Showing posts with label Steven Yeun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steven Yeun. Show all posts

November 7, 2025

Mayhem.

Review #2469: Mayhem.

Cast: 
Steven Yeun (Derek Cho), Samara Weaving (Melanie Cross), Steven Brand (John "The Boss" Towers), Caroline Chikezie (Kara "The Siren" Powell), Kerry Fox (Irene Smythe), Dallas Roberts (Lester "The Reaper" McGill), Mark Frost (Ewan Niles), Claire Dellamar (Meg), André Eriksen (Colton "The Bull" Snyder), Nikola Kent (Oswald), Lucy Chappell (Jenny), and Olja Hrustic (CDC Official) Directed by Joe Lynch.

Review: 

It only seems right to close things out with a fresh face. Joe Lynch initially started out as a child actor on Long Island but found himself interested in making films by the time he was studying at Syracuse University in the late 1990s. With a visual style described as being influenced by films such as "Evil Dead II, Goodfellas, and Raising Arizona way too many times as a kid", he graduated with a bachelor's degree in visual and performing arts and had a few student short films make the festival circuit. Lynch directed music videos for a variety of groups before becoming a feature director with Wrong Turn 2: Dead End (2007), which had a brief horror festival run before being released on DVD. Further efforts for films include Chillerama [2011] (directing a segment), Knights of Badassdom [2013] (a movie he disowned), and Everly [2014]. The script was written by Matias Caruso. Lynch had plenty of experience with corporate irritation, noting his experience trying to do anthology project to do videos that ran into plenty of hassles. The movie was shot in Serbia due to the country giving the filmmakers the proper amount of days they needed to shoot (25, which compared well to the 15 offered by Pittsburgh and 18 by Vancouver). The film was released in a few theaters and on "VOD and digital HD", and, well, I found it on a DVD pack that seemed promising, so why not?*

Sure, there have been a few action horror movies involving boatloads of crazed lunacy in a building. A cursory glance shows a few movies involving a fight to survive, whether that was Mean Guns [1997] (fight to the death for cash between killers), The Tournament [2009] (rich people watching others kill for sport), or The Belko Experiment [2016] (workers locked in a building told to start killing each other). Here you get one involving a virus that gets in your head and turns your impulses into a thing that may be a worthy killing machine, albeit one that makes sure to say the attacker isn't liable for their actions. I imagine there has also been at least one movie about fighting to the top of a building. But there is something infectious about the way the movie maneuvers through 86 minutes of a few thrills within moments of delirious execution at the office. The horrors of being in a crappy job that degrades one soul probably does go hand in hand with the horrors of people wanting to act their impulses to kick the crap out of you, to put it mildly. In that sense, it is a crowd pleaser for a handful of moments in terms of quick cuts to the action and a few fun lines, even if it likes the voice over perhaps a bit too many times. Yeun (best known at the time for his work on The Walking Dead*) does make for a solid lead to hold it together in wavering action status, one trying to balance the impulses that come with office politics and wanting to find a way out of being a drone off the old block. Weaving makes for a worthy pairing with Yuen in energy that bounce off each other in mutually assured destruction (of others), charming but convincing in being ready to handle whatever happens in the movie with nail guns and fists. Brand and others get their moments of making corporate stooges a bit more unnerving when poised to actually use violence beyond the usual corporate twist-and-turning, which works out for a few chuckles (mostly highlighted by Chikezie). At least the ending has a few chuckles in the idea of a business-mandated push to try and cure the virus (hey, this was made in 2017), although it probably is a bit routine in the actual endpoint (and a bit inevitable). In general, Mayhem has a few entertaining moments seeing the horrors of the corporate world go upside down for a few punches that might make for a worthwhile recommendation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Unusually, you can thank The Last Drive-in with Joe Bob Briggs for this double-header coming to fruition, as I eyed a "double feature DVD" that had a disc of this film and Suitable Flesh. So one spends a little over two hours each watching a movie that happens to have little segments of Briggs making commentary on the film. Honestly, I don't actually watch the Drive-in because I'm not much of a streaming service (as available on...Shudder) person or a live show guy, but it does sound like something cool to see around.

*What's that show?

March 10, 2025

Mickey 17.

Review #2356: Mickey 17.

Cast: 
Robert Pattinson (Mickey Barnes / Mickey 17 / Mickey 18), Naomi Ackie (Nasha Barridge), Steven Yeun (Timo), Mark Ruffalo (Kenneth Marshall), Toni Collette (Ylfa), Holliday Grainger (Gemma), Anamaria Vartolomei (Kai Katz), Thomas Turgoose (Bazooka Soldier), Angus Imrie (Shrimp Eyes), Cameron Britton (Arkady), Patsy Ferran (Dorothy), Daniel Henshall (Preston), Steve Park (Agent Zeke), and Tim Key (Pigeon Man) Directed by Bong Joon-ho (#1584 - Parasite [2019]).

Review: 
"What is repressing us from living a human life? What is stopping us from truly pursuing a genuinely human life?’ And I think the appeal of sci-fi is that it lets you deal with those questions and these stories quite directly.”

There is probably at least one review that doesn't describe the film as the one that came out after Parasite (2019). But so it goes. The movie is based on the book Mickey7, which was published in 2022 by Edward Ashton, who had apparently written it as an expansion of a short story he did years before about "a sort of crappy immortality" that attracted attention from the very get go of its publishing; incidentally, as a result of the film adaptation entering production, Asher wrote a follow-up book with Antimatter Blues in 2023. Bong has stated in interviews that he specifically wished to focus on the human printing concept presented in the book as "down to Earth", which also went down to the characteristics of the lead character as, basically "more working class". Due to the SAG-AFTRA strike, the movie missed its original release date of 2024 (after finishing production in 2023), as one probably already guessed.

Technically speaking, it is a pretty good movie to experience, when you get down to it. Messy, chaotic, and generally amusing, the best times one has with the film rely heavily on the double-act played by Pattinson. The underdog story is as familiar as it gets, particularly when it comes to "some bugs aren't as scary as bug-brained humans", but it is a movie that wears hope on its sleeves with actual commitment rather than, say, being a mishmash of slop or bland oblivion. In other words: regardless of how the movie goes with audiences (read: money), somehow, some time, someone will call the movie a cult classic, and they probably won't seem insane to label it as such. Pattinson does manage to be pretty distinct in the "two Mickeys", which can inspire chuckles in those interesting things that arise in what one can see in personality that ranges from lovable goof (take it or leave it) to assertive that each make for quite the timing in terms of differences, as one might see when paired with Ackie that makes for a few riveting sparks of chemistry and energy that feels as real as one might see in looking upon someone and believing it matters to be there for that person(s). Ruffalo and Collette are amusing in parts when it comes to the synthesis that comes with riffing on the power-mad weirdos that inhabit certain spheres of society (so no, the movie explicitly is not based on any one politician), although the former sounds more like a Marlon Brando pastiche than anything. You can feel the ooze and wonder aloud where all that goes if one was even remotely dealt like that in our actual world.* For a movie with a "good" label, I wonder why I do wish I liked the movie more. I liked the movie but wondered why the nebulous "and yet" tried to get in my head. Complaining or talking about a movie's length seems futile for some, but I can at least see where someone thinks it runs (137 minutes) a bit lethargic, mostly because its foundation to set the stakes sure feels like it takes a while.  Somehow, I can't help but wonder if I just expected something different with the whole "man is being printed over and over to die as a crash-test dummy for people who start at not caring about what happens to him" thing. Quibble with what you feel about the question that arises in off-brand immortality vs how the film handles it however you like**. Bottom line: one gets a handful of stuff to chuckle about just as much as to quibble about. The visuals are generally pleasing to go along with a few amusing moments involved with the "creepers". The climax does stir a bit of a lasting impression for a movie that aspired to inspire some curiosity alongside its goofs that can at least be applauded for going on its own in hit-or-miss energy. As a whole, it manages to deliver most of the energy one might see coming in a chaotic space adventure. It has a few interesting moments to dwell on in the weird world of exploitation and overall hope for what might work just in your sweet spot for creeping enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Movie Night does not recommend getting rid of people as shown in Mickey 17. I do however recommend watching movies like The Substance. And disgustingly complex hamburgers.
**seriously, you can comment here anytime, it could even to say I should get hit by a bus.

July 23, 2022

Nope.

Review #1865: Nope.

Cast: 
Daniel Kaluuya (OJ Haywood), Keke Palmer (Emerald Haywood), Steven Yeun (Ricky "Jupe" Park), Brandon Perea (Angel Torres), Michael Wincott (Antlers Holst), Wrenn Schmidt (Amber Park), Keith David (Otis Haywood Sr), and Donna Mills (Bonnie Clayton) Written, Directed, and Produced by Jordan Peele (#909 - Get Out and #1203 - Us)

Review: 
"I wrote it in a time when we were a little bit worried about the future of cinema. So the first thing I knew is I wanted to create a spectacle. I wanted to create something that the audience would have to come see."

Admittedly, Jordan Peele has made an argument for being the modern example of an auteur director, one with a distinct approach to his material that he has written, directed, and produced for three feature films in the span of five years, with each falling along the lines of horror (debatably, Nope is more of a genre-crosser than the other two, but more on that later). For the most part, these films have worked on their ambition to tell a story that would probably make Rod Serling give a compliment to (I say this knowing Peele was behind a reboot of Serling's The Twilight Zone, (2019-20) although I never saw it). For me, Get Out (2017) was the clear distinct captivator in staging and social critique (so in non-pretentious terms, a movie for the age that doesn't forget to be scary without forcing it). This time around, Peele aspired to make a movie involving spectacle that touches upon human nature in the art of alien encounter: trying to take an image of it in flight. Oh sure, there are other things that happen too involving strange clouds and animals running amuck, but the nature of spectacle isn't too far from one's attention. A good chunk of people seem to have a habit to take photos of something that looks interesting every day (for better or worse) that has come ever since the chronophotography days of the 18th century, as referred to in the opening with the showing of Eadweard Muybridge's The Horse in Motion (1878), which were a series of cabinet cards that (as mentioned in the film) feature a black jockey on a horse. There are a handful of inspirations that Peele has listed such as King Kong (1933), Jurassic Park (1993), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Signs (2002), and The Wizard of Oz (1939), although one could also make a case for seeing seeds of Jaws (1975) in there as well. This is more of a compliment than anything, not saying the movie is a shameless patische, since it does play with the expectations lended out by Peele to useful effect.

I think it works out decently for the goals laid out by Peele to do spectacle that generally rewards the viewer's patience for 131 minutes with a semi-solid outline and a decent ensemble to carry things around in the pursuit for whatever is out there for sensationalism without just being a movie making easy targets. Was it anything special? It is a good movie, but I believe it to be firmly in the middle between his previous works (probably a bit above Us for execution), and it says something worthwhile about the director when his first three films are each pretty good in unsettling its viewer with the foibles of modern times that makes a quality sci-fi horror movie with a look upon the age we live in the art of filming things where the line between being the viewer and being the one viewed can be blurred where one can be tested with filth and possible contempt. Truthfully though, I think I appreciated the movie best in the scope of images one can see and hear rather than the dialogue itself, which is fine. Kaluuya makes a quality lead performance in understatement, a strong-and-silent type who might've fit for a Western (such as say, Buck and the Preacher), which means he is the ideal straight-edge presence in the face of a chase. Palmer has a bit of charm in energy that makes for a quality sibling-pair in terms of the occasional bit in horror or humor. Strangely enough, Yuen makes more of an impression than Perea despite not being the key support of the ensemble, probably because his huckster attitude to what has happened around him, indicative of being a participant of spectacle in numerous ways. This isn't to say Perea is the weak link, it just means that his moments aren't exactly as captivating in spectacle relief, particularly when Wincott is the understated dry gem used sparingly as a look upon the filmmaker from a filmmaker (meta, if you want to say that). 

For me, the movie takes a while to really get going in staging attempts, and it can be said that your highlight scene is probably different from my highlight, which involves a chimpanzee that may or may not relate to the story. But maybe it relates to the bigger picture of what one might expect (or don't) for a film in spectacle, horror or not. The aerial sight depicted in the film is an interesting one, since it lurks around with only eyes on its target much like a viewer that has eyes only on what could pop up next on screen that has no time for dialogue (that, or the Medusa legend). Sometimes it isn't all about blood and guts, although you will find it worthwhile in unsettling nature with a scene spent trying to make a show out of UFO bait with horses being particularly well-done in timing. The climax is handled pretty well, in the general pursuit of how you would hope it goes in carefully planned staging that leaves a worthy final shot. As a whole, the patience required for what Peele wants to say about spectacle and the people who look to show it makes for a fine payoff, one that unsettles its viewer in ambition and a quality staging to make a solid movie that will reward some spectacle viewers better than others.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.