Freaked.

Review #2573: Freaked.

Cast: 

Alex Winter (Ricky Coogin), Michael Stoyanov (Ernie), Megan Ward (Julie), Randy Quaid (Elijah C. Skuggs), William Sadler (Dick Brian), Alex Zuckerman (Stuey Gluck), Keanu Reeves (Ortiz "The Dog Boy"), Mr. T (The Bearded Lady), Brooke Shields (Skye Daley), Bobcat Goldthwait ("Sockhead"/Sock (Tourist), Derek McGrath ("Worm"/Oxford Professor), Jeff Kahn ("Nosey"), John Hawkes ("Cowboy"), Lee Arenberg ("The Human Flame"), Patti Tippo (Rosie "The Pinhead"), Tim Burns ("Frogman"), Ray Baker (Bill Blazer), Jaime Cardriche ("Toad"), Tom Stern (Milkman), with Jon M. Chu (Giant Stuey Monster), and Michael Gilden & Joseph S. Griffo ("Eye N. Eye") Directed by Alex Winter and Tom Stern.

Review: 

"I made Freaked, which as I said was very much a kind of protest to celebrity—I mean, it was absurdist, it wasn’t any kind of arch-political statement. It was fun. It was done in the spirit of the comedy that Tom and I were doing at the time. It was very much a statement about ‘80s-Hollywood and celebrity and youth culture celebrity." - Alex Winter

"Sure, it's a little more mainstream. But we're talking degrees here. It's still fairly gross by most people's standards – and a lot more clever than it was. Compared to most comedies, it's not at all mainstream." - Tom Stern

Is it picking low hanging fruit to go along with a movie that basically was just screwed over by its studio? Alex Winter and Tom Stern met at Tisch School of the Arts at New York University in the 1980s that shared interests in "underground comix, punk rock, Monty Python, etc." They soon collaborated on a few short films together such as Squeal of Death, Bar-B-Que Movie (which featured the rock band Butthole Surfers*) and a few music videos. Alongside Tim Burns (who had met Stern when working on The Jim Henson Hour), they created the sketch comedy show The Idiot Box (aired in 1991), which ran for six episodes on MTV (back when it actually ran music videos). They ended the show to take a deal with 20th Century Fox for what became this film. At the time, Winter believed that cynical comedy was on the rise in part because of the outlook of the United States* and thought, well, what's more cynical than laughing at the misfortune of the main character? Of course, he also claimed that the original intent was to make the "ultimate cult film" to overly exaggerate before Fox came in and wanted rewrites (Joe Roth in particular was name-dropped for being with them on making a movie together), so there's that. Burns gave the film a re-write (evidently, one of the moments excised involved a guitar player playing with a living person's spinal cord). Studio turnover led to Roth departing Fox and replaced by someone who did not care for the film (shot for over $12 million that actually had merchandise released for it such as a figure line). Bad test screenings (one screening apparently had a bunch of numbskulls believing it was going to be like Bill & Ted) led to a theater release on October 3...to two screens (there exists a few different editions, with the longest being 86 minutes and the US version went 80). Winter has made a handful of features and documentaries (ranging from Fever [1999] to Zappa [2020] to Adulthood [2025]) while Stern has gone off on his own filmmaking with stuff such as co-writing An American Werewolf in Paris (1997), a handful of TV episodes and documentaries. After receiving runs on home media (2005, 2013), it got a full restoration (and release) from Winter in 2025.

It's one thing to put Reeves in a dog suit, it's another thing to have Mr. T. play a bearded lady. Among the folks responsible for the effects included Tony Gardner, Steve Johnson, and Screaming Mad George. If they couldn't get their dream of Beach Blanket Bingo meeting The Evil Dead", at least there's a gooey and goofy time to have here with this movie, which has plenty of glee over its Freekz (hey, the working title was "Hideous Mutant Freekz"), which are wonderful to gawk at alongside to have amusement over how they look when faced with crowds of humans who aren't really that much different in temperament, honestly. If Freaks (1932) wanted to show the actual side of sideshow performers* and the horrors that come in trying to ignore them as people, Freaked yearns to just go off the wall with its own type of performers that we celebrate for all that they do in mayhem: cow-men, toads with big tongues, and to top it all, a giant mutated nerd. It's the kind of movie fit for those who had fun with, say, Nothing But Trouble (1991). As star and co-director, Winter was wrapped with plenty of makeup for twelve hours (complete with remote control work), and, well, handling duties that resulted in him barely being able to sleep for a few months. As such, he makes for a good presence in carrying things in scuzzball grossness (as per the goal), one who hams it up with no hesitation. Winter, Stoyanov, and Ward make for a suitable group of goofs to get turned into freaks (one with half of a good face and the other two being pooled together) as equal opportunity jerks. The supporting cast has a handful of gags and charms, ranging from the most obvious person to play a sock puppet, a stuffy worm, and a delightfully dry Mr. T exploring the helpful side of femininity. The movie drifts in and out with just having fun in effects and slinging any gag possible that makes for a pretty good time to let play out. In a sea of over-the-top people that aspire to be a spokesman for toxic waste (hey, is it any less degenerate than people who go for gambling sites in 2026*?) or live with a group of folks ranging from worms to mutated hammers, aiming for any type of joke (high and low) is the kind of movie fit for the oddball in all of us.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next: To hell with it, Speed Racer.

*Yes, the movie had its own fan website - Freekland: Official Homepage of Alex Winter, Tom Stern and Tim Burns

*Butthole Surfers? Good lord, what a crappy name for a band. What's next, Viet Cong? 

*At least 1993 had Bill Clinton. 

*DraftKings and any other site that goes all in for gambling should die a horrible death. Gambling should've been relegated to the seedy basement and never given any type of prominence. At least alcohol has an argument for being a "social" drink (hey, I think it's a piece of crap, but still), what the hell does gambling do for anything?

*I wondered, hey, would some bastard try to argue that Freaks (1932) isn't really a horror movie? Low and behold, some people do in fact try to argue that - sad! 

Point Break.

Review #2520: Point Break.

Cast: 

Keanu Reeves (FBI Agent Johnny Utah), Patrick Swayze (Bodhi), Gary Busey (FBI Agent Angelo Pappas), Lori Petty (Tyler Ann Endicott), John C. McGinley (FBI Director Ben Harp), James LeGros (Roach), John Philbin (Nathaniel), Bojesse Christopher (Grommet), Lee Tergesen (Rosie), Vincent Klyn (Lupton 'Warchild' Pittman), Chris Pedersen ('Bunker' Weiss), Dave Olson (Archbold), Anthony Kiedis (Tone), and Galyn Gorg (Margarita) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless, #2188 - Near Dark, #2361 - Blue Steel, #2494 - Strange Days)

Review: 

“Thrill-seeking adrenaline addicts have always fascinated me. The idea seems to be that it’s not until you risk your humanness that you feel most human. Not until you risk all awareness do you gain awareness.”

Sure, it feels right. The original idea of the film came from Rick King, who wondered about surfers who robbed banks. King had directed Prayer of the Rollerboys (1990), which was written by W. Peter Iliff, who once was waiting tables in his late twenties before becoming a screenwriter. Iliff's original screenplay (under the working title Johnny Utah) actually had bounced around for much of the late 1980s (Ridley Scott was at one point tapped before pre-production didn't go anywhere) before eventually falling into the hands of Lawrence Gordon and his company that went with Kathryn Bigelow to direct. Bigelow, alongside her then-husband James Cameron did re-writes for a production draft (one particular moment that Cameron came up with was the main character jumping out of a plane without a parachute); in short, it wasn't a movie crafted by one person but through a variety of influences (Cameron, for whatever reason, recently expressed a bit of bitterness over not getting a writer's credit). Made on a budget of $24 million, the movie was a decent enough with audiences at the time of release and it attracted enough of a following that someone made a "reality-play" parody (which premiered in Seattle in 2003) of the film that has a new unrehearsed actor play the lead role and read lines from cue-cards (various people have attended performances such as Busey, Petty, and even Bigelow). A remake was released in 2015, which was shot/directed by Ericson Core with Édgar Ramírez and Luke Bracey playing the lead roles, and a TV adaptation has been floating around for a few months.

Well, you either live for the ride, or the waves will just splash you away. The whole "initiation into a group by a cop" thing wasn't completely mined out by this point (as evidenced by say, The Fast and the Furious [2001] a decade later), but the best thing about the movie is that it just coasts on the amount of casual energy it has with its cast and action. The folks here play the whole thing as straight as you can play it even with folks being named "Johnny Utah" going from former football players to FBI agents (in fairness, Charles Tillman actually did go from former NFL player to federal agent, so there's that) to go along with people who are all in their own varying levels of inner balance*. Reeves was the one that Bigelow defended despite studio doubts, and, yeah, he makes for a good pairing with Swayze in that type of bond that basically goes past the usual cat-and-mouse game that comes with these types of movies. You've got vulnerability and the yearning to actually do something on one side with Reeves and the eclectic confidence that comes from someone who aims to be the master of their own domain (spiritually, literally, whatever). All will drift onto the other side, so why not try to aim for the ultimate thrill when doing so? The rest of the cast* are fairly charming in their aims for a film that takes things casually, whether that means a few chuckles at the strait-laced McGinley or the odd duck straight man nature of Busey (see, he doesn't always play louts or the heavy). Call it whatever you want (one label that has been floated around is "wet Western"), call it a movie about finding a soul within riding the waves of the frontier that is the sea, the important part is that it is a pretty neat thriller at the end of the day. It packs enough heat within its 122-minute runtime that coasts in the air with skydiving, on the ground with one particular chase scene and in the water for, well, various moments to try and capture the feeling of surfing (I myself can't say stuff about water besides trips to the waterpark). It even has an ending like a Western with the culmination of one perhaps finding a soul within the waves. For a movie as stimulating in its curiosity for high-octane interest as this one is, you will probably have a good time with a film that has managed to get to 35 years with relative ease.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*There are apparently people who find a homoerotic subtext to the film in the same sense that people try to do that for Top Gun. Truth be told, I wish people had half as much time to use on Strange Days, which is the far more interesting Bigelow movie of the 1990s. Seriously, go see it.

*My balance is trying to hide my desire to be wrapped up on an island with a lady just like Lori Petty's character. What a character, especially with that hair.

Ballerina (2025).

Review #2388: Ballerina (2025).

Cast: 

Ana de Armas (Eve Macarro; Victoria Comte as young Eve), Anjelica Huston (the Director), Gabriel Byrne (the Chancellor), Lance Reddick (Charon), Norman Reedus (Daniel Pine), Catalina Sandino Moreno (Lena), Ian McShane (Winston Scott), Keanu Reeves (John Wick), and Sharon Duncan-Brewster (Nogi) Directed by Len Wiseman (#320 - Live Free or Die Hard, #1916 - Underworld)

Review: 

Even with the marketing calling it "From the World of John Wick: Ballerina", I was at least semi-interested in seeing what was under the hood of trying to a spinoff of a series that I assumed was staying quiet (this is me pretending that the idea of making a fifth John Wick movie when the fourth's ending already exists). I didn't even realize they utilized the "branding" for a prequel TV show two years ago, incidentally. Apparently, the genesis of Ballerina came around because of seeing a trailer. Shay Hatten wrote a spec script that was inspired by seeing the trailer for John Wick: Chapter 2 [2017] that was acquired by Lionsgate. The script was a sendup of action movies and even had a counter to keep track of the lead character's kills as they went into conflict with secret society assassins in Switzerland and a retirement home. Sure, it was re-tooled extensively, but you might remember that Hatten was brought in to do some writing for the third and fourth John Wick movies. Evidently, the time from development led to several people being credited for "Additional Literary Material: (not on-screen)" in Rebecca Angelo, Lauren Schuker Blum, Emerald Fennell, Michael Finch and Len Wiseman. There were apparently reshoots of the film done in early 2024 by producer Chad Stahelski that was either months of stuff or just a few weeks of additional photography (one sequence cited was the extending opening that apparently wasn't initially filmed due to budget limitations) that was overseen by Stahelski and Wiseman. You might remember that Wiseman was the director for two of the first Underworld movies but had not directed a movie since Total Recall in 2012.

Honestly, I liked the movie fine, but many of my statements about the movie will make it seem like it is a bad thing to be a mediocre spinoff movie. If there was a tinge of amusement to be had at the growing absurdity that comes with one man against the whole band of killers to go alongside a good deal of stakes and danger in those aforementioned movies, you might find a part of that still present here. There is at least enough here for de Armas in shall we say, "killer instinct" to make things stay watchable without turning into a fest of staleness or to laugh at it. The flamethrower sequences in particular work best for the movie for shall we say, "slap-bang enjoyment", one is particularly enjoyable in the nitty-gritty feeling one gets in seeing just what that type of weapon can do and the methods that arise in trying to combat it. Besides, with a movie trying to play with resilience in "fight like a girl" but taking it seriously, as long as one is believing the material enough to not call it slop, it will coast enough for at least the idea of checking it out for 125 minutes. Armas plays it fast and loose in lethal grace that does manage to balance the tightrope of kicking ass without merely resembling a video game character in terms of the action sequences, anyway. Sure, the character probably has the gleam of being pushed and pulled by a few too many writers. Sure, the cult stuff is probably a bit too vague, but it is serviceable in the same sense that it feels like an old pair of shoes, and I suppose that works for Byrne to approach things with some creep factor. Huston accompanies the proceedings mostly to go around with a small bit of charm, which goes fine when it feels like most of the scenes take place in a chair. Obligation or otherwise, it is nice to see McShane and Reeves around for a bit in those vital doses of familiarity. Reedus might be worth talking about if he didn't have a significant amount of time between scenes to actually cite, but so it goes. It isn't too complicated a movie to either buy into or discard, and I found it works just enough to buy into, although I don't exactly expect too many more spinoff attempts*.  In the end, it probably is a bit sloppier than the original script envisioned in executing mayhem, but it is relatively satisfying enough for me to at least say the journey was worth it to get there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*It amused me to get a trailer for Nobody 2, the sequel to the movie written by John Wick creator Derek Kolstad during this.

Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Review #2323: Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Cast: 

Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik / Professor Gerald Robotnik), Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Keanu Reeves (Shadow), Idris Elba (Knuckles), Colleen O'Shaughnessey (Tails), James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Krysten Ritter (Director Rockwell), Adam Pally (Wade), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Shemar Moore (Randall), with Alyla Browne (Maria), and Tom Butler (Commander Walters) Directed by Jeff Fowler (#1353 - Sonic the Hedgehog and #1830 - Sonic the Hedgehog 2)

Review: 

Believe it or not, there aren't that many video game movies that reach "3" that anyone is actually anticipating. Sure, the first film (as released in 2020) was a pretty decent starter in gently getting folks to be invested in a silly blue blur (as originally developed by Sonic Team in 1991) that goes fast but has to learn about friends, stuff, and, well, a villain (Carrey) being the big highlight when it comes to useful bombast. The sequel (released in 2022) expanded on the lore with two more cuddly dudley creatures for an experience that was reasonably satisfying when it wasn't too grounded in the human element (we are not going to talk about the wedding sequence). It has been a while (there apparently was a "TV series" with one of its characters, but I'll be damned if I spend any time on a streaming show), but here we are with a third movie. This one shares the same writers as before in Pat Casey, Josh Miller, and John Whittington. Evidently, a fourth film is already in development for about three years from now. 

It isn't hard to say that the best parts of the film is when it settles down with familiar characters and lets a moment of spectacle breathe. No, I don't mean a music montage or a litany of references, I mean getting to the point and having fun. It helps to have a committed cast to deliver on building worthwhile stakes and, well, making you happy to see beyond the Earth. The games were designed to play fast and loose with its environment (whether in the dimension of "2D" or otherwise) and an egg-shaped man that loves wreaking havoc in the name of science or something like that. For a movie that runs 110 minutes, it does manage to carry water in solid entertainment that delivers on its expectations in terms of execution in story beats (primarily with Carrey and Reeves). It leaves the viewer (Sonic fanatic or not) with satisfaction and curiosity to see what lurks further in the undiscovered country of further adventures. Admittedly, I was most curious about how Carrey would approach this film because, well, he was "serious about retiring" and would only consider a really good script to come back. Far more than just a money grab or a makeup trap, he manages to do well in generating amusement in the double act (Brendan Murphy played the double for scenes requiring, well, two Carreys) of eccentric geniuses that show distinct layers in terms of being shaped in the disappointment in humanity, whether that means megalomania or something worse. In other words, it isn't just Carrey playing it silly with a big suit with phoning in, he is clearly having enough fun in bombast to sell it all the way down. You might be familiar with the character of Shadow (yet another hedgehog), as first featured in the game Sonic Adventure 2 in 2001 (as created by Takashi Iizuka and Shiro Maekawa with design by Kazuyuki Hoshino for what was meant to be just one game but ended up inspiring its own spinoff game). It helps to have committed voicework from Reeves in making a capable antihero that presents useful pathos and a capable threat to match against Schwartz in beings shaped by the people ripped from them that lives in memory (whether that means throwing a wrench in the usual playful energy or coarse gun-toting coolness). Sure, there are a few worthy quips from the friendly trio (Schwartz-O'Shaughnessey-Elba), but it does find enough time to make the flashback sequences have meaningful structure that doesn't bog itself down in too much self-importance or self-awareness (okay, one duo joke to go with a "garden" is worth it), complete with semblance of having Marsden and Sumpter (fine presences but hey, we are now in the presence of further quick creatures). The action is relatively charming for those who like their sequences with relatively bright lighting and actual time spent in space before having one little rug pull to set for the future (film wise anyway, don't try and sell me on streaming, gaming is my other pastime). In general, it is a neat sequel, establishing further beats to the mythology of speed creatures that happen to reside on Earth for fun that brings charming excitement and danger for the best installment (so far) of the film series.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, it is nice to celebrate fourteen years on the familiar grounds of the Internet for movies. A historic October to go with worthwhile theme-months in New Directors (January)/another "A" in August/the November starters/finishers will surely mean bigger and better heights for Season XV in the year ahead. Now let's close out Season 14 with a few more bangers...

John Wick: Chapter 4.

Review #1998: John Wick: Chapter 4.

Cast: 

Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Donnie Yen (Caine), Bill Skarsgård (the Marquis Vincent de Gramont), Laurence Fishburne (the Bowery King), Hiroyuki Sanada (Shimazu Koji), Shamier Anderson (Mr. Nobody / The Tracker), Lance Reddick (Charon), Rina Sawayama (Shimazu Akira), Scott Adkins (Killa Harkan), Clancy Brown (the Harbinger), Ian McShane (Winston Scott), and Natalia Tena (Katia) Directed by Chad Stahelski (#905 - John Wick, #906 - John Wick: Chapter 2, #1222 - John Wick Chapter 3 – Parabellum)

Review: 

"John Wick is a weird spillover of anime, manga, graphic novel sensibility as well as Wuxia films, Chanbara films, Samurai films, and Westerns. It’s got this weird transference."

It was ten years ago this year that Keanu Reeves signed on for a project that in the end run became a franchise. It is funny to consider that John Wick became a franchise that has seemingly risen in ambition with each passing sequel that has adequate staging in plot to accompany exquisite staging when it comes to action. You don't need me to tell you that this film is already a hit or that it is the longest film of the series at 169 minutes. I would be silly to not mention that a spinoff of the series is intended for release the following year with Ballerina with some of the main cast; a limited series "from the world of John Wick" will also be present in the coming months, if you are into that sort of thing. The film was written by Shay Hatten (who co-wrote the third film with series creator Derek Kolstad) and Michael Finch.

Honestly, it is hard to say which of the three John Wick sequels has turned out the best (if you want to be technical, the first is probably still the best for the surprise that comes with such a raw film). It definitely is the one where Reeves seems to say the least number of words, adhering most to the tradition set out by Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns with its one quiet hero. Each of the films feature plenty of what you might as well call gun-fu to go with fairly distinct actors getting to play support to Reeves and his exquisite timing as an action icon. The movies are bombastic in trying to top the other while finding new places to play like a kid wanting to take the toybox to new places, whether that means a sequence shot in Jordan or an action sequence at the Arc de Triomphe. The movie takes action sequences like it is water to absorb, which means one sees the vast effort required to make these scenes important to view in their ass-kicking glory without a feeling of repetition. There's plenty of targets to go around from the disposable to Scott Adkins in a fat suit hamming it up for all that seems clearly required. Reeves clearly knows what he likes as the ultimate action-boogeyman, one who moves through any sort of scene with precision and engagement for the action ballet that takes place with him usually at the forefront that shows the dedication required in performing a mix of judo and mixed marital arts that looks just like it feels to watch in absorption. The fact that a good chunk of his dialogue is just "yeah" is probably more of the fact that one has gotten to the point where he is simply just where he needs to be without such need for lengthy moments in his path of last vengeance (or in a different way, the path of seeing where his smoldering decisions have left others). Yen accompanies him in his style of worthwhile action charisma, a worthy match against Reeves in saying what needs to be said, which goes double for someone playing a blind assassin. Skarsgård makes a quality adversary, preening in haughtiness in a series all about the sheer arrogance that comes with not planning more than two steps ahead of a "Baba Yaga". Among the other additions is Anderson, who makes an adequate background mercenary, while Sawayama (a singer in their acting debut) does well in the parts they are in the film, which mostly involves interaction with Sanada, which is neat. It's always fun to see Brown or McShane around, but it is especially true with Reddick, who passed away last month at the age of 60 (small sentences or not, he always made this role distinct). The fact that a duel for the climax be handled so fervently in elegance is a testament to how the series has managed to hold in consistency. It is fun without becoming a needless excuse of dim lighting or being wishy-washy with its tone. As a whole, the film is paced well enough to roll with every punch and shot without dawdling on something for too long. Who knows where the series might go from here, but I can safely say that it was a pleasure to see Reeves on screen again in a role that he obviously seemed born to play to go along with a director that knows what he likes in raising the expectations set as a director that makes one curious to see what could be next.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: A special celebration on April 20th in the way best suited for Movie Night: a double-header with one film of world cinema and one from America.

Bill & Ted Face the Music.

Review #1592: Bill & Ted Face the Music.

Cast: 

Keanu Reeves (Theodore "Ted" Logan), Alex Winter (William S. "Bill" Preston, Esq.), Kristen Schaal (Kelly), Samara Weaving (Theadora "Thea" Preston), Brigette Lundy-Paine (Wilhelmina "Billie" Logan), William Sadler (The Grim Reaper), Anthony Carrigan (Dennis Caleb McCoy), Erinn Hayes (Princess Elizabeth Logan), Jayma Mays (Princess Joanna Preston), Hal Landon Jr (Captain Jonathan Logan), Beck Bennett (Officer Deacon Logan), with Kid Cudi, Amy Stoch (Missy), Holland Taylor (The Great Leader), and Jillian Bell (Dr. Taylor Wood) Directed by Dean Parisot (#237 - Galaxy Quest)

Review: 

“We wanted to ask, ‘What would happen if the things that you were told your life was going to be about when you were a teenager turned out to be wrong? How would you cope with it if you based your whole life on it? How would you deal with the disappointment? And how can we make that into a movie that is absurd and silly and embodies the buoyant spirit of Bill and Ted?"

To borrow a phrase liberally, perhaps it would be most excellent to start at the beginning. The genesis of what became Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989) came from a routine done by writers Ed Solomon and Chris Matheson in 1987. The routine involved (what else?) but two teenagers who need to pass a history test that resort to collecting historical figures. The development of going from a potential sketch in a film to a feature-length film only resulted in one real change: having them also be recruited by figures from the future to stay together as a band to unite mankind. There were plenty of moments that involved them saying "bogus" or "excellent!" to go around, although it is weird to try and look back upon its place among teenage hijinks films of its time (it proves superior to offbeat films like Weird Science and Heathers, that much is for sure). It is a silly, charming little movie, with no illusion of being anything other than just good ol' entertainment (I mean, this is a film where they go back to the 1400s and end up with girlfriends). Any movie that has a group of friends just having fun without needing to verge into philosophy beyond having an excellent adventure is probably going to turn out fine. With Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1991), Matheson and Solomon had them meet Death alongside evil robots of themselves. So basically, it was a fine sequel, continuing the tradition of hyper-real sincerity from Reeves and Winter, although the odds of either retaining their 8/10 ratings is 50-50 at best. Perhaps it is the fact that these are such light enjoyable movies that proves an interesting paradox: who saw a third film coming if two seemed enough? I saw the original two films in 2010, and the strangest thing is by that point the wheels were turning to make a script for a new film. It seems only fitting to see an 80s product find new life again, but it actually took several years to even find producers willing to do it...and then of course 2020 meant that the film received a simultaneous release in select theaters and video-on-demand.

So here we are, a film with the same two writers in Solomon and Matheson (in their fifth collaboration together), with the same main stars in Reeves and Winter together again. Each have had their own place in film in the decades that followed those films, whether that means an action presence (past and present) for Reeves or filmmaking (and technology advocate) with Winter. In a long, strange year, sometimes one really can't go wrong with a little bit of comfort filmmaking. It doesn't come off as a complete re-hash of what has been done before because it presents the ultimate contrast to the happy go-lucky folks from before in one way: hitting the reality of middle age, which it does fine without seeming hollow. It is probably just as goofy as the other films, even if it may not perhaps be all that it is cracked itself up to be with its attempts at staying excellent when it comes to nailing humor all the way through and through. It proves endearing for those who desire one last ride with some enjoyable presences or perhaps from those who like to see something with a bit of syrupy appeal for music "to unite the world". It all depends on how much luster still shines with Reeves and Winter at the helm. For the most part, they seem just fine in fitting right back into these roles, mainly because time hasn't seemed to wither them in cynicism. Reeves is calm but just as well-placed as usual with a breezy role that while not his best performance (since one can be spoiled by his run with John Wick) is at least on the target. Winter proves just as on balance when it comes to zippy charm within silly situation and the occasional effects shot (since both of them spend a bit of time together traveling forward in time...to themselves). It's obvious to see their engaging chemistry with each other that has made for a most interesting wholesome kind of trilogy, really. The action doesn't stop with them, since Weaving and Lundy-Paine make up their time count as the well-cast descendants to mirror Winter and Reeves without seeming like stale copies, having a decent chemistry with each other in rallying their own story with other figures. Schaal (taking the place set by the late great George Carlin in the previous films) does alright here, having a quiet usage in exposition and the occasional quip. Sadler, showing up only in the latter half (of a 91 minute film) arises to useful returns, in that it is nice to see him and his attempt at a light Death once again. Carrigan does what one can do with an insecure role, which is to say not too much. Others come here and there with mostly fair presence, in that no one is entirely distracting from what goes on (even if it is a cameo, as is the case with one appearance), which result in a movie that moves from point to point with at least some cohesion for a gag without pleading for it (although its effects can distract from that at times). Inevitably, it all rests on how much of the journey to find "that perfect song to unite everybody" really means to the person who ends up watching it. It's like an old sock that has come back from the wash ready to be done again after a long wait, with a hole looking to come out somewhere that nevertheless still gets worn for enjoyment anyway. The future is yet to be written, but if one needs a movie about two cheery friends staying together once again to get involved in time travel antics and music, you can't really go wrong here. In a year like this, that may surely prove more than enough.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Review #1502: Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Cast:
Gary Oldman (Count Dracula / Vlad the Impaler), Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), Winona Ryder (Mina Harker/Elisabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Professor Abraham Van Helsing/Priest/Principal Narrator), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Jack Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Arthur Holmwood), Billy Campbell (Quincey P. Morris), Sadie Frost (Lucy Westenra), Tom Waits (R. M. Renfield), Monica Bellucci (Dracula's Bride), Michaela Bercu (Dracula's Bride), Florina Kendrick (Dracula's Bride), and Jay Robinson (Mr. Hawkins) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, #1460 - Apocalypse Now, #1469 - The Outsiders)

Review:
"I used to be under the impression that in some kind of wanky, bullshit way, acting was like therapy: you get in and grapple with and exorcise all those demons inside of you. I don't believe that anymore. It's like a snow shaker. You shake the thing up, but it can't escape the glass. It can't get out. And it will settle until the next time you shake it up."

Not many directors can make a film worth pages of discussion in multiple decades with a variety of genres. And yet here we are, facing another Coppola film, with this following the end of the Godfather trilogy. It was Ryder who brought the script (done by James V. Hart) to his attention, as she was attracted to the emotional love story while Coppola had first read the book to kids as a teenager (while having seen Dracula movies with his brother as a youth) and was interested in some of the sensual aspects of the film. Oldman was attracted to the idea of doing a film with Coppola (whom he described as one of the great American directors), and this was in the midst of a developing career of versatility in the English-born actor.

It is entirely possible that Coppola really believed that his film would indeed be the definitive version of Dracula. After all, how many book adaptations have the author's name right there on the film title? Of course the main sticking point with that is the fact that the film reminds me as a more refined attempt at doing things others had done before, with mostly decent results more so on the visual level than anything. On one level, it is definitely better than the last high-profile Dracula adaptation by a major American studio in John Badham's cold-blooded flop from 1979 (which also had its own tinges of romance between Dracula and the lead, only much more ridiculous). On the other, it only just barely reaches levels that the Hammer adaptations did with less ridiculousness in refinement. There is such a strange mix of scenes that work with ones that come off as muddled, and it definitely doesn't reach as scary as it could have been. Perhaps it relies on first impressions, what with that opening involving Vlad the Impaler and that smooth red suit, which actually is a decent moment for the film...of course it also introduces the whole "lovers played by the same actress centuries apart" cliche, which believe it or not was actually already done before in a 1974 TV adaptation of the same name that also happened to share the Dracula / Vlad connection, which has been speculated by writers for decades.  That sure is one way to start your supposedly more-faithful book adaptation, make a ridiculous historical connection to a fictional character - why stop there, might as well make a film of The Mummy and have him be King Tut while you're at it. I did indeed crack a smile not long after that - the sight of seeing old man Dracula in a kimono and a long hairdo. It may not last long in the film, but it is highly amusing as the first little crack in the "let's take it seriously" approach.

 
No, having a love story with Dracula isn't exactly what I call an interesting and fresh take. Some things really are best left untouched, and having a Dracula film that actually proves scary is one of them. As much as I would like to resist the urge to compare it with other Dracula adaptations, it is inevitable to talk about relentlessly overblown it looks when compared to the films of the past in really sticking its landing in executing genuine suspense. Excess does not always win the day, no matter how many effects you might throw at it if the other parts are simply not right to go with it. If anything hasn't really changed from the old hammy Dracula films of the past, its the somewhat uneven acting of its main stars. All revolves around how one feels about Oldman in this role, one that seems to exist in contradictions that try to spring fear and passion within madness that in lesser hands would've been red meat material for mockery (try being a romantic antihero and then having to wear wolfman/bat makeup). Oldman does just fine with the role, but it is quite clear that he can only be at most third-best in a turn as Dracula and nothing more (Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi are the obvious choices for when one thinks of a vampire), one who certainly has some blood in his veins for terror while having to sift through effects-work and campy undertones.  Reeves (chosen after Christian Slater declined the role) is an easy target for ridicule when it comes to that British accent, and both Reeves and Coppola have commented about their regrets in casting (the former describing himself as too tired from a busy schedule and the latter stating that they wanted a matinee idol type for a not-great part). For me, the accent is indeed silly, and it certainly would pale when compared to class acts like Oldman or Hopkins. And yet, Ryder only just does better in matching the others, a bit too quiet to really sell this dark passion between her and Oldman (the parts with Frost and a wolf-man Oldman raping her isn't exactly better in comparison). It would take quite a bit of conviction to win me over to the vampire would-be romance, and they just can't quite make it seem that relentless in interest, particularly with the maddening last meeting for the climax (sure, why not have Mina do the final blow). Hopkins seems to be doing just fine in stoking some dignity to the fire while having multiple roles (for some reason). I do appreciate seeing Grant with Elwes and Campbell, but they somehow don't seem to really make as much impression as when compared to the campy stuff ahead of them (or when faced with even more cofounding casting choices, like singer Waits as the somewhat insane Renfield).

I admire Coppola for his attempts at keeping his intention to use traditional effects, since when he approached his visual effects team in what he wanted from the film, they told him it couldn't be done without computers. With that response, he fired them and just had his son Roman do the effects instead, which involve stuff such as double exposure to show mist coming out of a window or other various camera tricks. There are quite a few moments where it really can feel claustrophic, and credit certainly goes to some interesting design work in costumes and makeup. Then I remember the supposed love story and the scares that die with it, and the film dips back and forth again between looking scary and then flailing around trying to act like it is. It certainly takes inspiration from the Dracula films of the past (ranging as far back as Nosferatu), but it falls firmly in the middle of the pack with them rather than above it all. If you want to make a film about some sort of sensual repression and the nature of love through the centuries, find another vampire to do that crock of shit with. Dracula has been dragged around the woodshed for some good and not-so good films for over a century, and this is one that is just fine for what it is.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Matrix.

Review #1272: The Matrix.

Cast: 
Keanu Reeves (Thomas A. Anderson / Neo), Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus), Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity), Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith), Joe Pantoliano (Cypher), Marcus Chong (Tank), Anthony Ray Parker (Dozer), Julian Arahanga (Apoc), Matt Doran (Mouse), Gloria Foster (The Oracle), and Belinda McClory (Switch) Directed by The Wachowskis.

Review: 
One wonders how a film likes this has endured for two decades. The answers may differ slightly from person to person, but it is likely the entertainment value alongside a fairly developed philosophical core that stays on a steady path for most of its 136 minute run-time. How many directors have their main cast read works such as "Simulacra and Simulation" by Jean Baudrillard? One can't fault the Wachowskis for being ambitious with their story ideas, but credit also must go to others such as Yuen Woo-ping for coordinating the fight scenes or the visual effects headlined by John Gaeta (most notably with the bullet time parts). It has plenty of style and just enough substance to not collapse under its own weight, which would've happened under lesser hands or interference over the intended vision of a sci-fi action film that has its own voice involving a dystopia. Looking at the rooftop sequence for the beginning is certainly interesting, one for the way it grabs the viewer but also because the scene is one that uses sets from Dark City (1998) - bad movies sometimes makes you want to pick other movies instead, but sometimes good ones help inspire interest for additional ones too, I suppose. Maybe it isn't as great as something like Blade Runner (1982) or The Terminator (1984), but it belongs up there as something worthy to be watched alongside those kind of films without needing to defend it so heavily, where expectations for a first time viewer can be moderately high without being obnoxious.

The characters don't seem as developed as they likely should be (name one defining characteristic of the supporting cast-mates), but at least the actors don't squander their time by looking completely vacant. One can barely even see the seeds of a romance between Reeves and Moss (maybe they just bond over blank stares over "lunch" or something). For all that can be made fun of the film with its philosophy at times, at least one can give credit to Fishburne for keeping to his convictions and selling this whole-handily. Reeves generally goes through the motions with an oddball plot, but at least he seems ready to engage with the film without being too dull or too quippy with what is meant to be an interesting journey. The what-ifs for this film certainly are interesting - Will Smith was a potential choice for Neo before he turned it down (for Wild Wild West, but also because he didn't feel he was mature enough for it), but one noted choice for Morpheus was Val Kilmer. Moss does fine with handling herself when it comes to the action (such as the noted beginning, although the second half doesn't leave her too much to go with, for better or worse. Weaving is pretty involving as the non-generic AI program adversary, seeming like a mirror to Reeves that works out pretty well. Pantoliano does pretty good with a slick role that always proves watchable when needed. The film sure knows when to have an action sequence, or show off an interesting effect or two, and while it may take over the film for its climax to where the philosophy it taking a break, at least things do not end up crashing down by the time it reaches its endgame. One retains interest in seeing more from this interesting world and what can happen next, which did happen with two sequels released four years later. It may prove to be an experience for the viewer in more ways than one if it reaches its high points, but even when it seems like it wants to collapse, there is enough conviction and craftsmanship to make the whole thing worth it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Toy Story 4.

Review #1238: Toy Story 4.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Annie Potts (Bo Peep), Tony Hale (Forky), Keegan-Michael Key (Ducky), Jordan Peele (Bunny), Madeleine McGraw (Bonnie), Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Keanu Reeves (Duke Caboom), Ally Maki (Giggle McDimples), Jay Hernandez (Bonnie's dad), Lori Alan (Bonnie's mom), Joan Cusack (Jessie), Bonnie Hunt (Dolly), Kristen Schaal (Trixie), Emily Davis (Billy, Goat and Gruff), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Hamm), Blake Clark (Slinky Dog), June Squibb (Margaret the Store Owner), and Carl Weathers (Combat Carl) Directed by Josh Cooley.

Review: 
I do admit to having feelings of trepidation when I heard that this film was announced. The first three films are great movies, filled with plenty of entertainment, charm, wonderful animation with a solid foundation that would be expected from Pixar. Next year will be the 25th anniversary of the release of the first film, so one would wonder exactly how long can a saga like this can really last, particularly one about sentient toys and the actors that accompany them (there are even cameos from Mel Brooks and Carol Burnett at one point). One would've thought it would've ceased after the last one nine years ago, and one could even make the case that it could've just ended with the second one with no hesitation. Each of those films close themselves out leaving the audiences (and corporate overlords, if one is to be cynical here) satisfied for the time - these films are accessible for everyone, young and old. With this film, the best thing that can be said is that I can't really fault the filmmakers for wanting to make another story with these characters - the result is not a disturbing cashgrab (unlike certain productions of the past decade), but it is a compromise that works hard at trying to justify its existence with quality cast, animation, and a fairly competent foundation to make it mostly worth it. After all, there are plenty of writing credits to go around, such as a screenplay by Stephany Folsom and Andrew Stanton but eight credited for story (John Lasseter, Rashida Jones, Will McCormack, Josh Cooley, Valerie LaPointe, Martin Hynes, Folsom, and Stanton), so that sure makes for plenty of hands to go around.

It isn't so much the worst of the Toy Story films as it happens to be the one that doesn't have as many flawless features - this makes it harder to say it is entirely necessary to view, which reminds me more of Pixar's recent sequels such as Finding Dory (2016) or Incredibles 2 (2018) - both fine follow-ups that don't soil the memory of the original, and this likely falls in the middle between those in scale of quality (the less said about Pixar's other certain sequel in the decade, the better). As before, there certainly are interesting new characters to view upon the ones we know and appreciate - the existential crisis of a utensil toy sure does make for an intriguing one, with Hanks and Hale being up to the task of playing off each other with purpose and charm. The cast sure does pull plenty of charm and fairly timed laughs, even if it has to split them into segments just to try and keep things threaded - at least until its climax, anyway. Hanks of course does just as well anyone can do with a role he fits perfectly for, full of passion and leadership that is easy to follow with as before, such as when trying to help a newly created utensil toy find himself as more than just "trash". Allen has his moments to shine when its wants to be on him (with one recurring gag to follow along with, much like the last one), handily fitting into the role and its final sequence without hesitation. Potts, last in the role two decades (and two films) ago, is just as able to jump right back into things with relish, capable as can be with what the film wants to do with her role without making it like a fractured portrayal, and the chemistry between her and Hanks goes seamlessly enough. Hale is quirky yet fairly amusing enough to hold the ranks as the resident new toy on the block with his own interesting personality and design that keeps up with the others without becoming just another gag on the wall. Key and Peele make for a few laughs when the light needs to shine on them, and Reeves is just as charming (who can resist a toy stuntman of Canada?). Hendricks makes for an engaging part of the film, offbeat in sinister nature yet fairly capable of being vulnerable that falls alongside the lines of other character types from the previous films without being a complete copy. The others of the cast don't have as much to really do, but they make their time count just fine. A 100 minute run-time makes for a finely paced film that doesn't linger too much of stringing all its threads to a complete stop nor leave the viewer hanging for too much time, even if its finish is just fine with where it closes as opposed to simply just great. Its outcome may prove a bit more fit for a discussion than a real out-pour of emotions (if that's your sort of thing from animated movies, I guess), but at least its character arcs do make it all fairly worthwhile. The animation is wonderful as to be expected, capable at holding to standards one would expect from before that has evolved with the times in the past decades, holding balance with when it needs to be light or darkly-lit as such. On the whole, I do appreciate that the people who crafted this film tried their hardest to make a story worth viewing one again through these characters without trashing what made them so compelling in the first place all those years ago; it may not be the most necessary film of the saga, but it surely will prove just as well in entertainment for people that yearn to seek out where it lands itself this time. Whether there is another one of these films or not, it sure has been quite a fun time to see these films play out beside the toybox over the years.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum.

Review #1222: John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum.

Cast: 
Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Ian McShane (Winston), Mark Dacascos (Zero), Laurence Fishburne (The Bowery King), Asia Kate Dillon (Adjudicator of the High Table), Halle Berry (Sofia), Lance Reddick (Charon), Anjelica Huston (The Director), Saïd Taghmaoui (The Elder), and Jerome Flynn (Berrada) Directed by Chad Stahelski (#905 - John Wick and #906 - John Wick: Chapter 2)

Review: 
It goes without saying that these have proved to be entertaining movies to sit through. They have plenty of action to go around, along with good pacing and a fairly well-thought-out story that makes these more than the mindless entertainment pieces that they might have been under lesser hands. It certainly seems like Reeves is having a great time with this role, having plenty of discipline when dealing with a glut of action sequences and a fair bit of plot without seeming lost in the background. This remains true here, with no real sense of stopping the ride of entertainment in sight (after all, a sequel was announced not long after this film's release), and I certainly can't wait to see where they want to go from here. Stahelski returns to direct, with screenwriter and story writer Derek Kolstad now being joined by Shay Hatten, Chris Collins and Marc Abrams in the former department, and there is certainly a good degree of consistency from one feature to the next as it continues to do a bit of storytelling beneath just people trying to take down Wick over and over again, remaining energetic with its resemblance to hard-boiled film noir and western types without becoming a parody of them. Sure, the action is the key highlight, but the fact that it doesn't feel overbearing with a run-time of 131 minutes is the underlying part of what makes for a winning experience. When the focus isn't so much on its main character (or more specifically, when it wants to take a breather), at least there is some sort of interesting nature to this world of assassins without blathering on too much. Reeves plays the role with subtle relish as ever, having no trouble at all. Dacascos shines finely in the way an adversary should, fairly agile and imteresting to view when faced with a climax battle. Fishburne goes along with the fun for his moments once again. McShane comes off fairly interesting for his moments on screen, amusing and watchable.  Dillon does fine as a newcomer to the series; the film doesn't really have a big enemy at the end, but at least Dillon manages to play an adversary (a bureaucrat of penance, egads) with smarmy effectiveness that will I surely see again soon. Berry is fine for her time on screen, showing some agility even when not having too much time on screen for the first half. On the whole, the film has plenty of movement and energy to make for a quality thrill ride that keeps up mostly with the quality of the first two without losing the spirit of what makes a film with a force like its title character so fun to be watching. They make for good shows of weapon work, editing and look, but most importantly good shows of people to look around with every now and then.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Speed (1994).

Review #1115: Speed.

Cast: 
Keanu Reeves (Officer Jack Traven), Dennis Hopper (Howard Payne), Sandra Bullock (Annie Porter), Joe Morton (Lt. "Mac" McMahon), Jeff Daniels (Officer Harry Temple), Alan Ruck (Doug Stephens), Carlos Carrasco (Ortiz), Glenn Plummer (Jaguar owner), and Richard Lineback (Sgt. Norwood) Directed by Jan de Bont (#812 - Twister)

Review: 
At long last, Speed. I never intended for the Upcoming Features to have the film listed for so long (roughly a year or so), but it took a while to find time to do this one. Hope you enjoy.

Speed is an accomplishment in its execution of action and energetic nature that has numerous assets to achieving its goal as a popcorn thriller. This was the directorial debut of de Bont, a Dutch cinematographer who was responsible for numerous films such as Die Hard (1988), The Hunt for Red October (1990) and Basic Instinct (1992). Graham Yost, who had written for television shows such as Hey Dude prior to this movie, was inspired by his father Elwy telling him about Runaway Train (1985), which was about a train speeding out a control that had been based on an idea by Akira Kurosawa. Yost's original script was set entirely on the bus, with the sequence involving the bus looping around being at the parking lot of Dodgers Stadium instead of an aiport. Josh Whedon was brought in to do (un-credited) work prior to main production beginning, with Yost stating that most of the dialogue was written by Whedon, adding "We were very much in sync, it's just that I didn't write the dialogue as well as he did." In any case, having the film not having all of its time on the bus, such as the elevator sequence or parts involving the police (such as Daniels) outside the bus do make the action come off well in not being overwhelming nor sluggish in its 116 minute run-time.

The main three of Reeves, Hopper, and Bullock all manage to stand out well, doing great in their own ways. Reeves proves to be a capable lead hero, having an edge of vulnerability alongside an air of resourceful nature that makes him interesting to watch, whether when jumping a bus or trying to adapt to the situation of the plot. Hopper makes for an entertaining villain, having the right sense of timing with his lines that carry weight with the motivations written without resorting to being generically evil or chewing too much of the scenery, having a sardonic charm to him. Bullock holds her own well, proving to be a capable one to pair off with the action and Reeves, for which they have a fair amount of chemistry with each other. The others also do fine in their time on screen, such as Daniels, Morton, or Ruck, who both pull off their respective mannerisms and motivations well. The bus members don't have too much particular time to really shine, but they are believable people who don't come off as too annoying or too painfully generic.

The movie is a thrill ride from start to finish, having a consistency to what it wants to execute on screen that rewards the eyes without assaulting it. It isn't the kind of movie that wants to challenge the viewer too heavily, but it sure will give them something to behold in terms of what could and what does happen without being insulting to their intelligence or pushing things too far, having its share of fun moments. Arguably the most notable moment of the film is the bus jump scene. California Interstates 105 and 110 were used for a majority of the freeway sequences in the film, and while de Bont was scouting the area he noticed that there were missing sections and was inspired to add the sequence. Not to spoil too much about the stunt itself (or the feasibility of doing said stunt), but the sequence as a whole is breathtaking to watch, having a certain excitement that never falls prey to feeling too unbelievable. On the whole, the film works on a level of consistency that can be appreciated and aspire to after over two decades. It is the kind of movie you can appreciate on a technical level, where it even received Academy Awards for Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing. There is enough suspense to make for an incredible time for viewers, especially ones with action in mind.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

John Wick: Chapter 2.

Review #906: John Wick: Chapter 2.

Cast:
Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Common (Cassian), Laurence Fishburne (The Bowery King), Riccardo Scamarcio (Santino D’Antonio), Ruby Rose (Ares), John Leguizamo (Aurelio), Ian McShane (Winston), Bridget Moynahan (Helen Wick), Lance Reddick (Charon), and Thomas Sadoski (Jimmy) Directed by Chad Stahelski (#905 - John Wick)

Review:
For #32 in the Theater Saga (and the first film reviewed of a movie released in 2017), it only makes sense to the sequel to John Wick...considering I just did the first one four days ago. I had planned to do this ever since this film had come out last week, and I'm happy to say it worked out well. While this sequel may not be as gripping with emotional depth as the first film, this film certainly has enough top-notch action and fine work by the cast to make for an exceptional sequel. The film doesn't fall to the trap of trying to emulate the previous film nor try to settle itself in a familiar hole. Reeves does a fine job once again, being a capable action hero in part because he once again manages to make Wick a compelling character (who isn't merely a killing machine) again. Common and Fishburne show up around the second half of the film, but they both are entertaining in how professional they are, with the former having two great action scenes with Reeves and the latter being enjoyable to watch interact with Reeves, with pigeons included. Scamarcio is a decent villain in part due to being realistic while being capable in action scenes. Rose is also a pretty good standout, a wordless but efficient performance with good timing for her action scenes. The rest of the cast is also pretty good when the movie needs them (such as with McShane), much like how the action shines when required. It's hard to say what is the best part, but the scenes in the subway and the final fight in the art museum are pretty good highlights, with a good deal of brightness and high paced fun. Even within the blood is a bit of lightheartedness, and it's always nice to see that pitbull dog (when you own a dog, you love seeing dogs on screen a bit more) on screen. The action and story work well with each other to make for an entertaining sequel that will surely open the door for another installment of Wick that I wholeheartedly approve of.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

John Wick.

Review #905: John Wick.

Cast:
Keanu Reeves (John Wick), Michael Nyqvist (Viggo Tarasov), Alfie Allen (Iosef Tarasov), Willem Dafoe (Marcus), Dean Winters (Avi), Adrianne Palicki (Ms. Perkins), Omer Barnea (Gregori), Toby Leonard Moore (Victor), Daniel Bernhardt (Kirill), Bridget Moynahan (Helen), John Leguizamo (Aurelio), Ian McShane (Winston), Bridget Regan (Addy), and Lance Reddick (Hotel Manager / Charon) Directed by Chad Stahelski and David Leitch.

Review:
On Valentine's Day, what better way to celebrate the day of passion with...a pretty good action thriller film. From the execution to the quick action to a wonderful cast, John Wick is an excellent movie in part because it doesn't take the easy way out nor cheat its audience while having a fairly engaging story. This isn't the kind of action film that seems reliant on CGI, with fine cinematography by Jonathan Sela. Reeves does a great job in part because of how realistic he is. Though the character is talented when it comes to being a hit man, Reeves manages to make the character stand out and not just be an unstoppable killing machine, where you can see the emotion and tension with the character, even among all the action, which is plentiful without being too gratuitous. There is a good story within the film as well, revolving around a legend that isn't built up to ridiculously over-the-top levels. Nyqvist is also good in the movie (as the de facto villain), having the right sense of gravitas and charm that elevate a role beyond what could've been a cliche big bad. Allen plays the rich kid punk with the right sense of arrogance as well. Dafoe does a fine job playing a hardened role as this, with a good deal of mentoring. Winters has the right kind of smarminess (and humor) to sell the role, and Palicki is stone cold cool. The rest of the cast is quirky in the way they stand out in a strange world of assassins, excluding Monyahan, who does fine in the time she has on screen. The movie flows at a great pace, never losing steam while also never letting go of the fun and logic. There are a good deal of highlights, with the church scene and the nightclub scenes being particularly good standouts, each using the right tone of color and dialogue to move through nicely with everything. This is a neat movie that kicks enough keister and tells a good story at the same time, shining on a good deal of effort.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Youngblood.

Review #397: Youngblood.

Cast
Rob Lowe (Dean Youngblood), Patrick Swayze (Derek Sutton), Cynthia Gibb (Jessie Chadwick), Ed Lauter (Murray Chadwick), Keanu Reeves (Heaver), and George Finn (Carl Racki) Directed by Peter Markle.

Review
Sports films aren't exactly my fortay, but I figured I might as well do one, so why not a hockey film since hockey's still going on with the Finals. That, and I haven't reviewed much of Rob Lowe, or Patrick Swayze. Is this film any good, or is just an 80s relic? Mostly the latter. It has it's weird moments, trying to be comedic that ends up getting in the way of the drama the film also tries to set, being a bit unbalenced. That goes for the hockey as well, which can be good, and Lowe does skate well, but the film then switches to fighting mode, which reminds me an awful lot of Rocky, which doesn't work well. Even though fighting in hockey is commonplace, having good hockey plays is more common, and combined the two just don't mesh. The acting's okay, mostly reminiscent of usual sports film acting. Lowe is allright, not too bad. The film spirals, it has its allright moments but it clunks where it doesn't need it, being disjointed, but mildly entertaining. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Replacements.

Review #370: The Replacements.

Cast
Keanu Reeves (Shane Falco), Gene Hackman (Jimmy McGinty), Brooke Langton (Annabelle Farrell), Jon Favreau (Daniel Bateman), Rhys Ifans (Nigel Gruff), Orlando Jones (Clifford Franklin), Brett Cullen (Eddie Martel), Faizon Love (Jamal Jackson), Michael Taliferro (Andre Jackson), Jack Warden (Edward O'Neil), and Ace Yonamine (Jumbo) Directed by Howard Deutch.

Review
This is at heart...an epitome of generic sports movie. This is a movie filled with sports cliche on top of more sports cliches. In fact, you could count the amount of cliches and play Cliche Bingo. What is Cliche Bingo? Think of the cliches that make up sports movies, such as:

The washed up player who is trying to redeem himself.
The grumpy coach.
The romance subplot between a player and cheerleader/person.
The crazy owner.

The big man.
The crazy guy who has a lot of power.
A speech about needing heart/determination/the guts to win.
Playing a strong team and being the underdogs yet somehow winning.

The antagonist who could also be one of their own.
The comic relief character.
Being down at halftime/near the end of the game.
Dramatically diving/slding/slapshooting/moving by a player.

I realize that's only 12 and you would need 12 more to make an actual bingo card, but let me tell you a secret: You can find the rest if you look hard enough. The acting is decent enough, though I do wonder what exactly motivated Hackman to do this movie. I know what you're thinking is the reason, which might be the reason for Welcome to Mooseport, but that's neither here or there. The football action is at least watchable, the movie's not horrible, it's just a typical sports movie that is sickeningly sweet to the point where by the end of it you just want to watch actual football, at least that isn't acted out. Most of the time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.

Review #022: Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.

Cast
Alex Winter (William "Bill" S. Preston, Esq./Evil Bill/Granny S. Preston, Esq.), Keanu Reeves (Ted "Theodore" Logan/Evil Ted), William Sadler (Death (The Grim Reaper)/Englishman), Joss Ackland (Chuck De Nomolos), George Carlin (Rufus), Pam Grier (Ms. Wardroe), Annette Azcuy (Elizabeth), Sarah Trigger (Joanna), Hal Landon Jr. (Captain Logan), and Amy Stock-Poynton (Missy) Directed by Peter Hewitt.

Review
Well, this film is a radical one. The reasons: It's slightly more funnier and insane then the first one, with as terrorizing parents, go to Hell, get in a duel with Death, fights Evil robotic versions of themselves, and have babies all in one movie. It has some alright slapstick, and overall this is a useful sequel. Will there be a third film? Who knows?

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Review #021: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Cast
Keanu Reeves (Ted Logan), Alex Winter (Bill S. Preston Esq.), George Carlin (Rufus), Terry Camilleri (Napoleon Bonaparte), Dan Shor (Billy the Kid), Tony Steedman (Socrates), Rod Loomis (Sigmund Freud), Al Leong (Genghis Khan), Jane Wiedlin (Joan of Arc), Robert V. Barron (Abraham Lincoln), Clifford David (Ludwig van Beethoven), Hal Landon Jr. (Captain Jonathan "John" Logan), and Bernie Casey (Mr. Ryan) Directed by Stephen Herek.

Review
Although the film may seems like a cheap Back to the Future ripoff, it tries to have an orignal idea that makes it a little funny. The characters are decent, Now, the film has funny moments, and a plot that is decent and for anyone that like seeing weird things going on, and I'm glad I got this as a gift, and I'm sure you will too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.