualities of Quinn and Moss-Bachrach in interactions that protrude worthwhile confidence (as one does for a hothead and a guy that happens to be a rock-man) to make the Pascal and Kirby seem just as interesting to contrast in "staid" nature. I like the look of the movie quite a bit, right down to the hero costumes that protrude confidence in actually wanting to stick out for a period piece. Garner makes a quality Surfer in  The showing of powers (mostly with the Invisible Woman) do look pretty good and actually give credence to the idea of this family being a formidable, nay, fantastic group to possibly see further (not exactly in "Avengers", I mean a good ol' Fantastic Four sequel). 

My quibbles may probably ironic: in its attempts to feature a different main adversary (i.e. no Doom) and different "hook" (i.e. a baby Franklin), there is a mish-mash of ideas that are begging to taken to bigger levels that somehow feel short of greatness. I don't care what folks say about comic book logic, "Earth-insert number here" does undercut things a tiny bit ("oh, the Earth is in trouble! Not our Earth, some other Earth that happens to have different names and people that look like us, but an Earth!") in tension, but my real complaint is that I don't find the idea of tying the movie around Franklin to be particularly refreshing. It just seems like something cribbed from the second or third movie of a rejected pitch more than what is meant to be high tension because it (to me, anyway) undercuts the fact that I want to see the core four that one saw in the opening that dealt with, well, villains. I like seeing Hauser as a Mole Man, what was wrong with that as a main villain? Don't tell me that the Fantastic Four only has two villains (look, we can talk about the next Doom antoher time) man, sometimes you want a small plate before you get to the main course (Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), a better example of the "let's not do the whole origin thing", didn't choose friggin Doctor Octopus or the Goblin in the first movie, they went with the Vulture). Galactus (you might remember in the 2007 film resembled a cloud where here he towers a bit over the Statue of Liberty) only has, what, three whole scenes? I like Ineson fine, but this is ridiculous. Hell, maybe the movie would've been better if he actually won in consuming the Earth, what else is the point of having a "Earth-whatever" if you're just going to swing the Four onto a different place anyway? Multiverses and different timelines should be for animated material or maybe, just maybe, we just have a group of heroes that just go with the flow of being a tight-knit group. The movie looks and sounds nice and has some entertainment (i.e. pacing out its effects sequences for patience that I'm fine with, albeit with quibbles for the climax*) that may just be neat for you. As a whole, it may not hit as many of the marks you would want in for a truly spectacular movie (or even a cosmic soap opera), but it has enough to ultimately carry it to the finish line of general entertainment to inquire further with these folks.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

You might wonder what exactly the theme is for August: What better way to whip up another month of Season 15 than to also celebrate five years of trying to have an interesting theme for August than to just throw any theme imaginable for the month. Yes, for All-In-One August, you'll see a few movies reviewed for their "Anniversary in August", or as "Action in August" or "Around the World in August or "Acknowledged in August", or, well "2025". 

*Incidentally, the main four of that movie actually have cameo appearances in this movie, which just raises questions over why they hadn't been given their due years ago.

*SPOILER (in lighter text): it feels ridiculous to have a character die and make their sacrifice...only to be resurrected. By a baby. Blah blah blah Franklin is this in comics, again, I feel like they really wanted to do a family angle just so they had the trick of killing someone off only to see them revived right in hand. I assumed, with the Thunderbolts* "credits scene", that the Fantastic Four were going to escape their world after either Galactus won or something happened to make them go into our Earth. Instead, you get a bullshit revival of Invisible Woman, who you know wasn't going to die anyway! Really, only guys with barely a name or ones picked out of a hat (i.e. not Hawkeye, who was never cool) die in these movies! Or am I just insane?