critical-chris

[critical-chris]

Scream VI (2023)

Guess who's back, back again.

Ghostface's back, call a friend.

The iconic, and my personal favorite, slasher franchise returns to the big screen in the shortest turnaround between films since the original Scream and Scream 2. Breaking the recent trend of taking a decade break between installments, Scream IV arrives just thirteen months after Scream (2022) AKA Scream 5. Sight unseen I would have petitioned to title this time out Ghostface Takes Manhattan, but for some reason Hollywood hasn't started taking my calls.

The original Scream released in 1996 was the first true horror film I saw, with all of the lights out next to my father on our attached recliners in rural South Carolina. I was in high school, and never had the desire beforehand to dive into scary movies. When I was younger, even trailers for horror movies in the theaters would give me nightmares, and I had maxed out with thrillers for years. However, I had heard so much about Scream and it being a meta-horror with dark comedy and one that was lighter on the brutality than similar franchises like Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. So I figured I would give it a shot to see if I really could handle horror, and it has been off to the races ever since.

In fact, just in the past two years I have caught up on nearly a hundred horror movies I missed when I was younger, vowing to see every classic and even the unheralded cult icons. One of my future blogs may be dedicated to the scores of horror I indulged in as part of a pretty cool scratch-off poster I bought from Pop Charts (linked here) to keep myself honest. Even after all of those being checked off my watchlist, Scream remains as my all-time favorite.

Our long-running heroine of the series is Sydney Prescott, portrayed by Neve Campbell, and boy has she been through a lot of shit.

First, we hear Sydney's mother was killed a year before we meet her, and her friends and community of Woodsboro begin to get the sharp end of the blade of a masked serial killer Ghostface. In the climax, we learn that her boyfriend Billy Loomis and his friend Stu have been responsible for the killings. Billy wants to get back at the Prescott family since Sydney's mother had an affair with Billy's father, which led to his parents' divorce. Stu is just a psycho. With the help of her friend Randy, Sheriff Dewey Riley, and local investigative journalist Gale Weathers, Sydney turns the tables on the killers and whack Billy and Stu.

Sure, on paper Scream is just a slasher movie, but the real notoriety the series carries is its perfect commentary and skewering of horror movies, especially slashers, that came before. Jamie Kennedy's whole role as Randy is to advise the group of the tropes and pitfalls of horror movie characters so the teens can avoid getting butchered. The film is full of classic scenes, including Drew Barrymore in the cold open, Randy screaming at Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween to turn around to see Michael Myers while he himself is being stalked by Ghostface, and plenty of quotable lines (LIVER alone!).

Scream 2 picks up with Sydney attending college alongside other survivor Randy, and in my opinion is just a hair below the original in kills, humor, and twists. Scream 3 is a snooze-fest and the worst of the series by far, where the filming of a movie called 'Stab' is taking place based on Sydney's experience in Woodsboro. This is the one where the killer is revealed to be Sydney's long lost brother in the most who gives a shit reveal. Scream 4 takes place 10 years later, and recaptures what I found to be the best parts of the first two films.

At this point, I thought the franchise was dead and over, and I was happy for it to have ended on such a strong note as Scream 4. I especially thought it was a fitting end when the creator of the franchise and director over each installment Wes Craven passed away sadly in 2015. He had created and directed other iconic horror movie films like A Nightmare on Elm Street.

However, Scream 5 was announced to be released 25 years later to the month from it's inspiring original. When I heard the announcement, I was extremely upset and skeptical about the movie. Why should I trust an installment in a beloved franchise directed by anyone besides the creator? And with the cash grabs coming from Hollywood by way of unnecessary sequels, why can't they just let this one alone?

I can admit when I am wrong, and I was wrong about being skeptical of Scream 5. I thought it was a worthy sequel, paid respect to the characters and movies that came before, and kept the commentary of modern horror sharp and relevant. I even liked the newly casted heroines in the film, played by Jenna Ortega and Melissa Barrera. Although I'm getting a little sick of seeing Jenna Ortega everywhere already. **SPOILER** It was sad to see Dewey die, but I understood the reasoning and why they did it per the Requel rules covered by newcomer character Mindy Meeks-Martin (a descendant of Randy's family).

The connection of Sam Carpenter being Billy Loomis' illegitimate child and channeling his psycho-powers for her to turn the tables on her own Ghostface was batshit crazy, but I loved it.

Despite really enjoying the 5th installment in the Scream series, I was hesitant once again when they announced a sequel would be released a year later, and this time taking place in the Big Apple. I immediately was reminded of the TERRIBLE horror movie sequel to take place in New York City- Jason Takes Manhattan. But you know I still had to buy a ticket and sit down to indulge in another offering that asks, what's your favorite scary movie?

And finally, we arrive at the sixth installment in the self-described slasher franchise Scream VI.

The movie opens up on Samara Weaving sitting in a hip New York City bar, who is waiting for and texting with a dating app match. Her match mentions he is lost trying to find the bar and asks if he can call her. The voice on the other end of the phone is NOT the Ghostface voice we've come to love, but instead is just a regular guy's voice who eventually asks her to come outside so he can determine if he is on the correct street.

Weaving ventures further and further outside the bar looking for her match when she is led to walk into a nearby alley (dumb dumb), and her match's voice changes from the slight British accent to the menacing Ghostface effect. Ghostface pops out, stab stab stab, and then pulls off his mask to reveal new character Jason (Tony Revolori)????? That's a first, and at this moment I didn't know what to think about this movie breaking tradition of never seeing the killer until the climax. He trashes the costume in a nearby dumpster, keeps the mask, and heads back to his apartment, momentarily bumping into the movie's heroine Tara Carpenter before she heads off to a party.

Once Revolori gets back to his apartment, he gets a call from his friend Greg who he is planning Ghostface murders with, who asks him to describe how alive he felt murdering Samara Weaving. "Greg" speaks in the Ghostface voice and lures Revolori to eventually open the fridge where he finds the dismembered body of actual Greg. The Ghostface we'll be seeing the rest of the movie jumps out and kills Revolori.

TITLE SCREEN

Not a bad kind of double opening to the film, and it was tense in the moments that Jason is taken around his apartment by the killer playing the Warmer/Colder game. Nothing will ever top the opening sequence in the original film, but I give credit for these movies never phoning it in (pun very much intended) on the introductions.

We are then reintroduced to our surviving cast from the previous film, which initiated my frustrations with this movie. Of course you have Tara and Sam Carpenter as the returning heroines, but then we have Mindy and Chad Meeks-Martin coming back after being severely stabbed and left for dead at the house party in the finale of Scream 5. This trend comes up again multiple times in this movie, and I really hate it when horror films cheapen the 'kills' by just having everyone's favorite characters end up surviving. It removes the stakes, takes away any tension or fear we have that our beloved leads may be murdered, and makes the whole thing rather pointless.

We'll get to all that again. However, in this re-introduction to what they dub the 'Core 4' - Tara, Sam, Chad, and Mindy - we see that Sam is dealing with her issues with a counselor, who immediately drops her and threatens to call the cops when she says she kinda enjoyed pin-cushioning the killer Richie in Scream 5, and Tara is dealing with it by drinking. They then force an out of nowhere romantic tension between Tara and Chad which feels so creepy and dumb that I rolled my eyes both times they try and pass it off in the runtime.

Anyways, Tara lives with Sam while she goes to college with their new roommate character Quinn Bailey, and the whole group has a new friend Ethan Landry who seems like a geeky innocent addition. Mindy will then hammer you over the head for the next two hours on how he seems too nice to actually be innocent of any of the Ghostface killings. There is also a neighbor across the hall that Sam seemingly has a crush on, and then reveals is having a secret affair with that she hides from the rest of the cast. Sam is overbearing for Tara who just wants to have a good time.

And there's the setup- phone calls begin, stabby stabby, strap in for another edition of Scream where we try to figure out who the killer(s) is.

Let us start with the positive for Scream 6. First, this is by far the goriest and most brutal movie in the series as far as the kills go. The twisting of the knife in the gut, Anika falling to her death and banging her face on the dumpster, Greg's dismembered body in the fridge, etc. are all the most gruesome murders we've seen in the franchise. And I ain't mad at it, as it makes each sequential death that much more powerful and painful to watch and makes you fear for whoever is next.

I also enjoyed seeing Hayden Panetierre reprise her role as Kirby from Scream 4. Although I found the idea that she is/was an FBI agent to be ridiculous and just a convenient plot point, it was still nice to see a legacy character besides Sydney or Gale make an appearance. Otherwise, she doesn't make that much of an impact in this movie.

Now, let's get to my gripes, of which I have MANY but will cover the two main ones.

The Killers

I don't know about you (who I'm assuming is a Scream fan if you've stuck with this franchise for 6 films), but part of what I love in these movies is trying to guess who the killer will be and still be somewhat surprised at the ending. I won't lie, there is one aspect of the ending of Scream 6 that I didn't see coming, but it's also a cheat and nothing you could have suspected anyways.

Due to the amount of times Ghostface mentions his plan to punish Sam for her past deeds and expose her as a killer, I knew whoever was the murderer in these movies was related to the killer in Scream 5 - Richie Kirsch. Then it hit me. When Quinn seemingly gets butchered, her father who is a police officer comes out and offhand mentions how he can't believe both of his kids are gone now. It clicked for me immediately, his son was Richie and he is at least one of what I assumed would be multiple killers. Then I knew if there was a second killer it would be someone else in their family unit.

Then, when it is revealed that is exactly what is going on, I was pretty disappointed and underwhelmed. The only thing I didn't see coming was that Quinn didn't actually get killed and the cop swapped out her body for another when they faked her death. Pretty stupid in my opinion, and cheated the mystery out as much as Glass Onion (which I severely disliked). Cool that this is the first movie to have 3 killers instead of the classic 2, but something I found wasted on the laziness of the plot.

I have to mention at this point that I really do like Dermot Mulroney, and found him to be a good addition when he played the dutiful cop assisting the Carpenters in finding their stalker. HOWEVER, when he makes the turn to psychopathic killer, it is an embarrassing and frankly ridiculous performance. I have to assume the production kept a stockpile of eye drops on set since his peepers bug out of his head while he dances around revealing his master plan for minutes on end.

Mindy also calls out Ethan as the probable killer to an exhaustive extreme throughout that when it turns out he is one of the vengeful family members, I have a hard time believing you're actually shocked or care.

2. The Lack of Stakes

My gripe in the beginning of the film in seeing, specifically, Chad return after being what we all assumed was fatally stabbed in Scream 5 happens so many times in this movie that I can't understand why the filmmakers expect us to get any tension out of these new sequels.

Starting with Gale Weathers. Gale is stabbed multiple times in her apartment before eventually being found by Sam and Tara, but your sorrow in seeing a beloved character die is immediately dispelled when an EMT announces that she still has a pulse and she's saved. Alright, then why even have her get brutally stabbed?

Then, we move to Chad AGAIN! When the remaining survivors try to draw in the killer to the shrine/movie theater Gale discovered earlier in the movie, Chad gets stabbed several times in the chest and stomach by two killers at the same time. Go fuck yourself if you think that I buy him living through that, and why can we not have one person who returns get killed? They mention earlier in the film that one of the rules of a franchise is everyone is fair game to be murdered, and then nobody actually gets killed? BOOOOO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.

Look, I can't say this film isn't entertaining as it keeps the pace up, the kills coming, and the New York set pieces bloody. However, if I'm ranking it in the catalogue I only enjoy this time out more than the abomination that is Scream 3, because it introduces nothing new besides more gore, has the most predictable outcome of all the predecessors, and cheapens the kills to a ridiculous degree. Sure, I'm going to buy it when it gets released since I own the rest, but I imagine it's going to collect some dust over the years.

Scream VI - 6.0/10

#scream #scream 6 #scream vi #scream 2 #scream 3 #scream 4 #scream 5 #horror #horror films #horror blog #horror fans #scary movies #scary #slasher

[critical-chris]

65 (2023)

Holy shit, I demand a documentary of how this movie was made.

Good 'noon everyone, nice to talk to you again. I took a week long break from the blog due to a few factors including long hours at work, a random and inexplicable desire to start watching Succession for the first time ahead of the upcoming new season, and most importantly a complete and total lack of movies coming out that I had interest in.

There was one exception, Cocaine Bear, which I still do want to see. However, every time I had a reservation with my AMC membership and the time would come to leave the house and head to the theater, the lackluster reviews would crawl into my brain and I couldn't justify the 2 hour trek outside. I would crawl back in bed and dive into an episode of The Mandalorian, 1923, The Boys, or piecemealing the slog of a movie I find The Aviator to be. Lots of TV, not so many movies, but I'm back with a vengeance, baby.

Let's kick things off with why I wanted to see this movie in the first place. Have you seen the trailer? Exactly. The trailer sells you on a futuristic soldier played by Adam Driver finding himself stranded on a strange world that turns out to be Earth, 65 million years ago. This badass is strapped up with crazy weapons and about to fight some dinosaurs for survival. I'm all the way in.

I love science fiction movies when the creators that be get them right. Star Wars is my clear cut favorite sci-fi franchise, although Disney (not including Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni) has done whatever they can to create more shit properties under the umbrella than good ones. I love a good one-off sci-fi movie too, the most recent hit for me being Dune, what I felt to be a great epic adaptation of the book. Can't wait for that sequel and the talking baby, which better be in the film.

I love Adam Driver, too. I was not one of the early watchers of Girls (or a watcher at all, frankly), so my first introduction to him was Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the only film from the trilogy I loved and have since dampened my feelings on. I like him in the movies, despite my major beefs and issues with the plotting and directing, and continued to be excited by his more traditional dramatic work.

If you need some fantastic recommendations, check out my favorite Spike Lee joint BlacKkKlansman, a great paced marital drama Marriage Story, a creative crime dramedy Logan Lucky, and the period piece The Last Duel. A lot of people liked House of Gucci, and I thought it was decent although I'm not sure why Driver is now being tapped as Hollywood's "It Guy" for biographic films of Italian businessman with him portraying Enzo Ferrari next. With all of these great movies in his back pocket, I was sure that Adam Driver could not lose and would be coming in with another banger with replay value out the buttocks. I have to use clean language at some point in this blog for how explicit I am in my feelings on finally seeing 65.

When I saw that this movie came out to just over 90 minutes, I got that old fashioned bad feeling in my gut that maybe I was in for some trouble instead of some good dino-fighting. It's not very typical you get a slapstick comedy runtime out of an expensive science fiction film, and when you do it's a sign that perhaps there were some big problems with the longer cut and someone had to make a watchable storyline out of the scraps. And boy, does this movie feel exactly like that.

I have problems with almost every part of this disaster, so why not tick them off chronologically. 65 opens with some film school level text on screen letting the cat out of the bag right away. It explains that before mankind existed on Earth, there were other beings in other galaxies traveling the universe. Then we go to Planet Who Cares where Adam Driver is sitting on a beach with his wife and child. They quickly and briefly mention the daughter is suffering from some unknown illness and Driver must go on a 2-year journey to get paid enough to "cure her". LMAO CURE HER? Like the pharmaceutical company is withholding life-saving medicine because you can't afford it? Actually.... I guess that is realistic. Anyways, he teaches her to whistle with her hands and they showcase absolutely 0 familial chemistry that you care nothing about.

Smash cut immediately to Driver on a spaceship carrying a dozen or so passengers who are in cryo-sleep pods. The ship is suddenly hit by an asteroid, Driver attempts to control it, but they crash through the atmosphere of a strange planet and all of the cryo-pods get sucked out of the ship and are presumed dead. Adam Driver stumbles out of the ship, wades his way through some mud (where a creature lurks around him but then just never does anything so you wonder why even show there being a creature in the mud??), and discovers the bodies of the passengers who were tossed out of their cryo-pods.

Adam Driver stumbles back onto the ship and records a message asking for someone to come and rescue them, but deletes it before sending and re-records the message. In the second message, he tells anyone listening to abandon them and not to send a rescue ship because he's going to kill himself..... Why would he do that? We know his entire goal is to get back to his daughter, why would he not just ask for help and see if someone actually comes? Anyways, he decides not to kill himself, AND THEN THE TITLE CARD FOR THE MOVIE COMES UP. AT 20 MINUTES IN, THE TITLE OF THE MOVIE COMES UP AND READS:

65

Million Years Ago

A Visitor Came To

Earth

..... Seriously. All of that text comes on screen for the title card. Pardon my Portuguese, but what the fuck.

Driver is moping around when he sees an alert come up in his ship that one of the cryo-pods was not damaged and the girl inside survived, played by Ariana Greenblatt. He drags her out of the pod and while she rests he ventures out to a geyser field which is clearly included as foreshadowing for later in the film. He realizes that far away one of the escape pods from the ship also survived the crash and is a viable means of escape.

I felt the plot device included in this film of the girl speaking a different language than Adam Driver was unnecessary and forced. Besides the quick minute they spend in the final act of the girl being upset with Driver for lying about her parents being alive, there really is no reason for them not to be able to communicate. They try to force a couple laughs from their misunderstanding, but come across as generic and recycled gags. The part where Driver smushes a bug, and playfully chases the girl with his gooky hand is embarrassing.

Then there are the actual dinosaurs, which don't get incorporated until about 45 minutes in. The first dino the duo comes across is a baby stuck in a little tar pit, which is immediately killed by whatever those miniature predators from the opening of Lost World are, an attempt at a gut-wrenching moment that I found eye-rolling and stupid.

The other main predators featured are lizards mixed with raptors? They sulk low to the ground with their tails raised high and chase our protagonists around the trees and a beach, quickly dispatched by Adam Driver's futuristic assault rifle and grenades. There is a moment where one lizard seems to have gotten hold of Ariana, but Driver saves the day right at the last moment as is typical in every movie ever ever ever.

There were two scenes in the movie that I actually found entertaining and twinkled with potential of what this movie could have been. The first occurs after Driver and Ariana are driven into a cave by a modified T-Rex, and Ariana is able to crawl out of the cave before a cave-in traps Driver. He shimmies around in the dark and is stalked by an unseen dino, which creates some good tension and anticipation for when the creature finally emerges. The dino doesn't end up being scary or that menacing, but the lead up was decent enough.

The other part I enjoyed were the T-Rex's. I found the final minutes of the two T-Rex's trying to finish off Adam Driver and Ariana's ship with them inside, and even the moment where the last T-Rex chases Driver into the geyser field only to be stabbed and scalded to death very well done. The whole movie should have been scenes like this showing danger instead of pretending the main two characters have any chemistry or relationship worth watching.

All in all, this is a derivative sci-fi "thriller" reliant on jump scares, overused tropes, and it's budget for making dinosaurs seem sort of real. I would never, will never, and can never recommend anyone spend even the short 90 minutes to watch this movie. If you're suffering pure boredom I would recommend sitting on a porch and imagining dinosaurs in your front yard instead of sitting through this. In today's world, there is always something better to watch somewhere else instead of 65.

I do have one conspiracy theory related to this movie that I think holds weight. I read an article online that mentioned this film had a budget of $95 million, and after witnessing what I did play out on the screen, I have to assume a majority of that went to Adam Driver. Otherwise, why would he put his name at the top of the cast list for this pile of dinosaur shit? I'll take it one further, how much do I think he got paid out of the total budget? Wait for it, $65 million. Following that logic, I have to assume he asked that the name of the movie then represent how much it takes to get a big name actor to star in a film that is destined to fail and ensure its director never works again.

In conclusion, THIS MOVIE SUCKS.

65 - 2.0/10

#65 #65 movie #adam driver #jurassic world #jurassic park #dinosaurs #dinosaur #bad movies #horror #sci fi #horror films

[critical-chris]

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Who let the title of this movie get so damn long?

Here we go again. Another post-Endgame, superhero film capping off a trilogy of movies featuring a loved lead character. If only Thor took notes and ended at a trilogy too, maybe the Marvel franchise wouldn't seem so tired and exhausting at this point. I myself am nearing the end of my rope when it comes to watching new installments in another phase of Marvel. The last notches on the belt I've been looking forward to were Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 3 and, due to my own love for the lead character and actor, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantamania.

I feel like I've always been a fan of Paul Rudd. I don't even remember the first movie I saw him in, but I had to have immediately loved him and kept that same energy over the years. It doesn't hurt that he never had a real drop-off either. Looking back through his acting career, he hit the ground running with Clueless three years after his first credit (I haven't seen it, but people like it and I trust he was great in the movie). Then he hits you with Wet Hot American Summer, what used to be a cult hidden classic until Netflix brainwashed everyone into thinking that it was a star-maker when it was released.

He's a key, hilarious figure in one of my favorite comedies all-time Anchorman, a long running guest star on Friends, simps his way through 40 Year Old Virgin, dips a toe in Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Role Models, I Love You Man, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. My favorite Paul Rudd moment is in one of his more mediocre films funnily enough, Wanderlust. The scene where Rudd hypes himself up to a mirror before expecting to hook up with Malin Akerman's character made me laugh harder than I ever had before. Whether it's a cameo, a guest starring role, or being a leading man, Paul Rudd has given us countless performances and years that are laugh out loud funny and memorable.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania is the third installment in the Ant Man story and the i-can't-keep-count-how-many movies in the Marvel saga. Scott Lang has been through a lot coming into this movie. He's been to prison, defeated his mentor's protégé and came to terms with Bobby Cannavale marrying his ex-wife, a phasing supervillain and a trip to and from the Quantum Realm (I had to look up the synopsis for Ant-Man and the Wasp because I remembered very little from it despite enjoying it), the blip from Endgame which aged his daughter to a teenager, and the threat of Thanos. The thousand plotlines of the Marvel universe are becoming tired at this point, and you really don't have to remember every little detail, but these events converge and lead us to this new, and hopefully last, adventure for Paul Rudd in the superhero multiverse.

At the start of Ant-Man and the Wast: Quantumania, Scott is living a B-list celebrity life, having meals comp'd by businesses unsure which Avenger he is, slipping in as many Baskin Robbins' plugs as he can, and relishing in his newly released book The Little Things or Don't Count Out the Little Man or whatever little pun they made. His daughter Cassie is an activist rebel for good who also has somehow caught herself up on quantum physics with the help of Hank and Janet Pym (Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer). A convenient point as Cassie has been building a device that can map out and contact the Quantum Realm. Janet Pym loses her shit when she hears of this device and, when attempting to deactivate it, ends up getting the whole clan sucked back into the Quantum Realm. Oh what sights they will see and unusual characters they will meet.

The opening moments are okay enough, there are a couple laughs delivered by Paul Rudd's narration and odd family dynamic, but there is one problem that begins to present itself and sustains throughout the whole movie: the film has no soul. I don't know what it is, these characters I personally really liked and was interested in from the first two movies and Avenger appearances fall flat and seem generic and frankly uninteresting in moments. I should care what happens to these people, but I just didn't. I guess the positive I can glean from the opening is they get to the Quantum Realm rather quickly.

Scott and Cassie (The Langs) get split up from Hope, Hank, and Janet (The Pyms) and each try to find their way back to each other for a decent chunk of the movie's midsection. The Langs battle a couple amoeba and sun monsters before being captured by a group of humanoids and creatures. The Pyms follow Janet on a quest to find someone who can lead them back to reunite with The Langs.

The biggest issue I had when our group of heroes are dropped in the Quantum Realm that lasted throughout the runtime of the movie is the fact that every background, setting, action piece, etc. is computer generated. Obviously I understand you cannot reasonably create most of these effects practically, but when every single rock and speck of dust is CGI the movie loses its texture and I find it hard to emotionally connect as much to people interacting in front of a green screen in a studio. That has always been an issue with Marvel films, but feels like ever since they dove into the multiverse pool it has grown more and more evident.

Scott is dragged into an encampment at night (is there technically a day and night in a Quantum Realm?) where all these crazy creatures circle around him giving the impression he is about to be tortured or killed. Cassie runs into the scene out of nowhere, a red liquid dripping around her mouth, and urges Scott to "drink the ooze". Alright, am I the only one that felt this scene was eerily similar to Star Wars: Episode 6 at the Ewok village? Yes? Okay then, I'll move past it. Scott drinks this red ooze the creatures give him and suddenly he's able to understand the many languages they all speak. They tell him they are rebels against this unnamed 'Conqueror' and he is definitely going to be searching for Scott and Cassie being newcomers to the realm.

The rebels are pretty generic characters. You have the female warrior with a cool staff that disintegrates foes (a lot of disintegration in this movie) but otherwise has no personality, a brute with a sun head with no other discernable personality, and an ooze creature obsessed with how many holes everyone has (I'm not joking) who I guess has a goofy personality, and then just cannon fodder all around.

Meanwhile, the Pyms barter for a manta ray looking thing that allows them to travel to what looks like a hotel rooftop bar to meet a mysterious figure from Janet's past when she was stuck in the Quantum Realm. Turns out, it's Bill Murray. I read a report that Bill Murray was really interested in joining the Marvel franchise, but you could never tell from his performance in this movie. I mean, this guy is SLEEPWALKING through his role. It felt to me that he was on set for a day, maybe two at most, and maybe had a Benadryl or two because he is snoozed out. Anyway, he reveals Janet used to be in a romantic relationship with him but instead of helping the Pyms he has sold them out to the 'Conqueror'.

The Pyms escape, and while on the way to find The Langs, Janet finally comes clean on her past in the Quantum Realm. She found a man named Kang (The Conqueror) who she thought crashed in the Quantum Realm and needed to repair his ship's core which would allow them to escape back to the real world. Janet helped him find the formula to recharge the core, but when they install it and she touches the fully powered ship, she glimpses into Kang's mind and sees that he was actually banished to the realm after going on a conquering spree where he murdered billions of people across different multiverses and timelines. She used the Ant-Man tech to explode the ship's core to a magnificent size which stranded Kang.

The rebel camp housing Scott and Cassie is found out and attacked by the Conqueror's minions and the duo are eventually captured by a flying, mechanical death machine with a golden face and miniature arms and legs. Yes, that's right, miniature arms and legs. So let's talk about MODOK...

I can't lie, the first time MODOK (Mental Organism Designed Only for Killing) pops his helmet off and reveals the stretched out face of Corey Stoll, I laughed. It is inarguably a funny sight and gag for a movie that is inherently supposed to be a comedy. Paul Rudd is at his comedic best in the moments when he talks with MODOK since he can play the 'holding back a laugh or joke' face extremely well. However, I think they go back to the gag waaaaaay too many times and it would have been better served for MODOK to have his helmet down more often than not to keep him menacing and seemingly dangerous. Instead, you never feel anyone is in real danger when he's around because of how ridiculous he looks.

Scott and Cassie are locked up when they first meet Kang the Conqueror, who details to them his master devious plan to shrink his ship's core to normal size with Scott's help, escape the Quantum Realm, and continue his conquering ways. Scott of course refuses, but upon threat of his daughter's death, he relents rather quickly and agrees to help. I do want to make a quick note that I love Jonathan Majors and think he plays a great character in Kang the Conqueror, perfectly captured in the Loki series, and if I wasn't so tired of this franchise I would be looking forward to seeing him more. Alas, I will stick to watching the upcoming second season of Loki and likely bail out from the rest.

Scott's mission is to shrink himself down to find the core of the massive ship's power core (yes, a core of a core) which creates what they call a "Probability Storm". How do I remember the term? Because they repeat it like six times in a five minute sequence. Scott beings to multiply into different versions of himself that would have existed had he made different choices in life, similar to the paradox of Schrödinger’s box and cat. However, we don't get wildly different versions of Scott, rather a million copies of the same version asking what is going on. Oh, and one in a Baskin Robbins uniform, a company that must be bankrolling these films for how much they reference it in a two hour runtime. It stopped being funny the last movie, enough already.

After enduring this sequence, Scott is able to shrink down the ship's core, but is betrayed by Kang (shocker) who steals the core without freeing Cassie and shuffles away to his grand kingdom to prepare to leave the Quantum Realm. The Langs and Pyms regroup, Hank reveals that a few of his ants were also sucked into the Quantum Realm, and prepare themselves to storm Kang's empire city. Something something something, they rouse the rebels in the realm, who cares who cares who cares, and they get to the city with Scott growing himself to a giant size and he breaks down the walls to Kang's kingdom.

Scott Lang and the gang (why hadn't I used that term before now?) face off against Kang and his millions of minions until they finally prevail when Hank Pym's ant army come to the rescue in a pretty cool ending battle. You see a glimpse of Kang's power as he disintegrates fleeing rebels, although conveniently doesn't kill the one with the cool staff as I'm sure they'll get some half-assed Disney+ show out of her, before he is overpowered by the army of ants and eventually destroyed along with his ship's power core.

And here we find two major issues I have with the ending of this movie:

Kang is defeated by ants

Kang the Conqueror is supposed to be the next baddie that will stretch the next several Marvel films in the same vein as Thanos. They spend the whole movie alluding to and then explaining that Kang has innumerable variants (clones, basically) across timelines but this version was so ruthless and awful that the others banished him down to the Quantum Realm. In my mind, he should be the one leading this multi-movie onslaught of trouble for the next generation of Avengers. And yet, he is defeated by Ant-Man, The Wasp, a teenage girl, and two older scientists with telepathic ants. How am I supposed to believe that this guy, or his clones, pose any threat to a collection of superheroes when he can't beat a couple of the lesser ones?

2. Scott's "Sacrifice" is immediately worthless

I thought the ending of this movie may actually work well and be impactful when Scott and Hope seemingly stay behind in the Quantum Realm to keep Kang from escaping despite the rest of their family jumping through a portal to the real world. However, after destroying Kang, it takes all of 20 seconds for the portal to be re-opened and Scott and Hope to escape. I don't know if they're planning on making more Ant-Man movies (I hope they don't) or keeping Paul Rudd around to pop up in future stuff as a cameo (I won't see it if he happens), but it would have been a perfect way to wrap up the character by having him live in this world with Hope. Instead, they ruin it and there is no emotional moment at the end of this after all.

Overall, I'm pretty much done with Marvel and this movie did nothing to reinvigorate my desire to stick with this universe through another dozen films, although I think the negative reviews around it are a little much and more representative of Marvel exhaustion rather than it being a terrible movie. The film is okay, but I wouldn't shit on it. The best word to describe it, and a word I've come to love in the last couple years, is Meh.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania - 6.0/10

#quantumania #antman and the wasp #antman and the wasp quantumania #antman 3 #paul rudd #evangeline lilly #michael douglas #michelle pfeiffer #marvel #phase 4 #modok #marvel mcu #avengers

[critical-chris]

Empire of Light (2022)

Empire of Light is the latest installment in the decades long trend of renowned filmmakers nodding to old cinema and the movie-going scenes of their past. Although the topic is one I can have appreciation for given the nostalgia of conjuring up images of your childhood, especially tied to movies which were such a big part of my growing up, these odes can be extremely hit or miss. When they hit they hit, like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or L.A. Confidential, but when they whiff they WHIFF, like The Fabelmans or Hail, Caesar.

Empire of Light is directed by Sam Mendes, a fantastic director who has created critical successes like American Beauty, Road to Perdition, and 1917. He even directed arguably the best installment of Daniel Craig's run as James Bond in Skyfall, although he is responsible for what I consider to be the worst Bond movie in that run Spectre. Actually, I'd put Spectre at a tie with Quantum of Solace as complete misfires and absolute messes.

Jarhead was another release that I was a big fan of despite the mixed critical reviews it received. I'm a sucker for a good war movie, and this combined with 1917 makes Sam Mendes a reliable creator in that space. I haven't seen Revolutionary Road, although I can't imagine it's a bad film considering it has DiCaprio and Kate Winslet teaming up again. All of that being said, I would be excited for any release with him at the helm considering the success and great movies he has released up to this point.

When I saw the trailer for Empire of Light, I had no clue what the movie would actually be about but expected a generic storyline against the backdrop of an old, glamorized movie theater. The biggest draw for me to this film was Olivia Colman, who is an excellent actress I first became familiar with in the British detective drama Broadchurch. I loved the first season of that series, and thought the second was solid albeit completely different, but I refuse to watch the third season since I have a bad feeling it won't be nearly as good. I just don't see what else there is to explore in that storyline after the second season.

I had plans to see this film in the theaters but ended up missing out when other movies took precedence in my mind. Unfortunately, the movies that took precedence ended up being mid in every way possible and absolute wastes of time. I'm looking at you The Fabelmans and Avatar: The Way of Water. Instead, I inclined my bed to a 45 degree angle, settled under my bed covers, turned out the lights, and set out to watch this throwback drama.

Empire of Light is the story of Hilary, a cinema manager at a dying golden-age theater in an English coastal town plagued by unemployment and prejudice. She is depressed and sticks to a daily routine to manage her feelings of loneliness and mental health issues while juggling an awkward and quiet affair with her boss Colin Firth.

The theater then hires a bright-eyed early 20s black employee Stephen to learn the tricks of the business while he yearns to leave this town where he faces racial prejudice and hatred from the locals. Hilary is immediately attracted to Stephen, and vows to teach him about the Empire theater, although she confesses to never watch the movies playing.

Sam Mendes knows how to shoot a movie, it's obvious. The simple lobby of the movie theater, auditorium with grand curtains, and seaside town are all captured beautifully and keeps your eyes glued to the screen for each succeeding image. There is a perfectly shot scene at a carnival that is so well established and paced that I was hooked for the rest of the movie, no matter where the plot went.

Stephen and Hilary end up hooking up, giving Hilary a newfound vigor and renewed interest in life. Stephen finds Hilary to be a comforting presence and reliable confidant after he is discriminated against in the theater lobby one day, and discloses to Hilary his experiences being racially profiled in the town.

Then comes a rather odd scene. Up until this point, Colman's character seems depressed but otherwise normal and even-keeled. Hilary and Stephen go to the beach and end up streaking for a bit before settling down and building a sand castle. Stephen asks her some personal questions and Hilary starts to have a breakdown, smushing parts of the sand castle with her hands while shaking and nearly crying when answering. During the movie, this felt strange and out of place, but after watching a bit more the reason becomes clear.

One of the other employees tells Hilary they know about her affair with Stephen and to look after herself "based on what happened before." We learn that Hilary had prior issues being rude to customers, staying late at the theater by herself and refusing to leave, and eventually was locked up at the hospital and "came back quieter." It is revealed that Hilary's mental issues run much deeper than initially revealed, especially when she makes a scene at a big film premiere important to keeping the Empire open.

Hilary tells Colin Firth's wife about their affair, Firth accuses Hilary of being a schizophrenic and unemployable, and the only reason she has a job is that Firth promised the hospital he would keep an eye on her. Hilary is then taken by the police from her apartment back to the hospital.

Some time later, Stephen has a new girlfriend and has learned more about the theater business. He encounters Hilary on a seaside bench, but she is clearly subdued and potentially drugged up from her stint in the hospital. Hilary returns to work and is welcomed back with open arms by her coworkers. Then a riot happens outside, and a handful of white kids break in and beat up Stephen half to death.

Hilary visits Stephen at the hospital, and the two connect again like before. He later reveals he has been accepted to university away from the city and is leaving the next day. Hilary is forced to accept the one person she connected to is leaving, and finally sits down to enjoy a movie at the cinema and it fills her with that same drive for life, and Stephen goes off on his next adventure. Roll credits.

I really enjoyed this movie, while understanding all the criticisms and mediocre reviews given to it online by industry critics and general audiences alike. The most frequent negative I noticed the movie receiving is there not being a single identifiable theme or through-line. Not to mean there aren't clear themes from the plot and scenery, the drawback here is more about the film's identity and it seemingly not knowing what message it is trying to convey. I can absolutely understand that criticism.

The underlying message in this movie is despite internal drags or horrors of the outside world and society, cinema and kindness can connect people in unique ways and form emotional bonds. At least, that's what I got from it. However, the message isn't quite clear until the very end when Hilary asks Toby Jones' character to play her a film, having never actually watched a movie at the theater she works at, and is filled with happiness and joy at the enormous projection. The movie bounces between a number of other topics and themes, so I can understand that Mendes doesn't exude this one clearly throughout.

I feel this movie was not done any favors by its marketing and trailer either. The advertisements for the film make it seem like a 2 hour devotion to regal cinemas (not the brand, just the term) of the past and importance of theaters to society. While that message is touched on at points, I find the movie to be more about community and the power of authentic human connection which can be fostered by watching and discussing movies. I think if this was advertised as the emotional drama it is, some expectations from reviewers could have been altered and resulted in more positive reception.

Empire of Light is worth the watch for Olivia Colman's performance alone. She plays every complex emotion incredibly, from the character's lowest points of grief, instability, and loss, to her highest highs of love, joy, and true happiness. My only issue with the writing here is that Hilary is never really given a redeeming moment. Sure, she discovers the power of movies, but never has a moment to come back from the breakdown and falls she experience throughout the film.

Michael Ward plays Stephen well too, capturing the pain of being discriminated and hope for his future outside of this small town. The rest of the cast is fine, playing small parts or coming in for a scene or two with a line here and there. Colin Firth makes no real mark in my opinion, besides two weird sex scenes with Colman that you want to be over with as much as she does.

#empire of light #olivia colman #sam mendes #colman #empire #movies #movie review #film review #film blog #movie blog

[critical-chris]

Knock at the Cabin (2023)

Guess who's back, back again. Shyamalan's back, tell a friend.

M. Night Shyamalan has returned to the big screen this winter with an apocalyptic thriller(?) to follow up his previous offering Old from 2021. This is the director's 15th feature film in a long career of ups, downs, and twists all around.

To qualify the following review, I am a massive fan of the thriller genre. For the longest time I did not watch horror movies and got my kicks from tense, dark mystery thrillers like Zodiac or A Walk Among the Tombstones (an underrated panned movie in my opinion). In fact, if you know of any good under the radar thrillers I should check out please let me know. That considered, you would think I'd be a fan of a filmmaker who has spent his entire career crafting mysteries in dark settings with god knows what hiding around every turn.

However, personally, I have not been a fan of M. Night Shyamalan's films for a long time. The last movie I remember liking of his was Split, and being immediately disappointed by the final installment of his Unbreakable trilogy with Glass, a complete mess from top to bottom that you could not pay me to revisit. Well, I suppose you could pay me but it's going to cost you a nice steak dinner at the very least. I like to be wined and dined before being bored senseless for two hours.

Split aside, I can break Shyamalan's career in my mind into two distinct parts: Fantastic First Watches, and Boring Bullshit.

*I have note seen Lady in the Water, The Last Airbender, or The Visit, so I won't include them (although I've heard the first 2 are awful)

Fantastic First Watches

This category encompasses most of Shyamalan's early successful work including The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village, and to some people Signs. I think Signs is a useless bore of a film with no tension, and would be unwatchable if Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix were not in it. Debate me if you'd like, but the movie is terrible.

The first three films I mentioned are where M. Night Shyamalan made his name and earned himself the right to make whatever he wants. However, none of these movies are worth multiple viewings. I really enjoy Unbreakable and think that may be the only exception, as it is always great to see Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson mentally sparring, but I wouldn't argue with you if you said you wouldn't need to watch it a second time. After the twist is revealed that Jackson is intentionally causing all the accidents throughout the movie on the off chance a superhuman exists, including the one that sparked Willis' journey to understand his hidden powers, you get it and you can move on without wondering how the movie would change if you re-watched with this new knowledge.

The Sixth Sense and The Village are both movies I have seen one time and have yet to desire seeing them another time. As with Unbreakable, once you know the twist the re-watch factor goes out the window. The Sixth Sense could be an exception for just a second watch I guess if you are looking for clues that Willis has been dead the whole time, but otherwise it's a slow burn drama with some creepy moments. The Village has no replay value to me. Holy shit, what a twist it was when you find out this village is hidden in a nature reserve and the leaders are essentially keeping their children trapped out of fear, but once I know there are just people under those red hoods why would I spend nearly two hours seeing it again? I won't, but at least these are all well-made films, unlike the next section of Shyamalan's career.

Boring Bullshit

The number of movies in this category for Shyamalan is staggering: Signs, The Happening, After Earth, Glass, and Old. These are all films that had me checking my phone to see how much longer I had to endure the drawn out, uninteresting plot and wooden dialogue.

I know a lot of people will disagree on my take on Signs, and I only saw it within the past year, but I find it boring, devoid of any tension, and ultimately unsatisfactory when the aliens finally show up. I don't think I need to mention my issues with the acting and story of both The Happening or After Earth. All I will say is oof, oof, oof.

Glass is an abomination, and one that stung so much deeper than the rest since I came into it with expectations. As I mentioned, I really like Unbreakable and Split, so the prospect of a trilogy-capping film pitting a near-human superhero and villian against each other by the proclaimed master of twists was exhilarating. However, what we got instead was a mish-mash of poor dialogue heavily featured and teasing an ending battle that satisfied nobody.

Old is exactly fine. The concept of people trapped on a beach that seemingly ages them at a rapid rate is interesting, but I'm not sure why Shyamalan treats the ending like a twist when he has made it obvious through the entire runtime. Also, foreshadowing a complaint I have for the latest release, I don't understand why Shyamalan feels he needs to cut away from violence in a horror film as much as he does. There is one particularly creepy scene here when Abbey Lee's body goes haywire, but otherwise everything you're waiting to see is stowed away off-screen. Part of horror is seeing the crazy shit actually happen, otherwise you can compartmentalize the crazy shit and it's not as frightening.

Anyways, I feel like I've spent too much time on the filmography of a director I'm realizing I will never be a fan of and should now focus on his latest offering, Knock at the Cabin.

Allow me to paint the picture. The movie opens with blurry, out of focus views of the woods, then one of our three protagonists Wen, played by Kristen Cui, a young girl catching grasshoppers outside of a cabin. Wen is then approached by a former wrestler stuffed into a short-sleeve buttoned down shirt, Leonard played by Dave Bautista. The camera claustrophobically keeps a close-up shot bouncing between Leonard and Wen's faces as Leonard befriends the small girl. Then, he says something creepy, and when Wen sees three other strangers approaching from behind Leonard, she fearfully runs into her cabin, revealing she is on vacation here with her two fathers.

Alright, I already have a problem here. M. Night Shyamalan has 14 films under his belt going in to this flick. Why are so many shots out of focus? And I don't mean one character is in focus and one is out; there are several examples of scenes in this film where the only thing in focus are the trees around the cabin even while characters are interacting, or the entire screen is literally blurry. WHY.

The fathers immediately lock all of the doors and windows (but for some reason don't close any blinds to the 200 clear glass windows in the place) to keep the intruders out. Leonard knocks (remember the title?) and tries to reason with them to let the four strangers inside, constantly referring to a 'greater purpose' that has brought them to the family's door.

The fathers are Eric, portrayed by Jonathan Groff (Mindhunter, Frozen), the sensitive weak and concussed husband, and Andrew, portrayed by Ben Aldridge (don't remember him from anything), the hot-tempered and uncompromising husband. They refuse to let the strangers in the house and proclaim to fight back after realizing all their phones and communication options have been wiped out by the intruders.

It takes all of five minutes effort for the four strangers to break into the house, Rupert Grint being beat to shit by Andrew as soon as he gets in, and eventually have the husbands tied up to chairs. Eric is knocked to the ground in the struggle to break in and suffers a concussion. The four intruders then line up in front of them, each in a uniquely colored shirt, with primitive staffs and tools in hand.

Right at this moment, the metaphor of these four individuals is clear. They have come to announce that the apocalypse is imminent, and they all have been chosen to carry out god's will. Obviously, they represent the four horsemen of the apocalypse referenced in the Bible. You know it, I know it, but Shyamalan thinks it's such a big secret that he literally has one of the characters say it out loud in the final minutes of the movie. I'm getting ahead of myself, but it really annoyed me that he had to be so on the nose about it.

The four horsemen tell the family they must choose one of the three members to be killed, but the strangers won't be the ones to kill them, it will be up to the other members of the family to carry out the sacrifice. Only this will stop the impending doom for the human race. Not only are the horsemen tasked not to harm the family, but they are going to kill each other one-by-one in order to 'release a plague upon the Earth'. Ughhhhhhhhhhhh.

Right there, you have removed all tension from the movie. I understand the threat is supposed to be the family causing the deaths of millions if/when these plagues are released, but the danger has now been removed from the cabin itself and only experienced on a television screen. Literally. Every time they ask the family if they are ready to decide who will be killed, are met with Andrew saying some form of "Go fuck yourself", and then executing one of their own horsemen, Bautista just turns on the news to show footage of a plague occurring in real time.

"But Chris, surely it would be scary when the strangers start killing each other in front of you." Yeah I guess, but you know from the jump they won't kill the family, so you are left with one of two conclusions to how the movie is going to go. Option 1: the four strangers kill each other until they're all dead, you find out they weren't telling the truth, and no harm no foul. OR Option 2: the four strangers kill each other until they're all dead, you find out they WERE telling the truth, and the family actually has to decide which of them they are going to kill. You would have to be the worst writer on Earth to make a thriller and choose option 1, so it is obvious how the film will pan out, and yet they have the stones to pretend like the ending is a twist.

The plot as the filmmaker has chosen to play out has no real tension and warrants no sympathy for our protagonists. After the second plague is released, a tidal wave that buries half of the West Coast, you are left with no doubt that what the horsemen are saying is true. this is like the halfway point of the film, and yet we are supposed to side with Andrew's angry selfish ass telling these strangers he'd rather see the entire world burn than admit what they are saying is true.

I could spend the entire blog talking about the plot holes in this movie, but will just run through my outstanding questions quickly here since they will never be answered-

What happens if the horsemen don't initiate the plagues? Would the apocalypse just never happen?

What is the reason for Rupert Grint's character being the one in the bar that assaults Andrew? Red herring? Why does Shyamalan think he can get away with a red herring in a plot so poorly thought out?

What is the reason for the flashbacks? They tell us nothing we don't already know about the characters by the time they come up, is it just for that song callback?

Here's something else that bothered me, this movie is rated R for absolutely no reason. This movie is also considered a horror movie, which makes no sense. The only true violence that happens in this film is when the horsemen execute each other in front of the family. Knowing this movie is rated R, you are expecting these executions to play out in horrific fashion, especially since the strangers all wield archaic tools and weapons. However, Shyamalan plays it like a PG-13 film and cuts away at each act of violence. You had the perfect opportunity to add a little shock to your movie and keep audiences on the edge of their seats by watching Rupert Grint's head get caved in, but like everything else in the movie you half-assed it. This is a glorified drama.

I suppose if I am forced to say something positive about Knock at the Cabin, I can commend Dave Bautista and the other actors for doing a fine, convincing job in their poorly written roles. You buy Bautista's sincerity, Grint's aggression, and Aldridge's passion. I hate that Rupert Grint went out as quickly as he did because I loved seeing him in the theaters again. Without them, this movie would be a complete drag.

Overall, I disagree with anyone referring to this as a return to form from Shyamalan, unless they are referring to the form he has held since 2005 which is characterized by unbelievable dialogue, thin plots, and underwhelming visuals. This is the definition of mid, and a complete waste of what could have been an interesting and engaging plot and cast. God I am so mad my time was wasted like this.

Knock at the Cabin - 5.0/10

#knock at the cabin #m. night shyamalan #m night shyamalan #shyamalan #dave bautista #rupert grint #thriller #horror #horror movie #horror films #apocalypse #film review #movie review #entertainment #film #movies #film art #movie art

[critical-chris]

Oscar Nominations: The Definitive Review

It's that time of year again, ya'll. Time for red carpets, drunken celebrities, painfully unfunny hosts and attempts at jokes, snubs and baffling awards decisions, and what I assume will be extra security between the main stage and whichever actor is seated front row: The Oscars.

The Oscars is pretty much a joke at this point, having awarded films that nobody thought needed to be lauded, dragging out a ceremony for 3+ hours, and fucking up the most important parts of their show (*cough* La La Land fiasco and Will Smith *cough*). However, it is the responsibility of every movie critic, reviewer, and blogger to discuss the nominations set forth by the Academy and breakdown where mistakes were made and where clear winners lie.

And so, I will be discussing the nominees for the four big categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Actress. Please read, laugh, disagree, or frankly skim through my comments below on the most(?) anticipated movie awards show of the year.

Best Picture

All Quiet on the Western Front

My third review on Critical Chris dove into the astonishing emotional impact this movie made on me, and realistic depictions of the brutality of war in the trenches. It served as a decent adaptation of the source material, and while I would not award it as the Best Picture of 2022 it was one of my highest rated movies of the year. Full review here: https://at.tumblr.com/critical-chris/all-quiet-on-the-western-front-2022/9q8vt9e5mrcq

I will also mention that the director and cinematographer did a fantastic job with the visuals in this movie. The battlefield exists in a constant fog, muddy and uninviting to the soldiers consistently trekking across its surface. After seeing the raw footage of some of the scenes, I was even more astonished by the job they did.

8.2/10

Avatar: The Way of Water

I've already thoroughly discussed my thoughts on the sequel to the smash success Avatar, which you can read here: https://at.tumblr.com/critical-chris/avatar-the-way-of-water-2022/y6oxab4d424m

While visually stunning and a technical achievement matching the original, the storyline is so bland and runtime so excruciatingly long that I cannot imagine why this would be in the Best Picture conversation. When you consider all parts of this film, it is average at best.

6.5/10

The Banshees of Inisherin

Like many others, I was a huge fan of In Bruges, and mistakenly went into this film expecting a pseudo-sequel to that dark comedy. While Banshees of Inisherin is a dark comedy, it is a completely different tone and plotline from its similarly casted predecessor.

Unlike some other reviews I have read, however, I very much enjoyed this film and thought it to be the best movie of the others in this category. While the plot is strange and takes some time to settle in, the commentary on civil war and civility strikes a chord, and Colin Farrell plays his part so well and injects charm and humor throughout the runtime.

I don't expect this movie to win Best Picture, and it was not my favorite movie of the year, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and will always buy a ticket to see what Martin McDonagh creates.

8.5/10

Elvis

Elvis was a movie of two halves for me. The first half felt like an acid trip mess, where director Baz Luhrmann tried to fit in as many crazy visuals and transitions while simultaneously telling the origin story of Elvis Presley's beginnings as a singer and performer. I really did not like it and was dreading the 2 hour 39 minute runtime if the trend continued. The second half, however, settled into a more traditional biography and showed the drugged, somber version of Elvis and drew me back in. I felt the second half of this move was excellent and would have been one of the best films of the year if the first half matched its pacing.

Due to my dislike of the first half, I wouldn't necessarily recommend this move. Austin Butler's performance was exceptional in my opinion, but the more I see of him I think he may just be playing Austin Butler. Overall, not a Best Picture movie but not a bad watch if you need to kill nearly 3 hours.

6.8/10

Everything Everywhere All at Once

Although I was late to the party and caught it at the end of its theater run, I really liked this movie. The story is well thought out and unique and emotional, the visuals are great and dynamic, and the performances are great. It was a breath of fresh air to find a new sci-fi movie that pushed the boundaries of the genre.

That being said, it is not a Best Picture movie. The ending drags on way too long and could have been chopped down and been more effective. This falls along the same lines as Top Gun: Maverick, in that the movie is entertaining and a great theater experience but is much more of a popcorn feature than an award-worthy picture. I highly recommend this movie, but would not have it as a winner for Best Picture. Also, Jamie Lee Curtis being nominated is just plain silly. It was a good comedic performance, but come on.

7.5/10

The Fabelmans

Yeesh, there are some stinkers up for the most coveted Oscar award this year. The Fabelmans is a baffling film to me. On one hand, there are some cool visuals and action scenes depicting how the fictional version of Steven Spielberg created his early home movies and short films. On the other hand is an absurd depiction of what I can only describe as an odd family life with each member feeling out of place and disconnected to the rest.

I understand the relationship between Sammy Fabelmans' mother and father is supposed to be straining and deteriorating, but straight up weird scenes like Sammy filming his mother dance in a see-through dress and Paul Dano's frankly robotic and emotionless performance left me cold. Plus, Sammy is just a bland character for half the film. The best moment is the final scene, and I was squirming in my seat waiting for it to finally arrive.

5.5/10

Tár

Tár was a film I did not expect to fully enjoy, but figured I'd be in for a powerhouse performance. Typically when I settle in for a movie around a complex subject I am completely unfamiliar with, I expect to get sidetracked with checking Instagram and Twitter and giving about 50% of my attention to what's happening onscreen. However, I was sucked in for the full 2 hour 39 minute runtime.

I found Cate Blanchett's performance to be more subtle than in your face, but was perfect for the plot and subject of the movie. The film jumps between drama, mystery, and at some points thriller in dissecting the life of a complex musical figure. It is a slow burn, but one I found worth it to see the insinuated dark side of the influence and power of a renowned conductor. This movie deserves to be nominated although I enjoyed some of the other movies more, and I would not be outraged by any means if it pulled off the win.

7.5/10

Top Gun: Maverick

I mean, come on. Other than winning a popularity contest with the American public against the other films in this category, the sequel to Top Gun should not be on this list. It was a good popcorn sequel with some cool fighter jet scenes and Tom Cruise doing his usual thing. Besides that, the movie is fine but not award-worthy. There's nothing more I can say about it.

7.2/10

Triangle of Sadness

From the moment I saw the first trailer for Triangle of Sadness, I knew I wanted to see it in theaters. It's becoming less and less frequent to have a comedy released that looks remotely competent, and to have a celebrated director at the helm (despite my not seeing any of his other films) boded well in my mind.

The movie is split into three main parts: the transactional relationship developing between Harris Dickinson and Charlbi Dean, the vomit-inducing yacht voyage, and the collective group survival after the yacht wreckage. The first two parts kept me engaged and chuckling at the snappy dialogue and commentary on modern relationships and the wealthy and attractive, but I found the third part to begin dragging and just felt too long. Each character is fleshed out well, the cinematography is excellent, and the direction is extremely well-executed.

The downsides I found were mainly in the length of the third act. While I found the plotline of Abigail becoming the alpha and leader over all of these powerful people in the 'real world' well done, and her own transactional relationship with Dickinson very funny and perfectly shaped, it just went on for too long. I think there is an incredible 2 hour movie here, but the extra 37 minutes was not needed.

7.5/10

Women Talking

I fully understand why this was nominated, it is the quintessential Hollywood artsy movie about a rough subject with actresses emoting all over the place. I, however, did not like it.

The ultimate conflict with two sides of women debating their options of whether to leave an abusive colony or stay and fight the men oppressing them sounds good on paper, but 10 minutes in it is obvious what their ultimate decision will be. Then, they spend an hour and 20 minutes debating the topic further in a barn with the occasional farm shot to break it up. I found it boring, predictable, and full of plot holes. The acting is good, but everyone is pretty set in their ways so there are only subtle character changes rather than developing arcs. Would never recommend someone to sit and watch this.

5.0/10

My Prediction: The Fabelmans

My Winner: The Whale

Best Director

Martin McDonagh, The Banshees of Inisherin

Martin McDonagh is becoming a staple at the awards, having previously been nominated for writing In Bruges, and writing and directing Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Here we have another fantastic achievement with an off-the-beaten-path movie about interpersonal and community conflict. I thought McDonagh did a great job directing the two main performances along with the unfolding side characters' plots and would be well-deserving of his first win as Best Director. I'm not sure where the Academy will land on the winner in this category, and likely will get it wrong on whatever they decide, but this would be an easy pick.

Daniel Kwan & Daniel Scheinert, Everything Everywhere All at Once

I was not familiar with any previous work of Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert before this film, and was impressed by the direction in this movie regardless of what their directing history may have been. When I saw their first true film was Swiss Army Man, it suddenly made sense why Everything Everywhere All at Once was able to capture emotion, goofiness, and dynamic storytelling so well. I think the Daniels, as they are nicknamed, are fantastic comedy/drama/adventure directors and made 2 movies I think should be future cult classics. However, this movie happened to gain critical acclaim and attention for awards season, which I don't think it quite lives up to.

It is a fun and moving science fiction romp with great performances and sequences, but ultimately runs too long and hammers you over the head with the message too many times for me to say it's a perfectly directed film. Sure, it's impossible to achieve perfection in anything, but I think the issues with this movie are too simple and glaring to overlook. I wouldn't be upset if the Daniels win the Best Director award, I just enjoyed a couple other directors' works a bit more this cycle.

Steven Spielberg, The Fabelmans

This movie being very personal to Steven Spielberg is obvious to anyone that has seen the film, or trailer honestly. I have absolutely no issue with a filmmaker who gave us all-time classics delivering a project that means the world to them. However, while well-shot and directed, this is just not a film I'd ever want awarded for anything. It's drawn out, misses the emotional mark on several accounts, and takes too long to give the main character much personality. For those reasons, I'm out on giving him the Oscar for The Fabelmans, but do fully expect him to be given the award by the skeletons who vote for anything that reminds them of when they were growing up.

Todd Field, Tár

I'll be honest, I have never seen any of Todd Field's other films. Apparently, he's been on a 16 year break since his last movie Little Children which came five years after his debut In the Bedroom. Regardless of not seeing any of his filmography, I thoroughly enjoyed his directing work in Tár. The movie is paced well, assuming you push through the first hour, and dives into multiple genres and emotional turmoil without losing a step or feeling clogged. He gets all of the subtle and raging emotion out of Cate Blanchett in telling the story of an artist dragged down by perceptions and reality of her personal life.

Yet again, I would not be upset if they awarded Todd Field with Best Director, although I doubt they will. It seems the Academy is always looking to applaud a mediocre film or one that appeals to their own interests or agenda, and Tár is neither mediocre nor the hot topic of the year. Unfortunate, as Todd Field is as deserving as anyone of this award.

Ruben Östlund, Triangle of Sadness

I haven't seen any of Ruben Östlund's other films (despite Force Majeure sitting in my watch queue for months), but was impressed and intrigued enough by Triangle of Sadness to plan on diving into his other works in the near future. I thought the film was beautifully shot and scenes well-directed, and the breakdown of the movie into three parts well thought out and executed. Although I thought the last third dragged a bit, he definitely deserves the nomination here.

My Prediction: Steven Spielberg

My Winner: Martin McDonagh (Honorable Mention: Darren Aronofsky)

Best Actor

Austin Butler, Elvis

Again, I'm not sure that Austin Butler was playing a character or if he just sounds like Elvis at all times. Echoing my thoughts on the movie, the first half of the film really makes it difficult to gauge Butler's performance since it jumps around so much and visual effects overload what's happening on screen, but the second half truly showcases the actor's great work. Do I think he'll win the award? No. Does he deserve it? Yes, he really is great in the role if not a bit too performative with his vocal expressions. If he were up against different competition I could see him sneaking this out, but the other actors in the category this year will overshadow Butler.

Colin Farrell, The Banshees of Inisherin

Holy shit, I love Colin Farrell. Not only in this film, but in general as well. He is an actor that I felt went from generic action and drama lead and really came into his own with powerful performances like In Bruges, The Lobster, Seven Psychopaths, and fun films like The Gentleman. I've become such a huge fan of his, and this film was no exception.

Farrell plays the simpleton with a heart of gold perfectly, a man who is so confused and unaccepting of the sudden coldness delivered to him by his former drinking mate Brendan Gleeson. His slow descent into meeting Gleeson's dislike of each other is not only paced well by the direction, but by the measured fading of Farrell's generous and loving spirit. This is one of my favorite performances by Colin Farrell, and is a movie I know I'll enjoy more and more upon second and third viewings (the first was muddied by my expectations of a In Bruges pseudo-sequel). I'd love for Farrell to take home the Best Actor award, but unfortunately this movie came out the same year as our next nominee, and my clear favorite.

Brendan Fraser, The Whale

This award, to me, is no contest. After seeing The Whale in theaters, I made up in my mind that I would literally have to see god incarnate on film to give anyone else besides Brendan Fraser the Best Actor award. After seeing all the films in the Best Picture category, and seeing each Best Actor nominees' performances, my mind has not changed. Fraser embodies his character both physically and emotionally, and pulls you in every direction from depression to joy to sorrow to redemption all in the comfort of his two bedroom apartment. Give him every fucking award you are legally allowed to give a man at one awards ceremony.

You can read my full review of The Whale, and the reason I have been emotionally broken ever since, here: https://at.tumblr.com/critical-chris/the-whale-2022/ufs0n0gcxnad

Paul Mescal, Aftersun

Aftersun was a film that I spent the full runtime waiting for the shoe to drop, only to be punched in the gut when the ending revealed the shoe was dropping the entire time. Its plot plays similarly to a Florida Project, where there is no real story timeline or actions you are following but serves as a slice of life. Only in this film, the ending reveals the slice of life is a piecemeal memory of a father who could not be understood in the moment until the daughter was old enough to relate to his struggles.

Paul Mescal plays the role perfectly, with subdued joy attempting to connect to his daughter on a weekend vacation while battling his inner depression lying just beneath the surface. His lowest lows are hidden in darkness when he steps into the night alone, and highs spent trying to make up for his perceived shortcomings in the daytime. I blubbered up at the end of the movie, thanks again to The Whale for ruining me emotionally, and while I think there are actors who moreso deserve the Best Actor award for their performances, Mescal cannot be overlooked for the great work he's done here.

Bill Nighy, Living

This movie was such a pleasant surprise. I went to see this movie this past week simply to check it off my viewing list so I could have an opinion on every nomination, but it was well executed, well acted, and well paced. Bill Nighy is a subtle delight, and the runtime flew past. I have not seen the film this was based off of, but this makes me want to go back and see it. I can't say this would be my pick for Best Actor, but I'm so glad this movie is represented in some fashion at the Oscars.

My Prediction: Brendan Fraser

My Winner: Brendan Fraser

Best Actress

Cate Blanchett, Tár

Upon writing this review, I realized I really need to watch more films with Cate Blanchett. I haven't seen any of her other top movies on IMDB including Carol, Blue Jasmine, or The Aviator. Well, I saw the first hour of The Aviator but was not in the mood for another two hours at the time. I'll revisit, I promise.

The main reason I'd like to go back and watch these films is the great performance delivered by Blanchett in Tár. In the movie, she plays a renowned conductor who finds herself in hot water when accusations arise from former students and pupils charging her with favoritism in her orchestra based on sexual favors. Blanchett plays each part of her story extremely well, from the knowledgeable conductor in interviews and conversations with colleagues, to the loving yet sometimes dismissive partner, and the manipulative teacher. The director and Blanchett equally take you on a journey of this character's highest and lowest moments, and I applaud both of their work making this one of the most interesting and best films of the year. I think she will take home the Best Actress award for this movie.

Ana de Armas, Blonde

Good lord god almighty, this movie was rough to sit through. I cut it off about a half hour early as it was just a spinning roledex of trauma scene after scene with no breaks, drama, or evolution of character or story. That aside, I didn't even think Ana de Armas' performance was incredible, although solid. I felt like I could hear the accent/voice wavering in certain scenes which took me out a bit, but otherwise felt she did a serviceable job. It's always difficult for me to align on awarding individuals if the movie is bad, and this movie stunk. I'll still see the John Wick spinoff starring de Armas since that franchise has yet to whiff, but we don't have a winner here.

Andrea Riseborough, To Leslie

Apparently this little film got a bit controversial when reports came out that there were some sneaky behind-the-back deals to get Andrea Riseborough nominated for Best Actess. Rumors aside, I think she deserves her nomination for a well done and emotional performance. The story follows an alcoholic woman who has squandered the lottery money she won years ago on booze and drugs, and now looks to make something of herself and reconnect with the family and friends she lost.

Riseborough plays the downs and small ups in this character's life well, and keeps you wondering if each scene will be her end or the triumphant start of her new beginning. Sure, the movie gets boring as hell in parts and I'm not sure what accent Marc Maron is doing scene to scene, but this is quintessential Hollywood award fodder, and not a bad film. I don't see Riseborough taking home the award, but she is more than deserving to be considered for it.

Michelle Williams, The Fabelmans

God this performance was exhausting. Michelle Williams is playing a wild free spirit who feels she was destined to be a star but it just didn't happen, and the performance matches that energy. Perhaps it was my disappointment in the film itself, or the fact she was acting against an absolute dud of a performance from Paul Dano, but I felt annoyed every time she had significant screen time. I would not be surprised if she ended up with a win, despite feeling most of the other nominees are more deserving, considering Hollywood's obsession with anything reminiscing on their golden days. However, I don't think she gets the win and the Academy would be correct not to do so.

Michelle Yeoh, Everything Everywhere All at Once

Of all the performances nominated for Best Actress, I thought Michelle Yeoh did the best job, especially considering she was asked to emote in various genres, scenarios, and characters given the nature of Everything Everywhere All at Once. Yeoh has had a long acting career, and it is great to see her resurgence in this film and for her to receive the widespread acclaim currently happening around this release. Despite the flaws I found in the movie itself, the stars really drove this story and made this my favorite performance by an actress in the crop of nominees.

The only other performance I saw this year that I thought was equally challenging and knocked out of the park was Mia Goth in the X prequel Pearl, who I thought deserved a nomination but am aware the Academy will never recognize horror as a serious category. Therefore, if Mia Goth is not represented, Michelle Yeoh is my winner for Best Actress.

My Prediction: Cate Blanchett

My Winner: Michelle Yeoh (Honorable Mention: Mia Goth in Pearl, whew)

Feel free to comment and yell at me if you disagree with any of my takes, winners, or personality. As always, you can follow me on Instagram and Twitter @chrisiscritical, or visit my website at www.criticalchris.com

#oscars #oscar nominations #oscar winner #oscars 2023 #academy awards #brendan fraser #stephanie hsu #film review #movie review #eeaao

[critical-chris]

Mouse Hunt (1997)

That's right, folks. Today we're talking Mouse Hunt.

I know what you're thinking. Why? When I've spent most of my reviews discussing recently released or relevant films, why would I suddenly take the time to watch and write about a forgotten 1997 comedy vehicle driven by Nathan Lane and Lee Evans?

Dollar, dollar bills ya'll. This is my first ever commissioned review, and the sick individual willing to cough up some cheese for Critical Chris had to hear my thoughts about Mouse Hunt. What an advertisement for my services.

I had never seen Mouse Hunt as a kid and frankly had never heard of the movie until college, when a friend of mine insisted that we take time out of our busy drinking hours to watch one of his beloved childhood movies. The same friend who spent prime weekend days clicking away at League of Legends, or whatever that stupid World of Warcraft ripoff is called, on his laptop at our kitchen counter. Like smart, intoxicated adults, we declined every time. Instead, we focused on finer films like Anchorman and Katy Perry: Part of Me. You know, classics.

I would classify myself as a Nathan Lane fan, but in the sense that what I've seen of his I have enjoyed and not that I've seen all of his movies. I loved him in The Birdcage, found him to be one of the only good parts of The Producers, fondly reminisce on the life he brought to Timon in The Lion King, and liked a few of his bit parts here and there. Lee Evans, on the other hand, I truly only remember from There's Something About Mary, but enjoyed his performance quite a bit in that movie.

For context on my state of mind going into this movie, I had just watched Aftersun for my upcoming blog on Oscar nominations and predictions, and was still wiping the remainder of the tears I cried at the ending when I decided I needed a pick-me-up. If you've seen Aftersun, and you should, you can understand that mentally I was in a very depressed space once the credits rolled. That movie kicks you in the gut when you least expect it. What better way to pull an emotional 180 than chase that film with a battle of wits between a couple bumbling buffoons and a rodent.

The setup for Mouse Hunt is simple enough: Two rather distant brothers reunite when their father, the proprietor of a string manufacturing company (because that's common), dies and leaves them not only the company but an aging and decrepit mansion. Oh, and he left them a piece of string. Nathan Lane plays a stubborn, indifferent renowned chef uninterested in his father's legacy unless it comes with a payout. Lee Evans plays a simple unemployed man with more of an emotional connection to his father who has recently been dumped by his controlling wife. Lane only desires to sell his father's company, while Evans sees an opportunity to continue the family business.

Both brothers are shocked to learn their father owned a mansion that is now passed down to them, and even more astonished that it ends up being the work of a historically renowned architect. The brothers cannot believe their luck as several magnates descend upon them offering fat checks and millions of dollar, dollar bills ya'll. There's just one issue, the house is occupied by a sneaky, relentless mouse. Oh, did the title give that part away?

There were some really brutal uses of outdated CGI effects through the film that reminds you the quality of movie you are watching. The setup of Nathan Lane inadvertently serving the overweight mayor a lavish meal with a cockroach inside, which had been hiding out in Lane's father's cigar box, was decent enough, but the cockroach itself looks like something made for Jaws 3D or a clay-mation project for film school.

However, I found Mouse Hunt to be funnier and better made than it had any business being. The opening joke of Nathan Lane criticizing his brother for not owning a black suit to wear to his father's funeral, and the subsequent gag of dropping the casket and sending their pops' corpse flying into a manhole, set the tone for the film. There were a handful of funny, well-executed gags and some good back and forth ridicule volleyed between Lane and Evans.

The joke of Lane and Evans rigging an insane number of mousetraps and accidentally trapping themselves in the same room hints at the gag to follow, and the mouse sending a cherry flying to set off every trap on the brothers is another great moment.

The scene where Evans is firing a nail gun into the walls in an attempt to kill the mouse in his territory, and seeing the grand interior destruction and mouse dodging the seemingly massive metal spikes, was fantastic. It not only has you sympathizing with the mouse, but gives some great disaster movie-esque effects. The same can be said towards the end of the film when Lane attempts to 'flush' the mouse out during their mansion auction by stuffing a running hose into one of the mouse's holes in the wall.

I had a funny feeling that we may have a surprise cameo in this move as well, and when CHRISTOPHER WALKEN enters this thing as a crackpot exterminator with an assortment of gadgets, it sent me over the moon. Walken is cranking up his schtick to an eleven, and has a funny moment when analyzing mouse droppings as he subsequently eats one. He, of course, is outsmarted by the mouse as well, but I loved his addition to the movie.

The other side characters are fine. Evans' wife, portrayed by Vicki Lewis, plays her part okay, leaving him at his lowest only to come back into the fray once she hears of his potential payout from the mansion, only to leave again when the mansion crumbles to dust. Maury Chaykin plays an eccentric millionaire obsessed with the famed architect offering absurd checks to Lane who dismisses him in favor of an auction to drive up their earnings. Everyone else is in the movie just for moments or are forgettable.

The ending was fairly cheesy (pun intended) as well. After the mansion crumbles and the brothers are seemingly left with nothing, they enlist the help of the mouse to convert their father's string factory into a string cheese factory. I suppose they had to come up with some happy ending, but I thought it was kind of a cop out to go with a play on string cheese. However, I probably couldn't think of anything better in 5 minutes, which I assume is how long the writer spent drafting the closing scene.

I don't want to praise the movie too much because, at the end of the day, it is a goofball comedy that is far from a classic. The laughs and gags provided do make it a much better comedy than you would expect by the cover photo and title, but don't go in expecting to find your new favorite laugh riot. Fans of Nathan Lane, however, should be pleasantly surprised.

In conclusion, thank you to my first ever paying fan for sprinkling a handful of singles into my bank account so I could take 90 minutes out of my evening to sit back, turn off my brain, and indulge in this comedy. I'd also like to mention that I was correct for all those years in college and beyond, and this was not a classic movie we were dismissing in favor of watching other movies or drinking our nights away in its place.

Mouse Hunt - 6.3/10

#mouse hunt #lee evans #nathan lane #christopher walken #comedy #comedies #prime video #oscars #oscar nominee #throwback

[critical-chris]

Bardo: False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths

I watched this Netflix movie so you did not have to, and you're welcome.

I am a big fan of Alejandro G. Iñárritu, despite only seeing about half of his films so far. I have on my docket to watch Biutiful and Babel, but absolutely loved Birdman of (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) and The Revenant and his directorial style of long panning shots and perfectly choreographed scenes.

I am not a big fan of Netflix, despite being an early proponent for their DVDs by mail and igniting the streaming boom. The last few years has been painful spending month after month searching the depths of Netflix for anything worth watching, and the major hits we became so accustomed to early on seem scarcer and scarcer.

It was a total surprise when I saw this movie on the 'Just Added' tab of the home screen one day, as I had no clue Iñárritu had a film upcoming whatsoever, not to mention going straight to Netflix. It dampened my expectations that this came out of nowhere, especially considering that I cannot think of many examples of a renowned director doing great work that skips theaters (Martin Scorsese and Noah Baumbach the exceptions.) Nevertheless, I saw down for this 2 HOUR AND 39 MINUTE stretch.

Bardo: False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths is the 2022 follow-up to Iñárritu's award-winning 2015 film The Revenant, and is what seems to be an exaggerated and self-reflective biography of sorts, but more of a visual representation of his inner conflict with fame, Mexican vs. American nationality, family, and aging.

That being said, I'm not going to spend this entire blog post breaking down each metaphor and trying to decipher the scenes haphazardly slapped next to each other. If that's what you're looking for, might I recommend reading a New York Times review of the movie? One with enormous words and descriptive praises of the blaaaaah blah blah. As mentioned on my website, I'm not a film critic and I'm not going to dissect a movie to that degree. I'm a regular moviegoer and am speaking from that viewpoint.

The movie follows renowned documentary filmmaker Silverio, portrayed well by Daniel Giménez Cacho, who navigates instances in his life that blur the line between reality and metaphoric representation. There's a thin through-line plot of his upcoming documentary being released and his traveling to America to receive an award for his work. However, for me, it felt like most of the movie was just self-contained scene after self-contained scene pasted together.

To set the tone for the rest of this post, I really disliked this movie. People in Hollywood make the joke referring to some directors' careers as 'doing one for them, and one for you' as a reference to making a profitable film for the studio and audience and making a personal film that appeals to their own interests. This is blatantly a movie Iñárritu made for himself.

I find that most present in the title itself. The definition of Bardo is "an intermediate, transitional, or liminal state between death and rebirth", which actually makes the film a little more clear after you research the term. That is, in my opinion, a failure of this film. I think anytime you have to do research outside of a move to understand the plot indicates the filmmaker has not done their job for the audience. Sure, you may be able to pick it up if you went to film school and study the themes in movies, but the average person is just watching the movie and trying to gauge its plot and emotion by what is provided.

The jumping from absurd scene to absurd scene also made it difficult for me to empathize, sympathize, or understand the plight of Silverio. He is portrayed well by the lead actor with charisma, indignation, regret, and a range of other emotions, but he's also enough of a prick that I wasn't rooting for him. It's also difficult to relate to him when you're always trying to figure out what's actually happening, what's in his head, and what's a metaphor for what happened in his life previously.

The more I think about it, fuck this movie. I get all the good points it makes, like pointing out the cleansing of history in modern depictions of war and international relations, inner struggle of retaining your heritage and adopting a new home, the two faces of Hollywood praising and ridiculing you at the same time, et cetera. Cool, but it's such a slow burn of scenes you don't care about, you feel every minute of the runtime, and when the credits roll I felt a relief that I didn't have to endure any more. Let's get on to the specific scenes I really disliked-

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

Okay, let's talk about the baby.

After a quick shot of a shadow of a man jumping extremely high in the air in the desert, we are taken to a hospital room where a woman is giving birth. The baby comes out, the doctors clean it up, and then they advise the mother that the baby actually doesn't want to stay born because the world is too shitty. No arguments there, baby. The doctor then... *ahem*... shoves the baby back inside the woman, squishing noises and all. WHY would you make us watch that? If this was a horror movie, I'd get you going for that kind of odd and slightly shocking moment, but this is a surrealist drama. I don't want to see that, but the baby gag doesn't end there.

Later in the film, Silverio is going down on his wife, and the baby's HEAD POPS OUT OF HER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT AND THEY SHOW IT. Why?? It's so weird and creepy and is such a hard right in the movie. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it. Shave down those 10 minutes combined and make this a slightly more watchable film.

Okay, let's talk about the host of the television show I refuse to remember or look up. Earlier in the film, Silverio goes on a tv interview talk show that his "friend" is hosting and imagines the interview going south and being relentlessly insulted. It is then revealed none of this happened and he actually no-showed the interview. Not a big fan of when movies do that, but whatever I can get past it.

Silverio is then confronted by the tv host at his documentary premiere party, and they have a LONG conversation where the host criticizes Silverio's work (in a painfully obvious metaphor for criticizing Iñárritu's work) and Silverio criticizes the television industry. It's boring, it's too long, and oh my god I don't care about any of it.

**END SPOILERS**

Some may find the surreal scenes in this film as entertaining, but I sure did not and in no world, realm, or purgatory would recommend ANYBODY watch this movie. The only person I can imagine would is Alejandro G. Iñárritu. I look forward to his next film which, hopefully, is one for them.

Bardo: False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths - 3.0/10

#bardo #netflix #netflix movie #Alejandro G. Iñárritu #Iñárritu #silverio #mexico #mexican #mexican american #surreal #movie review #film review #oscars

[critical-chris]

All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)

"Germany will soon be empty"

For a handful of years after college, I never read a book. I obviously had to read things in everyday life, but the most progress I made in any single book was getting halfway through American Psycho before putting it down for three years. By the way, that book gets batshit disgusting in the second-half stretch, and makes me shudder at the thought of a rat as much as the book our film of the day was based upon.

When 2022 rolled around, I thought about what resolutions I could pretend I'd follow through on. Exercise, diet, all the usual ones you give up by the Lunar New Year (January 22nd this year, I had to look it up). After looking at the near empty bookshelves in my office, I thought 'why not start reading books this year?' And a resolution was born, and I'm proud of myself for reading 12 titles total, one per month, before Christmas. My last book ended up being Stephen King's It. A book so thorough in it's set-ups, themes, and length (1100 pages, go fuck yourself Stevie) that it made me hate the 2017 movie adaptation and its sequel after revisiting them. For the record, I think the TV movie with Tim Curry is a better adaptation of that story.

I kept today's movie in my Netflix queue forever, waiting to get done with It and move to this title so I had a chance to read the 1929 novel before seeing the most recent adaptation (apparently there were 1930 and 1979 movies made about the book). 159 quick pages breezed by, and I finally sat on my bare mattress, with the sheets in the wash, to watch Edward Berger's 2017 offering.

When I was reading All Quiet on the Western Front, I realized I was becoming the very thing I rolled my eyes at for years: people who can't stop telling you how much better the book was than the movie. Even when I was a kid, I loathed the classmate that talked about how much better the Harry Potter series was than the films. Yeah, shithead, we all read them and yeah, asshole, they were mostly all more detailed and richer than the movies. Except Order of the Phoenix, yeesh that book is a slog to finish. Snooze city.

Therefore, I'm not going to spend much of this review talking about the differences between All Quiet on the Western Front (2022): the book and the movie. I'll save those points for the end if anyone is interested in reading the major ones I noticed. With that out of the way, let's get on to the review--

First, the movie is all in German (as it should be) so make sure you're in for 2 1/2 hours of intently watching this film. I have no idea if there is a dub available since I know Netflix likes to do that sometimes, but please don't watch anything dubbed. Just read the damn movie, it's so much better when you don't have to suspend belief when words don't match moving mouths.

This movie follows a group of bright-eyed, young adult German recruits enlisting in the army during World War I, sent to fight in the trenches on a path to Paris in what they believe will be three days long. They are subjected to the brutal, grim, unforgiving reality of trench warfare and beaten down from idealistic teens to emotionally dulled war fodder. It is realistic and critical of its depictions of combat, war politics, and loss.

I'm a big fan of war movies, and was always fascinated with World War II history like every young white boy who couldn't fight to save his life. However, I had not researched World War I as much but was fascinated with the release of 1917 and was looking forward to this film, expecting it to be another vicious depiction of The Great War. And fuck was this movie heavy and took a more Hacksaw Ridge approach to the violence.

The cinematography in this movie is perfect in my opinion. The trenches and battlefields are constantly muddy and fog mists down and blinds the viewer and soldiers from the terror hiding within. These scenes are countered with the warm-lit luxury of political leaders' offices far from the front lines, and French countryside. I've seen some complaints about the movie feeling dreary and depressing. Uh, yeah that's the point. Nobody claims Saving Private Ryan is too dreary because it's the fucking point.

The acting, all by German actors I've personally never seen before, is also great. I swear the lead actor Felix Kammerer who plays Paul is just the German version of the kid in 1917. Albrecht Schuch is fantastic as Kat, who ends up having the closest bond with Paul. Everyone else is decently well-rounded or just play their character trope before being horribly killed, frankly.

I liked the addition of the political storyline headed by Daniel Bruhl negotiating Germany's terms of surrender (although refusing to say it). I thought is was a good underline of the movie's theme that government and politics think of soldiers as means to an end and second priority to their own desires.

There's nothing I can really mention that could have been done better in this movie. While it was an important part of the book, maybe they didn't have to show the scene of Paul stabbing the French soldier half to death and watching him die in a crater. That could have taken the 2:30 hour runtime and cut it down to 2:15 by cutting that alone, which is a bit more palatable of a runtime. I'm annoyed by the recent wave of movies with 2:30+ runtimes that really have no business being that long. Marvel, I'm looking at you in particular.

Overall, this is a very successful war film, a decent adaptation of the source material, and a movie I'm sure will garner a few awards.

All Quiet on the Western Front: 8.2/10

Now, for those of you interested in differences between the book and the movie, and what I thought of their choices, here we go-

The major difference I noticed is the removal of the plotlines where Paul goes on leave to visit his family and when he serves as a prison guard, and when he and Kat lie in the hospital. Instead, they have written out the political storyline of the generals hammering out details of surrender, and giving background on the mustached general who eventually sends off the troops on a fools errand at the end of the movie. Personally, I liked the political storyling to emphasize the disconnect between the government and it's soldiers, but I think the book did it the better way.

In the book, it shows not only the disconnect between the leaders and men, but also the soldiers and their families, neighbors, and fellow citizens. They've been through so much shit they can't function normally in society, and begin feeling sympathy for their captured enemies. I think that would be a bit more interesting than the film's choices. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you do so.

#all quiet on the western front #book #book adaptation #differences between book and movie #differences between movie and book #edward berger #netflix #netflix movie

[critical-chris]

Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)

AKA Avatar: Wait oh Why is it 3 Hours??

Let me take you back to a simpler time, before reality stars were political figures, a decade before a virus shut down the entire world, and when James Cameron was known for directing Titanic, and sequels debated to be better than their predecessors: 2009

When the first Avatar film was released, I was fairly excited given the massive visual undertaking and filmography of its director beforehand, not to mention the positive reviews pouring in from critic and popcorn movie-goer alike. I was also 15 years old, so my childlike wonder had not yet been diminished by adult life (rent sucks, am I right). However, when I finally saw the film, I was left cold.

The visuals were stunning, don't get me wrong, but I felt no connection to any characters and found the storyline recycled and stale. I would have given the movie about a 6.5/10, and have only revisited it once while it was playing on television since. I wasn't surprised there were multiple sequels greenlit given the profits the first film made, but I didn't think this was a series or universe I cared to spend that much more time in.

When the release date for Avatar: The Way of Water was announced, and subsequently the trailer was released, I knew I'd see it in theaters (which really is a must for a flick like this) but maintained my same disinterest in the continuation of the original's storyline. Then, when the film was finally released, I became surprised at the positive reactions to the plot in addition to the graphics. All of a sudden, I had newfound hope that this sequel could one-up its predecessor and become a new regular in my sci-fi movie rotation.

Now, I have a real distrust and dislike for Disney based on how they treated the new Star Wars movies and series (I do love The Mandolorian, however) and the fact they're buying out every studio and content producer I once loved. Based on that dislike, I decided to wait a handful of weeks to see this movie so as not to give them the satisfaction of the immediate return on their investment in this series. I realize they don't give a shit, and my $0 paid for this viewing in particular due to my AMC Stubs membership is like handing them a crisp $5 bill, but we have to pretend we have principles. I finally got my ticket, grabbed a large popcorn for myself and myself ONLY, and strapped in for a 3 HOUR AND 12 MINUTE adventure.

I will start with the obvious positive about the film. The visuals are absolutely insane. It is stunning, hyper-realistic, and the most seamless CGI film you will ever see to date. I honestly don't know how you could make a computer-generated movie or game that is more lifelike than Avatar: The Way of Water. It reminded me of all those video games you pop in, and see a cutscene that is so above and beyond more true to life than the actual gameplay. This whole film plays like one of those cutscenes but even better.

The Avatars look like they could be standing right in front of you, the water feels like it is going to splash in your face like being near an out of control toddler on a summer day at the water park, and the action makes you squirm out of the way lest you be bitten by a viper shark whale or whatever the hell you want to call that thing that attacks Lo'ak (the middle son, I had to look up his name). There are only a couple spots that you can really tell this planet is not a place you can take a quick spaceship journey to see.

My favorite sequence occurs with about an hour to 45 minutes left in the movie, and stretches until there are about 15 minutes left. The whale hunting scene right into the final battle between Sam Worthington and his sea peeps and clone Quaritch's goons are peak Cameron action set pieces that keep you engaged and fascinated. Awesome, awesome, awesome.

And with that out of the way (of water), let's get to the gripes. (Spoilers Ahead)

Gripe #1: The New Characters

This movie introduces a whole slew of new characters, most of which I felt were rather flat despite the amount of time dedicated to each of them. This includes Sully and Neytiri's children, the whale hunters, the sea people, and a whale. Yes, a whale.

Sully and Neytiri have 4 children: the eldest son Neteyam, the middle child Lo'ak, their youngest daughter Tuk, and their adopted daughter Kiri who it is implied was immaculately conceived by Sigourney Weaver who only reprises her character in flashbacks. However, Weaver also plays the daughter which I found really odd considering she's supposed to be teenage but sounds like a fully mature woman.

There is no real attention payed to Tuk other than the parents constantly tasking the elder children with protecting her. The eldest son is painted as the brave and good kid who is scolded for letting their shithead middle son act like the rebel he is. Other than backing up his siblings among the family and tribe and acting brave, he's given little to do until he catches a stray bullet because they had to kill one character to get an emotional moment in the first climax.

Lo'ak follows the typical middle child storyline of always falling short of proving himself and being misunderstood by everyone around him. He forms a bond with a mutilated outcast whale I refuse to look up the name for that the others berate him for because even the whale is misunderstood. Snore.

The kids from the sea people tribe are all standard tropes as well, the older kid being stubborn and unaccepting until the new kids prove themselves, the middle kid with the Lil Mosey haircut who is stubborn and unaccepting until the new kids prove themselves, and the daughter who likes the middle child and is the only one who understands him and has a crush on him. Snore.

The patriarch and matriarch of the sea people tribe are your standard tribal chief and shaman characters (I'm not sure why they felt they needed to pay Kate Winslet to be in this role because the character doesn't resemble her at all). All of Quaritch's henchmen are standard goons that are picked off one-by-one in the climactic scenes. Jemaine Clement pops up in this movie as a scientist, but is given little to do and gets off really no jokes which begs the question of why Clement was cast.

Gripe #2: The Monkey Boy

I had to dedicate an entire section of this review to the character of Spider... Holy shit, this was PAINFUL to watch. Right off the bat, when I look at this kid all I can think is that the actor portraying him is Tekashi 6ix9ine without the face tattoos. And here are pictures of them both for reference:

There are about 19 examples of him screaming or hissing at Quaritch and his posse of merry men that made me laugh out loud for how unbelievable and frankly ridiculous they were. Whenever he's on the screen I wish he wasn't. The journey they put him on of reluctantly trying to connect with an Avatar clone of the villain from the first movie, and father he never met, feels hollow and seems to only serve as a means for Quaritch 2.0 to survive at the end. After spending 2.5 hours hating his father's clone and everything he does, he rescues him from drowning only to perform another cringeworthy hiss and swim away. Pardon my Na'Vi, but that was just fucking awful.

Gripe #3: The Storyline

The basic plotline of the movie is that the Sky People (humans) return to Pandora and have made an Avatar clone of Stephen Lang's character who is sent to hunt down Sully, who lives peacefully now with Neytiri and their 3 kids. In order to spare the rest of the tribe from potential death, Sully takes his family to the sea people to hide out and learn the ways of the tribe. Wouldn't you know it, the sea people don't accept them at first but through conflict they learn to live and fight together!

SNOOOOOOOOOZE

The amount of time spent on the sea people mocking Sully's family for not being good swimmers or pulling teenage pranks on each other and infighting is a feature length film itself. It is so painfully slow it removes all excitement established at the beginning of the film when Quaritch's team is hunting Sully's family through the forest. The underwater scenes are cool to look at, but great visuals can only keep me distracted for so long until I start getting impatient by the 3rd example of the sea people teens saying 'Oh look how dumb the newbies look doing the thing we're all so good at.'

Then there's Lo'ak's whale friend. The first time Lo'ak is saved and converses with the mutilated deformed whale through half-ass sign language, I went to the bathroom thinking I might miss some plot building but was willing to take the chance anyways. When I got back, there was another scene playing out exactly the same with the same information being told to the audience. For gods sake, GET ON WITH IT. If you're giving me a 3 hour+ movie, all scenes need to have impact individually, I cannot tolerate retreading the same dialogue over and over again. Honestly, they could have removed 45 minutes from this thing at the very least and would not lose a bit of tension, meaningful dialogue, character-building, or world-building they were looking to achieve.

As mentioned, the Spider and Quaritch side plot is so forced and unnatural it only negatively impacts the overall story in my mind. the Sigourney Weaver character clone is strange and never really clicks to me either. And they overdo it with the middle son's whale friend throughout the second half of the film.

They also shoehorn in a plot point around the motive for the whale hunters. Apparently, the little vial of yellow juice they extract from the whale's brains can be used to stop human aging. WHAT? Where was this in the first movie? They state this discovery is one of the sole reasons the humans are setting up shop on Pandora given the monetary value of such a substance, but it is conveniently never mentioned until the 2 hour 30 minute mark of the sequel movie. Good lord guys, way to bury the lead.

This also may seem nit-picky, but this is why you come to Critical Chris for your review. The movie is frankly over-narrated by Sam Worthington. There are a few instances where Worthington's character is telling us what is happening literally while they are showing us everything we would already need to know. "They accepted us into the tribe and their family." Yeah, we fucking know dude, we just watched a whole ritual of them making you swim-people (I refuse to look up the name of the sea folk). Right there is another 5+ minutes you could've chopped off this thing.

Overall, while the movie's visuals are a spectacle that deserve to be seen on the biggest screen possible and in 3D if available, the story is so unbelievably boring and unoriginal that I cannot recommend anything beyond one watch of this grueling marathon of a runtime.

Avatar: The Way of Water - 6.5/10

There’s something to be said about consistency

#avatar #avatar way of water #sam worthington #zoe saldana #stephen lang #james cameron #way of water #pandora #movies #movie review #film review #blogger

[critical-chris]

The Whale (2022)

“Who would want me to be part of their life?”

-             -             -             -

If you asked me in 2021, before I knew this movie was being made, I would have told you I was a Brendan Fraser fan.  I had multiple movies he starred in on repeat as a kid, including the Mummy, obviously, and (borderline ashamed to admit it) Looney Tunes: Back in Action.  I figured he retired or was forgotten by Hollywood for several years due to his lackluster films in the late 2000s and early 2010s, but when I looked back at his filmography the only real stinker I noticed was The Mummy 3: The One Where They Go To China.

The most recent film I remembered him from was No Sudden Move released in 2021 on HBO MAX where Steven Soderbergh thought shooting an entire movie with a fisheye lens was a good idea.  That film was exceptionally average, although I love Benicio Del Toro and seeing Brendan Fraser, albeit huskier than in my childhood, was a pleasant surprise.

When this movie was announced, and specifically Fraser’s role in it, I could not have been more excited.  I had just watched Black Swan and The Wrestler for the first time, fantastic and unique films, and was eager to see the next Darren Aronofsky project.  When the title The Whale was announced, I thought there had to be some boating plotline or some shit, and assumed there had to be some deeper meaning to the title other than Fraser’s character’s weight.  And good lord in New Life heaven when the final minutes unfolded, and the title took on its full meaning, I had to bury my face into my jacket to avoid sobbing out loud in a half-full theater. 

The Whale is about Charlie, a morbidly obese, reclusive online English teacher confined to his apartment not only by his extreme weight, but a clear feeling of grief and shame.  He is suffering from an almost certain terminal heart issue and is assisted by his seemingly years-long friend and nurse Liz, a heartbreaking but honest portrayal by Hong Chau.  The polarity of her tragic struggle later revealed is captured by her performance impeccably throughout.  Facing the inevitability of his habits, Charlie attempts to reconnect with his daughter he has not seen in nine years. 

I’d rather leave the plot description there to allow anyone reading this review the opportunity I had, walking into this movie near blind to the plot and themes.  Every character is absolutely necessary since there are only a handful in the entire film. Even the minor subplot of the daughter and missionary’s conversation, which during the movie I thought was unnecessary, ends up tying together so nicely at the end that it was worth the speedbump to Fraser’s struggle.  If you have not seen this movie, I strongly urge you to do so before reading the rest of this review, even though I avoided spoilers except where marked.

The fact the entire movie occurs in Brendan Fraser’s apartment, except for two seconds-long flashback scenes to a beach, and can drive the plot at a great pace speaks to Darren Aronofsky’s skill as a director. He is quickly rising up the ranks of my favorite directors with now three classics in my mind (Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan being the others, with a special shoutout to The Wrestler).

I do apologize for the somber and genuine review with few jokes to keep you reading this long, but this was a movie that taps into your raw emotions and left me with little to joke about. I had to hold back from crying even more when thinking about the film in my car after leaving the theater.  See this movie, in a theater if you can. I think every movie should be seen in a theater ideally (except Amsterdam, you can watch that bullshit on an iPOD Mini) and this is no exception.

One random guy walking out in front of me said, “That was fucking exceptional,” and I couldn’t agree more.  Emotionally gutting. This is now battling it out with Black Swan for my favorite Darren Aronofsky film.

In closing, this is the best movie I’ve seen all year. Brendan Fraser HOLY FUCK take all the awards.

The Whale - 9/10

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

Okay, I can do my emotional dump here with the list of everything I cried at that I remember:

When he forces the missionary kid into telling him he finds him disgusting, welled up

When Brendan Fraser says “Who would want me to be part of their life?”, bawled

When Fraser tells his ex-wife he just wants to do one good thing before he dies, , accepting his responsibility in leaving the family, her, and his daughter- sobbed

Literally the last 30 minutes, wailed crying into my sleeve

When they reveal the writing he’s been reciting all movie as his only source of calm and happiness is from his daughter, it was like fire hydrants had been popped at the corners of my eyes. That shit devastated me

#the whale #darren aronofsky #brendan fraser #fraser #whale #hong chau #sadie sink #aronofsky

[critical-chris]

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)

In the last quarter of 2022, I decided to switch up the nearly year-long horror movie binge I embarked on to catch up on all the fright flicks I had avoided for so long.  I’m sure you can imagine, but taking in over one hundred films in a genre full of gruesome images and deaths, themes, and often uneven storytelling (which is a kind way to say Friday the 13th: Parts 5 ��� Manhattan played like there was no script) can get a bit tiring.

When looking for my next movie viewing challenge, I realized I had missed out on so many films from renowned directors.  I claim Quentin Tarantino as my all-time favorite director but had never seen his grindhouse homage Death Proof, or applauded the work of Stanley Kubrick but had never watched his self-proclaimed legacy stain Spartacus. Therefore, I began to seek out the movies making up gaps in acclaimed directors’ filmographies to catch myself up.

Inside Llewyn Davis was released in 2013, starred Oscar Isaac, and was directed by the Coen Brothers (Ethan and Joel, but if you’re reading a move blog and didn’t know the brothers’ names you might wonder if you’re wasting your time here).  I’m a fan of Oscar Isaac, and feel he’s able to take on various characters and I buy it almost everytime. The only exception is whatever the f**k he was doing in Moon Knight. I’ve only seen the first 2 episodes but that accent is going to keep me away from the remaining six. At the time of this film’s release though, I would have only known him from Drive (love) and Body of Lies (oof).

The movie follows Isaac as a struggling, couch-surfing folk singer in 1960s Greenwich Village. The movie opens with a couple minute scene of Isaac singing and strumming his acoustic guitar at one of his repeat stomping grounds the Gaslight Café.  It is one of those scenes that grabs you immediately and lets you know you’re in for a good time. It sets the tone and grit of the film, and the punch Llewyn takes in the back alley after the performance lets you know quite literally the hits he’ll be taking.

The acting in the film is perfect, with Carey Mulligan delivering a fantastic payoff for why her character is so seemingly abusive to Llewyn throughout most of the film, and some great characters along the way. I had no idea Justin Timberlake was in this movie, but he’s good and I am never mad to have a little JT in my motion pictures. Oh, and there’s a cat too.

There’s not much else I can say about the movie, it’s another notch on the Coen Brother’s belt of great films that I’ll recommend to anyone that can stomach a good drama (AKA not my dad).  I’d personally put it right below The Big Lebowski and right above Raising Arizona (which I saw late and don’t have the reverence for it that so many do).  If you haven’t seen it, check it out and let me know how wrong I am for every opinion I’ve stated here.

Inside Llewyn Davis: 8.0/10

#coen brothers #joel coen #ethan coen #oscar isaac #inside llewyn davis #llewyn #carey mulligan #john goodman #folk #greenwich village