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?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Review #1840: Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Cast: 

Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Stephen Strange), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Karl Mordo), Benedict Wong (Wong), Xochitl Gomez (America Chavez), Michael Stuhlbarg (Nicodemus West), and Rachel McAdams (Christine Palmer) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, and #1779 - Spider-Man 3)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the film Doctor Strange (#874), since it was only released...six years ago? To reiterate from long ago, this is based off the character of the same name that was co-created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko that first appeared in comics in July of 1963. What I remember about the original film was that it seemed to dazzle my younger self with its effects and cast that had generated a bit of amazement and surprise in its sequences (whether an indictment of myself or perhaps the series, I haven't seen the film since the only time I saw it). That film was part of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, which is still kicking around after fourteen years after having gone through various phases (the 2016 film was one of the first of the "third" phase while this one is smack dab in the middle of the ongoing "fourth" phase). That film was written and directed by Scott Derrickson, who was known for films such as Sinister (2012) and The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2014), and Derrickson was slated to return for the film before stepping down in 2020; Raimi was signed on not long afterwards, and this is his first film as director since Oz the Great and Powerful (2013). This film was written by Michael Waldron, his first film credit. Times have changed a bit since then, since I guess one also needed to see superheroes appear in "miniseries" television as well (as opposed to their previous attempts at TV productions), with this film for example serving as a follow-up to WandaVision (2021). Of course, I will provide exactly one statement to the idea of trying to play catch-up to miniseries: movies are the ideal to engage my interest, so it seems too much like "homework" for my taste, but it is what it is. 

So, what does one think of a movie with a title long enough to abbreviate as "Doctor Strange in the M.O.M.?" Come to think of it, I haven't exactly been dutiful in actually seeing each of these Marvel movies in a few years. It isn't because they have degraded in quality, it just seems that the ones that look interesting are sequels rather than trying to introduce a hero (of course, if one stopped watching after Avengers: Endgame, I don't blame you). But hey, here we are with a supposedly "scarier" Marvel movie with a semi-interesting idea with an adversary quite familiar to viewers in going from "they are in that shot and sometimes talk" to "presence". Besides, anything that gives the character of Doctor Strange something better to do than what he did in Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) should work out, but this is the rambling of a man who just thinks a hero seems more interesting to view without being just a supporting presence. The best thing I can say is that for all the cynical rambling and thoughts I had going into the film, it at least covers some of the expectations it has for itself with useful thrilling imagery with a game cast and director. It isn't exactly a good result, in part because there is a far better movie out now involving a "multiverse", but admirers of Raimi will still find it worth their time as a minor messy work. Cumberbatch walks through the film handily with the confidence one expects from his sense of knowing and timing that handles the demands thrust upon him with worthwhile patience. Of course, Olsen is the one who ends up stealing the show a bit, since her single-minded desire makes for compelling engagement when with Cumberbatch, one who does manage to draw a slight shred of curiosity for the simple desire of wanting to shape the world to have their children with them (no matter how inevitable it ends up being); in that sense, one can say that there is a semi-compelling threat in a Marvel movie. Gomez turns out okay, but in the attempt at trying to mold a young hero, one seems that she is used more for exposition that means one finds more insight in other movies involving the dimensions of being a hero than this (see, I did find a way to reference Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse properly). Ejiofor and Wong are only fleetingly involved in the general action, which results in a fraction of interest when either person banters with Cumberbatch. It is nice to see McAdams, even if her quiet patience is only there to show the apparent differences that have come from six years of comic book movie mythmaking. Yes, there are a few appearances that may or may not be a surprise to you, depending on how much one is invested into the subject material. While it did draw a slight smile, it really seems more of a "coming and going" kind of appearance built to build a boost (and possibly used just to dump exposition) before inevitability sets in. Besides, it does help setup the defining interest that the movie gets for me: setting up moments of horror, or at least the idea of it. There are plenty of decent effects shots that one would probably expect for a movie that just manages to stick its welcome at 126 minutes without pacing itself for too long. I don't think it particularly improves on the original film, but it does at least maintain some of the interest that made the original work without turning into an excuse for reference mumbo-jumbo. At any rate, an average modern movie is probably better than having no movie experience at all, so that might be the best thing I can say for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Annihilation.

Review #1581: Annihilation.

Cast:
Natalie Portman (Lena), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Ventress), Gina Rodriguez (Anya Thorensen), Tessa Thompson (Josie Radek), Tuva Novotny (Cassie “Cass” Sheppard), Oscar Isaac (Kane), Benedict Wong (Lomax), Sonoya Mizuno (Katie / The Humanoid), and David Gyasi (Daniel) Written and Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina)

Review:

"I try to figure out: What is the thing that I'm adapting? And in this instance, it was the feeling, the experience of reading the book; it was the atmosphere of the book. That was the thing that I was concerned about."

One never can hurt to find a worthy director within being a writer as well. Alex Garland fits the requirement since his first publication nearly 25 years ago. He was a graduate of the University of Manchester after studying History of Art. In 1996, his first novel was published with The Beach, based on his travels across Europe through backpack (which he described as satire against backpacking) that became a hit based on word-of-mouth praise - to the surprise of everyone, including Garland, which included a subsequent film adaptation that Garland observed its production (it was seeing the collaboration between the screenwriter, producer, and director that he felt looked like fun). Although he would write two more novels, he decided to take his interest to screenwriting with 28 Days Later (2002). He followed this up with work on Sunshine (2007) and Never Let Me Go (2010) before taking an "unorthodox collaboration" with writing Dredd (2012). Ex Machina (2014) was his first breakthrough as a director (alongside writing duties), a science fiction film achievement. One of the producers of that film (Scott Rudin) later approached Garland to read a particularly recent book named Annihilation (written in 2014 by Jeff VanderMeer), which he described as a "really strange, really quite beautiful book". It was the first of a trilogy of books called the "Southern Reach Trilogy", although Garland wrote the script when only one book had been released. He wrote it as a "memory of the book" that wanted to make a dreamlike kind of film.

What we have here is a fascinating movie that surely deserved better upon release. A dispute with the head of Skydance Media (one of the production companies behind the film) and leaders at Paramount Pictures meant that the film would have just under three weeks of release in theaters before it was readily available on Netflix to stream (a terrible decision, for those who desire cinema releases as first priority). Take one good guess why this occurred: imagine funding a science fiction film and then deciding it is "too intellectual" and "too complicated". This is literally the same major studio distributor that allowed mother! (2017) to go along unscathed without preview screenings, but here we are. One does not get the feeling of being talked down to here within its mix of science fiction and horror, this much is true. It most certainly is not too complicated to elude interest from an audience (older audiences might see an unintentional relation to Predator (1987), while most would note familiarity with H. P. Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space"), because it most certainly is an entertaining and useful experience in the means of human nature with self-destruction with a shimmer of terror. It isn't a film with an easily defined monster, but there is one easy detail to keep on the toes: the only thing that survives is the frightened pain of those who are taken by it, one that has turned the environment around it into something extraordinary and frightening at the same time. One works the film out on its own terms for 115 minutes with carefully planned unraveling, which makes for a wonderfully strange time to build towards pondering the means to get to its ending, for better or worse. Portman does pretty well with handling the capability of self-destructive nature around her with useful regard to the surroundings around her that isn't lost in a show of effects. Leigh keeps it carefully on-key with quiet planning for the inevitable, while Rodriguez and Thompson each do fine with building the layers of shaky chemistry between people entering the unknown with fears and interests to go alongside it all (which works mostly without a hitch). The others are fine, including Issac and his carefully constructed post-escape act between here and there. It proves efficient with visual sense to go alongside a fairly well-crafted atmosphere to inspire a few questions (mostly on the inquisitive side, although it could also prove interesting to pick at, such as its ultimate fate) that rewards those with patience to make it a worthwhile sophomore film for Garland. It wasn't a huge winner at the time of its release, but only time will tell how it does with those curious enough to look upon it somewhere in the margins for horror or sci-fi.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Moon.

Review #1010: Moon.

Cast: 
Sam Rockwell (Sam Bell), Kevin Spacey (GERTY), Dominique McElligott (Tess Bell), Kaya Scodelario (Eve Bell), Benedict Wong (Thompson), Matt Berry (Overmeyers), and Malcolm Stewart (The Technician) Directed by Duncan Jones.

Review: 
In terms of science fiction, the genre is certainly interesting for how diverse and how thought provoking it can be with its use of imaginative and futuristic concepts. It's clear that Moon wants to be like some of the classic sci-fi films, such as Silent Running (#091) or 2001: A Space Odyssey (#093), with its own touch of humanity and intelligence. Made on a budget of $5 million, this is an efficient movie that showcases its ideas and never looks off for the most part. Rockwell is the only actor physically on-screen, and he certainly takes good advantage of that, having a fairly outstanding time with this role. If you don't find him to be all that effective to root for or care about, you likely won't have much of a good time with the film, and I will admit that it took me a while to get into the film fully, but it earns its moments with Rockwell fairly well. Spacey does a fine job with this sentient computer role, being slightly creepy but also effective.

I can't really delve into the plot details too much, because doing so would spoil the mystery and fun of seeing it for oneself, but I will say that it is interesting to watch unfold on screen, having a fine pace that certainly rolls itself coherently for my taste. I will admit that the scenes with the hallucinations are a bit odd, mainly because I feel that they don't really go that well with the rest of the plot, feeling a bit out-of-place with what the film wants to be. At 97 minutes, it is fairly paced, with some suspense that does take its time but ultimately feels worthy. The miniature model work is pretty good, having a look and feel that works while having a nice-looking quality to it that fits well with the movie. On the whole, this is a very well made movie, utilizing its human elements and fine movie-making by Jones in his directorial debut that works more often than not in being good science fiction that simply lets you wonder.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Doctor Strange.

Review #874: Doctor Strange.

Cast:
Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Stephen Strange), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Karl Mordo), Rachel McAdams (Christine Palmer), Benedict Wong (Wong), Michael Stuhlbarg (Dr. Nicodemus West), Benjamin Bratt (Jonathan Pangborn), Scott Adkins (Lucian), Mads Mikkelsen (Kaecilius), Tilda Swinton (the Ancient One), and Zara Phythian (Brunette Zealot) Directed by Scott Derrickson.

Review:
It's good to back in the theater again, and this time with friends to watch it with. When it comes to these Marvel films, it always seems that I can't not be surprised by the end product, no matter how good (or great) they usually are. There's always something to be surprised or amazed by, and the way that this movie universe is built makes for a diverse amount, and even if I don't know much about the comic book they usually end up being pretty good. The same can be said for Doctor Strange as well. It's an entertaining film, in part due to its cast and effects. Strange manages to change throughout the movie in terms of his manner, and Cumberbatch succeeds in conveying that, convincing in his mannerisms and timing, even getting time to say some quips. He's not as arrogant as Tony Stark for example, but he displays some sort of humility and some sort of charm. Ejiofor is also pretty good in portraying a character as rigid as the script allows him to be. McAdams isn't given too much to do, but at least she isn't meant to just be a love interest this time around, having a bit more independence and some sort of grace in the role Any movie that begins with "Shining Star" and "Feels so Good" wins at least some vote by me. The rest of the cast is exceptional, with Mikkelsen playing a fairly entertaining villain (even if half the time he's wearing what looks like glitter...long story), and Swinton and Wong are also pretty good, achieving some sort of mystical allure. The climax is also pretty good, demonstrating some creativity, with two credits scenes at the end that are also pretty well done (par for the course). The effects are where the film excels at, whether during some action or when Strange first meets the Ancient One. It looks really stunning, along with having a good fit with a film as mind-bending as this one, having some fun with the weirdness that goes on. There isn't technically a big bad villain to beat, but this film manages to still go along with a winning formula with its own kind of flair and own kind of imagination to succeed.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.