Showing posts with label David Jonsson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Jonsson. Show all posts

September 14, 2025

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...

August 22, 2024

Alien: Romulus.

Review #2247: Alien: Romulus.

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
Next time: Ishtar.