Resident Evil (2026).

Review #2591: Resident Evil (2026).

Cast: 

Austin Abrams (Bryan), Zach Cherry (Carl), Kali Reis (Maxine), Paul Walter Hauser (Paul), Will Merrick (Dave), Andrea Miltnerová (a pedestrian), Karel Dobrý (a farmer), Zoé Bellas (Birdie), Chris Lew Kum Hoi (Stanley), Griffin Newman (Wade), and Jo Martin (Andrea Vasquez) Directed by Zach Cregger (#1894 - Barbarian, #2412 - Weapons)

Review: 

“This movie follows a person from point A to point B. It’s like a real time journey, where you just go deeper and deeper into the depths of Hell. And it’s really a love letter to the games. Because I love those games. This is a story that I would’ve wanted to write whether I got the IP or not. I just happen to be able to have these Resident Evil people be down. So I get to play in that sandbox. I’m doing it because I think this movie is going to be fucking awesome.”

To be honest, I really never considered what mattered most in a video game movie. Of course, when I saw the first bunch of movies based on the Resident Evil games (as developed and published by Capcom in 1996 through the brainchild of Tokyo Fujiwara and direction by Shinji Mikami), the only thoughts I had were "is that all that can be done with the name? this?". The close of the original film series with The Final Chapter in 2016 didn't lead to a quick death in filmmaking, because Welcome to Raccoon City (as directed by Johannes Roberts) came out in 2021 with the intent on being a reboot with its own select references and story and an unrelated TV show came out on Netflix in 2022. Neither were particularly great successes, but Constantin Film and Sony went with, well, an enticing choice with Zach Cregger right as Weapons (2025) was coming around. Cregger co-wrote the script with Shay Hatten. Honestly, I forgot that Cregger openly stated that he wanted to make a "story that could take place in the Resident Evil world, but wasn't telling a story that the games had already told", and honestly, it just seemed apt to wait a few weeks just to keep my curiosity on a medium level (a fairly well-regarded movie on release*? Well, there's always the one outlier...*), because if I'm going to laugh with a movie, a half-empty one on a late night might as well be the way to go.

Sometimes I wonder if I really do need to actually play one of the games. You'd think I would I would be a big fan of horror games, but it honestly isn't too big on my radar besides The House of the Dead (Overkill is the one that comes to mind for fun*). Maybe I would enjoy the ride better to understand the quibbles with what's there in one's inventory and the journey of things getting worse and worse the longer one walks forward on the road to hell. And yet, somehow in its 94-minute runtime, I just wish I enjoyed the movie better. In the road of trying to balance levity with the horrors of seeing grotesque globs and a world that seemingly is going further into hell, I eventually had the sinking feeling that the movie I really wanted to see...was the one that surely would be happening *after* that last shot. It's funny, the old movies tried to do an ensemble (when not focused on Alice doing random stuff like telekinesis or fighting dogs, I suppose) and didn't exactly succeed while this film basically is a one-man show that happens to encounter people that seemingly serve to just increase the body-count. Abrams does make a compelling enough presence to serve as our rational irrational guy to try and make sense out of having to make snap decisions (maybe it's a silly quibble, but if you're tasked with a delivery and you hit some random passerby only to see footsteps, wouldn't it just be easier to simply keep driving and roll the dice?*) that is mostly fun. The roller-coaster ride of blood and guts is mostly held firm in the first half with his levity, honestly. I just quibble at the things that come and go (Reis and Hauser get used to do one bit of exposition and then...that's about it, bye!), where the high points (the rooftop scene would be one) ride out the inevitable climax that is stuck in the space of where I've moved on past the point of caring what happens to the lead because, well, damn it, a face-off of goofy scientists and panic-stricken dudes can only go so far before I throw up my hands. I struggle with assessing the film because of my initial curiosities. Cregger and company succeeded in making a movie of real-time action/horror that is mostly effective with its beats and yet I felt like I wanted more from it that isn't merely a case of "it's not long enough". At any rate, you'll get some entertainment from it regardless of if you seek some action with your horror or some chuckles within gooey spectacle, so I suppose it all works out for this particular time and perhaps beyond. So it goes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Hereditary comes to mind. Not-quite spoiler alert: Resident Evil (2026) isn't the best video game movie, mainly because I had more fun with, say, the Sonic the Hedgehog movies, and those don't exactly go for straight adaptations either. Incidentally, with its impending release in the month, I do wonder when I'll make time for Street Fighter (2026).

*Unrelated: how the fuck was there not a sequel to Overkill? Such a neat time. 

*He never does seem to dwell on being a direct cause of a cop's life to die because of that decision, does he? Incidentally, I tried to hold back in rolling my eyes at the scene where he dwelled about wondering if he really did want to be a father. At least it's a moment where he isn't going "fuck" or "shit" like he seems to do about once every five minutes.

*This is one of those times where I'd rather regret being too harsh on a movie than give it a half-hearted 8/10.

Coyote vs. Acme.

Review #2576: Coyote vs. Acme.

Cast: 

Will Forte (Kevin Avery), Lana Condor (Paige Avery), John Cena (Buddy Crane), Eric Bauza (Bugs Bunny, Charlie Dog, Daffy Duck, Dr. Peter Lorre, Elmer Fudd, Foghorn Leghorn, Gossamer, Porky Pig, The Road Runner, Tweety, Pepé Le Pew), Candi Milo (Granny, Witch Hazel, Miss Prissy), Jim Cummings (the Tasmanian Devil), Tone Bell (Sal Maltese), Martha Kelly (Dottie Jones), Luis Guzmán (Judge Troppogrosso), P. J. Byrne (Bill Pelicanos), John Early (Henry Heslop), Nancy Linehan Charles (Cherry), Kenneth Choi (Oscar Jeon), and Ernie Vigil (Talon) Directed by Dave Green.

Review: 

“You got away with it. You robbed the bank. You made a courtroom drama for kids starring Looney Tunes characters. In so many ways, this movie should not exist."

In 1990, there was a piece in The New Yorker called "Coyote v. Acme" by Ian Frazier that posed Wile E. Coyote (as originally created by Chuck Jones and Michael Maltese in 1949) suing the Acme Corporation for all of the defective products that he received from them in his failed pursuit of the Roadrunner (of course, it wasn't the first humor piece on the subject, National Lampoon did a piece in 1982*). As late as the 1990s, producers wanted to adapt it to the screen but it was only in the mid-2010s that Warner Bros. got the ball rolling. Dave Green (director of such films as Earth to Echo [2014] and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows [2016]) was signed on to direct in 2019; he got the job while positing if it could be akin to a true-crime documentary. Various people worked on the script for years: Samy Burch was credited for the screenplay while Burch, Jeremy Slater and James Gunn were given credit from the story (various "off-screen additional literary credits" were given to Alex Cuthbertson and Jacob Fleisher and Matt Fusfeld and Dan Goor and BenDavid Grabinski and Jon Silberman and Josh Silberman and Craig Wright, respectively). The DNEG studio was utilized for visual effects and computer animation while Duncan Studio was utilized specifically for select characters handled entirely in 2D. Initially, the movie was to be released in July 2023. Obviously, it did not meet that date, specifically because Warner Bros. Entertainment decided to take the $30 million tax write-off rather than release it (which also occurred with Batgirl and Scoob! Holiday Haunt). Eventually, in 2025, Ketchup Entertainment acquired the rights to the film for roughly $50 million (you might recognize that they previously had acquired the North American theatrical distribution rights for The Day the Earth Blew Up in 2024).

I really wanted to like the movie, honestly. With a 103-minute runtime that references the mythological figure Sisyphus numerous times and handily takes inspiration from "underdog courtroom movies" such as The Insider, Erin Brockovich and A Few Good Men, aa...and it felt only mildly funny to me. Have we raised the bar of "Looney Tunes but in the real world" from Looney Tunes: Back in Action [2003] (I refuse to even try to give "credit" to Space Jam)? Have we really moved so little that the high bar for integrating live action and animation is still Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) from nearly four decades ago? Is the bar so low that a movie daring to posit "the dangers of animal testing but with cartoon characters?" seems funny in the odd times we live in?* There are moments when the animation works pretty well in the live-action environment, and it specifically is when you don't have to look at a close-up cel-shaded animated face. I appreciate the time taken to try and work out gags (as noted here), which probably saves the film from basically being a face in the crowd, mainly since the biggest prominent talking cartoon character is basically Dr. Lorre and Bugs Bunny (this of course does not mean to disrespect Wile E. Coyote, who mainly communicates with signs as the dedicated fanatic of the chase*). It basically goes down to how much you like the time spent with Forte or Cena in the scenario presented of "cartoons just...live here among us", which actually might be funnier for the latter in terms of actual timing (not to take anything from Forte, but there are only so many "underdog" cliches to go around, especially when involves lawyers.). It wants to find the sweet spot between the court room and, well, not in the court room that is basically hit-or-miss (what secrets lie beneath "Project Sisyphus", oh gee). The eventual reveal (get it? cartoon violence can actually seem messed up when presented in a certain way?) bridges the movie from what had been a fairly sluggish middle and at least has the movie close on a high note (if you're making an underdog movie, might as well go with a postscript to patch things up). As a whole, it's the ultimate average movie in ambition versus execution, but with the way that Warner Bros. treated the movie, it is nice to see it around for someone to watch rather than being a tax write-off by idiots. So it goes. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

I apologize, of course, for how long it took to review this movie. I saw it on September 1 (Tuesday afternoon) but honestly wasn't feeling too great by the next day. As it turned out, I needed a tooth extraction, so please excuse the delay.

*And of course Night Court did a little gag with the Coyote in 1990 - Wile E. Coyote On "Night Court"

*What's next, Looney Tunes: Daffy and Bugs re-enacting the Civil War?

*Speaking of voices. Maybe I should see more cartoons, but I really don't care for Tweety. At least the Roadrunner doesn't speak when confronted with their counterpart (as opposed to Tweety vs. Sylvester). 

The Odyssey (2026).

Review #2561: The Odyssey (2026).

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Odysseus), Tom Holland (Telemachus), Anne Hathaway (Penelope), Robert Pattinson (Antinous), Lupita Nyong'o (Helen of Troy / Clytemnestra), Samantha Morton (Circe), John Leguizamo (Eumaeus), Zendaya (Athena), Charlize Theron (Calypso), Jon Bernthal (Menelaus), Himesh Patel (Eurylochus), Bill Irwin (Polyphemus), Elliot Page (Sinon), Benny Safdie (Agamemnon), with Corey Hawkins (Polybus), Niko Nicotera (Peisander), Elyes Gabel (Elatus), Iddo Goldberg (Amphimedon), Jamie Harris (Agelus), Mia Goth and Logan Marshall-Green (Melantho and Melanthius), Ryan Hurst (Mentor), and James Remar (Tiresias) 

Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer, #2322 - Interstellar)

Review: 

"Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever reaching home. Tell me, too, about all these things, O daughter of Jove, from whatsoever source you may know them."

Once upon a time, there were old tales that people decided to freewheel their own interpretation to communicate to the masses (such as say, Samuel Butler, who stated a theory, whether 100 percent seriously or not, that the Odyssey was written by a Sicilian woman). As the seasons changed and the technology grew larger, you could see and hear other freewheeling interpretations of tales on a screen perhaps unfathomable to a person dated in antiquity. Some folks probably read the Odyssey in their youth or maybe read it online (the link I noted above is a centuries old public domain translation, which used the Latinized name of Ulysses), or maybe heard about it from other certain oral traditions (hey, Arthur was an institution for some kids), or with James Joyce's Ulysses, or, well, you get the idea. Various productions had been done of the work, with most being in Italy, such as the film Ulysses [1954] (a Dino De Laurentiis production with Kirk Douglas and others), the 1968 miniseries (known in its native country as L'Odissea), looser adaptations such as O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), and recent ones such as The Return (2024), which started with no mythic beings or Gods with Odysseus back in Ithaca. Christopher Nolan wanted to be the guy to direct a movie that had never really been done for a large-scale production with the Odyssey, and it should be noted that he had been once tapped to direct Troy (2004), which had been loosely based on the Iliad. He wanted to tell it "in a fresh and modern way", which to him read differently from his perspective of middle age that he felt he has been telling in his films for years, simultaneously calling it a "family story, a love story, a revenge story, a war story, a coming-of-age story... a very strong foundational text". There were various inspirations that Nolan listed prior to the release, ranging from the various translations of the Odyssey (such as the Emily Wilson 2017 translation), the visual style and atmospheric tone of Kurosawa's Ran (1985) and the mythology-inspired films worked on by Ray Harryhausen such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963). It was shot entirely with IMAX film cameras, the first of its kind in a movie that already sounds like a crowd favorite*.

In a time of "apparent magic", yes, you basically get a tale of original sin. It basically is a grounded take of the sword and sandal epic with an earthy feel that feels more psychological than mythological. In some ways, it might seem bloated at 173 minutes, but actually it often feels more like a breeze to sift through as it dwells through the divide of a lead that wavers between an everyman and a superhero. The veterans of his campaigns walk the shore in life and death because only one man will end up by divine will back home and yet he still thinks defiance is the way to go. Men from the sea attack and all around a kingdom, the law of Zeus (okay, xenia) is not being abided by while others go on about a face, a fleet, and tricks to break away and burn Troy screaming to the ground. Amidst the prophets, giants, and nymphs is a story of a man realizing what his actual place is among the crumbling of foundation and realizing that what you want most may very well be what you already had (okay that came from a bit about the Sirens, but in fairness, what is a man if not one with the hubris to listen to them knowing they will survive anyway). It jumps around in the narrative with a type of curious enthusiasm that has a few moments that really do spark me to go "cool", namely with the Laestrygonian sequence (the giants clad in armor), complete with camera tricks (hey, the cyclops [Polyphemus] is cool to see too, and the witch realization is also darkly amusing, but still). Of course, the underworld sequence might be the real showstopper in seeing the true price of years spent getting on and trying to leave one particular blood-stained beach (and one horse*).

For all of the stuff I say about the movie, it really is one to look upon familiar faces and find a few fun moments in Damon leading the way in the unraveling of civilization, at least if you go with someone having enough hubris to believe that they really are the, shall we say, Oppenheimer of their times. Basically, you have a complicated hero that you know is going to reach some type of home (his kingdom, wife with the stature of Hathaway, however you want to interpret it) but not necessarily will be a better man for it, and in that sense, Damon makes for a curious cipher that either grows with you or just withers away in elusiveness, and I found it was a case of the former most of the time, which I suppose is helpful when talking about the wavering road of hero or fool. Some could contend that Holland might be easy to gloss over amidst the seasoned presences around him. Well, that's a bit silly to me, mainly because that's the whole point: this is a foolish young prince that is between a rock and a hard place: old enough to maybe take on actual responsibilities but not in the position to actually rise from "son of Odysseus" (to a certain point, anyway). In that sense, Holland does pretty well with showing the vulnerability of being out of one's depth, of literally being a face in a long crowd, especially when contending with the likes of Leguizamo, who really does sink into his role with weary curiosity.  Pattinson and Morton each sell the moments that they take part in more so than the mostly okay times encountering Theron or Nyong', with Pattinson in particular seemingly having plenty of fun in towering overconfidence (as one does when citing a James Woods character* as inspiration). I just wish the film stuck the ending better, because amidst a flourish of inevitable "hey, the man of the house is among us" realization is a finish of trying to sell the closing of the loop of a man who can't really go "home" (as one does when fiddling with the ending of the original tale in, what, divine intervention?) that just...sits there as an ending more than anything. As a whole, making The Odyssey was a task that required a director willing to stamp their own interpretation on what is so special about a long trek back home in a time of myths and monsters, and I think Nolan made a pretty good rendition worth viewing on the best screen possible. It's not a great movie, but being a pretty good time is just as useful for me anyway.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Any thoughts about the casting of say, Nyong'o or Page? Yeah, conservative grifters whining about it can either watch the movie for themselves or piss off. The movie is full of Greek characters, do we care if most of them are played by Americans or Brits? No? 

*Or the dog reunion, because, hey.

*Not to be confused with the current James Woods

*It's a hard 8/10 in that I would rather go 8/10 for a movie that teeters at 8.5 rather than having subsequent regret in giving a 9/10.

Disclosure Day.

Review #2547: Disclosure Day.

Cast: 

Emily Blunt (Margaret Fairchild; Delaney Cuthbert as young Margaret), Josh O'Connor (Dr. Daniel Kellner; Tyler Renaud as young Daniel), Colin Firth (Noah Scanlon), Eve Hewson (Jane Blankenship), Colman Domingo (Hugo Wakefield), Wyatt Russell (Jackson), Henry Lloyd-Hughes (Casper Boyd), Elizabeth Marvel (Sister Maura), Hettienne Park (Serena), Tommy Martinez (Dave Santiago), Gabby Beans (Angela Childs), Jeremy Shamos (Claypool), Brandon Wilson (Nathan Twinning), Priyanka Kedia (Grace Zhao), Elliot Villar (Diaz), Noah Robbins (Munsey), and Michael Gaston (General Dobbs)

Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168-#170, #302, #351, #480, #563, #573,  #642, #958, #1068, #1305, #1478, #1520, #1528, #1560, #1843, #2000 - Duel), #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie) 

Review

"At the core of Disclosure Day is the question: Where has all our empathy gone? Would an actual disclosure day reunite what's divided, or begin to repair what's broken in this siphoning away of empathy? And I think that was the personal link for me. There's more focus in this story on human connection than even the eventual and hopeful connection between an off-world civilization and the human species."

For a movie with such a clunky title (no, I don't care that there was already a movie called "Disclosure" in the 1990s), it sure is interesting to hear how many people apparently went to see it in its first week, mainly because I chose to not see much of the marketing for the film, particularly with its trailer. It's been a while since I saw a Spielberg movie in theaters, mainly because I don't remember what I was doing when West Side Story [2021]* or The Fabelmans [2022] (but I do remember seeing Ready Player One [2018]), but the curiosity was bubbling since the first rumblings of a "UFO film" came around in 2024. One inspiration listed was a New York Times article ("Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program") about a program exploring space phenomena without identification (okay you've got "unidentified anomalous phenomena" and "unidentified flying object", what sounds better?); Spielberg wrote a story outline over two months in 2023. We've had a few things related to the disclosure movement* or conspiracies dictated about say, Roswell, ranging from the light fare such as getting a body from there in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) or the 2002 miniseries Taken (as executive produced by Spielberg) to, well, documentaries such as The Age of Disclosure (2025), which had presented former government officials and disclosure movement people with varying claims and arguments and, well, little physical evidence. David Koepp wrote the screenplay (reportedly doing over 40 drafts). Recently, there was a de-classification of UFO-related files, but, well, there was nothing about it as interesting as was present in the movie, so that's certainly a thing to say.

What you get with this movie is a thriller about trying to have people listen to one another. Sure, the "disclosure" looms heavily throughout the movie, but what is most important is the danger of fearing what one doesn't know. It takes a handful of big swings for the ideas of faith over fear, interest in beings that aren't just ourselves, and, well, washing away the established order of things as perhaps not the only supreme being in the universe* which might be nice for those who, say, liked a film like Signs [2000] (speaking of movies where t. It is a thriller of illumination (essentially by stating one is not an idol, but an instrument, whether in understanding or in math) that gradually assembles the pieces together for a fairly satisfying movie, although I'm not sure exactly how it will sit with me in the years to come and I can certainly understand where others might not anoint it as highly. It takes its swings of wonder and doesn't yearn to answer every nibbling question, for better or worse; Spielberg himself has said it is not a "holistic review of the entire history of the UFO phenomenon". Blunt commands the film with a fairly entertaining performance, managing to evoke plenty of curiosity and humor in the fractured world she finds herself part of beyond is seen and unseen, particularly since her and Russell have decent timing together for a time. O'Connor is merely fine, but he never really gets into his own as a character when him and Blunt actually meet (to say nothing of one scene in particular involving the big reveal). Domingo provides a bit of serenity to counteract the real veteran presence in Firth, who is delightfully malevolent that underlies a yin-and-yang of people who see the status quo and the place of any potential wild card element differently (whether seeing it as one for control or one for co-existence), which is neatly interesting to see in how each play it. It's a strangely bloodless journey to get through, but the sense of wonder is inviting for those who have the patience for the inevitable meshing of empathy and numbers. Basically, it's a fable about if the world actually had some more idealism rather than the cynic slop that pervades our lives in such loud fashion that the only real way to pay attention probably would be to just listen.

Admittedly, it rests heavily on the idea that seeing is believing in a world that actively sees plenty of videos and images filled with despair (and then of course there is AI slop, which is disgusting, full stop). Would we tune out a theoretical creature from a different world than ours like people do when trying to tune out the rhetoric of hatred of others (or, alternatively, watching alternative media; my caveat is that if the film involved trying to distribute top-secret stuff on the Internet, people would've just said it was being cribbed from Glass [2019]). To say nothing of the news anchor in the climax, which actually took me out of the movie more than the CG for the animals (which I can at least defend as, well, something that is meant to be a bit off-kilter). In some ways, you could call this an extended version of say, an X-Files episode (at least it's not trying to rip off one of the lamer "mythology" ones?). It is a goofy and naive film all about getting people all tuned in on one thing, for better or worse. But even with the little quibbles*, you still have a solid movie worth looking into, one that is a finely tuned thriller in assembling its pieces where it wants to go for a film built on the milage of understanding more than anything.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Okay, with West Side Story, I just thought it sounded like a waste of time to remake a beloved movie. Especially with Ansel Elgort as the lead.

*David Wilcock is, sorry, was, a hack and should've been thrown out of serious discussion years ago. Seeing his face on a Wikipedia article and clicking it just to find a hack is actually kind of annoying. Anyways.

*I would basically call myself agnostic, mainly because it seems illogical to fully deny the divine even if I am not the kind of person interested in church. To say nothing of the cringe nature of religion/atheism in certain circles online.

*One spoiler, if you like highlighting. The abduction scene is probably so heavy-handed that of course people equate it to molestation or Mysterious Skin [2004], which involved two boys being affected by a certain event that sees them lead different lives in young adulthood, with one being into alien abductions. My take? Nah. I just don't see it. If anything, it's just an overgrown fulfillment fantasy that we see over and over with powers that just happens to involve alien rocks. Besides, it's a friggin fable, not Dateline.

Mortal Kombat II.

Review #2538: Mortal Kombat II.

Cast:

Karl Urban (Johnny Cage; Indy Urban as young Johnny Cage), Adeline Rudolph (Kitana; Sophia Xu as young Kitana), Jessica McNamee (Sonya Blade), Josh Lawson (Kano), Martyn Ford (Shao Kahn), Ludi Lin (Liu Kang), Mehcad Brooks (Jax), Tati Gabrielle (Jade), Lewis Tan (Cole Young), Max Huang (Kung Lao), Damon Herriman (Quan Chi), Chin Han (Shang Tsung), Tadanobu Asano (Lord Raiden), Joe Taslim (Bi-Han / Noob Saibot), Hiroyuki Sanada (Hanzo Hasashi / Scorpion), Desmond Chiam (King Jerrod), Ana Thu Nguyen (Queen Sindel), and CJ Bloomfield (Baraka) Directed by Simon McQuoid (#1853 - Mortal Kombat [2021])

Review:

I honestly forgot that the last Mortal Kombat movie was five years ago (April 2021, which included a release in theaters and HBO Max, but I saw it the old-fashioned way: a year later, on the beloved DVD). The last movie (as based on the video game series developed by Ed Boon and John Tobias) dealt with a descendant of Hanzo Hashashi (look, I know that's a name, but that's just Scorpion) and unlocking the arcana of dragon marked folks while the Outworld gents of Shang Tsung tried to preemptively win that mythical tenth tournament in a row by just beating Earthrealm's champions in advance. The filmmakers did not include the character of Johnny Cage by saying he was a "giant personality" that would throw things out of balance, which is, well, probably a bit silly when talking about a video game adaptation about needing to win a couple of matches, but to shameless crib from my thoughts back then, I thought the movie was fairly serviceable for trying to appeal to the "people it wants to appeal" (whether that means fans of the games or action fans, I suppose). It didn't exactly make me want to play the games on a more consistent basis* (to say nothing of the stupidly named Mortal Kombat 1), but so it goes. McQuoid returned to direct while Jeremy Slater served as writer for the film, which was originally envisioned for a release in October 2025 that saw delays due to the SAG-AFTRA strike for a subsequent release this month. A third film is possibly in development.

It doesn't really prudent to compare it to those 1990s films with Mortal Kombat (1995) and Mortal Kombat: Annhilation (1997) (besides, Mortal Kombat II is R-rated). We've ditched arcanas and, for the most part, Tan as the lead focus for basically a fetch quest with amulets and a tournament for the "fate of the Earthrealm". So, yea, you get your pits, pools, portals and a disjointed level of storytelling that is stuffed to 116 minutes. Oh hell, this is my mind of average goofball kind of movie, what can I say? It definitely shares the flaws of the previous movie in terms of the evident qualities of flim-flam storytelling and a few decent moments of fatalities within a color scheme that probably would help to be a bit brighter. I suppose there's something to say about a New Zealander like Urban trying to play a guy that was originally a spoof of Jean-Claude Van Damme. Nah, not really, I don't really care about accents, I just go for the fun of seeing a goofy washed-up star that doesn't even win the first fight we see of him. Granted, he doesn't get the whole movie to show such effortless charm because the movie is basically split between him and Rudolph, but both are fairly serviceable to where the movie needs to go (more so with Urban, mainly because he proves that you really could just coast on just putting on some sunglasses). Intentional or not, Lawson has more of the fun than the group of McNamee-Brooks-Huang combined. Ford makes a suitable enough threat in terms of "look menacing while wearing a mask for basically the whole movie" level, which basically means you have to take it in the middle level between "totally serious" and "heh, what a goof" (oh but but you have to choose one or the other - no, not really). The fight scenes have varying levels of entertainment in them, whether that involves the Liu Kang-Kung Lao fight (probably is the one to highlight) or probably the Baraka fight if you prefer to see something in daylight. The thing is you are watching a movie that will have to figure out if they are going to create folks to get killed off or just go around doing resurrections (the aforementioned Lao and whatever the hell they will do after what you see in the ending) for the next one and I don't know how much patience one will have by that time. As a whole, it has a few ass-kicking moments and probably enough energy to make it over the finish line, one that specifically will work best for people who either like the video game series or perhaps select action fans who love slugfests of violence and gore. So it goes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*This is more of a "nerd" thing, but I will say that it seems fun to play as Johnny Cage for say, the Kollection game that came out recently. Or Tanya, because oh yeah. What?

Project Hail Mary.

Review #2518: Project Hail Mary.

Cast: 

Ryan Gosling (Dr. Ryland Grace), Sandra Hüller (Eva Stratt), James Ortiz (the voice and lead puppeteer of Rocky), Lionel Boyce (Officer Carl), Ken Leung (Yáo Li-Jie), Milana Vayntrub (Olesya Ilyukhina), Priya Kansara (the voice of Mary), Liz Kingsman (Annie Shapiro), Mia Soteriou (Dr. Browne), and Orion Lee (Dr. Li) Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (#540 - The Lego Movie, #568 - 21 Jump Street, #940 - Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs)

Review: 

Sure, a space adventure worth seeing in a movie theater. You might remember that the last adaptation of an Andy Weir novel adaptation came around with The Martian back in 2015 that had Drew Goddard write the screenplay that dealt with one man trying to deal with the tough circumstances of being adrift in space (I will be honest in saying I haven't watched The Martian since that one screening). Oh, and I suppose there is plenty of science-spelunking (my word, not the words of the movie) in trying to deal with basically being a one-human show. Actually, I take that back, there are a few other differences (namely in that this film mostly spends its time adrift in space with a parallel narrative about regaining one's memory*), but it really did come to mind when hearing about this movie (I don't do "buzz heard from other people", I barely have friends to recommend movies so "screw it" is the way to go). The "hard science fiction" novel was published in 2021 with a clear interest in real science and, well, themes in isolation (for further information involving one look at what looks like science and what looks like science fiction, you can inquire here) that had rumblings of a film adaptation almost immediately. This feature (distributed by Amazon MGM Studios*) is the first film directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller since 22 Jump Street way back in 2014, having been busy in producing films. Evidently, there are a bit of differences between the novel and the film (one involves the reasoning being modified from one of biology to one of happenstance), but so it goes.

It is a decent movie, mainly when you feel that there is something worth enjoying in its odyssey. It looks upon the future and tries to present it as something to figure out rather than fear that might be worth 156 minutes of time. It isn't so much the quest for figuring out what one is going to do about star eaters and the sun because it really is a film of relationships and figuring out the how and why of things mattering. It just happens to have a bit of puppetry that also isn't too infested with fake sets (to throw you a curveball, maybe it would make a neat pairing in one-man sustainment with Cast Away [2000]). It all rests on Gosling's shoulders to basically show him finding a true friend among the stars. Well, you might say there are friendly moments on Earth, but I think the stuff between him and "Rocky" is fascinating, mainly in that slowburn of getting communication down number by number. Ortiz (as head puppeteer of a character with a handful of puppets) and his riffing with Gosling has a certain type of warmth that basically does work better than if it was Gosling interacting with a guest voice. That's not to say that the moments spent with Hüller* are ho-hum, because she does make a compelling figure of pragmatic grace before, well, having a neat little scene involving karaoke that basically makes the last we see of them and Gosling all the more compelling in where it ends up. I can't exactly tell why the movie doesn't quite reach greatness (or get around to the level of say, Interstellar [2014]), which I guess comes down to it just being an adequate crowd-pleaser over being a really involving one, particularly at a certain point when the familiarity element becomes all too apparent. To be "goofy" can be a blessing or a curse depending on what you think the word means. At least the ending is suitable enough to make the trip worth it when it comes to figuring out what actually matters in being more than just one person among the universe. As a whole, it's a pleasantly fine charmer for where it wants to go in entertainment value within sentimental commitment that leads to a few good chuckles and some hope within its adventure that will be reasonably satisfying for those who know what they are getting into.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Yes, I forgot Amazon MGM was a thing. Also, they only distributed it in America and Canada, Sony Pictures Releasing International is everywhere else.

*Not to spoil much, but, one wonders, regardless of how petty or ridiculous that this sounds, if the first thing that a person in Grace's shoes would do if they somehow managed to get back to Earth after all they went through and managed to find Stratt...to just immediately punch them in the face. What? 

*She is a licensed forklift operator. No, really.

*Audience count for my Wednesday afternoon screening: zero. Oh well.

The Bride!

Review #2515: The Bride!

Cast: 

Jessie Buckley (Ida "The Bride" / Mary Shelley), Christian Bale ("Frank"), Annette Bening (Dr. Cornelia Euphronious), Peter Sarsgaard (Jake Wiles), Penélope Cruz (Myrna Malloy), John Magaro (Clyde), Matthew Maher (James), Zlatko Burić (Lupino), Jeannie Berlin (Greta), with Jake Gyllenhaal (Ronnie Reed), Julianne Hough (Iris / Jinx), and Louis Cancelmi (Officer Goodman) Written and Directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Review: 

"Yes, there’s sexual violence. There’s violence. Because it’s a big studio movie, we tested and tested it. We had big screenings in malls, where people came to see it, which I had never been a part of as an actress or a director before. So fascinating. And one of the things that they brought up was the violence: Is it too violent? And I was talking about it with a girlfriend of mine, who said — and she wasn’t being reductive — “I wonder if you had been a man making this movie, if you would have had the same response.”

Admittedly, there was an inkling in my mind that this film could be one to pay attention to for all the wrong reasons. I vaguely remember the promos for the film but mostly I remember the totally edgy "her comes the mother f-" tagline that, believe it or not, is stated uncensored for the film at one point. I will, however, grant one nugget of praise right off the bat: this was a movie originally envisioned for Netflix (who had distributed Gyllenhaal's previous directorial effort, The Lost Daughter [2021] in the States), as it was announced as such in 2023 before Warner Bros. stepped in when there were apparent disputes  between Netflix and director Maggie Gyllenhaal over shooting in New York vs. New Jersey. Incidentally, Netflix distributed their own Frankenstein movie in 2025. Hooray for them, I guess. But hey, The Bride is a Warner Bros. movie that got released into plenty of theaters as a, well, Gothic romance movie. There were a few edits made to the film prior to its release, with one sequence apparently involving Frankenstein licking black vomit off someone's neck. So, there's that too. You might remember that when I reviewed The Bride (1985) a while ago, I made a snide note about the impending Bride film. I will now shamelessly repeat what I said: "God, could you imagine if The Bride! (made for reportedly $80 million scheduled for release 2026) is bad? If it is good, sure, cool. The trailer did not do many favors, but I would desire a tiny trainwreck if possible."

So, let's do a bit of a setup: Mary Shelley came up with Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus because of a suggestion to try writing a ghost story while with a group of Lord Byron and other folks in 1816 that eventually became its own novel in 1818; you might know that in the story, Frankenstein, when begged by the monster to make a female companion, elected to destroy it. Left unmentioned in The Bride is that Shelley wrote a wide variety of novels that ranged from historical in Valperga (1823) to travel books such as Rambles in Germany and Italy (1844) before she died from a tumor in 1851 at the age of 53. Any of what I just said is far more interesting than trying to make heads or tails of what it really means for the film to feature Shelley in the afterlife wanting to tell of a story to follow Frankenstein and possessing a woman in 1936 Chicago that happens to dovetail with the arrival of Frankenstein's monster (who just goes by "Frank") wanting a companion (it is also possible that putting Shelley in the narrative is a way to do a twist on how Bride of Frankenstein had a prologue with Shelley talking about more of a story to tell with Frankenstein). One thing leads to another and, well, as Slap Shot [1977] once stated, "most folk heroes started out as criminals". 

What a weird little movie this is. Aside from the 126-minute runtime, what we have here is a movie that is somehow bloated in its litany of wayward plot threads and characters to barely care about and yet also is begging for something to truly latch onto, even in an exploitative sense. If this was made on a budget of, say, a fraction of a fraction of the reported $80 million with plenty of corners to cut and straight exploitation, maybe you would get something to rival, well, Frankenhooker (1990). But you get a movie that has a proverbial stick up its ass* from the very beginning and never really cuts itself loose for anything that is actually meaningful. Even as a film trying to supposedly say something about the experience of women beyond what you could gleam from say, reading a Wikipedia article. It's pretty funny that a movie that yearns to say something about empowerment has a title character that basically spends most of the movie being misled about their name (well, first name anyway) only to just go with being "The Bride", honestly. The Bride could probably have been edited to run as a comedy and possibly be better for it, what with its bombastic energy that has a dance sequence (hey, if you have one Frankenstein-adjacent film go with the Ritz...) and the, uh, unintentional amusement of a bunch of people putting on garb to look like the title character (with a mantra of brain attack that-, no, wait, nobody will be saying that as a rallying cry, not even to enjoy ice cream) and cut tongues out. For a movie that is set in 1936, at least you will be able to enjoy the scenery every now and then, that much is true. But for all the attempts at dignity and intensity that doesn't want to be pegged as just being a wannabee Natural Born Killers (1994), Buckley and Bale can't save that sinking feeling of "I would prefer not to" when asked if they would say there is something that made you care about these folks. Every single time that Buckley goes to the Shelley Zone makes me giggle a tiny bit in the very idea that it is meant to be taken seriously as some sort of devastating blow for women. Bening* at least looks like she wants to be in a monster movie, while Sarasgaard and Cruz have little to actually do beside fight over who is more wooden. As predictable as it might seem, the movie begs for a real villain or something to root against more than just "the system" or "guy who doesn't say much but I guess it matters that he gets his due at the end" (to say nothing of Buckley's character having to be rescued from sexual assault twice). By the time the movie mashes to a conclusion of, well, something, at least you get the feeling of relief to wash over the disappointment to be had here. As fun as it would've been to call this movie a pile of garbage (hey, if you can't have fun...), I just felt that this was mostly a frustrating experience to go through. But if you like the idea of seeing what the fuss might be about a movie that believes it has something to say about people that happens to have a few people getting stomped, maybe it might be for you.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day

*oh how could I resist

*Crowd count for this movie at 10:45am: zero, which actually is not a new phenomenon for me, as it happened with Madame Web and, uh, Missing Link.

*Seriously though, am I the only one that sees her glasses as looking like Dana Carvey from Master of Disguise?

Send Help.

Review #2505: Send Help.

Cast: 

Rachel McAdams (Linda Liddle), Dylan O'Brien (Bradley Preston), with Edyll Ismail (Zuri), Xavier Samuel (Donovan), Chris Pang (Chase), Dennis Haysbert (Franklin), Thaneth Warakulnukroh (Boat captain), Emma Raimi (River), and Kristy Best (Polly Perera) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, #1779 - Spider-Man 3, #1840 - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, #2141 - Army of Darkness)

Review: 

“[The studio] recognized what we were trying to do, and they were on board with that. Instead of taking this feathered fish and trying to cut off the feathers or trying to remove the scales, they said, ‘Yes, this is a unique thing. Changing it would not be for the better.’ Just embrace what it is. It’s just different.”

Oh hell yes, I was curious about this movie. Apparently, Sam Raimi was tapped to direct this film for a number of years after hearing a pitch from Mark Swift and Damian Shannon (who might be best known for their work on scripts such as Freddy vs. Jason [2003]). They wrote the script in 2019, and in that same year, Columbia Pictures had Raimi attached to do the project but it took several years in actually finding someone that wanted to finance it and also have it play in theaters rather than streaming (argue if you want, I applaud Raimi for his desire to do a theatrical film). It eventually found favor with 20th Century (Fox) Studios; the script was written by Mark Swift and Damian Shannon (who might be best known for their work on scripts such as Freddy vs. Jason [2003]).  And yes, this is the first Sam Raimi horror movie since Drag Me to Hell (2009)*, if you were curious.

Okay, sure, it's a "thriller" movie, but there is a body count and there are a few moments with blood and tension. It just so happens to be a movie involving radical reversal of their everyday routines that can be heaven or hell depending on how you view it. A little bit of Misery and a little bit of Cast Away (or, as others have argued, inspired in some part by Triangle of Sadness, which I never saw) goes a long way for a chippy survival film that has enjoyable bits that actually are darkly amusing. I myself wouldn't know what to do when stuck on an island (especially after being reminded yet again why I don't like the idea of flying on an airplane), so I cannot imagine being stuck with someone that actually watches Survivor (now, I could understand Big Brother, I watched that for a time...). You get your little moments of queasiness in terms of a body count, projectile vomit and more (I saw this in 3-D and yeah, I suppose it works to what you would hope for). With that in mind, McAdams is particularly entertaining because of the layers that fade in and out of that combo of awkwardness and determination. You get the best of both worlds in enjoying the character that comes through in the two environments: one that is corny but basically solitary in corporate life and one that is basically as happy as one could be in a "adapt or die" island life* that is, well, pretty likable. And then of course there is O'Brien, who manages to sell it just as well in the perils that come with being turned upside down in the totem pole of power dynamics that is just as amusing in the overgrown qualities that come with pathetic creatures that believe themselves to be better than you just because of who they were born to. To appreciate this movie is to enjoy the tension between McAdams and O'Brien in what is said and unsaid (at a certain point, any simmering might as well be in the freezer) between them, which is particularly entertaining for the climax in high-energy queasiness. As a whole, I enjoyed this movie to a pretty solid level. It is a nice movie that manages to make the 115 minute runtime roll off without one feeling helpless at what they are seeing (i.e. it feels like a complete movie to actually look at and have glee over without also wondering about the effects being distracting). It's a neat feature with a mix of squeamish and humorous moments that I would recommend without question for the level of fun to be had here.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*I really probably should've picked that movie for last November, because it was a finalist.

*A lot of this is basically code for "they put her in frumpy looking clothes before eventually revealing that when trapped in an island, yes, you would want to be there with Rachel McAdams.