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?

Cocaine Bear.

Review #1981: Cocaine Bear.

Cast: 

Keri Russell (Sari), O'Shea Jackson Jr. (Daveed), Alden Ehrenreich (Eddie), Christian Convery (Henry), Brooklynn Prince (Dee Dee), Isiah Whitlock Jr. (Bob), Margo Martindale (Ranger Liz), Ray Liotta (Syd), Jesse Tyler Ferguson (Peter), and Aaron Holliday (Stache) Directed by Elizabeth Banks.

Review: 

The beginning of a new month always lends itself to surprises and interesting things to talk about in film spotlighting. Such is the case with another March that attempts to spotlight female directors in film beyond just getting to the point. Elizabeth Banks became an actress because she found it interesting after giving it a try for a school play after hurting herself playing softball. She studied at the University of Pennsylvania and the American Conservatory Theater while acting in various plays. This continued throughout the mid-2000s with highlights in films and TV such as The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005), Scrubs (2006-09), and 30 Rock (2010-12). Banks first became involved in directing with Movie 43 (2013), serving as one of numerous co-directors before making a debut on a real movie with Pitch Perfect 2 (2015), having served as producer and co-star on the previous film. Cocaine Bear (2023) is the third feature film from Banks. The film was written by Jimmy Warden, which takes loose inspiration from the story of the "Cocaine Bear", an American black bear that spent a brief amount of time under the influence of cocaine, as the bear ate a large portion of cocaine that was in a jettisoned container (as one sees from drug trafficking, which was done by Andrew C. Thornton, who indeed died in freefall when trying to unload the cocaine into the wilderness); the film is set in the same year as the real-life story of the bear (1985), albeit with fictional characters.

You know, I wonder if the buzz for the film was similar to Snakes on a Plane (2006), a movie that has a catchy title involving animals. Honestly, what do you expect from a movie like this? The fact that the movie lives up to, well, the title of the film, is at least grounds for a decent time with comedy horror for 95 minutes. It is a movie that gives you a (CG rendered) killer bear on the loose that is meant to look ferocious, and it generally works out here in weird amusement. It is mildly funny without turning into vacant self-parody, giving what one exactly thinks they desire in the basic requirements of entertainment. The acting is mildly interesting, albeit in parts. Jackson and Ehrenreich have an interesting rapport together in the grand art of bickering and "old couple energy" that actually may make a more interesting bond than the one meant to be shown between Russell, who in of herself is decent; look, in a movie about a parent trying to protect their daughter in horror, what do you think is going to happen besides, well, you know? Actually, if you really want to be bold and ridiculous with a bear attack movie, putting one of the kid characters in peril may be the way to go, but that is just me (I also believe that if you really want more of these killer animal movies, they should be made in completely ridiculous genres, like a musical horror). What were we talking about? Oh, right: Liotta is my personal highlight, mostly because even in limited screen time he accomplishes the act of ideal horror-target in all the right tones (Liotta passed away shortly after completing his scenes for the film). Whitlock is a moderately amusing authority figure, complete with a vertical standoff. As a whole, the setup for the bear scenes are pretty decent, with no one really overstaying their welcome or killing a bit for too long, which is what you hope even in less ambitious movies. I think the actual fate of the bear body is far more interesting than what the film pulls: After the medical examiner had finished looking at the corpse, he wanted to make sure it was not wasted, so he had it taxidermized (so yes, a bear got stuffed after it died from cocaine). It got donated to the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (near the National Forest where the bear died) before it got lost and found in a pawn shop before somehow making its way to a mall in Lexington, Kentucky. It almost clouds the other flaw that happens with a good deal of B-movies but seems more apparent here: it has a middling ensemble that seems guilty of having perhaps one too many characters for such a thin amount of interesting things for them to say, as if the movie should either have focused on a bear ravaging a family or a bear ravaging around while dopey fixers try to recover drugs. But hey, the movie accomplishes what it sets out to do: have fun showing a bear high on cocaine taking out disposable characters in disposable situations for moderate results. Man or woman as director, this generally means a good time for those who like what the movie is selling, though it will be up to the viewer to see what will actually endure in its memory after seeing it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to Movie Night: Women's History Month III. This time we are going reverse-chronological, which means the month will end in the early 20th century. This means next up is Harriet.

Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Review #1095: Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Cast: 
Alden Ehrenreich (Han Solo), Woody Harrelson (Tobias Beckett), Emilia Clarke (Qi'ra), Donald Glover (Lando Calrissian), Thandie Newton (Val), Paul Bettany (Dryden Vos), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (L3-37), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Erin Kellyman (Enfys Nest), Jon Favreau (Rio Durant), and Linda Hunt (Lady Proxima) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, and #1085 - Willow)

Review: 
Note: Gee, seems like I am a bit late to the party - if there ever was one for Solo. Honestly, timing issues was the reason for the delay in doing this film (which was also the case with Upgrade). Hopefully you will enjoy this review in any case.

Admittedly, the world of Star Wars is vast with the amount of worlds and characters it can show over the course of the numerous movies that have been released since the original in 1977, and I suppose it only makes sense to make a prequel, since this franchise loves to do that trend every so often, particularly in recent times. The fact that this is the fourth Star Wars film in the past three years does tend to inspire the idea that perhaps the franchise is suffering a bit of fatigue with storytelling. The debacle involving the replacing of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller midway into production with Ron Howard taking over directorial duties and having reshoots doesn't help matters, either. I am reminded of its prequel cousin Rogue One (#888), which mostly utilized characters we had no recollection of prior to its release, and it made the most of what it wanted to tell with a tinge of seriousness and a fair story.

With this film, there is a share of old and new characters, and the appeal of the movie depends on how much appeal they bring to something that generally hits more than it misses, but it also will depend on how you see Ehrenreich in the main role. There is no understating how Harrison Ford managed to make this charming rogue of a character come to life through the four films he appeared in, and it may not be something you can just have someone take over and have a smooth transition. Needless to say, Ehrenreich is a bit shaky at times in this role, particularly around the first half (and any sort of close scene with Clarke), but I feel that he does tend to seem a bit more comfortable around halfway through, and he manages to handle the climax fairly well. Perhaps a better actor would've served the film better, but the best thing that can be said for him is that at least the writing for the character tends to compliment him enough to where it isn't a terrible experience to see it played out. Harrelson plays his mentor role with some relish that make the part seem alive at times, sticking out fine in his time on screen. Clarke is okay, but I feel that she is slightly underdone by the writing on her character, which isn't always consistent to make her seem interesting to follow at times, with the chemistry between her and Ehrenreich not being particularly too great (although I won't say it kills the film's spirit at least). In a film about one charming rogue, it is the appearance of another charming rogue that steals the show, as Glover captures the character originally played by Billy Dee Williams without any sort of doubt, capturing the cool nature of why he is compelling to follow with from his first appearance in the movie. He's fun to watch interact with the others, and I suppose I really did need a scene with a room dedicated to all of his capes that he wears. Newton is okay in her brief time on screen, with Bettany proving to be a fair adversary. Waller-Bridge is fine, although some of her bits can prove to test one's patience with a droid with moxie - for better or worse. The rest of the cast prove just fine to watch. The action sequences and effects are finely done, as one might expect, and the movie tends to move at a fair pace, without becoming bogged by cliches or too much predictability. The writing by Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan (who had served as writer for films involving the character in The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens) has a fair amount of focus to making sure that the characters do tend to have interactions with each other that prove fruitful and occasionally amusing, even if tends to tread familiar lines, although at least it doesn't plod too much through its 135 minute run-time. Is it an entirely necessary movie? I suppose it depends on if you really wanted (or needed) to see an adventure of a younger version of a character you (probably) liked. The film likely won't win any new converts into the Star Wars mythos, but it will prove to be satisfactory entertainment for people looking for a good adventure, and I think that is likely the best hope one can have when watching a film sometimes.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.