agentnico - Tumblr blog

agentnico · 18 days

Text

Monkey Man (2024) review

Reading up about the behind the scenes of this film, I must say this underwent quite the troublesome production. From filming during COVID to Patel breaking his foot during the shoot to the cameras breaking forcing them to film certain scenes on iPhones to Patel’s mother dying…. Honestly talk about pouring your heart and soul into something, eh! Bet Patel was recalling the words of his character Sonny from The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - “Everything will be all right in the end... if it's not all right then it's not yet the end.”

Plot: A young man ekes out a meagre living in an underground fight club where, night after night, wearing a gorilla mask, he's beaten bloody by more popular fighters for cash. After years of suppressed rage, he discovers a way to infiltrate the enclave of the city's sinister elite. As his childhood trauma boils over, his mysteriously scarred hands unleash an explosive campaign of retribution to settle the score with the men who took everything from him.

It’s hard not to root for Dev Patel. He just seems like such a solid dude, so of course we want him and his little new movie to do well. Naturally Jordan Peele buying the project from Netflix and putting it in theatres is a great way to market it and I’m so happy Patel is getting the recognition for it, as for a while there it did feel like he fell off the face of the Earth. Last time we saw him was in Green Knight that came out in 2021. Wait. 2021? That cannot be right. Green Knight was released 3 years ago??! I’m sorry, I need a minute, as I just realised I’m growing old really really fast. You know who isn’t getting old? Dev Patel apparently as turns out he’s a straight up action star in his thirties! He beats the hell out of a lot of folks in this movie. Like the dude straight up knife kills a goon with his teeth! That’s some John Wick-pencil killing level shiz! Patel doesn’t pull his punches here, and Twitter referring to him as ‘the Indian John Wick’ is very accurate.

That being said Patel not only stars, but is also on writing, producing and directing duties here. This is very much a star-turning moment for him, as he calls for Hollywood and the audience to accept his new image. Again - as the action hero totally believable. From a writing standpoint too he seems to have a lot to say, as Monkey Man is imbued in Indian culture and tradition, as well as a lot of social political commentary, as well as giving a nice nod to the trans community. That being said it does also seem like he has too much to say. As in the movie feels really messy with so many themes and ideas, that especially the first half feels really all over the place and it’s so difficult as a result to connect with anything that’s going on and even so much as care. In the last third the movie does find its groove, however it does take its sweet time to get there.

As a director too Patel definitely takes inspiration from other filmmakers he worked with in the past such as David Lowery, Neil Blomkamp and Danny Boyle, in the way he stylises this movie, and a lot of it does look good. But, and of course there was going to be a but! But there is a lot of shaky cam. Yes ladies and gentlemen, as much as this is the great comeback of Dev Patel, this too happens to be the major return of shaky cam. And unlike Patel, this is an unwelcome one. Like why? Why I ask?? Who the hell was craving the return of shaky cam!? So much of the action in this movie is missed due to the camera frenetically jumping around like a monkey high on cocaine, and in fact not only in the action sequences. Dev Patel also seems obsessed with filming close ups, so much so that 90% of the movie I found myself staring up someone’s hairy nostril. Whilst still in shaky cam mode!! This movie was honestly so dizzying and that very much hindered the overall experience.

All in all this is an ambitious directorial debut for Dev Patel that primarily works as a showcase for his action star potential, whilst when it comes to his directing even though there are a lot of flaws, I believe give the man a few more projects and he’ll be able to create something truly special. Look, everyone needs to start somewhere. Also special shout out to my man Sharlto Copley who’s only in about 5-10 minutes in this movie, yet he brings his usual excitable charismatic South African energy, that he still made me chuckle whenever he did literally anything. The guy’s just amusing to watch. Anyway, Dev Patel keep it up - you’ve definitely got something. However I must say for all the teasing of him being the so-called monkey man, when it came to the final fight he comes wearing the mask, but then takes it off before entering battle mode. Like what the hell? You promise us monkey man so I expect and want to see a man fight in a monkey mask at all times!! Why hast thou forsaken that from me??

Overall score: 5/10

0 notes

agentnico · 26 days

Text

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024) review

Someone should call child services, as Kong uses a baby monkey as a weapon and flails him around like a whip, using the poor little fella to bash against incoming enemies. Granted the little chap is durable, but like….. I’m sorry, this movie is ridiculous. Like I can’t even!

Plot: Godzilla and the almighty Kong face a colossal threat hidden deep within the planet, challenging their very existence and the survival of the human race.

2021’s Godzilla vs. Kong holds a special place in my heart in that during COVID-19 it was one of the first and only films to come out during lockdown. I recall sitting in my living room suffering from high depression (I mean, who wasn’t at that time, am I right??) and I stuck on the Godzilla vs Kong film with low expectations……and I had the greatest time ever. By no means was it a masterpiece. It’s even far away from being a good film, but at that time when I was cinema-deprived and life was in a constant state of limbo, a big trashy Hollywood blockbuster with two massive CGI monsters beating the living crap of each other was exactly the entertainment I needed.

In cometh Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire. Naturally we’re no longer in a pandemic so the WOW factor is gone, and also Godzilla Minus One only recently came out reminding us that Godzilla can be sophisticated when need be. That being said, am I opposed to seeing some ridiculously over-the-top kaiju brawls for absolutely no other reason other than Hollywood wanting to throw money against the wall and seeing what happens? Yes. Look, from the set-up the whole thing doesn’t make sense in the first place. I get it is fantasy and suspension of disbelief is required, but it’s a giant walking nuclear power plant that holds the title of king of the monsters against a bloody monkeh. I don’t care how cool or likeable Kong is, if we’re being realistic he’d get smushed just by touching Godzilla. Like, ain’t that lizard boi radioactive?? Last time I checked radioactivity is pretty fatal. Kong should have developed multiple forms of cancer since the 2021 film, I’m just saying. But again, that’s if we’re thinking logically, however as we’ve learned from these MonsterVerse movies, logic isn’t a word that exists. So let’s enjoy the lizard and monkeh for what they are - bring it on!!

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is exactly what you expect it to be… in the last 30 minutes. The first hour and a half is actually a casual sequel to Kong: Skull Island, with Godzilla a fleeting cameo just getting up to random shenanigans, with every appearance lasting no longer than 5 seconds. I’m serious, Godzilla to this movie is like Scrat is to the Ice Age movies. If you recall the little saber-toothed squirrel hardly ever connects to the main plot-line of those films, and instead is only obsessed with getting his stupid acorn. Same with Godzilla, he fights random kaijus just cause. He takes naps in the Colosseum just cause. He eats nuclear plants for breakfast just cause. He turns Barbie-level pink just cause. His entire role in this movie is just cause. Otherwise this is through and through a King Kong movie. Not that I’m complaining, if you want to make a somewhat engaging and emotionally resonant narrative (as if this movie has a plot!), it’s easier to focus on Kong as he has the baggage of being lonely and wanting to find a home and more of his kind, so there’s something there to work with. So we spend most of the movie wit Kong as he explores Hollow Earth that’s discovered from the previous film, and I quite enjoyed all that. Does the movie need to be 2 hours long? Nope, as the whole Hollow Earth story-line is dragged out so much when in fact all that happens could have easily been told in the size of a short film. Essentially nothing much happens is what I’m saying. Like the whole thing is a set-up for the inevitable and highly anticipated final showdown that we’ve all paid for.

About the final showdown - it’s so dumb. I mean the whole movie is dumb, but the final battle breaks any last remaining realm of reason and turns into this crazy bonkers monsters v monsters smashy-bashy bonkers beat ‘em up, and it was absolutely fantastic! Again, I fully admit the stupidity of it all, but watching this movie’s finale in a crowded theatre with everyone cheering, laughing, clapping and howling alongside all the CGI madness that is thrown at our faces - it was awesome! I’d give the final 30 minutes a 10/10 score easily, as it is exactly what we want from a Godzilla and Kong movie. Godzilla spears Kong through a pyramid and then immediately follows that up with a suplex. That right there is cinematic genius!! The rest of the movie is fine and has its moments, but is just a meandering set-up for that ending.

This being a MonsterVerse movie naturally there are also some human characters that we are forced to care about. Like I give a f***, gimme me more lizard and monkeh!!! I want them here, and I want them now! To be fair the producers must have listened to the audience feedback as there is much less human stuff in this movie. There’s a useless sub-plot with Rebecca Hall and her adopted daughter that was so boring and generic and was the dullest part of the movie. Brian Tyree Henry and Dan Stevens are a delight though, providing some enjoyable comedic tongue in cheek, with Stevens especially excelling at the one-liner quips. Nice also to see Stevens teaming back up with director Adam Wingard, the two having previously worked on the wonderful indie thriller The Guest. Honestly if you have not seen The Guest you’re missing out big time - a delightful slice of action horror with a fantastic atmosphere that sucks you in with a dash of dry black comedy edge.

Speaking of Adam Wingard, he’s evidently a good match with these goofy Fast & Furious-level silly monster flicks. He directs the movie using a fun colourful visual palette, with some fantastic sci-fi set pieces, and Hollow Earth is reminiscent very much of a Jules Verne-type adventure locale, very much in the vain of a Journey to the Centre of the Earth, or a Mysterious Island. There’s also a strong 80’s retro vibe to the movie with the techno-synth music score from Junkie XL that had strong Thor: Ragnarok feels to it. I must say through all its stupidity, visually the film is really cinematic and looks awesome on the big screen.

I had a solid time with Godzilla x Kong, especially with those last 30 minutes. Satisfyingly entertaining blockbuster fast-food. It does get a while to get there, and also the movie is fit with so many plot holes and inconsistencies, and also it really did feel like the writers were making things up as they were going along, but I don’t care. This was never intended to be high calibre award worthy filmmaking. It’s only a monkeh, standing in front of a radioactive lizard, asking him to fight together. Really entertaining and super fun. Best part was when it was revealed that Kong could talk and screamed “it’s KONGIN TIME!!’

Overall score: 6/10

14 notes · View notes

agentnico · 27 days

Text

Kung Fu Panda 4 (2024) review

Jack Black’s new version of “Hit Me Baby One More Time” is great. In all honestly all of Tenacious D’s covers are superb. Their take on “I Think I Love You” for Croods 2 slaps as hard as Will Smith’s palm against Chris Rock’s face. Apologies, I just watched the new Bad Boys trailer so that momentary awards moment has sprung back into my mind.

Plot: After Po is tapped to become the Spiritual Leader of the Valley of Peace, he needs to find and train a new Dragon Warrior, while a wicked sorceress plans to re-summon all the master villains whom Po has vanquished to the spirit realm.

For some reason I presumed Kung Fu Panda 3 was the ending to the trilogy and the story was over. Then again Hollywood wants to keep making more money and this animated franchise has been highly successful for DreamWorks till now, so of course it was only a matter of time. To give them props though, DreamWorks has been on a bit of a hot streak recently with The Bad Guys - a visually-pleasing heist flick; Croods 2 - hilarious riot; this year’s Orion and the Dark - a fun concept with a mind-bending ending; and of course Puss in Boots: The Last Wish which is an animated masterpiece. There, I said it. The Puss in Boots sequel is fantastic and I won’t hear otherwise! As such even though the trailers weren’t showing too much promise, I went into Kung Fu Panda 4 optimistically, hoping it’s not just a needless cash-grab.

Right, yep, it’s a cash-grab through and through. You can tell the writers were really trying to milk some kind of an idea for a plot, and all they could come up with is Po needing to find a new Dragon Warrior in his place. Not the most original concept as is, and one that in the end feels really rushed, and his choice for his replacement is one that feels unsatisfying. The main villain also is really weak. A chameleon voiced by Viola Davis, and though visually the shape-shifting gimmick works really well, narratively this character has hardly anything to do, let alone be in any way intimidating. I recall in one of the previous films the villain was Lord Shen, who was introduced as someone who has killed Dragon Warriors before. What’s the scariest thing this chameleon now does, you may ask? She lightly pushes someone down the stairs. That’s it.

Another rushed aspect of the movie is that many voice actors from the previous films are needlessly ditched either with a lame excuse for their absence, or not giving them any lines and the characters appearing in silence. Like a big selling point in the marketing is that we get to see all the villains from the previous entries come back. A fun idea, however aside from Ian McShane as Tai Lung the other villains only appear as if they’re in a silent movie. Are you telling me that DreamWorks really couldn’t afford to get Gary Oldman to record a couple of lines on his phone and send them over? It’s like if Spider-Man: No Way Home had all the old Spidey villains from previous films come back, but they just stand about silently doing nothing. How crap would that have been? So yes, this really cheapens the movie.

Visually the film looks great. It’s mad to see how the animation has progressed as this series of movies has gone further. Particular attention has been given to the background environments that look gorgeous! Great use of colours and detail. A chase sequence through a city of thieves is a particular eye-popping set piece, that even gives Hans Zimmer the small opportunity to have some fun with the music score during it.

As for the voice cast - Jack Black is a charisma machine! He’s an icon and of course Po is just Jack Black being himself, but he has so much energy in his line delivery that he carries this movie fully on his shoulders. Awkwafina is also in this movie. Look, the reason I’m pointing that out is that if one looks at her filmography since 2019 she’s voiced characters in Little Mermaid, Migration, Kung Fu Panda 4, Bad Guys, SpongeBob: The Movie, Raya and the Last Dragon, The Dark Crystal Netflix series, Angry Birds Movie 2…. That’s so much!! What does she have on these animation studios that they keep hiring her? She’s not the only female voice actor out there. And I’m sorry, she’s not even that great of a voice actress, and I wasn’t a fan of her here either. Dustin Hoffman kind of just lingers about questioning his life, Bryan Cranston and James Hong have some amusing co-dads banter, Ian McShane being back as Tai Lung was lovely, and Ke Huy Quan is the usual ball of excitable energy that he always is.

Unlike Puss in Boots where the wait for the sequel was more than worth it, Kung Fu Panda 4 feels as if the franchise may have run its course and the writers have simply ran out of ideas. There’s a “been there done that” aura surrounding this whole movie, and again it’s not terrible, but more so just passable. There’s nothing new here, simply retreading old territory. I’m sure if you take your kids with you to see it though they’ll probably have a good time. Probably. That “Hit Me Baby One More Time” cover though - hell yeah!

Overall score: 5/10

3 notes · View notes

agentnico · 1 month

Text

Master and Margarita (2024) review

Oh when in Soviet Russia…

Plot: Based on Mikhail Bulgakov's novel "Master and Margarita". 1930's, Moscow. A famous writer is censored by the Soviet state: his novel is banned, and the theatrical premier of his new play about Pontius Pilate - canceled. In just a few days he becomes an outcast. Inspired by these misfortunes the writer conceives a new novel in which the devil, named Woland, satirically revenges all those responsible for the writer's downfall. He knows this novel can never be published in the USSR, but Margarita - his muse pushes him to write it no matter what.

I truly believe Master and Margarita is one of the most powerful pieces of literature to come out from Russia. Yes I am aware War & Peace is more talked about, but look, I read all of its 1000+ pages and though it is an epic in every sense of the word, it does drag quite about. As for Master and Margarita, Soviet writer Mikhail Bulgakov created a satirical, quasi-biblical allegory that represents themes that are crucial to the human experience, such as struggle between good and evil, corruption in government and high society, human fragility, religion and prophecy, and the endurance of love over all. It’s a masterfully written piece of work, and one that is truly hard to adapt to screen, due to how much happens through its pages. However I’m all for directors giving it a go, with Michael Lockshin taking the challenge with a motion picture that was originally a co-production between Russian studios and Universal Pictures, though the latter pulled out following the Russo-Ukrainian War, even though most of the filming was already complete. Nevertheless after multiple delays the final product is here, so let’s digest.

Let’s talk through the positives first. It’s nice to see a Russian production of such grand scale, that even gives Hollywood a run for its money. There are some truly spectacular set pieces, and also interesting visuals, especially of a futuristic post-modern take of the Soviet Union, that reminded me a little of the recent Atomic Heart video game. Also the inclusion of August Diehl who plays the central Satanic figure Voland. This casting choice was a truly inspired one, as Diehl both looks and feels as if he came out straight from the pages of Bulgakov’s novel. There’s just this presence to him, as you can tell the power behind his eyes, yet he can also be really charming and witty. Whenever he was on-screen, the movie fully came to life, as he managed to perfectly balance the damning mocking tone with a deep inner understanding of things beyond the human mind. Look, there’s a great reason why they casted an actor outside of Russia for this part, as Diehl honestly was incredible. Funny how this is the same guy who got his testicles shot off in that WW2 Tarantino flick. Evgeniy Tsyganov as the titular Master too felt perfectly apt for the role, in some ways personifying Mikhail Bulgakov himself. The Master is a character that can so easily come off as dull, as he’s generally very stoic and constantly deep in his own thoughts, so it was a nice interpretation with Tsyganov breathing more life into him.

Unfortunately this is where the positives end. Look, I think it is truly impressive for the entire novel to be transferred into a 2hr 30min film, and of course I expected certain parts to be rushed. However the movie shoots itself in the foot by trying to approach the source material in a different way. Messing with various realities and reorganising the events of the novel in a completely different order, the result is messy and all over the place. I can say with full certainty that if I haven’t read the book before that I’d be so confused as to what the hell was going on in this movie. From the way it jumps from one place to the other in non linear fashion made it so difficult to be engaged and feel connected with the characters. There was a lot of extra narrative elements added to an already overstuffed plot (with a lot of creative choices being outright baffling) as such causing the movie to need to rush even more certain other key plot points that again, it was really disorganised and jarring.

Also, I know that ever since Batman it’s now cool to go dark with everything, but The Master and Margarita is a novel that doesn’t shy away from raising a few eyebrows. In fact it goes out of its way to be as weird and ridiculous as possible, with the inherent horror and tragedy that befalls each of its characters being felt only later, after the laughs have died down. The humour in the book, especially the dark stuff - that’s sort of famously the Russian novelists’ coping mechanism against, uh, being a Russian novelist. Yet this new 2024 film hardly allows a single joke, and instead tries to cover everything with a dark dramatic tone, and I feel that really takes away from the charm of Master and Margarita. Heck there are even sequences in the film that are supposed to be played for laughs, like the Behemoth cat’s shootout with the KGB cops that screams for physical comedy potential, yet the movie kind of glosses over it in a very monotonous way.

Aside from August Diehl and Evgeniy Tsyganov, the casting left a lot to be desired. Yulia Snigir made for a really bland Margarita. Voland’s entourage of demons, who in the book are a cause for some truly entertaining if silly shenanigans, here are completely wasted, and in fact are borderline annoying. Yuri Kolokolnikov as Korovev, the main member of his entourage, was actually horrendous. In the source material Korovev is a trickster, yet there was still wiseness within his madness. Here however Kolokolnikov plays him as if he were some kind of deranged clown, screaming every single line and maniacally laughing for absolutely no reason. The talking cat, who is one of the book’s best characters, in here is just a CGI cat who says maybe only two lines of dialogue in the whole film, and even then it’s a lazy mumble courtesy of actor Yura Borisov. Claes Bang as Pontius Pilate looked bored out of his mind. To be fair, the whole biblical side plot of Pilot and Jesus suffers the most here by being downgraded to maybe 5 minutes, which at this rate I feel like they should have cut the whole thing out entirely as the 5 minutes added nothing to the overall film. But yes, Claes Bang was evidently there to collect a pay check, and part of me wishes that instead we just had James McAvoy reprise his comedic take of Pilate from The Book of Clarence that came out earlier in the year.

It was never going to be an easy feat adapting Bulgakov’s epic into a movie. The narrative lends itself so much better to a TV series format, and in fact there is a wonderful 2005 limited series adaptation from Vladimir Bortko, and now that right there is how you make Master and Margarita work! That series featured great music, amazing performances, and plenty of breathing room to give every nook and cranny detail of the book its proper time. 2024’s Master and Margarita doesn’t come anywhere close to it, and though I do admire Lockshin’s ambitions, in the end it all falls flat on its face. August Diehl however is truly phenomenal in this, and honestly I really need to watch more of his acting work. I hear A Hidden Life with him is supposed to be good. Adding that to my watchlist as we speak.

Overall score: 4/10

13 notes · View notes

agentnico · 1 month

Text

Late Night with the Devil (2024) review

Nothing beats retro 70’s demonic haunting. It was a simpler time…

Plot: Johnny Carson rival Jack Delroy hosts a syndicated talk show ‘Night Owls’ that has long been a trusted companion to insomniacs around the country. However, ratings for the show have plummeted since the tragic death of Jack's beloved wife. Desperate to turn his fortunes around, on October 31st, 1977, Jack plans a Halloween special like no other- unaware he is about to unleash evil into the living rooms of America.

Ladies and gentlemen, please do not adjust your television sets, for there is a new found-footage horror film in town from the indy circuit, and it might just breath the right amount of fresh air into an oversaturated genre. Personally I’ve never been a major fan of found-footage. I hear folks raving about the original Blair Witch Project yet all I watched was a bunch of guys running around the woods screaming endlessly for no reason. Additionally the shaky-cam element can be so dizzying and sickly that I truly end up questioning the entertainment value of it all. There are exceptions to the rule of course. 2008’s science fiction invasion popcorn flick Cloverfield was tons of fun, as it provided a genuine experience of what it would be like if you were thrown right into the middle of monster attack in the millennial age. There are also some genuine scares and the found footage format worked really well with the film’s themes. I too enjoyed the 2020 black comedy Spree, where Joe Keery’s driver goes on a murder spree whilst constantly filming himself in hopes of becoming a viral sensation. It may not be a five-star ride, but it earns its tip for being a well crafted and inspired effort. To be fair, The Visit from M. Night Shyamalamadingdong was enjoyable piece of horror involving creepy grandparents. Okay, maybe I do enjoy found-footage flicks, but as long as they are decently made and that format style supports the narrative in a cohesive and advantageous way.

With Late Night with the Devil, ideologies of faith and the paranormal are challenged through the lens of the late-night TV format. Think how the 1976 Network analysed the corruption of the television industry, and how the camera can influence the politics and beliefs of those watching, Late Night with the Devil does the same but with the supernatural. Presented as a rediscovered master tape of a notorious Halloween late night special, it feels like we’re watching an actual talk show in real time, and the 70’s inspiration is in full display here from the grainy monitor display to the costumers to the special effects. It truly feels like we’re looking into a time capsule of the past, and that this all really happened. Again, found-footage as a filmmaking style works when it serves the purpose of the narrative, which in this case it does. It is a shame then that the movie in its finale loses the found-footage element and instead opts for the shock value by showcasing a dream-like vision of one of the characters. Granted at the time of watching the ending it did give me a “what the fuck” reaction that the movie was going for, but looking back this sequence did hinder what otherwise was a fantastic piece of creepy unique horror.

Performances across the entire cast were great and really dedicated. Wonderful to see David Dastmalchian finally get a leading role, as he’s always been a stand-out supporting performer, whether he was polka-dotting in The Suicide Squad, or stealing the comedic limelight from Paul Rudd in the Ant-Man movies, or being a haunting presence in every Denis Villeneuve epic. Dastmalchian is a true scene stealer, and at age 48 it is shocking that only now he finally gets a lead role. Regardless he is fantastic as Jack Delroy, as he balances the charming charisma of a late-night talk show host whilst also showcases the inner demons of this character, still mourning the recent death of his wife, as well as his eagerness to become relevant again after consistently losing ratings. From the quivers in his voice to the fear in his eyes, this is a really juicy showcasing role for Dastmalchian and one that is sure to be a memorable one when looking back on the actor’s rich filmography. Ingrid Torelli as Lilly the possessed survivor of a Satanic cult was truly creepy and unnerving. From her voice changes to her awkward movements, she truly felt unnatural, or dare I say supernatural, and her strangeness was at times even comical, but also really uncomfortable. Ian Bliss as Carmichael Hunt, a paranormal sceptic, too gave a powerhouse performance, delivering lines with prowess and was a truly commanding presence. Rhys Auteri rounds up the cast as Gus the announcer of Jack’s late night show, acting very befit of, say, a Higgins for Jimmy Fallon or a Guillermo for Jimmy Kimmel. He very much embraced the role as Dastmalchian’s side-kick and provided some solid light-hearted comedy to the proceedings.

Late Night with the Devil is a true delight for horror enthusiasts, with some great use of old-school practical effects evidently inspired by 1982’s The Thing, solid sound design that harkened back to that era of television, and enough unsettling moments of suspense to entertain and shock. Minus a couple of cheap electrical sparks there isn’t any CGI used which is refreshing, and overall visually the retro element was truly delightful. Again, the ending does scratch some heads, but overall this is a refreshing piece of campy horror, with a showcasing performance from Dastmalchian. In this you can truly put your faith on.

Overall score: 7/10

7 notes · View notes

agentnico · 1 month

Text

The Gentlemen - season 1 (2024) review

Alright, alright, alright….. wait, McConaughey is not in this one? Oh, well that’s not alright, alright, alright…

Plot: When aristocratic Eddie inherits the family estate, he discovers that it's home to an enormous weed empire, and its proprietors aren't going anywhere.

Guy Ritchie is honestly great. Since way back when he made Lock, Stock and Snatch, he’s consistently churned out top quality entertainment, except maybe the Aladdin remake. I mean I totally get he probably got a superb pay check out of it, but honestly what in the heavens did Guy Ritchie have to do with blue genies I will never know. Regardless, where the man really excels at is when it comes to the British gangster genre. The guy can make swearing sound so poetic and melodic - it’s honestly mad how something so otherwise rude can come off utterly beautiful and delightful like a song. Especially in his 2019 film The Gentlemen, the writing in that movie was so good!! Naturally Netflix caught onto this too as we now how a spin-off series.

Going into the show I was looking forward to it but also cautious, as I was aware this new show was missing the star power of the original film. I mean can you blame me? The movie had the likes of Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Colin Farrell and Hugh Grant to name a few. That’s a solid load of A-listers huddled together. As for the show, the names like Theo James or Kaya Scodelario didn’t instil heavy excitement, especially with James as honestly, I always thought he was a bit of a prick. Granted this may be due to when he played the dickhead in The Inbetweeners movie, and gosh do I feel old with that reference, but he just has that face of a guy that’s so full up his own arse. Again, I’ve never met the chap, he’s probably a lovely human being, but I’ve made this prejudgment in my head and as such when I found out he was the lead of this series I naturally rolled my eyes. That being said I give Netflix props as they hired the original film director Guy Ritchie to create this spin-off and even direct some of the episodes and do a lot of the writing, so of course I was going to check this show out.

Never doubt the Guy should be a new cinematic rule. I’m proud to report that the new The Gentlemen series is a fantastic watch. It’s not the most original show, yet it plays out more-so like a Guy Ritchie’s greatest hits, as it’s got his visual flare and style, with the super cool and smooth fashion choices - honestly Scodelario has a wardrobe change every other scene and each time it felt like she was walking out of a Tom Ford fashion exhibit, and then also all the men wearing their gentlemanly suits dripping with swagger and smoking their cigars and drinking their whiskeys - the whole thing is simply infused with that signature upper-class British gangster feel. Ritchie’s signature syllable-heavy dialogue that just rolls of the tongue is also more than ever present here, and whoever decided to cast Giancarlo Esposito in this show deserves a pay rise, as Esposito’s soft-spoken melodic tone proclaiming the colourful lines of Ritchie’s rich exposition was music to the ears.

The cast here too are super game. Theo James was actually solid as the lead young duke, as he had that manly prowess and was very believable as someone who gets shit done. Kaya Scodelario I thought at first was trying too hard to mimic Michelle Dockery from the original movie, but eventually she made the role her own, and she gave enough mystery to her performance to make us feel uncertain of her true motivations. Daniel Ings as the duke loser-cocaine-addicted-brother Freddy was a lot of fun, however I would say his character became a bit overbearing and annoying in the end, as he constantly made so many mistakes throughout that I honestly kind of wanted him to get killed. It’s as if whenever the show needed an excuse for something bad to happen, they’d just get Freddy to fuck up again. Apologies for my language, I don’t usually swear in my reviews, but also this is a Guy Ritchie project we’re talking about, and he uses the F word every other sentence. So fuck it. In regards to other notable cast members, Pearce Quigley as Gospel John, a leader of a religious gang was oddly creepy yet entertaining, especially when he’d randomly scream certain lines for absolutely no reason. Pure psycho. Peter Serafinowicz and Guz Khan have amusing turns. Lastly we have two British gangster alumni Vinnie Jones and Ray Winstone. These two of course were on a different level to everyone else. Of course Vinnie Jones can be quite cheesy when it comes to acting. One can fondly remember his delivery of the line “I’m the Juggernaut, bitch!”. But when it comes to Guy Ritchie, Jones and him have always been a great pairing. Here as the duke estates’ caretaker, Vinnie is super reserved yet again super cool. I think cool is a word that can be used and abused when it comes to this show. It’s all so cool! Then Ray Winstone as the leader of the crime family… I mean it’s Ray Winstone as the leader of the crime family! He got that Godfather-level gravitas, only more Cockney, and it was great watching him do his thing.

When it comes to the story, this show is standalone to the original film. You can definitely see the inspiration though with certain narrative beats and story choices being very reflective/similar to what occurred in the film, and then the hidden weed farm under the estate looked like exactly the same set as from the film. But overall this is completely its own thing, and each episode brings more fun crime shenanigans for the characters to deal and navigate through, and it was consistently entertaining. My only complaint is that I’d say the finale a tad anti-climactic. I think with all the roughness and toughness that the characters go through, the ending tied everything up a bit too conveniently and neatly. I get I’m not to expect the most realistic thing as this is Guy Ritchie’s world, but I did want things to get a bit more messy, especially due to the build up. That being said this is a major win for Netflix, and I’m expecting a season 2 to be green-lit soon, as this is a winning package.

Overall score: 7/10

9 notes · View notes

agentnico · 1 month

Text

Drive-Away Dolls (2024) review

Do not see this movie with your mum. I repeat, do not not see this movie with your mum!!

Plot: Jamie regrets her breakup with her girlfriend, while Marian needs to relax. In search of a fresh start, they embark on an unexpected road trip to Tallahassee. Things quickly go awry when they cross paths with a group of inept criminals.

The Coen Brothers are behind some of the most thrilling crime capers in cinema history, and are known for their flashy neo-noir style and highly convoluted plots featuring eccentric characters. However recently the brothers decided to temporarily part ways and focus on their own separate projects, with Joel adapting the famous Shakespeare play Macbeth, which by the way was a superb piece of post-modern black-and-white cinema, and gave Roman Polanski a run for his money. Honestly, Tragedy of Macbeth was visually striking, as it stripped down the classic Bard play to its narrative and perceptible essentials, and also the cast was terrific! Then again, you can never go wrong with Denzel Washington. I honestly don’t know a single person who doesn’t love Denzel!

Anyway, whilst Joel was up to his master-class ways, what has the other Coen bro been up to? We would have found out last year if it weren’t for the strikes, but now we finally have an answer - Ethan has decided to go back to his roots and make a road trip movie that is infused with the 80s/90s goofy feel to it, and he even brings back the briefcase from Fargo! Or from No Country for Old Men. Or The Big Lebowski. Or Hail Caesar!. Pretty sure Brad Pitt also seeks a briefcase full of cash in Burn After Reading…. Honestly what is it with the Coens and their briefcases!? Not only that, I swear most of the time it’s the same model briefcase that’s used! So anyway, Ethan Coen is evidently driving down memory lane here, but is it a drive across the greatest hits, or a drive-away to disappointment?

It’s the latter unfortunately. Now we have seen the true colours and know which of the Coen bros is the talented one and which is riding on their sibling’s success! I’m kidding, everyone has a bad day at the office, but Ethan Coen has really made a stinker with Drive-Away Dolls. Playing out in less than an hour and a half, this is a very short film, so on a plus size is does whiz past you. However the storyline is so thin and disengaging, and the jokes are also really unfunny. The Coen Brothers are known for their signature wit and hilarious dialogue, however none of that is present here. Additionally, similar to how I found Poor Things to feature one too many sex scenes for my liking, Drive-Away Dolls features a lot of lesbian friction throughout, to unnecessary amounts. I thought it was bit too much, and too icky for my tastes.

The cast features a lot of talented people, all of whom I’ve seen give great performances in other projects, however here they were either miscast or simply wasted with their minimal inconsequential screen time. Margaret Qualley is way too over-the-top and silly as the fast talking Jamie with a cringe-inducing accent twang, and she got really overbearing by the end of the movie. Geraldine Viswanathan as Marian plays the straight faced counterpart to Qualley’s annoying energy ball. Again, it’s not the first time we’ve seen such a dynamic in films, yet Viswanathan can’t seem to find any interesting layers within her one-dimensional character and as such came off really boring. The rest of the cast comes and goes, some for sheer forced comedy and others to at least make some attempt to have a cohesive plot, but even then are taken out of the equation quickly and pointlessly. Pedro Pascal, Colman Domingo, Beanie Feldstein, Matt Damon, Bill Camp, Miley Cyrus….all wasted.

The movie also features very sloppy editing, and also the transitions! We have to speak about the transitions! What the hell was going on there? So from scene to scene we’d get these weird wacky psychedelic kaleidoscopic inserts, and I mean in a stoner film this would probably serve more purpose, but in a movie like this it felt totally random. To be fair at the end a character does mention about something that happened years ago that somewhat mildly justifies these inserts, but even then having so much of them throughout the film felt like a useless gimmick. I’m all for filmmakers trying something different and unique visually, but as long as it serves a purpose to the overall narrative, which in this case it did not.

It’s really disappointing as I’m a major fan of the Coen Brothers works, however this was such a messy misfire, I’m honestly shocked it made it through to actual release. It’s silly but not in a fun way, featuring wasted talent and bland gags, and one should simply drive away from this as far as possible.

Overall score: 2/10

3 notes · View notes

agentnico · 2 months

Text

Dune: Part Two (2024) review

I’m fully aware that the Dune sequel has been hit by acclaim from both critics and audiences, and I shall share my own thoughts in due course, but also whilst presenting itself as a serious and sophisticated piece of artsy science fiction tackling challenging themes of religion and politics, from a marketing standpoint this film has been a major farcical meme. From the popcorn buckets shaped like suggestive sand worms (or more so accurately as deformed buttholes) to the viral TikTok video of an unnamed man riding a makeshift sand worm around a cinema lobby on his way to Arrakis, or more likely to one of the gazillion screenings of Dune: Part Two. But yes, absolutely mad bonkers advertising techniques, and not at all reflective of how seriously and straight faced the actual film plays. Anyway, let’s talk Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuneee…..

Plot: Paul Atreides unites with Chani and the Fremen while seeking revenge against the conspirators who destroyed his family. Facing a choice between the love of his life and the fate of the universe, he must prevent a terrible future only he can foresee.

Controversial opinion - I was not a fan of the first Dune. I thought it was all spectacle and no substance, and even then in regards to said spectacle, it was just sand. Lots of sand and bland dark visuals. I understand that the first movie acts as a massive exposition piece with lots of world building and introductions of all the characters and various political families and the spice trade and all that sweet jazz, but honestly it all felt so dragged out. Also a lot of narrative choices felt really immature and I did not buy it. In fact, the only memorable part for me was that female voice screaming on the music score every time something crazy happened, and my does that woman have some strong vocal pipe work! Like damn, her screams…. I really felt them!

Going into Dune: Part Two, I was very much of two mindsets. One was more so a feeling of obligation to watch it, as I wasted 3 hours of my life watching the first one that I felt I deserved some kind of closure for my efforts. The other being Denis Villeneuve. Aside from the first Dune, he’s a director that has constantly impressed me with his unique vision and style. Simply look at his past filmography! Prisoners. Enemy. Arrival. Sicario. All impressive pieces of genre filmmaking. Then there’s Blade Runner 2049, that took the classic Ridley Scott movie and managed to improve on it and become one of the most thrilling science fiction epics of the last decade. Also the trailers looked appropriately exciting, and it seemed like the second movie was actually gonna deal with some serious shit finally. Again, my problem with the first Dune wasn’t that it was slow. I mean, I can happily watch Paris, Texas any day of the week and be mesmerised by the empty yet beautiful takes of the American desert. It’s more-so that the first Dune felt aimless and messy. As for Dune: Part Two?

Well, if we’re going to use The Lord of the Rings terminology, and boy am I happy to refer to the dear-to-my-heart Middle Earth whenever I have the chance, then Dune: Part Two holds the scale of The Two Towers. I may not agree with all of it, and there are still some moments that drag, though The Two Towers is also guilty of that - I’m looking at you Treebeard! But overall this is one hell of a cinematic experience and achievement. Visually for one this is eye-candy. And yes, yet again there’s lots of sand, but this time around Villeneuve manages to find very creative ways to add/take away colour to make many sequences truly impressive. There’s an early scene where the Fremen are fighting Harkonnen goons in the desert and the entire thing is seeped in this blood orange palette, reminiscent of the Martian Chronicles, and then there’s the part where we are introduced to the Harkonnen home planet where the entire screen is drenched in hardcore intense black-and-white due to their sun only giving out white and black light, and instead of fireworks there are these watercolour stroked exploding in the sky, to of course the much talked about eye-dropping sand worm riding into battle scene that had the feel of the giant elephants appearing in The Return of the King, and yes that was another most delightful reference to Lord of the Rings! As I was saying though, the entire movie visually is certainly something to be in awe of.

Also Hans Zimmer’s score!! Of course the man’s a genius, having composed so many of cinema’s greatest musical compositions. I can recommend his Live in Prague performance! Hit after hit, and I find myself spinning it on my record player a good few times. Hans Zimmer’s Dune: Part Two soundtrack feels like a thunderously bombastic continuation and expansion of the first film’s more quiet and moody opener, and that shift in tone allows for some truly spectacular weaving of the composer’s thematic tapestry for Dune – with the finest new thread being the absolutely gorgeous love theme for Paul and Chani. A truly beautiful piece that echoes the heartbreaking tragic nature of the central romance of the film. Needless to say I’ve already pre-ordered the limited edition coloured vinyl of Dune 2’s soundtrack from Mutant (the new Mondo).

As for the narrative, as that is where I felt the first film faltered the most in my humble opinion (which I share so publicly online). I really do feel like the sequel is a major set up, for since the first one focused more on the endless word building and set-ups, this movie is all about the character developments. The scope is still big with the various political and religious elements that are tackled and explored throughout, however at the same time Dune: Part Two manages to feel more intimate compared to its predecessor, with the unravelling of the romance between Paul and Chani, but more so the inner struggles of Paul Atreides, as he tries to balance his emotions of revenge with the feeling of wanting to belong somewhere, as well as his denial of being called the so-called Messiah to the Fremen people. Look, the idea of the chosen one has been a concept that has been done over and over again, however I felt here they managed to really make it feel unique and different, with Paul choosing not to take this major responsibility due to visions of the future where he sees this choice result in darkness and dread, yet at the same time realising he has no choice but to follow his destiny and calling. It’s powerful stuff.

The cast list is stacked in this one. Timothee Chalamet is a rising star, having previously excelled his dramatic chops in Call Me by Your Name and his charismatic whimsy in last year’s Wonka, but this is by far his most impressive acting feat. You truly feel his character turning from boy to man, and it’s a real and raw performance. Zendaya shares great chemistry with him, but also in her own right gives a strong turn as a warrior Fremen conflicted with what she sees and thinks. Javier Bardem’s Stilgar adds a slice of surprising humour to the mix, being so obsessed with Paul being part of the prophecy that anything he’d do, Stilgar would find that to be part of what has been foretold. Paul Atreides could literally fart and Stilgar would observe in wonder proclaiming “as it was written”. There’s also a tiny No Country for Old Men reunion with Bardem being joined by Josh Brolin, who’s alright by the way, though it’s a typical Brolin brute role. Charlotte Rampling as the Reverend Mother continues being truly despicable and honestly that wench deserves to be put in her place - the movie’s ending is very satisfying in this regard. There’s also some newcomers to the Dune world too. Florence Pugh as the Princess reminded me a lot of Padme from Star Wars, and Christopher Walken I felt was tad miscast as the Emperor. Don’t get me wrong, Walken is a great actor, but his way of speech has been impersonated and overdone so many times that it is difficult to take him seriously in a role like this. Minus a couple of strong deliveries Walken felt really lazy here. You know who wasn’t lazy though? Austin Butler! This guy understood the assignment, playing the psychotic nutter Feyd-Rautha and he’s truly unrecognisable. Even his voice is different. Gone is Elvis and in cometh his Skarsgard impression! He’s brutal and maniacal and was honestly superb, and I wish there was more of him in this movie.

Again, it’s far from a perfect movie. There are parts still that drag, and certain times where things feel surprisingly rushed, but overall this is an experience through and through, and unlike my feelings after the first film, here I find myself really looking forward to the inevitable third part. In fact f*ck it, who am I kidding - this movie is bloody incredible!! Like I can’t even - it’s abso-fricking-lutely spectacular!! And by the way I read a bit about the Frank Herbert Dune books now and the future sequels are gonna be mad, just saying. Paul’s son becomes this half-man half-worm known as the God Emperor! Things are gonna get weird! Anyway, Dune: Part Two - go see it if you haven’t already. And in Austin Butler’s voice: “may thy knife chip and shatter”.

Overall score: 9/10

47 notes · View notes

agentnico · 2 months

Text

Wicked Little Letters (2024) review

I’d love to receive a rude foul-mouthed letter through the post. I’d have a hoot reading it. People in the 1920s took things too personally. Then again, people take things too personally nowadays also. I guess nothing has changed then.

Plot: When people in Littlehampton, including conservative local Edith, begin to receive letters full of hilarious profanities, rowdy Irish migrant Rose is charged with the crime. Suspecting that something is amiss, the town's women investigate.

In the vain of the recent Banshees of Inisherin, yet again there is foul mouthed disagreement between the neighbouring common folk on the British Isles. Ironic indeed it is that the English culture is both built on good manners with the ‘gentleman’ ideology having originated from here, and at the same time it is not hard to imagine a person throwing the F-bomb at any given moment or in general succumb to crude profanities. As such, I would like to tip my hat to the British public for succeeding at both being the most polite and rude society at the same time. And with Wicked Little Letters, you can expect that exact abundant share of cussing and effing, with the letters themselves featuring some very entertaining playful insults. That being said, though in the trailers this was marketed as a comedy, the jokes take a back-seat for the most part and what we have instead is a mystery tale, only instead of a whodunnit it’s a who-wrote-it.

This story is truly captivating as you try and guess who is the one behind these obscene letters, and additionally the main characters are all given many layers to them that I never felt bored. As stated, though there are some funny moments here and there, I would not say this is a particularly hilarious film, but more so a drama with an interesting plot and some solid performances to boat. Again, the mystery was really engaging throughout, and aside of some pacing issues with the movie getting too slow at times, I found myself invested at all times.

Olivia Colman is great. I mean she’s always been great, ever since Peep Show, but now even as an Academy Award winning actress she never gives a lazy performance. Her character Edith is very complex and there’s a lot going on with her inner struggles, and Colman managed to really showcase the awkward eccentricities in this role, and as always I was impressed. Jessie Buckley on top form also as the expressive Rose, and she’s absolutely eclectic however I do think she was a bit too similar to her rowdy single mum role in Wild Rose. Anjana Vasan was amusingly deadpan as the woman cop fighting the case, and Timothy Spall was truly despicable and horrid as Edith’s father, really exhibiting the controlling and demented nature of his character, and pushing forward the feminist message of the movie.

Wicked Little Letters is a simple and enjoyable little British film, that is in no way groundbreaking, but for an easy Saturday evening watch it’s perfectly entertaining, and though the jokes are more of a miss than a hit, the central mystery and performances elevate this to a suitably watchful experience.

Overall score: 6/10

4 notes · View notes

agentnico · 2 months

Text

Suncoast (2024) review

Can we all just agree that Woody Harrelson is an absolutely wonderful human being! Honestly, whether he’s giving life lessons in coming of age stories or killing zombies in endlessly creative ways, he’s an absolute delight.

Plot: A teen living with her strong-willed mother must take her brother to a specialized facility. She strikes up an unlikely friendship with an eccentric activist at protests surrounding a landmark medical case.

I went into this weekend expecting to love the new Bob Marley movie, yet came out disliking that mess of a biopic and instead found charm in this little Sundance indie flick from Searchlight that has absolutely warmed my heart. You may be mistaken by the trailers to think this is a throwaway YA comedy, but it is in fact a coming of age drama that is grounded in realism and tackles some raw and emotional themes of grief and growing up. It is very much in vain of films like Edge of Seventeen, Little Miss Sunshine and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, where it uses lighthearted humour to connect you with the characters, only to then still throw you in the deep end by tackling a depressing subject. With how the lead girl has to still try and live a normal life, go to school, try to make friends all the while still needing to look after her disabled brother and overbearing mother, it’s a difficult and dysfunctional situation, but one that is made very digestible for the casual viewer.

Nico Parker already showed off her potential dramatic chops in her limited appearance in The Last of Us series last year, however here she really manages to skilfully tackle the emotional challenges of her complex character. Exploring teenage escapades, she expresses a realistic sense of wonder, while balancing it with the emotional toll she faces from her brother's illness. Echoing that heavy toll, Laura Linney adds dramatic layers to her intense performance as a mother, grieving her son before he passes. Adding levity to the emotional tale, Woody Harrelson acts as a friendly face, coping with his own underlying trauma. Through delightful and relatable performances, the cast elevates each other, as they bring the director's experiences to the cinema.

Again, what really works in Suncoast’s favour is how real it feels. Yes, a few lines of dialogue here and there come off a bit too cheesy and tacky, but overall this is a very earnest depiction of teenage angst. You can really tell that director/writer Laura Chinn used experiences from her own childhood to respectfully honour the memory of her brother’s battle with cancer, hence why the result is so powerful. Honestly. Suncoast doesn’t break any new ground in the coming of age genre, but it is nevertheless a delightful surprise and a film that managed to really move me by the time the credits rolled. It’s one of those films you might miss, but you really shouldn’t.

Overall score: 7/10

4 notes · View notes

agentnico · 2 months

Text

Bob Marley: One Love (2024) review

Every little thing… is not going to be alright!

Plot: Bob Marley: One Love celebrates the life and music of an icon who inspired generations through his message of love and unity. On the big screen for the first time, discover Bob’s powerful story of overcoming adversity and the journey behind his revolutionary music.

For a very special individual this is a very unspecial biopic. Bob Marley is well known legend and icon, and the movie sets out to present him as such, yet it’s done in such a banal and messy way. The film zeroes in on pivotal events that occurred in Marley’s life between 1976 and 1978, from a failed assassination attempt at his home to then his Smile Jamaica concert two days later, the creation of his “Exodus” album while self-exiled in the UK, and his return to his home country for the One Love Peace Concert. These were all really cool events in real life I’m certain, however in the context of the movie they lack and real energy or impact. The movie tries to act all mighty high and clever by not always telling a linear narrative, and instead jumping between non-chronological moments that it’s easy to get lost in the happenings. In fact, most of the movie consists of various montages and vignettes, as such allowing zero to no possibility to get even remotely invested in the story.

I feel really sorry for the cast. Kingsley Ben-Adair is evidently a charismatic chap, and Lashana Lynch is really trying to emote and bring out the dramatic chops, however due to the choppy editing and the movie being too distracted with jumping to the next Bob Marley song accompanied music video, these actors are never given the chance to sit down properly and have a proper deep conversation with one another. The revelation of Bob Marley finding out he has skin cancer might as well have been delivered in the same nonchalant tone as the old lady in the renowned worst movie ever made The Room when she proclaims “I got the results of the test back - I definitely have breast cancer!” after which everyone proceeds to never acknowledge this ever again. Alright, maybe not to that extreme, but the movie never provides the chance for the actors to breath and really explore the layers of their characters. Oh, James Norton is also in this film. What’s his role, you may ask? Honestly, Norton just looked like he was along because he liked the music, hence why he spends majority of the movie positively bopping and nodding his head.

The whole package feels awfully vanilla and under-cooked. The camerawork is uninspired and as mentioned the editing is all over the place. Heck, even Bohemian Rhapsody for all its problems managed to still make the concert sequences pop and be really entertaining. Any time however when Marley was singing here the camera would lazily move about as if it smoked so much green that it forgot where the hell it was. Speaking of Bohemian Rhapsody, just like Rami Malek in that film, Ben-Adir mostly only lip-syncs the famous singer’s songs, and I always find that to be very lazy trait in music biopics. Look, if you’re playing a famous music star you must give it all. Hence why I think Taron Egerton’s performance in Rocketman stands out so much - he made Elton’s songs his own, and overall became Elton John. Still can’t believe he didn’t even get nominated yet Rami Malek won the whole darn golden statue! Regardless, back onto the topic of Bob Marley: One Love - I am surprised this was signed off in as good enough to represent someone who’s life story is considered legendary and full of excitement. It feels lacklustre and thrown together…..and it’s produced by Brad Pitt! That’s right, Brad Pitt produced this mess. Dude should stick to acting.

Overall score: 3/10

0 notes

agentnico · 3 months

Text

The Book of Clarence (2024) review

This film may be 2024’s biggest box office flop thus far, but that doesn’t mean it won’t get cult status, and especially Benedict Cumberbatch’s entire role is destined to be a meme, trust me on that. Just you wait.

Plot: Struggling to find a better life, Clarence is captivated by the power of the rising Messiah and soon risks everything to carve a path to a divine existence.

Going into this movie I expected to be super offended by it. Look, I’m not overly religious myself, but I come from an orthodox family and have been raised as such, so naturally I do have certain beliefs, and do think a lot of what happened in the New Testament is true. So of course when this movie came about I had my trepidations, however after watching it I found myself not nearly as offended or shocked as I expected. For one they don’t go against the fact that Jesus is the true Messiah, and in fact encourage that fact. I mean of course there are some blasphemous aspects to it as one would expect - the final act is a twist on the Bible that I am certain is going to pee off more than a few Christians. But as a whole The Book of Clarence is its own thing that doesn’t’ mess a lot with religion. For the first two thirds especially it’s more about Clarence and his buddies going on this adventure through Jerusalem and getting up to various shenanigans, and basically this being a stoner-comedy set in AD. And I have to say that generally speaking I enjoyed it.

The whole thing is absurd for sure. I mean, the flick is produced by Jay-Z, which speaks volumes in itself. But it’s got a great soundtrack, the direction overall is good from Jeymes Samuel, though stylistically I think he outdid himself more in The Harder They Fall - that western was just so cool! The humour was good in parts but in others not so much. It kind of depended on who was delivering it. For this movie features an all-star ensemble cast, however the performances I must say were a mixed bag. LaKeith Stanfield I truly believe is one of Hollywood’s current greats, as previously everything I’ve seen him in impressed me. However here as Clarence I feel like he was holding himself back a little. Don’t get me wrong, he does an alright job overall, but it was not anything special. A lot of other characters pop in throughout, but only a few really left an impression. Alfre Woodard as Mother Mary had me in stitches delivering lines such as “I was minding my own virgin business just being a virgin”, and David Oyelowo as John the Baptist was overly expressive and gave some solid Will Smith-level slaps. James McAvoy too as Pontius Pilate was both dramatic in that you can tell he didn’t really want to crucify Clarence as he liked the guy, but also delivered some hysterical laugh-out-loud lines like “Once you die from drowning, you’ll be free to go. Proceed.” I actually wish McAvoy was in the film more - his character was so sarcastic - I loved it. And then there’s Benedict Cumberbatch. Okay, so Cumberbatch’s 5 minutes of screen time are all for this one specific gag, and I do admit it was amusing and the batch of cumber played it fashionably over-the-top, but also what the movie does with his character…. Okay, so it’s funny. Can’t deny that. It’s actually bloody hilarious, especially as it comes out of nowhere. But also like it is offensive to the Church. I imagine many audiences would have been angered by his role, however I enjoyed it, even if it was a waste of Benedict Cumberbatch’s talents. As for the rest of the cast, they are serviceable, but not particularly memorable.

The movie does drag in a few places, and the writing didn’t always play out the best. Again, when you had the stronger actors delivering the lines, the moments of dialogue were really funny and definitely boosted the comedic value of the scenes. However at other times you could really tell the script writing just wasn’t up to par and felt lazy as it slugged along. Also, I feel like the movie wasn’t too sure what it wanted to be. Like it starts with a scene of these dudes smoking weed whilst floating upside down and a lightbulb pops up above their head, then in another scene there’s a random 80’s/90’s techno dance number, and then at the end there’s this really dark crucifixion scene featuring realistic detail with dramatic music playing. It’s a jarring mood swing, that really made me wonder what this movie was trying to accomplish. Like is it trying to parody the Bible, but also at the same time taking it seriously? It’s a shift that doesn’t really mix, and as such the ending does fall flat.

I ended up enjoying The Book of Clarence way more than I expected, and the moments of comedy that hit really do hit. Like I can easily see in a future someone doing a reel of “Book of Clarence funniest scenes” on YouTube, as there truly are some solid moments of slapstick comedies and banterous dialogue wit. But the third act with the heavily dramatic serious mood swing does question what the movie is going for, and also it does overstay its welcome. I’d say this is an interesting, thought provoking experiment that has its ups and down, however is very much worthwhile checking out. But also Cumberbatch’s….. like what the actual hell??

Overall score: 5/10

1 note · View note

agentnico · 3 months

Text

Orion and the Dark (2024) review

Woah, Jacob Tremblay under went some plastic surgery or something, as he looks mega-different! Was watching an interview with him and Paul Walter Hauser talking about this film, and the kid has hit puberty big time. Now looks like an annoying moody teen. If they reboot Twilight, we’ve found Edward.

Plot: The thing Orion fears the most is the dark. When the embodiment of his worst fear pays a visit, Dark whisks Orion away on a roller-coaster ride around the world to prove there is nothing to be afraid of at night.

What starts as a pretty basic by-the-numbers animated film about how every aspect of life can be scary quickly morphs into something that celebrates the unpredictability of it whilst exploring how balance is essential. The main kid Orion - he’s basically Beau Is Afraid for kids. He gets freaked out by everything, and honestly he was just really sad to watch, and Tremblay is almost too good at portraying the character’s inner fear, making me wonder how much of the real Tremblay is present within Orion. We are treated to an amusing scrapbook montage of Orion’s imagined worst case scenarios, after which the film briskly jumps straight into the nightly events where Dark comes knocking, featuring a delightfully narrated introduction by Werner Herzog. Paul Walter Hauser makes Dark so loveable, turning a concept that is scary for some into a gentle giant with his own doubts and insecurities. The interactions between Orion and Dark are entertaining and amusing, if a bit inconsistent, as every time you think they’re becoming friends, Orion goes back to his fears. It’s all easy digestible family friendly entertainment, even if there were a couple of surprisingly dark, pardon the pun, jokes included throughout.

However it is in the last 20 minutes when the movie does a mad 360 degree turn and switches genres into this crazy multi-generational escapade, as such in the last 10 mins me and my fiancée were questioning momentarily what just happened. Look, as a collective package Orion and the Dark is a basic animation that takes a lot from other movies of its kind, but those last moments or so jarringly mad and out-there that we were shook. That is until I saw who has a screenplay credit and then all made sense. That’s right, one of the writers of this film is Charlie Kaufman. As you may know, Charlie Kaufman’s films scratch at your head and mess with your mind, as his writing fundamentally deconstructs the ways in which it plays with and incorporates narrative structure of the story itself. In a nutshell, his films are surreal and weird, hence why Orion and the Dark’s ending makes all the more sense.

The animation style itself is fun, somewhat similar to Mitchell vs the Machines’ 2D to 3D blend, and a pleasing colour palette with the dark blue and purple environments, however you can tell this is a cheaper budget from DreamWorks, as many times the backgrounds looked too plain and simple, and even the character designs of the nightly entities were not that original or creative. In fact aside from Dark, all the other night sprits were really bland and unmemorable, and one of them was voiced by acting legend Angela Bassett, so that’s saying something.

Overall Orion and the Dark is enjoyable for what it is, but doesn’t really make a strong impression aside from its last mind-bending 10 minutes, and knowing now of Kaufman’s involvement I feel like this movie had the potential of going weirder from the start, but instead is really by-the-numbers and forgettable, and will not be seen as the cure to nyctophobia.

Overall score: 5/10

6 notes · View notes

agentnico · 3 months

Text

Argylle (2024) review

Mr Cavill, you sir are fine class gentleman. But that flat-top haircut is a disgrace and you know it.

Plot: Reclusive author Elly Conway writes best-selling espionage novels about a secret agent named Argylle who's on a mission to unravel a global spy syndicate. However, when the plots of her books start to mirror the covert actions of a real-life spy organization, the line between fiction and reality begin to blur.

I have noticed critics have really been harsh on this movie, with as of this writing Argylle holds a 35% review approval from Rotten Tomatoes. It’s not that bad. In fact it’s really enjoyable. Yes, it’s really dumb, but it’s also fun. Director Matthew Vaughn’s latest is gladly a crowd-pleasing action spy flick that is full of twists and bombastic set pieces, that takes inspiration from the 1973 French comedy The Man from Acapulco starring Jean-Paul Belmondo, where the novelist too was getting mixed into their fictional created spy world. Yes, there are an abundance of twists, so much so that if you really look into it there are so many logical gaps and absurd plot holes, however this movie embraces its silliness and simply tries to out-do each twist with another one, as if in a personal race of wit. Some turns are predictable, some less, but it’s all good fun and every time the story threw another narrative curveball I couldn’t help but have a smile on my face.

That’s really what this movie boils down to - it’s an irreverent over-the-top espionage blockbuster that’s a ton of fun, featuring an all-star cast of famous people, most of whom are only cameos (Dua Lipa fans please reserve your expectations), all of whom are having the best time ever and you’re enjoying the ride alongside them. Henry Cavill does his best Bond impression, however even though he’s the titular character he’s actually hardly in the movie. I’m serious, aside from the opening sequence he pops in maybe 5 minutes total in the whole film? Yep, guess that’s your first twist there. Argylle hardly has any Argylle. Nevertheless Cavill as always is a charmer, but maybe wait till Guy Ritchie’s The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare to get your proper 2024 fill of Henry Cavill. Dua Lipa does a dance; John Cena’s in there somewhere but I couldn’t see him (almost as if he’s, dare I say, invisible!); Catherine O’Hara excels; Bryan Cranston does the evil-dude-in-a-lair trope with the gusto of Walter White for he is indeed the one who knocks, and Samuel L. Jackson is heavily under-used, acting as only a MacGuffin to give the movie’s finale some extra stakes, though that does fall a bit flat. However the main characters of Argylle are Bryce Dallas Howard and Sam Rockwell. This is their movie. With Howard playing writer Elly Conway with a delightful spark, but it’s Sam Rockwell who’s the MVP, which shouldn’t come as a surprise as he’s great in these type of sarcastic roles. He gets one of the best lines and moments, and honestly he’s on top form.

In terms of negatives, the CGI is bad. Like astonishingly bad. There are some truly cool action sequences, but they were consistently hindered by the overused obvious green screen which was so jarring, and at times it felt like even when characters were standing just talking that they were still enveloped in CGI. Heck, this movie includes a cat which by the way adds nothing to the plot, but it’s there and for the most part it’s a CGI cat, which just looked daft. Also at over 2 hours the movie could have easily cut off a little fat and shortened its runtime, as it did overstay its welcome a little. That being said this is the most fun I’ve had with a Matthew Vaughn flick since his first Kingsman movie, and it was nice to switch off my brain and simply enjoy a silly nonsensical piece of entertainment. Oh, and the soundtrack choices throughout were great. Can never go wrong with a lil’ Barry White.

Overall score: 5/10

3 notes · View notes

agentnico · 3 months

Text

Ted - Season 1 (2024) review

Look, it’s a live-action Family Guy. Let’s not even sugarcoat that fact.

Plot: It's 1993, and Ted the bear's moment of fame has passed. He's living back home with his best friend, John Bennett, and his family. While Ted may be a lousy influence on John, he's a loyal pal who will go out on a limb for friendship.

The Ted movies are enjoyable if a tad forgettable pieces of comedic crudeness. Also they haven’t aged the best, so I was quite apprehensive when I heard that they were making a prequel streaming series based on the property. Originally I was not even planning on watching it, however upon its release on the streaming service Peacock, which by the way has anyone even heard of Peacock?? I swear there are so many streaming services around now that it’s hard to keep up with them all. That Weird Al movie that came out a year ago was on something called Roku. Still have no clue what the fudge is Roku! Can’t we just get these streaming companies to bundle up into one and give us all the content on one singular platform? Now is that too much to ask!? Apparently so. Regardless, with that rant aside, let’s talk about the Ted show.

Indeed it’s a surprise that the Ted series is actually kind of good! It’s a throwback to the 90s American sitcoms, with the show focusing on not only the bear but also on his family living in the suburbs. And each family members gets up to their amusing antics every episode, and though none of it breaks any new comedic ground, I must say this was a very enjoyable and easy watch. For one, this show is actually funny. From the ridiculous scenarios that occur, with Ted and John smoking weed for the first time, to their dad wishing upon a star and bringing his toy truck to life who becomes a Republican racist, to John going to buy a condom at a supermarket where an overly nice shop assistant helps him to pick what kind only to turn out to be a creep who runs away as soon as another shop assistant appears. Look, it’s all ridiculous and stupid, but for the most part a lot of the jokes land.

Also, it’s so easy for the teddy bear to steal the show, and of course Seth Macfarlane is on top form riffing and throwing insulting one-liners left and right, and there’s also so much physical and slapstick comedy that comes from the bear’s movements, from how he runs to the way he stares at people with emotionless eyes. The teddy is great, and also even though he’s crude, he never became tiresome or annoying, whereas in the movies he did get a tad repetitive. However the human characters also get enough development and focus that you warm up to the entire family. The kid that plays John was actually spot on with his Mark Wahlberg impression, nailing the accent, but also as a whole he did a great job having to act mostly next to CGI character. His chemistry with the bear was very good, and you felt their friendly camaraderie. As for the parents, the mum was hilarious as the innocently nice housekeeper who was super naive about everything, and the dad at first came off annoying and selfish, but as the show progressed you warmed up to him too due to the solid writing. Then Giorgia Whigham rounds up the cast as the rebellious cousin who disagrees with the old-school beliefs of the family, but also ends up being a key support to each character.

In terms of the negatives, for a show that’s billed as a sitcom, the episodes were way too long. The premiere alone was 50 mins, and then rest ranged around the 40 minute mark, and so pacing did drag at times. Especially when certain jokes were stretched out longer than they should be, they really should have been kept to around 20 mins. Aside of the pacing issues, this was a solid comedy show.

Ted by no means reinvents the comedic genre, however it’s truly an amusing show that will have you smiling throughout, and turns out to be way better than it had any right to be. Also the special effects on the bear are also really impressive. He really does look like a real talking bear, and the movements were all fluid and well done. So yep, Ted is a win. Here’s hoping for a second season!

Overall score: 7/10

#Ted #seth macfarlane #family guy #ted series #ted season 1 #Ted series review #2024 #streaming #tv series #max burkholder #giorgia whigham #scott grimes #alanna ubach #comedy #sitcom #ted tv show #peacock #2024 shows #everybody needs a best friend

8 notes · View notes

agentnico · 3 months

Text

The Beekeeper (2024) review

Now we just need a spin-off where Jason Statham’s beekeeper takes care of Jerry Seinfeld’s bee from The Bee Movie and they go on a murderous rampage where Statham is punching folks and Seinfeld is making terrible one-liners after each swing. Hollywood - make it happen!

Plot: One man's brutal campaign for vengeance takes on national stakes after it's revealed he's a former operative of a powerful and clandestine organization known as Beekeepers.

Imagine if one of those money scammers from The Wolf of Wall Street bankrupted John Wick’s mother. Oh, and instead of the baddies killing a puppy, there’s bees involved. That’s the starting point of this new action thriller that comes from the director of Suicide Squad. Nope, not THE Suicide Squad where John Cena and Idris Elba are measuring dick sizes, but the original Suicide Squad. The one with the tattooed Joker and where Cara Delevingne still thinks she can act. Yep, not the best one to have on your resume, but still director David Ayer perceives and brings us this 80’s inspired cheesy action flick, and you know what? It’s worth buzzing about.

The Beekeeper is exactly what you expect it to be. It’s Jason Statham mumbling in a 75% British and 25% American accent, going all Old Testament on a bunch of scumbags. Harkening back to the old-school Bruckheimer/Michael Bay flicks featuring ridiculous high concept that is on every level stupid and ridiculous, yet Ayer understands the assignment and directs the action sequences impeccably and yet playing to the movie’s more sillier nature. Look, Statham is an unbeatable force in this, who by the end is being chased by the FBI, the Secret Service, CIA and evil gonzo goons, yet no one can stop him. How is he so skilful, you may ask, besides the obvious fact that it’s Jason bloody Statham? He belongs to an ultra-secret network called The Beekeepers, who exist to keep the powers that be in check – via whatever means necessary. No one is above answering to the Beekeepers. Yep, the obvious nod to John Wick’s High Table is ‘hidden’ in plain sight. It’s super entertaining stuff. Jason Statham is on top deadpan form, being genuinely awesome as an unstoppable Rambo-type. Josh Hutcherson is terrifically cast as the annoying bratty billionaire, and Jeremy Irons is there literally to spill out exposition after exposition, but it’s Irons so it’s still entertaining to watch him.

Granted, The Beekeeper may not be for everyone. It’s so over-the-top and unapologetic that it may not be for you if you prefer action movies grounded and straight-faced. The B-plot involving an FBI agent daughter also doesn’t completely work, but otherwise this B-movie (or bee-movie?) knows exactly what it is and is one of the better Jason Statham-led action vehicles. As a January palette cleanser I had a solid good time. My only complaint? Not enough bees.

Overall score: 6/10

3 notes · View notes

agentnico · 3 months

Text

Poor Things (2023) review

Yorgos Lanthimos may be the new Quentin Tarantino when it comes to feet fetishes in cinema, as there are so many Emma Stone feet shots in this movie… so many. Also, her little toe is oddly square shaped, just saying.

Plot: An incredible tale and fantastical evolution of Bella Baxter (Emma Stone), a young woman brought back to life by the brilliant and unorthodox scientist Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe). Under Baxter's protection, Bella is eager to learn. Hungry for the worldliness she is lacking, Bella runs off with Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo), a slick and debauched lawyer, on a whirlwind adventure across the continents. Free from the prejudices of her times, Bella grows steadfast in her purpose to stand for equality and liberation.

At first I was very much a fan of director Yorgos Lanthimos’ directing style, with him managing to take any event or piece of dialogue and turn it into deadpan awkwardness. As such, his indie films The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer both are great examples of entertaining postmodern cinema with each one featuring a dystopian visual style. That being said, his last film The Favourite, even though it was a hit with the critics and the award ceremonies, for me did not hit the same. It felt much more reserved compared to the director’s previous efforts, and his usual weird style just came off crude and the humour for me personally did not land. Nicholas Hoult was a hoot though, but when isn’t he! Anyway, going into Poor Things I was hoping for more of the original magic which I’ve seen from Lanthimos in his earlier works, and the trailers with their vibrant visuals really sparked my interest, so I went in with high hopes.

So in terms of the visuals, Poor Things may just feature some of the best and most imaginative sets of any movie of 2023. Starting off the first part in black-and-white, very reminiscent of the old Universal monster flicks, but then 30 minutes in transforming into a technicolour dream world with colours popping Wizard of Oz-style, with every shot reminiscent of a vivid painting, with the use of the fisheye lends to create a somewhat watercolour effect to the backgrounds. The movie looks and feels artificial, which connected well with the narrative of this Frankenstein’s monster type woman learning and discovering everything with a brain that’s both her’s and not. Oh, and she happens to also wear rainbow glasses, so I can only imagine how much more stranger the world must look through her eyes.

The film’s biggest asset is its acting. Emma Stone is phenomenal as she has to play a grown woman with the brain of a baby, and then show us that woman growing into her brain (or maybe show us the baby growing into the woman?) over the course of the film. She really does throw herself into the role and it’s the type of role that awards shows will delightfully seek their teeth into. Willem Dafoe as the maker of Bella felt like a character that walked straight off a David Lynch fantasy, from the prosthetic make-up to his performance as the mad scientist that falls for his creation. But the real stand out here is Mark Ruffalo who simply is on another level. Playing the slimy player who only sees women through the male gaze, and attempts to take advantage of Bella’s naive outlook life for his own physical pleasure, it’s the kind of character you are supposed to despise, but gosh did I love everything Ruffalo was doing in this film. He was truly hilarious with every piece of his line delivery successfully painting the pathetic nature of his foolish character. Most critics will be showering Emma Stone with praise and deservingly so, however I believe Mark Ruffalo should not be overlooked and may be the actual MVP of the whole movie.

Narrative wise this is a fun feminist spin on the Frankenstein formula, that is a loud and proud shout to female autonomy for those who may have found Barbie a bit too cheesy and perky, yet I do find the movie to be overly cynical against its own good. It's like Lanthimos approached the film in the same way the mad scientist played by Willem Dafoe in the movie approaches his medical experiments -- with a cool eye and a lot of curiosity, but very little heart. And for the bubbly and big eyed Bella that is full of life and excitement, the film she’s in is the polar opposite. Look, I admired the film for what it was, but the romantic within me wanted a bit more of the, as the French would say, ‘amour’. Also there was just too much sex for my viewing pleasure. Again, I don’t mind a lil’ hanky-panky in my films, but when I’m sat in a dark theatre surrounded by many perverts with 90% of what I’m watching being humans doing the thrusting and the throbbing, it is a tad uncomfortable. You can also imagine what my fiancée thought when I told her afterward about the movie’s heavily erotic side.

Poor Things is very much a film that screams the director’s unique and distinct style and I truly respect it for that, however I personally feel like its not my cup of tea as it was a bit too cold for my liking. There wasn’t really a character I could connect or sympathise with, and even though Mark Ruffalo is funny as hell, his character is a piece of scum and a half. Again, kudos to the whole production team and cast for a great niche slice of art house cinema, but it’s too creepy for my liking.

Overall score: 7/10

11 notes · View notes