Review by Daniel Lima It might come as a surprise to learn that the 1987 film Road House was once widely considered mediocre at best, as it has in the decades since become a quintessential part of the '80s movie canon. I must admit that as someone who saw it for the first time last week, I just thought it was okay. Doug Liman's contemporary reimagining boasts some of the same charms of the original while making some of the same mistakes and even finds room for some new boons and banes along the way. The Dalton of 2024 is an ex-UFC fighter — a friendly but withdrawn man brought out of a depressive stupor by a job offer as a bar bouncer. He travels to the Florida Keys, quickly ingratiating himself in the tight-knit community, but soon learns that powerful interests are committed to making sure his job is not an easy one. The greatest strength of the original film was its atmosphere and how it cast its small Midwest town as a modern-day outpost in the American frontier. Colorful performances gave life to eccentric and unique characters; every set carried with it the feeling of decades of wear and tear and love; even the music played in the bar evoked the feeling of a time since passed. Though it leaned heavily on Western iconography and tropes, that movie still felt wholly self-possessed. Liman's remake is a mixed bag. Though it is set in the tropical Keys, an idiosyncratic microcosm of the already idiosyncratic state of Florida, the visual language does not convey the sticky heat and humidity, the loud and kitschy buildings built to attract tourists, the Latin influence found throughout the state. Instead, the film takes on that familiar made-for-streaming sheen: a muted color palette, shots that get everything important in the frame and nothing more, a general lack of personality. The change in setting is welcome, but the filmmaking does not capitalize on it. Where it does succeed is in its ensemble. Though the inhabitants of Glass Key lack the same amount of attention paid to the townsfolk of Jasper, the cast does a great job imbuing them with a healthy dose of charm despite clunky dialogue. Minor supporting players Hannah Lanier's precocious young girl and Arturo Castro's reflexively good-natured henchman give the film a distinct flavor it desperately needs, with reliable turns from the likes of Daniela Melchior, Billy Magnussen, and Joaquim de Almeida, except Jessica Williams, who gives the impression of someone who read the script for the first time before every scene.
Two performances in particular stand out even among these. Conor McGregor makes his acting debut here and gives one of the most exhilarating performances of the year. Unsurprisingly, he is just as forceful a presence within a fictional narrative as he is in real life; the only issue is that he's not in the movie enough. For his part, Jake Gyllenhaal plays Dalton with the humility and softness that makes him every bit a delight to spend time with, doing a much better job engendering audience goodwill than Swayze in the original. When the action ramps up this time, you actually care about this guy. The plot follows the first Road House closely, with a handful of deviations accounting for the more personable disposition of Gyllenhall's interpretation of Dalton. The one significant change is in how the action is executed. Over the past couple of years, a new style of fight scene has arisen that employs long, robotic arm-controlled takes, in which the camera shifts from position to position with some CG assistance to smooth things over. On the one hand, it is slightly more dynamic than the workmanlike slugfests of the first movie. On the other hand, it gives the fights an artificial feel that undercuts their impact, and the long, medium shots still present the choreography with little energy. It's serviceable, but it's a shame that out of all the movies to carry this name, the 2006 direct-to-video sequel has the best action by far. As disappointing as the action might be, the emotional stakes are much greater simply because spending time with these characters is so enjoyable. Though it deviates from its predecessor in some significant — and occasionally detrimental — ways, this contemporary iteration of Road House ends up being every bit as enjoyable. Road House arrives on Amazon Prime Video on March 21. Rating: 3.5/5
0 Comments
Review by Jonathan Berk There were a lot of mixed feelings about Ghostbusters: Afterlife -- primarily because of all the nostalgia. For some, however, it was exactly what we had been waiting for in terms of a sequel. Yet, the trepidation for Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire was palpable. While there are many negatives in this entry of the franchise, it manages to deliver enough of what we love to still answer the call. After the events of Afterlife, Pheobe (Mckenna Grace) and her family have relocated to New York City and are living in the old firehouse. They are happily busting ghosts in the Big Apple until they cause a little too much damage. Phoebe is the best of the busters but gets benched after the disgruntled mayor discovers her age, only for bigger ghostly machinations to happen in the city. The returning cast is mostly great again. Grace is the central character and works perfectly in that role. She is more than equipped to be the lead character of this historically ensemble-driven franchise. Her character development is solid, but they seem to imply some elements rather than fully committing to the idea. While Grace is the main protagonist, the ensemble element has only increased. Carrie Coon has a strong grasp of her role as the matriarch who is funny and very lovable. Paul Rudd's charm is on full display, and it's impossible not to love him too. Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, and Bill Murray reprise their roles and are having a lot of fun. It's hard not to crack a smile every time they appear on screen. Not all of their characterizations make sense, but it was just great having them back. Finn Wolfhard, Celeste O'Connor, and Logan Kim are also returning from Afterlife but often seem like an afterthought. Each gets something to do, but so much of their stories feel crammed into other story elements being introduced. Frankly, Lucky and Podcast don't make sense being in New York and are written into the script in a very clunky way. It probably seems like the film is a little bloated, and that would be an accurate read. There are too many story threads the movie is trying to tie together. These threads introduce additional characters played by some comedic powerhouses: Patton Oswalt, James Acaster, and Kumail Nanjiani. While they deliver varying levels of comedy, it adds to the already overwhelming amount of content.
Many of these characters are relegated to exposition delivery systems to spout nonsense to try to make sense of the film's events. For a comedy about busting ghosts, there is just too much plot. Through the film's early phases, most of the plotting works just fine, but it falls under its weight in the third act. There are moments where the rules of the film and how things work need to be revised. A "ticking clock" element seemingly pauses for characters to complete "quests." It's jarring how noticeably the film puts the brakes on the plot to fix story oversights. The story's not all bad, of course, as busting makes us feel good. There are some fun action sequences, witty one-liners, and iconic creatures. Plus, fans of the franchise often remark, like Jack Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman remarked, "Where does he get such wonderful toys?" From the Ecto 1 to the Proton Packs, seeing the old and new equipment is just a joy. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is not perfect, but it does move the story and characters forward in meaningful ways. One benefit to this IP-driven property is that it wasn't worried about setting up the next film. Will there be a third? Probably. However, this film is only concerned with telling this movie's story, even if it's a bit unwieldy. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is in theaters everywhere on March 22. Rating: 3.5/5 Review by Daniel Lima “Is there a spiritual way to kill an animal?” This is the question that the filmmakers behind Christpiracy: The Spirituality Secret allege that they are seeking an answer to as they investigate the inherent contradiction in religions that condemn murder but condone the killing and eating of animals. That underlying hypocrisy and all the social conditions that are the cause are fascinating subjects to interrogate. Provided, of course, that the people delving into the subject have an earnest curiosity about it and are not prioritizing a self-aggrandizing narrative that precludes an informative and meaningful exploration or even a cohesive rhetorical argument. Kip Anderson and Kameron Waters prioritize such a narrative, quickly discarding informativeness or honesty regarding how religions treat animals in favor of a manufactured purporting to uncover a conspiracy that makes bedfellows of such disparate entities as the Catholic Church, Tyson Foods, and the Indian government. The “film” takes the form of all the post-Michael Moore documentaries that clog up basic cable and streaming services: fast-paced editing incorporating extraneous material from other media, interviews with various officials (in this case, religious authorities and animal rights activists), and — most importantly — the filmmakers as plucky underdogs up against vast and powerful forces out to suppress their discoveries. From the jump, this is the wrong approach to the material. This tack is useful when focusing on the specific misdeeds and crimes of particular people and organizations when there is a defined culprit to be questioned. When applied to complex social and religious practices that at times reflect contradictory values, it is asinine, precluding any meaningful probing of the belief structures that allow such contradictions to flourish. A truly empathetic artist might, for example, wonder what economic or cultural forces make a majority Hindu country a prominent exporter and consumer of beef. Anderson and Waters instead label India a nation of hypocrites and move on. This shallow analysis could be excused if Christpiracy could articulate a coherent, persuasive message that goes beyond calling meat-eating bad that could actually change hearts and minds. That does not happen. Instead, the “film” flits about from topic to topic, never focusing on any target long enough to build an actual rhetorical argument against it. The plot the filmmakers claim to have uncovered is a jumbled mix of biblical interpretations and pseudohistorical claims, the kind of thing that will do nothing for the nonbeliever or the believer. If this film is being made to point out the discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and the practice of killing animals for food — a discrepancy that a large majority of Christians already are happy to ignore — why would insisting that Jesus was a vegetarian show them the error of their ways? Not only is the case itself unconvincing, but it is also being made available to an audience that doesn’t exist.
The most egregiously annoying thing about this product, however, is how transparently manufactured it all is. Anderson and Waters go to great lengths in aping the investigative documentary style, going as far as to allege that they are being targeted by unknown forces intent on stopping their efforts to find the truth. Putting aside that there is absolutely nothing there that is not already readily available public knowledge, and even taking them at their word that their homes were ransacked by intruders (who deliberately did not break anything expensive) and that they are being followed (as shown by one guy walking on the sidewalk across from them... one), these assertions carry no weight precisely because the work’s aesthetic. In making all the Moore-esque flourishes — colorful infographics, interviews clearly edited together to portray the interviewees in certain lights, the constant “scrappy underdog” posturing — with the clarity of his arguments and targets, the entire project registers as one big fabrication, made to support the filmmakers’ vision of themselves as activists. That they never say anything meaningful, persuasive, or credible matters less than giving off the appearance that they are committed to their cause. Yet the only way they could be any worse as public advocates against eating meat would be if they were munching on KFC on camera. Perhaps Anderson and Waters actually are ideologues who made Christpiracy: The Spirituality Secret in the hopes of moving the needle on public discourse. Maybe they do see themselves as real artists, utilizing the form to its fullest extent to convey their message. In either case, they should be ashamed and embarrassed of what they have created. Intellectually and artistically bankrupt, to call this a documentary, or even a film, is an insult to the medium. Christpiracy finds its way into theaters March 20. Rating: 0.5/5 Review by Adam Donato (L-R): Morph (voiced by JP Karliak), Storm (voiced by Alison Sealy-Smith), Gambit (voiced by AJ LoCascio), Cyclops (voiced by Ray Chase), Rogue (voiced by Lenore Zann), Wolverine (voiced by Cal Dodd), Bishop (voiced by Isaac Robinson-Smith), Beast (voiced by George Buza) in Marvel Animation's X-MEN '97. Photo courtesy of Marvel Animation. © 2024 MARVEL. In a day and age where any franchise with an ounce of nostalgia is rebooted for every last dollar the studio can possibly muster, X-Men '97 feels like an exception to the rule. A universally beloved show returns with the same voice cast and picks up right where the show left off. Think about how many iterations of these characters exist. This show may be the peak representation of these characters. That's really special. When every studio is desperate to give audiences exactly what they want, this feels like a satisfying fulfillment of that desire. First-time viewers of this show need not be worried — especially if you're caught up with most of the movies. The necessary spoilers from the finale of the original show are reiterated effectively. The plot picks up right where the first one lets off but avoids alienating the uninitiated. The plot of this particular season arguably stands toe-to-toe with any X-Men story told on the big screen. Familiar characters who have been exhausted of storylines are given new life here as they're turned on their heads. The stakes feel like they're as high as ever, and it's all thanks to the solid character development. (L-R): Jubilee (voiced by Holly Chou), Morph (voiced by JP Karliak), Wolverine (voiced by Cal Dodd), Storm (voiced by Alison Sealy-Smith), Cyclops (voiced by Ray Chase), Rogue (voiced by Lenore Zann), Jean Grey (voiced by Jennifer Hale), Gambit (voiced by AJ LaCascio), Bishop (voiced by Isaac Robinson-Smith), and Beast (voiced by George Buza) in Marvel Animation's X-MEN '97. Photo courtesy of Marvel Animation. © 2024 MARVEL. Choosing just one standout character is not an easy task, as several characters have the opportunity to shine here. Those who have only been exposed to these characters through the movies would be surprised to see that the sun doesn't rise and set with Wolverine here. He has plenty of moments to shine, and seeing him in the classic costume is awesome. Magneto is another usual suspect given even more depth as he is forced to turn a new leaf. It's really gripping stuff. Formerly underused characters like Cyclops and especially Storm are used to their fullest potential here. The whole team is balanced splendidly. There's real character drama here that is unmatched by at least half of the films.
The animation style and the theme song help to turn back the clocks for fans of the nineties show. If the first three episodes were in film form, it would be one of the best superhero movies of the last few years. It's a nostalgia binge that hits just right and is treated with the proper amount of respect. It's sure to inspire new fans of the original series, and especially with the release of Deadpool and Wolverine this summer, more fans will revisit some of the hit X-Men films. Hopefully, this release will instill confidence in Marvel Studios, as they're currently experiencing a dip. X-Men '97 is now streaming on Disney+ with two episodes, with new episodes streaming every Wednesday. Three out of ten episodes reviewed. Rating: 5/5 Review by Cole Groth Why do aging actors insist on taking roles in bizarre crime/thrillers? Russell Crowe’s talents have been sorely wasted in films like Sleeping Dogs because he’s a fun actor turned exceptionally boring when constrained to something like this. Despite a few interesting twists and turns, this is one of those films that will generally go unnoticed and ultimately forgotten in almost no time. Sleeping Dogs follows Roy Freeman, a retired policeman struggling with Alzheimer’s. After new information cracks open a cold case threatening to send a man to death row, Roy goes on a mind-bending journey to figure out who the true killer is. Along the way, he discovers that his past is not all he remembered, bringing a mysterious woman (Karen Gillan) into the case with him. Sleeping Dogs is the type of movie that puts an overbearing orchestral score of an alcoholic downing a bottle of vodka at a bar to show him reverting to his whole way. It’s never subtle when it should be; surprisingly, it is coy when explaining the stuff that matters. The complicated parts are dumb and remarkably simple, but every seemingly ordinary scene is hard to follow. The dialogue is over the top and rarely believable. For some odd reason, the opening premise of the film — a death row inmate trying to get the case reopened to save his life — is forgotten for almost the entire movie. For most of the runtime, it almost feels like the film will end without mentioning it. It’s unsurprising and unfortunate that the acting isn’t very good here. Crowe is doing his best against a weak script but can only hold his own so well before it all falls apart. The cast surrounding him all have an overacting problem. Not much blame can be put on the actors when the script’s weakness holds them back from being good. Karen Gillan sounds like she’s ADR-ed in for every scene. Tomy Flanagan is this obnoxiously crooked-sounding cop, and Marton Csokas plays an uncanny valley-looking combination between Russell Crowe and Kevin Spacey as the lead villain.
What Sleeping Dogs may lack in writing quality, it makes up for with thrills. The twists and turns keep the two-hour runtime feel shorter, and sometimes it’s so ridiculous that it wraps around to being a little genius. It often feels like the screenplay was written quicker than the writer’s brains were going, with both writers frantically speaking over each other to get to the next big twist. For fans of noir thrillers, Sleeping Dogs could be a hit. Russell Crowe is convincing as the forgetful detective with a sinister past, and it’s an exciting ride to the end. With a weak script, confusing editing, and weak acting, this winds up like every other crime/thriller with an aging actor: stupid, over-the-top, and somewhat mean-spirited. It’s not a great watch, but it’s at least provocative. Sleeping Dogs releases in theaters starting March 22. Rating: 2/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Grand Theft Hamlet is the type of documentary with an insane, bizarre concept that seemed destined to divide audiences: either a bold work of idiosyncratic creativity or a failed formal experiment. Luckily, Sam Crane and Penny Grylls’s film falls firmly into the former category — a documentary that uses its unorthodox approach in a thoroughly entertaining and unexpectedly moving way.
The documentary tells the story of two struggling actors who, during the COVID-19 lockdown, decided to band together a group of gamers to put on a production of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet within the world of Grand Theft Auto Online. It’s a crazy idea, but they make an incredibly interesting movie out of it. The main draw of Grand Theft Hamlet is the shooting technique, as the entire film is told through gameplay in the video game Grand Theft Auto. Although one might expect this to be annoying — or at least gimmicky — Crane and Grylls manage to infuse enough diversity in the presentation to keep things consistently engaging. However, what audiences will walk away from Grand Theft Hamlet most impressed with is the level of development Crane and Grylls give the movie’s subjects. This story is wisely told predominantly from the perspective of Crane and his co-organizer, Mark Oosterveen, giving the audience an angle into the story; however, the rest of the troupe also gets their chances in the spotlight. Thematically, Grand Theft Hamlet’s message is incredibly clear from the beginning. It’s an ode to connection — through both art and online gaming — particularly in a time that was defined by separation. While one might think that the time has passed for COVID films, Grand Theft Hamlet feels timeless because of its broader implications. There’s an inherent humor to much of Grand Theft Hamlet. It’s quite funny to watch the subjects reciting Shakespeare while shooting at police in video games. There are also some really funny moments originating from obstacles that arose amid the production. Just as you’d laugh at the misfortunes of the behind-the-scenes of a production, you can laugh at their virtual hijinks. However, there are also some very poignant moments throughout the movie. At a few points, the members of the troupe discuss their personal lives in ways that add another layer of depth to the story. It would have been nice to see these take more of the focus rather than being relegated to subplots, but there is a strong emotional core to the film. Grand Theft Hamlet will hook audiences with its unique, strange premise and sense of humor, but they will be more impressed by how genuinely moved they are by the time the credits roll. Although this might not be the “future” of documentary filmmaking, Sam Crane and Penny Grylls’s approach is incredibly effective in this specific instance. Grand Theft Hamlet screened at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which ran March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 4.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Nicole Riegel’s feature debut, Holler, was an intriguing drama with a star-making turn for its lead, Jessica Barden. Although If Beale Street Could Talk star KiKi Layne gets a similarly auspicious vehicle in Riegel’s sophomore outing Dandelion, the musical drama is too generic to work on any level beyond Layne’s performance.
Dandelion follows a singer-songwriter who takes a last-ditch gig at a motorcycle rally, where she meets a charismatic guitarist who gives her a new perspective on her dreams. As you’d expect, this kicks off a romance full of tropes. It’s a bit too comfortable with convention to be particularly moving. One of the most frustrating things about Dandelion is how it introduces conflict, only to abandon it for most (if not all) of the rest of the film. Because of this, the movie feels aimless. The characters aren’t compelling beyond the protagonist’s basic underdog arc, and the romance is neither likable nor nuanced enough to be challenging. KiKi Layne’s performance is very strong from both a dramatic and a musical standpoint. Layne is able to infuse the character with a level of authenticity and passion despite the generic backstory. Her co-star Thomas Doherty is less effective in his role, giving a performance that lacks the charm and nuance necessary to pull off the complexity of the role.
Unfortunately, Dandelion falls victim to so many cliches that its story is dull. And with a runtime of almost two hours, it fails to justify its existence. More often than not, Dandelion’s story merely feels like an excuse to bridge the gap between musical performances. It’s melodramatic and contrived in a way that’s never entertaining.
Worse yet, for a film with musicians as its main characters, Dandelion’s soundtrack is pretty underwhelming. In the movie's world, the protagonist is supposed to be a budding starlet. Her songs are only mildly catchy and mostly forgettable despite Layne’s strong singing voice. It’s the type of music you’d expect to hear in the background of a restaurant, not the kind you’d expect to get noticed and lead to a big break, which creates a disconnect between the audience and the story. Apart from the soundtrack, the technical aspects of the film are fine. The cinematography is very intimate, with many close-ups — especially during the musical performances. Riegel rightly emphasizes the actors, the strongest aspect of her movie, creating the only legitimate source of emotion. Although it features a solid performance from actress KiKi Layne, Dandelion shares too much in common with other films in the music drama genre to be particularly interesting. Almost all the ingredients are there for this to be a likable music romance, but the one thing missing is a unique flavor. Dandelion screened at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which ran March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 2.5/5 Review by Tatiana Miranda Loosely based on the novel Mr. & Mrs. American Pie, Palm Royale is a comedy-drama series set in 1969 that centers on outcast Maxine Simmons as she attempts to climb the Palm Beach social circle. The ten-episode series stars Kristen Wiig in the lead role, Carol Burnett as Maxine's sick, wealthy relative, Allison Janney and Leslie Bibb as local country club socialites, and Laura Dern, Kaia Gerber, and Ricky Martin as Maxine's unexpected friends. With the 1960s time period and Florida beach aesthetics, Palm Royale is a campy mystery comedy that constantly leaves the audience wondering who to root for. While the time period and character names remain from the source material, most of the plotlines differ. The series focuses on self-proclaimed former beauty pageant queen Maxine as she arrives in Palm Beach to care for her husband's wealthy aunt, who suffered from an embolism. Through lies and luck, she attempts to work her way up the local social scene and prepares to host the main event of the season. Secrets are consistent as Maxine attempts to keep her own and unravel those of her friends, enemies, and family. The show's campy mystery aspect is akin to The White Lotus, while its unlikely friendships are reminiscent of Dead to Me, which was co-written by Palm Royale's creator, Abe Sylvia. The main flaw of the series is in what those other two series have: a central mystery. Whether it be a death or a figure pulling all of the strings, Palm Royale focuses more on an amalgamation of reveals rather than one grand whodunnit at the end of the show. Because of this, the series seems to attempt to write itself as it goes along, never quite knowing what will happen to the characters next or what secret will be revealed.
Although the plot is messy and inconsistent, the characters and the star-studded cast that portrays them keep the show from being overwhelmingly disappointing. Of all of the deceptive and flawed characters, none are quite as mischievous as Kristen Wiig's Maxine, even if she doesn't realize exactly what she's doing. Unlike Saltburn's Oliver, who similarly attempts to infiltrate a group of rich people, Maxine is an ultimately kind person who just wants to fit in and have the socialite life she's always dreamed of having. Her character is one of the most compelling, as even as she continues to lie and blackmail others, she is still the underdog of the story that you can't help but feel sorry for. Overall, while Palm Royale leaves you wanting more in terms of the plot, the captivating characters and their relationships keep you coming back for more. One can only hope that more seasons will allow for a more consistent storyline and a return of these entertaining characters. Palm Royale premiers on Apple TV+ on March 20. All ten episodes reviewed. Rating: 3/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Tillman Singer’s directorial debut, Luz, was a gnarly little movie that has gained a cult following among the horror community. The German filmmaker’s sophomore feature, Cuckoo, is a step up in scale — boasting A-list stars in Hunter Schaefer and Dan Stevens and the backing of the indie darling studio NEON. Although Cuckoo is not quite as strong as his first film, it’s still an enjoyable work of genre cinema.
The movie follows a teenager forced to move with her family to a resort in the German Alps, only to discover that her new home (and its owner) harbors a mysterious and dangerous secret. It plays out like a mixture of psychological horror and a creature feature — almost like The Shining if it were a monster movie — and while it’s incredibly flawed, it’s also very fun to watch. Singer’s choice of the cuckoo bird as a motif certainly has some clear symbolism, particularly when we get into the third act, but this commentary feels very superficial. It’s as if Singer was interested in the idea of the symbol more than he was in the ways he could use this symbol to say something interesting or insightful. The film is also held back by its generic character development. The protagonist is a teenage girl with a dead mother and disillusionment with her father. The father is a well-meaning guy manipulated by his boss, who seems to be hiding a secret. It’s all stuff we’ve seen dozens of times before. Yet despite the underwhelming material they are given, the cast brings their A-game to their roles. Of the many actresses who have attempted to become the “next scream queen,” Hunter Schaefer is probably the most successful thus far. Her reactiveness in the early portions of the movie perfectly gives way to strength in the final act. Dan Stevens goes absolutely nuts in his supporting role, giving the exact type of hammy, campy performance that a film like this calls for. If you try to make sense of anything Singer is trying to do in Cuckoo, you’ll easily be able to pick it into a million pieces. However, if you just let its… well… cuckoo-ness wash over you, it’s a ridiculous midnight movie blast. Perhaps this is unintentional — for all we know, Singer might have been trying to make the next serious horror masterpiece — but what we have is a silly, entertaining work of genre cinema. Credit where it’s due, Cuckoo is assuredly not a B-movie. For all its storytelling contrivances and indulgences, this is a legitimately well-made film from a technical standpoint. The sound design is exquisite, being one of the main methods Singer uses to immerse the viewer in the movie’s atmosphere. There is also some awesome work here in the departments of production design, costuming, hair and make-up, and more. Cuckoo is hardly a great film. It’s silly and nonsensical — perhaps even stupid. However, Tillman Singer has an incredible command of his craft and the ability to build such an effective horror atmosphere that the result is exceptionally entertaining despite its many flaws. Cuckoo screened at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which runs March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 3.5/5
Review by Sean Boelman
Nicolas Cage is a mainstay in B movies, and more often than not, they’re at least enjoyable — even if they’re not particularly good. As far as Nic Cage movies go, Arcadian is somewhat frustrating. It only goes off the wall in the final act and a few scenes throughout the film. The film’s attempts to be serious are underwhelming, resulting in an experience that’s more boring than it should be.
Arcadian tells the story of a father and his two teenage sons fighting for survival in their remote farmhouse in the wake of an apocalypse that pits them against a dangerous threat nightly. As far as post-apocalyptic films go, Arcadian feels very non-descript and reminiscent of other, better films. The first two-thirds of Arcadian are simply dull. This is a generic coming-of-age drama set against the backdrop of a post-apocalyptic world. Although a few scenes stand out — particularly when the film leans into its horror aspects — much of it feels like it is belabored to go through the motions of a genre with such a clearly established formula. In its final act, Arcadian is allowed to go off the walls in a way that would best be described as A Quiet Place, but with the gonzo sensibilities of a filmmaker like Sam Raimi. The creatures somehow manage to look generic but are incredibly memorable due to the bizarre capabilities and characteristics they are given. Granted, many of these don’t make sense within the context of the film, but they are enjoyable to look at nevertheless.
The film's character development is as generic as the world in which it is set. Although the introduction introduces some interesting character dynamics between the father and his sons, they are never explored. More emphasis is put on the sibling relationship, but it’s about as paint-by-numbers as they come.
Nicolas Cage’s performance here is far more restrained than what one might expect from a Cage B-movie. His performance is actually the film’s emotional grounding, much more akin to his work in something like Pig than his usual approach to horror. Jaeden Martell’s performance is satisfactory — he just isn’t given much to do. Maxwell Jenkins, the least recognizable of the three leads, is surprisingly the best of the bunch. He infuses his character with a unique personality, which the other two actors struggle to do. From a technical standpoint, Brewer’s film is a bit of a mixed bag. A few sequences are incredibly executed in a way that will make them go down as some of the greatest horror moments of the year. Other parts, particularly the world-building, feel visually bland and uninspired. There are enough strengths that it makes you wish there was more consistency. Arcadian has a few awesome moments, but the world and characters are too generic, and the pacing is too slow for it to make much of an impact. There’s a lot of potential here for this to be the next great monster movie, but it only rarely lives up to its promise. Arcadian screened at the 2024 SXSW Film Festival, which ran March 8-16 in Austin, TX. Rating: 2.5/5 |
Archives
March 2024
Authors
All
|