VALIANT ONE -- Flat, Thin Military Thriller Reveals Deeply Ingrained Americentric Jingoism1/30/2025 Review by Daniel Lima  It can be hard to properly judge art that runs counter to your political convictions. To what extent does an objectionable worldview affect a work’s artistic merit? Can a heinous sociopolitical message truly be separated from aesthetic values? Valiant One slices through this Gordian knot with ease, tying its particular brand of establishment-friendly jingoism directly to its own emotional core to the point that it’s impossible to appreciate the film at all without casting judgment on its simple-minded politics. Also, it’s really bad. A small team of U.S. Army soldiers stationed in South Korea go on a routine mission to repair some surveillance tech. After a terrible storm leads to a helicopter crash, only a handful of grunts and a civilian defense contractor are left. They realize that they have landed on the other side of the Korean DMZ, well into North Korean territory. The team must band together in order to escape this hellish land full of people who would murder and rape them with no hesitation. Writer-director-producer Steve Barnett insists that he set out to make an apolitical film, focusing not on articulating a coherent message, but on telling a story about personal heroism and rising up to meet a great challenge. Like all “apolitical” art, however, the film betrays certain ideological predilections, so deeply entrenched in the minds of Barnett and Americans in general that they are simply accepted. It presumes that: America has a right to maintain a military presence on the Korean peninsula; American interests are altruistic; the North Korean government is cruel and hostile to any sort of diplomacy; the North Korean people would welcome an American intrusion into their home; any form of violence that American military personnel engage in is justified. Suffice it to say, I find all of these presumptions suspect, ranging from disingenuous to ignorant to despicable. Undoubtedly, most Americans would object to at least one of these, in spite of oft-recited truisms about the righteousness of the American military and the evils of North Korea. Yet Valiant One necessitates broad acceptance of these ideas in order to function as a story.
If you don’t believe that the North Korean military would brutalize any American they come across, the premise seems thin. If you don’t think Americans should be installing surveillance equipment on the Korean border, it gets harder to root for these characters. And if you don’t like the idea of armed soldiers bursting into homes of foreign civilians in countries they aren’t supposed to be in the first place — or better still, killing foreign soldiers before even attempting to communicate with them — it becomes impossible not to see these “heroes” as villains. Of course, it’s possible for a film with objectionable politics to still be engaging, stimulating, entertaining. Valiant One is none of those things. The main ensemble is given only the barest amount of definition, mostly relying on archetypes: the dutiful grunt, the reluctant hero, the sniveling civilian. Normally, a narrative like this would see this team fleshed out through the trials that they undergo, pitting them against obstacles that force reveal parts of themselves that might never otherwise see the light of day. Instead, most of the film is just wandering through the woods, pitched and repetitive arguments, and inert gunfights, none of which spurns any interesting character development beyond “they get tougher”. It’s surprising that even at a scant eighty minutes, so much of this movie is just dead air. An interesting note is that the film begins with a title card claiming to be inspired by true events. Of course, this is being generous, as by Barnett’s own admission the genesis of the story was the realization that American soldiers are stationed near the 38th parallel (in the past, downed American servicemen have been released after a period of detention). That little fib is par the course in works like this, however, and unremarkable on its own. If one is willing to engage in this bit of fiction, however, why stop there? Why not engineer a scenario where these soldiers are captured and have to break free before execution? Why not see them run into a North Korean family that is not enamored with them, forcing the squad to make tough choices about what they’re willing to do to hide their incursion? Why not name any of the North Koreans pursuing them, give them characterizations and treat them as something more than a faceless Other? Why not make Valiant One a more interesting movie? Valiant One lands in theaters January 31. Rating: 1.5/5
0 Comments
Review by Daniel Lima  Billions of people have grown up familiar with the Ming dynasty novel Investiture of the Gods, the epic tale of history, myth, and fantasy that relays the fall of the Shang dynasty and the rise of the Zhou. All cards on the table, I am not one of those people. As an ignorant Westerner, I can only appreciate Creation of the Gods II: Demon Force — the second part of the latest adaptation of the Chinese classic — as a Lunar New Year blockbuster spectacle. On those terms, it’s certainly not a boring watch, but lacks what made the previous film so compelling. Picking up where the last film left off, the corrupt king of Shang has been saved from the brink death, sending his most trusted generals to bring down the rebellious city of Xiqi and capture the Fengsheng Bang, a powerful artifact that will secure his rule. The lord of Xiqi, joined by an array of immortals and gods, fights against the onslaught as he weighs how to best defend his people. The source material has been adapted countless times in countless forms, and this trilogy of films is perhaps the largest and most expensive. This second entry is heavy on action and special effects, with much of the runtime devoted to large-scale battles with a dizzying number of glowing particles flying across the screen and a cacophony of war cries and explosions. At just under two and a half hours, it’s hard not to feel a bit overwhelmed well before the credits roll (through which there are three post-credits scenes, at that point just don’t end the movie yet). It doesn’t help that it is as dark and drab as any Hollywood tent pole, with much of the action taking place under the cover of night, with a muted color palette, and annoyingly often over a barren plane or against an obvious green screen.  Novelty sets this apart from American CG-driven slop: giants commanding steel dragons to attack thunder gods, immortal beings traveling through the elements to rescue people from paralyzing moon beams, mythical steeds felled by evil wizards commanding undead armies. There is a certain looseness to how these elements are brought to life, not as constrained by the paradoxical desire to make things “realistic” that plagues so much Western big-budget fantasy. Perhaps to an audience used to seeing these cultural touchstones adapted to screen, this isn’t anything special, but it was enough to keep me engaged.
That is good, because in devoting so much time to the spectacle, this second film in the planned trilogy sacrifices the character dynamics and political intrigue that drew me into the first. The previous entry was mostly set in the Shang capital, depicting the descent of the king into villainy as his court turn against him and the heavenly interlopers attempt to find a new ruler. With the battle lines not yet drawn, this made for more drama, more time establishing who these people (and gods) are, more reason to actually care about what happens. There are a handful of welcome moments here that attempt to do the same, but not enough of them to make Xiqi feel like a place worth saving. This may well be a consequence of how the novel has been divided up, but coupled with how spread out the characters are, and how many have died or fundamentally changed, it means there is a distinct lack of emotional stakes. Recently, I’ve found myself watching a good amount of wuxia cinema produced by the Shaw Brothers in the 1970s and 1980s. These films were often directly or indirectly inspired by Ming literature about gallant heroes, powerful magicians, and fearsome monsters, and were the crowd pleasers of their day. Though they themselves vary in quality (especially those that attempt to condense particularly long tomes), it can at least be said they are beautiful to look at: ornate and vivid sets, cinematography that glowed, intricate action choreography. It’s hard not to think of these films when watching this modern incarnation, and lament at the lost recipe that made for such gorgeous imagery. Yet as somewhat disappointing as Creation of the Gods II: Demon Force is on the whole, I still have sights like young Nezha shaping his winding sash into a shield and Leizhenzi summoning his green lightning stuck in my head. For whatever it’s worth, this is a film that scratches an itch for big budget fantasy splendor, with a distinct flavor that has me looking into what’s the best translation of a medieval Chinese text. For all the flaws, it still captured me enough that I’m keen to see the grand finale. Creation of the Gods II: Demon Force is now in theaters. Rating: 3/5 Review by Adam Donato  Movies like this used to be released in theaters. You’re Cordially Invited is a classic comedy setup. Two weddings, one venue, one weekend, and hilarity ensues. This cliched story is given new life from writer/director Nicholas Stoller, who has been a reliable comedic filmmaker for two decades now. Speaking of reliability, Will Ferrell stars along with Reese Witherspoon as the representatives of the opposing wedding parties who are just trying to make this weekend the most magical it can possibly be. Amazon Prime regularly spits out these studio comedies that would normally be reliable box office bets, but are not given the time of day in theaters. Therefore they get forgotten in the void of streaming content. Does You’re Cordially Invited have the personality to make an impression on streaming audiences this weekend? While You’re Cordially Invited isn’t a technical masterpiece, it does accomplish its job of providing consistent laughs. This is Ferrell’s funniest lead performance in over a decade. Not that this is close to prime Ferrell in the 2000’s though. It’s more that Ferrell has focused his efforts more on producing and supporting roles in the last decade. When he does choose to lead lately, he has fallen flat on his face so this movie is a cute return to form for the comedic legend. Coincidentally, this is also Witherspoon’s best leading role in a decade as she has also focused on producing and television roles. While Ferrell is only nine years older than No Witherspoon, this does feel like a mismatch of a couple here. Not a lot of chemistry between these two, but they’re at worst serviceable with each other and shine on their own.  The film has a run time of 109 minutes and could use a shave down. The emotional and romantic beats in the film were underwhelming. Nobody is gonna shed a tear or fall in love because of this narrative. Therefore, the film could shed some of that weight and keep this simple story down to a tight ninety minutes. When the film isn’t trying to make you laugh, it kind of drags It's sweet enough, just nothing to write home about.
There’s a prominent practical effect in the film that’s worth noting. While the scene is over the top ridiculous compared to the comedic tone of the rest of the film, the effect is pulled off quite nicely. It’s clear that the creature is some kind of puppet or animatronic, but has movements and texture that make it look as realistic as it can. This sequence may be where the film peaks comedically for some people, but it definitely feels like an excessive departure. This is much more of a situational comedy rather than a slapstick movie. It’s hard not to be romantic about a film like this. Two major movie stars teaming up together with a notable comedic director should be a lock at the box office. Seeing this Amazon Prime film at a press screening in a theater added to the experience. The audience was having a ball with the film and that won’t translate as well when you’re watching this film on streaming in the background. It’s trying to have heart and it’s genuinely funny throughout. A really good time for a movie and not a bad idea to flip on this Valentine’s Day season. You’re Cordially Invited will be streaming on Amazon Prime on January 30. Rating: 4/5 Review by Jonathan Berk  The world of professional wrestling seems like the perfect topic for cinematic exploration. Films like Iron Claw or The Wrestler provide examples where this works to tremendous effect — while other films, like Ready to Rumble or the Hulk Hogan-led No Holds Bars fall short of achieving this feat, or simply don’t quite work for everyone. Even horror has used the squared circle and the costumed contestants for its setting. Well, making its way to the ring is director Lowell Dean’s new film, Dark Match, which blends the world of professional wrestling and horror for 90 minutes of in-ring mayhem…sort of.
The movie begins in the ring with a few matches that culminate with Miss Behave (Ayisha Issa) versus Kate the Great (Sara Canning). After Miss Behave hits Kate for real, she’s punished by the small-time wrestling company’s promotor through a pay cut. Thus, when she and several of the other wrestlers are given an opportunity to earn some extra money by wrestling a ”dark match” by a private party, none of them are really in a position to refuse. It’s not long before the wrestlers take notice to the fact that there is something very wrong with these people and that the stakes are much higher than they expected. The problem with this film which appears to be intently focused on wrestling is that there is a pretty substantial section of the film that is completely devoid of wrestling. Sure, the film starts there, and once it kicks back in it becomes a centerpiece of the finale. However, the moments in between aren’t nearly as exciting or compelling. Fortunately, Issa and Steve Ogg have significant chemistry, and when they’re on screen together, there is enough to keep you on the hook. Unfortunately, there just isn’t enough horror or wrestling for a good thirty minutes — and that feels like a bit of a waste. Fans of wrestling may nitpick some of the sequences. They are edited to death and thus don’t quite emulate the feeling of watching wrestling on TV. What’s probably worse than those edits is the use of jargon and in-ring conversation that feels like someone is only vaguely familiar with the industry. For the casual wrestling fan, these elements may be easy to ignore, or may even spark enough recognition to be meaningful on a basic level. The film is set in the late 80s — which is a prime era of professional wrestling — and kayfabe was the law. One thing that announcers never did was refer to wrestlers as “heels” or “faces”, which this film throws out the window pretty early on. Modern fans will know those terms, as the concept of kayfabe has fundamentally changed, and fans are allowed to peek behind the current more and more. While these details may seem inconsequential, it just makes you wonder why wrestling was chosen for the subject matter. The horror elements that take a minute to truly kick in are solid enough, once developed. The types of matches the wrestlers are put in vary, and only partially utilize their unique premises. The most frustrating was the water match, which ultimately didn’t do anything with its premise. However, the violence that erupts lives up to the genre. Still…for a film that goes very into the genre, it seems like there was quite a bit of room to be more creative with the types of matches presented. Dark Match moderately, at best, lives up to its name. It’s not something everyone should see, but there is enough here for fans of the style to enjoy. One would think that the inclusion of AEW’s Chris Jerico (billed as Chris Irvine) should have added even more credibility to the wrestling…but it kind of doesn’t. Despite some of the film's weaknesses, it’s an easy watch. Dark Match will be on Shudder starting January 31. Rating: 2.5/5 Review by Adam Donato  Mel Gibson has had quite the storied career. As a director, he’s known for these big epics that are usually met with awards acclaim. Sitting back down in the director’s chair for the first time since Hacksaw Ridge in 2016, Gibson is back at it again. This time it’s for a small January action film starring his good friend, Mark Wahlberg. The older Caucasian male crowd is on the edge of their seats. Not only does it have to compete with the wake of the Christmas releases, but other January surprise hits as well. In a time where woke seems to be broke, can these two previously cancelled movie stars take flight at the box office? Mark Wahlberg has immense range. Not in terms of the types of roles he can play, but in the quality of those performances. He’s known for The Happening just as much as he is for The Departed or Boogie Nights. In Flight Risk, Wahlberg takes one of the most ambitious swings of his career. Without seeing the trailer, one might look at the poster and think this is another Wahlberg action man movie. In actuality, Wahlberg plays a deranged hit man who sneaks his way onto a private flight to assassinate a key witness. In this performance, Wahlberg sports an exaggerated hick accent and an embarrassingly fake bald cap. Seeing as Wahlberg is the headlining name on the project, it’s surprising how little screen time he has in the movie. The only scenes Wahlberg has that aren’t in the trailers is a string of rapey taunts. These ramblings range from darkly funny to grossly uncomfortable, more often the latter. Wahlberg is an actor who usually just plays himself, so it’s really refreshing to see him take such a big swing. It’s one of those big swings where you spin around and fall on your ass, but boy are those fun to watch. One could argue that his performance is so bad that it’s brilliant, but the lack of screen time and anything to actually do is really holding him back.  The story mainly focuses on a U.S. Marshal, played by Michelle Dockery, as she escorts a corrupt accountant, played by Topher Grace, back to see trial. Dockery’s character has to grapple with her shady past, cooperate with her captured witness, fend off the deranged hit man, and solve why this operation has gone so awry. Somehow all of this is going on in this tiny plane, but it feels like nothing is happening. Dockery’s character is not compelling and Grace’s constant nervous quips become draining after a while. The bond they form is weak and their strategy to get out of this scenario is nonsensical. A ninety minute movie shouldn’t feel so long. This is a tight little bottle thriller that isn’t very thrilling.
Flight Risk is a distractingly ugly film. With a budget of $26 million, this film leaves a lot to be desired from a visual standpoint. At the beginning of the film, Grace’s character gets scared by a moose outside his window. This moose looks less real than Wahlberg’s bald cap. Everything that happens with the plane looks fake, which only heightens how unrealistic what’s going on on screen is. The final special effects filled action sequence is completely anticlimactic and leaves the audience wanting more. Watching this movie will make you feel like a flight risk yourself. The desire to be anywhere else is only matched by the thought that it will be over soon. Check this one out if you want to see Wahlberg embarrass himself for fifteen minutes. Other than that, there’s no value to be found here. The performances, story, and special effects are all abysmal. Not much worse than a boring thriller. Flight Risk is in theaters on January 24. Rating: 1/5 |