Review by Camden Ferrell Jimmy Warden is a name you might be familiar with as he was the writer of Cocaine Bear, which became a bit of a cultural phenomenon and box office success in 2023 due to its absurd premise. Now, it seems he has earned himself a shot in the director’s chair with his newest movie Borderline, which he also wrote. He doesn’t break any new ground as far as horror stories about celebrity obsession go, but he does infuse his own brand of eccentricity and outlandish humor to mixed effects. Sofia is a pop superstar, and Duerson is a dangerous and delusional stalker who thinks they’re in love. When he breaks out of his mental institution in order to put on the wedding of his dreams, Sofia finds herself in an intense fight for survival with a man who is as unpredictable as he is passionate. Immediately, comparisons to Misery and other works may come to mind, but Warden definitely has a unique tone that he brings to help differentiate the story beneath its surface. Warden’s script is probably what I found weakest about this movie even though I would say it worked more than it didn’t. It feels incredibly conventional in its narrative, and while it has a few curveballs, it doesn’t feel daring or unpredictable enough for a film in this genre. On top of that, it gets very close to diving deeper into its cast of characters, but he always seems to pull back before anything substantial can emerge. It’s a short movie, and I think a few more minutes of character development could have done wonders for the final product. One thing that I can say about the performances is that they are committed for better or worse. Samara Weaving is a reliable horror protagonist, and this movie is no different. She has natural charisma for this type of role even if it isn’t much different than what she’s done in other films. Ray Nicholson co-leads as Duerson, and he definitely gives maximum effort in his role. It teeters between caricature and genuine insanity in a way that is messy but ultimately quite interesting to see. It’s hard not to watch him and think of his dad, but it’s clear he’s trying to forge a unique and bold niche for himself in this film.
The aspect I was most impressed with was Duerson’s direction and the surprisingly gorgeous cinematography of Michael Alden Lloyd. There are multiple scenes, shots, sequences, etc. where these two artists work together to achieve their vision, which is quite captivating. It seems like there was love and care in the way they visually crafted this story, and it helps overcome to movie’s flaws occasionally. I think Warden’s direction in this movie proves that he has something special inside of him and that even if it’s not fully developed yet, he’s someone we should keep an eye on. Borderline may not be the best its genre has to offer, but there are inklings of brilliance shining throughout in various aspects. It may be occasionally inconsistent in tone, and it may also adhere to strongly to narrative convention, but this movie cannot be accused of being passionless. It’s very clear that everyone working on this truly gave it their all, and it’s a bit of a beautiful mess in that regard. Borderline is in theaters and on VOD March 14. Rating: 3/5
0 Comments
Review by Camden Ferrell Steven Soderbergh is one of the most prolific American directors working today, and it’s no surprise considering how vast and frequent his output is. Black Bag is his second wide theatrical release of 2025 (even though we’re not even a quarter of the way through the year), and it’s yet another notch in his ever-growing belt of filmmaking prowess. This thriller film boasts a steady hand from Soderberg, strong and committed performances, and one of the best scripts of David Koepp’s illustrious career. George works for a high-profile intelligence agency, and he is tasked with finding a leak in the agency. The people in question are colleagues, friends, and even his wife Kathryn. What ensues is an intense and riveting story with twists, turns, betrayal, deception, and romance all twisted together. The plot itself isn’t anything new and borders on relatively basic narrative surrounding a McGuffin-y device that is being sought after by Russian agents. However, where this movie really shines is by diving deep into the interpersonal relationships and emotions that drive the cast of characters throughout the movie. Koepp has made a name for himself writing for some of the most iconic franchises in film history like Indiana Jones, Spider-Man, and Jurassic Park. One might look at his resume and assume his best years are behind him, but his two most recent efforts with Soderbergh prove that he is far from finished and has exciting ideas and characters to share with the world. This movie seamlessly blends espionage thrills with great character studies sprinkled throughout, and it makes the film much more engaging and gripping. In addition to the character development, Koepp has some undeniably witty and insightful dialogue that serves as the engine to this steadily powered train of a movie. This movie’s ensemble is a definite highlight in a movie where so much already works. Michael Fassbender leads the film as George, and he brings a very calculated and smooth energy to his character. It’s such a steady and stoic performance that makes his brief moments of catharsis (even in the slightest sense) so much more tangible and impressive. Kathryn is played by Cate Blanchett who could probably have phoned it in and still been exquisite, but she definitely brings her A-game yet again. She plays well off Fassbender and is exactly what balances out their interesting dynamic. The rest of the ensemble is rounded out with players like Tom Burke, Marisa Abela, Regé-Jean Page, and Naomie Harris who are all equally impressive in their respective roles.
Soderbergh once again wears different hats as director, editor, and cinematographer, and it never feels like he’s spread thin. It’s a cleverly shot movie (although the aggressive washed-out lighting was hit-or-miss), and it’s such a meticulously blocked film in a way that feels distinct to his sensibilities. It’s not as innovative as his other movies, but he still makes it feel like something you haven’t seen before. Black Bag is a gripping film that breezes past you in an instant. It grabs you from the start and doesn’t loosen its grip until its final moments. It’s a raw glimpse into a group of deeply flawed and human individuals in the midst of a high-stakes situation. It’s also another stark reminder that this writer/director duo are still putting out some of their best work. Black Bag is in theaters March 14. Rating: 4.5/5 Review by Borja Izuzquiz Flying Lotus has more than earned the title of visionary. Having Coltrane blood undeniably helps, yet Lotus has carved his own path from musician to filmmaker, offering his own brand of creations along the way. Sometimes, however, being a visionary is a two-edged sword. In the case of his latest directorial feature Ash, some of the worst tendencies of his creative genius shine through. Ash is filled with moments that want to defy convention. Every moment looks to warrant a reaction, whether it be repulsion, scares, or aural and visual confusion. Up for debate though is how much context it all adds. With most of the opening sequences building up to jump scares, the effect becomes old quick. The blistering sound design keeps most dialogue muted, while the visual palette sways between too few creative ideas and uninspired imagery. To say it is a disappointment is a massive understatement. From what has come to be expected from Flying Lotus, Ash curiously feels like a film that was reeled in from its bolder creative ideas. Its main character Rya (Eiza González) is the lone survivor of a space mission to planet Ash. After an introduction filled with gory clips, the film cuts to Rya lying on the floor, covered in bruises and blood. Something terrible has happened, yet Rya has a tough time remembering what has happened. Clues are afforded by bloody bodies and flashbacks Rya experiences as she investigates her surroundings. The film’s plot revolves around Rya piecing together what happened. Given that the results are already known via the gory remnants, Ash struggles to make any of it compelling. The action has already happened, making it a challenge to patiently wait for a not so surprising reveal while an obnoxiously loud soundtrack threatens to rupture eardrums. It isn’t until a mysterious visitor named Brion (Aaron Paul) arrives that something interesting looks like it may be stirring the pot. Even then, the results are lackluster. As the film progresses, character choices become more confounding. Rya has little motivation for wanting to stay behind, even when Brion is the only way for her to leave the spaceship and survive. Yes, Ash does take time to establish the camaraderie between her and her fallen team, but when the outcome for wanting to find out what happened is death, the purveying feeling is that the film is making excuses to extend runtime and artificially create drama.
Despite this, positives can be found in some visual and storytelling choices, even if these are scarce. When practical effects are used, these prove to be effectively repulsive. Scenes involving planetary occurrences and creepy monsters exude a unique flair. The bulk of the film, however, occurs in dark confined spaces that don’t share the same artistic quality. Given that the film has already demonstrated an ability to unleash creatively, the reluctance to push the limits homogenously proves to be frustrating. As for the plot, the reverse murder mystery lacks the substance to merit interest. However, despite the story’s weak foundation, screenwriter Jonni Remmler does respect the characters enough to provide some context that moves the plot forward amid its repetitive nature, even though not enough time is spent with them. Ash implores viewers to experience it rather than watch it. But when much of the plot is revealed through exposition, and the psychedelic qualities it revels in fail to permeate throughout, the desired reactions are not earned. Instead, Ash becomes an uncomfortable and obnoxious watch without any true purpose. The long lineage of classic space horror gets momentarily interrupted here, as Lotus provides little reason to care about any of it. Ash is screening at SXSW 2025 in Austin, TX. Rating: 2/5 Review by Camden Ferrell After the long and illustrious history of Looney Tunes, it’s quite surprising that they had previously never had a fully animated film released theatrically until this year. The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie was released last year in order to meet 2024 awards eligibility criteria but is now getting a proper wide release in theaters across the country. This animated movie is a fun story full of enjoyable animation and visual gags even if it doesn’t feel particularly inventive or always worthy of a feature-length runtime. Porky Pig and Daffy Duck are in dire need of money to fix their roof to prevent their property from being condemned. On top of this, they find themselves faced with the threat of an alien invasion. What ensues are wacky hijinks that aim to revitalize these timeless characters while staying true to the charm that made them successes in the first place. As mentioned before, even though it sounds like a fun premise, it doesn’t feel like it’s one that needs to be fleshed out in a full-length movie. This film serves as the feature-film debut of writer/director Peter Browngardt who wrote this alongside Kevin Costello and Alex Kirwan. The script has some great moments of comedy sprinkled steadily throughout the film, but the narrative does feel like it can drag at times. One can celebrate its attempts at meta humor and its attempts at comedy aimed at a newer generation even if it doesn’t always land the way it wants to. The jokes can miss, but when they land, they land greatly. One thing that I can completely commend is Eric Bauza’s voice performance as both Daffy Duck and Porky Pig. He brings so much life and energy to these characters, and his comedic timing and delivery truly elevate the funny moments in this film. Candi Milo also lends her voice very well as Petunia Pig.
When compared to previous Looney Tunes works, I can testify that this newest movie features some of the best animation the franchise has had to date. It feels very traditional while refreshingly innovative in its execution. Even when the script can feel a bit thin at times, the animation never fails to feel cinematic without losing the old-school charm the characters naturally bring. The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie may be far from perfect, but it’s entirely adequate as an animated film based on beloved characters. I think that longtime fans and new viewers alike will find something to enjoy about this movie. Even if it has flaws and shortcomings, at the very least, it’s good for its fair share of laughs. And while I wouldn’t call this a movie that needs to be seen on the big screen, I will always advocate for that experience, and it’s not every day we get to see a true fully animated celebration of these characters in theaters. The Day the Earth Blew Up: A Looney Tunes Movie is in theaters March 14. Rating: 3/5 Review by Jonathan Berk There was once a time when seeing Joe Russo and Anthony Russo’s names attached to a film would spark true excitement. Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Captain America: Civil War were two early favorite Marvel films, which serve as great examples of this. Then, they were given the keys to the two biggest Avenger films – Infinity War and Endgame – that were major box-office successes and fan favorites. However, since then, they've had two directorial failures in both Cherry and The Gray Man, with neither being well-received. While the brothers have no problems pulling talent into their projects, there does seem to be something missing in the execution. Their new film, The Electric State, has many familiar faces treading through even more familiar genre tropes that never truly spark. In an alternate '90s, the Sentre corporation's drone program led to human victory in a robot-versus-human war. Now, humans escape into a virtual world and live vicariously through drone robots. Michelle (Millie Bobby Brown), an orphaned teen, encounters a mysterious robot who claims to have information about her brother, whom she believed had died with their parents. They must venture into dangerous territory and seek help from a smuggler named Keats (Chris Pratt) and his robot ally, Herman (Anthony Mackie). Of course, the dangerous terrain is not their only enemy, as Ethan Skate (Stanley Tucci) and Colonel Bradburry (Giancarlo Esposito) each seek to stop them from finding what they seek. Rounding out this robust adventure setup is Woody Harrelson, who plays Mr. Peanut, the leader of the robot revolution. The plot is a bit convoluted, yet straightforward. A young girl believes she has lost everything that mattered to her, only to find out that there is a chance her brother is, in fact, alive. She also rejects the virtual reality that the rest of humanity escapes into, but she doesn’t hate robots like everyone else. Her family wasn’t killed by robots, as one might predict, but rather by a freak car accident. These "character traits" are ultimately tied to the film's theme about being connected and not becoming isolated by the virtual world—a clear allegory for our smartphone-centric world. While there is a big preachy monologue wedged in here to ensure that the audience gets the point, it doesn’t feel as authentic or insightful as it seems to think it is. To be fair, audiences probably aren’t coming to a film like this with the hope of finding a new philosophical paradigm that they can subscribe to. Instead, they are likely hoping to enjoy some laughs, be awed by action, and be enveloped by a unique science fiction landscape. Those elements are present this movie, but have been done better in several others. For example, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy would be a far better use of one’s time than checking out the latest Russo joint. Furthermore, Blade Runner, I, Robot, Real Steel, and even Chappie offer better takes on human and robot relationships. While there is always room for new interpretations of a topic or genre in film, The Electric State feels more like a patchwork quilt that only serves to remind the audience that potentially better things that would satisfy their cravings already exist. Pratt is doing what Pratt does best. He is self-deprecating while also somewhat egotistical. He has sidekicks that he both talks trash about but also clearly cares for. Keats is essentially a Diet Star-Lord, and also serves as a reminder that you can get a better version of this character elsewhere. Mackie is doing a pretty great Kevin Hart impression, and works well as a sidekick here. It is a true voice performance as well, which earns him some extra points. Millie Bobby Brown is trying hard to break out of her Stranger Things typecasting, but never can quite escape her role as Eleven. She is, however, once again playing an angst-filled teen who has trust issues with the adults around her. Everyone is against her, and she is railing against the system. The performance isn’t bad, but the character’s motivations never feel fully understood. She loves her brother, who was shown in flashbacks to be a genius – but many of the elements around her actions don’t add up.
Harrelson, Esposito, Tucci, and Ke Huy Quan all deliver solid enough performances. They do kind of exactly what you expect these guys to do. Harrelson is the snarky elder who imparts wisdom in subtle barbs. Esposito is doing his stone-faced serious style rather than his scenery chewing, which he leaves for Tucci. Quan is playing on his nerdy typecasting as well—which is all fine, inside a mediocre script. Many other celebrities appear in this film, to varying degrees. Some provide the voices of robots, and others just show their faces on the TV screen of a drone. It’s clear the Russos have at least made friends with many Hollywood names, so they can get people on board for small parts. It’s worth mentioning that there are a few action sequences that are solid enough, and the visual effects are also better than some of the recent Marvel films. I liked the design of Herman and the robot that helps Michelle start her journey. It’s all fine…but nothing feels too impactful to make the film stand out. Ultimately, The Electric State is a little overwrought, and about thirty minutes too long. It may whet one’s appetite for a sci-fi action comedy, but it will likely only make you hunger for something better. The Electric State will be on Netflix on March 14. Rating: 2/5 Review by Jonathan Berk The Western continues to exist in our storytelling for a multitude of reasons. It's the origins of our country. It's the fundamental story of good versus evil. Furthermore, there is something inherently compelling and undeniably cool about cowboys. Director Brian Skiba's new film, Guns of Redemption (2025), dabbles in the familiar tropes of the genre — but it ultimately feels similar to enduring a hungover friend attempting to recap the events of another drunken weekend. The details are there, but they aren't in the right order, and they don't really add up to anything riveting. A stranger, Luke (Casper Van Dien), offers his services as a carpenter to a small town and its church, led by Parson Dyer (Sean Astin). Luke is clearly haunted by his experiences in the war but is seeking redemption. His hope for a second chance is dashed when old enemies arrive in the town, and he feels the need to return to his violent past. When broken down into its simple parts, this story sounds quite familiar. The old gunslinger who is ready to find peace is forced to kill yet again. Shane (1953) is probably the best example of this story structure. That film is a master class that inspired the structure of Logan (2017). Unfortunately, the script leans heavily into melodrama, overcomplicating its premise. Most notably, Luke's background isn't just a mystery to the characters in the town, but also to the audience. We don't really know what motivates him, or that he is even seeking redemption. Without getting into spoilers — when we do finally find out what exactly he is seeking redemption from, the audience may find it hard to be wholly sympathetic towards him. However, if we are to root for a character to be redeemed, we must understand that there is, in fact, something to be redeemed for. The story becomes more convoluted when Anna (Siena Bjornerud), and her younger sister, Charlotte (Kaitlyn Kemp), are introduced. They are being sold to the men of the village by the notorious former Union soldier General Bork (Jeff Fahey), who has gathered a reputation of traveling from village to village, providing vices for the citizens to blow all their money on. The girls are imprisoned for a debt, and are seeking any way to escape. Luke takes note, and sees them as his opportunity to prove himself redeemed. The performances of the cast are uneven, but Fahey kind of nails the villain role. He is most definitely the highlight of the film. He brings a cold, calculating quality that makes him feel quite dangerous, even when he is doing very little on screen. Van Dien is a familiar hero, but is often relegated to B-movies like this one. His square jaw goes a long way to make him a hero figure, but it ultimately feels a bit vanilla. Astin always delivers a solid performance; however, the accent he is aims for comes and goes a bit too frequently. The two sisters are fine, but the dialogue they're given doesn’t do much to help their case. Still…it's not really the performances that bring the movie down as much as it is the story. To have a successful western, we need to know who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are. If there is a character straddling the line, we need to understand that — and see why he is leaning one way more than the other. This film dances with that idea, but never truly nails it. Every time the stakes are elevated, it feels more like a joke than a general attempt at good storytelling. All one needs to do to see this point is to read the included synopsis for Guns of Redemption that says “he must strap on his gun before he bleeds to death or dies from the bullet lodged in his spine”. That spine bullet isn't just an old injury that is a reminder of his troubled past, but rather one from his first attempt at redemption that doesn't quite go his way. If that sounded a bit like a mess, then you'd be right. Guns of Redemption is on VOD on March 7. Rating: 1.5/5 DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN (Season 1) -- The Man Without Fear is Back, and It Feels Like He Never Left3/4/2025 Review by Camden Ferrell Netflix’s Daredevil series aired its final episode in the Fall of 2018, and in 2025, Matt Murdock is back in a continuation of the hit series. While the previous series was always part of the official MCU canon, Daredevil: Born Again feels like the character’s unofficial welcome to this larger universe. Viewers who are concerned about a dip in quality after the long break and new streaming home, can relax peacefully. This follow-up series carries on the legacy of its predecessor quite effectively, delivering strong writing, great performances, and some pretty gripping action at times. This show follows Matt Murdock, one of comic industry’s most beloved lawyers turned superhero, and it picks up nicely from where we left off. Elsewhere, Kingpin (who has been having other MCU shenanigans as well) is pursuing his own political endeavors. Like always, these two men are on a collision course with each other while they deal with their own personal turmoil and new challenges, characters, and threats that come in their way. One thing to commend off the bat is that the show feels very new-viewer friendly. Whether it’s your first time watching the show, or if you just might have forgotten what happened before, this show is mostly forgiving. There are a handful of callbacks and some of the backstories are more fleshed out with prior knowledge, but the writers do a great job of making sure this new series stands on its own if need be. On the topic of writing, I’d argue that you would have a hard time believing this show had a 6-year break since its most recent season because the style of dialogue and storytelling feel very consistent. This should ease viewers who are worried this show would be a disaster. Once again, this show is led by the talented and entertaining Charlie Cox. More and more, this feels like a role he was made for, and he continues to flex his acting and action chops as the Man Without Fear. Alongside him, Vincent D’Onofrio delivers another reliably menacing and nuanced portrayal of Wilson Fisk. While it’s not among their best performances as these characters, it’s still gripping to see them back in action together.
While the show is known for its legal elements (and this new series has plenty of that), people also tune in for its stylish action. This season delivers its fair share of heart-pumping action, full of blood and bone-breaking. I will say that the middle episodes aren’t nearly as gripping as the bookend episodes which deliver the most captivating action of the season, but this is a shortcoming that is made up for by good quality storytelling throughout. For those worried this show would go soft on Disney+, I think Episode 1 will put those concerns to rest quite quickly. Daredevil: Born Again delivers a solid first season that acknowledges its past while paving a sturdy future for itself. There are a handful of characters and cameos that people will be excited to see no matter how inconsequential it might seem in the grand scheme of things. It feels like the Netflix series never ended, and it has me excited for what’s in store next season. Daredevil: Born Again Season 1 begins streaming its first two episodes on Disney+ March 4 with episodes premiering subsequent Tuesdays. All episodes have been reviewed. Rating: 4/5 Review by Daniel Lima Stop me if you’ve heard this before: “A gang of armed terrorists take a high society office party in a skyscraper hostage, but are unaware of a fly in the ointment with a particular set of skills.” Yes, the new Martin Campbell project Cleaner is yet another Die Hard riff. To its credit, it manages to get right parts of that film’s formula many other derivative works do not. Everything else is a spectacular failure. Daisy Ridley is a former British Army soldier who is down on her luck. On the same day that her autistic brother, played by Michael Tuck, is kicked out of his care home, she is forced to take him to her work… as a window cleaner, the same day of the aforementioned hostage situation. Things go south from there. If there’s one thing to commend Cleaner for, it handles the setup surprisingly well. The opening scene is a flashback to the siblings’ childhood, with their abusive father putting hands on the brother as young Ridley climbs(!) around her kitchen and sits out on the window. It’s a laughably direct and obvious way to establish the characters’ relationship, past trauma, and foreshadow her pivotal role as someone who hangs onto things at high altitudes. For a lean action-thriller, however, this is also an effective way to announce what to expect: a not-too-serious bit of fun, nevertheless grounded in human emotion. It helps that Ridley has such an easy rapport with Tuck. She nails the exasperation of someone in her position, trying to get their life together yet forced to look after someone who may always need them. In spite of a role that may on paper dive into popular cliches about autism, Tuck makes his character feel like a human being whose disorder is a part of him without necessarily defining him. The push-pull dynamic between the two is not enumerated on in the script, but their performances tell a shared history, and would have provided a solid foundation for a compelling action yarn. Unfortunately, Cleaner does not capitalize on that. Any good Die Hard clone knows that one of the most important aspects is the antagonist. With the cast and setting so limited, much of the story’s drive comes from the nature of the foe set against the fettered hero. Here, an attempt is made to craft a villain who actually has some convincing moral arguments: the terrorists are actually environmental activists, who intend to reveal the environmental damages and assassination of other activists perpetrated by those wealthy and powerful individuals.
Why should we care about the lives of these awful people? As if to answer this, the leader of this group is usurped by an even more militant figure, a self-described anti-humanist (a philosophy that does exist, but not in the form portrayed here) who has no qualms about killing. Unfortunately, this just creates a new problem: the people being targeted are, in their own way, anti-humanists with no qualms about killing. The difference is the terrorists are moral absolutist fatalists, and the bourgeois are motivated solely by profit. Say what you will about the tenets of antihumanism, at least it’s an ethos. The film does attempt broaden out the scope of the threat late in the game, but too late to keep the audience from the side of the activists. That said, it’s not like the office workers at Nakatomi Plaza were fleshed out and sympathetic. What made Die Hard work was that its hero had a personal stake in stopping the unfolding events. Not only was his wife being held hostage, he was a police officer, and thus had a vested interest in putting an end to criminal wrongdoing. Beyond that, the film is structured in a way that constantly changes the resources both protagonist and antagonist have at their disposal, shifting momentum and who has the upper hand, as well as delivering solid action set pieces. On paper, Cleaner should be able to manage the same, with Tuck giving Ridley a reason to stop the terrorists, and her military background providing the justification for her ability to run circles around them. The script squanders both of these, leaving Ridley stranded on the side of the building for most of the runtime, unable to affect events in the tower, and never going so far as to actually threaten her brother. Every potential complication is quickly quashed, from an attempt to frame Ridley to trigger-happy police to… well, that’s about it really. An ungodly amount is spent with absolutely nothing changing the stakes, no new developments throwing a monkey wrench into best laid plans. Early on, the villain says to ignore the window cleaner, because she can’t do anything from outside. Incredibly, that turns out to be true. Towards the end, there are a handful of surprisingly decent fight scenes, intensely physical brawls that have a sense of rhythm, purpose, and direction that reminds the audience that the man at the helm had once reinvented James Bond. These only serve to highlight how meager the rest of Cleaner is. Why not get the protagonist involved early, so she can actually impact the drama? Why not spend more time with the brother, have him more directly in harm’s way to make their relationship more central to the conflict? Why not lean into the complication of a villain who the audience can easily sympathize with, instead of trying to create the most extreme strawman possible? Why not make a more interesting movie? Cleaner arrives in theater February 21. Rating: 2.5/5 Review by Daniel Lima For as long as the direct-to-video market has existed, the direct-to-video action thriller has provided a springboard for stuntpeople to use their meager means and ample abilities to deliver the simple, kinetic excitement that so eludes bloated Hollywood productions. It would be wonderful if Jade, the new film from stuntman-turned-director Chis Bamford, were another laudable entry into that canon. Sadly, it barely commits to even the low ambition of a stale pastiche of the kind of postmodern genre film that has been old hat for at least a decade. Nominally, the film follows the titular character, a reformed criminal who finds herself thrust into the center of a struggle for a mysterious hard disk. Caught between organized crime, corrupt cops, and covert government agencies, she must use her wits and prodigious combat skills to survive… or something to that effect. Describing the plot in such a coherent way gives the impression that it is cohesive and propulsive. It is not. An animated cutscene kicks things off, explaining its titular character’s backstory while remain frustratingly opaque, nondescript, and cliched. The first proper scene sees her speaking to her brother’s widow, which would be emotionally fraught if the audience had any emotional connection to these characters. Then the film skills ahead twenty-four hours, introducing an entirely new character sitting with lead Shaina West, discussing how crazy the last day has been. It then cuts back to the action. You don’t see that character again for another forty minutes. A nonlinear crime story playing off the audience’s own familiarity with cinematic archetypes and tropes is nothing new. Pulp Fiction, Ghost Dog, The Boondock Saints, these have been around since the 1990s. Jade makes a paltry effort to evoke those films, throwing in some halfhearted references to Asian action cinema via stock sound effects, so trite they border on racist. Those films, however, used that audience familiarity to subvert expectations, to ground distinct creative voices, to explore how we relate to art. At the very least, they were kind of cool. No surprise that this cannot be as boundary pushing as those earlier films, but there is only the most cursory attempt to even capture a consistent mood. Jade swaps between a lighthearted, self-aware romp where characters reference Bruce Leroy and Wesley Snipes movies, and a dark and gritty underworld tale. In the hands of a filmmaker like Tarantino (though I am loathe to praise him too much), this balancing act is possible.
Here, there is a smug satisfaction underlying all the lame gags, the tame violence, the empty exposition, that makes it even more aggravating. Simply referencing other works isn’t particularly funny, and none of the characters are fleshed out enough to even be likeable, so it fails on that front. Most scenes amount to just characters repeating their goals and desires back at each other ad nauseam, with no time spent building out the world and the familiar DTV lack of a specific visual style, so it never feels particularly grimy or dangerous. Ultimately, the film never does more that gesture towards the vague form of a certain kind of film, and so the attempts at postmodern comedy and brooding crime drama have exactly the same texture. Which is to say, none at all. The one potential saving grace is the action, as Bamford is an experience stunt professional who often casts stunt professionals in his films. Star Shaina West is, to her credit, a good physical presence, and there is a fight scene with Marcus Vinicios Maciel that displays a sense of rhythm and purpose that the rest of the film otherwise lacks. Unfortunately, most of what passes for action in the film is lame, static gunfights where no one gets hit; the amount of time that West spends standing straight up and looking around as Aftereffects bullet impacts fill the frame is truly ludicrous. The fight choreography is decent enough, but undoubtedly budgetary constraints limit the ability to shoot in interesting spaces, and time to craft truly impressive brawls. The climax of the film is an agonizingly long set piece that has West walking down what seems to be the same stretch of barren hallway for an eternity, gunning and cutting down nameless mooks practically sauntering over to be killed. At first, it seems ambitious; within a minute, the scene outstays its welcome. No challenge is presented, no modulating rhythm that creates narrative tension. Things just happen, then it ends. That’s a good encapsulation of Jade itself, as its lack of any sense of direction or conviction proves its own undoing. Towards the end of the film, after that tiresome final set piece, a scorecard appears reading “Jade: 37 | Thugz: 0”. This joins the likes of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photoshoot in misguided, undeserving, self-aggrandizing praise for a job not well done. Jade is available on digital February 18. Rating: 1/5 Review by Adam Donato Paddington in Peru continues the journey that was started over a decade ago. It’s really easy for these live action fantasy family films to flounder both critically and commercially, but Paddington has thrived in both regards over two films. Paddington 2 has been elevated to elite conversations and eight years after that film, we get a third installment. Drop the number in the title and replace it with one that’s less daunting to the uninitiated of the franchise. Unfortunately for Paddington, the first two films were such a success that Paul King has gone on to greener pastures and he took Sally Hawkins with him. He’s still attached to this film, but directorial duties have been passed on to Dougal Wilson, who has no major directing credits to his name. All signs point to a dip in quality, but can Paddington in Peru persevere with its absolute optimism? Like every other Paddington movie, Paddington in Peru is an absolute delight from start to finish. Paddington is such a wholesome and likable protagonist and this third film does a good job wrapping up his overarching story in these three films. The humor is a cut above the cringe fart jokes in most family films of this type. The writing balances all its characters to bring a satisfying conclusion. The music is light and chill like it's always been. There’s nothing glaringly wrong about this third installment, but something does feel like it's missing. Olivia Colman is a powerhouse addition to the cast. She plays a concerned nun at the home for retired bears who reaches out to Paddington about his Aunt Lucy. This role gives her the opportunity to be very silly and it's clear she’s having a good time, which is infectious to the audience. She is given a musical number that feels like an ambitious swing for these Paddington films. It’s nothing you’ll be adding to your playlist, but it’s cute. Where Colman’s character falls short is the blatant mystery of the character being so obvious, but still pretending like there’s a mystery afoot. It feels very reminiscent of Hugh Grant’s character in the previous film in a derivative way. It also doesn’t help that the conflict of her character doesn’t have any personal weight. Antonio Banderas also feels reminiscent of Hugh Grant’s character. Almost as if they divided up his qualities among Banderas and Colman. There’s an interesting aspect of Banderas’s inner conflict that’s shown in a visually interesting way. This is done very little with and doesn’t maximize the narrative and comedic aspects available. He plays a ship captain who is obsessed with finding this lost gold, but struggles to balance that desire with the love he has for his daughter. This also carries very little personal weight in regards to our heroes and feels like an ancillary problem. His performance is hammy and goofy, but in a fun way.
A lackluster area in this installment is the special effects. While the Paddington films were never the peak of special effects, they were always more than serviceable. This was a lot easier to accomplish when it’s just a computer generated bear in a simple London setting, but now we’re in the jungles of Peru. There’s a much heavier reliance on CGI in this film, which is just now starting to expose flaws. Maybe animating this film would’ve been an ambitious avenue to take the franchise. Do it in the style of the Peanuts movie where it’s computer generated to look like 2D animation, which would take the franchise back to its storybook roots. This would also help mask the director change and recasting in the film. Maybe Sally Hawkins didn’t have time to be on set, but could go to a recording studio when she’s available. Emily Mortimer does a good job filling the role of Mrs. Brown, but especially during flashback scenes it’s a reminder that this installment is missing something. The interesting thing about Paddington’s story in these films is not his past, but how he impacts people in the present. Having this film set in Peru really limits the amount of fun side characters that Paddington gets to interact with. There’s a lot of solo time and his mission is devoid of nuance. The story and general quality of the film is reminiscent of Kung Fu Panda 3. Our panda main character has to discover the mystery of where they came from and reunite with their true people. It’s the classic trilogy dynamic where the first movie is great, then the second is even better, and the third one is certainly the lesser of the three. Hard to put blame on King’s departure or franchise fatigue. Paddington in Peru only feels like a disappointment because the first two movies were so perfect. This film on its own is an absolute delight for all ages. Audiences are so privileged to be disappointed by a movie that is this good. Luckily, fans came in with adjusted expectations and the film does its best to meet those expectations. The franchise fatigue is nothing compared to the Marvel mess Paddington has to compete with at the box office this weekend. While Captain America will succeed more at home, Paddington will continue to see the majority of its success internationally. It’s a good time at the movies. Classic family fun adventure. Be sure to check this one out in theaters. Paddington in Peru is in theaters on February 14. Rating: 4/5 |
Archives
March 2025
Authors
All
|