|
Review by Adam Donato  2024 sees the release of a franchise film made with computer animation. A prequel that explains the origin of the relationship between the main leader and villain of the franchise. Of course, we’re talking about Transformers One. A film that was met with overwhelmingly positive reviews, but absolutely floundered at the box office. A few months later, a very similar film came out called Mufasa: The Lion King. A film that’s likely to make a billion dollars, despite middling reviews. The remake of The Lion King is the tenth highest grossing movie of all time. Only a couple of months ago, an unnecessary continuation of a billion dollar movie came out in the form of Joker: Folie a Deux. That audience is a lot more particular with the quality of the film than the parents that will be when choosing what movie to take the family to see in theaters on Christmas Day this year. Look at last month’s release of Moana 2. A sequel that is inferior in every way possible to the original, but is going to go on to be the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Mufasa: The Lion King stole Lin Manuel Miranda from the Moana sequel and recruited acclaimed filmmaker Barry Jenkins to helm the film. Is this influx of talent enough to overcome the clear conceptual problems with this prequel? Absolutely not. Barry Jenkins should go straight to jail. Do not pass go, but do collect a hefty paycheck. The hack claimed directing this project was not just a paycheck, but a week before release was quoted saying he doesn’t prefer this style of filmmaking and would like to return to smaller, more real projects. Great thing to say to get folks butts in seats this holiday season. Jenkins influence on the film is nonexistent. Mufasa: The Lion King could’ve just as easily been directed by Peyton Reed and most people wouldn’t notice the difference. The visual style of the film is still disgusting. There’s an effort to accentuate the facial expressions of the animals in the film compared to last time, but the problem remains the same. Making a musical with expressionless characters is a total contradiction. While competing holiday film Sonic the Hedgehog 3 has main characters defined by bright contemporary colors, Mufasa’s characters are different shades of gray and brown. Now Jenkins didn’t invent the style of the film as he was hired to continue the look of the franchise. Nobody should feel bad for Jenkins though. He knew the paycheck would come with baggage. Take away his Oscar and don’t give it back until he makes three more real movies that have actual artistic integrity.  Speaking of paychecks, Lin Manuel Miranda works more relentlessly than his popular stage character Hamilton. If he continues down this path, he may reach the same fate. The songs from Mufasa: The Lion King range from forgettable to laughable. Bye Bye is the most embarrassing moment of Mads Mikkelsen’s career. The villain song being so goofy totally contradicts everything else we see from his character as he’s a strictly serious force. The song from the trailer “I Always Wanted a Brother” starts out very catchy, but then the repeating of how the kids sing “brotha” gets funny quick. “We Go Together” does a lot of the heavy lifting with establishing the dynamic of the group, which overall feels rushed. Milele and Tell Me It’s You are both sweet, but don’t entirely hit home. Honestly, Moana 2 is looking much better after seeing Mufasa: The Lion King.
Similar narratives of the film have been executed more efficiently this year. Transformers One has multiple moments where the weight of the inherent betrayal hits hard. Mufasa fails to stick the landing on a relationship that is the soul of this movie. They played it safe and so there’s nothing to feel invested in. It all just feels cheap, rushed, and obligatory. The structure of the narrative is annoyingly intercut with scenes of Timon and Pumbaa making bad jokes as Rafiki tells the story to Kiara. The runtime is exactly two hours and what should feel like an epic narrative feels rushed. The Lion King 1 ½ being remade was an idea that was flirted with recently. Let Timon and Pumbaa shine there. Mufasa needs as much time as he can get. The film also relies heavily on references to the first movie. Remember this? This is how this character got this object! That type of lazy crap. There’s ingredients for a good movie in here, but the final product is not worth it. Disney opted not to take the criticism from the first movie and instead ran it back. The glaring faults of the film will be hidden by brand recognition and general inoffensiveness. Families will flock to Mufasa: The Lion King. The franchise will continue and paychecks will be cashed. The only hope is that these “artists” take their earned money and use it to make something new. Sonic the Hedgehog 3 opens in theaters on the exact same day. See that instead. Mufasa: The Lion King is in theaters on December 20. Rating: 1/5
1 Comment
Review by Jonathan Berk  It never fails that come December, movie nerds will debate whether Die Hard qualifies as a Christmas movie. Well, director Jaume Collet-Serra's Carry-On feels like a spiritual sequel to Die Hard and Die Hard 2, aiming to be the next holiday action-thriller that frequents screens during the season. While it doesn't quite reach the heights of its inspirations, Carry-On still delivers enough entertainment to be worth checking out. Taron Egerton stars as Ethan, a TSA agent working on Christmas Eve in Los Angeles. At a crossroads in his life, Ethan decides it’s time to get serious about his career — but those plans are derailed when a mysterious traveler (Jason Bateman) coerces him into letting a dangerous package through security. Bateman as a villain works surprisingly well. His trademark dry sarcasm and smart-ass charm translate seamlessly into the role of a mastermind antagonist. Bateman’s character exudes calm control, and his portrayal as the smartest man in the room feels utterly convincing. Egerton, meanwhile, demonstrates once again that he has all the makings of a compelling lead, despite somehow seeming to always be just out of the limelight. Known for his standout roles in Kingsman: The Secret Service, Rocketman, and Eddie the Eagle, Egerton brings innate charisma to Ethan. His American accent is solid, and he sells the cat-and-mouse dynamic with Bateman, making their verbal and mental sparring a highlight of the film.  A robust ensemble cast supports them. Danielle Deadwyler plays an LAPD officer who catches wind of the chaos unfolding at the airport. Her storyline intersects with Ethan’s early on and provides a much-needed reprieve from the airport setting. Deadwyler, who has dazzled in dramatic roles like Till and The Piano Lesson, shines in this more action-driven part, showcasing her versatility.
Sofia Carson plays Ethan’s girlfriend, a fellow airport worker whose encouragement sparks his desire to get his life on track. While her role is initially minor, Carson gets more screen time in the third act, and her chemistry with Egerton makes the relationship and journey between these lovebirds compelling. The supporting cast also features Dean Norris, Sinqua Walls, Logan Marshall-Green, Tonatiuh Elizarraraz, and Theo Rossi, all of whom contribute to the film’s tension-filled airport setting. The chaotic holiday travel atmosphere, mixed with Bateman’s high-stakes machinations, gives this movie its Die Hard 2 vibes, leaning into the airport as both battleground and nightmare fuel. While the performances and story are the film’s biggest draws, its visuals leave something to be desired. At times, the lighting and cinematography feel more akin to a straight-to-TV movie than a cinematic spectacle. The action sequences, while effective, often rely on digital effects that lack polish. The car “chase” scene in particular feels either overly reliant on CGI or distorted by lens choices, creating a focus-breaking distraction rather than an immersive experience. Despite these shortcomings, Carry-On offers enough thrills and holiday spirit to make it a worthwhile watch. Collet-Serra has had his share of hits (Orphan, The Shallows) and misses (Black Adam, Jungle Cruise), and while Carry-On may not be a masterpiece, it feels like a step back in the right direction. Fans of holiday action-thrillers or Taron Egerton’s work will likely enjoy the ride, even if the film doesn’t soar as high as its predecessors. While some may not feel that a Netflix holiday action-thriller doesn’t qualify, it worked for me. Carry-On arrives on Netflix on December 13. Rating: 3/5 Review by Jonathan Berk  James Mangold made the beloved musical biopic Walk the Line, starring Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, which was later parodied by Jake Kasden’s Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, forever changing the way audiences view musical biopics. Now, Mangold returns to the genre with A Complete Unknown, an exploration of Bob Dylan, another musical icon of that era. While elements of the traditional biopic formula remain, this film feels more like a tribute akin to the old MGM Studios The Great Movie Ride — a cinematic ride through Dylan's life, full of admiration and allure. Both the audience and many of the other characters seem transfixed by Dylan, gazing at him from one key moment to the next, as we ride the wave of his musical genius. It’s very much a "vibe" movie, and if you click with it, you’ll find yourself completely engrossed throughout its two-hour and twenty-minute runtime. Timothée Chalamet stars as Bob Dylan, who arrives on the New York folk music scene in the early 1960s at just 19 years old. He’s come from Minnesota to visit Woody Guthrie (Scoot McNairy), who is bedridden in the hospital. Dylan sings to Guthrie and Pete Seeger (Edward Norton), and from there, he becomes part of the West Village music scene, rubbing shoulders with the prominent figures of that era. Dylan’s influence grows as the film moves from one musical performance to another, with each sequence depicting the forging of relationships along his journey all while guided by his iconic songs. Mangold portrays Dylan as someone whose magnetic personality effortlessly draws people in, and Chalamet captures that magnetism flawlessly. While I can’t speak to whether Chalamet's Dylan is technically accurate, I can say that his performance is undeniably captivating and demanding attention. Chalamet achieves this without needing to overact, relying instead on subtle gestures, body language, and an unassuming presence that somehow defies the draw he has. Whenever Mangold cuts to Elle Fanning, who plays Dylan's on-again, off-again girlfriend Sylvie, or Monica Barbaro, who portrays the equally iconic musician, Joan Baez, it’s hard not to understand exactly what their characters feel as they look at Dylan — whether it’s love, admiration, jealousy, or frustration — because we feel it, too. Chalamet has a unique way of bringing nuanced depth to his roles, and here, much of his talent comes from what remains unsaid. His enigmatic portrayal of Dylan taps into the mystique surrounding the musician, reminiscent of the many faces of Dylan presented in Todd Haynes’s I’m Not There, but with a more straightforward narrative that lets Chalamet explore those complexities.  The supporting cast is also quite strong, with Monica Barbaro standing out as Joan Baez. Her scenes with Chalamet crackle with tension, providing some of the film's most electric moments. Their chemistry is palpable, and the highs of the film often come when Dylan and Baez are together on screen. Edward Norton delivers as Pete Seeger and gets two memorable scenes that allow him to showcase his talents. Fanning’s portrayal of Sylvie is emotionally compelling, particularly in a moment where her character comes to a crushing realization—a scene she handles masterfully.
Other standout performances include Boyd Holbrook as Johnny Cash, Dan Fogler as Albert Grossman, and Norbert Leo Butz as Alan Lomax. They help shape some of the film's pivotal moments, and the scenes with Johnny Cash are particularly unforgettable. McNairy, portraying Woody Guthrie during his period of decline, has perhaps the toughest role in the film. He conveys depth and emotion through mostly nonverbal communication. Despite the challenge, McNairy’s understated performance speaks volumes. Adding to the impact of these performances is Mangold’s stylistic direction. From the way the camera moves lovingly around the musical performances, letting us sink into the songs, to the period-perfect costumes and settings, every aspect of the film’s production design immerses us in the era — and it’s just a joy to watch. It often feels as if we are there, witnessing musical history in the making. For viewers like myself, who may not be well-versed in this particular musical movement, it’s a compelling, almost educational experience. Mangold’s evident love for both Dylan and the era of folk music translates clearly to the audience, making this film feel like a celebration of an important musical moment. Unlike some biopics, A Complete Unknown doesn’t attempt to judge whether Dylan was a "good" person. The film shows questionable decisions and complex relationships, but it leaves room for the audience to draw their own conclusions. The central message is clear: Bob Dylan was an unparalleled musical genius, and his art is worth celebrating, regardless of his flaws. The film's true conflict seems to be that anyone would try to stifle Dylan’s creative brilliance—those who did were clearly misguided or selfish. A Complete Unknown will likely be divisive. It’s long, and diehard Dylan fans may take issue with some of the choices made by Mangold or Chalamet. However, for those without that baggage, who simply love music and vibrant storytelling, this film will be a joy. I connected with its tone early on and never doubted my enjoyment. A Complete Unknown is in theaters on December 25. Rating: 4.5/5 NICKEL BOYS -- A Powerful, Heart-Wrenching Film That Shines a Light on Humanity’s Darkest Corners12/9/2024 Review by Jonathan Berk  The real tragedy of humanity seems to be that every time we think we understand the depths of human horror, we uncover yet another atrocity. Just when we believe that humanity couldn’t sink lower, there’s a reminder of how evil we can be. While some might not turn to cinema for a history lesson that could lead to existential dread, it’s crucial to know what true evil looks like so we can recognize and confront it when it resurfaces. Nickel Boys, RaMell Ross's powerful adaptation of Colson Whitehead’s novel, inspired by the horrific story of the Dozier School for Boys, sheds light on the darkest corners of our world. This is a powerful, devastating film that demands to be experienced. Elwood Curtis (Ethan Herisse) is a young man with dreams of going to college and making a difference through civil disobedience in the ’60s. But an innocent mistake shatters his ambitions and lands him in Nickel Academy, a reformatory school deep in the Jim Crow South. Isolated and disillusioned, Elwood eventually befriends Turner (Brandon Wilson), and together they form an unlikely alliance. Elwood’s enduring optimism, even in the face of unimaginable cruelty, ignites a spark of hope in Turner. There’s no denying the emotional power this film holds. It’s one of the few times at a critic screening that the room was silent once the credits rolled—no murmurs, no whispered reactions, just the weight of the story settling over every viewer. Nickel Boys is a bleak reminder of the horrors we cannot ignore or allow. It’s hard to recommend lightly, as most will leave feeling shaken, but the storytelling and craftsmanship make it a must-watch. Ross makes a bold directorial choice by telling much of the story from a first-person perspective. The film opens with a character gazing at his hand while lying in the grass, and then at oranges on a nearby tree. For several moments, Elwood’s face remains unseen, only appearing in reflections or glances. Initially, this perspective felt challenging, but as the film progressed, Ross’s vision clicked into place, and the unique viewpoint became integral to the story’s impact. While I hope this style doesn’t become a trend, Ross’s use of it here feels entirely justified.  Herisse faces a unique challenge in this role, as he must convey emotion with limited traditional screen presence. Yet, despite these constraints, he brings Elwood’s personality, inner turmoil, and steadfast optimism vividly to life. Wilson serves as a powerful counter to Herisse’s performance. Turner’s confidence and edge contrast sharply with Elwood’s idealism, and Wilson’s screen presence is undeniable, adding depth to their complex friendship. Unforgettable performances and bold direction make Nickel Boys an absolute must-watch.
Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor also stands out as Elwood’s grandmother, offering some of the film’s most memorable moments. One scene, where she quietly speaks while cutting a slice of cake, is a simple act rendered unforgettable through her performance. Meanwhile, Hamish Linklater’s portrayal of Spencer, the head of Nickel Academy, is chilling. He doesn’t play a cartoonish villain but embodies an evil made terrifyingly mundane. Ross wisely leaves much of the horror to the imagination, but Linklater’s towering presence over the boys is enough to convey the unspeakable cruelty of Nickel Academy. Chillingly authentic, Nickel Boys leaves a weight on every viewer’s heart. Nickel Boys is a stark reminder that we cannot afford to be complacent. Stories of prison horrors are not new, but the abuse of imprisoned youths is even more harrowing, especially when society knows and allows it to continue. This film reminds us that allowing such mistreatment is unacceptable and that by ignoring it, we risk becoming complicit ourselves. Nickel Boys will be in theaters on December 13. Rating: 5/5 Review by Daniel Lima  Anyone used to exploring the depths of the low budget genre movies of yesteryear will be familiar with a particular kind of disappointment. You come across a film with an exciting title, a promising premise, and a cool poster: Dracula’s Dog, The Drifting Avenger, most giallo. Then you watch it and find that it’s mostly people standing around and talking to each other, with a handful of moments sprinkled about that capture that imagined greatness. Werewolves hearkens back to that ignoble tradition, but in the days of bloated, sanitized, impersonal studio IP movies, its shaggy contours become charming in their own right. “One year ago a supermoon turned millions into werewolves.” This ludicrous line opens the film, immediately setting the stakes and the tone. With a new supermoon about to rise, a crack team of CDC scientists seeks to test a way to prevent these transformations. Frank Grillo barricades the home of his brother’s wife and daughter before leaving to head the operation, as the world’s least convincing virologist. Naturally, things go awry, and both Grillo and his family must fight to survive the night. The ironically self-aware genre throwback has been a plague on modern cinema, and thankfully Werewolves avoids that trap by committing wholeheartedly to the silliness of its premise without ever tipping over into parody. Though many elements are fantastic and absurd — the gung ho neighbor, the repeated use of the word “moonscreen”, the monsters themselves, Frank Grillo playing a scientist — they are treated with the frankness and gravity they should demand within the context of this reality. Beyond providing the audience a level of buy-in that makes what happens feel like it matters, this straight-faced treatment of the material makes it even seem even goofier; I know I laughed every time someone said “moonscreen”, or a character did something that strained credulity, or an entire conversation did nothing but reiterate the obvious. That’s helpful, because one thing this movie has plenty of is filler. Even at barely over ninety minutes, Werewolves strains to engineer enough narrative momentum to propel it to the credits. There is barely any character work to speak of, with the action divided between Grillo’s homeward quest with his forgettable companion, and his forgettable sister-in-law alone at home with a forgettable child. The number of times the gruff man of action stops to just say, “We have to keep moving”, is truly baffling. As funny as it is at first, when it dawns on you that this will be most of the movie it becomes a tad less amusing.  The most confounding choice, however, is how the film looks. This would largely be in keeping with most modern low budget genre thrillers, if it werent’t for the lighting. Throughout the first set piece, when the titular creatures first rear their heads in a government facility, the lights are flashing so rapidly it creates a migraine-inducing strobe effect. Never before have my eyes been so physically discomforted by a movie; epileptics, stay away. More annoying is the amount of artificial lens flare, often overwhelming the screen to the point that it’s hard to make out what is happening. I can only imagine these choices were made to help obscure how cheap the actual werewolf costumes actually are, but it instead just makes the film an ugly mess.
It also obscures what is far and away the best part of the movie. Yes, these are practical werewolves. Yes, they are stiff, only vaguely dog-like,, and look like hair stuck to rubber or latex. Yes, they are awesome. For some reason filmmakers and audiences have decided that a fake, rubbery CGI creation that does not exist is somehow easier to believe in than a fake, rubbery piece of fake rubber that does. The latter, since it actually exists in physical space, allows for more interesting ways to shoot the monsters: they can share the frame with the heroes without breaking the illusion, interact with the environment to make them seem more of a threat, a scene can be staged without have to guess how it will look after post. As obviously artificial as they are, the magic of cinema quickly asserts itself, and you accept that these are dangerous, bloodthirsty predators. Are they utilized to maximum effect? Not quite. Again, the visual language of the film does undermine their appearances, along with some rapid editing to further make things unintelligible. Too often do the wolves appear only for nothing to actually happen, and as the finale draws near it does seem like they are rather easy to outsmart and outfight. That said, this movie is at its best when they are front and center, and towards they end it finally delivers on the high-octane lycanthropic thrills that one would hope for. Ultimately, Werewolves does fail to be a proper spiritual successor to the excellent Dog Soldiers, but in doing so hits on a particular niche appeal that is increasingly rare. It’s messy, it’s dumb, it’s occasionally boring, but when it works it works. If this movie had come out forty years ago, it might have looked and felt largely the same, spoken about today as a hidden gem of an era that looks even better in hindsight. Hopefully, the decades to come will see this in that same light. Werewolves is now in theaters. Rating: 3.5/5 |